Perceived Toxicology and the Right to Know: Trust, Labeling, and Governance of Food Nanotechnology in Costa Rica

This exploratory study examines how scientifically literate stakeholders in Costa Rica evaluate food-related nanotechnology under conditions of technical uncertainty and uneven regulatory visibility. The term food-related nanotechnology is used here as a domain-level category that includes nano-enabled food-contact and smart packaging, nanostructured delivery or encapsulation systems, nanoemulsions, antimicrobial nanomaterials, nanosensors, and nanoscale fractions in additives; the survey was not designed to compare specific materials or products. Using an online survey, we collected responses from 129 stakeholders from academia, civil society, government, and industry. Respondents reported substantial awareness of nanomaterials in food (59.7% yes; 26.4% had heard of them but were unsure), and 67.4% considered that nanomaterials could improve food quality or safety. However, willingness to consume such foods was far more conditional: 4.7% reported unconditional willingness, 60.5% would do so depending on available information, and 34.9% would not under the current framing. Reported concerns clustered around long-term health effects, perceived regulatory gaps, environmental impacts, and insufficient information. Institutional trust was limited: only 12% expressed confidence in regulatory authorities, while 48% were unsure and 40% did not trust them. Support for mandatory labeling was strong (82.2%), indicating that transparency and informed choice are central to perceived legitimacy. We therefore interpret the findings as exploratory evidence from a technically informed stakeholder sample, not as representative consumer data. The results suggest that acceptance of food nanotechnology in Costa Rica may depend less on generic optimism about innovation than on credible oversight, traceability, application-specific communication, and visible mechanisms for public accountability. Accordingly, all inferential statements are framed as exploratory associations within this stakeholder group rather than as evidence of population-level preferences or causal mechanisms.