Fraud Seminar German

8/18/2019 Fraud Seminar German

1/30

E D E

R A L I N

S T I T U

T E

O R

R I S K A

S S E S S

M E N T Methods to combat food fraud -

a German perspective

Reiner Wittkowski


2/30

REGULATION (EC) No 178/2002

General principles and requirements of food law, establishing

the European Food Safety Authority and laying down

procedures in matters of food safety

Article 8

Protection of consumers' interests

1. Food law shall aim at the protection of the interests of

consumers and shall provide a basis for consumers to makeinformed choices in relation to the foods they consume. It shall

aim at the prevention of:

(a) fraudulent or deceptive practices;(b) the adulteration of food; and

(c) any other practices which may mislead the consumer.


3/30

Initial situation - food fraud

The probability of malpractice and white collar crime increases with

misdirected economic incentives

It decreases with protective factors (bonds of moral norms)

Food fraud is often highly profitable but causes only minimal damage tothe individual consumer or damage occurs with large time delays

Risk based controls fall too short to combat behavioural risk sources

Source: Schreiber, BVL, 20


4/30

Examples of food fraud

• Boiled ham with added water and starch

• Meat with added hydrolysates of proteins (binding water)

• Rotten meat or meat exceeding the best before date (BBD)

• Faked certificates

• False appearance of higher protein contents (addition of melamine)

• Imports under false CN code to fake origin or to fall under

lower custom tariff

• Alcoholic beverages with methanol

• Food supplements, in particular those traded via internet

(composition, addition of drugs)

• Mechanically recovered meat not labelledSource: Schreiber, BVL, 20


5/30

1511

16

11

47

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

microbial contamination other contamination composition labelling/presentation other

r e j e c t

e d p r o b e s i n %

pathogen

germs e.g.

forged products

deceiving descriptions

false ingredients

misleading

package

illegal radiation,

violation against

trading classification

mycotoxins

acrylamid,

pesticides

National food monitoring-2006

complete n= 407.815 number of rejected probes n= 62.156

Violations in food probes (2006)


6/30

How many consumers can be fed

from one slaughtered pig ?

~ 100 kg live weight

~ 80 kg slaughtered weight~ 48 kg meat

24 kg

supplies:

66 slices steak

46 slices cutlet

28 slices „Kamm“

and more

more than 380 consumers

24 kg

supplies:

240 Sausages

(30 % pork)

sold meat 50 % processing 50 %


7/30

Strategies to combat food fraud in Germany

Focal point analytical methods

Authenticity control (e.g, wine, asparagus, pistachios)

Quantitative and qualitative detection of genetically-modified

organisms including food and feed products

Food profiling / Food finger-printing

Declaration of ingredients (product composition) and

analytical control of composition


8/30

TRACE - TRACING FOOD COMMODITIES IN EUROPE

http://www.trace.eu.org/

INTEGRATED PROJECT in the

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMEPRIORITY 5: Food Quality and Safety

WP 3 Species Origin Methods (SOM) - BfR Workpackage Leader

O f SO (S O )


9/30

Objectives of SOM (Species Origin Methods)

• To develop traceability methods and systems that will provide

consumers with added confidence in the authenticity of European food

• The development of cost effective tools for verifying the

origin and the authenticity of food is the key role

• SOM aims to characterise food products on the basis of DNAor protein detection methods

• SOM aims to standardise DNA based methods within Europe

by inter-laboratory studies

S TRACE


10/30

Summary- TRACE

Integrated traceability systems are being developed for

the food industry that can verify:

• Geographical origin

• Production origin

• Species origin

Example Authenticity control of pistachios


11/30

Example - Authenticity control of pistachios

pistachios are popular snacks inGerman trade

Authenticity control necessary

false declaration???

Aflatoxine in Iran pistachios

1997 import-stop

strictly EU-import regulations

O S l ti


12/30

One Solution Authenticity control of pistachios based on 1H- and 13C-NMR spectroscopy

- Different climatic conditions in producing regions

- Influence of climatic conditions on fatty acid composition

- Pistachios content 56 - 59 % fatty acid

- Extraction of pistachio oil

- Measuring with NMR

-Making correlation between NMR-signals and

fatty-acid structures

- Statistical analysis of signals

- NMR-Spektroscopy of oil

determination of botanical origin

1Probe

2Herkunft

3Fläche_1

4Fläche_2

5Fläche_3

32

33

34

35

PIS01971 Iran 2,693 16,218 1,68

PIS01972 Iran 2,652 16,709 1,681

PIS01978 Iran 2,761 16,939 1,76

PIS01253 USA 2,698 16,809 1,751

statistic

of pistachios


13/30

Iran

USA

USA

USA

USA

Turkey

Turkey

-8

-4

0

4

8

12

-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16

wrongly labelled

USA

Iran

Turkey

Root 1

R o o t 2

of pistachios

Zur et al 2007, Eur. Food Res. Tech.

Heier 2006, PhD. thesis

S A th ti it t l f i t hi


14/30

first studies shows - 6 of 103 samples are falsely

declarated

authenticity control of pistachios is urgently necessary

Summary- Authenticity control of pistachios

• 1H-NMR-Spectroscopy and 13C-NMR-Spectroscopy

of pistachio oil is a suitable method to determine the

regional authenticity of pistachios

• Stable isotope analysis is also suitable for detection o

the origin

Example Authenticity control of wine


15/30

EU- Research Project: (WINE DB project) Establishing of a Wine Data

Bank for Analytical Parameters for Wines from Third Countries

Contract No.: G6RD-CT-2001-00646-WINE-DB

Project consortium

1 Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung, Berlin, Germany

2 Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra, Italy3 Central Scientific Laboratories - Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries

and Food, York, Great Britain

4 Eurofins Scientific, Nantes, France

5 Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Brussels, Belgium

6 Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

7 University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy

8 Czech Customs Technical Laboratory, Prague, Czech Republic

9 Universitatea de Stiinte Agricole si Medicina Veterinara - Laboratorulde Oenologie, Iasi, Romania

10 National Institute for Wine Qualification, Budapest, Hungary

EU 5th Framework

Australian Wine

Research Institute

ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij

(Agricultural Research

Council )

Time frame

01-04-2002 - 31-12-2006

Example - Authenticity control of wine


16/30

Wine regions of the Czech Republic

Wine regions

of Romania

Wine regions

of South Africa

Wine regions of Australia

Wine regions of Hungary

scr m na ng p o s or ungary zec epu c


17/30

All authentic wines (second year vintage) from the 5 countries(Isotopes, Australia/South Africa V)

All authentic wines

Model 1 (8 var.)Parameter = 0,28

Czech Republic

Hungary Romania

South Africa

Australia-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Root 1

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

R

o o t 2

scr m na ng p o s or ungary, zec epu c,Romania, Australia, South Africa – one vintage

onc us ons comp ex a a cu o ex rac


18/30

onc us ons comp ex a a, cu o ex rac

• Discriminators for authentic and commercial wines aredifferent:

• Authentic wines (Stable isotopes, Vanadium, Chromium).

• Commercial wines (Strontium, Ethanol(D/H)2, Zinc, Titanium,Calcium and to a lesser extent Wine δ18O and Chlorine, all macroelements!)

• Oenological treatments seem to mask element composition• Very few are stable over vintages:

• Stable parameters of the authentic wines:

• Propanol-1, Methylpropanol, Li and Cu are stable (at least in threeEuropean countries)

• Stable parameters of the commercial wines:

• Invert sugar, Tartaric acid, P, Ti, V, Cr, Co, Cu, Zn, As, Y, U, La,

Gd, Er, Yb, Gd/Er, Er/Yb

EU Research Project ISOSTER BfR (Koordinator)


19/30

EU Research Project ISOSTERDetermination of endogenous and exogenous origin of steroids in cattle

DSHS (Köln)

LABERCA (Nantes)

CSL (York)

TNO (Zeist)

QUB (Belfast)

Dionex (Idstein)

ThermoElectron (Bremen

Food Control laboratories should be given a tool for thecontrol of the administration of natural steroid hormonesas growth promoting agents in food production.

The usual sampling locations of Food Control determinethe choice of the matrix for analysis:

• live stocks urine, faeces

• slaughter houses urine, faeces, fat, offal,muscle

• borders muscle, fat

Long term aim

EU Researchproject ISOSTER BfR (Koordinator)

DSHS (Köl )


20/30

EU Researchproject ISOSTERDetermination of endogenous and exogenous origin of steroids in cattle

Objective

DSHS (Köln)

LABERCA (Nantes)

CSL (York)

TNO (Zeist)

QUB (Belfast)

Dionex (Idstein)

ThermoElectron (Breme

Preparation of authentic samples from animals with known historykept under controlled farm conditions.

Development of methods for the determination of theδ13C values ofsteroids in different substrate

Assessment of the effectiveness of the GC-C-IRMS technique to

differentiate between the endogenous and exogenous origin ofsteroids in cattle.

Results: Isoster Project


21/30

Results: Isoster Project

Methods gives excellent and validated results with high sensitivity

Differentiation between the endogenous and exogenous origin

of steroids is possible

But Method is very complex and expensive

Finally, the method will improve the situation in the food-control laboratoriesby delivering doubtless results which can be submitted to the courts

__________________________________

At the moment it is not possible to use the method routinely

There is now legal appointment to use the method


22/30

Quantitative and Qualitative GMO-Detection


23/30

Introduction of a threshold of 0.9 %

Food (and feed) containing material which contains, consists of or

is produced from GMOs in a proportion no higher than 0,9 % of

the food ingredients considered individually or food consisting of a

single ingredient, provided that this presence is adventitious ortechnically unavoidable.

Introduction of a threshold of 0.5 % for the presence ofadventitious or technically unavoidable GMO, which are not

authorized in the EU, but have an authorization with a positive risk

assessment of a country outside EU

Thresholds (Reg (EC) No. 1829/2003)

Detection strategies


24/30

Raw material processed target methodproduct

DNADNA

ProteinProtein

Fatty acidFatty acid

Polymerase

chain

reaction (PCR)

Polymerase

chainreaction (PCR)

Immuno assaysImmuno assays

(HPLC/GC)(HPLC/GC)

Soya

Maize

Rape

seed

g

Detection limit (LOD) – DNA detection


25/30

( )

PCR: app. 10 genome copies

correspond to 0.05% GM material

- depending from processing

- need for calculation of the practical LOD for each sample

under investigation

Decrease of sensitivity:

– fragmentation

– Elimination

EU Project MOLSPEC-ID GOALS


26/30

j

Allergenicity aspect

Fraud aspect

CattleCattle

PigPig

SheepSheep

GoatGoat

ChickenChicken

TurkeyTurkey

DuckDuck

OstrichOstrich

HorseHorseDeer Deer

KangarooKangaroo

CrabCrab

SoybeanSoybean

PeanutPeanut

WheatWheat

RyeRye

BarleyBarley

PeaPea

CeleryCelery

WalnutWalnut

HazelnutHazelnut

Almond Almond

Used databases in food inspection (germany)


27/30

Used da abases ood spec o (ge a y)

asparagus authenticity control stable isotopetechnique

wine authenticity control stable isotope(EU-Wine DB, technique

Third Country DB)

anthocyan DB HPLCshikimisäure DB HPLC

apple juice authenticity control stable isotopetechnique

Summary


28/30

Summary

New analytical methods are ready for use and will be helpful incombatting food fraud

At the moment, most of the methods are too expensive andcomplex to use for routine control

It is necessary to improve the legal framework.

Improvement of analytical methods is only one instrumentin the combat against food fraud.

The probability of malpractice and white collar crime in the


29/30

food sector increases with misdirected economic incentives,

i. e. the expected profit it is able to produce. It decreases with

protective factors, i. e. the bonds to moral norms that prevent

producers from giving way to economic temptations.

Die Gefahr, dass Akteure auf verschiedenen Stufen der

Nahrungsproduktion zu ihrem eigenen Vorteil gegen Vorschriften

verstoßen, ist umso größer, je höher der erwartete Gewinn ist (fehlgeleitete

ökonomische Anreize). Die Gefahr sinkt, je mehr die Akteure durchprotektive Faktoren (z. B. erwartete Negativreaktionen des sozialen

Nahfeldes oder eigene moralische Wertvorstellungen) dagegen

immunisiert sind, einer ökonomischen Verlockung nachzugeben.

N. Hirschauer, S. Scheerer und S. ZwollJournal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety

2 (2007): 259.271


30/30

E D E

R A L I N S T I T U

T E

O R

R I S K A

S S E S S M E N T Thank you for your attention

Reiner Wittkowski

Federal Institute for Risk Assessment

Thielallee 88-92 D-14195 Berlin

Tel. +49 30 - 84 12 - 0 Fax +49 30 - 84 12 - 47 41

[email protected] www.bfr.bund.de

Documents

Fraud Seminar German