ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
[Our own] fingerprints contain characteristic patterns that can be used to identify you individually. In line with this analogy, we can determine the chemicals in a food and build a characteristic fingerprint with these chemical measurements
Cameron Scadding executive chairman, Source Certain International
how plants photosynthesise. Bees collect nectar for honey from plants that photosynthesise by the C3 pathway, while sugars produced from corn, maize or sugar cane plants photosynthesise by the C4 pathway. IRMS can identify the chemical fingerprint of the C4 pathway since
the two pathways create different 13
C/12 C isotope ratios. Isotopic and elemental ratios
are also valuable in determining the geographical origins of foodstuffs. While DNA profiling can only tell what animal or plant is present in the food, chemical fingerprinting can further reveal the type of environment where it grew, says Scadding. Chemical fingerprints recognise
‘things like localised feed and water source or processing methods’, explains Sam Lind, science commercialisation director at New Zealand anti-food fraud tech firm Oritain, which has partnerships with around 30 companies to determine the chemical fingerprints of foods. On this basis, he says, fingerprints can determine the origin of the food down to the exact farm, or other origin point as required. Soil type, climate, rainfall, use of fertilisers, and animal feed for animals may all be different at different farms, and it’s these differences that leave a trace in foods. Different fertilisers, for example,
generate different nitrogen isotope values. A chemical fingerprint can determine what type of fertiliser was used – vegetables grown in organic fertiliser have nitrogen delta values between +10‰ (permil) to +20‰ (permil) to reflect the ratios of the different nitrogen isotopes,
while vegetables grown in synthetic fertiliser have nitrogen delta values of +3‰ (permil) to +5‰ (permil). This information can be linked back to where the plant was grown. In this way, plants and animals labelled as organic can be scrutinised based on their nitrogen isotope values, and organic producers can generate a chemical fingerprint specific for their organic farm, which they can use to prove provenance. Australian egg company Farm Pride signed up to use Oritain’s chemical fingerprinting technology earlier in 2017. As Lind explains, there has been ‘a lot of scrutiny’ over caged eggs being falsely labelled as free-range. ‘What we do is collect and analyse samples of free-range eggs from a particular farm, run them through our analysis methods, and identify a chemical fingerprint for that particular free-range farm. The producer can then send us an egg to test, and we can match it back to a particular farm it claims to be from.’ Bruce De Lacy, chief executive at
Farm Pride, says the company wanted to demonstrate a ‘commitment to product integrity’ by investing in chemical fingerprinting, adding that the move has generated a positive response from customers. ‘We are proving we have nothing to hide by utilising this cutting-edge traceability technology,’ says De Lacy, who also believes the technology will deter fraudsters. ‘As soon as there is an opportunity to be caught, people are less likely to attempt fraud. What we do is increase the chances people will be caught by being able to verify the authenticity of a product anywhere in the supply chain.’
Widespread adoption of chemical
fingerprints could significantly reduce food fraud, Lind believes. However, the downside is that these techniques are predominantly lab based, Ellis says, adding that: ‘we and others are in favour of taking these technologies out of the labs as handheld – such as Raman spectroscopy – tech and remote sensors for use by non-experts’. The UMFHA, for instance, is looking to develop a portable honey-testing device, nicknamed a ManukaMeter. The future for chemical
fingerprinting seems positive, and Ellis predicts the anti-fraud technique will become more democratised as technology develops and equipment and devices are miniaturised and incorporated within the Internet of Things (IoT). However, even if chemical
fingerprinting tech had widespread consumer use, it would not be the sole solution to the food fraud conundrum. Both Ellis and Scadding say no technology yet is a one-size- fits-all panacea to fight food fraud because of the chemical complexity of foods and the supply chain. But certainly, chemical fingerprinting is one promising tool among many to help crackdown on the illicit activity.
Lind notes that the method is
slowly being adopted as a product- focused technique that complements other security measures. ‘We’re seeing brands slowly but surely taking heed of their consumers’ demands for proof of origin. And conversely, brands are wanting to secure themselves for the unlikely event of food fraud.’
09 | 2017 29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
