Labelling

1st March 2020 by foodfraudadvisors

Oregano Fraud; six things every food professional needs to know

1. What happened?

Testing was conducted by the Australian consumer group Choice, mirroring tests conducted in the UK and published by the UK Consumer Group Which? in 2015. A selection of packs of dried oregano were purchased from supermarkets (grocery stores), delis (specialty food stores) and grocers (produce stores) in three cities in Australia and a single sample of each was tested. Seven of the twelve samples, over fifty percent, were found to be inauthentic, with the inauthentic samples containing between 10% and 90% of ingredients other than oregano, including olive leaves and sumac leaves.

2. Why test oregano?

Herbs and spices are one of the rock-stars of food fraud; their complex cross-border supply chains, high price per kilogram and the fact that they are often sold in powder or particulate forms make them prime targets for adulteration, dilution and substitution with cheaper materials.

oregano adulteration — Source: Elliott, C. (2016) Addressing complex and critical food integrity issues using the latest analytical technologies

Why oregano in particular? Professor Elliott, Director of the Institute for Global Food Security, and an international authority on food fraud conducted testing on oregano in the UK in 2015, the results of which were published by the UK Consumer group Which?. It is possible that Prof Elliott used rapid evaporative ionization mass spectrometry (REIMS), a test method recently made available by Waters Corporation, although Which did not disclose the test method. REIMS makes use of a rapid sampling method that produces vapour which is analysed using time of flight mass spectrometry. Sophisticated software compares molecular markers in the resulting spectrum with those in known materials in a database, allowing a sample to be quickly identified as belonging to a particular product type or not. The method has huge potential for testing food authenticity, with one of the advantages being that unlike other tests for adulteration there is no need to specify which adulterants to seek. A downside is that many hundreds or thousands of tests must be performed and compared to traditional analytical methods to create a database before the method can be used with confidence to determine the authenticity of any given material.

Professor Elliott recently revealed that Waters Corporation and Queens University, Belfast worked together to build a database of oregano samples (Elliott, C. (2016) Addressing complex and critical food integrity issues using the latest analytical technologies). This means that oregano is one of the few materials that can currently benefit from accurate authenticity testing using the REIMS method.

3. Are the results unexpected?

Global food fraud commentators attribute the presence of significant concentrations of adulterants or diluents in dried herbs to economically motivated food fraud in most cases, as opposed to seafood mislabelling which sometimes occurs due to unintentional errors in species identification. Food fraud is estimated to cost the United Kingdom one billion pounds each year. It is thought to be very common among some food types, including herbs and spices.

4. Who is responsible?

It is highly unlikely that any of the brand owners named in the Choice report were aware that they were selling adulterated herbs. Most if not all of the brands included the Australian testing would have been sourced and packed under well-controlled systems that include vendor approval processes, formal specifications for incoming materials (such as bulk herbs) as well as certificates of analysis and declarations of conformity to specification. The fraudulent tampering probably occurred further up the supply chain during drying, bulk packing, shipping or storage. Interestingly, all seven adulterated samples contained olive leaves and two contained sumac leaves. It is possible that tampering occurred in two different points within the supply chain for some products; perhaps one fraudster added olive leaves to bulk lots of the herb at a location close to the oregano growing area and sumac leaves were added by someone else at a later date.

5. What are the legal and financial ramifications?

The sale of misrepresented products is a breach of Australian consumer law and ignorance cannot be used as a defense. The incidences were investigated by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), an independent authority of the Australian government. One company was fined a substantial sum for selling product that contained only 50% oregano leaves. It is likely that other businesses that had been supplied with inauthentic herbs sought financial redress from their suppliers, either through purchasing contract penalties or through private legal action.

When a food business chooses to voluntarily recall or withdraw their products from the marketplace they may try to claim the costs against their business insurance. Insurance companies will seek to recover their costs from further up the food supply chain and this may have an impact on premiums in coming years.

6. What should food businesses do?

No food business is immune from economically motivated food fraud and preventing food fraud from affecting a business is a multi-functional task that should involve personnel from purchasing, finance and legal departments as well as food safety and quality personnel. In the short term however, there are some things that can be done by food safety and quality personnel to help prevent, deter and detect food fraud without a lot of investment from other parts of a food business:

Update your purchasing specifications to include authenticity requirements.
Review your vendor approvals systems and revise questionnaires and requirements if required. Consider implementing more stringent requirements for those suppliers that provide vulnerable materials.
Request certificates of analysis (CofA) from suppliers of vulnerable materials
Begin a testing regime for vulnerable materials
Investigate the costs and benefits of supply chain audits, including whether ad-hoc, one-off visits to certain suppliers might be worthwhile
Request tamper-evident packaging and bulk container tamper seals for vulnerable raw materials
Ask suppliers of vulnerable materials to undertake a mass balance exercise at their facility or further upstream in the supply chain.
Make a business case for switching suppliers of materials that prove to be consistently problematic and present it to your purchasing department.

Want to learn more about food fraud mitigation in the spice industry? This article in Food Safety Magazine provides an excellent insight.

29th June 2016 by foodfraudadvisors

Wine and cheese, a tale of authenticity

During my travels through the beautiful, giant world of the interverse this week, I came across two stories about ‘replica’ products. Because I live and breathe food authenticity I follow stories like these with great interest. My mission as an authenticity expert is to help people to make sense of the huge amounts of information, media-spin and noise around the integrity and authenticity of food, beverages and supplements.

As I read these two stories of ‘replica’ foods, I was struck by how utterly different they are from each other. The first story is a tale of ‘replica’ cheese, which sounds like some kind of fake non-dairy product, perhaps masquerading as the real thing. The question of whether a non-dairy product should be called ‘cheese’ hit the headlines in Europe earlier this year when a German court ruled that products made without animal milk cannot be called ‘cheese’, leaving vegan ‘cheese’ suppliers wondering what to call their products. But this latest story had nothing to do with that; although the labelling of vegan cheese substitutes clearly has regulatory implications, I don’t consider this particular issue to be an authenticity problem as such; purchasers of vegan ‘cheese’ are most certainly aware that the product has been produced without animal milk.

The ‘replica’ cheese in this week’s story was parmesan, and no, not the kind containing unauthorised wood pulp by-products, which has also been in the news recently. This time, it seems that cheese makers from the Italian provinces of Parma, Reggio Emilia, Modena, Bologna and Mantua, who collectively identify their region as Parmigiano-Reggiano, have decided to pursue those from outside the area who use the product names Parmesan, Parmigiano and Reggiano for trademark breaches. So the ‘replica’ cheese is in this story is cheese made in the style of Parmigiano and Reggiano, but not actually originating from that region.

Is this an authenticity issue? Perhaps. In Europe, the cheeses in question are subject to rules of Protected Designation of Origin (PDO). Under these rules it is illegal to call a cheese Parmesan if it did not originate in Parmigiano-Reggiano and meet the strict manufacturing criteria of the Parmigiano-Reggiano Consorzio, an Italian consortium created by government decree. In fact, US food giant Kraft had to rename its grated cheese ‘Pamesello’ in Europe to comply with these requirements. In other parts of the world, the terms have come to be used as a generic name for the hard Italian cheese for which the region is known. The Parmigiano-Reggiano Consorzio have decided to pursue sellers of cheese all over the world for claimed breaches of trademark.

Are the Italian-style cheeses in the news this week ‘replica’ cheeses? No; they are real cheeses, made with animal milk and conforming to a certain regional style. Would I call them inauthentic? Perhaps. Authentic food is food that is what it claims to be. If a cheese is marketed with clear information about its place of origin, wherever that may be, then it is reasonable for a consumer to understand that it has been made in the style of Parma, rather than being made in Parma itself. So according to my definition, that makes it authentic, at least when sold outside of Europe. However, if the origin of the cheese is misrepresented by the seller, or on the label, then that makes the product inauthentic. And, in most jurisdictions, illegal as well.

Replica wines

From ‘replica’ cheeses that are not exactly fake, my next stop on the web provided a fascinating insight into the emerging niche market of ‘replica’ wine. Two companies are reinventing wine production and it is now possible to purchase a wine-like alcoholic beverage made without using grapes or fermentation processes. In this case, I would say the use of the term ‘replica’ is perfect. Ava Winery claims to have modelled its flavour profile on Dom Perignon’s Champagne, using a proprietary method that combines amino acids, sugars and ethanol in precise quantities. Another company, Replica, offers a range of ‘masterful recreations’ of award-winning wines created by scientists using laboratory analyses of key flavour characteristics.

While traditionalists may throw up their hands in horror at the thought of making that most noble of fermented drinks in a laboratory, there is nothing inauthentic about the beverages made by these two companies. Both websites have very clear messages around the authenticity of their products. Ava Winery states that their company is “in no way affiliated [with] Dom Pérignon® or Moët Hennessy USA, Inc. which does not endorse our products.” Replica says that “Originality is overrated, especially when it’s overpriced.” Both are unapologetic about their mission to recreate fabulous flavours using science. Replica’s range even includes a gorgeously packaged beverage called ‘Knockoff’ that is said to mimic a California Chardonnay.

Authentic, science-loving and beautiful-looking, what’s not to love? I can’t wait to try some.

Credit: Replicawine.com — Replicawine.com

25th February 2016 by foodfraudadvisors

Fish mislabelling; malicious fraud or sloppy supply chains?

Nice one, Food Standards Scotland.

What looked at first to be a number of cases of deliberate fraud was given some sensible attention and analysis by Food Standards Scotland (FSS), with unexpected results. The organisation surveyed fish products supplied to their public sector food outlets, including hospitals and schools, to get a snapshot of the degree of species mislabelling. Of the 264 samples tested, around 6% of those (15) were mislabelled.

Any mislabelling is a breach of trust and a breach of food laws, but a result of 6% is relatively low and not likely to have a large economic impact. Nevertheless, FSS investigated each of the incidences, retested products and spoke to the suppliers directly.

Product labelled as haddock was the type most often found have been mislabelled during the survey, with ‘haddock’ found to be another fish species in 8 of 50 samples (16%). As you would expect when considering fish species fraud, the most common substitute for haddock was a cheaper fish, whiting, the two types of fillets having similar appearance, flavour and texture. Interestingly, however, almost half of all the ‘fraudulent’ samples were in fact an expensive fish (haddock) mislabelled as a cheaper species (whiting or coley). Those results are obviously not ones you would expect to find when investigating fish fraud, and they are unlikely to be the result of any deliberate attempt to gain an economic advantage.

To the credit of the FSS they uncovered the cause of the mislabelling for most of the incidences; suppliers of the mislabelled fish admitted that they sometimes had trouble identifying incoming block fillets. Some also admitted that they were not adequately separating or labelling different fish species during processing, handling and packing operations. The suppliers in question have implemented improvements and have requested better labelling of their suppliers to prevent future occurrences; good news for the Scottish seafood industry.

More information and a copy of the report can be found here

17th February 2016 by Karen Constable

When organic foods are not what they seem

This piece started life as a good news story; results released by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) in January show that more than 99% of tested foods contained either no detectable pesticide residues or residues below the allowable limits. The USDA has been quick to share these results and assure consumers of the safety of the American food supply. But there are some disturbing results within the raw data, results that are not mentioned in the official report. In fact, for one industry sector, the results are very bad news indeed.

The tests were conducted by the USDA as part of its pesticide data program (PDP) during the calendar year of 2014 and the results were published in January 2016. During 2014, testing was conducted on 10,619 samples of food (mainly fresh produce), and each sample was tested for about 200 pesticides. That’s a lot of data, over two million test results in total, and the USDA does not include all of the results in their public reports, although they do share their raw data with anyone who wants to download it. One aspect of the testing that is not discussed in the official report is that each of the ten thousand samples was categorized according to its marketing claim. While the overwhelming majority of samples were categorized as ‘no claim’, there were 416 samples of products claiming to be either pesticide free or organic.

A closer inspection of the raw data shows that of those 416 samples, 22% of them returned a positive result for at least one pesticide, often more than one. That is, almost one quarter of all ‘organic or ‘pesticide free’ products contained pesticide residues. And 10 of the 416 samples actually contained pesticide/s at levels denoted by the USDA as a violation or presumptive violation of allowed limits. Approximately 2% of products that claimed to be ‘organic’ or ‘pesticide free’ in fact contained unsafe levels of pesticides.

The worst offenders were ‘organic’ frozen cherries. Every sample of organic frozen cherries contained residues of at least one pesticide. The results were similar for conventional frozen cherries. Within both types, there were also a number of samples with violations or presumptive violations (unsafe levels) of pesticide. Disturbingly, the organic frozen cherries had a much higher proportion of samples with unsafe levels of pesticide than the conventional frozen cherries.

Tomatoes also gave disturbing results; 75% of ‘organic’ and ‘pesticide free’ tomatoes contained at least one pesticide and 25% of them had unsafe levels of carbendazim (MBC) pesticide. By comparison, only 18% of the tomatoes marketed without claims were found to be in violation of the pesticide limits.

Grape juice was another commodity that fared poorly for organic claims; of the 531 conventional and organic samples that were tested, there was only one that had pesticide levels deemed to be unsafe… it was labelled ‘organic’ and made in the USA.

What does this mean for organic foods?

Are organic foods free from pesticide residues? In a word: no. A significant proportion of organic foods contain pesticide residues and some contain pesticides at levels that have been deemed unsafe. The pesticides detected on organic foods in the PDP study were almost entirely synthetic chemical pesticides that are not approved for use on organic crops. The study did not include testing for commonly used organic-approved pesticides.

Do organic foods contain less pesticide and are they safer than conventionally grown foods? Yes and no… the PDP data presents a complicated picture, with huge differences between commodity types, but on the whole, there were less detections of pesticide residues within the organic and pesticide free samples than the conventional samples. However, the proportion of samples that were in violation of pesticide limits was comparable. That is, if you live in the USA, the chance of consuming a product with levels of pesticide deemed unsafe by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is similar, whether you purchase organic food or not.

Are some foods better than others?

The 2014 PDP testing regime included 26 food types. Most were fresh or processed (canned or frozen) fruit and vegetables but testing was also performed on oats, rice, infant formula and salmon. Carrots and nectarines were two foods for which the organic samples had better results than their conventional counterparts. Both of these foods types had many samples that contained residues; for example, almost 100% of conventional nectarines and 96% of conventional carrots contained at least one pesticide. There were samples with violations or presumptive violations (unsafe levels) of pesticides for both conventional and organic carrots and nectarines, however the organic produce had lower proportions of samples with detectable levels of residues and lower numbers of samples with unsafe levels.

Organic summer squashes also fared well compared to their conventional counterparts, with less samples containing residue at any level and also less samples with unsafe levels. Other organic foods, including blueberries, celery, canned green beans and fresh peaches, had lower proportions of samples with detected residues, but unfortunately, for those foods the proportion of samples with unsafe levels was similar for both conventional and organic types.

Both organic and conventional samples had excellent results for dairy-based infant formula and salmon. Neither of those foods contained residue of any kind in any sample of either conventional or organic types. Salmon samples included fresh, frozen, wild-caught and farmed salmon of different varieties from ten countries.

Where can I get more information?

The USDA has published a fact sheet and a document entitled “What consumers should know” in the Agricultural Marketing Service section of the USDA website.

Download a copy of the official report from the USDA website by clicking here

The raw data is available to download here

Sensible information and discussion of organic and conventional farming methods from Scientific American.

If you know someone who would be interested in this information, please share it by clicking one of the buttons below.

12th January 2016 by foodfraudadvisors

Preventing food fraud: what not to do

It’s been happening for millennia; the sale of food that is not quite what it should be. We call it food fraud, and it’s a serious problem. Although it has been a well-known problem for many years, it wasn’t until the large-scale and well-publicised ‘horsemeat scandal’ of 2013, in which beef products were found to be adulterated with horsemeat, that the international food industry started to act in a collaborative way to tackle the issue. Since then, the food industry has discussed and implemented a range of measures designed to minimise the occurrence of food fraud. These measures include new regulatory requirements for food fraud prevention in the USA and changes to food safety standards in other parts of the world.

One of the industry’s tools for preventing food fraud is a special type of risk assessment, known as a vulnerability assessment, which is going to become part of all major food safety standards in the next few years. To learn more about vulnerability assessments, click here. The risk assessment process usually includes a consideration of whether or not a food is in the form of whole pieces that are easily recognisable. Whole foods are generally considered to be less of a risk for fraud than powders or liquids. For example, a whole banana in its skin is relatively harder to fraudulently adulterate than banana powder or natural banana extract. Unsurprisingly, this component of a risk assessment is based on the assumption that a food business would recognise if the whole food does not look right.

What not to do

Beta Wholesale of Queensland, Australia managed to sell containers of whole pine nuts that were found to be peanuts. Clear containers. According to a local newspaper, a recall was initiated after a consumer noticed that the ‘pine nuts’ smelt like peanuts. That’s a fail, Beta Wholesale and Country Fresh Food Products. Step one in food fraud prevention is to pay attention to the food you are purchasing.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: