1. Nanotechnology & public opinion Hilary Sutcliffe, Director, MATTER

2. About MATTER Think tank promoting a responsible approach to innovation
Focus on social benefit, effective governance and involvement of society
Multi-stakeholder working, inclusive approach

3. About Hilary Sutcliffe
Set up Responsible Nano Forum in 2008, became MATTER 2010
Developed Responsible Nano Code of Conduct for Business
New public dialogue on Nano Products 2014/5
On World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Nanotechnologies
BSI/ISO Nanotechnology Standards Committee
CEFIC Nano Governance Project
Created pilot website for public to respond to requests for information from public consultations

4. So what does the public think about nanotechnologies in food?

5. They have been asked….
Nanotechnology & Food: FSA Citizen’s Forum; TNA-BMRB Report 2011
An Evidence Review of Public Attitudes to Emerging Food Technologies – Executive Summary, Brook Lyndhurst 2009.
NanoDialogues, Experiments with Public Engagement with Science - DEMOS 2007
Small Talk: Discussing Nanotechnologies. Melanie Smallman Adam Nieman 2006
Nano Jury UK – Provisional Recommendations, Greenpeace 2005
Nanologue - European Union Framework 6 Programme on the Social and Ethical Implications of Nanotechnologies.
Deepen Project - Reconfiguring Responsibility - Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology; a research report from FP7 Funded Deepen project, Prof Phil McNaughten, Durham Uni
Nano & Me Consultation Analysis – Prepared by Hilary Sutcliffe and Craig Freer on behalf of the Responsible Nano Forum – 2009

6. What does the public think about nano & food?
* Consultation as recommended by House of Lords 2009 Inquiry into Nano and Food

7. Opinions wide-ranging with some excitement about potential benefits
- but concern focuses on…

8. Why are you doing this?
Is it really necessary? Are you just messing around with food because you can, or just to make more money?
Would more conventional approaches achieve similar goals - such as government campaigns for healthy eating in relation to ‘nutraceuticals’ for example?
How can we tell?

9. Who is it for?
Questions about whose interests would really be served by nanotechnology
Suspicion that industry gain would be pursued to the detriment of consumer interests
For example by raising prices or providing lower quality, marginally effective or even “risky” products.

10. Is it worth it?
Questions about whether the benefits associated with nano and food applications were worth the risk
Reflected a considerable focus on concerns about risk
Particularly about impacts on long-term health and the environment

11. Observations…
These dialogues were done when there was little information about the behaviours of nano materials
Much hype about nano as a technology
Concerns about risks related to newness & other areas
…but not much evidence of actual products
and now?
Focus more on nano as a materials technology - Grey Goo more of a worry for biotech!

12. So how should business respond?
We asked Investors, retail buyers and NGOs
Explored their concerns…
…and views on what businesses can do to build confidence in their innovations

13. Responding also to the public?
We also analysed public views in over 23 publications & dialogues in Europe around all emerging technologies
Both reports on our website

14. So how should companies respond?

15. Findings and questions for business
Openness about when a technology is being used – a ‘no brainer’
A richer picture needed about benefit
When it goes wrong, who carries the can?
A desire for trustworthy and independent sources of reassurance
Don’t force it on us – it’s about choice
Dialogue – how will we know are being listened to?

16. What next? What’s the benefit for us?
Understand & mitigate risks - including social, ethical & environmental
Consider how each department in your organisation can practice Responsible Innovation
Involve stakeholders from the start
Check out our Prezi on involving stakeholders in Innovation