Comparative analysis of the labelling of nanotechnologies across four stakeholder groups

Abstract

Societies are constantly challenged to develop policies around the introduction of new technologies, which by their very nature contain great uncertainty. This uncertainty gives prominence to varying viewpoints which are value laden and have the ability to drastically shift policy. The issue of nanotechnologies is a prime example. The labelling of products that contain new technologies has been one policy tool governments have used to address concerns around uncertainty. Our study develops evidence regarding opinions on the labelling of products made by nanotechnologies. We undertook a computer-assisted telephone (CATI) survey of the Australian public and those involved in nanotechnologies from the academic, business and government sectors using a standardised questionnaire. Analysis was undertaken using descriptive and logistic regression techniques. We explored reluctance to purchase as a result of labelling products which contained manufactured nanomaterials both generally and across five broad products (food, cosmetics/sunscreens, medicines, pesticides, tennis racquets/computers) which represent the broad categories of products regulated by differing government agencies in Australia. We examined the relationship between reluctance to purchase and risk perception, trust, and familiarity. We found irrespective of stakeholder, most supported the labelling of products which contained manufactured nanomaterials. Perception of risk was the main driver of reluctance to purchase, while trust and familiarity were likely to have an indirect effect through risk perception. Food is likely to be the greatest product impacted by labelling. Risk perception surrounding nanotechnologies and label ‘framing’ on the product are key issues to be addressed in the implementation of a labelling scheme.

Consumer reactions to unfamiliar technologies: mental and social formation of perceptions and attitudes toward nano and GM products

“…Although people may be aware of the fact that they can assess the benefits and risks of specific nanotechnologies, the formation of such attitudes is hampered by the lack of perceived knowledge and clear information on the subject (Fleischer et al 2012). Risk and benefit perceptions of nanotechnologies may be influenced by contextual or implicit features such as labeling (Siegrist and Keller 2011), which is widely desired but also tends to activate risk perceptions (Capon et al 2015). At the same time, the absence of a coherent labeling concept for nano-products hampers market transparency.…”

“…Overall, against the background of low levels of awareness and knowledge about nanotechnology among consumers, the lack of reliable labeling of nano-products is unsatisfactory against the principles of well-informed public decision-making and consumer choice. However, the effects of nanotechnology labeling on consumer attitudes and purchasing decisions are all but clear and might depend on, inter alia, risk and benefit perceptions, familiarity, trust, framing (Capon et al 2015), and non-cognitive clues.…”

Nano-sunscreens – a double-edged sword in protecting consumers from harm: viewing Australian regulatory policies through the lenses of the European Union

“…This finding is reinforced by a recent empirical study conducted on four different 'stakeholder groups' (including general public, academics, business and government officials who are involved in this technology) of five consumer nano-products including sunscreens and foods in Australia, which finds that most of them, regardless of their categories, support proper labelling of products containing engineered nano-particles (Capon et al 2015a). This public preference is consistent with the previous studies ( The listing of product ingredients is required on the container or on the product itself, if not packed in a container.…”

“…Arguments against such a disclosure are based on misinterpretation of the meaning of labels and difficulties in implementation of labelling (Capon et al 2015a). Capon et al (2015a) clearly defining nano-products, finding a reliable detection tools for the enforcement of the system, and setting out thresholds for nanoparticles to make a product contaminated (Capon et al 2015a). However, such difficulties can be overcome by a given jurisdiction if these issues are carefully addressed with sufficient clarity.…”

“…Consistently, according to the Australian Office of Nanotechnology, nanotech denotes 'a collective term for a range of technologies, techniques and processes that involve the manipulation of matter at the nanoscale-the sizes range from approximately 1 nanometre to 100 nanometres' (Capon et al 2015a). Nanotech thus deals with engineered nanomaterials at the nanoscale size level and their unique physical and chemical characteristics (Makker 2011).…”