False Nano Names Backfire As People Mistakenly Worry About Health Risks
from the branding-fun dept
A few years ago, we talked about how the prefix "nano" was becoming the equivalent of ".com" a few years earlier. Basically, the buzz was that nanotechnology was hot, so plenty of companies wanted to have their brands swept up in the excitement -- even if they had nothing to do with actual nanotechnology. It looks like some companies are now experiencing the downside to such brand maneuvering. Wired reports on the case of a company who had to recall their "Magic Nano" products over consumer fear about health risks associated with similar nanotech products. The problem was that Magic Nano doesn't actually involve any nanotech.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ah....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fusn zcqtkud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yeah, right...
Um. No.
An average consumer that cannot differentiate marketing from product will indeed be positively influenced by product names that seek to use popular terminology in them, JUST as that same consumer will be negatively influenced when that same term just happens to reach a negative in popularity.
The marketing-savvy can usually differentiate if a products name has anything at all to do with the actual product and can usually disreagard it when it is determined to be irrevelant. However, that same group will usually determine a product inferior, and even the company that made it inferior when the conclusion is reached that its marketing is deceptive. THAT is what most likely destroyed Magic Nano...
I can easily tell by my iPod that the term "nano" used in its name is to distinguish that the device is small, and NOT that it is made of or by a bunch of nanopods or nanobots, or any other nanotechnology. Therefore the moniker holds as valid, and the device is "trusted". Or really, the device does not recieve a negative marketing impact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
right, indeed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nanotechnology
Germany's food safety risk assessment agency has commissioned a study on the potential health effects of nanotechnologies used in products.
The German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment (BfR) has commissioned the University of Stuttgart to conduct the survey on the risks of nanotechnological applications in food, cosmetics and other everyday items, according to a report by the Nanoforum.
So far nanotechnology has made minor inroads in the food and drink industry, mainly due to consumers' fears about the unknown risks the technology poses to their health. However food companies see great opportunity in the technology as a means of introducing innovative products to the market. Surveys like the one in Germany may either heighten consumer fears about the technology or serve to lessen them, depending on the findings.
The outcome could also be new regulations for the food sector relating to the use of nanotechnology.
The survey will be performed by ZIRN (Centre of Interdisciplinary Risk-science and Sustainable Development of Technology) which will involve about 100 experts from science, industry, public authorities and non-governmental organisations.
A questionnaire will focus on questions relating to current and future applications and potential risks. This information will be debated further in two workshops before being consolidated into a "risk-barometer" to be used to better inform public authorities.
BfR is responsible for identifying and assessing potential risks to consumers from foods, feedstuffs, chemicals and consumer products. It is also responsible for proposing risk reduction measures to political circles and informing the general public about them.
Emerging nanotechnology was incorporated into $32 billion in manufactured goods in 2005 – more than double the previous year, Lux Research found. Global research and development spending on the field reached $9.6bn, up 10 per cent from 2004 the company stated in the fourth edition of its Nanotech Report.
For the food and drink industry anything “nano” that involves food contact, to say nothing of actual ingestion, will be subject to a lot of scrutiny for at least the next three years, as regulatory bodies like the Food and Drug Administration get preliminary studies done and rules written.
Nanotechnology is the term used to describe matter with lengths of between 1 and 100 nanometres. One nano-metre is equal to one billionth of a metre, and is about the size of a small molecule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mjuz hwvgdlsf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]