Standing up to food fraud

As anyone working in the food and manufacturing sector will tell you, fraud and crime pose a very real threat, with the last few years seeing significant disruption, opening up new opportunities for criminal diversification.

Only last month Food Standards Scotland (FSS) issued a public health warning​​ after lab results confirmed that counterfeit bottles of Glen’s vodka on sale in the UK contained isopropyl alcohol. Even when consumed in small quantities, the chemical can be very dangerous and even lead to death.

Along with posing a health threat, the economic impact of food crime is a hefty burden. Analysis from the FSS and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) estimates that such acts (which includes document fraud, theft, waste diversion, unlawful processing, substitution, misrepresentation and adulteration) cost the UK economy up to £2bn per year. And separate studies put the annual global cost as high as $50bn.

Summarising the multifaceted impact of food crime, Dr Lorna De Leoz from Agilent Technologies said: “The whole food supply chain is impacted by food fraud resulting in economic and reputational damages but most importantly, it poses a grave threat to consumer health.”​

After analysing the current threat level in the UK, the FSA and FSS report concluded that while the majority of food and drink products on sale are safe and authentic, external events such as geopolitical unrest and supply chain disruption have provided new opportunities for criminal activity.

“Inflation-driven market pressures and climate change-induced crop failures increase the likelihood of fraud such as adulteration,”​ agreed Simon Cole, CEO at food authentication solution provider Bia Analytical.

“Quite simply, when supply diminishes and demand rises, the risk of fraud increases.”​

Moreover, the inter-connectedness of our food system makes prevention all the more difficult.

“Fraud threats are exacerbated by the global supply chains, where traceability, tracking, and verification of raw materials, ingredients, or finished goods becomes more challenging,” ​added Tracy Fink, director of scientific programmes, science and policy initiatives at the Institute of Food Technologists.

This is a particular challenge for smaller businesses, Nimisha Raja, the founder of snack brand ‘Nim’s…naturally’, told Food Manufacture.

“Smaller producers may be more susceptible to food fraud due to limited funds for auditing the supply chain, relying more on intuition and detective work to ensure a clean supply chain,”​ she explained.

Information is key

With new threats emerging and old ones refusing to go away, it is incumbent upon the food and drink industry at large to work together to find solutions.

To that end, a number of resources already exist, such as the FSA’s ‘food fraud resilience self-assessment tool’ and Campden BRI’s new food crime e-book.

“We live in challenging times so we must be aware of the potential triggers and drivers for risks such as adulteration and other fraudulent activities that may affect our supply chains,” ​said Campden BRI’s Bertrand Emond following the e-book’s launch in May.

“The new e-book provides support and guidance for food companies to help avoid falling foul of the growing threat of food crime.”​

Another useful tool is the Food Fraud Database. Created by FoodChain ID, it monitors reports of food fraud around the world and in recent times has witnessed a wide range of different adulterants being used in food and drink products.

According to FoodChain ID technical services director, Karen Everstine, these include industrial dyes in spices, products with falsified expiration dates, olive oil diluted with vegetable oils, seafood with fraudulent geographic origin, and active pharmaceutical ingredients in products marketed and sold as over-the-counter dietary supplements.

“Because food fraud perpetrators are trying to evade food safety and quality systems, it is likely that many food fraud incidents go undetected,” ​Everstine added.

“FoodChain ID has created an online searchable and customisable database of information from a wide variety of sources specifically to meet this requirement of understanding documented historical fraud threats.”​

Can technology provide the answers?

While these resources are valuable, technological solutions are increasingly emerging as an essential tool in the fight against food crime. Speaking to this point, Fink said that technology is now “critical” ​for enhancing transparency, traceability and security within the global F&B supply chain.

“Technologies include analytical techniques like mass spectrometry, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and near-infrared spectroscopy, blockchain, DNA barcoding, electronic sensors, radio-frequency identification tags, IoT sensors and smart packaging,”​ she continued.

“The analytical techniques are highly sensitive and can detect the slightest trace amounts of contaminants. Blockchain is a tamper-proof ledger for tracking products from origin to consumer and can help with the authenticity of high-value products.​

“Smart packaging may include such options as QR codes that can provide consumers with detailed information about the product and its transparency throughout the supply chain from farm to fork. Smart packaging may also include tamper-resistant or tamper-evident seals and/or packaging that may change colour if the product has been disturbed or interfered with in anyway.”​

Dr De Leoz agreed that analytical testing is an important tool in the fight against fraud: “The key is to identify unique features of authentic samples through analytical techniques such as mass spectrometry. A chemical fingerprint is then built out of these unique features that could be matched against sourced ingredients, intermediates, or food products to predict their authenticity.”​

Elsewhere, Cole remarked upon the noticeable progress that has been made in the field of supplier accreditation and audits. He said that new technologies have massively accelerated the quality assurance process, which saves suppliers and retailers time and money.

“Traditional authentication methods rely on time-consuming lab testing or paper certification,” ​Cole explained.

“With instant on-site authenticity screening, manufacturers and retailers can ensure products are genuine without waiting for lab results. This speed-to-authenticity approach supports fast and accurate quality assurance.”​

While acknowledging the value of such technologies, Everstine warned that they should only make up part of a manufacturers’ approach. To ensure that a business is fully protected, a more “holistic”​ approach is necessary.

“Testing is not a full solution because it can be expensive, difficult to implement at multiple places along quickly moving supply chains, and requires standardisation between governments and business-to-business relationships,”​ she contended.

“A holistic food fraud prevention programme includes strong supplier relationships and supply chain management, an auditing programme that includes anti-fraud measures, monitoring changes in supply and the market environment, and thorough understanding of historical risk.”​

This is similar to the point raised by Raja about the challenges facing smaller businesses. Asked how these obstacles could be overcome, she ventured: “Given the importance of preventing food fraud, industry leaders and governing bodies should encourage, identify and produce more affordable solutions or proactively provide financial aid to implement existing ones.​

“Blockchain technology is one of the most effective tools for detecting food fraud, but its implementation costs, from initial setup to ongoing maintenance, is prohibitive to all but the largest manufacturers.”​

Asked what smaller firms should do in response, Raja added: “Human interaction and diligence must be closely and continually implemented. Technology can mitigate some aspects of food fraud when used in the right way. However, it cannot entirely eliminate it.”​

Where do we go next?

While food fraud is understandably a major concern for food and drink manufacturers, the advent of new technologies means that adulterated products can be identified more accurately than ever before. Moreover, AI and machine learning tools hold huge promise.

“The key is preventive measures and using AI-powered tools to also monitor social media posts and/or online platforms to pick up signs of counterfeit products or fraudulent practices will be a vital tool for mitigating future fraud,”​ Fink said.

Dr De Leoz is also hopeful about AI and its ability to streamline data processing and reduce delays in spotting threats.

“Automation in sample preparation, analysis and reporting can help provide quicker results, while smart features on instruments can help reduce instrument downtime,”​ she added.

In the meantime, Dr De Leoz believes that new regulation will help deter food fraud and ensure firms follow best practices.

“The EU Deforestation Regulation bans the import of products linked to deforestation such as soya and palm oil and the US Food Safety Modernization Act addresses economically motivated adulteration. Stricter penalties can help deter fraudulent activities.”​

Fink shared similar thoughts, calling for legislators to provide a “more robust deterrent”​ against food fraud. While Cole said the widespread adoption of “fully integrated supply chain tracking with independent testing, providing immutable proof of origin and authenticity” ​will be key.

“This will not only reduce food fraud but also address sustainability, quality, and safety concerns simultaneously,”​ Cole stated.

Offering advice to the wider food and drink industry, Everstine urged firms to implement and routinely update their vulnerability assessments to ensure that they fully meet regulatory requirements and are prepared to prevent future incidents.

“FoodChain ID works with clients in our food fraud consulting programme to help them document their food fraud mitigation programmes, including information about suppliers and supply chain controls, auditing programs and relevant testing,”​ she said.

“A food fraud mitigation plan should be supported by a company’s overall food safety plan, but it should be a separate evaluation that goes beyond the food safety plan to specifically evaluate fraud vulnerabilities and controls.”​

Food fraud is a complex issue, as evidenced by the range of challenges and opportunities highlighted in this piece. Nonetheless, it is not an area where the sector can afford to sit on its hands, or else risk being caught out.