24
1 Yerba Mate Tea, a Traditional South American …
Regulation for the Labelling of Packed Food, Resolution No 26/2003. These rules and
obligation are discussed again in Chap. 7. Other obligations, such as the Uruguay’s
‘Decreto No 32/015—Límites de contaminantes en yerba mate’ concerning limits
of contaminant in this product, and the main Argentinean regulations ruling yerba
mate by the INYM should be considered (INYM 2020; Ministerio de Salud Pùblica
2015). The interested Reader is invited to consult the related literature.
1.8 Could Yerba Mate Be Associated with Food Frauds?
As above mentioned, the Argentinean INYM has finally obtained the Geographical
indication for ‘yerba mate’ in 2016 (Moeller IP Advisors 2016). As a consequence,
thanks to this recognition, the INYM can now guarantee transparent procedures with
reference to commercial typologies, legal recognition, and also origin-related information. In this ambit, the concept of authenticity is a basic pillar, and the same
thing can be affirmed when speaking of traceability issues. However, the main question is ‘Why should we ask for authenticity and traceability?’ The answer is necessarily related to the possible difference between claimed and declared information
concerning a food product and real features of the same food product. In other terms,
the nature of this answer is strictly related to food frauds, and it should be considered
now whether yerba mate may be questioned in some occasions.
The basic concept of intentional adulteration or economically motivated adulteration (Everstine et al. 2013) should imply that one food business operator (FBO) at
least in the food supply chain:
(1) Knows the difference between claimed and real food features
(2) Is willing to take advantage from the fraudulent exposition of the food product
naming it in a non-real way, or claiming one or some specific features this food
cannot hold
(3) Is well aware that the modification and/or omission of certain information can
give some economic gain.
Consequently, traceability issues are certainly interesting when speaking of safety
risks and correlated analyses at least, including shelf-life information, according to
the Parisi’s First Law of Food Degradation
1 (FNCF 2020; Parisi 2002a, b, 2003,
2004; Volpe et al. 2015). On the other hand, authenticity concerns are strictly related
to food frauds and related gains.
The interest in yerba mate adulteration appears quite constant in recent years. The
research of terms such as ‘yerba mate’ associated with ‘adulteration’ and ‘fraud’ on
the scholar platform https://scholar.google.com gives 142 results (date: 24 November
2020), including: 7, 10, 13, 10, and 11 references in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and
2020, respectively. There are not particular increasing trends when speaking of these
1 This Law states that ‘There are not foods which are not subjected over time to a progressive
transformation of their chemical, physical, organoleptic, microbiological, and structural features.
1 Yerba Mate Tea, a Traditional South American …
Regulation for the Labelling of Packed Food, Resolution No 26/2003. These rules and
obligation are discussed again in Chap. 7. Other obligations, such as the Uruguay’s
‘Decreto No 32/015—Límites de contaminantes en yerba mate’ concerning limits
of contaminant in this product, and the main Argentinean regulations ruling yerba
mate by the INYM should be considered (INYM 2020; Ministerio de Salud Pùblica
2015). The interested Reader is invited to consult the related literature.
1.8 Could Yerba Mate Be Associated with Food Frauds?
As above mentioned, the Argentinean INYM has finally obtained the Geographical
indication for ‘yerba mate’ in 2016 (Moeller IP Advisors 2016). As a consequence,
thanks to this recognition, the INYM can now guarantee transparent procedures with
reference to commercial typologies, legal recognition, and also origin-related information. In this ambit, the concept of authenticity is a basic pillar, and the same
thing can be affirmed when speaking of traceability issues. However, the main question is ‘Why should we ask for authenticity and traceability?’ The answer is necessarily related to the possible difference between claimed and declared information
concerning a food product and real features of the same food product. In other terms,
the nature of this answer is strictly related to food frauds, and it should be considered
now whether yerba mate may be questioned in some occasions.
The basic concept of intentional adulteration or economically motivated adulteration (Everstine et al. 2013) should imply that one food business operator (FBO) at
least in the food supply chain:
(1) Knows the difference between claimed and real food features
(2) Is willing to take advantage from the fraudulent exposition of the food product
naming it in a non-real way, or claiming one or some specific features this food
cannot hold
(3) Is well aware that the modification and/or omission of certain information can
give some economic gain.
Consequently, traceability issues are certainly interesting when speaking of safety
risks and correlated analyses at least, including shelf-life information, according to
the Parisi’s First Law of Food Degradation
1 (FNCF 2020; Parisi 2002a, b, 2003,
2004; Volpe et al. 2015). On the other hand, authenticity concerns are strictly related
to food frauds and related gains.
The interest in yerba mate adulteration appears quite constant in recent years. The
research of terms such as ‘yerba mate’ associated with ‘adulteration’ and ‘fraud’ on
the scholar platform https://scholar.google.com gives 142 results (date: 24 November
2020), including: 7, 10, 13, 10, and 11 references in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and
2020, respectively. There are not particular increasing trends when speaking of these
1 This Law states that ‘There are not foods which are not subjected over time to a progressive
transformation of their chemical, physical, organoleptic, microbiological, and structural features.