You鈥檝e probably heard about the row over Subway鈥檚 chicken by now. A broadcaster in Canada , with the rest mostly from soy.
I admit that a smile crossed my lips when I heard. Not because I have anything against the fast food chain. I don鈥檛. allegation, saying protein-based tests, which are arguably better suited to quantification, show soy is a tiny part of the meat, added to maintain moisture and texture and listed in ingredients.
No, I smiled because I thought of a woman from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency who sat in the front row of a public talk I gave last year in Ottawa about this kind of thing.
Advertisement
I cited Canadian examples where fish was mislabelled as more expensive species, spices contained cheap fillers and 鈥渓ocally鈥� grown vegetables were actually imported from Mexico. She chipped in at every opportunity to repeat her key message, that Canada鈥檚 food is the safest in the world.
Of course, she is right. Canada鈥檚 food is very safe. A study conducted by the University of Guelph, Ontario, in 2014 and Canada came joint top, above the UK and the US.
But safety and authenticity can often be two separate concerns, and we continue to worry about the veracity of food, as the Subway example shows.
We do so because what we eat can often be the end result of an incredibly complex, largely anonymous supply network. Within this, production processes can be opaque, labels ambiguous and authenticity testing sparse.
It takes more than tech
So are we destined to always dine with a side serving of scepticism? Technology clearly has a growing role in helping consumers trust in what they eat.
There is now an armoury of sophisticated analytical methods that can be used to determine the authenticity of food. Aside from DNA analysis, immunoassays, chromatography, mass spectrometry and isotope analysis are among methods that can shed light on what鈥檚 in produce and where it comes from. These can tell you what type of fish is on your plate or if that basmati rice is the real deal.
Food is a complex mix of compounds, which may get degraded in some types of processing. It may take multiple tests to get a conclusive result.
Governments make use of these technologies to monitor regulatory compliance. However, with constrained resources, their priorities lie in safety testing. As for doing it yourself, there simply isn鈥檛 a market for a $20 single-use pregnancy-test-style dipstick that diners can plunge into a battered fish to confirm that it is indeed cod
In any event, this will take more than technology. Good business practices are also key. The industry has to know its supply network 鈥� not just who supplies them, but those who supply their suppliers.
Some companies are also adding internal authenticity testing as part of their processes and working this assurance into their brand. But all of this comes at a cost. Ultimately, real progress may boil down to how much we, as consumers, are willing to pay in order to trust our food.
