All posts by NFI

Science to Combat Fraud

News out of Canada this week looks to science to detect food fraud. Nicholas Low a professor at the University of Saskatchewan is developing a molecular internal tagging system to track food products as they move through the supply chain.

There have been plenty of instances of food fraud, not just seafood, so there is certainly the need for innovative methods to authenticate ingredients and food products. We look forward to the final outcome from this project.

Now if someone could develop a technique for determining the % glazing without destroying the product. Is anyone up to the challenge?

Gotcha Carolina Style

Investigative reporting on species substitution in restaurants always makes for an interesting story. Reporter visits several area restaurants, orders a fish dish (typically grouper, snapper or some type of sashimi) from each restaurant, sends samples to a lab for DNA testing (almost always includes some type of action shot of the reporter putting teeny samples of fish in test tubes), and surprise!, some sample results come back indicating a fish switch passing off a less valued fish for the one on the menu. Gotcha. The story will then end with a 60-minutes-style interview of the restaurant owner and/or an outraged consumer. Finger pointing may happen, but you know what the consumer doesnt care whos at fault.

Two recent installments of the species substitution Gotcha story are from the Carolinas WMBF News in Myrtle Beach and WECT News in Wilmington. Take a look.

People vs. Ralphs

Net weight violations made the news again this time it was Ralphs, a major grocery chain in California, being charged by the LA City Attorneys office for short weighting consumers. Not just ice-glazed seafood this time, but a range of products including deli-salads, fried chicken and coffee.

While some may be wondering if the nickel and dime approach (of course a potential fine of $256,000 is a lot of nickels and dimes!) of testing the net weight of individual packages in a grocery store is the best way to crack down on processors willing to pack product at 90, 80 or even 70% net weight, you have to admit these consumer facing stories tend to get the attention of media and the consumer.

Will charging retailers help in the quest to put a stop to net weight fraud? Only time will tell.

Word is Out (Part II)

Some more on the Word is Out. A month after the NCWM release of results of the investigation by states looking at the weight of frozen seafood products we still see some press pick-up. The Chicago Tribune ran a follow-up piece with more on how frozen fish is mislabeled if the weight of the ice glaze is included as part of the net weight of the product.

Individual states like New York, Alaska and Wisconsin issued press releases.

And there was some local coverage in Illinois, New York and Ohio as well.

And I want to correct a statement that was made in the Chicago Tribune story. I had commented that fish portions that are individually vacuum packaged should not contain any ice glaze since the individual packaging serves to protect against freezer burn. While it is true that the packaging will protect against freezer burn, some ice-glazed products are vacuum packagedat a facility other then where the initial freezing takes place. There is nothing wrong with that provided the weight of the ice glaze isnt counted as part of the net weight.

The Many Faces of Food Fraud

We tend to have a limited view of fraud in the seafood industry:

  • Intentionally packing short weight product by including the weight of the glaze as part of the net weight of the product
  • Selling fish as a different species
  • Transshipping product through another country to avoid paying duties or complying with FDA import alert

But look at these other examples of fraud that FDA has dealt with in the past week:

It’s amazing what people are willing to do.

Honestly Presented

Did you know that the FDA Food Code has a provision that says that species substitution is against the rules? Well apparently this is not very clearly stated in the Food Code because we frequently see instances of fish switch. (Like here, here, and here.) That is why the BSB requested that a simple sentence be added to the Food Code that would clarify that fish sold to the consumer needs to be identified by the proper market name or common scientific name as identified in FDAs Seafood List. The request was considered at the Conference for Food Protection meeting here in Providence, Rhode Island and it was determined that the issue of species substitution is already adequately addressed in the Food Code so no changes are needed. Confirmation that calling a fish any old name that sounds good violates the Food Code is good news.

Here is the actual language from the code:

3-601.12 Honestly Presented

(A) Food shall be offered for human consumption in a way that does not mislead or misinform the consumer.

So what does honestly presented really mean? The State of Florida does a good job of expanding what is in Food Code to some government language that is clear:

An operator may not knowingly and willfully misrepresent the identity of any food or food product to any of the patrons of such establishment. The identity of food or a food product is misrepresented if:

  • The description of the food or food product is false or misleading in any particular;
  • The food or food product is served, sold, or distributed under the name of another food or food product; or,
  • The food or food product purports to be or is represented as a food or food product that does not conform to a definition of identify and standard of quality if such definition of identity and standard of quality has been established by custom and usage.

So here is what honestly presented means to the BSB.

  • A fish called the name of another species is not honestly presented and violates the Food Code.
  • Fish that was frozen, thawed out before presented for sale without indicating it has been previously frozen is not honestly presented and violates the Food Code.
  • Frozen tuna steaks that have been treated with CO to preserve the color and labeled as being treated with filtered wood smoke are not honestly presented and violate the Food Code.
  • Frozen tilapia that has been treated with CO to preserve the color and CO is not included in the ingredient statement is not honestly presented and violates the Food Code.
  • Farm-raised atlantic salmon that is being passed off as wild-captured pacific salmon is not honestly presented and violates the Food Code.
  • Shrimp that is imported from one country but identified as product of the US or of another country is not honestly presented and violates the Food Code.
  • Crab flavored seafood, made with surimi, a fully cooked fish protein that is sold as crab is not honestly presented and violates the Food Code.

Did we miss any?

Direct Line to FDA

Unless you have a direct line to FDAs Division of Compliance Policy it is often difficult to understand how the agency interprets the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. This is the law that defines what a food manufacturer must do and can not do with food that is sold in the United States and in many places is not clearly defined in black and white. A window to the agencys current thinking can be found in the Warning Letters that are issued to firms, in most cases as a follow-up to a facility inspection. FDA Warning Letters describe the situations that the agency officials found that were in violation with the FFDC Act. In my very first job out of college (more years ago than I want to remember) my boss introduced me to the publication Food Chemical News which each week describes the findings in the recent Warning Letters a good read for lessons learned from someone elses hard knocks. Now of course one doesnt need to subscribe to a separate publication for these lessons learned as Warning Letters are publicly available on the FDA website.

Since Seafood HACCP implementation in 1997, the vast majority of the Warning Letters issued to seafood firms are for violations of the Seafood HACCP regulation a prudent processor should read these letters to ensure that they can meet FDAs current expectations for compliance. Last year, FDA Commissioner, Dr. Hamburg, declared that the agency will be tougher on violations with swifter action action that the BSB supports. Along with this new approach for tough love is a focus on violations beyond food safety a consumer protection focus. Labeling that the agency felt was misleading for the consumer was the focus for several Warning Letters issued last month. And of course the Warning Letters issued to Registry Steaks and Seafood and Gourmet Express Marketing that addressed the issue that is of prime interest of the Better Seafood Board product that that agency determined was misbranded and adulterated due to glaze that was included in the net weight of the product.

Any firm that receives a Warning Letter has the right and responsibility to address the issues outlined in the letter. Commissioner Hamburg has instituteda novel program to encourage response from industry by making public the Warning Letter close-out process. Once corrections to violations have been successfully made, the agency will post a close-out letter like the one sent to Registry Steaks and Seafood earlier this month.

If you are interested in receiving weekly announcements of FDAs Warning Letters, click here a no-cost way to have a direct line to FDA.

Catchy Headline in Our Future?

CBP does a great job of publicizing their successes. This releasecame across my email recently Baltimore CBP Flexes Muscles Over Phony Fitness Gear. Clever headline, made me read more.

CBP aggressively enforces intellectual property rights (IPR) violations as a priority trade issue. Counterfeit and pirated goods are regularly seized at the border FY 2009 CBP seized over 14,800 shipments valued at over $260 million.

The justification for this heightened oversight is consumer and business protection. As Stephen Dearborn, Acting Port Director for the Port of Baltimore stated, counterfeit exercise equipment can hurt consumers twice. It can cause physical harm if incorrectly or poorly assembled, and it can cause financial pain because the products have very little refund value and impacts the trademark rights holders in lost revenue.

IPR violations hurt consumers and hurt legitimate businesses. Kind of sounds like the negative impact of short weight seafood both consumers and legitimate businesses lose. So is buying and selling frozen product at less than 100% net weight any different from buying and selling counterfeit products? Maybe one day seafood fraud will be a priority trade issue and well see some clever headlines announcing the crack down on seafood fraud.