Food Fraud Advisors

You are here: Home / Blog

by

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

by

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

 

by

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…

food fake 12

food fake 1

food fake 8

food fake 19

food fakes 2

food fake 6

food fake 11

food fake 7

food fake 10

food fake 13

food fakes 4

food fake 9

food fake 16

food fake 17

1438980861029

food fakes 5

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…

by

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

 

 

by

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.

by

Help with GFSI vulnerability assessments; Detection

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

Supply chain audits

Answer ‘yes all suppliers are audited’ in the Vulnerability Assessment Tool if you know that all the suppliers from whom you purchase this material and their suppliers are audited by your business or by third parties.  Suppliers that have been successfully audited by third parties will have current certificates of conformance to food safety standards; for example they will be ‘BRC certified’ or ‘SQF certified’.

Routine Testing

A routine authenticity test is a test carried out on a regular, defined basis by your business, a trusted supplier or a third party to determine whether the material is ‘authentic’.  An authentic food or food ingredient is one that is what it is claimed to be.  That is, if the material is claimed to be olive oil, an authenticity test would confirm that the oil has been made from olives; if the material is claimed to be Spanish olive oil, authenticity testing would check that the chemical profile of the oil matches those of Spanish olives; if the material is claimed to be virgin Spanish olive oil, the testing would check for the origin, the species and whether the oil is virgin.  If testing has occurred but it is occasional, ad-hoc or one-off then it is not considered routine and you should answer ‘no’ at this question.

Frequency of testing

Is the authenticity testing of an appropriate frequency?  If routine authenticity testing does not occur, answer ‘not applicable’.  If routine testing does occur, it is difficult to know whether the frequency is appropriate, even if fraudulent material has previously been detected during routine testing.  Materials that are very susceptible to food fraud – that is the likelihood of occurrence is ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’ – should have a very high testing frequency; testing per batch of incoming goods is best practice.  An appropriate frequency of testing for a less vulnerable material could be based on testing one in five incoming batches.

Relevant audits

Is the supplier of this material subject to relevant audits?  Relevant audits are those which consider adulteration, traceability, mass balance, supplier approvals and authenticity testing.  Audits to GFSI food safety standards are ‘relevant’.  Most other food safety management standards adequately address traceability requirements, and some also consider adulteration and mass balance.  You will need to check the applicable standards or audit reports to determine if the supplier audits are considered ‘relevant’ according to this question.

Special criteria

If there are special criteria are they tested for and/or properly certified?  Special criteria include organic status, halal, vegetarian, gluten-free, non-GMO and origin claims such as ‘Spanish olives’.  If there are no special criteria for this material answer ‘not applicable’.  Otherwise, answer according to whether or not those criteria are verified with testing and/or certifications.

Score

The score is included for interest only.  It is a numerical score out of 100 with a lower score being desirable.  The default score is 100 and remains 100 until all questions have been answered.  This is to ensure that an incomplete assessment produces a high vulnerability rating.

by

Excel compatibility; Vulnerability Assessment Tool

Got compatibility issues?

We’ve got you covered: the Vulnerability Assessment Tool (BRC Method) is compatible with Microsoft Excel versions 2004 onwards (file extension .xlsx) and Microsoft Excel for Mac, from 2011 and onwards.  There are no macros in the spreadsheet.

Still want to try it now?  Download a free trial

Buy it now

Lets Do This

Buy it now