Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Altruism and skepticism in public attitudes toward food nanotechnologies

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To better explore and understand the public's perceptions of and attitudes toward emerging technologies and food products, we conducted a US-based focus group study centered on nanotechnology, nano-food, and nano-food labeling. Seven focus groups were conducted in seven locations in two different US metropolitan areas from September 2010 to January 2011. In addition to revealing context-specific data on already established risk and public perception factors, our goal was to inductively identify other nano-food perception factors of significance for consideration when analyzing why and how perceptions and attitudes are formed to nanotechnology in food. Two such factors that emerged—altruism and skepticism—are particularly interesting in that they may be situated between different theoretical frameworks that have been used for explaining perception and attitude. We argue that they may represent a convergence point among theories that each help explain different aspects of both how food nanotechnologies are perceived and why those perceptions are formed. In this paper, we first review theoretical frameworks for evaluating risk perception and attitudes toward emerging technologies, then review previous work on public perception of nanotechnology and nano-food, describe our qualitative content analysis results for public perception toward nano-food—focusing especially on altruism and skepticism, and discuss implications of these findings in terms of how public attitudes toward nano-food could be formed and understood. Finally, we propose that paying attention to these two factors may guide more responsible development of nano-food in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ J 100:464–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman Z (1998) Work, consumerism and the poor. Open University Press, Buckingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Berube DM (2006) Nano-hype: the truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Prometheus, Amherst, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Bieberstein A, Roosen J, Marette S, Blanchemanche S, Vandermoere F (2013) Consumer choices for nano-food and nano-packaging in France and Germany. Eur Rev Agric Econ 40:73–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair T (2003) Progress and justice in the 21st century. Fabian Society, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown J, Kuzma J (2013) Hungry for information: public attitudes toward food nanotechnology and labeling. Rev Policy Res 30:512–548

    Google Scholar 

  • Burri RV, Bellucci S (2008) Public perception of nanotechnology. J Nanaopart Res 10:387–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai Y, Shaw WD, Wu X (2008) Risk perception and altruistic averting behavior: removing arsenic in drinking water. In 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27–29, 2008, Orlando, Florida, no. 6149. American Agricultural Economics Association (new name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association)

  • Carey MA (1994) The group effect in focus groups: planning, implementing and interpreting focus group research. In: Morse J (ed) Critical issues in qualitative research methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 225–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey MA, Smith MW (1994) Capturing the group effect in focus groups: a special concern in analysis. Qualitat Health Res 4(1):123–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry Q, Scotter M, Blackburn J, Ross B, Boxall A, Castle L, Watkins R (2008) Applications and implications of nanotechnologies for the food sector. Food Addit Contam 25:241–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chun AL (2009) Will the public swallow nano food? Nat Nanotechnol 4:790–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook AJ, Fairweather JR (2007) Intentions of New Zealanders to purchase lamb or beef made using nanotechnology. Br Food J 109:675–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot JIM, Steg L (2008) Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ Behav 40:330–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot JIM, Steg L, Poortinga W (2013) Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Anal 33:307–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickie M, Gerking S (2007) Altruism and environmental risks to health of parents and their children. J Environ Econ Manag 53:323–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R (2005) Environmental values. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:335–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas M, Wildavsky AB (1982) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudo A, Choi DH, Scheufele DA (2011) Food nanotechnology in the news. coverage patterns and thematic emphases during the last decade. Appetite 56:78–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earle TC, Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2007) Trust, risk perception, and the TCC model of cooperation. In: Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H (eds) Trust in cooperative risk management: uncertainty and skepticism in the public mind. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Finucane M, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Flynn J, Satterfield TA (2000) Gender, race, and perceived risk: the “white male” effect. Health Risk Soc 3:159–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer AR, van Dijk H, de Jonge J, Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2013) Attitudes and attitudinal ambivalence change towards nanotechnology applied to food production. Public Underst Sci 22:817–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9:127–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer LJ, Bergmann K, Brennan M, Lion R, Meertens R, Rowe G, Vereijken C (2011) Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends Food Sci Technol 22:442–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1994) Beyond left and right. Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta N, Fischer AR, van der Lans IA, Frewer LJ (2012) Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis. J Nanopart Res 14:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Gwet KL (2014) Handbook of inter-rater reliability: the definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. Advanced Analytics, LLC, Gaithersburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopper JR, Nielsen JM (1991) Recycling as altruistic behavior normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environ Behav 23:195–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords, Science and Technology Committee (2010) Nanotechnologies and food. Authority of the House of Lords. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldsctech/22/22i.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2014

  • Jones-Lee MW (1991) Altruism and the value of other people’s safety. J Risk Uncertain 4:213–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan DM (2012) Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. Handbook of risk theory. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 725–759

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan DM, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (2007) Culture and identity-protective cognition: explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. J Empir Legal Stud 4:465–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan D, Slovic P, Braman D, Cohen G, Gastil J (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Knetsch JL (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manag 22:57–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson JX, Ratick S (1988) The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8:177–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khwaja A, Sloan F, Chung S (2006) The effects of spousal health on the decision to smoke: evidence on consumption externalities, altruism and learning within the household. J Risk Uncertain 32:17–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein P (2010) Skepticism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://seop.illc.uva.nl/entries/skepticism/. Accessed 24 November 2014

  • Köhler A, Som C (2008) Environmental and health implications of nanotechnology—have innovators learned the lessons from past experiences? Hum Ecol Risk Assess 14:512–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger RA, Casey MA (2009) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma J, Verhage P (2006) Nanotechnology in agriculture and food production: anticipated applications. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/2706/94_pen4_agfood.pdf. Accessed 24 November 2014

  • Lusk JL, Nilsson T, Foster K (2007) Public preferences and private choices: effect of altruism and free riding on demand for environmentally certified pork. Environ Resour Econ 36:499–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lux Research (2014) Nanotechnology update: corporations up their spending as revenues for nano-enabled products increase. https://portal.luxresearchinc.com/research/report_excerpt/16215. Accessed 24 November 2014

  • Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15:221–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh S, Dibben MR (2005) Trust, untrust, distrust and mistrust–an exploration of the dark (er) side. In: Hermann P et al (eds) Trust management. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 17–33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight DH, Chervany NL (2001) Trust and distrust definitions: one bite at a time. In: Falcone R et al (eds) Trust in cyber-societies. Springer, Berlin, pp 27–54

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mishler W, Rose R (1997) Trust, distrust and skepticism: popular evaluations of civil and political institutions in post-communist societies. J Polit 59:418–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan D (1996) Focus groups. Annu Rev Sociol 22:129–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan DL, Krueger RA (1993) When to use focus groups and why. In: Morgan DL (ed) Successful focus groups: advancing the state of the art. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp 3–19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • NNI National Nanotechnology Initiative (2014) http://www.nano.gov/nanotech-101/special. Accessed 24 November 2014

  • Office of Basic Energy Sciences (2006) The scale of things – Nanometers and more. Office of Science, US Department of Energy. http://science.energy.gov/bes/news-and-resources/scale-of-things-chart/. Accessed 15 Nov 2014

  • PEN Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2014) Consumer inventory. http://www.nanotechproject.org/cpi/. Accessed 24 November 2014

  • Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health Risk Soc 9:191–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF (2003) Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal 23:961–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell D, Leiss W (2004) Mad cows and mother’s milk, 2nd edn. McGill Queen’s University Press, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard D (2004) Contemporary skepticism. In: Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/skepcont/. Accessed 24 November 2014

  • Rabiee F (2004) Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proc Nutr Soc 63:655–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrmann B, Renn O (2000) Risk perception research. Cross-cultural risk perception. Springer, New York, pp 11–53

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm. Accessed 24 November 2014

  • Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Herr Harthorn B (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4:4752–4758

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiff M (1970) Some theoretical aspects of attitudes and perception. Department of Geography, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH (1977) Normative influences on altruism. Adv Experim Soc Psychol 10:221–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Keller C (2011) Labeling of nanotechnology consumer products can influence risk and benefit perceptions. Risk Anal 31:1762–1769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Cousin ME, Kastenholz H, Wiek A (2007) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49:459–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H, Keller C (2008) Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite 51:283–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H (2009) Acceptance of nanotechnology foods: a conjoint study examining consumers’ willingness to buy. Br Food J 111:660–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2000) Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 20:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slimak MW, Dietz T (2006) Personal values, beliefs and ecological risk perception. Risk Anal 26:1689–1705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Västfjäll D (2010) Affect, moral intuition, and risk. Psychol Inquity 21:387–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC (2000) New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC, Dietz T (1994) The value basis of environmental concern. J Soc Issues 50:65–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L (1999) A social psychological theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6:81–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor-Gooby P (2006) Social divisions of trust: scepticism and democracy in the GM nation debate. J Risk Res 9:75–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen J, Ölander F (2002) Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: a panel study. J Econ Psychol 23:605–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Throne-Holst H, Strandbakken P (2009) Nobody told me I was a nano-consumer: how nanotechnologies might challenge the notion of consumer rights. J Consum Policy 32:393–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker WT, Ferson S (2008) Evolved altruism, strong reciprocity, and perception of risk. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1128:111–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau (2015) http://www.census.gov/topics.html. Accessed 15 February 2015

  • Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2011) The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain. The hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Underst Sci 20:195–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi WK, Magat WA, Forrest A (1988) Altruistic and private valuations of risk reduction. J Policy Anal Manag 7:227–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WÅhlberg AE (2001) The theoretical features of some current approaches to risk perception. J Risk Res 4:237–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitfield SC, Rosa EA, Dan A, Dietz T (2009) The future of nuclear power: value orientations and risk perception. Risk Anal 29:425–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhuo G, Wuyang H, Schieffer J, Robbins L (2013) Public acceptance of and willingness to pay for nanofood: case of canola oil. Paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s 2013 AAEA & CAES joint annual meeting, Washington, DC, August 4–6, 2013

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by National Science Foundation Grant NIRT Award SES-0709056 (Kuzma PI on subaward for U of MN, Berube PI NCSU) and supported in part by the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University. The authors would like to thank Profs. David Berube (NCSU) and Christopher Cummings (Nanyang Technological University) for valuable input on the work. The authors would also like to thank Andy Merrill for his work on organizing the focus groups. All three authors contributed equally to the manuscript: JB and JK designed the focus groups and oversaw their execution; JB and LF coded the data in NVivo; JB wrote the methods, portions of the introduction, and generated tables from the analysis; LF and JK wrote the introduction, results and discussion, and conclusions, including interpreting the results with respect to risk perception theory; JK developed the conceptual model in Fig. 2 and made revisions to the article based on the reviewer comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, 56 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    J. Brown

  2. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 301 19th Ave S #307, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    L. Fatehi

  3. School of Public and International Affairs and Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7565, 1070 Partners Way, Suite 5100, Hunt Library, Raleigh, NC, 27606-7565, USA

    J. Kuzma

Authors
  1. J. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Fatehi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Kuzma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Kuzma.

Appendices

Appendix 1: focus group discussion guide

Stage I initial thoughts on nanotechnology

Step 1 Start with initial open-ended question to which respondents will quietly write down their answers:

Phase 1 What comes to mind when you hear the word “nanotechnology”?

Step 2 Moderator collects written answers and initiates discussion about participants’ responses

Step 3 Moderator reads a prepared background document covering two topics; participants will receive the background document as a handout after the moderator finishes reading:

General nanotechnology information document (see Appendix 2)

Step 4 Follow-up question for discussion:

Phase 2 What are your thoughts about nanotechnology now? Did any thoughts change?

Stage II Nanotechnology food and agriculture products

Pre Step Moderator reads a prepared background document covering two topics; participants will receive the background document as a handout after the moderator finishes reading:

Nanotechnology in food products and packaging document (see Appendix 2)

Step 1 Start with questions for discussion:

Phase 3 What additional benefits and opportunities do you think there are for nanotechnology-based food and agriculture products?

What about additional concerns for nanotechnology-based food and agriculture products?

Phase 4

Step 2 Distribution of product category work sheet:

Step 3 Participants fill out work sheet and then discuss their responses, which attempts to get at following question:

What products were you most and least willing to use? Why?

Stage III Labeling

Phase 5

Step 1 Continue with discussion questions:

Should these products with nanomaterials be labeled as having nanomaterials? Why?

Which product categories are most important to label? Why?

How would the presence of a label change your willingness to buy a nanotechnology-based food or agriculture product?

Step 2 Additional questions if time permitting:

What if these products were more expensive as a result of labeling? What is your willingness to buy these products? (closed responses on a survey would list additional cost amounts and an original price as a baseline reference)

Where would you like to see the label on the product?

What content would you like on the label?

Stage IV Final thoughts

Phase 6 Do you have any final thoughts on nanotechnology, nanotechnology in food, or labeling?

Appendix 2: in-group informational documents

Nanotechnology overview

Nanotechnology is a broad term that encompasses a variety of science and technology at a very small scale: nanotechnology refers to the manipulation of matter at the nanoscale. A “nanometer” (nm) equals one-billionth of a meter, the width of ten hydrogen atoms side by side. By comparison, a DNA molecule (genetic material of living organisms) is about 2.5 nm wide and a red blood cell is about 5000 nm in diameter. Nanotechnology refers to a suite of techniques used to manipulate matter with precision at the scale of atoms and molecules. At the nanoscale, only the most powerful microscopes are able to actually see objects. (See Fig. 1 for a length scale with examples of different objects at different sizes).

A critically important aspect of manipulating matter at the nanoscale (below 1000 nm) is that a material’s properties can change, even a very familiar material. That is, at the nanoscale, materials can exhibit new properties, such as electrical conductivity, elasticity, enhanced strength, different colors, and different reactivity, when compared to the same material at the “normal” scale. This means, among other things, that using materials at the nanoscale can signify the creation of new materials that can be beneficial in many ways. It also means we cannot assume that materials that are safe and harmless at larger scales are necessarily safe and harmless at the nanoscale.

One example of a novel and widely applicable nanomaterial is the carbon nanotube (CNT). A CNT is a sheet of graphite (carbon atoms) simply wrapped into a tube shape. Notably, CNTs are the strongest and stiffest materials ever created while being fairly light, in addition to exhibiting other useful electrical, optical, and thermal properties. As a result of these beneficial characteristics, CNTs are already in sports equipment, computers, building materials, and vehicles. Despite the positive prospect of CNT products, concerns exist over the safety of CNTs. Studies indicate that CNTs can cause inflammation and other problems in the lungs, as well as skin damage when applied directly. Many experts believe that more research needs to be done to determine the potential risk to human and environmental health and safety stemming from CNTs in different applications.

Outside of CNTs, general nanotechnology advances are leading to current and proposed applications in numerous areas such as medicine and cosmetics. In the medical field, products and discoveries resulting from nanotechnology include new diagnostic tests, product materials for dental fillings and bone replacement, medical tools, and drugs for high cholesterol, appetite control, hormone therapy, and cancer, among others. Cancer drugs are being developed with nanotechnology that target tumor cells specifically. Many sunscreens already contain nanoparticles, which make them more transparent when applied to the skin. The potential risks of nanomaterials to human health and the environment were recently reviewed by many national and international expert groups and the consensus is generally that more research needs to be done to establish the actual risks of nanomaterials in all applications. Current studies on the risks of nanomaterials do not reflect real-world applications and are typically done on mice under artificial laboratory conditions.

Nanotechnology in food and agriculture

Like other sectors, nanotechnology promises to revolutionize the whole food system—from food production to processing, storage, and development of innovative materials, products and applications. For example, nanomaterials in food products could allow color and flavor additives to be added without additional fats or other chemical agents. Nanosized and nanoencapsulated ingredients and additives could improve and create new tastes, flavors, and textures. They also can enhance certain foods’ nutritional value and can help increase nutrient uptake and absorption in the body. Although the potential applications of nanotechnology are wide ranging, the current applications in the food and agriculture sectors are relatively few. An overview of more than 1000 nanotechnology-based consumer products that are currently available worldwide suggests that only around 9 % of these are food and beverage products. Some examples include cocoa nanoparticles to improve taste of chocolate shakes, nanoparticles directly put in food to deliver health fish oils in bread without a fishy taste, and nanoparticles to deliver healthy plant cholesterol in cooking oil.

Other key application areas, beside foods themselves, are food packaging and processes to manufacture food, which currently play the largest role in nanotechnology food and agriculture applications. Of the total dollar value of all nanotechnology food applications in 2006, food ingredients comprised 24 %, food processing 24 %, and food packaging over 50 %. Nanomaterial research for food packaging is currently aimed at those materials that come in contact with the food. Potential benefits to the package itself include better strength, flexibility, gas barrier properties (to keep food fresher), and temperature/moisture stability. Other potential benefits include packaging materials with anti-microbial properties for increased food safety, improved package biodegradability, and inclusion of sensors that detect and maintain the safety and quality of the food. In fact, food packaging materials with silver nanoparticles to kill bacteria and make food stay fresh longer are already available on the market.

While nanotechnologies offer many opportunities for innovation, the use of nanomaterials in food has raised a number of safety, environmental, ethical, policy, and regulatory issues. The main issues relate to the potential effects and impacts on human health and the environment that might arise from exposure to nanomaterials. In many products and applications, such as plastic materials for food packaging, nanomaterials may be incorporated in a fixed, bound or embedded form, and hence may not pose significant risk to consumer health or the environment (unless some hazardous particles migrate out during use or disposal). Other applications may pose a greater risk of exposure for consumers to free engineered nanomaterials; for example, certain foods and beverages may contain free floating nanoparticles or a nanopesticide formulation that may be released deliberately into the environment.

Some studies suggest that if humans are exposed to certain nanoparticles, those particles could end up in parts of the body that larger versions of those particles cannot reach. Examples include nanoparticles passing cellular, blood–brain, and placental barriers, or accumulating in organs such as the kidney, spleen, or liver. Most experts agree that more studies are therefore needed to determine how nanotechnology applications such as nanoparticles act in food products, the human body, and the environment (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Information image presented during reading of general nanotechnology background material (Office of Basic Energy Sciences 2006)

Full size image

Appendix 3: in-group worksheet

Product category

Nanomaterial’s purpose

Benefits

Concerns

Willingness to use (please circle your choice)

Food additive

In

figure a

Enhance experience (e.g., flavor/color)

  

1 2 3 4 5

Enhance nutrition

  

1 2 3 4 5

Prevent/reduce spoilage

  

1 2 3 4 5

Cheaper production

  

1 2 3 4 5

Packaging

On

figure b

Enhance experience (e.g., flavor/color)

  

1 2 3 4 5

Enhance nutrition

  

1 2 3 4 5

Prevent/reduce spoilage

  

1 2 3 4 5

Cheaper production

  

1 2 3 4 5

Processing

For

figure c

Enhance experience (e.g., flavor/color)

  

1 2 3 4 5

Enhance nutrition

  

1 2 3 4 5

Prevent/reduce spoilage

  

1 2 3 4 5

Cheaper production

  

1 2 3 4 5

  1. Willingness to use scale 1 strongly unwilling to use; 2 unwilling to use; 3 neither willing nor unwilling; 4 willing to use; 5 strongly willing to use

Appendix 4: post-group online survey

An email with a link to the following survey was sent to each focus group participant, following completion of their respective focus groups.

  1. 1.

    Since the focus group ended, how much time have you spent searching for or reading about nanotechnology in general?

    1. 1.

      No time at all

    2. 2.

      Between 0 and 30 min

    3. 3.

      Between 30 min and 1 h

    4. 4.

      Between 1 and 3 h

    5. 5.

      More than 3 h

  2. 2.

    Since the focus group ended, how much time have you spent searching for or reading about nanotechnology in food and agriculture?

    1. 1.

      No time at all

    2. 2.

      Between 0 and 30 min

    3. 3.

      Between 30 min and 1 h

    4. 4.

      Between 1 h and 3 h

    5. 5.

      More than 3 h

  3. 3.

    How comfortable are you with the idea of nanotechnology overall?

    1. 1.

      Not comfortable at all

    2. 2.

      Fairly uncomfortable

    3. 3.

      Neither comfortable/uncomfortable

    4. 4.

      Fairly comfortable

    5. 5.

      Very comfortable

  4. 4.

    How comfortable are you with the idea of engineered nanomaterials food products?

    1. 1.

      Not comfortable at all

    2. 2.

      Fairly uncomfortable

    3. 3.

      Neither comfortable/uncomfortable

    4. 4.

      Fairly comfortable

    5. 5.

      Very comfortable

  5. 5.

    How comfortable are you with the idea of engineered nanomaterials in food packaging?

    1. 1.

      Not comfortable at all

    2. 2.

      Fairly uncomfortable

    3. 3.

      Neither comfortable/uncomfortable

    4. 4.

      Fairly comfortable

    5. 5.

      Very comfortable

  6. 6.

    How comfortable are you with the idea of nanotechnology being applied to food processing?

    1. 1.

      Not comfortable at all

    2. 2.

      Fairly uncomfortable

    3. 3.

      Neither comfortable/uncomfortable

    4. 4.

      Fairly comfortable

    5. 5.

      Very comfortable

  7. 7.

    How do you think benefits compare to risks for nanotechnology in general (scaled response: one end for benefits strongly outweighing risks, the other end vice versa)

    1. 1.

      Risk strongly outweigh benefits

    2. 2.

      Risks somewhat outweigh benefits

    3. 3.

      Benefits and risks are about the same

    4. 4.

      Benefits somewhat outweigh risks

    5. 5.

      Benefits strongly outweigh risks

  8. 8.

    How do you think benefits compare to risks for food products containing engineered nanomaterials?

    1. 1.

      Risk strongly outweigh benefits

    2. 2.

      Risks somewhat outweigh benefits

    3. 3.

      Benefits and risks are about the same

    4. 4.

      Benefits somewhat outweigh risks

    5. 5.

      Benefits strongly outweigh risks

  9. 9.

    How do you think benefits compare to risks for food packaging containing engineered nanomaterials?

    1. 1.

      Risk strongly outweigh benefits

    2. 2.

      Risks somewhat outweigh benefits

    3. 3.

      Benefits and risks are about the same

    4. 4.

      Benefits somewhat outweigh risks

    5. 5.

      Benefits strongly outweigh risks

  10. 10.

    How do you think benefits compare to risks for food processing that uses nanotechnology?

    1. 1.

      Risk strongly outweigh benefits

    2. 2.

      Risks somewhat outweigh benefits

    3. 3.

      Benefits and risks are about the same

    4. 4.

      Benefits somewhat outweigh risks

    5. 5.

      Benefits strongly outweigh risks

For questions 11–13, please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:

  1. 11.

    Food products containing engineered nanomaterials should be labeled with an additional nanotechnology label.

    1. 1.

      Strongly disagree

    2. 2.

      Disagree

    3. 3.

      Neither agree nor disagree

    4. 4.

      Agree

    5. 5.

      Strongly agree

  2. 12.

    Food stored in packaging materials containing engineered nanomaterials should be labeled with an additional nanotechnology label.

    1. 1.

      Strongly disagree

    2. 2.

      Disagree

    3. 3.

      Neither agree nor disagree

    4. 4.

      Agree

    5. 5.

      Strongly agree

  3. 13.

    Food processed using nanotechnology should be labeled with an additional nanotechnology label.

    1. 1.

      Strongly disagree

    2. 2.

      Disagree

    3. 3.

      Neither agree nor disagree

    4. 4.

      Agree

    5. 5.

      Strongly agree

  4. 14.

    Food product labels are currently regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). What level of trust do you have in the FDA to effectively ensure the safety of food products associated with nanotechnology?

    1. 1.

      Complete distrust

    2. 2.

      Some distrust

    3. 3.

      Neither trust nor distrust

    4. 4.

      Some trust

    5. 5.

      Complete trust

  5. 15.

    If nanotechnology food products and food packaged in materials containing nanotechnology are labeled with an additional nanotechnology label, how strongly do you trust the FDA to effectively regulate and enforce the additional nanotechnology label?

    1. 1.

      Complete distrust

    2. 2.

      Some distrust

    3. 3.

      Neither trust nor distrust

    4. 4.

      Some trust

    5. 5.

      Complete trust

  6. 16.

    Let’s assume that adding an additional nanotechnology label increases the product’s cost. Who should pay that extra cost?

    1. 1.

      Consumers

    2. 2.

      Producers (makers of the nano-food product in industry)

    3. 3.

      Government

    4. 4.

      Consumers and producers

    5. 5.

      Consumers and government

    6. 6.

      Producers and government

    7. 7.

      All three groups

    8. 8.

      None of them

    9. 9.

      Other ____________________________ (fill in blank)

  7. 17.

    If the cost of the additional nanotechnology label was placed in part or totally on consumers through raising the price of labeled products, what is the maximum increase you would be willing to pay for a product to have it labeled with a nanotechnology label, if the initial cost without the nanotechnology label is $5.00?

    Starting price without nanotechnology label $5.00

    1. 1.

      I would not be willing to pay extra for a nanotechnology label

      Total product price = $5.00

    2. 2.

      Extra 1 % = $0.05

      Total product price = $5.05

    3. 3.

      Extra 5 % = $0.25

      Total product price = $5.25

    4. 4.

      Extra 10 % = $0.50

      Total product price = $5.50

    5. 5.

      Extra 15 % = $0.75

      Total product price = $5.75

    6. 6.

      Extra 20 % = $1.00

      Total product price = $6.00

    7. 7.

      Extra 25 % = $1.25

      Total product price = $6.25

    8. 8.

      I would be willing to pay more than 25 % for the nanotechnology label

      Total product price = greater than $6.25

  8. 18.

    Imagine that nanotechnology product labeling is mandatory in the U.S. and that for all products containing nanomaterials, you have the option of buying the product without nanomaterials. If the product containing nanomaterials is $5.00, what is the maximum increase price you would be willing to pay for the product without nanomaterials?

    1. 1.

      I would not be willing to pay extra for the product without nanomaterials

      Total product price = $5.00

    2. 2.

      Extra 1 % = $0.05

      Total product price = $5.05

    3. 3.

      Extra 5 % = $0.25

      Total product price = $5.25

    4. 4.

      Extra 10 % = $0.50

      Total product price = $5.50

    5. 5.

      Extra 15 % = $0.75

      Total product price = $5.75

    6. 6.

      Extra 20 % = $1.00

      Total product price = $6.00

    7. 7.

      Extra 25 % = $1.25

      Total product price = $6.25

    8. 8.

      I would be willing to pay more than 25 % for the product without nanomaterials

      Total product price = greater than $6.25

  9. 19.

    The following questions are about you so that we can learn how different types of people feel about the topics that are included in this study. Please respond to the following questions:

    1. a.

      What is your age? _____

    2. b.

      What is the highest educational level you completed?

      • _____ Less than high school

      • _____ Some high school

      • _____ High school (includes GED)

      • _____ Some college (includes Associate Degree)

      • _____ College graduate (BS, BA, etc)

      • _____ Some graduate education

      • _____ Graduate degree (MA, MS, PhD, JD, MD, etc.).

    3. c.

      Are you:

      • _____ Female

      • _____ Male

    4. d.

      Race/ethnicity:

      Are you Hispanic or Latino?

      • _____ Yes

      • _____ No

      Please select one or more races that you identify with from the following:

      • _____ American Indian or Alaskan Native

      • _____ Asian

      • _____ Black or African American

      • _____ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

      • _____ White

    5. e.

      Other than for family and community events (i.e. weddings, funerals, etc.) about how often have you attended religious services in the past twelve months?

      figure d
    6. f.

      Whether you attend religious services or not, would you say you are a very religious person,

      somewhat religious, not too religious, or not at all religious?

      figure e
    7. g.

      How much does religion guide the decisions you make on a daily basis?

      figure f
    8. h.

      How much does your religiosity affect how you view issues relating to science and technology?

      figure g
    9. i.

      What was your total family income in 2008, before taxes and other deductions were taken out?

      figure h
    10. j.

      The terms “liberal” and “conservative” mean different things to people. Generally speaking, how would you place your views on this scale?

      figure i

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brown, J., Fatehi, L. & Kuzma, J. Altruism and skepticism in public attitudes toward food nanotechnologies. J Nanopart Res 17, 122 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-015-2926-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-015-2926-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation