Stéphane Bayen , Chris Elliott , Marco Arlorio , Nicolai Zederkopff Ballin , Nicholas Birse , Jens Brockmeyer , Shawninder Chahal , Maria G. Corradini , Robert Hanner , Stephan Hann , Kristian Holst Laursen , Alina Mihailova , Teresa Steininger-Mairinger , Michele Suman , Lei Tian , Saskia van Ruth , Jianguo Xia
{"title":"制定食品真实性标识验证和认证的统一方法","authors":"Stéphane Bayen , Chris Elliott , Marco Arlorio , Nicolai Zederkopff Ballin , Nicholas Birse , Jens Brockmeyer , Shawninder Chahal , Maria G. Corradini , Robert Hanner , Stephan Hann , Kristian Holst Laursen , Alina Mihailova , Teresa Steininger-Mairinger , Michele Suman , Lei Tian , Saskia van Ruth , Jianguo Xia","doi":"10.1016/j.tifs.2024.104550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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 “<em>primary</em>” and “<em>secondary</em>” markers to distinguish between direct and indirect authentication. The terms “<em>single</em>” and “<em>dual</em>” authenticity markers, and authentic “<em>profiles</em>” and “<em>fingerprints</em>” are suggested to distinguish between the number of analytical targets used. We also recommend that the terms: “<em>threshold</em>”, “<em>binary</em>”, and “<em>interval</em>” 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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":441,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Food Science & Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards a harmonized approach for food authenticity marker validation and accreditation\",\"authors\":\"Stéphane Bayen , Chris Elliott , Marco Arlorio , Nicolai Zederkopff Ballin , Nicholas Birse , Jens Brockmeyer , Shawninder Chahal , Maria G. Corradini , Robert Hanner , Stephan Hann , Kristian Holst Laursen , Alina Mihailova , Teresa Steininger-Mairinger , Michele Suman , Lei Tian , Saskia van Ruth , Jianguo Xia\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tifs.2024.104550\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>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 “<em>primary</em>” and “<em>secondary</em>” markers to distinguish between direct and indirect authentication. The terms “<em>single</em>” and “<em>dual</em>” authenticity markers, and authentic “<em>profiles</em>” and “<em>fingerprints</em>” are suggested to distinguish between the number of analytical targets used. We also recommend that the terms: “<em>threshold</em>”, “<em>binary</em>”, and “<em>interval</em>” 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.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":441,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trends in Food Science & Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":15.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trends in Food Science & Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224424002267\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Food Science & Technology","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224424002267","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Towards a harmonized approach for food authenticity marker validation and accreditation
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.
期刊介绍:
Trends in Food Science & Technology is a prestigious international journal that specializes in peer-reviewed articles covering the latest advancements in technology, food science, and human nutrition. It serves as a bridge between specialized primary journals and general trade magazines, providing readable and scientifically rigorous reviews and commentaries on current research developments and their potential applications in the food industry.
Unlike traditional journals, Trends in Food Science & Technology does not publish original research papers. Instead, it focuses on critical and comprehensive reviews to offer valuable insights for professionals in the field. By bringing together cutting-edge research and industry applications, this journal plays a vital role in disseminating knowledge and facilitating advancements in the food science and technology sector.