Tag Archives: mislabeling

Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

The Family Business Of Food Fraud

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Organized Crime, food fraud
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database, owned and operated by Decernis, a Food Safety Tech advertiser. Image Credit: Susanne Kuehne

Organized crime is heavily involved in farming and agriculture, while generating a yearly revenue of $28 billion in Italy alone. Besides the exploitation of farm workers, protection rackets and subsidy fraud, significant profits are made from fraudulent products, such as mislabeled or tampered olive oil, buffalo mozzarella and parma ham. Consumer and worker organizations are calling for more transparent supply chains and traceability of agricultural products, because these are growing and ongoing problems.

Resource

  1. Hanschke, K. (October 18, 2021). “Wie sich die Mafia im Lebensmittelhandel bereichert”. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Fish Fraudsters, Beware (At Least in Canada)

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food fraud, fish
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database, owned and operated by Decernis, a Food Safety Tech advertiser. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne

Fish and seafood mislabeling is rampant in Canada, according to a report published earlier this year by Oceana Canada. To address the rising concerns of Canadian consumers, the Canadian government is finally consulting with the seafood industry on traceability from boat to plate. These suggestions are supposed to tackle mislabeling, illegal fishing, sustainability issues and unregulated fishing. Even restaurant owners and chefs have called Congress for action.

Resource

  1. Taylor, P. (August 22, 2021). “After fraud report, Canada looks at seafood traceability”. Securing Industry.
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Don’t Let The Cat(fish) Out Of The Bag

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Catfish, food fraud
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne

A multinational criminal smuggling ring was involved in the import of mislabeled siluriformes fish, including several species of catfish, into the United States. Import of such fish is prohibited to ensure the safety of the food supply in the United States. The smuggled catfish was labeled and listed on the import paperwork as other types of fish, which was discovered during a customs inspection. Subsequent seizures of shipping containers and warehouses led to the discovery of large amounts of mislabeled fish. The defendants face steep prison sentences.

Resources

  1. White, C. (February 22, 2021). “Catfish smuggling ring busted in New York City”. Seafood Source.
  2. “Four Alleged Smugglers Charged For Importing Banned Catfish Into The United States”. (February 18, 2021). U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. Attorney’s Southern District of New York.
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Getting To The (Expired) Meat

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Fly
Image credit: Susanne Kuehne

Several companies were involved in a warehouse operation that was relabeling expired meat or manipulating its best before dates, re-selling the meat to restaurants and other distribution points. Spanish officials seized 122 tons of meat and arrested more than a dozen people. Food fraud on that level endangers the health and, in some cases, even the lives of consumers and urgently needs to be uncovered and prosecuted.

Resource

  1. Warren, J. (January 25, 2021). “Gang in Spain’s Malaga busted for selling out of date meat to takeaways and restaurants”. The Olive Press.
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

The Not-So-Green Pistachio

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Pistachio, food fraud
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne

Organic produce is a lucrative and growing market and an easy target for food fraud. Mislabeled organically certified pistachios were bringing in up to 80% more revenue than conventional nuts, resulting in a €6 million profit. European officials including Europol uncovered the illegal operation and made 14 arrests in Spain. Forensic analysis showed that the pistachios contained illegal pesticides.

Resource

  1. Europol. (December 18, 2020). “€6 million in illegal profit of fraudulent of fraudulent organic pistachio sales”. Press release. Europol.
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Wine that Wins No Awards

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Wine label, food fraud
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne

Italy’s Guardia di Finanz (GDF) had a case of wine fraud essentially fall into their lap when a crate of fake prestigious Tuscan wine was found at the side of a road. Scammers repackaged and mislabeled cheap wine that would have fetched almost half a million dollars in revenue. The fraud was carried out with a high level of sophistication, including identical labels, bottle caps, bottle wrappers and wooden crates, and the wine was already reserved by customers in several countries.

Resource

  1. Taylor, P. (October 16, 2020). “Italian police bust fake Tuscan wine ring, seizing 4,200 bottles”. Securing Industry.
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Food Fraud, Fruit Fraud

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Lemon
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database.
Image credit: Susanne Kuehne

Even unprocessed fruit can be a target for food fraudsters. Fraudulent fruit does not only damage a company’s brand, but it also may have pesticide and other residue levels above the permitted limit. Counterfeit branding and packaging was used in exports of 2 tons of lemons from China. It is not the first time that such fraud happened and the affected company won a lawsuit earlier this year. To prevent such mislabeling in the future, the company finally registered its brand with Chinese authorities.

Resource

  1. Phil Taylor (August 6, 2020) “Counterfeit Unifrutti lemons seized in China”. Securing Industry.

 

Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Botanicals Yes, Glycerol No

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food fraud, gin, ingredients, botanicals
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne.

Gin usually consists of re-distillation or addition of a myriad of botanical ingredients to alcohol, but should certainly not contain glycerol and hydrogen peroxide like in this mislabeling case in Australia. This product poses a health risk for consumers, and is under recall for a full refund.

Resource

  1. Apollo Bay Distillery P/L recall (June 8, 2020) “Apollo Bay Distillery SS Casino Dry Gin”. Food Standards Australia New Zealand.
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Spreading False Claims

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food fraud, spread
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne.

In India, low-cholesterol or zero-cholesterol claims on product labels for spreads as well as their advertising must follow strict guidelines set by the Food Safety and Standards Authority India (FSSAI). At two Indian companies, nearly $100,000 worth of products was confiscated due to mislabeling. The spreads’ labels and nutrition panels falsely claimed that they were cholesterol free, while containing significant amounts of saturated fats.

Resources

  1. Neo, P. (February 11, 2020). Food Navigator-Asia. “Cholesterol crush: Major Indian dairy firms lose US$100,000 of products over false labelling claims”.
John McPherson, rfxcel
FST Soapbox

Clear Waters Ahead? The Push for a Transparent Seafood Supply Chain

By John McPherson
No Comments
John McPherson, rfxcel

The seafood supply chain handles 158 million metric tons of product every year, 50% of which comes from wild sources. Operating in every ocean on the planet, the industry is struggling to figure out how to overcome the numerous obstacles to traceability, which include unregulated fishing, food fraud and unsustainable fishing practices. With these and other problems continuously plaguing the supply chain, distributors and importers cannot consistently guarantee the validity, source or safety of their products. Furthermore, there are limits to what a buyer or retailer can demand of the supply chain. Niche solutions abound, but a panacea has yet to be found.

In this complex environment, there are increasing calls for better supply chain management and “catch to plate” provenance. One problem, however: The industry as a whole still regards traceability as a cost rather than an investment. There are signs this attitude is changing, however, perhaps due to pressure from consumers, governments and watchdog-type organizations to “clean up” the business and address the mounting evidence that unsustainable fishing practices cause significant environmental problems. Today, we’ve arrived at a moment when industry leaders are being proactive about transparency and technologies such as mobile applications and environmental monitoring software can genuinely help reform the seafood supply chain.

A Global Movement for Seafood Traceability

There are several prominent examples of the burgeoning worldwide commitment to traceability (and, by default, the use of new technologies) in the seafood supply chain. These include the Tuna 2020 Traceability Declaration, the Global Tuna Alliance, and the Global Dialogue on Seafood Traceability. Let’s focus on the latter to illustrate the efforts to bring traceability to the industry.

The Global Dialogue on Seafood Traceability. The GDST, or the Dialogue, is “an international, business-to-business platform established to advance a unified framework for interoperable seafood traceability practices.” It comprises industry stakeholders from different parts of the supply chain and civil society experts from around the world, working together to develop industry standards to, among other things, improve the reliability of information, make traceability less expensive, help reduce risk in the supply chain, and facilitate long-term social and environmental sustainability.

On March 16, 2020, the Dialogue launched its GDST 1.0 Standards, which will utilize the power of data to support traceability and the ability to guarantee the legal origin of seafood products. These are guidelines, not regulations; members who sign a pledge commit themselves to bringing these standards to their supply chains.

GDST 1.0 has two objectives. First, it aims to harmonize data standards to facilitate data sharing up and down the supply chain. It calls for all nodes to create Electronic Product Code Information Services (EPCIS) events to make interoperability possible (EPCIS is a GS1 standard that allows trading partners to share information about products as they move through the supply chain.). Second, it defines the key data elements that trading partners must capture and share to ensure the supply chain is free of seafood caught through illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and to collect relevant data for resource management.

Why Transparency Is Critical

By now it’s probably clear to you that the seafood sector is in dire need of a makeover. Resource depletion, lack of trust along the supply chain, and the work of global initiatives are just a few of the factors forcing thought leaders in the industry to rethink their positions and make traceability the supply chain default.

However, despite more and more willingness among stakeholders to make improvements, the fact is that the seafood supply chain remains opaque and mind-bogglingly complex. There are abundant opportunities for products to be compromised as they change hands over and over again across the globe on their journey to consumers. The upshot is that the status quo rules and efforts to change the supply chain are under constant assault.

You may ask yourself what’s at stake if things don’t change. The answer is actually quite simple: The future of the entire seafood sector. Let’s look at a few of the most pressing problems facing the industry and how transparency can help solve them.

Illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. IUU fishing includes fishing during off-season breeding periods, catching and selling unmanaged fish stocks, and trading in fish caught by slaves (yes, slaves). It threatens the stability of seafood ecosystems in every ocean.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, IUU fishing accounts for as much as 26 million tons of fish every year, with a value of $10–23 billion. It is “one of the greatest threats to marine ecosystems” and “takes advantage of corrupt administrations and exploits weak management regimes.” It occurs in international waters and within nations’ borders. It can have links to organized crime. It depletes resources available to legitimate operations, which can lead to the collapse of local fisheries. “IUU fishing threatens livelihoods, exacerbates poverty, and augments food insecurity.”

Transparency will help mitigate IUU fishing by giving buyers and wholesalers the ability to guarantee the source of their product and avoid seafood that has come from suspect sources. It will help shrink markets for ill-gotten fish, as downstream players will demand data that proves a product is from a legal, regulated source and has been reported to the appropriate government agencies.

International food fraud. When the supply for a perishable commodity such as seafood fluctuates, the supply chain becomes vulnerable to food fraud, the illegal practice of substituting one food for another. (For seafood, it’s most often replacing one species for another.) To keep an in-demand product flowing to customers, fishermen and restaurateurs can feel pressure to commit seafood fraud.

The problem is widespread. A 2019 report by Oceana, which works to protect and restore the Earth’s oceans, found through DNA analysis that 21% of the 449 fish it tested between March and August 2018 were mislabeled and that one-third of the establishments their researchers visited sold mislabeled seafood. Mislabeling was found at 26% of restaurants, 24% of small markets, and 12% of larger chain grocery stores. Sea bass and snapper were mislabeled the most. These results are similar to earlier Oceana reports.

Consumer health and food safety. It’s difficult to guarantee consumer health and food safety without a transparent supply chain. End-to-end traceability is critical during foodborne illness outbreaks (e.g., E. coli) and recalls, but the complex and global nature of the seafood supply chain presents a particularly daunting challenge. Species substitution (i.e., food fraud) has caused illness and death, and mishandled seafood can carry high histamine levels that pose health risks. Consumers have expectations that they are eating authentic food that is safe; the seafood industry has suffered from a lack of trust, and is starting to realize that the modern consumer landscape demands transparency.

Why Seafood Traceability Supports the Whole Supply Chain

Most seafood supply chain actors are well-intentioned companies. They regard themselves as stakeholders of a well-managed resource whose hardiness and survival are critical to their businesses and the global food supply chain. Many have implemented policies that require their buyers to verify—to the greatest extent possible—that the seafood they procure meets minimum standards for sustainability, safety and quality.

This kind of self-regulation has been an important first step, but enforcing such standards has been hampered by the lack of validated traceability systems in a digital supply chain. Of course, it costs money to implement these systems, which has been a sticking point, but industry leaders are starting to realize the value of the investment.

Suppliers. A key benefit of traceability for suppliers (i.e., processors and manufacturers) is that it allows them to really protect their business investments. Traceability achieves this because it demonstrates to consumers and trading partners that suppliers are doing things the correct way. Traceability also gives them better control over their supply chains and improves the quality of their product—other important “indicators” for consumers and trading partners.

These advantages also create opportunities for suppliers to build their brand reputations. For example, they can engage with consumers directly, using traceability data to explain that they are responsible stewards of fish populations and the environment and that their products are sustainably sourced and legitimate.

The bottom line is that suppliers that don’t modernize and digitize their supply chains probably won’t be able to stay in business. This stark realization should make them embrace traceability, as well as adopt practices that comply with the regulations that govern their operations. And once they “get with the program,” they should also be more inclined to follow initiatives and guidelines such as the GDST 1.0 Standards. This will invariably create more trust with their customers and partners.

Brands (companies) and distributors. These stakeholders also have a lot to gain from traceability. In a nutshell, they can know exactly what they’re purchasing and have peace of mind about the products’ origins, sustainability, and legitimacy. Like suppliers, they can readily comply with regulations, such as the U.S. Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), a risk-based traceability effort that requires importers to provide and report key data about 13 fish and fish products identified as vulnerable to IUU fishing and/or seafood fraud.

And, of equal importance to their own fortunes, brands and distributors can use traceability to bolster their reputations and build and solidify their relationships with customers. Being able to prove the who, what, when, where, how, and why of the products they’re selling is a powerful branding and communications tool.

The end of the supply chain: Retailers, food service groups/providers, and consumers. High-quality products with traceable provenance mean retailers and food service companies will have better supply chain control and more “ammunition” to protect their brands. As with the stakeholders above, they’ll also garner more customer loyalty. For their part, consumers will know where their seafood comes from, be assured that their food is safe, feel good about being responsible buyers, and be inclined to purchase only products they can verify.

Transparency, Technology, Trust and Collaboration

The seafood industry is at a critical point in its very long history. It’s not a new story in business: Adapt, adopt and improve or face the consequences—in this case, government penalties, sanction from environmental groups, consumer mistrust and abandonment, and decreased revenues or outright failure.

There is one twist to the story, however: What the industry does now will affect more than just its own interests. The health of all fish species, the environment, and the future of the food supply for an ever-growing population hang in the balance.

But as we’ve demonstrated, there is good news. Supply chain transparency, driven by international initiatives and new technologies, is catching on in the industry. Though companies still struggle to see transparency as an investment, not a cost, their stances seem to be softening, their attitudes changing. The writing is on the wall.

The message I want to end with is that supply chain stakeholders should know that transparency is attainable—and it needn’t be painful. Help is available from many quarters, from government and global initiatives like the GDST to consumers themselves. Working with the right solution provider is another broad avenue leading to supply chain transparency. Technology is at the point now that companies have solid options. They can integrate their current systems with new solutions. They can consider replacing outdated and expensive-to-operate systems with less complicated solutions that, in the long run, do more for less. Or they can procure an entirely new supply chain system that closes all the gaps and jumps all the hurdles to transparency.

Whatever path the industry decides follow, the time to act is now.