It's been nearly two years since the horse meat scandal of 2013 shocked many consumers, but why did UK consumers recoil at the discovery of horse meat? Yes it was undeclared and consumers have the right to know what their food should contain, but why isn’t horse on our supermarket shelves? I love horses and have ridden all of my life and wouldn't go out of my way to eat horse meat. However, here is a short analysis that will look into the under investigated topic of hippophagy in the UK and why horse consumption is a taboo amongst the British culture.
Beef is one of the most consumed forms of meat, but with an ever increasing population, demand for meat increases too. Cows digest food by enteric fermentation, emitting more methane into the atmosphere than any other mammal. Pigs and chickens do not digest the same way and neither do horses, making hippophagy more environmentally friendly. Horse is also sweeter and leaner making it more nutritionally beneficial than beef.
Part of the revulsion toward horse consumption stems from the British view of horses seen as pets. Dr Roger Mugford, Animal Psychologist at the Animal Behaviour Centre, says “we put extra qualities and values on animals seen as pets” (BBC, 2013).
History also reinforces the taboo as horses played a vital role in warfare so are therefore sentimentally depicted. Blockbuster ‘War Horse’ and Channel 4’s recent documentary ‘The Real War Horse’ showed viewers how horses were responsible in helping win World War 1 (BBC, 2013).
The RSPCA add in the BBC report that the slaughter of horses is an emotive topic. People in the UK prefer to see them as field companions than an accompaniment to vegetables at dinner (BBC, 2013).
Yet these theories also apply to France who holds no qualms of serving up the equine species. So perhaps it is a chauvinistic approach of asserting national identity which is so deeply embedded that it has become a culinary norm; the British eat beef and the French eat horse.
Sunday 15 February 2015
Saturday 7 February 2015
Are Copycat Brands Competing Unfairly?
I was recently duped into buying what I thought was a popular fish and sauce product from a retailer to later find that it was an own label product with mimicing packaging. I enjoyed the food, but felt a little cheated I must admit. This wasn't the first time either; whilst traveling around Thailand, I had to keep my wits about me when ordering alcohol in bars as it's known that counterfeit or home brewed alcohol can often be served from recycled, popular branded bottles. In this case I was more worried about the health risks rather than the financial loss, so have decided to blog about copycat brands and thier impact on the food and drink industry as well as consumers.
Packaging is sometimes copied to simulate popular brands in the hope to dupe consumers to buy their version without second guessing on quality or content, but is this harmless competition or a more serious issue, such as a health risk. Is it fair that unless consumers are vigilant they can be misled by lookalike packaging and to what extent does it damage the brand that has been copied? Copycat packaging is a problem occurring across the globe yet there is still only a limited amount of information covering this particular topic.
A product is considered a lookalike if it features a combination of similar colours, layout of graphics, iconography and language style.
Alcohol copying is particularly concerning; people lacking the technical skills and knowledge are producing unsafe alcohol. In some cases ingredients such as automotive antifreeze liquid and high percentages of methanol have been found.
Brand owners can invest huge amounts of money into research and development to base marketing and brand imagery decisions on with the incentive that they will receive back adequate benefits. By copying well established and successful brands, the copycats are getting a ‘free ride’ off the recognition of similar visual cues. They are deemed successful when consumers accept the lookalike without rational consideration.
Consumer group Which? Investigated copycat products in the UK and found 150 examples of lookalike products that they felt looked too similar being produced by large retailers like Asda, Aldi, Lidl, Boots, Morrisons, Superdrug, Tescos and Sainsburys. Which?’s report stated how retailers are misleading consumers into purchasing own-label products by ‘borrowing’ elements of brand packaging. The study found that one-fifth of members had at least once accidently bought a supermarket own brand, with 60% saying that they felt misled and annoyed by the error. Some retailers have defended their packaging choice saying that they use similar colours to branded products to assist consumers in finding products quickly.
John Noble, Director of the British Brands Group, said in an interview by Which? “Our research shows that consumers are more likely to buy own label products if they look like brands. Currently in the UK there is little to stop a competitor packaging its products to look like a familiar brand, whether or not the products performance is in any way similar. That can’t be good if we want a market in which shoppers can make informed decisions”.
In my opinion, copycat products are essentially plagiarizing branded companies. Identity theft is a serious crime so why is copying a grey area of the law?
Packaging is sometimes copied to simulate popular brands in the hope to dupe consumers to buy their version without second guessing on quality or content, but is this harmless competition or a more serious issue, such as a health risk. Is it fair that unless consumers are vigilant they can be misled by lookalike packaging and to what extent does it damage the brand that has been copied? Copycat packaging is a problem occurring across the globe yet there is still only a limited amount of information covering this particular topic.
A product is considered a lookalike if it features a combination of similar colours, layout of graphics, iconography and language style.
Alcohol copying is particularly concerning; people lacking the technical skills and knowledge are producing unsafe alcohol. In some cases ingredients such as automotive antifreeze liquid and high percentages of methanol have been found.
Brand owners can invest huge amounts of money into research and development to base marketing and brand imagery decisions on with the incentive that they will receive back adequate benefits. By copying well established and successful brands, the copycats are getting a ‘free ride’ off the recognition of similar visual cues. They are deemed successful when consumers accept the lookalike without rational consideration.
Consumer group Which? Investigated copycat products in the UK and found 150 examples of lookalike products that they felt looked too similar being produced by large retailers like Asda, Aldi, Lidl, Boots, Morrisons, Superdrug, Tescos and Sainsburys. Which?’s report stated how retailers are misleading consumers into purchasing own-label products by ‘borrowing’ elements of brand packaging. The study found that one-fifth of members had at least once accidently bought a supermarket own brand, with 60% saying that they felt misled and annoyed by the error. Some retailers have defended their packaging choice saying that they use similar colours to branded products to assist consumers in finding products quickly.
John Noble, Director of the British Brands Group, said in an interview by Which? “Our research shows that consumers are more likely to buy own label products if they look like brands. Currently in the UK there is little to stop a competitor packaging its products to look like a familiar brand, whether or not the products performance is in any way similar. That can’t be good if we want a market in which shoppers can make informed decisions”.
In my opinion, copycat products are essentially plagiarizing branded companies. Identity theft is a serious crime so why is copying a grey area of the law?
Food Fraud - New Dogs, Old Tricks
So it turns out I haven't wriiten a post in nearly a year..how time flies!
Ever since horsegate, I've developed a deep interest in food fraud. I've always enjoyed reading about crime and criminal motivations, so to combine this with the food history really gets my juices flowing, so I've decided to write a post about what food fraud entails; it's history, the types of fraud, the contemporary issue and motivations.
The definition of food fraud recognises the common theme of deliberately altering foodstuff for economic gain. However the effects can be categorised as being threefold: financial loss of the consumer, health risks and the adverse effect on the wider food economy such as confidence in legitimate businesses. In addition, food fraud is a collective term encompassing acts such as the deliberate addition, removal or substitution of ingredients or the misrepresentation on food packaging, labelling and statements.
In common language, consumers are entitled to receive what they pay for yet fraudsters are making a quick profit by counterfeiting legitimate goods and selling them on as genuine items or by producing genuine articles that have been adulterated with extraneous matter.
The History of Food Fraud
Food fraud drove some of the earliest laws; coffee in the eighteenth century was an expensive commodity and inaccessible to those less well off. In order to cheapen coffee, chicory, sand and dried leaf matter was blended in to bulk the product. It seems the tampering of foodstuffs was indeed such commonplace in antiquity times that consumers began to develop a taste and preference for cheaper, adulterated foods. Today’s quality control measures are owed to German chemist Fredrich Accum who wrote a publication on A Treatise on Adulteration of Food and Culinary Poisons in 1820, after he identified that toxic metals were being used as colourings for food such as sweets and drink to become more appealing to children. This led to the creation of the Adulteration of Food Act in the UK in 1860 and 1872. It would have been difficult if not impossible to monitor and detect the adulteration of foodstuff in this era; limited knowledge and lack of investigative resources would be some of the difficulties authorities would encounter. Accum also publicly ‘named and shamed’ perpetrators who were convicted and who he felt lacked accountability and penalties. Arthur Hill Hassel is a notable significant individual who continued identifying and reporting fraudulent activity penalties. He had great success using basic resources such as microscopy to identify extraneous articles such as chicory in coffee. It is clear food fraud has been a long standing and undeterred problem with only methods of detection rather than preventative methods used against the problem in past times. The risk of food fraud would have been on a limited scale back then - it would have only affected a small geographical area compared to modern day complex supply chains.
The Contemporary Issue Surrounding Food Fraud
Advancements in science and detection along with greater public awareness, coverage and improved international cooperation have strengthened the fight against food fraud, but unfortunately so has the ingenuity of the fraudsters.
Food fraud incident types:
Understanding the Motives
The word ‘fraud’ conjures up images of hierarchical organised crime mobs such as Chinese triads, cartels and Sicilian Cosa Nostra Mafia. In fact, not all food fraud is illegal or a violation; it depends on ingredients used in the adulteration; the elements may not be seen as unethical in some cultures and unlike food terrorism, food fraudsters do not intend to cause a public health threat. Food fraud is opportunistic. Small and less sophisticated networks are capable of committing the act undetected in today’s long and complex supply chain. These networks may form, perpetrate the crime and then disband; returning to what may be a legitimate life. In the current economic climate there are increasing pressures on delivering cheap foods to consumers whilst maintaining a profit, so there is always an incentive to adulterate foods for the devious trader. So long as the demand is there for cheap food, fraudsters will provide it by any means.
Ever since horsegate, I've developed a deep interest in food fraud. I've always enjoyed reading about crime and criminal motivations, so to combine this with the food history really gets my juices flowing, so I've decided to write a post about what food fraud entails; it's history, the types of fraud, the contemporary issue and motivations.
The definition of food fraud recognises the common theme of deliberately altering foodstuff for economic gain. However the effects can be categorised as being threefold: financial loss of the consumer, health risks and the adverse effect on the wider food economy such as confidence in legitimate businesses. In addition, food fraud is a collective term encompassing acts such as the deliberate addition, removal or substitution of ingredients or the misrepresentation on food packaging, labelling and statements.
In common language, consumers are entitled to receive what they pay for yet fraudsters are making a quick profit by counterfeiting legitimate goods and selling them on as genuine items or by producing genuine articles that have been adulterated with extraneous matter.
The History of Food Fraud
Food fraud drove some of the earliest laws; coffee in the eighteenth century was an expensive commodity and inaccessible to those less well off. In order to cheapen coffee, chicory, sand and dried leaf matter was blended in to bulk the product. It seems the tampering of foodstuffs was indeed such commonplace in antiquity times that consumers began to develop a taste and preference for cheaper, adulterated foods. Today’s quality control measures are owed to German chemist Fredrich Accum who wrote a publication on A Treatise on Adulteration of Food and Culinary Poisons in 1820, after he identified that toxic metals were being used as colourings for food such as sweets and drink to become more appealing to children. This led to the creation of the Adulteration of Food Act in the UK in 1860 and 1872. It would have been difficult if not impossible to monitor and detect the adulteration of foodstuff in this era; limited knowledge and lack of investigative resources would be some of the difficulties authorities would encounter. Accum also publicly ‘named and shamed’ perpetrators who were convicted and who he felt lacked accountability and penalties. Arthur Hill Hassel is a notable significant individual who continued identifying and reporting fraudulent activity penalties. He had great success using basic resources such as microscopy to identify extraneous articles such as chicory in coffee. It is clear food fraud has been a long standing and undeterred problem with only methods of detection rather than preventative methods used against the problem in past times. The risk of food fraud would have been on a limited scale back then - it would have only affected a small geographical area compared to modern day complex supply chains.
The Contemporary Issue Surrounding Food Fraud
Advancements in science and detection along with greater public awareness, coverage and improved international cooperation have strengthened the fight against food fraud, but unfortunately so has the ingenuity of the fraudsters.
Food fraud incident types:
Term
|
Definition
|
Example
|
Potential
public health threat that may lead to illness or death
|
Adulterate
|
A component of
the finished product is fraudulent
|
Melamine added
to milk
|
Fraudulent
component
|
Tamper
|
Legitimate
product and packaging are used in a fraudulent way
|
Changed expiry
information, product up-labelling, so on
|
Fraudulent
packaging information
|
Over-run
|
Legitimate
product is made in excess of production agreements
|
Under-reporting
of production
|
Fraudulent
product is distributed outside of regulated or controlled supply chain
|
Theft
|
Legitimate
product is stolen and passed off as legitimately procured
|
Stolen products
are co-mitigated with legitimate products
|
Fraudulent
product is distributed outside of regulated or controlled supply chain
|
Diversion
|
The sale or
distribution of legitimate products outside of intended markets
|
Relief food
redirected to markets where aid is not required
|
Shortages or
delays of relief food to needy populations
|
Simulation
|
Illegitimate
product is designed to look like but not exactly copy the legitimate product
|
“Knock-offs” of
popular foods not produced with same food safety assurances
|
Fraudulent
product of lesser quality
|
Counterfeit
|
All aspects of
the original product and packaging are fully replicated
|
Copies of
popular foods not produced with same food safety assurances
|
Fraudulent
product
|
Understanding the Motives
The word ‘fraud’ conjures up images of hierarchical organised crime mobs such as Chinese triads, cartels and Sicilian Cosa Nostra Mafia. In fact, not all food fraud is illegal or a violation; it depends on ingredients used in the adulteration; the elements may not be seen as unethical in some cultures and unlike food terrorism, food fraudsters do not intend to cause a public health threat. Food fraud is opportunistic. Small and less sophisticated networks are capable of committing the act undetected in today’s long and complex supply chain. These networks may form, perpetrate the crime and then disband; returning to what may be a legitimate life. In the current economic climate there are increasing pressures on delivering cheap foods to consumers whilst maintaining a profit, so there is always an incentive to adulterate foods for the devious trader. So long as the demand is there for cheap food, fraudsters will provide it by any means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)