Food substitution

Janine Curll BSc (Microbiology) LLB MAIFST

PhDLaw Candidate - Monash Universityjmcur9@student.monash.edu

OVERVIEW

• What is food substitution?• What is food fraud?• What is known?• Which foods are most vulnerable?• What is known in Australia?• Initiatives and responses• Tips on mitigation

REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Spink J., Moyer DC., Defining the Public Health Threat of Food Fraud, Journal of Food Science (2011) 76 R157-R162

Wheatley VM and Spink J, “Defining the Public Health Threat of Dietary Supplement Fraud” (2013) 12 Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 599.

Spink J Defining Food Fraud and the Chemistry of the Crime Chicago: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 2009 Annual Meeting

Everstine K, Spink J and Kennedy S, “Economically Motivated Adulteration (EMA) of Food: Common Characteristics of EMA Incidents.” (2013) 76 J. Food Prot. 723.

Manning L, Soon JM (2014) ‘Developing systems to control food adulteration’ Food Policy, 49, 23-32.

REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Spink J., “The Challenge of IP Enforcement for Agriculture Technology Transfers, Additives, Raw Materials, and Finished Goods Against Product Fraud and Counterfeiters” (2011) Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol. 16, pp183-193

Elliott C, “Elliott Review into the Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks – Final Report A National Food Crime Prevention Framework” (London, UK, 2014).

Alvarez BM, Pascual M, Rusu A and Bogason (2013) A review on existing databases for food fraud and authenticity Arch. Zootec 62 R: 73-91.

Moore J, Spink J, and Lipp M, (2012) ‘Development and Application of a Database of Food Ingredient Fraud and Economically Motivated Adulteration from 1980 to 2012’ 77 Journal of Food Science 4 118-126

REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Goldern, R. E. and Warner K., The global reach of seafood fraud (2014)http://oceana.org/en/our-work/promote-responsible-fishing/seafood-fraud/seafood-fraud-map

Pimentel, P. Treads and solutions in combating global food fraud Food Safety Magazine February/March 2014http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/februarymarch-2014/trends-and-solutions-in-combating-global-food-fraud/

Charlebois et al (2014) ‘Comparisons of Global Food Traceability regulations and requirements’ Comprehensive reviews in Food Science and Food Safety13 1104-1123

http://www.usp.org/food-ingredients/notices/new-proposed-guidance-document-appendix-xvii-guidance-food-fraud-mitigation

Curll, J (2015) The significance of food fraud in Australia (2015) 43 ABLR 270

‘Of all the frauds practices by mercenary dealers, there is none more reprehensible, and at the same time more prevalent, than the sophistication of the various articles of food’Fredrick Accum, A Treatise on Adulterations of Foods and Culinary Poisons (1820)

FOOD SUBSTITUTION? OR FOOD FRAUD?

Developing definitions:

- Developed in the USA at Michigan State University, referred to by the European Parliament:

‘Food fraud is a collective term used to encompass the deliberate and intentional substitution, addition, tampering, or misrepresentation of food, food ingredients, or food packaging; or false or misleading statements made about a product, for economic gain

Spink J and Moyer DC (2011) ‘Defining the public health threat of food fraud’ Journal of Food Science 75(9) 57-63

Terminology: Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)

WHAT IS KNOWN?

Internationally and in Australia

Mary had a little lamb,And when she saw it sicken,She shipped it off to Packingtown,And now it’s labelled chicken.

New York Evening Post (1906)

INCIDENCE UNCLEAR

European Union

• Early 2013 Food Safety Authority of Ireland broke the European ‘horse meat scandal’: 37% of tested ‘beef’ products tested positive to equine DNA

• UK National Audit Office noted reports of fraud recorded on the 'national food fraud database' in 2012 were up two-thirds since 2009

• 2014 UK Which? Study 40% not ‘lamb’ kebabs and 1 in 6 fish shops not the species purchased

INCIDENCE UNCLEAR

Northern America• ‘not known conclusively how widespread food

fraud is in the US or worldwide’ (Congressional Research Service 2014)

• Oceana 2 year study: 59% of tuna samples sold had been mislabeled, 44% of all retail outlets visited sold mislabelled fish; 74% of seafood sold in sushi restaurants was mislabelled.

INCIDENCE UNCLEAR

China • 2008 reported adulteration of dairy products with

melamine and cyanuric acid significant for two (2) reasons:

1. Spectacular actualisation of the public health and safety risk associated with food fraud

2. Failure of the operating food safety management systems to identify the potential adulterant and control for it

Chihuahuas in the coal mine*Melamine: A known and uncontrolled food safety threat: - The ‘lack of analytical selectivity for food protein and potential adulteration with

non-protein nitrogen’ was known since mid 20th century;- Reported in fishmeal in the 1980s; - Contamination of commercial animal feed and deaths of thousands of pigs in

Thailand in 2007;- Renal failure of cats and dogs, published in veterinary journals in 2004 and 2007

following contaminated wheat flour with melamine; and- Extensive recalls of pet foods in the USA in 2006 and 2007

No standard for detecting melamine existed at the time (31 Standards existed in China for the production, distribution of milk)

* Marion Nestle

Spink and Moyer (2011) Food Risk Matrix

THERE IS A PUBLIC HEALTH RISK

Food fraud threat “potentially more risky than other types of food risks” (Spink 2013)

• direct, • indirect and • technical

Exposure to acute toxicity by unknown adulterant causing immediate or imminent danger or threat to health/life from one exposure

Nature of risk: Direct risk

Undeclared sibutramine in ‘natural’ weight loss food

Substitution of premium foods with cheaper components with allergenic potential

Toxic plant seed – cardiac glycosides

Longer term exposure to harmful adulterants or the omission of beneficial ingredients

Nature of risk – Indirect risk

Honey substituted with sugar syrups of unknown origin

Meats of unknown origin/ potential vet chemicals

Carcinogens as fillers in paprika

Nonmaterial in nature and may include false description as to origin, production methods, resulting in lack of traceability for recall purposes, purchased food actually unknown food etc.

Nature of risk – Technical risk

Lack of identification and traceability system

Mislabelling Hoggett rolled as lamb

VULNERABLE FOODSUSP www.foodfraud.org database

WHAT IS KNOWN IN AUSTRALIA?

Data from media releases of activity by food type

NSW Food Authority (2007 – 2015) andAustralian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) (2013-2015)

• Red meats• Poultry and egg products• Olive oil• Fish/seafood• Honey• Fruit juice• Fresh produce• Coffee and tea• Nuts and seeds• Alcoholic beverages*Note: no requirement to prove intent to mislead, or commit the fraud for a charge to apply

MEATS

• 2010: Imported pork sold as “Product of Australia” or “100% Australian Made” or “Meat Content 100% Australian”

• $233,325 fine plus $200,000 legal costs• 63 charges – 45 charges of misleading conduct

and 18 charges for traceability requirement breaches

MEATS

• 2012: NSW Food Authority $7000 fines

• ‘Stress free Black Angus’ • Traceability verification

system inadequate

• 2014: ACCC enforceable undertakings

• ‘Free range black pig’• Traceability verification

system inadequate

MEATS

• 2010: Food processor convicted of large scale lamb substitution with mutton

• $66,000 for 66 charges• 33 offences for false

description; 33 for failure to comply with food safety scheme (mouthing)

POULTRY AND EGGS

• Production claims of ‘free range’ greatly contested

• Extensive ACCC activity and court actions (2014-2015) on substitution and mislabelling

• No enforceable definition of ‘free range’ and an arguably ambiguous Model Code as to stocking densities

OLIVE OIL- No mandatory, enforceable standard- Uncertainty over analytical tests- Australian Olive oil industry says ‘level of fraud and

consumer deception enormous and will only continue without an enforceable standard’ in Australia

- 2013: ACCC prosecuted a company selling ‘100% extra virgin olive oil’ substituted with 93% canola oil.

- A level of enforcement action following surveys by state Fair Trading departments is not public

FISH/SEAFOOD

• Uniform fish name marketing Standard introduced

• 2007: sampling barramundi and red emperor for DNA analysis established techniques for forensic and enforcement purposes.

• 2007: NSW Food Authority prosecuted fish monger for falsely describing Tilapia as Bream, and CoOL for other seafood.

• Much debate over agencies monitoring CoOL requirements

HONEY• An enforceable standard exists in Food Standards

Code, but not enforced by food regulators• 2014: ACCC issued penalty notices for a number of

companies selling imported sugar-syrups from Turkey, one with the claim of ‘Victoria Honey’ found to be misleading.

• 2014 Senate inquiry raised concerns over quality of compliance and enforcement by food regulators in enforcing the honey standard in the Food Standards Code.

FRUIT JUICE

2008: NSW Food Authority prosecution of a large manufacturer over the use of ‘de-ionised juice’ in drink labelled ‘99% juice’ and ‘preservative free’ (technically not)

$60,500 in fines (on appeal, reduced from $72,000)

FRUIT JUICE

2015: ACCC $20,400 in penalty notices relating to claims of ‘local’, ‘freshest quality apples’ and ‘no added sugar’.• Product allegedly made

from reconstituted apple juice concentrate and imported from China and sugar added.

FRESH PRODUCE

2014: ACCC action ‘Freshly baked in Store’

But ‘Made in Ireland’ or ‘Made in Denmark’

$2.5 million Federal Court fine

COFFEE AND TEA

2010: NSW Food Authority investigation identified a number of importers trading in coffees, teas and chocolates claiming ‘natural weight loss’ properties when sibutramine was an undeclared ingredient.

• ‘Leptin’ Green Coffee

NUTS AND SEEDS

DNA analysis - prohibited plant Thevetiaw nerifolia (Yellow Oleander) was marketed and sold as ‘candlenut’ claiming weight loss.

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

• 2007: $15,000 for misleading labelling and $15,000 for selling a product as ‘whisky’ when it contained less than 40% proof and not from Scotland

• $80,000 court costs for Supreme Court

• Nearly 300 bottles seized

RESPONSES AND INITIATIVES

Food Fraud European Commission Resolution (Jan 2014) UK Elliot Review Report (July, 2014)Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) Food Fraud Think Tank (2014)GAO report on FDA and EMA (2013)US Congressional Research Service Report (2014)National Center for Food Protection and Defense – Food Defense Plan Builder tool | FDAMichigan State University, Food Fraud Initiative

Elliott Review (2014) – UK government response includes:

Establishment of a Food Crime Unit within the Food Standards Agency supported by law enforcement agencies, the National Fraud Investigation Bureau and the National Trading Standards Board;

A strategic approach to food authenticity testing;

Improving co-ordination across government agencies;

Implement better intelligence sharing between government and industry about potential threats to food integrity;

Annoymised complaint mechanisms; and

Encouraging industry to adopt robust supply chain audit systems.

GFSI Position Paper: Mitigating the Public Health Risk of Food Fraud (July 2014)

Main points:

Broad definition of Food Fraud (includes misbranding and stolen goods)

Unique preventative approach requires:

1. Food Fraud vulnerability assessment2. Appropriate control measures to reduce the risks from the vulnerabilities

Auditor competence – similar to HACCP audits

Guidance Document Version 7 (2016) implementation

GFSI Position Paper: Mitigating the Public Health Risk of Food Fraud (July 2014)

Appropriate control measures include:

Monitoring strategy

A testing strategy

Origin verification

Specification management

Supplier audits

Research: FOOD FRAUD COMMON CHARACTERISTICS

• The importance of specific, effective analytical methods• The necessity of government standards• Industry trade groups act as a deterrent• The need for widespread access to inexpensive genetic testing

methods• Fraud opportunities are created by long and complicated supply

chains• The allergenic potential of fraudulent ingredients; and• The use of nontraditional data sources for detection

Everstine K, Spink J, Kennedy S (2013) Economically Motivated Adulteration (EMA): Common charactertistics of EMA incidents 6(4) 723-735 at 729-731

TIPS TO MITIGATE:

- Understand what food fraud is how you can prevent it (think like a detective)

- Visit GFSI and USP online information on food fraud mitigation guidance updates

- Consider points of vulnerability within your supply chain

- Develop a control plan with countermeasures

THANK YOU!

Janine Curll BSc (Microbiology) LLB MAIFST

PhD(law) Candidate, Monash University

jmcur9@student.monash.eduTwitter: @janinecurllWeb: www.foodlabellingmatters.com