You are here: Home / Archives for transparency

by

Letter from Thailand – food fraud, food safety, food excellence

The World of Food Safety Conference was held in Bangkok in conjunction with THAIFEX in early June 2017.  Delegates represented large and medium sized food businesses in South East Asia as well as government and trade organisations.  Thai, Singaporean, Malaysian and Myanmar delegates dominated the group.  The attendees were hungry for knowledge about food fraud and food fraud prevention; almost 50% of the topics across the two-day conference were related to food fraud, traceability, supply chain management and crisis management.

As well as speaking about recent trends and developments in food fraud, I enjoyed learning from the other speakers, sampling the wonders of THAIFEX and enjoying Thai food which was truly excellent.

Karen Constable spoke about Food Fraud at World of Food Safety Conference

 

Background checks as an aid to fraud mitigation

I was lucky to gain some fantastic insights into the intricacies and challenges of performing background checks on business people in Asia from Jingyi Li Blank,  Mintz Group.  Background checks on business owners are a great way to understand vulnerabilities to food fraud when seeking new suppliers or investigating sources of new raw materials.  South East Asia and China present some challenges for companies performing background checks, including the way that people in the area often have multiple spellings and versions of their names, as well as issues related to cross-border jurisdictions.

Prevalence of food fraud prevention systems

Julia Leong from PricewaterhouseCoopers shared some statistics on current levels of compliance among food companies who have interracted with the PwC SSAFE tool: 41% of companies have no systems to detect or monitor fraud, 36% have no whistle-blowing systems and 38% do not perform background checks on employees. Food businesses that neglect these areas are exposing themselves to serious financial risks from food fraud.

Support for food businesses in developing countries from GFSI

It was heartening to hear about the new program being launched by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) in developing countries.  The Global Markets Program is designed to bridge the gap between food operations with no formal food safety systems and those who have GFSI-endorsed certification by helping companies to develop food safety management systems through a process of continuous improvement.  Within the program, manufacturing support systems related to hygiene and other basic principles of food safety are implemented progressively over a defined time period as the companies work to attain either a basic or intermediate level of compliance.  The results are not accredited but become the foundation for further improvements so that the business can work towards implementing a complete food safety program.

Sustainability in the food supply chain; palm oil and coconut oil

Matthew Kovac of Food Industry Asia presented on behalf of Cargill, providing a fascinating introduction to the sustainability programs Cargill has introduced in their palm oil and coconut oil supply chains.  Cargill is a major grower, purchaser and refiner of palm oil and are aiming for a 100% sustainable target by 2020.   For Cargill, sustainability in palm oil means:

  • No deforestation of high value areas
  • No development on peat (burning beat causes air pollution and contributes to climate change)
  • No exploitation of indigenous peoples
  • Inclusion of small land holders

Coconut oil sustainability is being improved in conjunction with The Rainforest Alliance, by providing training and support for Filipino growers so that they can increase their yields, as well as providing them with access to wood fired dryers that allow the growers to produce copra that has better colour, less aflatoxins, less environmental contaminants and lower free fatty acids than traditionally sun-dried copra.

The many and varied hazards in HACCP for fish

It was both fascinating and scary to be reminded of the hazards to food safety from fresh fin fish by Preeya Ponbamrung, from Handy International: pathogenic bacteria, viruses, biotoxins such as ciguatera, biogenic amines (histamine being the most common), parasites and chemicals such as water pollutants and antibiotics used in aquaculture.  That’s quite a hazard list; it was heartening to hear Ms Ponbamrung describe the control methods employed by the fish processing industry to keep those hazards out of our food supply.

Crisis communications; winners and losers

We learnt about successful methods – and not-so-successful-methods – that food companies use to communicate food safety and food fraud risks to consumers.  Nestle was applauded for its fast, clear and practical response to reports of counterfeit versions of its popular MILO chocolate drink powder in Malaysia.  The brand owner promptly published instructions for consumers on social media and in the local press explaining how to tell the difference between the fake and the real product.

Image: MILO Malaysia Facebook, March 2015

 

Some other companies do not do so well with crisis communications.  Cesare Varallo of Inscatech, showed us that the public communications of Chipotle in the USA about its food safety problems were less than ideal.  The brand has suffered serious losses and it has been reported that 13% of its former customers say they will never return.  Time is of the essence in a food safety or food fraud crisis.  Does your company have a crisis plan?

Want to know more about any of these topics?  Get in touch with us, we love to help.

by

Coming to a store near you….

Keeping abreast of food fraud and food safety news is a daily activity and one of my favourite work tasks.  This week, as I skimmed through food industry trivia and pondered the launch of chocolate cheese (seriously), the two most alarming and unusual food fraud incidents I came across were news of thirty five businesses who were caught by Chinese authorities adding opium to food and a British business that was prosecuted for selling ‘almond’ powder that contained peanut.  By the way,  you did see that correctly: opium.  And just for the record, opium is not a permitted food additive.  Peanut-contamination of anything is, of course, a very serious risk to the safety of allergic consumers and has resulted in deaths in recent years.  It’s tragic to see that this type of adulteration continues to occur.

Having digested thousands of words of information about prosecutions, investigations, trends in food fashions and the changing regulatory landscape, I began to notice some patterns and found a couple of big red flags for future risks of food fraud.

Halal

Halal certifications are increasingly needed for market access for almost every food type at both the retail and wholesale level.  A halal product is often indistinguishable from its non-halal counterpart which means that everyday consumers are not able to verify food sellers’ claims about halal status.  Falsely claiming halal for a food item is an easy fraud to perpetrate, especially during the retail sale of un-packaged food in restaurants and takeaway stores.  Halal fraud can be as sophisticated as forgery of certification documents accompanying bulk shipments of food or as simple as dishonest signage in a takeaway store.  There have been a number of incidences of halal fraud in the news lately and these are almost certainly the tip of the iceberg.  I see very high risks in the South East Asian countries of Indonesia and Malaysia; these being some of the world’s biggest markets for halal food and having variable and sometimes chaotic food supply chains accompanied by uneven regulatory enforcement.  However, halal forgery can happen even in the most sophisticated markets with a recent prosecution in the United Kingdom in which the fraudster is alleged to have netted a quarter of a million pounds.  With this kind of money up for grabs, you can expect halal fraud to continue.

Is this meat halal?

Probiotics

Probiotics are among the hottest food ingredients for the healthy eating market right now.  New technology is claimed to enable probiotic bacteria – good bacteria – to survive in an ever-increasing range of food types, taking them beyond traditional yoghurts and ‘Yukult’ style dairy drinks.  Probiotic foods command a premium price and, as with many of the most vulnerable food fraud targets, the probiotic components are indiscernible to consumers.  There is a real and growing risk that fraudulent claims will be made about the quantity and types of live bacteria in food products, with the possibility of both accidental and deliberate frauds.  Any food business can make a mistake with formulations and shelf life, leading to discrepancies between the quantity of live bacteria in the food and what is claimed on the pack.  Premium brand owners are less likely to risk their reputation with unsubstantiated claims and these businesses are more likely to have the in-house expertise and resources to properly verify their on-pack claims.  It’s the smaller food companies and newer brands that I worry about:  they are much more likely to find themselves inadvertently or knowingly selling ‘probiotic’ products that don’t live up to the marketing hype.

Cold Brew Coffee

Can you fake cold brew coffee?  Cold brewed coffee appears to be here to stay but it has a high price tag and would be easy to fake.  Could the average consumer taste the difference between conventional and cold-brew coffee?  I’m pretty sure that I couldn’t, especially when served icy cold or with lots of milk.  The production method for cold brewed coffee is slower than conventional brewing, which usually means more costly.  And that means food businesses could be tempted to cut a few corners.  Even hipster brands that build their messages around product authenticity can find themselves in a scandal when financial pressures increase, as was the case with an ultra-premium bean-to-bar chocolate brand recently.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few incidences of fraudulent claims about cold-brewed coffee hitting the headlines this year.

Cold brew coffee: hot food fraud risk

by

Supplements, the last frontier?

The supplement industry received a wakeup call last year, particularly in the USA, after the New York attorney general commenced legal proceedings against 13 supplements manufacturers alleging that the supplements did not contain exactly what they should have contained.  The sampling and test methodology used to support the prosecution has been widely criticised, and the industry considers the results to be questionable at best.  Nevertheless, the issue of authenticity and adulteration has received extra attention among producers and users of supplements since then.

Some examples of recent supplement frauds have involved grape seed extract adulterated with peanut skins.  Ironically, grape seed extract has also been found to be an adulterant itself, with some cranberry products adulterated.  Within the supplements investigated by the New York attorney general, valerian was found to contain garlic and wild carrot, echinacea was found to contain rice and buttercup DNA while St Johns wort was alleged to contain DNA from a species of ornamental house plant.

What’s being done?  Well you won’t read about it in the press but there’s no question that large retailers, including those that were targeted by the New York attorney general, such as Walmart, Target, GNC and Walgreens, have reviewed and tightened up their purchasing contracts; supplement testing methodology has been reviewed and reputable supplement manufacturers are testing more of their ingredients more often.  And that’s great news for consumers.

 

by

Food Fraud Survey

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.

Take the survey

by

Verifying traceability; MSC certified seafood passes the test

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.

fish species fraud

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.