Food fraud - the deliberate adulteration, substitution, tampering or misrepresentation of food for economic gain - is estimated to cost the global food industry US$49 billion a year ($69 billion).
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Many Australians are now wary about buying imported honey since it has been shown to be adulterated with cheap additives, like syrup, intended to beat unsophisticated government testing.
Australia currently only tests imported honey, with five percent tested using a basic C4 sugar test that does not detect syrup additives. (Chinese vendors use website Alibaba to sell rice syrups and other syrups they claim can pass official honey tests for US$500 per metric tonne.)
A comprehensive study conducted by Macquarie University of 100 samples of imported and Australian honey showed that more than half the samples sourced from Asia, mainly China, were adulterated. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is currently conducting an “urgent” inquiry into imported honey.
A disturbing aspect of the Macquarie study was its additional finding that 18 percent - roughly one in five - of the 38 brands of Australian honey tested were also found to be adulterated.
Even expensive “Manuka” honey proved suspect. Professor Taylor, who co-led the team, claimed that about ten times more Manuka honey is being sold than is produced. The Macquarie study also noted a substantial mismatch between the amount of Manuka honey produced in New Zealand each year - 1700 tonnes - compared to the 10,000 tonnes sold.
In the US, the foods most commonly listed as adulterated or mislabelled in the US Pharmacopeia Convention's “Food Fraud Database” were milk, olive oil, honey, saffron, fish, coffee, orange juice, apple juice, black pepper, and tea. A similar situation may apply in Australia.
Given the concerns about honey, an additional concern is the integrity of “organic” products.
“Organic” is defined by the Australian government as the application of practices that emphasise: use of renewable resources, conservation of energy, soil and water, recognition of livestock welfare needs, and environmental maintenance and enhancement - all while producing optimum quantities of produce without the use of artificial fertiliser or synthetic chemicals.
According to the Australia organic market report, Australia owns more than half of the world’s organic farmland. The local industry is worth $2.4 billion a year.
Australian consumers clearly prefer organic products if they can afford them. Our local supermarket sells organic butter for almost three times the price of its own home brand. Even so, it is often unavailable. The same supermarket also regularly sells out of its more expensive organic lite milk.
The federal Department of Agriculture and Water Resources as of June 2018 recognised five bodies in Australia as “organic approved certifying organisations”: Australian Certified Organic (ACO), AUS-QUAL Pty Ltd (AUSQUAL), Bio-Dynamic Research Institute (BDRI), NASAA Certified Organic (NCO), and Organic Food Chain (OFC). The Department’s National Standard for Organic and Bio-Dynamic Produce 2016 is on its website.
Organic certification is regulated for Australian exported food items under the Export Control Act, but it is not regulated for locally-produced organic food intended for domestic consumption - unlike in most other Western countries. This is said to be due to powerful chemical farming lobbyists who do not want Australian politicians introducing regulations in this area - or making clearer distinctions between organic and non-organic products.
The regulation problem, according to one organic certifier, is that those who want protection for organic products are not as powerful as those opposing regulation - and consumers suffer as a consequence.
ACO (formerly Biological Farmers of Australia) is a major force in ensuring that organic standards in Australia are maintained in accordance with the Australian Certified Organic Standard, which was last updated in 2017 and is reviewed every three years. The ACO’s “bud” logo and “Australian Certified Organic” certificate number on labels are intended to ensure the integrity of organic food products in Australia.
In Australia, the ACCC is the regulator and it seems yet another example of a government regulator not doing what the public expects it to be doing - prosecuting the more blatant fraudsters. In one case a Flemington market vendor was reported to be selling “organic” fruit and vegetables at up to three times the price of non-organic items. On testing they were found to contain high levels of chemicals.
The ACO refers more than 100 cases a year of the more blatant and repeat offenders to the ACCC, but it seems the ACCC is reluctant to act - with one prosecution 10 years ago and one five years ago. Data is not available for the past 12 months, but I was unable to locate any organic-related prosecutions in that timeframe.
No doubt most consumers want to avoid pesticides and antibiotics in their food, but food purchasing seems to be another case of “buyer beware”. I personally would not trust an Australian “organic” food product that does not carry an approved certifier’s logo, is labelled as “Certified Organic”, and comes from a reputable outlet.
Clive Williams is a visiting professor at the ANU’s Centre for Military and Security Law and an adjunct professor at the Australian Defence Force Academy.
Approved certifiers’ logos can be found here.
