Don't forget the consumer in 'consumer market'

[Editor-in-Chief]

Don't forget the consumer in 'consumer market'

By Candace Stuart


From the January/February 2006 issue of Small Times magazine

Photo courtesy of the Woodrow Wilson Center
The Wilson Center's David Rejeski predicts some companies will put a 'nano-free' label on products.

Advanced Nanotechnology Ltd. didn't have to persuade consumers to slather on sunscreens containing its zinc oxide nanoparticles. In its homeland of Australia, the dermatologists did the talking.

"Australia knows more about sunscreens than most countries do," said Brian Innes, business development manager at Advanced Nanotechnology. For good reason: A mere 15 minutes of exposure to sun on a clear January day can lead to sunburn if skin is unprotected. That's one reason why annually skin cancer accounts for more than 80 percent of all new cancers diagnosed in the nation, according to the Cancer Council of Australia. Melanoma kills about 1,300 Australians a year.

Given those statistics, consumers and the doctors who advise them seem willing to accept the potential risks of using sunscreens that incorporate ZinClear nanoparticles.

"This was driven by the dermatologists," Innes said. "They wanted to have a transparent, mineral-only sunscreen."

Based in Welshpool in Western Australia, Advanced Nanotechnology has made its mark by producing uniform batches of nanoparticles since its launch in 1997. It decided to expand beyond its initial market of slurries after 2000.

Zinc oxide, an ingredient in sunscreens that absorbs damaging ultraviolet light, appeared like a good candidate. Standard-sized particles scatter visible light waves, giving sunscreens their characteristic pasty color. At the nanoscale, however, zinc oxide still absorbs ultraviolet light but lets visible light through, making it clear.

Concerns about short-term and long-term health effects of nanoparticles have been increasing as more nano-based products reach the market, analysts say. Consumer acceptance will depend on perceptions of the relative safety and benefits of products. In Australia, for instance, consumers may conclude that the benefits of a transparent sunscreen outweigh the unknown consequences of exposure to nanoparticles.

"Most consumers don't expect to live in a zero-risk world," said David Rejeski, director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, a partnership between the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Pew Charitable Trusts. "Consumers are saying, 'What's in this for us?'"

But unlike Advanced Nanotechnology, many of the nanotech companies hoping to dip into the consumer market will not have advocates like the dermatologists of Australia. They lack a clear message – or some critics contend, any message at all.

In a November hearing at the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Minnesota's Rep. Gil Gutknecht compared nano companies' communication efforts to the agriculture industry's attempts to introduce genetic modification into food crops. "Those companies did a marvelous job of selling the technology to the farmers, but they did a miserable job of explaining it to the consumers," he noted.

Rejeski, who was a witness at the hearing, said that he expects to see more interest from what he terms "inquisitive consumers." They are people who are not antagonistic toward new technologies but wish to know more before they buy nano goods. "Most of these companies have no strategy for dealing with the inquisitive consumer," he said.

He recommends that the industry engage in pre-competitive research on communication strategies to eliminate what he sees as mixed, jargon-filled or conflicting messaging. Adding to the confusion is a tendency by some of the press, grass-roots organizations and even toxicologists to group all nanoparticles together. "Ambiguity raises anxiety" in consumers, he warned.

Alan Rae, vice president of market and business development at NanoDynamics in Buffalo, N.Y., and a participant in industry-shaping nano initiatives, said that discussions about public awareness and concerns about public backlash bubble up. But organizations such as the American National Standards Institute, where he is a delegate in a committee on nanotechnology, are better suited to tackle technical challenges rather than public outreach.

"One of the issues is there is no one actually responsible for it," Rae said. Consumer education doesn't fit the role of governmental bodies such as the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative. While the European Commission has taken a lead in efforts to raise public awareness, Rae and Rejeski point out that the public remains generally skeptical of governments worldwide.

"The governments are discredited," Rae said. "And industry is seen as having a vested interest. So the platform is left to people who don't want to see any change at all."

Rejeski predicts a similar outcome if no communication strategy is in place. He envisions a "nano-free" movement with companies applying a "no-nano" label to set their products apart in consumers' eyes. "As soon as there is a no-name label, it sends the message that there is a risk," he said. Even companies like Advanced Nanotechnology voice concerns about a backlash. "There's always a question mark out there," Innes said, "particularly in this environment where nanoparticles tend to get lumped together."

Source