Updated 2019-05-24
Until now, when it comes to food fraud, the categories included dilution, substitution, concealment, mislabeling, unapproved enhancement, counterfeiting and grey market/theft/diversion. And that is certainly covering the majority of cases.
But most recently, we have seen several news reports where laboratories were accused of collusion (and I understand that this is a contentious word in current times) with food manufacturers. Over the recent past, several laboratories have been investigated for falsifying laboratory results in favor of the manufacturer, i.e. issued certificates that would allow the manufacturer to market products that were unfit for consumption.
While this is not actually food fraud, but laboratory fraud, it is intrinsically linked to food fraud and better described by the terminology of “food crime” as it is used by the UK Food Standards Agency.
Types of manipulations that are possible in laboratories include:
Deletion of data – this can be the case when e.g. pathogens were detected that would render the food unfit for sale, and the data were deleted and a negative result (i.e. negative for pathogens) is issued, allowing the food to go on sale. This is what Brazilian prosecutors surmise to have happened with the chicken processor BRF SA and five testing laboratories of a global laboratory network. The case started already in 2016 when the Policia Federal started investigating BRF in an operation codenamed “carne franca”, meaning weak meat. BRF had gotten in financial trouble and was down-rated by Moody’s. A little later, MAPA (Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento) started the investigation into alleged hygiene issues and found laboratory results which could not be explained. Following these unexplainable results, the laboratories conducting the pathogen tests were also included in the investigation. MAPA stated “The companies investigated defrauded inspections by preparing samples through the investigated laboratories that aimed to hide the sanitary conditions…”. The most recent developments in the investigation can be found in an article from Reuters. As a consequence, the European Commission suspended imports of chicken from Brazil for 20 Brazilian chicken producers, 12 of which are owned by BRF, according to the Brazilian R7 (article in Portuguese).
Another type of manipulation is called Data Creation. Here, data are generated without conducting the necessary experiments or analysis. This is also typically in favor of the manufacturer issuing results which give products unfit for human consumption a clean bill of health. Another option is to issue fabricated results to avoid having to label certain products. Examples are issuing fabricated results for approved genetically modified organisms or issuing fabricated result for irradiated foods so the product does not require labels like “contains GMO” or “irradiated”, which, in Europe would likely impact adversely on the revenue.
The third type is Data Modification or Manipulation. This can, for example, be done by deliberately choosing different integration points for peaks or set baselines that shift results e.g. below the regulatory limit and thereby making it marketable.
When we talk about food fraud, these are aspects we need to also consider, and it may justify adding this category. So, when we discuss traceability and blockchain, we do not only need to consider the very complex food supply chain, but also the food testing services as integral part of it.
As always, it is important to put things into perspective: even though we have seen several issues in major laboratories recently (as reported by Food Navigator, The Department of Environmental Protection (post displays only if your computer has a U.S. IP address) and Reuters), I can say that in the many years I have worked in and with laboratories around the world, I have myself only come across one case of a laboratory being suspected of having fabricated data. In my opinion, laboratory fraud in food testing laboratories is not a frequent issue in most countries. But that is not to say the issue does not need to be addressed. And there are numerous ways of identifying if a laboratory fabricates or falsifies results. Implementing measures to better control “at risk” laboratories is an important aspect of the overall risk assessment procedure.
In May 2019, seven months after we reported about the issue, the Brazilian government has taken action and banned three laboratories involved in the rotten meat scandal, withdrawing their accreditation.
