Truffles: the most expensive food on earth and a target for food fraud

Spectroscopic methods were used in this study for the discrimination of durum and common wheat samples since they are rapid, reliable, easy to use, low cost, environmentally friendly, and non-destructive. For this purpose, 120 common and 119 durum wheat samples with different genotypes were collected from various regions in Turkey and analysed using Raman spectroscopy, near-infrared spectroscopy (NIR), synchronous fluorescence spectroscopy (SFS), and attenuated total reflectance Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR). Data analysis was performed using the principal component analysis (PCA) and partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA).

These spectroscopic tools, combined with chemometric analysis, were generally successful in distinguishing common and durum wheat flour samples. It was found that the best method was SFS with a discrimination rate of 100% based on high sensitivity (1.000) and specificity (1.000) values. The effectiveness of the models in which NIR and ATR-FTIR spectroscopies were used was found to be highly similar in terms of the discrimination of durum and common wheat samples. Data obtained from Raman Spectroscopy demonstrated that the method was less sensitive in discriminating between common and durum wheat flour samples than the other spectroscopic techniques with a quite high RMSEP value (0.441). SFS, ATR-FTIR, and NIR spectroscopies proved to be more sensitive and applicable tools than Raman spectroscopy in the discrimination of common and durum wheat samples.

 Read full article.

Laboratory Head (Food and Environmental Protection Lab)(P5)

Organization: NAFA-Food and Environmental Protection Laboratory

Primary Location: Austria-Lower Austria-Seibersdorf-IAEA Laboratories in Seibersdorf

Job Posting: 2021-08-05, 2:21:29 PM

Closing Date: 2021-09-02, 11:59:00 PM

Duration in Months: 36

Contract Type: Fixed Term - Regular

Probation Period: 1 Year

Organizational Setting

The Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications implements the IAEA's Major Programme 2, "Nuclear Techniques for Development and Environmental Protection". This Major Programme comprises individual programmes on food and agriculture, human health, water resources, environment and radiation technologies. These programmes are supported by laboratories in Seibersdorf, Monaco and Vienna. The Major Programme's objective is to enhance the capacity of Member States to meet basic human needs and to assess and manage the marine and terrestrial environments through the use of nuclear and isotopic techniques in sustainable development programmes. The Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture assists Member States of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the IAEA in using nuclear techniques and related technologies to improve food security, alleviate poverty and promote sustainable agriculture. The Joint Division consists of five Sections, each with an associated laboratory (located in Seibersdorf, 45 km south-east of Vienna), in the areas of: animal production and health; plant breeding and genetics; insect pest control; soil and water management and crop nutrition; and food and environmental protection.

The Food and Environmental Protection Section and Laboratory assist Member States in ensuring the safety and quality of food and agricultural commodities through the development of analytical techniques and application of food irradiation, focusing on the use of nuclear and related technologies in the management of food and environmental hazards and on strengthening capacities for nuclear emergency preparedness and response in agriculture.

Main Purpose

As a member of the FAO/IAEA Agriculture and Biotechnology Laboratories team and with the programmatic direction of the Joint FAO/IAEA Centre, the Laboratory Head (Food and Environmental Protection Lab) leads the innovative Research and Development (R&D) activities of the Food and Environmental Protection Laboratory (FEPL) relating to the development of methodologies to enhance food control systems in Member States for food authenticity, to support food traceability and to control food contaminants and residues of agrochemicals, in the context of joint FAO/IAEA programmes to ensure food quality and safety and to enhance international trade.

Role

The Laboratory Head plays several key roles in the Agency's Laboratories and the Joint FAO/IAEA Programme: (1) a team leader, ensuring the efficient and effective development and implementation of the FEPL's research, training and services activities; (2) an advisor to the Head of the Food and Environmental Protection Section and to the Director of Joint FAO/IAEA Centre, on programmatic, scientific, technical matters; and advocate for relevant administrative matters.

Applications from qualified women and candidates from developing countries are encouraged.

Further information on the role.

KEY FINDINGS

1 Despite vital emergency measures in place, more people are food insecure now than before the pandemic.
• Pre-pandemic, we saw a rising trend in levels of household
food insecurity. But Covid-19 has left more people than
before struggling to afford or access a nutritious diet.
Emergency interventions appear to have prevented the
situation from worsening in recent months but turning off
the tap of support risks seeing elevated levels of hunger
and deprivation becoming the new normal.
• Despite community and voluntary sector groups heroically
stepping in to help millions of vulnerable people, our
evidence shows too many food insecure households have
struggled to access support. Reliance on overstretched
food banks and food aid charities is not a sustainable
safety net for individuals and families who can't afford a
decent diet.

2 Households with children have been hit hard, with many
children still falling through the cracks in support.
• Households with children have consistently found it harder to put food on the table, particularly lone parents, large families, and low-income families. Recently, slight improvements in levels of moderate/severe food insecurity among households with children suggest targeted policy interventions have mitigated a significant deterioration. But children reporting experiences of mild to severe food insecurity had not improved this January (2021) compared to six months ago.
• Free School Meal vouchers have represented a vital lifeline for eligible children and their families during Covid, but a series of issues with provision during school closure left many eligible children unable to rely on a regular, quality meal. Many children not currently eligible for Free School Meals face the daily stress of not knowing where their next meal comes from. An increased number of children reported they or their families visited a food bank
this Christmas compared to during the summer holidays. 

3 Existing support schemes have made a difference, but gaps have meant many people still struggle to eat adequately.

• Covid-19 has deepened the financial hardship faced by lowincome households and has also created a newly vulnerable group who were financially stable pre-Covid. Households are balancing on a financial tightrope, increasing debt and using up savings to survive. With household budgets on a shoestring, the end of the Furlough Scheme and the proposed cut to the £20 uplift to Universal Credit can only increase the challenges faced by individuals and families already struggling to pay their food bills.

4 Covid-19 has dramatically widened inequalities in food security and nutrition.
• Exposure to food insecurity is not equal across all households. Throughout the crisis, BAME communities have consistently encountered disproportionately higher levels of food insecurity compared with white ethnic groups. Comparing our data to before the pandemic, inequality in food insecurity has widened between those from BAME backgrounds and white ethnic groups.
• Adults with disabilities have also consistently been more acutely affected by food insecurity during the pandemic compared with those without disabilities. Our most recent data show people with severe disabilities have five times greater levels of food insecurity than those without.
• Despite undertaking essential work like stocking our grocery shelves, food sector workers have reported much higher levels of food insecurity than the general population.

Read full report.

This FSA project develops a conceptual framework for modelling and capturing the full range of costs attributed to food crime on UK society, along with an assessment of the availability of data that would be necessary to produce this model.

An economic framework was developed for estimating the economic cost of food crime which uses:

1. Victim costs: Direct economic losses suffered by crime victims, including medical care costs and lost earnings.
2. Criminal justice system costs: Costs of anti-food crime activities, legal and adjudication services, and corrections programs including incarceration.
3. Crime career costs: Opportunity costs associated with the criminal’s choice to engage in illegal rather than legal and productive activities.
4. Intangible costs: Indirect losses suffered by crime victims, including pain and suffering, decreased quality of life, and psychological distress.
5. Market costs: Loss of profits for genuine firms.

Analysis was also conducted to assess how these costs can be calculated given available data sources. Finally, an assessment of the possibility of applying machine learning or other tools to build algorithms to calculate the costs was carried out.

The findings of this project will eventually be used in a phase 2 of the work which will look to build a model to provide preliminary estimates of the cost of food crime to UK society. 

Read full report.

The food sector is subject to illegal practices of various types such as adulteration or exploitation of labour. In the media and public discourse, this phenomenon is often associated to activities by organised crime groups. Drawing on a socio-legal empirical study on the perception and conceptualisation of food crime in English and Italian public institutions, this paper unpacks the involvement of organised crime and mafia-type actors in the food sector. Considering data collected through in-depth interviews with representatives of law enforcement and other public authorities, supported by documentary sources, this research points out that, from both an institutional perspective that narrowly conceptualises as food crime as food fraud, as well as from a wider perspective that addresses other practices happening in the food sector, organised crime is involved in food crime. By referring to the English and Italian cases, and by merging different bodies of literature, such as green criminology and enterprise theory, this article advocates for conceptual clarity when referring to the involvement of corporate crime, organised crime and mafia-type groups active in the food sector. In so doing, it presents and reflects upon ‘organised food crime’ as a new socio-legal category and highlights its policy outcomes.

Read open access paper.

The same author published another related paper in 2020:

Food Crime: A Review of the UK Institutional Perception of Illicit Practices in the Food Sector

Food offers highly profitable opportunities to criminal actors. Recent cases, from wine and meat adulteration to milk powder contaminations, have brought renewed attention to forms of harmful activities which have long occurred in the food sector. Despite several scandals over the last few decades, food has so far received scant criminological attention and the concept of food crime remains subject to different definitions. This article assesses regulations in the United Kingdom (UK) and UK authorities’ official reports published between 2013 and 2018 through a review of academic literature published in English. It charts the evolution of the food crime concept, its various meanings, and different harmful activities associated with food crime, which originate from unlawful acts and omissions. This article also points out that further criminological research needs to address the definitional issue of food crime and inform a more integrated policy approach by considering activities beyond food fraud and the protection of food safety.

Read open access paper:

Ghana Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) has sent a strong warning to Palm Oil Producers across the country to desist from using the Sudan dye to mix the red oil before sending them to the market.

According to the FDA, its outfit has a set of strict regulatory sanctions that will be applied to all persons who are caught in this act.

The FDA warned that “Sudan 4 dye is not approved for use in food products, Sudan dyes are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as Group 3 carcinogens and are banned as food additives worldwide (IARC, 1987)”.

Chief Executive of FDA, Delese Mimi Darko, announced this when she speaking at the launching of the Artisanal Palm Oil Millers and Outgrowers Association app in Accra, a digital technology device aimed at protecting the industry, and also to ensure authentic and healthy palm oil exportation for the global market.

The association has developed an app to enable consumers to track the source of palm oil and its producers before purchase and consumption to curb the menace of a chemical called Sudan IV, which is sometimes added to palm oil.

Read full article.

A law enforcement operation jointly coordinated by INTERPOL and Europol has highlighted the vast quantities of illicit food and beverage products circulating throughout the global economy.

Codenamed OPSON X, the operation mobilized police, customs, national food regulatory authorities and private sector partners to undertake coordinated enforcement actions between December 2020 and June 2021 against illicit food and drink posing serious health risks to consumers.

Operation OPSON X saw law enforcement globally net 15,451 tonnes of illegal products, with an estimated street value of EUR 53.8 million.  Nearly 68,000 checks were carried out by the 72 participating countries, resulting in more than 1,000 criminal cases being opened.                                                                                                                                                       
The enforcement actions have uncovered a wealth of new leads for food crime investigations. More than 600 arrest warrants were issued during the course of the operation, which is estimated to have disrupted the activities of 42 organized crime groups around the world.

The most seized goods in Operation OPSON X were alcohol and food supplements, followed by cereals and grain products. Alcoholic drinks were the most commonly counterfeited according to seizure results, as well as products protected by trademarks, geographic indications or appellations of origin.

Though not directly targeted in the operation, enforcement actions also turned up other illicit items, including fake test kits for COVID-19, HIV and malaria, cigarettes, weapons and ammunition, bush meat and other products of wildlife crime.

In Russia, police discovered a case containing more than 12,000 copies of pirated computer software, valued at around EUR 100,000. Meanwhile, Namibian authorities detected 24 irregular migrants during their actions carried out under OPSON X.

The most common types of food fraud include:

• mislabeling (42 percent)
• replacements/dilutions/additions/removals in product (20 percent)
• unapproved treatment and/or process (16 percent)
• document failings that are either falsified or manipulated (15 percent).

Further information on OPSON X.

Genome editing, also known as gene editing, is one of the precision breeding techniques in food that may be adopted by the government after EU Exit. Therefore DEFRA have run a public consultation on genetic technologies in food (Opens in a new window).

This research by the Food Standards Agency complements the consultation by gathering evidence specifically on consumer interests. For more information about genome editing in food, view our FSA Explains video.

Key findings  

• Consumers tended to have very low awareness and very low knowledge of GE food.
• More informed consumers were, or became, more accepting of GE food.
• Consumers tended to find GE food more acceptable than GM food. However, consumers found GM or GE applied to plants more acceptable than applications to animals, for example, due to human safety and animal welfare concerns.
• Most consumers felt it would be appropriate to regulate GE foods separately from GM foods. At the same time, many felt regulation should be just as thorough as for GM.
• Most consumers felt labelling should always inform the consumer of the presence of GE ingredients using the full term ‘genome edited’.  
• Overall, consumers wanted thorough regulation and transparent labelling if GE foods reach the UK market, and they suggested social media information campaigns and TV documentaries would help educate the public on GE food. 

Download report and appendices.

Download here

The Government Chemist Annual Review provides a summary of the work undertaken by the Government Chemist team, including highlights from the referee cases, advisory work and capability building activities. The review also details the impact of the work obtained though active engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. The main topics described in this review are:

• Referee cases: analysis of food for genetically modified organisms, antibiotics in honey and food labelling

• Advisory role: overview of the activities associated with the advisory role, including responding to enquiries from stakeholders and consultations and horizon scanning on the area of honey authenticity to further facilitate the provision of advice to UK Government on this topic

• Capability building: the review highlights particular projects the Government Chemist team worked on to be ready for future challenges. In this review, the ongoing work related to food allergy topics, and CBD and controlled cannabinoids is described

• Knowledge sharing activities to further the impact of the referee and advisory functions: the review highlights some of the knowledge sharing activities undertaken by the team to ensure that the breadth of knowledge generated through the Government Chemist’s programme reaches its target audiences.

Purpose of assessment
This assessment is intended to support the FSA in understanding changes in the food system related to the COVID-19 pandemic, as they relate to the FSA mission. It is limited in scope to understanding the implications for the work of the FSA and so does not consider the wider societal impacts. It builds on key findings from existing research and analysis undertaken throughout the period of the pandemic.

Key Judgements
1. Behaviour changes brought about by COVID-19 restrictions and health practices are likely to have led to a temporary drop in the incidence of some food borne diseases (para 1).
2. The adoption of an increasing range of online platforms by consumers and food businesses during the pandemic will almost certainly remain and present challenges to food regulation and its enforcement (paras 2-4).
3. It is highly likely that people’s lives when it comes to food have become increasingly varied and will continue to present a more diverse risk environment for the FSA to deal with after the pandemic. This is particularly driven by the longterm trend towards increasing food insecurity (exacerbated by COVID-19) and the underlying economic divergence (paras 5-12).
4. There is almost certainly an increased appetite for government intervention to ensure food safety and availability. This is not universal, but experiences during the pandemic are likely to have shifted public attitudes, presenting an opportunity for interventions (paras 13-14).
5. Although there is likely to be increased vulnerability to food crime in some consumer groups due to COVID-19 related changes, there is very little evidence of this being exploited (paras 15-17).
6. The response to the pandemic forced a reconfiguration of FSA activities, leading to changes in working practices, and a renewed focus on intelligence and risk led activities (paras 18-21).

Read full board paper.

 This independent report, published on 15 July 2021, looks at the entire food chain, from field to fork. This includes production, marketing, processing, sale and purchase of food (for consumption in the home and out of it). It also looks at the consumer practices, resources and institutions involved in these processes. Part one of this independent report was published in July 2020.

The review was led by Henry Dimbleby supported by an advisory panel and Defra officials. Henry Dimbleby is co-founder of Leon restaurants, the lead non-executive director at Defra and co-author of The School Food Plan.

The strategic objectives of the plan are to:

1. Escape the junk food cycle to protect the NHS.
2. Reduce diet-related inequality.
3. Make the best use of our land.
4. Create a long-term shift in our food culture.

Fourteen recommendations have been put together, which are intended to create the kind of food system the people of this country say they want – and need:

• Recommendation 1. Introduce a sugar and salt reformulation tax. Use some of the revenue to help get fresh fruit and vegetables to low income
  families
• Recommendation 2. Introduce mandatory reporting for large food companies
• Recommendation 3. Launch a new “Eat and Learn” initiative for schools
• Recommendation 4. Extend eligibility for free school meals
• Recommendation 5. Fund the Holiday Activities and Food programme for the next three years
• Recommendation 6. Expand the Healthy Start scheme
• Recommendation 7. Trial a “Community Eatwell” programme, supporting those on low incomes to improve their diets
• Recommendation 8. Guarantee the budget for agricultural payments until at least 2029 to help farmers transition to more sustainable land use
• Recommendation 9. Create a Rural Land Use Framework based on the Three Compartment Model 
• Recommendation 10. Define minimum standards for trade, and a mechanism for protecting them
• Recommendation 11. Invest £1 billion in innovation to create a better food system
• Recommendation 12. Create a National Food System Data programme
• Recommendation 13. Strengthen government procurement rules to ensure that taxpayer money is spent on healthy and sustainable food
• Recommendation 14. Set clear targets and bring in legislation for long-term change.

Next steps

Over the next six months, the Government will develop a Food Strategy White Paper informed by this independent review, the wider stakeholder community and other evidence. 

The Food and Drink Sector Council (FDSC) – a formal industry partnership with government – will publish its own vision for the future of the supply chain in September. This will focus upon key areas where the food chain can make a difference.

The International Association for Food Protection (IAFP) (https://www.foodprotection.org/) is one of the three largest food-related professional associations, with more than 4,500 individual food safety professionals focusing on “advancing food safety worldwide.” IAFP started in 1911 as the International Association of Dairy and Milk Inspectors. Their focus expanded to food sanitarians and the current, broader food protection focus. For those of you not familiar with the food industry, “The term public health sanitarian shall mean a person who applies the principles of the natural and social sciences for the detection, evaluation, control and management of those factors in the environment which influence the public’s health.” (reference)

IAFP also is the publisher of several scholarly journals, including the Journal of Food Protection and Food Protection Trends. “The Journal of Food Protection is the leading publication in the field of food microbiology and remains the premier journal dedicated to food safety.”

The IAFP Food Fraud Professional Development Group has published an “interest survey” to be completed by IAFP and PDG members, plus the public at large. We are reviewing our direction for 2021 and beyond. This survey is your opportunity to be heard and to help lead the direction of food fraud prevention.

The survey takes only a few minutes to complete. 

Link to the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FfPdg2021JulyIntroduction

QR code to the survey:

Horizon Europe Cluster 6 Work Programme 2021-2022 on Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment includes two proposed calls related to food authenticty:

• HORIZON-CL6-2022-FARM2FORK-01-04: Innovative solutions to prevent adulteration of food bearing quality labels: focus on organic food and geographical indications p199
• HORIZON-CL6-2022-FARM2FORK-01-11: Effective systems for authenticity and traceability in the food system p217

Further information can be found at: wp-9-food-bioeconomy-natural-resources-agriculture-and-environment_horizon-2021-2022_en.pdf (europa.eu)

The commission are also hosting a number of information days that run until 16 July for those who might be interested in preparing a proposal. Homepage | Horizon Europe Info Days 2021 (horizon-europe-infodays2021.eu)

This site also contains a document library under each topic with useful information.

For UK specific information visit: https://www.gov.uk/business-finance-support/horizon-2020-business-grants-uk

This study provides a preliminary quantitative and qualitative analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on European agriculture and the agri-food supply chain in light of the responses deployed by the European Union and its Member States to mitigate its effects.

KEY FINDINGS
• Overall, during the pandemic, the EU agri-food supply chain has demonstrated a high degree of resilience. The
value of the output of the agricultural industry declined by 1.4% in 2020 compared to 2019, although, when
compared to the 2015-2019 average, it grew by 2.9%. Nonetheless, sectors highly dependent on the food service
(e.g. wine, beef and veal) have faced major difficulties. Flowers and plants and sugar have also suffered
considerable financial losses.
• The EU response was highly effective in preserving the integrity of the Single market. Conversely, measures
adopted under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) had mixed results having been implemented partially or
inconsistently across Member States (MSs).
• The costs of the crisis for the EU agri-food sector will be borne primarily by MSs. National financial support - namely
in the form of State aids (estimated EUR 63.9 billion) and other instruments – has been significantly higher than
EU support (EUR 80 million in private storage aids).
• To better respond to future crises, policy responses should be designed following a ‘food systems approach’.
Moreover, the reasons behind the limited impact of CAP measures during the pandemic should be better
investigated. Consideration should also be given to the decoupling of the CAP crisis reserve from farmers’ direct
payments to reinforce EU financial capacity during crises. Finally, because of the economic consequences of the
pandemic, food assistance programmes for the most deprived are needed.

In March 2021, the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific published a booklet entitled “Food fraud – Intention, detection and management”. This concise resource explains the key aspects of food fraud, and discusses a set of measures that food safety authorities can take to stop food fraud. Among these, legal interventions combined with the use of new technologies are promising tools.

Examples of these interventions, such as adopting a definition for food fraud and implementing food standards as well as applying DNA barcoding and blockchain technology, are included in the booklet. Links are readily available in the booklet for those who wish to have greater know-how on the guidance on food labelling, technological interventions and food import and export certification systems provided by FAO and the Codex Alimentarius.

Download the publication:
FAO Food safety toolkit booklet 5 - Food fraud – Intention, detection and management

For more information:

• Handbook on food labelling to protect consumers
• Food for thought on food fraud. Development Law – Issue 1
• Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems. Discussion Paper on “Food Integrity and Food Authenticity”, CX/FICS 18/24/7
• Food safety page - FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific 

This report contextualises the topic of food fraud across Canada’s agri-food system and presents a novel intervention framework to Deter, Identify and Prosecute (DIP) food fraud.

In this context, deter refers to the strengthening of regulatory and legal deterrents. Identify refers to the
scientific methods to identify food fraud and prosecute refers to the ability to use
the scientific evidence as a basis to prosecute bad actors.

The authors believe that this novel framework captures and integrates the key components which are essential
to reducing the risk of food fraud in Canada.

Read full report.

Two men and one woman accused of being at the basis of Belgium’s biggest-ever food fraud have been sentenced by a court in Antwerp.

The three were among seven accused and four companies charged with using the insecticide Fipronil (flea control products for pets) in the cleaning of poultry farms. The pollution that was caused as a result led to the destruction of two million hens and 77 million eggs that were polluted with the chemical.

The court heard, that one of the accused failed to inform the poultry farmers of the contents of the product he was using, which was indeed effective in controlling pests, were it not for the small problem of contamination with a banned product. According to witnesses, he told prospective customers the product his company used was reinforced with menthol and eucalyptus.

Read full article here.

The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) has published its May 2021 Food Fraud Monthly Summary reporting food fraud incidents and investigations from around the world.

Food fraud cases reported in May:

• Honey
• Royal jelly
• Herbs
• Spices
• Fish
• Fish products
• Bivalve molluscs and products thereof
• Fats
• Oils
• Meat
• Meat products
• Alcoholic beverages
• Fish
• Fish products
• Fruit
• Vegetables, and other.

Thanks again to our Member Bruno Séchet for creating this infographic and allowing us to share it with the rest of the Network.

You can download the April 2021 Summary here

Your business’s culture is its ‘DNA’. It represents the unique way it operates; ‘How we do things around here’. It’s what diff erentiates your business and defines its values. Leaders set the tone for this culture and, in this sense, leadership is the dynamic way that each organisation is led by either an individual or group (eg, board or management).

Dishonesty within any business, be it internal or external, can result from many factors. One factor that is often overlooked is leadership – not in the sense of governance but as a key dynamic impacting culture and therefore engagement. Engagement is key. Failing to instil the right culture can lead to heightened risk of employee disenchantment, which can present itself in many ways – from simple acts of ignorance through to dishonest activity. It is often cited that pressure initiates symptoms that lead to dishonest behaviour. Pressure can encourage employees to act dishonestly as they use it to rationalise their conduct. That is the traditional fraud triangle.¹

However, in all sectors, we overlook how pressure is associated with fraud and is directly attributable to leadership.

Read full article.