You are here: Home / Archives for integrity

by

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.

 

food fraud definition

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

by

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.

organic produce pesticide authentic fruit vegetable

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.

Pesticide residue in food

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.

Organic peas vegetable pesticide

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.

apples pesticide

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.

by

Vulnerability assessments are a waste of time according to this investigator

Vulnerability assessments are a hot topic in food safety at the moment, with Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) food safety standards set to include requirements for documented food fraud vulnerability assessments in the near future.  Most food safety and food integrity experts believe that vulnerability assessments are an important first step towards preventing fraudulent foods from reaching consumers.   However, in an interview with Food Safety News, Mitchell Weinberg, food fraud investigator and CEO of Inscatech describes food fraud vulnerability assessments as “frankly… a little bit of a waste of time.”  Mr Weinberg says that a food fraud vulnerability assessment is essentially about recording what you already know.  He explains that if a business is sourcing a food ingredient from a developing country, they should already know that it is more likely to be affected by fraud than if sourced locally.  Likewise, high value and high volume materials are more attractive to fraudsters.  Weinberg tells the interviewer:

“Just use common sense, figure out where the problem is, check it out… trust but verify.“

Weinberg is right; creating documented risk assessments of any kind is simply an exercise in writing down what we already know.  And common sense should be at the core of any risk assessment.  So is there any value in a documented vulnerability assessment?  

Absolutely!

  • A documented assessment is a record of who thought of what and when they thought of it.  It is evidence that fraud has been considered; it can be used to check that common sense was used in that consideration.  It can be audited, reviewed and updated.  It can be shared.
  • The process of creating a documented assessment can serve as a prompt to identify gaps in knowledge and provide an incentive to ‘fill in the gaps’.
  • A documented vulnerability assessment can be used to transfer knowledge.  Weinberg says creating a written assessment is making a record of what you already know; that is exactly what is needed when the person who made the assessment changes jobs or has to explain supply chain risks to a stubborn Purchasing Manager.
  • Most food businesses manufacture hundreds of food products and many more hundreds of ingredients; comparing the vulnerability assessments of different products and materials is an effective way to prioritise fraud prevention actions.  While the ultimate aim is for no product to be compromised ever, we all have to start somewhere.

Read more about Vulnerability Assessments here.

To view the interview with Mitchell Weinberg, click here.

by

Authentic Food versus Safe Food

Food authenticity is utterly dependent on the way a food is marketed or presented.  A piece of meat sitting on a plate is just a piece of meat until someone tells you something about it; is it organic? is it free-range? grass-fed? hormone-free?  It is only after a product has been described in some way that authenticity becomes relevant.  Authentic food is food (or drink) that is what it is claimed to be.  Simple!  Or is it?  Read more about food authenticity here.

Safe food is safe to eat and it’s as simple as that.  It doesn’t matter how the food is described or sold, whether it’s horse meat or venison or giraffe, if it’s safe to eat then it’s safe to eat.  Simple!  …. well pretty simple anyway… read more about safe food here.

20150727_115004

by

Food Fraud Advisors says hi

Food Fraud Advisors provides online consultancy, templates and training for food fraud prevention.

Authentic food is something that we all value, both as consumers and as members of the food industry.

At the moment there is growing awareness of problems with the authenticity of many food and beverages.  At the consumer level we see this awareness in investigative pieces on current affairs television shows, campaigns by consumer advocacy groups and on-line discussions on social media.  At the food business level food authenticity is becoming big news.

Right now there are big impacts for food manufacturers that are certified to GFSI-endorsed standards, since all the standards have been recently updated to include new requirements for food fraud prevention activities.

In the regulatory world food authenticity-related crimes are proving to be attractive to organized crime syndicates.  The cross-border and cross-disciplinary regulatory issues are a real challenge.

We are Food Fraud Advisors and we are here to help.