74
8 Yerba Mate, the Global Commerce, and Possible Adulteration …
MSME
Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises
NFCU
National Food Crime Unit
NIR
Near-infrared spectroscopy
PCA
Principal component analysis
RASFF
Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed
8.1 Food Frauds and Yerba Mate. Possible Connections
The recent attribution, in Argentina, of the geographical indication for ‘yerba mate’
in 2016 allows the Instituto Nacional de la Yerba Mate (INYM) ruling the matter of
yerba mate commerce in terms of:
(1) Legal recognition of the product and all possible and correlated typologies and
qualities
(2) Commercial classification
(3) Available information related to the origin of yerba mate (introducing the
concept of traceability and authenticity in this field)
(4) General promotion of yerba mate in Argentina and worldwide (Lawson 2009;
Ministerio de Agroindustria 2016).
It has to be taken into account that yerba mate products can show a high
‘diversification degree’ depending on:
(a) The harvesting and/or cultivation and harvesting method
(b) Processing systems
(c) Packaging choices
(d) The existence of national or transnational supply chains (the last option
concerns mainly Uruguay and also some non-South American countries such
as Syria).
In this ambit, the concept of authenticity is a basic pillar, and the same thing can
be affirmed when speaking of traceability issues. Food authenticity is a productrelated and intrinsic value, and it can be fully confirmed on condition that adequate
and reliable traceability information are available (Parisi 2020a). In other words,
the complete food authenticity is the total correspondence (total match) between
claimed and declared information concerning a food product and real features of the
same food product. On the contrary, the difference between claimed and real food
features has to be considered in terms of food fraud, or better ‘economic motivated
adulteration’ (EMA) (Everstine 2017; Kennedy 2012; Tucker 2011).
The basic concept of intentional adulteration or EMA (Everstine et al. 2013;
Tucker 2011) 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
8 Yerba Mate, the Global Commerce, and Possible Adulteration …
MSME
Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises
NFCU
National Food Crime Unit
NIR
Near-infrared spectroscopy
PCA
Principal component analysis
RASFF
Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed
8.1 Food Frauds and Yerba Mate. Possible Connections
The recent attribution, in Argentina, of the geographical indication for ‘yerba mate’
in 2016 allows the Instituto Nacional de la Yerba Mate (INYM) ruling the matter of
yerba mate commerce in terms of:
(1) Legal recognition of the product and all possible and correlated typologies and
qualities
(2) Commercial classification
(3) Available information related to the origin of yerba mate (introducing the
concept of traceability and authenticity in this field)
(4) General promotion of yerba mate in Argentina and worldwide (Lawson 2009;
Ministerio de Agroindustria 2016).
It has to be taken into account that yerba mate products can show a high
‘diversification degree’ depending on:
(a) The harvesting and/or cultivation and harvesting method
(b) Processing systems
(c) Packaging choices
(d) The existence of national or transnational supply chains (the last option
concerns mainly Uruguay and also some non-South American countries such
as Syria).
In this ambit, the concept of authenticity is a basic pillar, and the same thing can
be affirmed when speaking of traceability issues. Food authenticity is a productrelated and intrinsic value, and it can be fully confirmed on condition that adequate
and reliable traceability information are available (Parisi 2020a). In other words,
the complete food authenticity is the total correspondence (total match) between
claimed and declared information concerning a food product and real features of the
same food product. On the contrary, the difference between claimed and real food
features has to be considered in terms of food fraud, or better ‘economic motivated
adulteration’ (EMA) (Everstine 2017; Kennedy 2012; Tucker 2011).
The basic concept of intentional adulteration or EMA (Everstine et al. 2013;
Tucker 2011) 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