Recently published data from an FDA sampling assignment carried out in 2022 and 2023 to test imported honey for economically motivated adulteration (EMA) found that 3% of samples were adulterated. The sampling was designed to identify products that contained undeclared sweeteners that are less expensive than honey, such as syrups from cane and corn. This assignment follows a previous EMA in honey assignment in 2021-2022 and was intended to identify whether there continues to be issues with EMA for imported honey.
Between April 2022 and July 2023, the agency collected 107 samples of imported honey and found three samples (3%) to be violative. In 2021-2022, the agency collected and tested 144 imported honey samples, and found 10% of those samples to be violative. When a sample was found to be violative, the FDA refused entry of the product into the U.S. and placed the associated company and product on Import Alert (IA). The agency stated that it also continues to develop methods to further improve the detection of undeclared sweeteners in honey to protect consumers.
Additionally, the FDA continues to collaborate with its domestic and international regulatory partners to combat economically motivated adulteration of food products, including honey.
The FDA has determined that cinnamon used in multiple recalled cinnamon applesauce pouches is the most likely culprit behind at least 65 and potentially as many as 205 cases of lead poisoning reported between October and December 15, 2023, and that the lead contamination may have been the result of intentional adulteration.
The investigation led to an October recall of Wanabana USA apple cinnamon fruit puree pouches. In November, the recall was expanded to include Schnucks-brand cinnamon-flavored applesauce pouches and variety packs, and Weis-brand cinnamon applesauce pouches.
During their inspection of the Austrofoods facility in Ecuador, FDA investigators collected samples of cinnamon supplied by Negasmart to Austrofoods. The samples showed extremely high levels of lead contamination, 5110 parts per million (ppm) and 2270 ppm. For context, Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is considering adopting a maximum level of 2.5 ppm for lead in bark spices, including cinnamon, in 2024.
The FDA announced that, working with state partners, it tested at least 136 samples of non-cinnamon containing products, and all have been negative for elevated lead levels. On Friday, an FDA spokesperson said that one of the agency’s current theories is that the cinnamon contamination was the result of “economically motivated adulteration.”
FDA stated that it has confirmed that Negasmart does not ship product directly to the U.S. and that, of Negasmart’s direct customers, only Austrofoods ships product to the U.S. Further, Ecuadorian officials from ARCSA report that Negasmart does not ship product outside Ecuador. ARCSA also reports that in their testing thus far, raw/unprocessed cinnamon from all cinnamon importers in Ecuador do not appear to be contaminated with lead, whereas the ground or powdered cinnamon from Negasmart is contaminated. The Ecuadorian processor used by Negasmart is not currently operating.
“While our information at this time indicates that in the U.S. the contaminated cinnamon is limited to only the applesauce products that have already been recalled, the FDA is still investigating whether the cinnamon in the recalled products was used in other products exported to the U.S.,” the FDA shared in its statement. “To date, increased screening for imported cinnamon from certain countries remains in place and FDA has no indication that this issue extends beyond these recalled products.”
While the FDA investigation into the lead contamination will continue, the agency noted that it has limited authority over foreign ingredient suppliers who do not directly ship product to the U.S. Hence, the FDA cannot take direct action with Negasmart. “However, we are continuing to work closely with Ecuadorian officials, as they are conducting their own rapidly evolving investigations into the source of contamination,” said the FDA.
Internet of Things (IoT) sensors are being used in industries across the spectrum, and their potential is far from being realized. The data provided via IoT asset tracking technologies, in particular, can enhance traceability and product integrity, leading to safer food and reducing costly losses. Following are six ways IoT tracking sensors support food safety, traceability and accountability.
Vendor Compliance
Adulteration occurs more often in the supply chain than any professional cares to admit. Some experts estimate it has a $50 billion annual impact on the food industry. Whether motivated by financial gain or product shortages, opportunistic intermediaries will take advantage of poor food traceability and make substitutions, dilutions or falsifications.
To prevent bringing adulterated products to market and keep consumers safe, manufacturers must hold their third-party vendors accountable at every stage of the distribution process, and IoT asset tracking sensors can help. They have the ability to record shipment movements in real time, so companies can ensure that their products and raw materials arrive and remain in the right places at each step in the chain.
Further, manufacturers can reduce the chances of product tampering by using IoT sensors that alert you when someone damages packaging. Bad actors are much less likely to commit food fraud when they know highly sophisticated technology is monitoring their actions and movements.
Damage Detection
Food products, especially those in the cold chain, can bruise, break and flatten relatively quickly, causing financial losses. For instance, grain loses significant value when damaged due to improper handling. Through a combination of IoT sensors and sensing nodes that can track the condition of products and provide relevant, real-time updates, companies can ensure their shipments stay intact throughout distribution and transportation.
Theft Reduction
Cargo theft is a significant problem that’s relatively new to the food industry. According to the FBI, it costs supply chain vendors and retailers up to $30 billion annually. While thieves have historically targeted electronics or high-cost imports, food inflation is making food products a top target as of 2023.
Industrial IoT sensors improve food traceability by tracking a shipment’s movement through the supply chain. They can provide real-time location data or update food-manufacturing professionals when the product reaches a particular destination. Companies can use this data to pinpoint sources of cargo theft, delays or mishandling, increasing product safety and reducing loss.
Spoilage Detection
Spoilage claims 33% of food products manufacturers produce, resulting in over $1 trillion in losses annually. This figure probably isn’t surprising for professionals working in the cold chain, as transportation condition management is incredibly complex and expensive.
Even if food appears fine for human consumption, undetected issues can be catastrophic down the line. A single recall costs a food company over $10 million on average, not accounting for lost sales or reputational damage.
With IoT asset tracking, industry professionals can monitor temperature, humidity and chemical compounds to improve the integrity of their products and ensure safe distribution. They can place sensors inside their vehicles or in packaging to monitor all changes.
Since these sensors provide a complete temperature and humidity account, professionals can even collect data for future use to forecast potential losses when conditions become abnormal. This allows companies to take action quickly to prevent spoilage, dramatically reducing the chances of a recall.
Enhanced Data Collection
An IoT sensor utilizing radio frequency identification (RFID) can collect a massive amount of data on distribution and transportation conditions that industry professionals can gather and store for future use. This information provides insights into route optimization and/or sources of contamination. With the addition of artificial intelligence, these sensors can maximize food traceability by validating everything passing through a gate.
If retailers wish to make some of this information available to end users, they can publish it or use specialized barcodes. Customers will get to review the origin of the raw materials and products, providing increased awareness of where their food comes from and the path it took to get to their store.
Faster Traceability
One in six people every year become sick due to a foodborne illness. It is up to manufacturers, distributors and retailers to ensure product quality and prevent these illnesses. When outbreaks do occur, it is up to manufacturers—both morally and legally—to trace that product and remove it before others are affected.
Luckily, IoT devices meet all the necessary regulatory criteria. RFID and other technologies can trace products in real time and alert the relevant parties of any significant changes. For example, they could track a perishable produce shipment and notify retailers and manufacturers of an extreme temperature spike.
Since these sensors can send out instantaneous alerts, nearby professionals can immediately respond before product becomes contaminated or spoils. Whether they are alerted to temperature fluctuations, suspected tampering or imminent spoilage, they can move quickly to address the concern.
IoT asset tracking is an innovative approach to common industry pain points. It addresses the food sector’s unique needs, taking perishables, food compliance and adulteration into account. With such significant food traceability improvements, manufacturers, distributors and retailers will have a much easier time coordinating their operations to increase safety, speed to market and the quality of their products.
Undeclared allergens continue to be a big cause of food recalls. For allergen management practices to be effective within food companies, there must be a shared responsibility between food manufacturers, government agencies, regulators and consumers, says Guangtao Zhang, Ph.D., director of the Mars Global Food Safety Center. In a Q&A with Food Safety Tech, Zhang discussed key concerns related to undeclared allergens in food as well as the research that Mars is conducting to improve allergen management.
Food Safety Tech: The presence of undeclared allergens continues to be a hazard in the food safety space. Specific to peanut detection, what challenges is the industry facing?
Guangtao Zhang, Ph.D.: As food materials become more varied and complicated, food allergen management becomes increasingly complex. Robust, accurate and sensitive detection methods are essential to ensure consumer safety as well as compliance with regulatory standards for allergens in the food supply chain.
When you look at the regulatory aspects, detection methods go hand in hand. Firstly, there is a need to ensure that current standard detection methods used in regulatory control of consumer goods are validated for a range of complex food matrices to ensure neither over- nor under-estimation of allergen content occurs within a food supply chain. This is important because underestimation of allergen poses a significant food safety hazard to consumers, while overestimation of allergen can result in unnecessary product recalls, driving up product costs and food waste.
Secondly, validation and monitoring of the effectiveness of cleaning and handling practices in areas of potential cross contamination with allergen containing materials depend on reliable and robust quantitative food allergen test methods for their success. The more robust the testing protocols, the more we can improve our understanding of the risks associated with cross contamination of food allergens, potentially reducing the frequency of accidental contamination events.
It is also important to note that whilst the most common cause of undeclared allergen in the global food supply chain is through accidental contamination in raw materials or finished products, this is not the only method by which undeclared allergen may be found in a product.
For example, peanut flour may be used in economically motivated adulteration (EMA) food fraud cases. In 2018 the European Commission estimated that the cost of food fraud for the global food industry is approximately €30 billion every year. Due to its high protein content, peanut flour has been used as a bulking agent to raise the overall protein content of e.g., wheat flour, thus raising the ‘quality’, and therefore price, of lower value goods. The ability to effectively quantify peanut traces within complex products therefore has the potential to enable consumers of food products to further trust the safety of the food they eat.
ELISA (Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay) is the method used most frequently for peanut allergen detection in the food manufacturing industry because of its sensitivity and ease of use. However, it has disadvantages in certain settings. It is not currently validated for complex food matrices, as it is believed that the effects of both food matrices and food processing could result in an underestimation of peanut concentrations in thermally processed foods, leading to false negatives, as well as overestimation in complex food matrices, leading to false positives which are a potential food safety hazard to consumers.
Food Safety Tech: Tell us about the research that the Mars Global Food Safety Center is doing to help the industry with effective methods for peanut quantification.
Zhang: At the Mars Global Food Safety Center (GFSC) we believe that everyone has the right to safe food and that we have a responsibility to generate and share insights to help solve for global food safety challenges. We also know we can’t tackle these alone, which is why we collaborate with external partners. One of our focus areas is advancing understanding and knowledge sharing in peanut allergen detection. As part of that work, we are exploring methods of improving food safety via the development of advanced analytical methods to detect peanut allergen content, in the hopes that it will enable the food industry to expand on current preventative management protocols, including early detection methodologies, for faster response to future food allergen contamination events.
As part of our latest published research, we investigated the accuracy and sensitivity of ELISA-based test methods on raw and cooked wheat flour, wheat flour-salt and wheat flour-salt-oil matrices, which are common ingredients in the food industry. 10 ppm peanut was doped into each matrix during sample preparation. Recovery testing demonstrated that in all matrices the current industry standard ELISA method overestimated results with recoveries ranging from 49.6 to 68.6 ppm.
These findings prompted the development of a new confirmatory method based on liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) for peanut quantification. When subjected to the same validation testing programme the HPLC-MS/MS technique was demonstrably more accurate and sensitive, with a limit of quantification of 0.3 ppm and the detected peanut concentration ranging from 6.8 to 12.8 ppm for samples doped with 10 ppm peanut.
This work is a first step in the development of a new standard method for peanut detection in complex food matrices and could ultimately inform safer manufacturing Quality & Food Safety (Q&FS) processes across global supply chains to help ensure safe food for all.
Food Safety Tech: What projects are researchers at the Center working on to enhance allergen management as a whole?
Zhang: A successful allergen management program depends on rigorous control of allergenic foods and ingredients from all other products and ingredients at every step of the food production process, from raw material development to the delivery of final products. This means that for allergen management practices to be effective, they must be a shared responsibility between food manufacturers, government agencies, regulators and consumers.
At the Mars GFSC, we take a precompetitive approach to research, knowledge sharing and collaborations—this means we openly share insights and expertise to help ensure safe food for all. This is important in driving forward innovations, helping unlock solutions that may not have previously been possible.
We have shared our latest work both through an open access publication in Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A but also directly with regulatory bodies such as the FDA in the hopes of advancing knowledge in both food safety risk management and allergen management in complex flour-based media within global supply chains. In addition to this, this research contributes to a wider Food Safety Best Practice whitepaper focused on food allergen risk management currently under draft by the Mars GFSC, which will be published in collaboration with Walmart Food Safety Collaboration Center and the Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology (CIFST) later this year.
We believe that global collaborations such as this are essential to improving food allergen management and mitigating food safety risks. Communication, training and knowledge sharing are core principles of the Mars GFSC and as such form a large part of our ongoing activities in this space. For example, we have hosted Food Allergen Management workshops in collaboration with Danone and Romer Labs focused on helping to raise awareness of current and future food allergen trends. At one such event in 2019, 100 participants from 16 food companies came together to promote food allergen management in the industry and ensure that the next generation of food integrity testing capability is relevant, practical, and directly applicable to the real-world problems experienced by manufacturers and processors throughout the supply chain.
Representatives of the Mars GFSC have also shared our insights externally at a number of international conferences as well as during a Food Enterprise Food Allergen Management Seminar on topics including effective allergen management procedures, our guiding principles for allergen managements at Mars, and shared our approach to encourage and share knowledge with other manufactures in this area.
We continue to support requests for technical insights, for example providing insights during a global consultation session on General Principles for Labeling of Prepackaged Food. This resulted in the addition of characterization requirements for possible allergenic substances, promoting the use of a recognizable naming system in ingredient lists that contain allergen warnings.
Food Safety Tech: Can you comment on additional work your team is doing in the area of food fraud?
Zhang: Food allergen risk management forms only one part of our wider food integrity focus at the Mars GFSC. We are committed to helping ensure food authenticity in an increasingly complex, global food supply chain through collaboration with global partners to develop new and improved tools and analytical methods that help protect the integrity of raw materials and finished products.
We have collaborated with researchers at Michigan State University to develop a Food Fraud Prevention Cycle roadmap (Introducing the Food Fraud Prevention Cycle (FFPC): A dynamic information management and strategic roadmap) which answered questions such as how to detect food fraud, how to start a food fraud prevention program, what to do in terms of testing, how much testing is enough, and how to measure success. Our intention in publishing this research was that the adoption of a holistic and all-encompassing information management cycle will enable a globally harmonized approach and the continued sharing of best practices across industry partners.
More recently, we completed an international collaboration tackling rice adulteration together with Queen’s University Belfast (QUB), Agilent Technologies, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), China National Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment (CFSA), and Zhejiang Yangtze Delta Institute of Tsinghua University (Yangtze Delta). This work successfully developed a two-tier testing program, capable of rapidly screening the geographical origins of rice within the global supply chain (Food Fingerprinting: Using a two-tiered approach to monitor and mitigate food fraud in rice). By developing a tiered system, we could ensure that manufacturers use the right techniques for the right occasion, to maximize the information available in investigating food fraud at the best value. As part of this work, we have helped develop hands-on training in Ghana and inform best practice guidance to help build the foundations of a strong food safety culture in rice authenticity across the global supply chain.
While blue is the most popular color around the world, not all blues are created equal and or belong into the food supply. The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed in Europe mentioned a case of unauthorized food dye Sudan Blue II in a roasted corn snack food. Sudan Blue II, also known under the name Solvent Blue 35, is used to dye oils, solvents, alcohols, esters, hydrocarbon derivatives and other industrial chemicals, and is classified as carcinogenic and harmful to humans and the environment.
Iran is producing the lion share of saffron, the most precious spice, worldwide. One kilogram of saffron requires weeks of backbreaking work and the manual processing of around 170,000 flowers. Smuggling of what is also called “Red Gold”, and fraudulent and counterfeit saffron, are now million-dollar endeavors, as revealed by Europol and other investigations. From illegal food dyes like lead chromate, to herbs, to corn-on-the-cob strings, saffron is adulterated in many ways to enable fraudsters a participation in this $500 million market.
Food fraud is rampant in pre-packaged and non-prepackaged meatballs, according to the Consumer Council in Hong Kong. A DNA investigation of beef meatballs revealed that 60% of samples contained pig derived meat, other samples contained chicken. None of the analyzed lobster ball samples showed any crustacean DNA. Consumers, especially ones with dietary or religious restrictions, are cautioned to check the ingredients lists of pre-packaged meatballs carefully and to be aware the some of the meatballs may contain undesired mystery meat.
In 2016, the food authenticity team at Queen’s University Belfast published a study that evaluated adulteration levels in oregano—specifically, 78 samples purchased at retail.1 Almost a quarter of the samples had some adulteration. Some samples actually contained more than 70% other leaf material, primarily olive and myrtle leaves. This study was widely reported and appeared to result in drastic decreases in the levels of adulteration in oregano.
However, just last year, the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission published the results of a coordinated control plan for “fraudulent practices” in spices in which they tested 1,885 samples of 6 herbs and spices submitted from from 23 countries.2 Almost half of the 295 oregano samples were “suspicious of being adulterated.” The results of these studies imply that food fraud—especially fraud involving higher-value and further-processed products with a substance that does not make consumers sick—is a persistent risk and demands a sustained response from industry and regulators.
Evaluating historical data from various sources (the scientific literature, regulatory reports, media reports, etc.) is a critical component of a food fraud prevention program, but it is not enough. A strong program will include an in-depth evaluation of what is known historically about food fraud for relevant raw materials, ongoing monitoring of food safety and fraud notifications, a fraud-focused evaluation of supplier controls, audit and testing programs that include specific anti-fraud measures, and an assessment of situational factors that could increase fraud incentive (geographic, economic, etc.).
The Food Fraud Database has tracked public reports of food fraud for almost 10 years. Many incidents are types of fraud that have occurred repeatedly, as the incident distribution from last year illustrates (see Figure 1). In addition to herb/spice fraud, frequent types of fraud include replacement of honey with sugar syrups; unregulated and counterfeit liquor; wines labeled as a more expensive varietal or with undeclared additives; milk products with added protein or fats from other sources; and fraud related to organic certification or geographic origin. Although these types of fraud appear to be “reasonably foreseeable,” the challenge is that during a time of supply chain stressors—such as the COVID-19 pandemic—risks may evolve quickly as suppliers and supply chain structures change. Re-evaluating food fraud vulnerability in response to changing conditions can be time-consuming, but is important to stay ahead of potential risks.
We frequently work with food manufacturers to develop their food fraud vulnerability assessments. Our experience is that searching and compiling risk data and mapping a set of raw materials to the appropriate data sources for analysis can be the most time-consuming aspects of the project. Since Google searches or other manual processes are not always reliable and efficient, a helpful first step can be finding a data source that compiles and standardizes food safety and fraud data from a wide range of reliable sources. The mapping process then involves identifying each individual ingredient component of the raw materials sourced by the company and linking it to the relevant ingredient name in the data source. It is important to invest this time up front to identify the most appropriate data sources and conduct a thorough mapping process. This ensures food safety and quality assurance staff will be notified of information relevant to their particular supply chains moving forward.
Many quality assurance professionals struggle to fit in food fraud assessments and mitigation plans while managing day-to-day food safety and quality programs. A two-stage process, including an ingredient screen followed by a detailed assessment for potentially high-risk ingredients, can make the process more efficient for companies managing hundreds of raw materials (see Figure 2). Existing food safety testing and auditing programs may also have application to food fraud prevention and should also be documented in a food fraud program. Many food companies find value in outside expert guidance to set up a food fraud program so that food safety and fraud risks aren’t unintentionally missed. The goal of a food fraud program is not to add to the workload of food safety and quality assurance staff, but to enable those staff to identify the most targeted measures that will help ensure food safety, authenticity, and brand protection.
References
Black, C., et al. (2016). A comprehensive strategy to detect the fraudulent adulteration of herbs: The oregano approach. Food Chemistry, 210, 551–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.05.004
Twelve thousand packs of adulterated coffee that did not match quality standards were seized in Brazil. The coffee was not labeled correctly, and in addition contained foreign matter, such as bark and wood. This investigation is part of a larger operation that altogether seized 15 tons of adulterated coffee, which contained corn, did not adhere to quality standards, and was packaged with a counterfeit purity seal.
Vanilla is one of the most popular and expensive flavoring ingredients, used in ice cream, dairy, beverages, baked goods and more. Its smooth, warm taste and ability to enhance other flavors make it a sought-after element in cooking and baking worldwide. Insufficient natural sources, impacted by adversary weather events, are unable to keep up with an increasing demand. As a result, what is labeled as “pure vanilla” is occasionally adulterated with ingredients that are not derived from vanilla beans, but either synthetic or made from other plant or even animal sources. In the case of on Australian retail company, the vanilla extract was mislabeled as “pure” with a picture of vanilla plant parts shown on the label, misleading consumers. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission issued a hefty fine after two infringement notices.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for these cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you visit and/or use the FST Training Calendar, cookies are used to store your search terms, and keep track of which records you have seen already. Without these cookies, the Training Calendar would not work.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Cookie Policy
A browser cookie is a small piece of data that is stored on your device to help websites and mobile apps remember things about you. Other technologies, including Web storage and identifiers associated with your device, may be used for similar purposes. In this policy, we say “cookies” to discuss all of these technologies.
Our Privacy Policy explains how we collect and use information from and about you when you use This website and certain other Innovative Publishing Co LLC services. This policy explains more about how we use cookies and your related choices.
How We Use Cookies
Data generated from cookies and other behavioral tracking technology is not made available to any outside parties, and is only used in the aggregate to make editorial decisions for the websites. Most browsers are initially set up to accept cookies, but you can reset your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent by visiting this Cookies Policy page. If your cookies are disabled in the browser, neither the tracking cookie nor the preference cookie is set, and you are in effect opted-out.
In other cases, our advertisers request to use third-party tracking to verify our ad delivery, or to remarket their products and/or services to you on other websites. You may opt-out of these tracking pixels by adjusting the Do Not Track settings in your browser, or by visiting the Network Advertising Initiative Opt Out page.
You have control over whether, how, and when cookies and other tracking technologies are installed on your devices. Although each browser is different, most browsers enable their users to access and edit their cookie preferences in their browser settings. The rejection or disabling of some cookies may impact certain features of the site or to cause some of the website’s services not to function properly.
Individuals may opt-out of 3rd Party Cookies used on IPC websites by adjusting your cookie preferences through this Cookie Preferences tool, or by setting web browser settings to refuse cookies and similar tracking mechanisms. Please note that web browsers operate using different identifiers. As such, you must adjust your settings in each web browser and for each computer or device on which you would like to opt-out on. Further, if you simply delete your cookies, you will need to remove cookies from your device after every visit to the websites. You may download a browser plugin that will help you maintain your opt-out choices by visiting www.aboutads.info/pmc. You may block cookies entirely by disabling cookie use in your browser or by setting your browser to ask for your permission before setting a cookie. Blocking cookies entirely may cause some websites to work incorrectly or less effectively.
The use of online tracking mechanisms by third parties is subject to those third parties’ own privacy policies, and not this Policy. If you prefer to prevent third parties from setting and accessing cookies on your computer, you may set your browser to block all cookies. Additionally, you may remove yourself from the targeted advertising of companies within the Network Advertising Initiative by opting out here, or of companies participating in the Digital Advertising Alliance program by opting out here.