TY - JOUR

T1 - Towards a harmonized approach for food authenticity marker validation and accreditation

AU - Bayen, Stéphane

AU - Elliott, Chris

AU - Arlorio, Marco

AU - Ballin, Nicolai Zederkopff

AU - Birse, Nicholas

AU - Brockmeyer, Jens

AU - Chahal, Shawninder

AU - Corradini, Maria G.

AU - Hanner, Robert

AU - Hann, Stephan

AU - Laursen, Kristian Holst

AU - Mihailova, Alina

AU - Steininger-Mairinger, Teresa

AU - Suman, Michele

AU - Tian, Lei

AU - van Ruth, Saskia

AU - Xia, Jianguo

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2024 Elsevier Ltd

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - Recent publications in the field of food authentication have reported using analytical methods which measure changes in sample composition. These changes can be due to a variety of causes such as the presence of adulterants, different production methods, or varying geographical origins of food. While the increasing use of marker-based approaches is beneficial in combating food fraud, there is a pressing need to adopt a harmonized approach for validating these markers. In this article, we make recommendations for harmonized terminologies and general definitions related to food authenticity markers. First, we propose the terms “primary” and “secondary” markers to distinguish between direct and indirect authentication. The terms “single” and “dual” authenticity markers, and authentic “profiles” and “fingerprints” are suggested to distinguish between the number of analytical targets used. We also recommend that the terms: “threshold”, “binary”, and “interval” markers are applied depending on how they discriminate authentic from non-authentic samples. Second, we advocate for harmonization in marker discovery approaches. A summary of the main analytical techniques, published guidelines, data repositories, and data analysis approaches is presented for various marker classes while also stating their applicability and limitations. Finally, we propose guidelines for the analytical community concerning marker validation. In our view, the validation of the authentication method should include the following steps: 1) applicability statement; 2) experimental design; 3) marker selection and analysis; 4) analytical method validation; 5) method release; 6) method monitoring. Implementing these approaches will represent a significant step towards establishing a wide range of fully validated and accredited methodologies that can be applied effectively in food authenticity monitoring and control programs.

AB - Recent publications in the field of food authentication have reported using analytical methods which measure changes in sample composition. These changes can be due to a variety of causes such as the presence of adulterants, different production methods, or varying geographical origins of food. While the increasing use of marker-based approaches is beneficial in combating food fraud, there is a pressing need to adopt a harmonized approach for validating these markers. In this article, we make recommendations for harmonized terminologies and general definitions related to food authenticity markers. First, we propose the terms “primary” and “secondary” markers to distinguish between direct and indirect authentication. The terms “single” and “dual” authenticity markers, and authentic “profiles” and “fingerprints” are suggested to distinguish between the number of analytical targets used. We also recommend that the terms: “threshold”, “binary”, and “interval” markers are applied depending on how they discriminate authentic from non-authentic samples. Second, we advocate for harmonization in marker discovery approaches. A summary of the main analytical techniques, published guidelines, data repositories, and data analysis approaches is presented for various marker classes while also stating their applicability and limitations. Finally, we propose guidelines for the analytical community concerning marker validation. In our view, the validation of the authentication method should include the following steps: 1) applicability statement; 2) experimental design; 3) marker selection and analysis; 4) analytical method validation; 5) method release; 6) method monitoring. Implementing these approaches will represent a significant step towards establishing a wide range of fully validated and accredited methodologies that can be applied effectively in food authenticity monitoring and control programs.

KW - Accreditation

KW - Classification algorithm

KW - Food fraud

KW - Foodomics

KW - Machine learning

KW - Non-targeted analysis

U2 - 10.1016/j.tifs.2024.104550

DO - 10.1016/j.tifs.2024.104550

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:85194554980

VL - 149

JO - Trends in Food Science & Technology

JF - Trends in Food Science & Technology

SN - 0924-2244

M1 - 104550

ER -