Reasons Why "Fake Food" Persists Despite Advances in Inspection Technology — The Truth Behind Honey, Spices, and Olive Oil

"As technology advances, so do counterfeits" - What's happening in the food industry

The technology to distinguish genuine from fake food is becoming more sophisticated every year. Laser light analysis, DNA profiling, portable testing devices, and machine learning to organize vast amounts of data to detect anomalies. Yet, food fraud persists stubbornly. In fact, there are increasing cases of "counterfeits that look just like the real thing," slipping past not only consumers but even inspections.

Food crimes often "go unnoticed." For companies, it's a matter of trust, and for authorities, there are constraints on manpower and budget, making it difficult to grasp the full extent of the damage. The methods are classic—bulking up with additives, substituting with different ingredients, falsifying documents on origin or production methods, and using unauthorized processes. However, the targets are expanding to the heart of the modern dining table.

Targets are "everyday foods" and "high-value foods"

Fraudsters favor commonly consumed foods (like dairy products) and high-priced foods (like olive oil). Additionally, honey frequently appears alongside alcohol, seafood, and edible oils as a "food with many counterfeits."

Honey is a natural product, and its components vary by flower, region, and season. This makes it difficult to establish a "standard for honey." There isn't even an internationally agreed-upon "definition of honey," which creates a breeding ground for fraud.

Why honey fraud is a formidable challenge—complex components and sophisticated counterfeits

A common method of honey fraud is the addition of plant-based syrups like glucose syrup derived from sugarcane. The price can be less than half of genuine honey, and the more you mix, the more you profit. The troublesome part is that it's not just poor-quality products that can be detected by appearance, smell, or taste. With advancing technology, it's possible to adjust viscosity and aroma to create honey that looks and tastes "authentic."

Moreover, it can even evade chemical analysis. Since honey and syrup have similar sugar compositions, some tests may not show significant differences. There are multiple methods, such as comparing chemical bond characteristics or analyzing isotopes to estimate the origin, but there is still no "one-shot test" that can definitively identify counterfeits. Experts emphasize the need for new detection methods.

What's crucial here is that the counterfeiters learn the "quirks of the tests." When a certain test is introduced, mixing methods, ingredients, and production processes that avoid it are chosen. The cat-and-mouse game becomes more intense as technology advances.

The damage is not just "the livelihood of producers"—it's a potential health hazard

Honey fraud primarily pressures the livelihoods of beekeepers. The more honest producers suffer. However, the danger of food crimes is not limited to economic damage. If allergens or harmful substances are mixed in, it can be a matter of life and death.

A symbolic case is the 2008 melamine-tainted milk scandal in China. Infants died from kidney damage, and those involved were sentenced to death. The fact that such acts targeting children occurred shows that ethics and penalties alone cannot stop them.

Insect food and superfoods—new trends are easy targets for fraudsters

In recent years, new food categories like insect food have gained attention. While efforts are underway to identify approved edible insect species through DNA, there is room for mixing different species or selling them as "approved species." The issue of allergies is particularly serious. There is a possibility of proteins similar to those in shellfish allergies being involved, and if unapproved species are mixed in, the health risks increase significantly.

In the age of social media, superfoods and supplement-like foods can quickly become trends, rapidly expanding the market. While the boom rises quickly, monitoring, regulation, and testing infrastructure can't keep up. This "time lag" becomes an opportunity for fraudsters.

Spices are deceived by "color"—the reality of industrial dyes and lead contamination

Spice fraud is a deep-rooted global issue. Mixing industrial dyes into paprika, adding lead compounds (lead chromate) to cinnamon to make the color more vibrant or to bulk it up—these methods exploit the value placed on the "redness" and "vividness" of appearance.

In this area, the problem is not the lack of "detection technology." Methods are established to detect even low concentrations, but the monitoring side (regulatory authorities) faces manpower and budget shortages, resulting in spotty inspections. A 2023 case in the U.S. where imported cinnamon caused lead poisoning in children showed that gaps in monitoring directly lead to health hazards.

"Having tracking technology will solve everything" is an illusion—QR codes and blockchain are not omnipotent

Food traceability is advancing. QR codes, microchips, blockchain. But there are two barriers in the field.

The first is the barrier of "buyers not checking." No matter how detailed the history is, it means little if consumers don't scan it. Moreover, the QR labels themselves can be counterfeited.

The second is the barrier of "cost and complexity." For products like bananas, which are close to a single ingredient, supply chain tracking is feasible, but for frozen or processed foods with 50 different ingredients sourced globally, the cost of tracking everything skyrockets. It's challenging to incorporate cutting-edge technology into "real production processes."

As a result, even systems that are theoretically strong do not become deterrents unless they are widely adopted. Technology only becomes a weapon when it is implemented.

What the field needs is "speed"—but fast testing comes with a trade-off in accuracy

Speed is necessary to stop suspected fraudulent food. Quarantine at borders, halting distribution, and removing from stores are races against time. However, the more accurate the test, the more it requires a lab and takes time. Conversely, portable rapid tests are suitable for the field but may lack sufficient sensitivity and specificity.

Recently, field-oriented technologies like X-ray fluorescence analyzers for turmeric and portable DNA kits for olive oil have emerged. Additionally, there are efforts to classify data using machine learning for early warning. However, it's financially impossible to "test everything," so the key lies in where to cast the net.

That's why "low-tech measures" are effective—the biggest hints are price and distance

Experts' proposals are surprisingly simple. Buy honey from local beekeepers. Be suspicious if the price is "too cheap." In the U.S., if honey or olive oil is around $3, it might be a red flag—this kind of guideline can serve as a danger sensor in our daily lives.

What's important here is the mindset of "reducing the probability of counterfeits" rather than "completely detecting counterfeits."
- Choose distribution where the producer's face is visible
- Avoid products that are extremely cheap compared to the market price
- Be skeptical of products with overly embellished origin or variety labels
- Be aware that the higher the degree of processing, the more room there is for "additives"

These actions can be taken today, even before technology.

Reactions on SNS (typical points and voices)

The content of this article is a theme that easily elicits reactions from multiple directions on social media. When organized by points of discussion, the typical voices that can be expected from the article content are as follows.

1) "In the end, there's a reason for the cheapness" group

• "Cheap honey is just what it is."

• "Got a bit scared of the bargain olive oil."
  Receiving price as a "danger signal" and reviewing daily shopping habits.

2) "The real issue is the shortage of regulatory personnel" group

• "Even if there are testing technologies, it's meaningless if monitoring is weak."

• "The budget for enforcement should be increased."
  Opinions that view it as an issue of system and operation rather than technology.

3) "Reflection on the blockchain panacea theory" group

• "Are the people who said blockchain would solve everything still breathing?"

• "In the end, it's about on-site costs and operations."
  A swing back from "tech worship" to reality.

4) "When children are affected, the temperature rises quickly" group

• "The story of the powdered milk incident is heartbreaking."

• "Food fraud isn't just fraud; it's assault."
  Strong reactions to the health hazard aspect.

5) "Don't just leave self-defense to consumers" group

• "It's hard to 'buy local' in urban areas."

• "Too much of the verification cost is being placed on consumers."
  While recognizing the effectiveness of low-tech measures, pointing out structural limitations.

6) "It's not someone else's problem for Japan either" group

• "The more imported food there is, the higher the risk of contamination."

• "I occasionally see news about labeling fraud."
  Reactions connecting to domestic labeling and distribution topics.

On social media, the conclusion that "having technology = safety" is not enough, and that "technology + monitoring + operation + buyer behavior" must be combined is a realistic perception that tends to spread.

The reason it doesn't disappear is not just "the malice of the perpetrators"

The persistence of food fraud cannot be explained solely by the presence of unethical individuals.

• Mixing leads to profit (economic incentive)

• Testing and monitoring are costly (system constraints)

• Food is complex and difficult to standardize (scientific difficulty)

• Distribution is widespread, and processing is extensive (tracking difficulty)

• Boom products lag in system development (time lag)
  When these conditions overlap, "loopholes" emerge somewhere.

Technology is important. However, technology alone cannot win. The battle lies in creating systems that work on the ground, ensuring dense monitoring, and building a market environment that doesn't succumb to the temptation of low prices.

What we can do—change our "buying habits" slightly

Finally, let's summarize realistic measures consumers can take.

• Avoid honey, olive oil, and spices that are extremely cheap compared to the market

• If possible, choose products with clear producers (like local beekeepers)

• Be cautious with trendy foods that are "overhyped" for their benefits

• Prioritize reliability over price for foods consumed by children

• Develop a habit of checking recall information and government announcements if suspicious food information arises

It's not necessary to "perfectly detect" counterfeits. Simply leaning towards "less risky buying habits" will certainly reduce risks.

Source URL

##HTML_TAG_