Social Implications and Best Practices for Responsible Innovation of Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES FOR RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION OF NANOTECHNOLOGY IN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

Sponsoring Institution

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Project Status

COMPLETE

Funding Source

AFRI COMPETITIVE GRANT

Reporting Frequency

Annual

Accession No.

1019704

Grant No.

2019-67023-29855

Cumulative Award Amt.

$499,857.00

Proposal No.

2018-08966

Multistate No.

(N/A)

Project Start Date

Jul 15, 2019

Project End Date

Jan 14, 2022

Grant Year

2019

Program Code

[A1642]- AFRI Foundational - Social Implications of Emerging Technologies

Project Director
Grieger, K. D.

Recipient Organization
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV
(N/A)
RALEIGH,NC 27695

Performing Department
GES

Non Technical Summary
This project will evaluate the social implications of and identify best practices for the responsible innovation (RI) of nanomaterials used in food and agricultural sectors. The proposed work advances the "Social Implications of Food and Agricultural Technologies Program Area" Program Area.The project will achieve four objectives: (1) identify, describe, and compare exemplary cases of RI for nanomaterials used in food and agriculture (nano-agrifoods); (2) elucidate incentives and barriers for RI of nano-agrifoods; (3) capture key stakeholder pereptions and concerns regarding nano-agrifoods across the farm-to-fork spectrum and identify approaches to address concerns through practices of RI; and (4) identify lessons learned from, best practices for, and policy implications of RI relevant for other emerging food and agriculture technologies.Key project outcomes include critical information on (1) practices of RI that can help ensure sustainability of nano-agrifoods and build trust, (2) stakeholder concerns of nano-agrifoods and approaches to address them, and (3) key lessons learned from nano-agrifoods that help ensure sustainability of other novel agrifood technologies. Project outcomes will be disseminated through peer-reviewed manuscripts, a policy brief, conference presentations, and social media platforms. Overall, project findings will help product developers, policy-makers, and other stakeholders ensure RI occurs for nano-agrifood sectors with relevancy for the sustainability of other emerging food and agriculture technologies.

Animal Health Component

35%

Research Effort Categories

Basic

30%

Applied

35%

Developmental

35%

Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)	Subject of Investigation (SOI)	Field of Science (FOS)	Percent
803	7410	3030	80%
803	6220	3030	20%

Knowledge Area
803 - Sociological and Technological Change Affecting Individuals, Families, and Communities;

Subject Of Investigation
7410 - General technology; 6220 - Marketing, processing, and supply firms other than cooperatives;

Field Of Science
3030 - Information and communication;

Keywords

agriculture

food

nanotechnology

responsible innovation

social impact

stakeholder perceptions

Goals / Objectives
While the use of nanotechnology and nanomaterials in food and agriculture (hereafter termed nano-agrifoods) may provide a number of benefits to society and contribute to sustainable food and agricultural practices (e.g., efficient delivery of agrochemicals, enhanced nutrition and improved food properties), there have been significant concerns given their potential environmental, health, and safety impacts along with social, ethical, and legal implications (Friends of the Earth, 2008; Grieger et al., 2016a; Grieger et al., 2016b; Iavicoli et al., 2017; Steenis & Fischer, 2016). Some of the main concerns raised include the significant uncertainties and data gaps regarding potential health and environmental impacts of nanomaterials in food and agricultural applications (Friends of the Earth, 2008; Grieger et al., 2016b), the lack of information and lack of transparency on their use (Friends of the Earth, 2014; Grieger et al., 2016a), as well as issues of trust and inequalities (International Risk Governance Council, 2008). Although there has also been a considerable amount of research dedicated to better understanding consumer and public attitudes, perceptions, and preferences of nano-agrifoods (Brown et al., 2015; Brown & Kuzma, 2013; Siegrist & Keller, 2011; Yue et al., 2015a; Yue et al., 2015b), it is currently unclear if and how innovations in nano-agrifood sectors have incorporated these research findings into product design and development. A better comprehension and capturing of information on how responsible innovation has occurred for nano-agrifoods is critical not only to help ensure the sustainability of these products and applications, but also to reflect on best practices relevant for other emerging food and agricultural technologies.The proposed project responds to this need by identifying responsible innovation programs and practices that product developers and other stakeholders in nano-agrifood innovation systems could support, identifying barriers to the implementation of responsible innovation in these systems, and elucidating key incentives for facilitating responsible innovation. Outcomes of this work will include key lessons learned and best practices that will help policy-makers and other stakeholders ensure responsible innovation occurs for nano-agrifood sectors with relevancy for the sustainability of other emerging food and agriculture technologies.In addition, the proposed project will develop a multistakeholder engagement and discussion platform that allows for an open, effective means for deliberation, given the importance of inclusion and responsiveness in responsible innovation processes (Stilgoe et al., 2013). In fact, the inclusion of stakeholder perspectives in product design and development may be one of the most robust approaches to ensuring responsible innovation and sustainable food and agricultural practices. Moreover, several studies have suggested that social acceptance and public perceptions of nano-agrifoods may be the key to their success, noting that public attitudes about nano-agrifoods are still forming (Parisi et al., 2015; Steenis & Fischer, 2016) and clear communication efforts regarding the benefits of nano-agrifoods may help alleviate stakeholder concerns (Chang et al., 2017; Steenis & Fischer, 2016). Therefore, the proposed project will develop a stakeholder engagement and discussion platform to assess stakeholder viewpoints on what may constitute responsible innovation and capture key stakeholder perceptions and concerns regarding nano-agrifoods across the farm-to-fork continuum. Among other key findings, outcomes from this work will include approaches and best practices that may help address stakeholders' concerns, with the goal of ultimately including these viewpoints in the consideration of responsible innovation for nano-agrifoods.Overall, this proposal puts forth a multistage research project to evaluate the social implications and identify best practices for responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods. There are four project objectives:Objective 1. Identify, describe, and compare exemplary cases of responsible innovation for nanomaterials used in food and agriculture.Objective 2. Elucidate incentives and barriers for responsible innovation of nanomaterials in food and agriculture.Objective 3. Capture key stakeholder perceptions and concerns regarding nano-agrifoods across the farm-to-fork spectrum and identify approaches to address concerns through practices of responsible innovation.Objective 4. Identify lessons learned, best practices, and policy implications of responsible innovation relevant for other emerging food and agriculture technologies.Key project outcomes will help policy-makers and other decision-makers i) enable the implementation of responsible innovation practices that are widely accepted so that nano-agrifoods may be developed sustainably, safely, and ethically and ii) identify and better understand best practices for nano-agrifoods, including approaches to address stakeholder concerns, with relevancy for other emerging food technologies.

Project Methods
The proposed work will accomplish its objectives through five project steps. The rationale and significance of performing each step are described as follows.To identify, describe, and compare exemplary cases of responsible innovation (RI) for nanomaterials used in food and agriculture (Objective 1) and elucidate incentives and barriers for RI (Objective 2), in Step 1, we will conduct a series of in-depth, confidential interviews with representatives from food and agriculture companies that are expected to use nanotechnology or engineered nanomaterials in products and applications. These interviews will provide critical and directly elicited information and access to RI practices and programs in agrifood industries. Interviews with company representatives will provide a cornerstone to capture what RI means to agrifood companies, identify exemplary cases of RI for nano-agrifoods, and elucidate the incentives and barriers to RI in agrifood sectors.To engage diverse stakeholder groups, capture their key perceptions and concerns regarding nano-agrifoods and RI, and identify approaches to address concerns (Objective 3), we will develop and use an interactive online stakeholder platform in Step 2. The online platform will allow for stakeholder participants to engage in a cost-effective, flexible, and convenient manner that will also allow for direct data capture and analysis--an approach taken in other published work (Epstein & Leshed, 2016; Friess & Eilders, 2015). We propose to use the CMNTY platform (https://www.cmnty.com/), which has been previously implemented by our research team and has proven to be a successful stakeholder engagement and discussion tool. The CMNTY platform is equipped with a rewards system to incentivize participation through point and financial rewards (i.e., honorariums in the form of gift cards). Similar to Step 1, we will focus the analysis of stakeholder perceptions and concerns across nano-agrifood applications that span the farm-to-fork spectrum, because perceptions and attitudes have been shown to differ across various nano-agrifood applications (Steenis & Fischer, 2016).To gauge the reactions of the company representatives after learning of the key results from the stakeholder platform, we will conduct follow-up interviews with agrifood company representatives in Step 3. Conducting the follow-up interviews is important because recent studies have reported that a lack of knowledge by company representatives on potential impacts of nanotechnology or nanomaterials, as well as the lack of communication between actors in the innovation process, may be key barriers to RI of nanotechnology sectors (Micheletti et al., 2017). In addition, we will share with the company representatives the various approaches to address stakeholder concerns and ask whether these approaches may be attractive or feasible to implement in the companies' practices and procedures associated with innovation of new products or ingredients. We have chosen this strategy to allow the agrifood companies to have more direct feedback from stakeholder groups regarding their concerns and suggested approaches to address them.To provide a targeted research effort that synthesizes the results from the previous steps, Step 4 aims to identify key lessons learned from the pursuit of RI of nanotechnology in food and agricultural sectors and formulates a list of best practices and policy implications with relevancy for other emerging agrifood technologies (Objective 4). The inclusion of this step is important to clearly and succinctly identify best practices for pursuing RI in food and agricultural sectors--a timely endeavor given the increased interest in relying on new technologies and scientific discoveries in food and agricultural domains to sustainably meet growing food demands (Knorr et al., 2011; Rodrigues et al., 2017; Slikker et al., 2018).Finally in Step 5. Project Dissemination and Outreach Activities, we will disseminate the main outcomes and activities through various platforms including peer-reviewed manuscripts, a policy brief, scientific presentations, and social media platforms. Project dissemination and outreach will not only provide a specific, targeted approach to disseminate the project findings in a way that reaches a wide range of stakeholders, but it will also help ensure that the project outcomes, including the identification of best practices relevant for RI in agrifood sectors, are communicated in strategic dissemination activities.

Progress 07/15/19 to 01/14/22

Outputs
Target Audience:The target audiences that have been served by this projectinclude a range of stakeholders involved in responsible innovation within food and agricultural sectors. These stakeholders includeactors along the value chains related to nano-agrifoodssuch as: scientists and researchers (e.g., food scientists, social scientists, bioethicists), public advocacy or consumer advocacy groups, environmental groups, legal scholars specializing in agrifood technologies, food and agriculture industries (including various agrifood companies that are expected to manufacture, produce, use, or handle nanomaterials in their products), as well as those involved in the oversight of nano-agrifoods (e.g., regulators, policy-makers, and othe decision-makers). More specifically, the results from Step 1 and 3 interviews with nano-agrifood researchers and innovationsare relevant for those conducting research and innovation in nanotechnology fields are they relate to food and agriculture, as well as those interested in oversight of nano-agrifoods. Results from the interviews revealed some of the perspectives of what it means to responsibly innovate, what practices this entails, what are the key challenges, barriers, and driving forces to pursuing responsible innovation in nano-agrifood sectors. These results are now published in 1)Kokotovich, A., Kuzma, J., Cummings, C., Grieger, K. 2021. Responsible innovation definitions, practices, and motivations from nanotechnology researchers in food and agriculture. NanoEthics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00404-9; and 2)Cummings, C.L., Kuzma, J., Kokotovich, A., Glas, D., Grieger, K. 2021. Barriers to responsible innovation of nanotechnology applications in food and agriculture: A study of US experts and developers. NanoImpact, 23: 100326. Results have been presented at numerous conferences that attract a range of stakeholders across academia, industry, government, and NGO sectorsthroughout the project period. In addition, the work and results from Step 2's stakeholder engagement platform are relevant for researchers, innovators, as well as decision-makers in a range of sectors, such as academic, research institutions, industry, advocacy groups, and government agencies. More specifically, after engaging a range of stakeholder participants using an online engagement platform, we were able to understand their views of what it means to responsibly innovate, their views of how well nano-agrifoods have been responsibly innovated, potential concerns they may have with regard to nano-agrifoods, and suggestions they have to ensuring responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods. These results are published in 3)Grieger, K., Merck, A., Cuchiara, M., Binder, A., Kokotovich, A., Cummings, C.,Kuzma, J. Responsible Innovation of Nano-Agrifoods: Insights and Views from U.S. Stakeholders. NanoImpact, 24 (October 2021), 100365: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2021.100365;4)Ruzante, J. M., Shumaker, E. T., Holt, S., Mayer, S., Kokotovich, A., Cuchiara, M., Binder, A. R., Kuzma, J., and Grieger, K. 2022. Eliciting Stakeholder Perceptions Using a Novel Online Engagement Platform: A Case Study on Nano-Agrifoods. RTI Press. RTI Press Occasional Paper No. OP-0071-2201, https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2022.op.0071.2201; and in revisionin 5)Grieger, K., Merck, A., Kuzma, K. 2022. Formulating best practices for responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods through stakeholder insights and reflection. Journal of Responsible Technology - Accepted, In revision. Step 4's identified best practices related to responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods (and outlined in Grieger et al., 2022-Accepted, In Revision) will be presented at the upcoming Gordon Conference focused on nanotechnology in food and agriculture, held in June 2022. The results from this work will also be relevant for diverse actors who are interested and involved in ensuring responsible and sustainable innovation of nanotechnology in food and agriculture sectors, including those in academia, industry, advocy groups, and government agencies. Changes/Problems:As reported in the last progress report, we obtained a 6 month no-cost extension to extend the grant period to January 14, 2022 from July 14, 2021. This additional 6 month no-cost extension was used to complete the writing up of results and disseminating results through manuscripts and a policy brief. Therefore, the FTEs reflected in this last project period (between the end of FY21 (10/1/21)and end of the grant period (1/14/22)) reflectthe no-cost extension in the grant period. The FTEs that supported staff on the project in FY21 are shown in the financial report submitted to NIFA for FY21. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The project has provided training and professional development for faculty, staff, and students during the project duration. For example, two postdocs have worked on the grant, where they were able to strengthen their professional development in areas of conducting interviews, developing surveys for stakeholder participants, analyzing interview and questionnaire responses, as well as strenghtening their skills for manuscript development as well as conference presentation skills.In addition, the project Director, Dr. Grieger completed a half-day (online) mentor training course in December 2020, hosted by the Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research (CIMER). The mentor training course was beneficial for mentoring postdocs, and other personnel, who worked on the grant. Dr. Grieger also completed an online community engagement course in August 2020 that was hosted by the Campus Compact program. The course was beneficial in terms of strategies and approaches to reach out to diverse stakeholders and build trust among study leaders and study participants. PI Grieger, Co-PIKuzma and project assistant Stauffer completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training in mid to-late 2020 through NC State University's online DEI module. Grieger and Kuzma required all team members on the grant to complete DEI training to improve our DEI awareness and inclusivity practices as they relate to the project, including our outreach and inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the project. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results from this work have been disseminated through publication of peer-reviewed journal articles, conference presentations, a policy brief, as well as disseminated on social media and through our proefessional networks. Details are below. Journal articles Cummings, C.L., Kuzma, J., Kokotovich, A., Glas, D., Grieger, K. 2021. Barriers to responsible innovation of nanotechnology applications in food and agriculture: A study of US experts and developers. NanoImpact, 23: 100326. Kokotovich, A., Kuzma, J., Cummings, C., Grieger, K. 2021. Responsible innovation definitions, practices, and motivations from nanotechnology researchers in food and agriculture. NanoEthics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00404-9. Grieger, K., Merck, A., Cuchiara, M., Binder, A., Kokotovich, A., Cummings, C., Kuzma, J. Responsible Innovation of Nano-Agrifoods: Insights and Views from U.S. Stakeholders. NanoImpact, 24 (October 2021), 100365: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2021.100365. Ruzante, J. M., Shumaker, E. T., Holt, S., Mayer, S., Kokotovich, A., Cuchiara, M., Binder, A. R., Kuzma, J., and Grieger, K. 2022. Eliciting Stakeholder Perceptions Using a Novel Online Engagement Platform: A Case Study on Nano-Agrifoods. RTI Press. RTI Press Occasional Paper No. OP-0071-2201, https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2022.op.0071.2201 Grieger, K., Merck, A., Kuzma, K. 2022. Formulating best practices for responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods through stakeholder insights and reflection. Journal of Responsible Technology - Accepted, In review Merck, A., Grieger, K., Cuchiara, M. Kuzma, K. 2022. What role does regulation play in responsible innovation of nanotechnology in food and agriculture? Insights and framings from U.S. stakeholders. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society - Submitted Policy brief Merck, A., Grieger, K., Kuzma, K. 2022. How can we promote responsible innovation in U.S. nano-agrifood research? NanoImpact - submitted to special issue onNano-enabled approaches for sustainable development of food and agricultural system Conference presentations Grieger, K. Cummings, C., Merck, A., Kuzma, J. 2021. Stakeholder Perceptions of Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture and Adherence to Responsible Innovation. Society for Risk Analysis (virtual meeting). Merck, A., Grieger, K., Cuchiara, M., Kuzma, K. 2021. What Role for Regulation in Responsible Innovation of Nano-Agrifoods? Views from U.S. Stakeholders. Society for Risk Analysis (virtual meeting) Grieger, K. 2021. Responsible Innovation of Nanotech in Food and Ag Sectors: Perspectives from Researchers and Stakeholders. 10th Sustainable Nanotechnology Organization (SNO) conference (virtual meeting). Grieger, K. 2021.Outcomes of USDA/NIFA Grant: Responsible Innovation and Stakeholder Perceptions of Nanotech in Food/Ag Sectors. Gordon Research Conference (GRC) Connects: Nanoscale Science and Engineering for Agriculture and Food Systems. Keynote Speaker (virtual meeting). Grieger, K. 2020. Updating Best Practices for Responsible Innovation of Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture. Society for Risk Analysis (virtual meeting). Kokotovich, A. 2020. Unpacking environmental and human health safety: Insights from interviews with nanotechnology researchers on resonsible innovation. Society for Risk Analysis (virtual meeting). Grieger, K. 2020.Responsible Innovation of Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture Sectors. Presentation for US FDA, Office of Food Additive Safety (OFAS) Seminar Series (virutal seminar). Grieger, K., Kuzma, J. 2019. Responsible Innovation of Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture Sectors. Society for Risk Analysis, Arlington, VA. Research results disseminated through social media and professional networks: Social media: Twitter, LinkedIn Professional networks: Genetic Engineering and Society Center, NC State University; Research Triangle Nanotechnology Network (RTNN); RTI International What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We plan to complete the following after this Final Project report: Receive reviewer and editor comments to our revised manuscript, Grieger et al. (2022)- Journal of Responsible Technology, that outlines best practices for responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods. Revise as needed for the journal. Receive reviewer and editor comments to our manuscript, Merck et al. (2022)-Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, that outlines the role of regulation in reponsible innovation of nano-agrifoods. Revise as needed for the journal. Receive reviewer and editor comments to our policy brief, Merck et al. (2022)-NanoImpact, that focuses on the institutionalization of responsible innovation for nano-agrifood sectors. Revise as needed for the journal.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? This projects has been successful in accomplishing its objectives and goals.To accomplish objectives1 and 2,we assessed attitudes from nanotech researchers and innovators who were working in food and agriculture sectors, through the use of individual interviews. We also compared their attitudes against the scholarly literature, and identified incentives and barriers to conducting responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods. In this process, we identified interview candidates from industry and academic institutions in the US, developed interview guides, contacted the interview candidates, conducted interviews (N=20, via zoom), and analyzed the interviews using transcripts and qualitative coding software. Results revealed how nano-agrifood researchers and innovators viewed practices and theory of responsible innovation,and illuminated the incentives and barriers to conducting responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods. Results are published in 1)Kokotovich, A., Kuzma, J., Cummings, C., Grieger, K. 2021. Responsible innovation definitions, practices, and motivations from nanotechnology researchers in food and agriculture. NanoEthics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00404-9, and 2)Cummings, C.L., Kuzma, J., Kokotovich, A., Glas, D., Grieger, K. 2021. Barriers to responsible innovation of nanotechnology applications in food and agriculture: A study of US experts and developers. NanoImpact, 23: 100326. Key results include i) researchers andinnovators largely viewed responsible innovation within the construct of safety, efficacy, and efficiency, which relates most to the responsible innovation pillar of 'anticipation.' Interviewees also highlighted views and practices of responsible innovation that related to other pillars, including 'inclusion,' 'reflexivity,' and 'responsiveness,' albeit these were much less pronounced and had underlying tensions. We also developed the first typology of barriers to conducting responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods, which includled i) the lack of data; ii) need for ensuring marketability and use; iii) lack of product oversight; iv) need for increased collaborations; and v) lack of adequate training. Based on these interviews, future research could focus on strengthening the practices of responsible innovation among nano-agrifood researchers and innovators that go beyond the primary construct of safety, and also focus on engaging stakeholders, collaborating interdisciplinarily, and considering the purpose of their nano-agrifood product more widely. To accomplish objectives 2 and 3, we engaged diverse stakeholders using an online engagement platform, to capture their key perceptions and concerns regarding a range of nano-agrifoods and responsible innovation, and identified approaches to address their concerns. In this process, we selected an online platform, identified stakeholder participants, developed the platform content, conducted the engagement platform study (n=55 stakeholder participants who completed the entire study), and compiled and analyzed the results. Results from the platform are published in 4) Grieger, K., Merck, A., Cuchiara, M., Binder, A., Kokotovich, A., Cummings, C., Kuzma, J. Responsible Innovation of Nano-Agrifoods: Insights and Views from U.S. Stakeholders. NanoImpact, 24 (October 2021), 100365: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2021.100365, 5)Ruzante, J. M., Shumaker, E. T., Holt, S., Mayer, S., Kokotovich, A., Cuchiara, M., Binder, A. R., Kuzma, J., and Grieger, K. 2022. Eliciting Stakeholder Perceptions Using a Novel Online Engagement Platform: A Case Study on Nano-Agrifoods. RTI Press. RTI Press Occasional Paper No. OP-0071-2201, https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2022.op.0071.2201, with additional results Accepted and in revisions in 6)Grieger, K., Merck, A., Kuzma, K. 2022. Formulating best practices for responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods through stakeholder insights and reflection. Journal of Responsible Technology - Accepted, In review, and submitted 7)Merck, A., Grieger, K., Cuchiara, M. Kuzma, K. 2022. What role does regulation play in responsible innovation of nanotechnology in food and agriculture? Insights and framings from U.S. stakeholders. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society - Submitted. Among other findings, stakeholder views of responsible innovation, views of nano-agrifoods, andchallenges for nano-agrifoods responsible innovationwere identified andpublished (Grieger et al. 2021). We found that stakeholders associated responsible innovation with environmental, health, and safety risks, followed by addressing societal impacts, engaging stakeholders, and responding to societal needs. Key challenges for responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods were identified as uncertainty in risk and safety studies, public understanding and acceptance of nano-agrifoods, and lack of adequate regulation. Stakeholders largely viewed agricultural applications of nanotechnology as "more responsible" than food applications. Further, less than 30% of stakeholders thought that nano-agrifoods were being developed responsibly. We also foundthat stakeholders identified a range of actions that academics, regulators, and/or industry could take to address their concerns, which were predominantly related to actions to address risk and safety, followed by governance actions to improve nano-agrifood oversight, examine whether nano-agrifoods were really 'needed' or whether non-nano alternatives could meet these needs, and be clearer on the potential benefits. We also developed an analysis that specifically focused on the role of regulation in ensuring responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods, based on insights from stakeholder participants. In this work, we found that participant attitudes spanned a range of views, ranging from 'regulation as a barrier' to 'regulation as a driver' of innovation.These results are in Merck et al. (2022) - submitted to Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. To accomplish objective 4, we compiled and synthesized results across the project as well as drew from the larger literature on responsible innovation. We identified 4 main best practices to ensure responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods.These include: i) develop and embed mechanisms to institutionalize RI principles, practices, and oversight; ii) develop education and training on RI, building "bottom up" next generation researchers and innovators; iii) develop a tiered approach to implement RI principles and practices at different levels and degrees; and iv) incorporate systems for monitoring and learning in institutions to improve RI practices. Results are in Grieger et al. (2022)-Accepted, in revision, in the Journal of Responsible Technology.

Publications

Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Ruzante, J. M., Shumaker, E. T., Holt, S., Mayer, S., Kokotovich, A., Cuchiara, M., Binder, A. R., Kuzma, J., and Grieger, K. 2022. Eliciting Stakeholder Perceptions Using a Novel Online Engagement Platform: A Case Study on Nano-Agrifoods. RTI Press. RTI Press Occasional Paper No. OP-0071-2201, https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2022.op.0071.2201
Type: Journal Articles Status: Accepted Year Published: 2022 Citation: Grieger, K., Merck, A., Kuzma, K. 2022. Formulating best practices for responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods through stakeholder insights and reflection. Journal of Responsible Technology Accepted, In revision.
Type: Journal Articles Status: Submitted Year Published: 2022 Citation: Merck, A., Grieger, K., Cuchiara, M. Kuzma, K. 2022. What role does regulation play in responsible innovation of nanotechnology in food and agriculture? Insights and framings from U.S. stakeholders. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society Submitted
Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Merck, A., Grieger, K., Cuchiara, M., Kuzma, K. 2021. What Role for Regulation in Responsible Innovation of Nano-Agrifoods? Views from U.S. Stakeholders. Society for Risk Analysis (virtual meeting).
Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Grieger, K., Kuzma, J. Responsible Innovation of Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture Sectors [abstract]. IN: Proceedings of the Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting; 8-12 December 2019. Washington DC, Presented 10 December 2019.
Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Cummings, C.L., Kuzma, J., Kokotovich, A., Glas, D., Grieger, K. 2021. Barriers to responsible innovation of nanotechnology applications in food and agriculture: A study of US experts and developers. NanoImpact, 23: 100326
Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Kokotovich, A., Kuzma, J., Cummings, C., Grieger, K. 2021. Responsible innovation definitions, practices, and motivations from nanotechnology researchers in food and agriculture. NanoEthics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00404-9.
Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Grieger, K., Merck, A., Cuchiara, M., Binder, A., Kokotovich, A., Cummings, C., Kuzma, J. Responsible Innovation of Nano-Agrifoods: Insights and Views from U.S. Stakeholders. NanoImpact, 24 (October 2021), 100365: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2021.100365.
Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Kokotovich, A., Cuchiara, M., Binder, A., Kuzma, J., Grieger, K. 2020. Unpacking environmental and human health safety: Insights from interviews with nanotechnology researchers on responsible innovation [abstract]. IN: Proceedings of the Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting; 14-17 December 2020. Virtual. Presented 15 December 2020
Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Grieger, K. 2020. Responsible Innovation of Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture Sectors [abstract]. Oral Presentation at USDAs Office of Food Additive Safety (OFAS), 12 November 2020.
Type: Journal Articles Status: Submitted Year Published: 2022 Citation: Merck, A., Grieger, K., Kuzma, K. 2022. How can we promote responsible innovation in U.S. nano-agrifood research? NanoImpact - submitted to special issue on Nano-enabled approaches for sustainable development of food and agricultural system
Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Grieger, K. 2021. Outcomes of USDA/NIFA Grant: Responsible Innovation and Stakeholder Perceptions of Nanotech in Food/Ag Sectors. Gordon Research Conference (GRC) Connects: Nanoscale Science and Engineering for Agriculture and Food Systems. Keynote Speaker (virtual meeting).
Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Grieger, K. Cummings, C., Merck, A., Kuzma, J. 2021. Stakeholder Perceptions of Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture and Adherence to Responsible Innovation. Society for Risk Analysis (virtual meeting).

Progress 07/15/20 to 07/14/21

Outputs
Target Audience:The target audiences that have been served by this project thus far include stakeholders within food and agriculture research, innovation, product development, and oversight sectors that have been involved in or interested in nanotechnology used in food/ag. Related to Steps 1 and 3, we conducted interviews with nano-agrifood researchers and innovators, and throughout the interview processes it became clear that many of the interviewees found value in reflecting upon their own nano-agrifood research and/or innovation processes and practices. Similarly, the stakeholders involved in Step 2's online platform also reported very positive feedback in our exit survey upon completing all activities in the study. In fact, as we report in Ruzante et al. (In review), 80% (n=44 of 55) participants indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that the online platform worked well for the study. One participant noted "The [discussion] forum was very interesting, and it was very helpful to read and evaluate the cases individually and then engage in the discussion. It was a good exercise to make me think about RI and also learn from others" and another participant indicated "it was eye-opening to see so many different points of view." Therefore, while our project aimed to investigate views from researchers, innovators and stakeholders regarding responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods, we also consider our project to have had a beneficial impact on study participants as it fostered productive discussions on the topic of how best to ensure responsible innovation within food and agriculture sectors more generally. In addition, and as described in other sections of the Progress Report, we disseminated our project's outcomes through five presentations held within the last reporting period. These presentations were given at events that attracted both academic as well as non-academic audiences. For example, the annual meetings for the Society for Risk Analysis frequently attract diverse audiences, such as those from government, regulatory agencies, industry, consulting firms, NGOs, as well as academic institutions that are housed both in the US as well as within international contexts. The presentation given at the online Gordon Research Conference in June 2021 also attracted a number of graduate students, in addition to individuals from government, regulatory agencies, industry, and academia Changes/Problems:We requested and successfully obtained a 6-month, no-cost-extension to the grant period. This was requested due to impacts from COVID-19. The rationale was that while we have been successful in completing the research activities on time, we requested an additional six months to the grant period to finish writing up the results and disseminating through manuscripts. The project period therefore is now ending January 13, 2022 instead of July 13, 2021. Due to this 6 month no-cost extension, the postdoc that was working on the project (Dr. Adam Kokotovich) transitioned to a new position outside of NC State and was replaced by a new postdoc, Dr. Ashton Merck. She is primarily responsible for helping with the development of manuscripts as a part of Step 5 dissemination activities. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The project Director, Dr. Grieger completed a half-day (online) mentor training course in December 2020, hosted by the Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research (CIMER). The mentor training course was beneficial for mentoring postdocs, and other personnel, who work on the grant. Dr. Grieger also completed an online community engagement course in late August 2020 that was hosted by the Campus Compact program. The course was beneficial in terms of strategies and approaches to reach out to diverse stakeholders and build trust among study leaders and study participants. Co-PI, Dr. Kuzma and project assistant Sharon Stauffer both completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training in mid-to-late 2020 through NC State University's online DEI module. Grieger and Kuzma recommended and encouraged all team members on the grant to complete DEI training to improve our DEI awareness and inclusivity practices as they relate to the project, including our outreach and inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the project. A new postdoc that joined our team in May 2021, Dr. Ashton Merck, successfully completed the CITI Responsible Conduct of Research course through NC State University in June 2021, which was a requirement to work on our USDA/NIFA-funded grant How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We have published one article on the findings from Step 1, which we also announced on social media (LinkedIn, Twitter) as well as through our research consortia (Research Triangle Nanotechnology Network (RTNN), Genetic Engineering and Society (GES) Center, Dept. of Applied Ecology at NC State University), full citation: Cummings, C.L., Kuzma, J., Kokotovich, A., Glas, D., Grieger, K. 2021. Barriers to responsible innovation of nanotechnology applications in food and agriculture: A study of US experts and developers. NanoImpact: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2021.100326. We also submitted one paper based on Step 1 interviews, full citation: Kokotovich, A., Kuzma, J., Cummings, C., Grieger, K. Responsible innovation definitions, practices, and motivations from nanotechnology researchers in food and agriculture. NanoEthics - In review. Submitted March 2021. Related to outcomes from Step 2, we have submitted two papers based on the generated outcomes as well as the process used to develop and conduct the online stakeholder engagement study. These include: Grieger, K., Merck, A., Cuchiara, M., Binder, A., Kokotovich, A., Cummings, C., Kuzma, J. Responsible Innovation of Nano-Agrifoods: Insights and Views from U.S. Stakeholders. NanoImpact - In review. Submitted August 2021 Ruzante JM, Shumaker E, Holt S, Mayer S, Kokotovich A, Cuchiara M, Binder A, Kuzma J, Grieger K. Eliciting Stakeholder Perceptions using a Novel Online Engagement and Elicitation Platform: A case study on Nano-Agrifoods. RTI Press - In review. Submitted June 2021. We are in the process of developing papers related to the outcomes from Steps 3 and 4. Papers in development include: Grieger, K., Merck, A., Kuzma, J. Responsible Innovation of Nano-Agrifoods: Lessons Learned, Best Practices, and Policy Implications relevant for Nano-Agrifoods and other Emerging Agrifood Technologies. Issues in Science and Technology - In preparation. Merck, A., Grieger, K., Kuzma, J. What Role for Regulation in Responsible Innovation of Nano-Agrifoods? Views from Stakeholders. Journal of Nanoparticle Research - In preparation. In addition, we have given five conference presentations in the last reporting period (since July 2020), all of which acknowledged funding from USDA/NIFA under this grant: Grieger, K. 2021. Gordon Research Conference Connects: Nanoscale Science and Engineering for Agriculture and Food Systems. Keynote Speaker, Oral Presentation, June 2021. Link here: https://www.grc.org/grc-connects-nanoscale-science-and-engineering-for-agriculture-and-food-systems/ Grieger, K. 2021. NC State University, Center for Human Health and Environment. Seminar Series. Oral Presentation, January 2021. Grieger, K. 2020. Updating Best Practices for Responsible Innovation of Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture. Society for Risk Analysis (virtual meeting), Oral Presentation, December 2020. Kokotovich, A. 2020. Unpacking environmental and human health safety: Insights from interviews with nanotechnology researchers on responsible innovation. Society for Risk Analysis (virtual meeting), Oral Presentation, December 2020. Grieger, K. 2020. US FDA, Office of Food Additive Safety (OFAS) Seminar Series. Oral Presentation, November 2020. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?In the final months of the grant period, we will analyze the stakeholder forum questions as well as synthesize the materials and information from Steps 1-3 to formulate best practices, lessons learned, and policy implications relevant for nano-agrifoods as well as other emerging food/ag technologies for Step 4. In particular, we will continue to analyze stakeholder forum questions that investigated views of actions that agrifood companies and regulatory agencies could take to ensure responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods. For example, preliminary results have shown that stakeholders had diverging views of the role of regulation in ensuring responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods, whereby some viewed regulation as a way to help ensure responsible innovation through product oversight while others viewed regulation as a potential obstacle or barrier to ensuring sustainable nano-agrifood products get to market quickly. In addition, we also found that stakeholders had diverging views of how best to disclose information on nanotechnologies or nanomaterials in food/ag products, although most stakeholders agreed that they supported information disclosure overall. Therefore, we will continue to analyze these findings and identify best practices, lessons learned, and policy implications that will be reported in future manuscripts/policy briefs. To disseminate key outcomes from these steps (Step 5), we are preparing at least two more manuscripts that will synthesize the results from Steps 1-3 and plan for these to be submitted to journals by the end of the grant period or shortly after in early 2022 (see Grieger et al., and Merck et al., - In preparation above). In addition, PI Grieger and Postdoc Merck will present research at the upcoming annual meeting for the Society for Risk Analysis in December 2021, reporting on key results from the stakeholder platform in terms of stakeholder perceptions of nano-agrifoods, responsible innovation, and the role of regulation. PI Grieger is also planning on presenting results from this grant at the upcoming Gordon Research Conference in June 2022, that focuses on the topic of Nanoscale Science and Engineering for Agriculture and Food Systems (https://www.grc.org/nanoscale-science-and-engineering-for-agriculture-and-food-systems-conference/2022/).

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? In the second year of the grant, we successfully completed research and analysis related to Objective 1, Objective 2, and Objective 3. In addition, we are in the process of developing the conclusions related to Objective 4. Details of how our project accomplished each objective are as follows, framed within project Steps. Step 1 Interviews with Nano-Agrifood Researchers and Innovators. We completed our work in Step 1 (Interviews with Agrifood Companies and Innovators) to assess attitudes and views of responsible innovation, compare these attitudes to the scholarly literature, and to identify incentives and barriers to conducting responsible innovation in nano-agrifood sectors. While all interviews were completed as of June 2020 (in the last reporting period), we finished up the analysis of the results of the interviews in this reporting period and submitted two journal articles based on the outcomes (one of which is published now).These findings are reported in Kokotovich et al., which has been submitted to NanoEthics (in March 2021) and currently under review. In addition to these findings, we developed a first typology of barriers to responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods. In this work, we found that the main barriers to responsible nano-agrifood innovation were: 1) Lack of data, 2) Need for ensuring marketability and use, 3) Lack of product oversight, 4) Need for increased collaboration, and 5) Lack of adequate training. These findings are published in Cummings et al. NanoImpact, 2021. Step 2 Stakeholder Engagement using Online Platform. We developed and conducted an online stakeholder engagement platform in mid and late 2020. The goals of the stakeholder platform were to engage diverse stakeholders (e.g. academics, industry, NGOs, consumer advocacy groups, government agencies) within the context of responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods, capture their perceptions and potential concerns regarding nano-agrifoods, and identify approaches that may address their concerns. To conduct our study, we developed an online platform using CMNTY, which is an online community engagement platform site that can be tailored for individual research studies. We developed the platform content to include: 1) a home landing page, 2) online participant consent form, 3) series of individual questionnaires to understand stakeholder views of responsible innovation and nano-agrifoods using five case studies, 4) group forum where they responded to five open-ended questions and were able to comment on other participant responses, and 5) final questionnaire to elicit concluding insights and reflections of the study. The five nano-agrifood case studies included in the platform spanned sectors in food, agriculture, and veterinary medicine: i) lemongrass nano-emulsions to prevent browning of fresh cut fruit, ii) nano-chitosan particles to deliver Salmonella vaccines to laying hens, iii) nano-copper dietary supplement, iv) nano-zinc oxide particles to combat citrus greening disease, and v) nano-titanium dioxide particles used in infant formula to improve aesthetic appearance. After developing and testing the content of the platform, the stakeholder engagement study was launched over a period of 3 weeks in late October to early November 2020. After the stakeholder engagement study was conducted, we analyzed the results of the questionnaires and open-forum questions using descriptive statistics (for quantitative questions) and qualitative coding software for responses to qualitative, open-ended questions. Our findings are reported in Grieger et al., which has been submitted to NanoImpact (in August 2021) and currently under review. The approach of developing and conducting the online stakeholder platform is reported in Ruzante et al., which has been submitted to RTI Press (in July 2021) and currently under review. In addition, we are in the process of investigating stakeholder views of actions by nano-agrifood companies and regulatory agencies that oversee nano-agrifoods to ensure responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods, and will be included in Step 4 outcomes. Key findings from the Step 2 stakeholder engagement platform were also synthesized and used in Step 3 interviews with nano-agrifood researchers and innovators. Step 3 Follow-up Interviews with Nano-Agrifood Researchers and Innovators. We conducted follow-up interviews with the nano-agrifood researchers and innovators from Step 1 in early 2021. The goal of Step 3 was to share the results of stakeholder views of nano-agrifoods and responsible innovation with the Step 1 interviewees to determine if results would change their views and/or practices as they relate to nano-agrifoods. To conduct Step 3 follow-up interviews, we contacted the Step 1 interview participants (n=20), prepared summary materials from Step 2 stakeholder engagement platform, and developed interview guides which included a summary of stakeholder perceptions of responsible innovation, perceptions of nano-agrifoods, challenges to ensuring responsible innovation, and suggestions for overcoming challenges. The interviews were then conducted via zoom in the spring of 2021. Eighteen of the original 20 Step 1 participants were able to take part in the follow-up round of interviews (i.e. 2 from industry were not able to participate). The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed using coding and sub-coding (with Dedoose software) to identify themes. We plan to use these results in Step 4 analyses to identify best practices, lessons learned, and policy implications as they relate to responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods with implications for other emerging technologies in food/agriculture sectors. These results will be combined with Step 4 results and developed into a commentary or policy article for a high impact journal like Nature Nanotechnology or Issues in Science and Technology. Step 4. Lessons Learned, Best Practices, and Policy Implications. This step synthesizes the findings from Steps 1-3 to identify lessons learned, best practices, and policy implications for nano-agrifoods that are also relevant for other emerging technologies in food and agriculture sectors. More specifically, we have synthesized key outcomes from Step 1 and 3 interviews with nano-agrifood researchers and innovators in terms of how they view responsible innovation (with some key results published in Cummings et al. 2021, and Kokotovich et al. that is under review). We also identified key points from the stakeholder engagement platform in Step 2 (with key results in Grieger et al. that is under review). Our project team is currently analyzing stakeholder-identified examples of responsible and irresponsible innovation, which will be incorporated into Step 4 analyses as possible paths forward for further investigation. We plan to summarize these findings and lessons in a publication in a high impact journal like Nature Nanotechnology or Issues in Science and Technology. Step 5. Project Dissemination and Outreach. In order to ensure that the outcomes of our research are disseminated to a range of audiences, Step 5 aimed to disseminate outcomes from the grant through peer-reviewed materials, conference presentations, and through social media and research consortia. These dissemination and outreach efforts are described in the section below under "How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?"

Publications

Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Cummings, C.L., Kuzma, J., Kokotovich, A., Glas, D., Grieger, K. 2021. Barriers to responsible innovation of nanotechnology applications in food and agriculture: A study of US experts and developers. NanoImpact, 100326; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2021.100326
Type: Journal Articles Status: Under Review Year Published: 2021 Citation: Kokotovich, A., Kuzma, J., Cummings, C., Grieger, K. Responsible innovation definitions, practices, and motivations from nanotechnology researchers in food and agriculture. NanoEthics In review. Submitted March 2021
Type: Journal Articles Status: Under Review Year Published: 2021 Citation: Grieger, K., Merck, A., Cuchiara, M., Binder, A., Kokotovich, A., Cummings, C., Kuzma, J. Responsible Innovation of Nano-Agrifoods: Insights and Views from U.S. Stakeholders. NanoImpact In review. Submitted August 2021
Type: Journal Articles Status: Under Review Year Published: 2021 Citation: Ruzante JM, Shumaker E, Holt S, Mayer S, Kokotovich A, Cuchiara M, Binder A, Kuzma J, Grieger K. Eliciting Stakeholder Perceptions using a Novel Online Engagement and Elicitation Platform: A case study on Nano-Agrifoods. RTI Press In review. Submitted June 2021.
Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Kokotovich, A., Cuchiara, M., Binder, A., Kuzma, J., Grieger, K. 2020. Unpacking environmental and human health safety: Insights from interviews with nanotechnology researchers on responsible innovation [abstract]. IN: Proceedings of the Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting; 14-17 December 2020. Virtual. Presented 15 December 2020.
Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Grieger, K. 2020. Responsible Innovation of Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture Sectors [abstract]. Oral Presentation at USDAs Office of Food Additive Safety (OFAS), 12 November 2020.

Progress 07/15/19 to 07/14/20

Outputs
Target Audience:Target audiences: Throughout the first year of the project's conduction, the target audiences that have been served by the project include key stakeholders within food and agriculture industries as well as researchers in academia and non-profit research institutions, involved or interested in nanotechnology used in food and agriculture sectors. In addition, we have disseminated information from the project at 1 conference (Society for Risk Analysis, Annual Meeting, Dec. 2019) that waswell-attended by individuals from across government agencies, industry, academia, and other stakeholder groups (such as consumer and environmental organizations) involved or interested in responsible innovation of new technologies used in food and agriculture. We also disseminated information about the project through an onlinewebinar held in March 2020, throughJoint School of Nanoscience and Nanoengineering - an academic collaboration between North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (NC A&T), which is a Historically-Black University (HBU)and The University of North Carolina Greensboro (UNC Greensboro). The target audience in the online webinar was therefore academic researchers with diverse backgrounds who are working in the field of nanotechnology and developing/innovating engineered nanomaterials. Changes/Problems:There have been2 relatively minor changes to the project to report. We realize that this section is primarily reserved for major problems, but we would like to include these minor changes here to ensure clear transparency in our reporting process. The first is that due to a small number of representatives (i.e., 9) who responded positively to participate in our interviews associated with Step 1 of the project, we expanded our interview protocol to include researchers in academia and research institutions who are conducting research and innovation of nanomaterials or nanotechnology used in food and agriculture. After making this change, we were able to successfully conduct 12 interviews with academic and/or institute researchers working with nano-agrifoods, and therefore feel that it was beneficial to the project to expand the potential interview list to include academic researchers beyond only industry researchers. The other notable change to the project is that the external consultant originally included in the project, Dr. Christine Hendren, took a new position at Appalachian State University in the spring 2020 and therefore was unable to fulfill her role as an external consultant on the projectbeyond spring 2020 due to her position change. For this reason, she was replaced by the external consultant Dr. Chris Cummings, who was able to replace Dr. Hendren in terms of technical expertise. Dr. Chris Cummings is a Senior Research Scholar in the Genetic Engineering and Society program at North Carolina State University, the director of Decision Analytica LLC, and also aSenior Research Associate at Iowa State University. He is well-known and well-published in the field of risk governance of emerging (nano)technologies. In addition, and as mentioned, the project Director, Dr. Grieger, was invited to give an oral presentation at the Gordon Conference's Nanoscale Science and Engineering for Agriculture and Food Systems conference in June 2020. However, due to COVID restrictions, the conference was postponed to a later date (likely 2022). This is unfortunate, since this would have been a great conference to present the grant and the results obtained, although it is understandable that this was moved to a later time due to COVID-related travel restrictions. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?For training and professional development, there have been 3 main sets of trainings that the project team participated in related to this grant: 1) training on using qualitative coding software for coding the interviews (related to objectives 1-2), 2) diversity, equity, and inclusivity (DEI) training, and 3) community engagement. More specifically, the project Director, Dr. Khara Grieger, and the postdoctoral student, Dr. Adam Kokotovich, both took a course held at NC State University on using qualitative coding software including an overview of NVivo and Dedoose programs. This course was conducted in October 2019. In addition, the project Director, Dr. Grieger, and co-PI Dr. Jennifer Kuzma, recommended that all team members on the grant complete DEI training in order to improve our DEI awareness and inclusivity practices as they relate to the project, including ouroutreach and inclusion ofdiverse stakeholders in the project (related to all objectives of the grant). DEI trainings were conducted on-line through NC State University an NC State team members have completed the training at the end of Year 1 of the grant. Finally, the project Director, Dr. Grieger, participated in an online community engagement course through the Campus Compact program. The course started in June 2020 and lasted through August 2020. This course was beneficial in terms of strategies and approaches to reach out to diverse stakeholders and build trust among study leaders and study participants. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Although most of the key results related to the project will occur in Year 2 of the grant- as Year 1 focused on developing the methodologies, protocols, stakeholder outreach, first round of interviews, and stakeholder platform set-up - we were able to disseminate the overview and preliminary results from the grant through two main events in Year 1. This includes an oral presentation given at the Society for Risk Analysis's Annual Meeting (held Dec. 8-12, 2019 in Washington DC), in which Dr. Grieger gave a presentation on the project and preliminary outcomes. Diverse stakeholders were present at the conference and during the presentation, including representatives from government and regulatory agencies involved in nanomaterial oversight, independent consultants, and academic researchers and scientists. In addition, Dr. Grieger gave an online webinar in March 2020 on "Ensuring Responsible Innovation of Engineered Nanomaterials" for the Joint School of Nanoscience and Nanoengineering, associated with North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University), a Historically Black University (HBU) in North Carolina. The webinar was given online due to travel restrictions during spring 2020 due to COVID. In addition, Dr. Grieger was invited to speak at the Gordon Conference's "Nanoscale Science and Engineering for Agriculture and Food Systems", to be held in June 2020. However, due to COVID, the conference has now been moved to another time (estimated 2022). This event would have attracted diverse stakeholders interested and/or involved in nano-agrifood applications and sectors, including those from government agencies such as USDA/NIFA, industry members, and many other researchers in the field. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?During the next reporting period (Year 2) of the grant, we will conduct the online stakeholder platform related to meeting objective 3 (capture key stakeholder perceptions and concerns regarding nano-agrifoods and identify approaches to address concerns through practices of responsible innovation). Results from conducting the online stakeholder platform will also help achieve the other objectives as well, including objective 2 (elucidate incentives and barriers for responsible innovation of nanomaterials in food/agriculture)and objective 4 (identify lessons learned, best practice, and policy implications of responsible innovation relevant for other emerging food and agriculture technologies). In particular, the next steps of our project's conduction include finalizing the testing of the online platform, including all the functionalities operate and function as expected, reaching out to individual stakeholders for their participation on the platform, conducting the platform, and obtaining results. After the online stakeholder platform is conducted, we will compile and consolidate the key findings in terms of how diverse stakeholder perceive nano-agrifoods, what concerns (if any) they may have, and how best to address these concerns, all relevant for Step 2. The compiled findings will then be used to conduct follow-up interviews (Step 3) with the same individuals from Step 1 interviews (representatives from food/ag industries as well as researchers from academic and research institutes involved in developing and innovating nanotechnology applications). In this step, we will share with them the results from the stakeholder platform and then ask the interview participants on if and how these findings on stakeholder perceptions would change how they conduct responsible research and innovation of nano-agrifoods in practice. After the follow-up interviews are conducted in Step 3, we will then compile and synthesize the key findings from the previous steps to identify the lessons learned, best practices, and policy implications of responsible innovation not only relevant for nanotechnology/nanomaterials in food and agriculture, but also relevant to other emerging food/ag technologies as well (Step 4). To disseminate the key outcomes from these steps (Step 5), we are preparing 2 manuscripts related to Step 1 interviews related to practices of responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods by companies and researchers, as well as some challenges related to innovating responsibly in nano-food/ag sectors. In addition, we will prepare a policy-brief that compiles the main findings from these manuscripts and develops key policy recommendations relevant for organizations involved in the oversight of nanomaterials used in food and agriculture sectors. We will also develop at least one manuscript on stakeholder perceptions, concerns, and approaches to address concerns related to Step 2 online platform work, as well as a manuscript or policy brief on the key lessons learned, best practices for, and policy implications of responsible innovation related to emerging food and agriculture technologies. We also are planning on disseminating the research findings from this grant in the upcoming Annual Meeting for the Society for Risk Analysis (Dec. 2020), in which we have 2 abstracts that are accepted for oral presentations related to generated outcomes from this grant. Additional conference presentations are also expected in 2021, although these have not been solidified due to COVID-related travel restrictions.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? We have made a lot of progress towards accomplishing all of the project's goals and objectives during the first year of the grant. In particular, to accomplish objectives 1 and 2 that identify, describe, and compare cases of responsible innovation for nanomaterials in food and agriculture as well as elucidate incentives and barriers in these processes, we have i) identified approximately 45 individuals from food and ag industries and 70 individuals from academic institutions and universities in the US who are working on and developing nano-agrifood products and innovations, ii) developed interview protocols, interview questions, post-interview survey, and obtained IRB approval to conduct web-based interviews, iii) contacted potential interview candidates for participation in our study, iv) successfully completed interviews with 9 individuals from small, medium, and large food and ag industries, and 12 from academic institutions and universities who are all working with and developing nano-agrifoods and related innovations; v) distributed post-interview surveys to interview participants; vi) analyzed the interviews by transcribing them and using qualitative coding software (Dedoose)to identify key themes that have emerged on practices of responsible innovation of nanotechnology in food and agriculture sectors and barriers/incentives to responsibly innovate, and vii) developed initial results from the interviews and surveys. This work all is a part of meeting objectives 1 and 2 in particular, but will also be used to identify key lessons learned, best practices, and policy implications of responsible innovation relevant for other emerging food and agriculture technologies relevant for objective 4. To meet objective 3, we have i) identified a suitable online platform for stakeholder engagment (CMNTY platform);ii) purchased a subscription to the platform;iii) developed content for our online stakeholder platform, including developing individual questionnaires regarding stakeholder perceptions of responsible innovation, stakeholder views of nanotechnology used in diverse food and agriculture products (i.e, 1 application in agriculture, 1 application in vet medicine, and 3 applications in food), and stakeholder engagement forums in which they will discuss with one another concepts of responsible innovation for nano-agrifoods, potential barriers for responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods, and approaches to overcome barriers; iv) obtained IRB approval for involving stakeholders in the online engagement platform; v) identified approx. 250 individuals from various stakeholder groups including scientists/researchers, industry, consumer or public advocacy groups, environmental groups, regulators and policy-makers, and legal scholars, and vi) started testing the online platform to test its functionalities and that results produced will achieve our expected project goals and objectives. To disseminate findings from this project, an oral presentation was given on the overall scope and objectives of the project during the 2019 Annual Meeting for the Society for Risk Analysis, held Dec. 8-12, 2019 in Washington DC. The Project Director, Dr. Grieger, gave an oral presentation entitled "Responsible Innovation of Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture Sectors" and acknowledged USDA/NIFA's support for the grant. In addition, the project Director Dr. Grieger also acknolwedged the grant and USDA/NIFA's support of the grant during her online webinar (March 2020) for the The Joint School of Nanoscience and Nanoengineering (as a part of North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University), which is a Historically-Black University (HBU) in North Carolina. In this webinar, Dr. Grieger presented on "Ensuring Responsible Innovation of Engineered Nanomaterials" and mentioned the grant and its conduction in the webinar. In addition, Dr. Grieger was invited to present at the Gordon Conference's "Nanoscale Science and Engineering for Agriculture and Food Systems", to be held in June 2020. However, due to COVID, the conference has now been moved to another time (estimated 2022).

Publications

Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Grieger, K., Kuzma, J. Responsible Innovation of Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture Sectors [abstract]. IN: Proceedings of the Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting; 8-12 December 2019. Washington DC, Presented 10 December 2019.