Comparative analysis of the labelling of nanotechnologies across four stakeholder groups

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.