The latest news, trends, analysis, interviews and podcasts from the global food and beverage industry

With food fraud costing the industry billions each year, the pressure to detect adulteration is mounting. As economic challenges persist, incidents of deceptive practices pose growing risks. Thanks to advanced technology like portable authenticity testing, companies are empowered to detect fraud swiftly, enhancing quality control and ensuring consumer safety across the food chain. Terry McGrath, founder and CSO of Bia Analytical, tells us more.

Food fraud costs the industry up to $50 billion annually. The risk of food fraud remains high as economic pressure on the food chain continues to grow due to factors such as inflation, supply chain disruptions, and crop failures.

Fraud encompasses both quantitative adulteration – when a substance of lower value is added to a product to increase its weight or volume – and qualitative adulteration—the intentional addition of a substance to make a product seem higher quality.

Each form of adulteration attempts to mislead the supply chain or misrepresent commodities for financial gain, that is, securing a higher price for the product by volume or quality.

The scope of food fraud

The risks of adulteration don’t just stop at the financial loss of the purchaser overpaying for lower quality or diluted commodities. Some foods such as paprika, cumin, garlic powder and oregano are found to have been adulterated using allergens such as flour and peanut shells or unregulated waste products like olive leaves, which pose additional risks such as pesticide contamination. Quite shockingly, adulterants also include non-edible substances like chalk or brick dust.

Consumer awareness of food fraud has increased in recent years, largely due to high-profile cases highlighted by traditional and social media. It is well understood in the market that commodities like extra virgin olive oil are particularly susceptible to adulteration with lower-quality or blends of oils.

Food fraud is typically opportunistic and transient, shifting targets as new opportunities arise. A recent emerging risk was observed following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which disrupted sunflower oil supply chains, leading to shortages amid sustained high demand. Historically, sunflower oil has been adulterated with substances such as paraffin oil, potentially containing carcinogens and non-edible castor oil, escalating the risk from financial fraud to direct consumer harm.

🎙️The fight against fraud in the food and beverage space is critical, and digital technologies are at the forefront of this battle. Click here to listen to our Crunchtime podcast on food fraud, with experts discussing cutting-edge solutions, such as blockchain for supply chain transparency, AI for detecting counterfeit products and advanced labelling technologies to ensure product authenticity.

Climate change also plays its part. Due to year-on-year crop failures, fruit juices, for example, can be subject to adulteration with anything from adding water to adding the juice of another fruit, again posing a risk for allergy sufferers. Even ground coffee poses a risk to consumers with the use of bulking agents such as roasted grains or starch.

Food adulteration is rarely identified by sight alone. Fraudsters go to extreme lengths to hide their illegal activities, such as falsifying documents, labels and batch records. Adulterants include substances that manipulate the senses, such as scented oils, coloured dyes or substitutes that are visually similar in colour, shape and texture. Since sensory perception alone is not a reliable technique to detect adulteration, other scientific techniques must be used.

Technology's role in combating adulteration

Spectroscopy combined with chemometric or artificial intelligence (AI) modelling is a recognised approach in the industry for accurate and effective authenticity analysis. Using spectroscopy to identify adulteration is comparable to identifying a criminal by their unique biometric fingerprint

Spectroscopy acquires this ‘fingerprint’ by measuring how a material interacts with light – for example, near-infrared. These fingerprints are unique, making spectroscopy a robust method for accurate food adulteration screening.

However, the subtle differences between samples are not easily recognised through spectroscopy alone. This is where chemometrics and AI come in. These data manipulation techniques enhance sample identification by analysing the data, sorting samples into distinct groups and creating models which predict outcomes for unknown samples.

Effective modelling uses a broad, comprehensive approach to define what authentic products should look like, making it easier to spot atypical samples by identifying differences with the authentic profile.

Until recently, authenticity testing was limited to laboratories. Laboratory analysis, although effective, slows down the supply chain by as much as three weeks. The delay of authenticity reporting has a significant impact on quality and goods-in processes, even having the possibility of hindering food production and invoicing.

There is a real need for a rapid, portable test that can provide confidence at the point of sampling, confidence that the commodity matches the purchase specifications, including authenticity, thus streamlining complex paper-heavy processes and avoiding lengthy and costly in-lab testing.

The transformation in process isn’t just the ability to perform testing using a handheld device it’s the ability to turn that data output into a meaningful result automatically and instantly, meaning that not only has the sample been analysed, but the output has been interpreted into something useful to the user.

The identification takes place instantly by comparing the ‘fingerprint’ against a complex scientific model comprised of known authentic samples. The availability of portable devices, data connectivity and secure cloud data storage moves authenticity testing out of the lab and places it in the hands of the auditor or person in charge of quality assurance at goods-in/out. Testing no longer requires a scientist or a laboratory.

Another consideration is the level of financial strain which is being placed on suppliers and manufacturers, which limits their ability to conduct high-volume authenticity testing through traditional lab methods. A single analysis is known to cost upwards of £200-£250, excluding shipping which limits the quantity of samples which can feasibly be tested.

This could mean that for example, out of a 100kg pallet of paprika, only a 20g sample is sent for authenticity testing. This cannot statistically represent the batch. Now, with the advent of portable testing solutions, an unlimited quantity of samples can be non-destructively tested for authenticity, providing a greater understanding of homogeneity and reassurance in the fight against food fraud.

In the time it takes to analyse just one sample using traditional methods, hundreds – or even thousands – of samples can now be screened for authenticity. This means that only packages flagged as potentially adulterated need further analysis, while authentic materials can move smoothly through the food chain.

The ability to verify authenticity at the point of testing could transform batch testing, quality control, and supplier approval processes. Shifting authenticity screening from the laboratory into the hands of the purchaser increases supply chain confidence and helps diminish the influence of food fraudsters.

#foodfraud #fraud #technology #AI #labtesting #opinion