Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39875675›Full record

ReviewAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2025

Reference materials for food authentication.

Franz Ulberth, Robert Koeber

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Franz UlberthJoint Research Centre, European Commission, 2440, Geel, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-0401-3578
Robert KoeberJoint Research Centre, European Commission, 2440, Geel, Belgium. robert.koeber@ec.europa.eu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2716-7487

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The global food industry faces significant challenges in ensuring the safety and authenticity of food products. Economic adulteration and counterfeiting of food are estimated to cost the industry US$30-40 billion annually. Analytical testing plays a vital role in detecting food fraud. For ensuring the metrological traceability and comparability of testing results, the use of reference materials (RMs) is crucial. The article describes the role of RMs in food authenticity testing, including their applications in method validation, calibration, quality control, and the definition of conventional measurement scales. It also reviews the availability of RMs that can be used in measurement procedures to authenticate food. Furthermore, the applications of RMs in targeted adulterant detection methods, for compositional parameters used to authenticate foods and food supplements, isotopic measurements, untargeted food authenticity testing methods, and detection and quantification of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), are explored. The document concludes by recommending the development of research grade test materials or representative test materials to harmonise untargeted testing methods and improve comparability of results across laboratories and over time.

Indexed as

Food AnalysisFood ContaminationHumansQuality ControlReference StandardsFood authenticityFood fraudMethod validationReference materialsReference samplesUntargeted testing methods

Identifiers

PMID39875675
PMCPMC12003434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.