Oops, this page has moved!
Click here for horizon scanning information
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.

There are two general approaches to performing a vulnerability assessment for food fraud.
But first…. for the purposes of this page, a vulnerability assessment is a risk-assessment-style evaluation of a food product or ingredient’s vulnerability to food fraud. For information about food defense vulnerability assessments (intentional adulteration vulnerabilities), click here.
The two approaches are (1) a conventional risk assessment model or (2) based on the recommendations of the British Retail Consortium (BRC) in their guidance document Understanding Vulnerability Assessment (2015)
![]() | ![]() |
The conventional method is a combination of the likelihood of something occurring versus consequences if that thing occurs. This method is recommended for all types of food businesses. It allows businesses to identify their most vulnerable ingredients, products and brands and provides an excellent framework to prioritise mitigation strategies.
The second method is recommended for businesses wishing to meet the requirements of British Retail Consortium (BRC) Food Safety Standard Issue 7 and Issue 8 (clause 5.4.2). The BRC method does not address the risks from all types of food fraud; it only addresses the risk from adulteration and substitution of raw materials and ingredients. Therefore it is not recommended for businesses that need to meet the requirements of other GFSI food safety standards such as FSSC 22000 Version 4 (clause 2.1.4.6) or SQF Edition 8. What are these acronymns?
For more information about how to conduct a vulnerability assessment, take a look at Vulnerability Assessments; What? Why? How?
Have you ever been a victim of food fraud, either as a consumer or while working in the food industry? It’s likely that at some point you have paid too much for a ‘premium’ product that was not exactly what it should have been. Foods such as olive oil, organic products, fish and specialty beef products are commonly misrepresented to purchasers. Take the food fraud survey to find out it you have been affected.
News from Malta today tells the story of a serial food fraudster who has been detained over the export of counterfeit organic grains and oil seeds. Malta Today reports that 350 000 tons of corn, soybeans, wheat, rapeseed (canola) and sunflower seeds worth €126 million and sold as organic over a period of six or more years probably weren’t organic at all. Italian investigators found that the grains were grown in Moldova, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, certified as organic or bio by untrustworthy regulators in those countries and purchased by a Maltese company which then exported them to Italy.
The man behind the Maltese company is awaiting trial. Previously, he has been arrested over a shipment of GMO corn in 2014, implicated in counterfeit organic food scandals in 2011 and was tried for falsification of an invoice in 2010. Could we call him a cereal (serial) offender?
It’s always a joy to stumble across new and silly food facts as I take my daily stroll through the huge inter-web-universe of food industry news. Here are my favourites from the last few weeks:
In Japan you can purchase sake-flavoured KitKats containing 0.8% alcohol. Because sake and milk chocolate have always seemed like a great match…?
Pink peppercorns are the berries of a Peruvian tree and not genetically related to other types of peppercorns, despite the fact that green, white and black pepper all comes from the same flowering vine (Piper nigrum). Green peppercorns are unripe berries, black peppercorns are dried berries and white peppercorns have had their dark outer husks removed prior to drying.
The famous fried chicken chain KFC plans to release flavoured nail polish that you can lick. It has made two flavours available for market testing in Hong Kong and residents of that city can choose which will go into production; Hot & Spicy or Original. This is not a prank; they really have developed chicken flavoured, lickable nail polish. And it comes in two colours.
Watermelons looked really weird in the 17th century. And probably didn’t taste that great. This painting by Giovanni Stanchi from around 1650 is of a watermelon of the day. Who says genetic engineering is a modern-day phenomenon; we have been doing it for centuries.

Animals known as bearcats or binturong in South East Asia have popcorn flavoured urine. Researchers confirmed this by squeezing 33 sedated binturongs, which are about the size of raccoons, to obtain samples for chemical testing. Yes; squeezing. The researchers published a paper in the prestigious journal Science of Nature which prompted one journalist to be tempted by the unfortunate pun ‘passing the popcorn’.
The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has published a report describing the results of a DNA survey on MSC certified fish from 16 countries.
Businesses that handle MSC certified sustainable seafood are required to comply with the MSC Chain of Custody Standard to ensure that they have effective traceability systems in place. This helps to ensure that the consumer receives fish that are from sustainable fisheries, as promised by the MSC sustainable seafood label. MSC conducts a survey every two years to verify the effectiveness of the standard and to ensure that distributors, processors and retailers trading in MSC certified sustainable seafood are complying with the standard.

The results of the latest survey are really positive. The MSC sampled fish and fish products carrying the blue MSC certified label from 16 countries. Of the 256 samples tested, only one of those was identified as being mislabelled. Upon further investigation MSC found that the mislabelled ‘Southern rock sole’ was in fact ‘Northern rock sole’; it was an accidental misidentification of two closely related species, rather than a deliberate fraud. So it seems that the MSC Chain of Custody Standard is working really well across the world.
Interestingly, the final pages of the report include a discussion about how the results compare with similar surveys conducted by other organisations. Those other surveys included species testing of many fish types, within many countries, mostly from retail outlets. The levels of mislabelled fish species were generally low in Europe, with more than 90% being of the samples being accurately labelled. The only countries that had less than 70% accuracy were Belgium, USA, South Africa and Canada. Sadly, the Canadian results were the poorest, with less than 60% of samples in that survey being accurately labelled. The Canadian results were also the oldest, being from 2011, with most of the European results from 2015. Perhaps seafood labelling in Canada has improved in the last five years, just as it has in Europe.