The ETC Group choke with rage in their latest broadside against nanotechnology, in this case with its relation to agriculture. If they could have only included architecture then the report may have caused Prince Charles to have an apoplectic seizure. In a bizarre bit of synchronicity, this popped up the day before a symposium on the same topic at the University of Wageningen in the Netherlands (and a couple of weeks after we looked at Heston Blumenthals nanofood initiative).
While some of ETCs past campaigns have successfully highlighted the issues associated with nanoparticles, this one misses the point. Most of the nanotechnology issues raised are chemistry and biotechnology, with a bit about developing world farmers thrown in to gain the sympathy vote.
Food is an emotive subject, the luckier among us interact with it three times a day, and if we dont we die. Its really that simple. Getting the relationship between food and technology wrong can have disastrous effects, from BSE to obesity, and NGOs such as the ETC play a vital part in raising the issues, even if they provide little in the way of solutions.
Most people have very little idea of what we are eating, and dont particularly care as along as it is cheap and available.
Nanotechnology may have a role to play in improving the quality of our food, from directing pesticides and nutrients directly to where they are needed rather than running off into streams and rivers, to improving packaging to reduce the need for artificial preservatives. It is hard to imagine that processed food could get any worse, but many people said that about British Rail.
As always, its worth keeping an open mind on these issues. Muddling biotech, nanotech and globalization to frighten the public does no one any favors.