Labeling of Nanotechnology Consumer Products Can Influence Risk and Benefit Perceptions
Abstract
Currently, there is no mandatory labeling for products containing synthetic nanoparticles. The public as well as other stakeholders have positive views about mandatory labeling. However, little is known how such a label influences the risk and benefit perception of a product. Consumers may infer that a label is a signal that there are risks associated with this technology. Data were collected in a survey experiment (N= 1,382). Participants were randomly assigned to one of six conditions. The control group received a picture of a sunscreen container without a label. One experimental group received a picture of a sunscreen container with a label. The other groups received, in addition to the sunscreen container with a label, some risk or benefit information. Results suggest that labeling of products may reduce consumers’ benefit perception and increase risk perception. Labeling nanotechnology consumer products may change the public perception of the products. Respondents may have relied on the affect heuristic for assessing the risks and benefits of the sunscreen.
1. INTRODUCTION
There is a growing body of social science studies that examines the public perception of nanotechnology.(1) Such knowledge is certainly needed: regulators, industries, and scientists need to know how the public perceives this technology. It seems likely that public perception of nanotechnology will play an important role in the acceptance of this technology. Recent literature reviews have concluded, however, that perceptions of nanotechnology are malleable(2, 3) because many people do not have strong opinions about it. It is important, therefore, to know which factors may influence public perception and how such factors shape the public acceptance of nanotechnology.
In order to facilitate the sustainable introduction of nanotechnology, various measures have been proposed.(4) Mandatory labeling of nanotechnology applications is one possible strategy. Such labeling could be viewed as a measure that provides individual freedom for consumers. Little is known, however, about how this labeling would shape public perception. Consumers might interpret labeling as a sign of the risks associated with this technology. In this study, we examined what impact labeling a product containing synthetic nanoparticles has on risk and benefit perception.
1.1. Public Perception of Nanotechnology
Results of a survey in the United States suggest that a large portion of the public is not familiar with the term nanotechnology, and that even people who have heard the term possess only limited knowledge of the technology.(5, 6) Cross-cultural research suggests that the European public is less optimistic about nanotechnology than the public in the United States.(7) It should be emphasized, however, that public attitudes are different across various applications of nanotechnology.(8) Applications in food and health domains are perceived as more risky compared to other nanotechnology applications. The application of nanotechnology in sunscreen, for example, was perceived as alarming and as being the most risky application in a set of 20 nanotechnology applications.
Most people do not have stable attitudes toward nanotechnology, but people will construct preferences when asked to respond to questions about such an issue.(9) Because most people are not familiar with nanotechnology, or have heard only a little about this technology, people participating in a survey about nanotechnology will create their preferences when asked about this technology. The information given to participants may, therefore, strongly influence their responses. It has been shown that providing information about the general health benefits or health risks associated with nanotechnology influenced participants’ perception of nanotechnology.(10) Emphasizing the health benefits of nanotechnology resulted in higher benefit perceptions, and emphasizing the health risks resulted in higher risk perceptions. These results demonstrate that new information about nanotechnology shapes public perception and, therefore, public acceptance.
The affect evoked by a technology is important for its perception.(11) Perceived benefits are an important factor in evoking positive affect and, as a consequence, positively influence the acceptance of a technology. The results of several studies suggest that people who perceive nanotechnology applications to be associated with many benefits perceived fewer risks and were more willing to accept nanotechnology compared with people who perceived few benefits associated with nanotechnology applications.(8, 12, 13)
1.2. Labeling
A substantial number of nanotechnology researchers believe that current U.S. regulations are not adequate for controlling the risks associated with nanotechnology.(14) As a result, these researchers think that regulations are important. Such regulations are very difficult to formulate, however, because there are too few facts that could be used as evidence for such regulation.(15) To date, there are no specific regulations for nanotechnology applications, and these applications do not need to be labeled. However, the public seems to be in favor of labeling nanotechnology products.(16, 17)
Little is known about the effect of labeling of products containing synthetic nanoparticles on risk and benefit perceptions. As people do not have stable attitudes toward or knowledge about nanotechnology, they may try to infer what they think is the implicit message of the label. For example, it has been shown that the adoption of a precautionary principle in the domain of cell phone masts may fail not only to decrease people's risk perception, but such measures may also actually increase people's risk perception.(18) That is, people may infer that a precautionary measure is a signal that there are risks associated with this technology. This effect may even be amplified when labeling is mandatory. It has been demonstrated that in the domain of organ donation and retirement savings, people tend to infer that the default is an implicit recommendation of policymakers about the course of action.(19) Nonlabeled products may be perceived as the default, and, therefore, as the recommended products. People may assume that mandatory labeling of products is an implicit recommendation of regulation authorities indicating that there must be some risks associated with such a product.
The affect heuristic(11, 20) is another theoretical approach for explaining why a mandatory labeling could result in increased risk perception and a decreased benefit perception. This heuristic postulates that people rely on their affect associated with a technology when asked to evaluate it. If a hazard evokes a negative affect, this may result in an increased risk perception.(21) A mandatory label informing people that a consumer product contains a substance most likely unknown to them (e.g., synthetic nanoparticles) may evoke negative feelings and as a consequence may result in higher risk and lower benefit perceptions.
1.3. Rationale for This Study
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of labeling on the perception of nanotechnology applications. Based on the discussed research on the effect of the precautionary principle and on default effects, we expected that participants would perceive a label as an indication of possible risks associated with nanotechnology. Therefore, we hypothesize that a product with a label indicating that it contains synthetic nanoparticles is perceived as more risky compared with a product without such a label. We further examined whether additional information about risks and benefits associated with synthetic nanoparticles modifies the impact of a label on participants’ risk and benefit perception. According to the affect heuristic,(11, 20) we hypothesize that the presentation of information focusing on the risk of nanoparticles increases risk perception and lowers benefit perception. Similarly, the presentation of information indicating that the benefit of the product is high should lead to a more positive affective impression and thus lower perception of risk and increase perception of benefit.
Participants received different types of information about a consumer product, and we examined the effect that this information had on risk and benefit perception. Sunscreen was used in this study for several reasons: sunscreens containing synthetic nanoparticles such as ultraviolet (UV) filter are already on the market, sunscreen is a familiar product, and sunscreen with synthetic nanoparticles has been perceived as more risky than other nanotechnology applications.(8)
2. METHOD
2.1. Participants
A questionnaire and accompanying letter were sent to a random sample of addresses from the telephone book in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. The letter asked that the questionnaire be completed by the person in the household who was over 18 years of age and who was next in line for his or her birthday. A reminder letter—again including the questionnaire—was sent out two weeks later to persons who did not respond to the first letter. One thousand three hundred and eighty-two persons sent back the questionnaire, with a response rate of 47%. The mean age was 53 years (SD= 17). Fifty-two percent of the respondents were female (n= 707 women, 662 men, 13 missing). The self-reported education level ranged from primary school (3.8%, n= 52), lower secondary school (7.9%, n= 108), upper secondary vocational school (48.4%, n= 661), and upper secondary university preparation school (16.8%, n= 230) to college or university (23.1%, n= 315); 16 participants did not disclose their education level.
2.2. Questionnaire
A sunscreen container was designed (see Fig. 1). The information that is usually found on a sunscreen container was displayed on the front of the container. To rule out participants’ familiarity with the product, a hypothetical brand name was used.
Sunscreen without a label. This picture was used in condition 1 only.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following six conditions. In the first condition, a picture of the sunscreen without a label (see Fig. 1) and without any additional information was presented. Responses in condition 1 served as the baseline. In the second condition, a picture of the sunscreen container with the label indicating that the sunscreen contained synthetic nanoparticles (see Fig. 2) was presented. In the third condition, the picture with the label was used; below the picture was a sentence that indicated that the product was labeled because it contained synthetic nanoparticles. This sentence was added to make sure that respondents did not miss the label on the package. In conditions 4 to 6, the picture of the sunscreen container was displayed, and additional information was given. In the fourth condition, general risk information about free nanoparticles (as in sprays) and nanoparticles in a matrix (as in sunscreens) was given. In the fifth condition, only risk information about nanoparticles in a matrix (as in sunscreen) was provided. In the sixth condition, benefit, but not risk, information about the nano sunscreen was given. Table I presents an overview of the six conditions, including the information presented.
Sunscreen with a label. This picture was used in conditions 2 to 6.
| Condition | Label | Additional Text in the Questionnaire |
|---|---|---|
| 1. No label | No | No additional text |
| 2. Label | Yes | No additional text |
| 3. Label and reference | Yes | This product contains synthetic nanoparticles and is, therefore, labeled. |
| 4. Label and general risk information | Yes | Synthetic nanoparticles are solid particles with a size smaller than 100 nanometers (nm). One nanometer is one-millionth millimeter. A scientific assessment of health risk is difficult at the present time. Basically, a distinction is made between free nanoparticles and bound (incorporated in material) nanoparticles. Exposure to free nanoparticles especially through breathing air (e.g., aerosol applications) is judged to be critical. Free nanoparticles may get into the blood circulation through the alveoli, spread out in the body in an unimpeded manner, and impair the respiratory system. This could lead to reactions of the immune system and cause inflammations in human cells. |
| In pastes, fluids, or sunscreens, nanoparticles exist in bound form. To the best of the current scientific knowledge, the unimpaired and healthy skin is an effective barrier against bound nanoparticles in sunscreens. Currently, various sunscreens containing nanoparticles are available on the market. | ||
| 5. Label and risk information related to a matrix | Yes | Synthetic nanoparticles are solid particles with a size smaller than 100 nanometers (nm). One nanometer is one-millionth millimeter. In pastes and cosmetic creams, nanoparticles exist in bound form, which means they are incorporated in the material. To the best of the current scientific knowledge, the unimpaired and healthy skin is an effective barrier against bound nanoparticles in sunscreens. Currently, various sunscreens containing nanoparticles are available on the market. |
| 6. Label and benefit information | Yes | Synthetic nanoparticles are solid particles with a size smaller than 100 nanometers (nm). One nanometer is one-millionth millimeter. Sunscreens with synthetic nanoparticles provide good and long-lasting protection against UV rays. The nanoparticles reflect the rays of the sun and thus reduce the risk of dermal cancer and skin aging. Traditional sunscreens containing other chemical substances as UV filter need to be put on the skin every two hours. Sunscreens with nanoparticles need to be applied only once a day. Furthermore, they can be applied to one's skin more evenly, are transparent on the skin, leave no unesthetic white film on the skin, and cause no allergies. Currently, various sunscreens containing nanoparticles are available on the market. |
Participants were then asked to assess the perceived risk (benefit) for a person who regularly uses the presented sunscreen: “How do you assess the health risk (benefit) of a person regularly using the presented sunscreen?” Participants could answer on a scale ranging from 1 (“very low”) to 6 (“very high”).
3. RESULTS
The mean values for participants’ risk ratings across the six experimental conditions are shown in Table II. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with risk perception as the dependent variable and conditions as the independent variable revealed a significant main effect for conditions (F(5,1352) = 5.41; p < 0.001). The post hoc test, Tukey's alternative procedure, indicated that conditions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 differed significantly from condition 1 (p < 0.05). The sunscreen with the label indicating that the product contains synthetic nanoparticles evoked significantly higher risk perception. This was true, independent of whether additional information about risk was provided or not.
| Condition | Risk Perception | Benefit Perception |
|---|---|---|
| 1. No label | 2.76a (SD= 1.30) | 4.09a (SD= 1.17) |
| n= 237 | n= 237 | |
| 2. Label | 3.27b (SD= 1.42) | 3.89a, b, c (SD= 1.36) |
| n= 224 | n= 223 | |
| 3. Label and reference | 3.32b (SD= 1.45) | 3.57c (SD= 1.33) |
| n= 222 | n= 222 | |
| 4. Label and general risk information | 3.19b (SD= 1.36) | 3.75b, c (SD= 1.24) |
| n= 229 | n= 228 | |
| 5. Label and risk information related to a matrix | 3.32b (SD= 1.44) | 3.64c (SD= 1.39) |
| n= 210 | n= 210 | |
| 6. Label and benefit information | 3.10b (SD= 1.38) | 4.05a, b (SD= 1.23) |
| n= 236 | n= 235 |
- Note: According to post hoc tests, means with different letters in each column are significantly different (p < 0.05).
There were no significant differences between conditions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (p > 0.05), indicating that the label increased risk perception to the same extent as the label presented together with risk information. As participants in conditions 2 and 3 perceived the same level of risk, this indicates that the participants also noticed the label in the condition without any specific reference to the label.
In addition to perceived risks, participants assessed the health benefits for a person using the presented sunscreen. Mean values and standard deviations are shown in Table II. The one-way ANOVA with perceived benefit as the dependent variable and the condition as the independent variable revealed a significant main effect for the conditions (F(5,1349) = 6.30; p < 0.001). Tukey's alternative procedure indicated that the difference between conditions 1 and 6 was not significant (p > 0.05), indicating that the sunscreen without the label evoked the same positive benefit perception as those with the label and additional benefit information. Although the presentation of the label in condition 2 slightly decreased the perceived benefit, the difference between conditions 1 and 2 was not significant (p > 0.05). However, the difference between condition 1 and conditions 3, 4, and 5 was significant (p < 0.05). This indicates that the risk information and label indication decreased the benefit perception. There were no significant differences between conditions 2, 3, 4, and 5 (p > 0.05), indicating that the three label conditions with additional label indication or risk information did not evoke different benefit perceptions.
For each experimental condition, the correlations between perceived benefit and perceived risks were computed. For condition 4, the correlation was only marginally significant (r=−0.13, p= 0.058). For the other conditions, the correlations were significant (r=−0.25 to −0.39, p < 0.001). Participants who perceived more risks perceived fewer benefits, and vice versa.
4. DISCUSSION
There is no legal requirement to label products containing synthetic nanoparticles. There are, however, discussions on whether such mandatory labeling should be introduced. In the case of genetically modified foods, there are different labeling laws in place across countries.(22) Some countries (e.g., member countries of the European Union) have adopted a mandatory labeling scheme, and other countries (e.g., the United States, Canada) have adopted voluntary guidelines for labeling. Labeling of nanotechnology applications could become an important issue in the future. It is, therefore, important to know how labeling might influence the public perception of nanotechnology products. In this study, we examined whether nanotechnology labeling is perceived in a similar way as the precautionary principle, thereby leading to increased risk perception.(18)
Results of this research suggest that the labeling of nanotechnology consumer products may result in a higher level of perceived risks and in a lower level of perceived benefits. Labeling consumer products may, therefore, change the public perception of these products. A sunscreen with the label “This product contains synthetic nanoparticles” was perceived as more risky compared to the product without such a label. We would like to emphasize that these results have been observed in a between-study design.
Why should such a label result in increased risk perception? There are several possible explanations for this finding. People may interpret a label as a sign of danger. They may assume that, without any risk, no labeling would be required. Therefore, the product must be more risky than a product without a label. In other words, participants may have relied on the default heuristic. They may have interpreted the label as an implicit information that the product is more risky compared with products without such a label. For some people, the term nanotechnology is not familiar. A label displaying a not familiar technical term on a consumer product may evoke negative affect. According to the affect heuristic, this should result in a higher risk perception and a lower benefit perception. Another explanation for our findings is related to the term “synthetic nanoparticles.” Most participants may not have been familiar with this term. Recent research has shown that food additives were rated as more harmful when their names were difficult to pronounce compared to names that were easy to pronounce.(23) Perceived novelty of an ingredient may be used as a heuristic cue for estimating the risks associated with this ingredient. A sunscreen with a label “synthetic nanoparticles,” which most people are not familiar with, could be such a cue. The term synthetic may be perceived as more risky than the term natural.(24, 25) The unfamiliar term nanoparticle may additionally trigger risk perception. It should be noted, also, that the various explanations for the results observed in this experiment do not exclude each other.
Communications about consumer products can only be evaluated based on the goals that should be achieved.(26) One goal of a mandatory labeling could be to enable the public to make informed decisions. There is no correct absolute level of risk or benefit perception evoked by a consumer product. It is, therefore, not easy to evaluate whether a label helps participants to make an informed decision. However, the fact that in this study the label alone resulted in higher risk perceptions raises the question whether the higher risk perception is the product of an informed decision. The substantial correlations between risk and benefit perception suggest that participants more likely relied on the affect heuristic.(11, 20) In the case of sunscreen, such a perception and subsequent behavior may not result in reduced risks for consumers, however. The reason is that synthetic nanoparticles replace bioactive substances in sunscreen. A number of organic UV filters used in traditional sunscreens have the potential to act as endocrine disruptors that may cause adverse health effects.(27, 28) In other words, consumers need to make tradeoffs. In principle, a nanotechnology label could help people to make such trade-off decisions. For such an informed decision making, a label does most likely not provide sufficient information, however. It is not clear, therefore, whether a nanotechnology label would be helpful for consumers. A label would certainly be an oversimplification because possible health effects of nanoparticles depend not only on particle size but also on other factors such as surface properties.(29, 30) A label indicating only that the product contains synthetic nanoparticles may, therefore, be of limited use for consumers. In this research, different risk information resulted in the same risk and benefit perceptions. This is in line with the notion that more differentiated labels containing information about particle size, shape, and structure are not realistic because the vast majority of consumers will not understand such differentiated information.
This research has examined the effect of labeling in the domain of nanotechnology. It is plausible to assume that the various labeling schemes in the food domain have similar effects. Labeling production technology (e.g., gene technology) or information about ingredients (e.g., additives expressed as “e-numbers”) could have similar effects. It is difficult to distinguish between a labeling effect and people's existing attitudes for these consumer products because there are controversies about gene technologies and people are already familiar with the way food additives are named on products. In the case of nanotechnology, the public does not have much knowledge about or strong attitudes toward this technology.(16) Nanotechnology is, therefore, very suitable for testing the hypothesis that we have proposed.
We were interested in how consumers react when they are presented with a product with a synthetic nanoparticle label. Therefore, the label was clearly visible on the front of the product. One could argue that labels often are not placed as prominently and are not as visible on an actual product. In other words, mandatory labels will most likely be printed in smaller sizes and on the back of the product. The goal of mandatory labeling is to educate consumers and to enable them to make informed decisions. Therefore, it seemed appropriate to us to clearly and visibly present the label on the front of the package. Should a mandatory label be introduced, the effect may be less pronounced than in this study because the label may be less clearly visible, and thus, fewer consumers may notice it.
Some limitations of this study need to be mentioned. Because no label for products containing synthetic nanoparticles exists, we had to create such a label for this study. We cannot rule out that labels other than “synthetic nanoparticles” have different effects on participants’ risk and benefit perception. It seems unlikely, however, that a label such as “engineered nanoparticles” evokes different consumer reactions than the one used in this study. Furthermore, no consumer behavior was examined, but people's risk and benefit perception. It is an open question how strongly these perceptions influence people's decisions. Furthermore, we measured risk and benefit utilizing single items. Single items are known to be unreliable measurements because they have a larger random error component compared with scales consisting of several items. Unreliable measurements make it more difficult to find experimental effects. The reported effects in this study may, therefore, even underestimate the true effects.
Past research suggests that the public views nanotechnology applications in a rather differentiated way.(8, 13) Food- or health-related applications are perceived as more risky compared with applications that are not digested or not in direct contact with the body. Labeling results in a more negative perception of sunscreen. It could be that, for other applications such as car tires or car paint, nanotechnology labeling does not result in a less positive perception. A nanotechnology label might lead to more positive perceptions in nonfood products and products without direct body contact. (8)
Future research might build on the results found in this experiment. The use of different labels could be examined, and food products as well as nonfood products without body contact should be used. Results of such additional research could provide additional information on how strong the impact of a nano label would be in the marketplace. In other words, future research should focus on the question of how well these findings can be generalized to other situations.
