News

In this study (purchase required) the authors developed a method using an electronic nose (e-nose) equipped with 8 metal oxide semiconductor (MOS) sensors to detect whey adulteration in powdered milk by analyzing volatile emissions.

They examined pure powdered milk adulterated with whey at six concentration levels (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%) in both dry and rehydrated forms. Statistical analyses, including Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Artificial Neural Network (ANN), were employed to interpret the sensor output responses from the e-nose.

They reported that the ANN analysis demonstrated a total variance of 85%, with only eight out of 180 samples (4.4%) being misclassified in detecting whey adulteration in powdered milk. The model achieved a detection accuracy of 95.6%. Sensors MQ9 and TGS822 exhibited the most robust responses to wet samples, while sensors MQ136 and TGS822 showed the highest reactivity to dry test samples. PCA analysis revealed that the first principal component (PC-1) accounted for 90% of the total variance, whereas PC-2 contributed only 4% to the variance.

They conclude that their study offers insights into the application of an e-nose portable device that enables non-invasive analysis.  E-nose technology is a promising tool for rapid quality screening of commercial powdered milk.

Photo by julian mora on Unsplash

A report on best practice use of Point of Contact (POC) testing methods has been published by the UK Food Standards Agency and referenced on FAN's Research index page.

This report informs on the current state of the art and availability of POC instrumentation, technologies involved, current applications, commodity testing, gaps and limitations, and end-user requirements, with a specific focus on official controls.

The first phase of the project, which involved the horizon scanning, literature review and stakeholder engagement exercises, revealed that there was no harmonised definition of POC testing in the foods area, although this was generally understood to encompass portable analytical instrumentation which can be deployed at the point of sample testing throughout the food supply chain, often affording the potential to screen samples quickly and cost effectively.

The POC area encompassed technologies inclusive of rotational vibrational spectroscopy platforms (Near infrared (NIR), Fourier-transform infrared (FT-IR) and Raman), spectral imaging platforms (multi- and hyperspectral imaging), mass spectrometry, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and biological analyte-based platforms (proteins and nucleic acid-based). In recent years, the areas of NIR, Raman and nucleic acid detection methods have shown increased interest. Topical commodity and food testing remains consistent with previous years, with areas inclusive of meat and fish speciation, herbs and spices adulteration, and testing for allergens continuing to remain at the forefront of analyses, but also being joined with quality and safety applications. Advantages and benefits of POC testing are generally well understood in terms of providing rapid, real-time results as part of screening approaches. The use of POC testing for official controls emphasised the potential of POC devices to provide a useful and cost-effective screening tool and the importance of method validation to provide objective evidence of the fitness for purpose was reiterated.

The second phase of the project was to establish a set of recommendations for developing an infrastructure for guidance for POC testing in the food sector as part of official controls. A detailed list of guidance and recommendations have been provided. Key aspects centre on the need to assess end-user requirements (the concept of operations) in addition to applying core method validation principles. Central recommendations also include the need for method validation to be performed on the specific combination of POC technology, instrument, application or commodity as per standard practice, to validate the method performance in the context of field-based setting at the point of application, to establish appropriate reference materials and databases, and to develop a centralised UK-based POC testing and advisory framework for provision of guidance and support as an aid to harmonisation.

Future work proposals were made, inclusive of developing a candidate POC test case for method validation to demonstrate cost-saving benefits, as well as a recommendation to further engage with regional official control groups to further assess regional variations and end-user requirements.

The “designer drug” nature of sildenafil-type adulterants in dietary supplements means that analytical reference standards are not always available. In this study (purchase required), a novel "standard-free detection of adulteration" (SFDA) method was proposed. “Designer” phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor derivatives were used as a test case. After analysis by quadrupole coupled time of flight-tandem mass spectrometry detection and multivariable statistics, six common fragment ions were chosen to indicate whether adulteration was present or not, while 20 characteristic fragment ions indicated whether adulteration was by nitrogen-containing heterocycles or by anilines. Quantitative methods targeting these fragments were then conducted by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. The authors conclude that this strategy allows for a quick determination of dietary supplement adulteration without any need for standard materials, improving the efficacy of food safety testing.

Photo by charlesdeluvio on Unsplash

The May 2024 edition of the monthly report on EU Agri-Food Fraud suspicions has been published.

This month's suspicions include a cocktail of pesticides residues, a flavor of natural mineral water, some food supplements with unauthorized ingredients and a few veterinary medicines residues.

View this month's and all 2024 reports at: FFN monthly - European Commission (europa.eu)

A new study examines the outputs for two programmes of Joint Knowledge Transfer work covering the period April 2017 To March 2023. The impact analysis clearly illustrates that the Joint Knowledge Transfer Framework provides an efficient and effective collaborative mechanism to deliver strategic KT to positively influence UK food analysis laboratory capability and knowledge.

The Joint Knowledge Transfer Framework for Food Standards and Food Safety Analysis is a UK cross-government  programme of knowledge transfer (KT). Its aim is to disseminate a strategic programme of scientific KT activities to support laboratory capability and best practice in food safety and standards analysis.

The activities delivered are aimed at upskilling laboratories, with a focus on those involved in the delivery of official controls. The framework also allows for training to be provided on new and emerging food safety and standards detection methodologies, disseminating best practice in their application and providing the tools and knowledge to respond to current and emerging analytical needs. The reviewed period included a number of food authenticity testing applications.

A French translation of our 2023 Annual Summary has been published here. 

This summary is now available in four languages (English, Chinese, French and Spanish) making our resources more accessible to members who do not have English as a first language. 

A Chinese translation of our 2023 Annual Summary has been published here. 

This summary is now available in four languages (English, Chinese, French and Spanish) making our resources more accessible to members who do not have English as a first language. 

This experimental study (open access) developed the previously-reported use of ultrasound to differentiate types of vegetable oils.  The researchers measured the attenuation and ultrasonic velocity of mixtures of organic argan oil (a premium North African product) with volumetric fractions of sesame oil, peanut oil or cheaper argan oil extracted from kernels depulped by goats.

They found that the measurements exhibit distinct behaviors manifested by electrical signals for the mixture obtained after the addition of each volumetric fraction, reflecting the capability of the adopted method to detect this difference. A notable decrease in ultrasonic velocity is observed in the mixtures as the quantity of added oil increases, with a maximum variation of 11 m/s for the argan/peanut oil mixture. Conversely, The attenuation of ultrasonic waves increases proportionally with the added volumetric fractions, with the argan/peanut oil mixture exhibiting an attenuation variation range of 3.57 Np/m.

They reported that prediction models for the added volumetric fractions to organic argan oil based on attenuation and ultrasonic velocity, showed a weak correlation between the predicted quantity of added oil and the actual quantity added to organic argan oil, with determination coefficients (r) not exceeding 65%. The weak correlation is due to the similar chemical compositions of the oils.

They conclude that ultrasonic-statistical analysis is a valuable tool for authenticating and ensuring the quality of vegetable oils. However, the limitations highlight the need to refine models for better accuracy. It offers a quick and simple alternative to traditional methods.

The World Trade Organisation launched  “Addressing Illicit Trade in Food and Food Fraud”, on 28 May.  This short report gives a high-level overview of current estimates of fraud in the global food trade, including listing the sectors where fraud is believed to be most prevalent. 

The publication brings together contributions from experts in international organizations, non-governmental organizations, the private sector and the WTO Secretariat, who underline the detrimental impact of illicit food trade on food security and public health. The contributors outline various strategies to counter illicit food trade and food fraud, recognizing that a comprehensive response requires a blend of regulatory measures, enforcement, industry cooperation and consumer education. The publication also outlines action taken by various agencies in these areas and highlights the range of WTO agreements that can contribute to combating illicit trade.

The similar morphological characteristics among different species of lavers (types of seaweed) make them vulnerable to food fraud. In this study (purchase required) the authors developed a portable microfluidic quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) method to monitor six laver species, comparing its effectiveness with conventional qPCR. The portable microfluidic qPCR system used a plate-shaped heat block for rapid heat transfer, combined with a microfluidic-based biochip for quick detection. The primers were specifically designed to target the chloroplast genes rbcL and rbcS.

The authors reported that specificity using 17 seaweed species showed no cross-reactivity, and the sensitivity of the assay was 1 × 10⁻⁴ ng. They enhanced the portable microfluidic qPCR for field applications by integrating it with a simple DNA extraction method. To validate the on-site rapid identification of laver species, they evaluated 79 laver samples collected from fish farms in Korea and commercially available laver products. They discovered instances where products were adulterated with cheaper species or replaced with others that resemble them.

They conclude that the method is rapid, sensitive, reliable, and applicable for effectively managing and monitoring lavers in the supply chain.

Photo by Benjamin L. Jones on Unsplash

Further case-law was added to US labelling rules this month with an Indiana Superior Court judgement that tacos and burritos are “sandwiches”.  This contradicts previous rulings in other states and also the USDA interpretation.  In New York, burritos are considered a sandwich for tax purposes.

This technicality is important, for both regulatory jurisdiction and for tax. Closed-face sandwiches are under FDA jurisdiction.  They do not require USDA FSIS label approval, although the meat in the closed-face sandwich must be from a USDA inspected facility. USDA defines closed face sandwiches as ”ready-to-serve, hand-held products consisting of a meat or poultry filling between two slices of bread, a biscuit, or a bun.” On the other hand, USDA regulates “open-face sandwiches,” where the product includes at least 50% cooked meat, and “dinners containing a sandwich type product” (e.g., hamburgers).

Source: Keller and Heckman LLP blog “The Daily Intake”

Photo by Kashish Lamba on Unsplash

The European Commission has an open call for members to join an expert group to develop a honey traceability platform. The closing date for applications is 15 July.

The creation of the traceability platform is one of the requirements of the recent “Breakfast Directive” EU 2024/1438.

The latest article from John Spink's Food Fraud Prevention Academy gives some wise words on what a food business should do, in practice, when an (unverified) report of fraud appears in the media. The example given is from the airline industry but with clear parallels for the food industry.

It advocates a systematic and calm approach to seeking corroboration and primary information sources to provide the detail that is needed to assess whether or not your own business may be affected.  Your should give your senior management a heads-up but without over-reacting or taking knee-jerk actions unsurported by evidence. 

The article is also a timely reminder that multiple online reports of the same "incident" are not, in themselves, orthogonal corroboration of evidence.  There is a chance that they could all be repetitions of the same single original quote or article. 

This study (purchase required) aimed to determine the ability of two portable miniaturised low-cost near-infrared spectroscopy (NIR) devices to discriminate between fresh and thawed mackerel (submitted to one or two frozen-thawed cycles) and between different freezing systems. The effect of different fish seasonal characteristics on the performance of the model was also evaluated.

The authors found that both of the evaluated NIR devices were able to discriminate between fresh and thawed samples with a classification rate of 90.3% and 94.1% and the freezing system to which they were submitted with a classification rate of 91.2% and 89.7%.

They concluded that that low-cost portable NIR spectroscopy can be a valuable tool for detecting mislabeled frozen-thawed products sold as fresh, providing enforcement officials and even consumers with a rapid and affordable method for fraud detection. However, the robustness of the models should be improved including more data from different seasons.  They recommended the development of a global model including different species.

Photo by Samuel C. on Unsplash

Here is the solution to the crossword published in our May newsletter.

There were no entries submitted, so the star prize of A Warm Feeling of Recognition rolls over to our next competition later in the year.

In this study (open access) the researchers sought to identify chemical markers for lemon oil authenticity within the non-volatile components.  This would provide an accessible LC-UV alternative to the typical approach of profiling the volatile (flavour) components by gas chromatography.

The authors focussed on 15 coumarins and furocoumarins (“oxygen heterocyclic compounds, OHCs”).  They profiled the differences between authentic lemon oil and a range of commercial industrial lemon oils, and tested for significant differences using either single markers or combinations of markers.  They concluded that he combination of isopimpinellin and total OHC concentration were very predictive markers for differentiating genuine lemon oil from commercial industrial substitutes.  They successfully tested the model, with 98% accuracy, on 154 commercial oils on the US market.

Is fraud the result of a single rogue actor (the “bad apple”) or is it the natural consequence of system failures and poor oversight?  Or is it the result of a complex matrix of different drivers?

In this thought-provoking article (open access) the author reviews and considers how the “bad apple” vs “bad barrel” vs “rotten orchard” mindset that is used in the financial fraud literature could be applied to the food industry.  (i.e. considering the individual fraudster, the mendacious organisation the fraudster works within, and the stressed, dysfunctional or corrupt system).  She recommends a systematic assessment of all three viewpoints in order to mitigate fraud risk.  Too often, the food industry only considers the “bad apple” perspective.

Photo by Alex Lvrs on Unsplash

Please see the discussion and links kindly shared by our member Christopher Bear

✅Do you have experience of developing policy/regulation that impacts on the food system?

✅Do you have experience of implementing policy/regulation that impacts on the food system?

✅Does your work aim to influence policy/regulation that impacts on the food system?

❗If your answer to any of these questions is ‘yes’, we would like to hear from you!

 🌍The Horizon Europe-funded TITAN project is conducting a survey on how policy and regulation can promote and enable more transparent food systems that promote greater sustainability, food safety, and improved health and nutrition.

 ⏭️A key output from the project will be a policy roadmap, proposing actions and measures that build food system transparency. This will be presented to the European Commission and shared widely with national governments and agencies. Your participation in this survey will ensure the relevance and currency of the policy roadmap.

 🔗The survey should take around 5 minutes to complete.  The survey will remain open until 31^st July.

Participate in the survey here!

The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission have published their monthly collation of food fraud reports here.  Thanks to FAN member Bruno Sechet who has again collated these as an infographic.  The original infographic is on Bruno's LinkedIn feed.

The JRC collation uses global media reports, and this always gives a slightly different picture than collating official reports.  FAN's recent report gives a high-level annual overview for 2023.  But, whatever source of information, food businesses should always remember that there are limitations to such general collations and league-tables of "most fraudulent foods".  They are only the first part of the risk assessment evidence.  The more pertinent question is the specific risks in your own supply chain; the companies and ingredient sources that you purchase from.

Food Fraud Prevention – Risk and Vulnerability

Welcome! In support of the Food Authenticity Network (FAN) activity, this blog series reviews key topics related to food fraud prevention. Watch here for updates that explore the definitions of food fraud terms and concepts.

This blog post builds on our previous review of the definition of food fraud, including the types of fraud plus the types of products to consider. This post shifts to the fundamental concepts of risk and vulnerability, and a later focus will be on mitigation and prevention.

Frederick Accum first defined the general food fraud concept in the 1820 publication of ‘A Treatise on Adulterations of Food and Culinary Poisons.’ It was almost 200 years until there was a holistic and all-encompassing approach to not just detection but prevention of food fraud. Over those years, one group (food scientists) completed their task of identifying and detecting the problem. The missing link was the interdisciplinary approach needed to shift from focusing on microbes and chemical contaminants to the human adversary (Social Science and Criminology). There were two paradigm shifts:

• “The need to assess a food fraud event shifts the focus from the traditional internal process controls and human health risk assessment to prevention and vulnerability reduction.” (Reference 1)
• “The goal is not to catch food fraud but to prevent the event from ever occurring -- food fraud prevention.” (Reference 1)

This study uses the ISO 31000 Risk Management based term “event.” The terms are reviewed in more detail, including “incident,” “threat,” and “hazard.” This does not conflict with other laws, regulations, standards, and certifications.

Event, Incident, Hazard, Crisis, and Threat

Words and concepts are situational and based on past use and related activities. While there are many casual or informal uses of these terms, it is best to use the terms as they are specifically defined to avoid confusion.

• Event: is essentially “something” that occurs (Table 1) (ISO, 2002; CNSSI, 2010; Merriam-Webster, 2004). There is no evaluation yet of the change in the consequence.
• Incident: a type of event that has occurred and is evaluated and could have a negative consequence (DHS, 2008; ANSI, 2009; CNSSI, 2010).
• Hazard: an event that has not occurred and could cause harm if not addressed (ISO, 2007b; PAS 96, 2014, NRC, 1996; 21 CFR, Merriam-Webster, 2004) -- this includes damaging potential (ISO, 2007b).
• Crisis: an event that has occurred e or is occurring -- that has confirmed harm (ANSI, 2009), and this includes imminent hazard (21 CFR), attack, emergency (ISO, 2007b; 21 CFR, FDA. 2016), disaster, etc.
• Threat: the cause of an unwanted event that includes generally known variables or attributes of the source of the negative consequence (“threat source”) (ISO, 2012; ISO 2002; 21 CFR 121, ANSI, 2009; PAS 96, 2014, FSMA, 2016; NIST, 2002; CNSSI, 2010; UNODC, 2010; DHS, 2013) e this includes incident, hazard, damaging potential, etc.

Risk and Vulnerability

During the early food fraud prevention research, it was fascinating to find that risk and vulnerability had been formally defined as separate concepts in formal publications such as by the International Standards Organization (ISO) or the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). They are related topics but explicitly and implicitly different.

• Risk: an uncertainty of an outcome that is assessed in terms of likelihood and consequence (ISO, 2007a; NIST, 2002; CNSSI, 2010; DHS, 2013). Often, the consequence is subdivided into other factors such as onset, severity, or other. Risk is based on factors such as the threat's probability and vulnerability susceptibility (NRC, 2009). In other applications, it is an unwanted outcome (DHS, 2008; Codex Alimentarius, 2014, 21 CFR 50 (A) (.3)(k), Merriam-Webster, 2004).
• Vulnerability: a weakness or flaw that creates opportunities for undesirable events related to the system (“system design”) (ISO, 2007a; ISO 2002; ISO, 2012; DHS, 2013; NIST, 2011; CNSSI, 2010; NRC, 2009; COSO 2014; Merriam-Webster, 2004).

The expansion from just risk to vulnerability was key in the early development of the food fraud standards – including the landmark work by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI, and the related standards from BRC/BRCGS, IFS, SQF, FSSC 22000, and others). This expanded focus on vulnerability was key to enabling the early adoption of the programs. It was also efficient to focus on the root causes.

Watch out for the next blog, which will review the application of quality management and risk management to expand the focus from mitigation to prevention,

If you have any questions on this blog, we’d love to hear from you in the comments box below.

References:

1. Spink, John, Ortega, David, Chen, Chen, and Wu, Felicia (2017). Food Fraud Prevention Shifts Food Risk Focus to Vulnerability, Trends in Food Science and Technology Journal, Volume 62, Number 2, Pages 215-220, URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924224416304915
2. Spink, J, and Moyer, DC, (2011) Defining the Public Health Threat of Food Fraud, Journal of Food Science, Volume 75 (Number 9), p. 57-63, URL: https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02417.x