Summary of the AOAC-Sponsored Workshop Series Related to the ...

S P E C I A L R E P O R T

Summary of the AOAC-Sponsored Workshop Series

Related to the Global Understanding of Food Fraud

(GUFF): Mobilization of Resources for Food Authenticity

Assurance and Food Fraud Prevention and MitigationSamuel Benrejeb Godefroy,1 Virginie Barrere,1 Jeremie Theolier,1

Robert C. Baker,2 Guangtao Zhang,2 Marc Hamilton,3 Monique Pellegrino,4

Pamela Byrne,5 and Peter Ben Embarek6

1Food Risk Analysis and Regulatory Excellence Platform (PARERA), Department of Food Science and Instituteof Nutrition and functional Foods (INAF), Universite Laval, Quebec, Canada, 2Mars Global Food Safety Centre,Beijing, People’s Republic of China, 3Eurofins-EnvironeX, Quebec, Canada, 4Danone Food Safety Center, Paris,France, 5Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland, 6International Food Safety Regulators Network(INFOSAN), Geneva, Switzerland

Corresponding author’s e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Background: Reports of incidents associated with the misrepresentation of food products as well as the adulteration of theircomposition leading, at times, to significant public health impacts are being recorded.Objective: This paper aims at summarizing the outputs of three workshops dedicated to the theme “Global Understanding ofFood Fraud” (GUFF), held in Quebec City in Canada (April 2017), Beijing in the People’s Republic of China (October 2017) andDubai in the United Arab Emirates (October 2018).Method: Based on the contributions made at these workshops, the paper reviews current knowledge related to food fraudshared by experts and stakeholders representing the food industry sector, food regulators both domestically andinternationally and scientists from Academia. It also discusses approaches available to the industry across the food supplychain to predict, prevent, and possibly mitigate food fraud, inclusive of targeted and non-targeted methods of analysis.Results and Conclusions: The paper offers a discussion on areas warranting the mobilization of efforts and resources of thefood stakeholder community to reach consistent and accessible guidance on food fraud prevention, validated analyticalmethods along with an increased emphasis on prevention in food regulatory measures targeting food fraud. Furtherdevelopment is needed to reach consistent and accessible guidance on food fraud prevention, validated analytical methods,along with an emphasis on food fraud prevention.Highlights: Food fraud is receiving increased attention from consumers, regulators, and industry. International food fraudexperts were invited to three workshops. Contributions and conclusions from the workshops are reported and discussed.

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) through its FoodIntelligence Project (FAP 1617-006).

Received: 29 July 2019; Revised: 14 November 2019; Accepted: 4 December 2019VC AOAC INTERNATIONAL 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected]

470

Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL, 103(2), 2020, 470–479

doi: 10.1093/jaocint/qsz035Advance Access Publication Date: 11 March 2020Article

Dow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com/jaoac/article/103/2/470/5803156 by guest on 20 August 2022

https://academic.oup.com/

With the increasing importance of food fraud as a global issueimpacting stakeholders—food regulators, producers across thesupply chain, and consumers—a stronger interest is being wit-nessed to improve the understanding of food fraud incidents,their root cause, and their various manifestations. There is alsointerest to develop a common approach to address food fraudthrough a global prevention framework for implementation byindustry and regulators alike. As a result, a series of workshopswere organized by the Food Risk Analysis and RegulatoryExcellence Platform (PARERA) of the Institute of Nutrition andFunctional Foods (INAF) and the Department of Food Science ofUniversite Laval, Quebec, Canada, in collaboration with Queen’sUniversity’s Institute for Global Food Security (IGFS), Belfast,United Kingdom. These three workshops received support fromseveral industry partners including significant contributionsfrom Mars Inc. (through the China-based Mars Food SafetyCentre); the EnvironeX Group (Canada); R-Biopharm Inc.(Canada); and Danone Food Safety Center (France). The threeworkshops were supported by the Association of OfficialAnalytical Chemists (AOAC International, USA). The summaryof the programs of each of the three conferences is presented inTable 1.

The first workshop, themed “Towards Global Understandingof Food Fraud Prevention and Mitigation Strategies,” was heldfrom April 4th–5th, 2017 at the Chateau Frontenac, Quebec, QC,

Canada and was further supported by the Canadian FoodInspection Agency’s Federal Assistance Program (FAP), throughits Food Intelligence Project (FAP 1617-006) with the aim to iden-tify and analyze emerging food safety and quality issues. It wasjointly organized by the Quebec Consortium for IndustrialBioprocess Research and Innovation (CRIBIQ), PARERA ofUniversite Laval and the IGFS of Queen’s University, Belfast, UK.This first workshop, themed “Towards Global Understanding ofFood Fraud Prevention and Mitigation Strategies,” was heldfrom April 4th–5th, 2017 at the Chateau Frontenac, Quebec, QC,Canada and was further supported by the Canadian FoodInspection Agency’s Federal Assistance Program (FAP), throughits Food Intelligence Project (FAP 1617-006) with the aim to iden-tify and analyze emerging food safety and quality issues. It wasjointly organized by the Quebec Consortium for IndustrialBioprocess Research and Innovation (CRIBIQ), PARERA ofUniversite Laval and the IGFS of Queen’s University, Belfast, UK.This workshop aimed to review food fraud developmentsaround the world as a global challenge. Over 70 participants,representing 24 organizations, including 7 universities and 14research institutes, from Canada and around the world, werepresent at the meeting. Senior food regulatory officials fromCanada, the United States, Europe, Australia, and China, as wellas the head of Food Safety and Quality of the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), also

Table 1. Summary of the programs of the three conferences and associated workshops

Workshop Summary of the program

Quebec Session 1: Introducing Food Fraud as a Challenge Threatening Food Supply Chains and Consumer ConfidencePanel discussion: Is food fraud undermining consumers’ confidence in the integrity of the domestic and global food sup-

ply chain and why should we care?Session 2: Prevention of Food Fraud as the First Line of DefensePanel discussion: Foresight and intelligence gathering to predict and prevent food fraudSession 3: Food Fraud Detection and ManagementFirst panel discussion: Tools to manage and mitigate food fraud beyond vulnerability assessmentsSecond panel discussion: Method development to prevent and manage food fraud—progress achieved and future needsSession 4: Regulating Food Fraud as Part of Efforts of Prevention and MitigationFirst panel discussion: Regulatory frameworks associated with food fraud—The need for harmonized guidance

internationallySecond panel discussion: Charting a path forward for collaboration and resource mobilization

Beijing Session 1: Review of conclusions and key messages/recommendations from the Quebec meeting in April 2017Panel discussion: Aiming for mobilization of resources and structuring collective action for food fraud prevention and

managementSession 2: Working Session; Identifying standards and policies needed to support a global and consistent food fraud

prevention frameworkPanel discussion: Discuss the standards and policies needed to support a global and consistent food fraud prevention

framework.Session 3: Working Session; Define what is needed to achieve an effective food fraud prevention framework, including

available tools and methods to verify material authenticity.First panel discussion: Tools available to industry for early detection, prevention, and mitigation of food fraudSecond panel discussion: Harmonized food laboratory methods for food authenticity assurance and food fraud

preventionSession 4: Food Fraud Perceptions and Awareness

Dubai (Workshop) Introduction of the objectives of the workshop, its position in the Global Understanding of Food Fraud (GUFF) workshopseries and expected outcomes

Breakout session 1: Global regulators coalition and shaping a future direction for food regulatory policy to address foodfraud

Breakout session 2: Consensus guidance to industry—prevention and mitigation toolsBreakout session 3: Input into AOAC processes and initiatives in relation with standardization efforts of food fraud

methodsDubai (Open

session)First panel discussion: Future directions of food fraud regulatory policiesSecond panel discussion: Quality management systems applied to food fraud preventionThird panel discussion: Toward reliable sources of information on food fraud incidents

Godefroy et al.: Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL Vol. 103, No. 2, 2020 | 471

Dow



contributed to the workshop. The event encompassed 16 key-note lectures and 6 panels. Overall, the symposium aimed togather opinion and thought leaders in Canada, Europe, and in-ternationally and to mobilize international organizations andUnited Nations Specialized Agencies to discuss current knowl-edge, domestic and international experience related to earlyidentification, prevention and management of food fraud inci-dents; to identify gaps and discuss opportunities of collabora-tion to support action addressing food authenticity assuranceand prevention of food fraud globally. The first workshop alsoaimed to create a momentum to mobilize resources and lead toearly deliverables by partners and stakeholders in areas relatedto research, detection, risk management, and food regulatorypolicy development dealing with food fraud.

The second workshop themed “Towards Global Action forFood Fraud Prevention and Mitigation” was organized fromOctober 30th–31st, 2017 in Beijing, China and assembled 115 par-ticipants representing the food industry (including world lead-ing retailers such as Alibaba and Amazon), food safety experts,regulators, and scientists from academia. The workshopencompassed keynote presentations, panel discussions, andworking sessions on specific themes identified by thought lead-ers and experts who contributed to the April 2017 Quebec meet-ing. The working sessions took the form of facilitateddiscussions among identified experts, supported by a chair anda rapporteur and held in a plenary forum with contributionfrom attending participants. The focus was on discussionsaimed to bring the global stakeholder community closer towardthe development of principles, that can be leveraged as part ofthe ongoing effort to reach international guidance to industryand regulators to address food fraud, under the auspices of theCodex Alimentarius Commission. The ultimate objectives ofthe symposium were to determine what is needed to ensure ef-fective collaboration among key stakeholders (i.e., industry, reg-ulators, law enforcement agencies, and academia) to helpprevent food fraud incidents, support the integrity of the foodsupply chain globally, and foster a harmonized regulatory envi-ronment in this area. Two sub-objectives were pursued: (a) theidentification of overriding principles required to create a pre-competitive environment around global food fraud prevention;and (b) the initiation of the development of a common foodfraud prevention framework to support international standardsthrough the Codex Alimentarius in the future.

The third workshop was held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates(UAE) as part of the 12th meeting of the Dubai InternationalFood Safety Conference (DIFSC2018), under the theme “TowardsCollaborative Leadership to Tackle Food Fraud.” The Dubaimeeting took place on the heels of discussions on Food Fraud,at the Codex Alimentarius Commission, in particular at theCAC41 meeting (July 2–7, 2018) (1) as well as the CodexCommittee on Food Import and Export Inspection andCertification Systems (CCFICS) held in Brisbane Australia onOctober 22–26, 2018, where a discussion paper on establishing aCodex definition for food fraud, along with reviewing currentCodex texts on food fraud management were discussed (2). Over90 participants from industry, government organizations, inter-national organizations such as the FAO and the World HealthOrganization (WHO), and academic institutions contributed tothis event. The workshop included introductory presentationsreviewing current efforts and setting the scene for subsequentworking sessions, which were organized around three mainthemes: (a) shaping a future direction for food regulatory policyto address food fraud; (b) supporting consensus guidance toindustry on food fraud prevention and mitigation tools; and (c)

supporting standardization efforts of analytical methods usedin the context of food fraud prevention, under the auspices ofAOAC International.

This paper attempts to offer a proceeding of these threeworkshops, including the consensus recommendations reachedby workshop participants and contributors towards further mo-bilization of action in preventing and mitigating food fraud,with specific areas of interventions to be considered (Figure 1).

Food Fraud Themes Discussed During theGUFF WorkshopsImportance of Food Fraud and Its Impacts

As contributors to the three workshops presented variousbackgrounds, it was critical to normalize the knowledge relatedto food fraud to obtain a common baseline supporting furtherdiscussions. The following paragraphs summarize backgroundinformation about food fraud introduced by workshop contribu-tors through their various presentations, with an emphasis onattempts to characterize the impacts of such incidents on foodproduction, food safety, and consumer confidence and the earlyresponse developed by the public (food regulators) and thepublic sector.

Food fraud incidents are not new occurrences in food pro-duction practices; they have been reported ever since food wasknown to be traded. In most recent years, several food incidentshave highlighted the importance of the issue and its impact onconsumers’ trust in food products that are offered to them forsale (3, 4). In 2013, the horsemeat scandal showcased foodfraud incidents are not new occurrences in food productionpractices; they have been reported ever since food was knownto be traded. In most recent years, several food incidentshave highlighted the importance of the issue and its impact onconsumers’ trust in food products that are offered to them forsale (3, 4). In 2013, the horsemeat scandal showcased the chal-lenges associated with early identification, active mitigation,and containment of such occurrences. The complexity of thesupply chain’s increasing number of steps and players—slaugh-terhouses, multiple intermediaries, processors, resellers, stor-age, and trade facilities from around the globe—contribute toadded vulnerabilities which can lead to fraud incidents.Besides, the multiplicity and incongruity of food regulatoryprovisions and food control systems in countries where foodand food ingredients are produced and transit, present furtheropportunities for fraudsters to cheat the system. The resultingconsequences include diminished and/or loss of consumerconfidence with regards to the authenticity and integrity offood and food ingredients purchased, as well as the economicloss for consumers and industry alike, as products with anunsuspected lower value are being acquired at a premium.Further, there is the possibility of reputation damage if the foodproducer falls victim to a food fraud incident impacting aningredient, despite such an incident transpiring without theknowledge, nor the intervention, of the said producer.

While food fraud impacts practically every jurisdiction,workshop contributors noted that there is no universal regula-tory definition for it at the global level, although some attemptshave been recorded to define food fraud as part of Codex pro-ceedings. For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration(US FDA) uses the terminology economically motivated adulter-ation (EMA) and defines it (through a working definition) as “thefraudulent, intentional substitution or addition of a substancein a product for the purpose of increasing the apparent value of

472 | Godefroy et al.: Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL Vol. 103, No. 2, 2020

Dow



the product or reducing the cost of its production, i.e., for eco-nomic gain.” Product mislabeling or misrepresentation isanother manifestation of food fraud, in particular with regardsto claims related to the country of origin, methods of productionand trade such as “organic,” “fair trade” and “sustainableproduction.”

Food fraud incidents can also be associated with food safetyrepercussions and associated health impacts. In particular, thedilution and/or substitution of ingredients may result in the in-troduction of toxic substances. This was the case in incidentsinvolving the addition of industrial dyes such as Sudan dyes(known or suspected carcinogens) in spices (5), and melamineintroduced in diluted milk to fraudulently increase the apparentprotein content as measured by the estimation of total nitrogen,when such measurements are used to qualify protein content(6). The addition of peanut oil, which can be of a less highlyprocessed quality, to dilute olive oil, or ground peanut shells,which can contain residual peanut, as a diluent to groundspices, such as cumin, may lead to food allergy incidents,

potentially triggering anaphylactic shock and death (7). Healthimpacts associated with incidents involving the introduction ofharmful chemical substances would lead to less immediateeffects, such as increased cancer risk, as a result of chronicexposure, are more challenging to uncover early enough to miti-gate possible risks.

Beyond the traditional impacts of food safety hazards,nutritional risks can also be expected as a result of food fraudincidents resulting from the fraudulent dilution of food andfood ingredients. For example, a lower intake of some criticalnutrients would be anticipated if products of key nutritionalvalue, such as milk and its derivatives, are diluted, even withharmless substances such as water. This impact would be in-creasingly measurable among the vulnerable subsets of thepopulation, such as infants and children (8).

The loss of confidence in the integrity of food regulatorysystems, as well as other regulatory requirements stemmingfrom environmental and labor protection laws as safeguards forconsumer protection and ethical practices in the food trade,

Figure 1. The three workshops and their purposes and objectives.


Dow



represent another set of foreseeable consequences associatedwith food fraud events.

Finally, the far-reaching impacts of food fraud can also ex-tend to support other crime and trafficking schemes; if leftunchecked and seen as offering a possible haven for food fraud-sters, this line of an illicit yet lucrative business may be offurther interest to organized crime, money laundering, andother modern-day slavery networks. Although costs associatedwith food fraud are not well estimated, the figure of 10 to 15 bil-lion US dollars per year is relayed as representative of the lossinduced by food fraud practices on consumers and the food in-dustry sector (9). Action is therefore warranted to strengthenpreventative control measures, at all levels, such that they be-come effective deterrents to fraudsters from selecting food andfood production as an area of choice for illicit gain.

Response to Food Fraud by the Global Food StakeholderCommunity

As a follow-up to the latest major food fraud incident in Europe,which had diverse international ramifications—the horsemeatscandal—the 2014 report ordered by the UK Government anddeveloped by Prof. Christopher Elliott (10) represented a keymilestone in the development of recommendations to addressfood fraud. One of the key recommendations was to place“consumers first” and to mobilize resources to combat, butmore importantly, to prevent food fraud and, what waspresented as “food crime,”s when these incidents are of a largescale involving organized crime. The report emphasized theneed to invest in prevention approaches, with a focus on predic-tive approaches, that can help foresee areas of food productionpotentially associated with food fraud and to address them withpreventive measures.

Several experiences and initiatives on this subject wereshared during the GUFF workshops.

(a) The Food Integrity Network (FIN). FIN is a EuropeanCommission-driven initiative with over 60 partners cover-ing all sectors of the stakeholder community—industry(with a strong representation from small and mediumenterprises), academia, and regulators. The network isopen to global collaboration and includes over 270 expertsand members from 43 countries. The FIN aims to equipEuropean actors with a stronger capacity to ensure safety,integrity, and quality assurance across the food supplychain. The network develops early warning systems, ana-lytical methods, mobile technologies, traceability tools,and processes to support transparency. The FIN acts as ahub for data gathering on food fraud incidents and sup-ports harmonization efforts, as well as identifies researchgaps to fuel the development of enhanced response to foodfraud incidents. Some of the ongoing and collaborative re-search includes efforts to validate non-specific methods,proteomic methods applied to food authenticity forcomplex foods, information sharing supported by artificialintelligence and the development and application of“intelligent sensors” to support food integrity.

(b) The Food Industry Intelligence Network (FIIN). FIIN wascreated in the UK to enable a “safe and collaborative”network for the industry to share, analyze, and use data, inaddition to useful intelligence, to predict food fraud inci-dents. The FIIN is operated by industry, for industry, andhas the ultimate objective of strengthening the proactivecapacity of the British food industry, with the aim of

improved consumer trust and collaboration with food reg-ulators by a privileged communication channel andagreed-upon information exchange protocols. Since 2015,over 23 members of the food industry support the FIIN andcontribute to its financial support.

(c) The European Food Fraud Network (FFN). FFN is headed bythe European Commission and gathers regulators fromvarious EU jurisdictions to improve response to food fraudevents, particularly those that reach beyond national bor-ders. Gathering, analyzing, and sharing information aboutsuch incidents among EU competent authorities has con-tributed immensely to a better coordinated and moretimely response to food fraud events by EU regulators.

Similarly, the food industry responded to consumers’concern about food fraud and the threat posed by this phe-nomenon to all stages of the supply chain. Various tools,processes, and guidance documents were reported duringthe GUFF workshop series, as part of the effort that indus-try players have attempted to respond to food fraud, eitherindividually or collectively.

(d) Industry tools and resources. The Grocery ManufacturersAssociation (GMA), developed the EMAlertTM tool with theobjective to qualify the likelihood of adulteration of an in-gredient (11). Other useful tools reported include:� two databases developed by Food Protection and

Defense Institute (USA) that reviews food fraud inci-dents by country: the “Food Adulteration IncidentsRegistry” (FAIR) and the “World Factbook of Food”;

� the “FERA Horizon Scan” tool (UK) which offers a riskassessment approach to Food Fraud events;

� the “Food Fraud Database” of the United StatesPharmacopoeia (USP), recently acquired by DECERNISone of the most commonly utilized databases whichhelp in conducting vulnerability assessments by re-cording details associated with past reported foodfraud events, including methods of analysis used,prevalence, regulatory information, and measurestaken (12).

(e) Predictive tools. Predictive tools are most useful to increasevigilance and support early identification of food fraudevents. Food fraudsters tend to seize opportunities of illicitgain, influenced by a number of triggers, most of which in-fluence the price of the food commodity and/or are in rela-tion to its availability, as well as the availability of otherproducts, such as adulterants—cheap adulterants that canmimic food ingredients offer a tremendous potential forfood fraud incidents. Sudden changes in weather condi-tions, market forces, regulatory requirements, and con-sumer behavior tend to influence food and ingredientprices. A triangle of factors constituting an “ecosystem”appears to set favorable conditions for food fraud(Figure 2): Socio-economic characteristics: price, consumerdemand and attitudes, situation of previous years, taxes,tariffs; Regulations and standards: changes affecting avail-ability, penalties; and Characteristics of the commodityand the associated food sector: profit margins, productionyields and capacity, complexity of industry sector supplychain, sustainability, vulnerability to climate conditions,diseases, pests, etc. Data collected on each of these factors,for a given food commodity, including historical informa-tion, coupled with analytical tools in the form of adaptedalgorithms and the ability to handle large sets of data, canhelp predict and alert to possible upcoming food fraudevents, leading to Early Warning Systems (EWS). These


Dow



EWS can issue the relevant alerts, should changes occur, orbe likely to occur, in the food ingredient “ecosystem” as de-fined earlier. The analysis would detect situations relatedto price changes worldwide, impacts of security or socio-economic events, as well as an anomaly in the ecosystemthat may lead to a food fraud event. The sheer size of datastemming from food ingredients, commodities, their sup-pliers, and the international nature of food trade may pre-sent a challenge to set up such systems.

Nonetheless, the GUFF Workshop reported on such EWS,which were equipped with “big data” analysis capacity and aself-learning algorithm. It led to the issuance of color-codedoutputs for analyzed situations every week. When simulatedusing conditions mirroring the 2013 horse meat ecosystem andfed data from 2012 and 2013, it was found that this systemwould have been able to issue a warning 3–7 months ahead ofthe incident being discovered.

Regulatory Requirements Associated with Food Fraudand Global Harmonization

Recent food fraud incidents have re-ignited concern regardingthe effectiveness of current food regulatory provisions pertain-ing to food fraud. Recent media attention covering these eventshighlighted consumer expectations that regulators, the dele-gated authority by virtue of food legislation and regulations,protect the public from food fraud. While it is understandablethat regulators prioritize food safety-related measures aboveall, given public health repercussions, consumers also expectsome protection from being deceived when purchasingfood products and ingredients. Lack of action on the part ofregulators can compromise the integrity of food regulatoryframeworks. Consequently, consumers lose trust in the effec-tiveness of the regulators’ role and the overall food supplychain.

Several calls have been made to adopt a more preventive ap-proach, beyond measures meant to discourage food fraudsters,such as increases in penalties and repercussions. While widelypublicized, such enhanced actions remain reactive, dependent

on the food fraud case being detected and fully uncovered byfood regulators and food crime units. Preventive measures canbe modeled on provisions of the 2011 Food SafetyModernization Act (FSMA) as it relates to the mandatoryrequirements of preventive controls being developed andimplemented for food hazards. This approach could equally ap-ply to food fraud deficiencies, which could be made subjectto mandatory analysis across the supply chain. Once discov-ered, these vulnerabilities will need to be addressed withadequate and documented preventative controls, i.e., mitigatingmeasures.

During the GUFF workshops, regulators identified certainfactors responsible for increasing the susceptibility of food andingredients to fraudulent actions: price fluctuation as a result ofshortages or breakdowns in supply chains; climate situationsburdening supply chains; limited analytical methods oroutdated methods used in quality control; and, complexity ofsupply chains as a result of a global procurement approach. Adiscussion also took place around the necessity to rely uponfood crime units as part of food regulatory authorities, as rec-ommended by the Elliot report (10). While there was agreementthat intelligence gathering, data collection, and food fraud in-vestigation had to rely on specific approaches closer to forensicanalysis than to regular food safety incident investigation, thenecessity to have a food crime unit embedded in a food regula-tor is still a matter of debate. There was, however, a unanimousappeal to make close collaboration between law enforcementagencies and food regulatory authorities a critical requirement,particularly in the area of prediction and early detection of foodfraud events, and those planned at a large scale.

Prevention and Management of Food Fraud in the FoodIndustry

Reducing instances of food fraud requires a robust collaborationacross the supply chain—primarily that suppliers work closelywith their clients throughout the chain and adopt proactive andpreventive measures to lower the probability of an incident’soccurrence. Food quality management systems have to adapt toinclude vulnerability assessments for ingredients that maybe targeted by fraudsters. Several guidance documents and as-sociated tools have been developed over the years to help thispractice become accessible to a more significant number ofindustry stakeholders.

Similarly, measures of enhanced traceability can play a cru-cial role in preventing food fraud events. Digital traceability orthe ability to record and follow all transactions associated withfood products or ingredients using “blockchain technology,” toensure secure and transparent information transfer, is underexperimentation within many food production sectors, suchas meat production. The intent is to reach the “ultimate trace-ability” or the ability to trace a product with confidence fromthe animal/farm to the plate and access such information withminimal effort and in a paperless fashion (e.g., through asmartphone).

As a result, United States Pharmacopeia (USP), a collabora-tion between Safe Supply of Affordable Food for EveryoneEverywhere (SSAFE), PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), andWageningen University (13), and Global Food Safety Initiative(GFSI) Certification Program Owners (CPOs) (14) have developedtools for industry to implement preventive actions applicable tofood fraud management. These guidelines can support industryactors’ assessment of food fraud risks and implement measuresto comply with recent GFSI requirements regarding food fraud

Figure 2. Factors influencing food fraud incidents, supporting predictive tools.


Dow



control (15). Beyond vulnerability assessments, a concrete set ofactions need to be considered to address food fraud, in particu-lar, prevention measures to respond and possibly mitigate therisks arising from the vulnerabilities uncovered.

The GUFF workshop series enabled the discussion of multi-ple guidance documents and tools available to date, showcasedtheir differences, while identifying the critical question of theirpossible accessibility, as well as adaptability to all sectors of thefood industry, in particular for small and medium enterprises. Aproposal was therefore made to have a reliable inventory ofsuch tools, including their fitness for purpose, their applicabil-ity, and their limitations. More explicit guidance for the food in-dustry sector, as to the suitability of such tools was also deemedto be warranted. Similarly, efforts need to be made to ensurethe sustainability of these tools by maintaining their availabilityand ensuring that they are kept current to address the ever-changing needs of the food production sector across the supplychain throughout the various regions of the world. The thirdworkshop focused on issues of accessibility to these tools anddatabases across the supply chain, but in particular for smalland medium enterprises. In the context of conducting vulnera-bility assessments, which is the most common preventive mea-sure adopted and carried out by industry, workshopparticipants identified the need for more training to be providedacross the supply chain, with a focus on suppliers’ audits. Themultiplication of guidance to industry in this regard was dis-cussed and identified as an impediment for the possible propa-gation of best practices among industry members.

Food Fraud Detection Methods and Their Harmonization

Analytical methods destined to support the authentication offood ingredients and products are not a new area of research.Several technology platforms have been developed over theyears and aim to support the confirmation of ingredient au-thenticity and the possible introduction of adulterants (16–19).

The capacity to generate analytical data to better define foodingredient and product profiles and characteristics is an essen-tial step towards using such information to detect fraudulentactivity based on identifying discrepancies with what isexpected for authentic material. Targeted and non-targeted de-tection methods for food fraud have been discussed during theworkshops. Non-targeted methods can be defined as profit-based methods aiming at identifying if a food commodity is sus-pect, in other words, the profile of the sample shows someaspects that are not referred in the database or that are associ-ated to known frauds. Targeted methods detect the presence ofa known adulterant or of markers of fraudulent activity.

The clustering and analysis of big data packages associatedwith food characteristics is another discipline needed to supportnon-targeted methods for food fraud detection, which rely uponthe ability to detect deviations from established patterns (withinaccepted parameters of variation) of known analytical character-istics of an authentic ingredient. Non-targeted methods offer thepossibility of screening samples to identify breaches in authen-ticity; they must be followed by specific testing to attemptand determine the source and breadth of the adulteration. USPhas conveniently made available Guidance on Developing andValidating Non-targeted Methods for Adulteration Detection (20).These methods would, however, benefit from further efforts ofstandardization and harmonization.

In the area of specific or targeted testing, where the adulter-ant has been identified, there is a similar need, expressed by thestakeholder community, to access validated methods, based on

agreed-upon criteria. More importantly, requests have beenmade to expedite the development and availability of portable,field-adapted, and straightforward methods that support theidentification and quantification of a set of priority adulterantsexpected to occur in select food commodities. Besides, prioriti-zation of these efforts is essential, and criteria may be necessaryto consider which adulterants should be targeted and in whichfood commodities. Several methods have been reported to, pos-sibly, address the importance of targeted testing.

The new Taskforce on Food Fraud, set by AOACInternational in September 2017, evolved to two standingWorking Groups on Food Authenticity (one dedicated to tar-geted and one to non-targeted methods), and are designed to of-fer a response to this gap. The development of a unified set ofStandard Method Performance Requirements (SMPR) for testingis one of the objectives identified for those Working Groups,during the upcoming period.

Main Recommendations Stemming from theThree Workshops to Tackle Food Fraud

The GUFF workshop series enabled a multidisciplinary andmulti-stakeholder discussion of possible future action to coun-ter food fraud. Workshop participants formulated a set of rec-ommendations to guide such future action, around three mainareas: (a) future direction for food regulatory policy considera-tions to address food fraud; (b) the development of a consensusguidance to industry on food fraud prevention and mitigation;and (c) standardization of analytical methods used for foodfraud prevention. Table 2 captures the recommendations madeunder each theme.

Overall, the food regulatory community acknowledged cur-rent limitations in the arsenal of tools available to them, tocombat food fraud and agreed to conduct and share a review oflegal and regulatory frameworks associated with food fraudmanagement. Food regulators, industry, and academic stake-holders called for the need to create a safe space for informationsharing among them, about food fraud incidents and theiranalysis as well as to develop joint efforts for communication toconsumers about such incidents, with an emphasis on counter-ing hoaxes and busting myths associated with false incidents.

There was unanimous support to structure multi-stakeholder collaborative efforts at the global level, through theset-up of an Expert Consultation to be convened under the aus-pices of FAO/WHO with the objectives to harness the technicaldevelopments related to prevention and management of foodfraud. This forum would discuss and offer solutions to:

� the availability, accessibility, and dissemination of databasescapturing food fraud incidents and their analysis;

� the development and availability of predictive tools and im-pact assessment methods that are needed for food fraudprevention;

� the development of the foundations for a consensus guid-ance document to industry to address food fraud with therelevant preventive controls, with an emphasis on their ap-plicability to Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs);

� the development of guidance to regulators to achieve im-proved consistency in food regulatory provisions associatedwith food fraud management; and

� the identification and possible development of educationand training material for industry actors, at various stagesof the supply chain and with an emphasis on smalleroperators.


Dow



There was also agreement to support current efforts initi-ated out by AOAC International towards standardization of foodauthenticity assurance methods, in particular, non-targetedtesting methods that can become part of food fraud preventionand/or early prevention approaches.

Conclusions

A Call for Concerted Multi-stakeholder Resource Mobilization Efforts:Food fraudsters are always miles ahead of those who are deter-mined to abort their activities; there is a need for more action

Table 2. Main recommendations stemming from GUFF workshops to tackle food fraud

Regulatory Policy to AddressFood FraudGUFF Workshopparticipants called for:

1) Support to be provided to industry in adopting prevention measures in the form of guidance to conductvulnerability assessments or similar approaches with a possible focus on Small and Medium Enterprises(SMEs);

2) collaborative mechanisms between regulators and industry to be developed, possibly in the form of anindustry/regulators’ network, to work toward:– data gathering for implementation of predictive approaches, impact assessments, and to ascertain the

authenticity of targeted ingredients and food products– dissemination of models to conduct vulnerability assessments– training and awareness-raising efforts among all actors of the food supply chain;

3) the legislative and regulatory arsenal available to food regulators be further developed and updated toinclude the relevant deterring provisions that aim to prevent food fraud and/or to address its occurrence;

4) common direction to be pursued by food regulators in addressing food fraud, through consistent guidanceto industry and effective enforcement mechanisms. Such guidance could be provided through the work be-ing carried out under the auspices of CCFICS, which could move beyond discussions of definitions and thereview of current Codex provisions pertaining to food fraud;

5) resources to be mobilized within the International Network of Food Safety Authorities (INFOSAN), whichcould be used as a resource to track, collect and disseminate trusted information on food fraud incidentsreported and analyzed internationally;

Prevention Approaches forFood Fraud

GUFF Workshop participantscalled for:

6) efforts to be made toward better clarity on the availability of data sources and their accessibility with thepossibility to aim for more harmonization and integration of data formats;

7) a standardized approach for Vulnerability Assessments to be developed, as part of a collective andcollaborative effort among the stakeholder community;

8) a consensus document be developed for applying a vulnerability assessment, stemming from best practicesand the experience gained by industry and regulators alike;

9) achieving such consensus in the form of internationally acceptable guidance to prevent and manage foodfraud through convening an Expert Consultation under the auspices of FAO/WHO, leveraging existing ex-pertise and the momentum created through the GUFF series of workshops and the associated multi-stake-holder collaboration;

10) using this consensus guidance, resulting from multi-stakeholder collaboration at the international level, asa basis to underpin efforts of standardization under CCFICS/Codex;

11) pooling resources and data sources in support of intelligence gathering and enabling the availability of theneeded and accessible predictive tools (e.g., databases documenting incidents, predictive software and pro-grams, etc.) to conduct vulnerability assessments, according to the guidelines adopted through consensus,as a result of multi-stakeholder engagement and collaboration at the international level

12) pooling resources also in support of education and awareness of both consumers (to prevent food pur-chases from illegal and doubtful channels) and industry (to propagate food fraud prevention and mitigationmeasures across the supply chain) alike;

13) more data gathering and information sharing be undertaken to fill data gaps and document food legislativeand regulatory measures associated with food fraud prevention and mitigation, food fraud case studies:their occurrence, root-cause analysis, and learnings from their management, industry practices from theapplication of vulnerability assessments, supplier verification and management, impact assessments, andconsumer education campaigns undertaken by public and private partners to enhance awareness ofconsumers and industry players (in particular smaller actors) of food fraud and its consequences;

14) the development of a common approach for communicating risks associated with food fraud, with a possi-ble consistent message at the global level, including busting myths associated with inaccurate food fraudincidents and hoaxes, and with the possible development of partnerships between regulators and industryto achieve a coordinated communication approach;

Analytical Methods of detec-tion of Fraud incidents

GUFF Workshop Participantscalled for:

15) “fit-for-purpose” to be better defined for non-targeted testing methods considering: critical limits ofdetection, validation requirements, costs, effectiveness of implementation at a given stage of food fraudmanagement for a targeted food commodity;

16) SMPRs to be developed for non-targeted testing methods, depending on the fit for the purpose agreed upon,to help build confidence in method validation approaches and create consistency to such processes;

17) efforts to be devoted to develop reference material for the food commodities targeted by standardizationthrough the process of establishing SMPRs. Such material and its availability are essential for globalharmonization of analytical methods that are set to discriminate between deliberate fraud incident fromnon-deliberate occurrence or contamination; and

18) efforts be made to promote accessibility to non-targeted methods of authenticity testing, as well asassociated data, which are in several instances deemed proprietary.


Dow



to enhance prediction, early detection, and prevention of foodfraud incidents. More importantly, concerted attention and col-laboration are more essential now than ever. The scope of foodfraud prevention requires the examination of currently accessi-ble tools and approaches intending to provide clear direction tofood business operators. Similarly, improved and internation-ally harmonized guidance on validated analytical methods isimperative for both non-targeted methods (destined to charac-terize/qualify food ingredient authenticity) and targeted meth-ods (specific to an adulterant).

Efforts to integrate more regulatory requirements for foodfraud preventive controls into the Quality ManagementSystems (QMS) of food production need to be developed, usingrelevant guidance, and made available in an easily accessible,sustainable fashion.

It is hoped that the recommendations stemming from thisworkshop series, and reached through consensus from the multi-stakeholder community be followed by implementation throughleadership from the international community. The first act couldbe the adoption of the proposed idea of the expert consultation un-der the auspices of international organizations such as FAO/WHOwith the proposed terms of references included in this review.This expert consultation could set the stage for global action byregulators, industry, and the academic community.

Workshop Contributors

This manuscript was developed with the contribution of thefollowing scientists, who participated with presentations anddiscussions at the GUFF Workshop Series:

Lystra N. Antoine, Global Food Safety Partnership, USARobert Baker, Mars Global Food Safety Centre, ChinaCathy Baillie, Mars Global Food Safety Centre, AustraliaSilviu Balintoni, Danone Food Safety Center, FranceJanet Balson, United States Pharmacopeia (USP), USAVirginie Barrere, Laval University, CanadaBrian Bedard, Grocery Manufacturers Association Foundation,

USAPeter Ben Embarek, International Food Safety Authorities

Network, SwitzerlandConnor Black, Queen’s University Belfast, UKPaul Brereton, Queen’s University Belfast, UKLeon H. Bruner, Grocery Manufacturers Association, USARenata Clarke, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations, ItalyJunshi Chen, China National Center for Food Safety Risk

Assessment (CFSA), ChinaZhong Chen, the Hershey Company, ChinaMarc Cwikowski, Danone Food Safety Center, FranceMoira Dean, Institute for Global Food Security, Queen’s

University Belfast, UKEmiliano De Dominici, Merieux NutriSciences, ItalyAline Dimitri, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), CanadaJames Donarski, FERA Science Ltd., UKArnaud Droit, Laval University, CanadaArne Dubecke, Quality Service International, GermanyChris Elliott, Institute for Global Food Security, Queen’s

University Belfast, UKKaren Everstine, Decernis, USAMansel Griffiths, Canadian Research Institute for Food Safety,

CanadaShona Glancy, The Scotch Whisky Research Institute, UKSamuel B. Godefroy, Laval University, Canada

Karen Gussow, Netherlands Food and Safety Authority,Netherlands

Marc Hamilton, EnvironeX-Eurofins Canada, CanadaLyu Hanyang, CFSA, ChinaTom Heilandt, FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission,

ItalyKieran Kelly, arc-net, UKShaun Kennedy, University of Minnesota, USAJohn Keogh, Shantalla, CanadaLouis-Samuel Jacques, BDO Canada LLP, CanadaRon Johnson, International Association of Official Analytical

Chemists, USAChristina Juneau, Transbiotech, CanadaHamid Lachhab, National Bureau of Food Safety, MoroccoClaude-Paul Lafrance, Transbiotech, CanadaJie Liu, Standard Acquisition, Pharmacopeia, USAPhilippe Loopuyt, Food Fraud Network European Commission,

BelgiumMaxim Maheux, Transbiotech, CanadaHussein Mansour, National Food Agency, Arab republic of

Egypt, EgyptHassan Elamien Mohammed, Food Safety department, Ministry

of Agriculture and Forestry, SudanEric Marin, Food Fraud Network, European Commission,

BelgiumMary McBride, Agilent Technologies, USAVahid Mojtahed, Fera Science Ltd, UKAndy Morling, Food Standards Agency, UKNathalie Marcellis-Warrin, Centre Interuniversitaire de

recherche et d’analyse des organisations (CIRANO), CanadaRenata McGuire, NSF, CanadaJeff Moore, US Pharmacopeial Convention, USARyan Newkirk, FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied

Nutrition, USARonald Niemeijer, r-Biopharm AG, GermanyLi Ning, CFSA, ChinaIngrid Peignier, CIRANO, CanadaMonique Pellegrino, Danone Food Safety Center, FranceDon Prater, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA),

USAStephen Ostroff, FDA, USASami Otaibi, Saudi Food and Drug Authority, Saudi ArabiaJames Roberts, National Measurement Institute, AustraliaPaul Sadek, Mars Advanced Research Institute, Mars Inc., USAHelmut Scahfft, German Federal Institute of Risk AssessmentJohn Spink, Food Fraud Initiative, Michigan State University,

USAJohn Szpylka, Merieux NutriSciences, AOAC International, USAMike Taylor, FDA, USAJeremie Theolier, Laval University, CanadaKathy Twardek, CFIA, CanadaZhutian Wang, CFSA, ChinaMitch Weinberg, INSCATECH, International Food Authenticity

Association, USAHannah Wellman, Department of Agriculture, AustraliaPaul Willgoss, Marks and Spencer’s, Food Industry Intelligence

Network, UKYongning Wu, CFSA, ChinaZhinong Yan, Walmart Food Safety Collaboration Center,

ChinaYongtan Yang, Nutrition and Health Research Institute, COFCO

Corporation, ChinaFan Yongxiang, CFSA, ChinaGuangtao Zhang, Mars Global Food Safety Centre, China


Dow



Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of allpresenters and sponsors of the GUFF workshop series.

References1. CODEX (2018) Codex Alimentarius Commission, Joint

FAO/WHO food standards programme Codex AlimentariusCommission, Forty-first Session, REP18/CAC July 2018, www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/committees/cac/meetings/it/ (accessed on July 08, 2019)

2. CODEX (2018) Codex Alimentarius Commission, Report ofthe 24th session of the Codex Committee on food importand export inspection and certification systems,REP19/FICS, www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/committees/committee/en/? committee¼CCFICS (accessed onJuly 08, 2019)

3. Charlebois, S., Schwab, A., Henn, R., & Huck, C.W. (2016)Trends Food Sci. Tech. 50, 211–218

4. Breitenbach, R., Rodrigues, H., & Brand~ao, J.B. (2018) Food Res.Int. 108, 475–481

5. Mejia, E., Ding, Y., Mora, M.F., & Garcia, C.D. (2007) Food Chem.102, 1027–1033

6. Xiu, C., & Klein, K.K. (2010) Food Policy 35, 463–4707. Osman, A.G., Raman, V., Haider, S., Ali, Z., Chittiboyina, A.G.,

& Khan, I.A. (2019) J. AOAC Int. 102, 376–3858. Handford, C.E., Campbell, K., & Elliott, C.T. (2016) Compr. Rev.

Food Sci. Food Saf. 15, 130–1429. Grocery Manufacturers Association (2010) Consumer Product

Fraud, Deterrence and Detection. Published by the GroceryManufacturer Association (GMA) and A.T. Kearney

10. Elliott, C. T. (2014) Elliott review into the integrity and assur-ance of food supply networks – final report. HM GovernmentUK, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/

uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/350726/elliot-review-final-report-july2014.pdf (accessed on July 08, 2019)

11. GMA (2016) GMA and Battelle launch tool to fight food fraud,www.gmaonline.org/news-events/newsroom/the-grocery-manufacturers-association-gma-and-battelle-launch-tool-to-/ (accessed on July 08, 2019)

12. USP (2017) Food fraud database, www.foodfraud.org/(accessed on July 08, 2019)

13. SAFE (2017) SSAFE Food Fraud tool, www.pwc.nl/en/industries/agrifood/ssafe-food-fraud-tool.html (accessed on July,2019)

14. GFSI (2014) GFSI position on mitigating the public healthrisk of food fraud, www.mygfsi.com/files/Technical_Documents/Food_Fraud_Position_Paper.pdf (accessed on July08, 2019)

15. GFSI (2018) Tackling food fraud through food safety manage-ment systems, www.mygfsi.com/files/Technical_Documents/201805-food-fraud-technical-document-final.pdf (accessedon July 08, 2019)

16. Galimberti, A., De Mattia, F., Losa, A., Bruni, A., Federici, S.,Casiraghi, M., Martellos, S., & Labra, M. (2013) Food Res. Int. 50,55–63

17. Parvathy, V.A., Swetha, V.P., Sheeja, T.E., Leela, N.K.,Chempakam, B., & Sasikumar, B. (2014) Food Biotechnol. 28, 25–40

18. Shokralla, S., Gibson, J.F., Nikbakht, H., Janzen, D.H.,Hallwachs, W., & Hajibabaei, M. (2014) Mol. Ecol. Resour. 14,892–901

19. Pollack, S.J., Kawalek, M.D., Williams-Hill, D.M., & Hellberg,R.S. (2018) Food Control 84, 297–304

20. USP (2017) Appendix XVIII: Guidance on developing and vali-dating non-targeted methods for adulteration detection,www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp/document/about/newsroom/2019-2-6-twfi-non-targeted-methods-guidance-kenny-xie-final.pdf (accessed on July 08, 2019)


Dow



http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/committees/cac/meetings/it/



http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/committees/committee/en/? committee=CCFICS



https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/350726/elliot-review-final-report-july2014.pdf



http://www.gmaonline.org/news-events/newsroom/the-grocery-manufacturers-association-gma-and-battelle-launch-tool-to-/



http://www.foodfraud.org/

http://www.pwc.nl/en/industries/agrifood/ssafe-food-fraud-tool.html

http://www.pwc.nl/en/industries/agrifood/ssafe-food-fraud-tool.html

http://www.mygfsi.com/files/Technical_Documents/Food_Fraud_Position_Paper.pdf

http://www.mygfsi.com/files/Technical_Documents/Food_Fraud_Position_Paper.pdf

http://www.mygfsi.com/files/Technical_Documents/201805-food-fraud-technical-document-final.pdf

http://www.mygfsi.com/files/Technical_Documents/201805-food-fraud-technical-document-final.pdf

http://www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp/document/about/newsroom/2019-2-6-twfi-non-targeted-methods-guidance-kenny-xie-final.pdf



Summary of the AOAC-Sponsored Workshop Series Related to the ...

Documents

Transcript of Summary of the AOAC-Sponsored Workshop Series Related to the ...