We are nano sensible - not secretive

The thorough report is a good read, but singling out the food industry and criticising us for secrecy was surprising and unnecessarily harsh.​

The industry has learnt some valuable lessons from previous failed introductions of new technologies and has tried to be as transparent as possible about the potential benefits and unknowns of nanotechnologies. ​

Firms and trade bodies have engaged publicly with regulators, political institutions and other influencers, and have been openly discussing many of the issues highlighted by the House of Lords' report for years.​

This is very different from expecting firms to talk publicly about any commercially sensitive research they may be doing on product-specific applications that may be years away from market.​

The truth is that nanotechnology is still in its infancy and bringing innovations to market is going to be a long and complex process, particularly given the EU regulatory environment. And the first-wave of applications for engineered nanomaterials will almost certainly be in packaging and processing technologies not ingredients.​

So the fact there isn't much noise coming out of food companies is not secrecy it's a sign, perhaps, of how much work still remains.​

We agree it's vital that our industry continues to talk openly about the potential for nanomaterials. But perhaps we could help ourselves a little by discouraging some of the hype that has grown up around this new technology? Describing a new product as being 'nano' simply because it sounds cool isn't being transparent it's just adding to the confusion."​

Julian Hunt director of communications at the Food and Drink Federation​​