Food Fraud and Food Authenticity News, Advice, Resources

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.

24th January 2016 by Karen Constable

The future is purple; five fun food facts

Purple foods are going to be hot in 2016

Purple is my favourite colour so I was happy to see purple foods feature in food industry news this week. Here is the lowdown on purple foods and four other fun food facts that have caught my eye recently:

Pasta made from crickets has hit the mainstream (or maybe the fringe of the mainstream…) and is available to buy commercially. The pasta is made with farmed crickets that have been roasted, ground and combined with rice and tapioca to make gluten-free pasta. It is reported to have a nutty flavour and be high in protein. Buy your insect pasta here. Or for the scientifically minded, read the European Food Safety Authority’s report on the risk profile of insects as food and feed.
At Stockholm’s Arlanda airport there is a ‘hotel’ for sourdough starters, the fermented mixtures used for making sourdough bread. Sourdough starters contain flour, wild yeasts and bacteria and can be maintained for generations, fermenting away between batches of bread. Individual starters develop their own unique flavours and the older the starter, the tangier the loaf, but a starter needs to be ‘fed’ and watered regularly. At the sourdough hotel you can leave your starter in the care of an expert baker while you travel.
Prison kitchens put aside a portion from each meal they serve and freeze it in case of a food poisoning outbreak. The sample is known as a ‘dead man’s tray’.
The experts in food trend predictions are reporting that purple foods are the next big thing. Purple carrots, berry-based breakfasts, purple yams, purple cauliflower, berry-flavoured dairy products and porridge plus berry drinkable yoghurt are all on the menu for the coming year.
Lobster rolls are also predicted to be huge this year and the good news is you can cook them in your dishwasher while washing your dishes! Shape Magazine thoughtfully shares the recipe: put a halved, deveined, de-shelled lobster tail in a mason jar with a stick of unsalted butter and run it through your wash cycle. Serve in a roll.

20th January 2016 by foodfraudadvisors

Traceability myth #3: Traceability equals authenticity

Traceability in the food supply chain leads to authentic food: it’s a myth. In this third and final look at common misconceptions about traceability, I examine the links between traceability and authenticity of food.

Traceability can be difficult with a complex food, but it’s not impossible. At the simplest level it is about knowing where every ingredient in a food product has come from and being able to identify the ingredients in each batch of your product to their own individual lots. If you are a food business that has managed to achieve a transparent supply chain then in addition to basic traceability you will also know the sources of each of your suppliers and their suppliers, resulting in a ‘trail’ that leads all the way back to the farm or fishing boat.

Knowing where your ingredients have come from and being able to trace them back to your suppliers is a great start when it comes to protecting the authenticity of your finished product. Knowing more about your supplier’s suppliers can also give a food business peace of mind when assessing the risk of receiving fraudulent materials. Unfortunately, though, even within a completely transparent supply chain there can be opportunities for fraudulent adulteration, substitution or misrepresentation of food materials.

Take for example a bottle of virgin olive oil on the shelves of an inner city specialty grocer; the retailer purchases from a wholesaler who has a direct relationship with the olive processor which processes olives for a collective of farmers from a small olive growing region. It’s a short supply chain and very transparent. The retailer knows exactly where the oil comes from. But that does not mean that the retailer knows what was going on at the oil processing facility. Perhaps the most recent local harvest was very poor, perhaps the processor was under financial stresses and was tempted to dilute the pure local oil with cheaper bulk oil from another region or country. Maybe the wholesaler was tempted to switch labels on some of his olive oil ranges to increase his profits… Each of these scenarios result in fraudulently adulterated, diluted or substituted product. If the retailer is selling the oil with regional provenance claims, organic claims or claims about special grades or standards of oil and the oil has been adulterated, diluted or substituted he is then unwittingly committing food fraud himself. It’s an unpleasant scenario, and one that is unfortunately common.

Transparency has many benefits to supply chain management, and can provide some assurances against food fraud but it does not automatically guarantee authentic food ingredients and food products.

Traceability myth#1; consumers want transparency

Traceability myth #2; traceability is expensive

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.

pine nut or peanut food fraud mislabelling — The recalled nuts. Source: QLD Health

11th January 2016 by foodfraudadvisors

Fakes, frauds and fails

A light-hearted look at fake products and brand rip-offs from around the world… Food fraud is a serious problem, but when fraudsters stumble on the English language the results are sometimes pretty funny…

Photo credits: You Tube user dj09C1

At Food Fraud Advisors, authenticity of food, drinks and supplements is our passion and our mission. Here’s why…

4th January 2016 by foodfraudadvisors

Traceability myth #2: Traceability is expensive

My recent article Traceability myth #1 ‘Consumers want transparency’ discussed how consumer attitudes to transparency are positive, but may not have much affect on purchasing decisions.

Traceability myth #2 explores the myth that traceability is expensive for food businesses. This myth is based on the belief that traceability can only be achieved through the use of specialised business software. Let’s explore this myth in more detail.

Specialised business software is expensive but it is not the only way to achieve traceability. Traceability is the ability to access information about all the ingredients of a food product down to the individual batch or lot of the ingredient, to understand the disposition of all the ingredients and intermediate materials within a production process and to know where the food product went after it was manufactured. The information should be accessible to the food business and able to be retrieved within four hours.

Why is traceability important? Safety of consumers is the number one reason for traceability; it allows fast and effective recall of food products that have been affected by unsafe raw materials or improper processing. Every food safety management system standard includes requirements for traceability. Traceability can also be a huge benefit to market access; put simply, if you have robust traceability systems in place, more retail and food service customers are going to be willing to purchase your foods. Thirdly, traceability comes with huge cost savings in the event of a recall or withdrawal situation; a food business that can accurately trace affected product down to individual lots can save huge sums of money by recalling only those lots that are affected. This can also have a positive affect on insurance premiums.

How to implement a traceability system without using expensive software? The most important thing you will need is a traceability ‘champion’ who is dedicated to the task and who has the support of top management. As the system is implemented it is this person who will check that things are working as they should, that information is being recorded and that their colleagues in the business understand the process and the reasoning behind it. A good first step is to start by editing production record worksheets, such as batch sheets and packing sheets and adding spaces to record a number or code that will identify each lot of finished product and intermediate product. This code should ‘follow’ the lot through the production process, any quality checks and all the way to dispatch. It should be able to be linked to the best before or use-by date on every pack; this can be done with a simple batch number book that contains a list of unique numbers and space to add date of manufacture, product and (afterwards) final disposition of the lot next to each number.

Production records will also need to be amended so that batch numbers or other unique identifiers for raw materials can be recorded. Records need to be kept for all ingredients, intermediate foods and primary packaging materials that go into the process. Personnel responsible for ‘batching’ or adding materials to the process will need to be trained and re-trained to remind them to record these numbers religiously; in a paper-based manual system, these operators are the difference between an effective traceability system and one that will be full of holes.

Raw materials and incoming goods systems are the next part of the implementation; if any of your materials are not supplied with a unique identifier or batch code you will need to create your own and attach it to each lot of material as it is received. This same code will need to accompany any portion of the material as it moves around the facility. Work in progress, re-work, faulty product and product that is on hold awaiting quality checks also need to be labelled.

The final piece of the puzzle is with the sales and dispatch operations; your operators will need to keep a record of which batch lots were dispatched to which customer. The result is a batch number book that contains a unique identifier for each lot of product, with the product and final disposition (sold, destroyed, discarded) accompanied by sets of records for incoming goods, production , quality checks, on-hold or destruction records and sales or dispatch records that can all be linked back to the numbers in the batch book.

Paper-based traceability systems can be simple and relatively inexpensive but they need constant vigilance to ensure that every person who is supposed to be recording batch numbers is doing so in a conscientious manner. All records should be cross checked by a supervisor before being filed and a traceability exercise should be conducted on each product line on a regular basis to make sure the system is working properly.

There are many advantages to be gained from an electronic traceability solution, because they typically allow for more efficient ordering and stock management processes, as well as removing much of the ‘fiddly’ and tedious work from the record-keeping processes and improving access to records. If you have a complex business or are working with materials with a short shelf life, business management software can be worth its weight in gold. However, paper-based systems can and do work very well and are perfectly capable of meeting the traceability requirements of the most picky customers and stringent standards. All you need is a champion.

Traceability myth #1; consumers want transparency

Traceability myth #3; traceability equals authenticity

27th December 2015 by foodfraudadvisors

Help with vulnerability assessment tool

Use the information on this page when performing an assessment with Food Fraud Advisors’ Vulnerability Assessment Tools:

Trading properties

Raw materials traded on specific properties are those for which the price paid for this raw material is based upon the content of water, dairy fat, nitrogen (protein), cocoa solids or some other key component. Answer ‘yes’ here if

the price your business pays is dependent on a specific property of this raw material or
if any of your suppliers’ suppliers price this material according to a specific property, even if your business pays a flat rate.

If you are unsure, speak to your purchasing officer.

Geographic origins

Answer ‘yes’ for this question if this raw material or ingredient originates in a country that is politically unstable or very poor. The Global Food Security Index has specific information about food quality and food safety issues in 113 countries, including some of the most vulnerable.

Direct sourcing

Answer ‘yes’ in the Vulnerability Assessment Tool if this raw material or ingredient is purchased by your company directly from the business that manufactures it, grows it or slaughters it. For fish and seafood, answer ‘yes’ if you purchase from the business that is the first on-shore processing facility. Answer ‘no’ if the material is purchased from a distributor or importer, trader, broker, wholesaler or retailer.

Complexity of supply chain

Do you consider the supply chain of this material to be complex and/or long? An example of a short supply chain is wheat flour purchased directly from a flour mill that processes locally grown wheat. A complex supply chain is one that involves many different businesses handling, processing, storing and transporting a product and its component parts. Most imported materials have a long and complex supply chain.

Ease of access to material

Is the supply chain of a type that allows multiple points of entry for fraudulent material? Entry points for fraudulent materials are points in the supply chain at which a motivated person could adulterate or dilute the material or substitute an inauthentic material in its place. These points are most likely to be places where the material is blended, mixed, ground or where it is stored or transported in a manner that would allow a motivated person to easily gain access to the material.

Price

If the purchase price is more than USD20 per kg or USD20,000 per metric tonne or EUR18 per kg or 18,000 per metric tonne answer ‘yes very expensive’

If the purchase price is less than EUR600 or USD650 per metric tonne, answer ‘no’.

Size of market

Does the international market for this material have a large monetary value? Materials that have markets with large monetary values are those that are traded in very large quantities across many countries or materials that are very expensive. Tea, coffee, cocoa, sugar all have markets with a large monetary value.

Form of Ingredient

Answer ‘yes’ in the Vulnerability Assessment Tool if this raw material or ingredient is purchased by your company in individual pieces which can be visually identified as such. Examples include chickpeas, whole peppers, chicken wings, bananas, frozen berries, rolled oats, coffee beans, whole cloves. If this ingredient is purchased as a powder, liquid, mince, paste, pre-mix, slurry or blend then answer ‘no’.

Special criteria

Answer ‘yes’ here if there are special criteria for this raw material or ingredient such as halal, organic,non-GMO, grass-fed, free-range or if there is a specific country of origin or grade of produce required for this material.

Availability of adulterants or substitutes

An example of a material that has easily available adulterants is honey, which can be adulterated with water, sugar syrups, invert syrups, all of which are easy to obtain.

Score

Some versions of the Vulnerability Assessment Tool include a score for likelihood. The score is included for interest only. It is a numerical score out of 100 with a lower score equating being more desirable. The default score is 100 and remains 100 until every question has been answered. This is to ensure that an incomplete assessment returns a high risk rating.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: