One of Australia's biggest tomato brands and two major supermarkets are selling products that independent scientific testing shows do not match the country of origin stated on their labels.

Forensic testing conducted for Four Corners has revealed dozens of tomato paste and passata products that claim to be from Australia or Italy are actually from China.

About half of those are sourced from Xinjiang, an area known internationally for its use of forced labour.

The majority of Leggo's tomato paste products tested, in tins, cans, and bottles, were found to have misleading labels. The company, owned by US food giant Simplot, makes strong claims on its packaging that it sources from Australian farms.

...

Coles Italian tomato paste also failed, along with Aldi's home brand Remano paste.

The findings are part of a major eight-month Four Corners investigation into what is really in the food you buy.

...

The testing was conducted by Source Certain, a leading forensic laboratory that has worked with the FBI, Scotland Yard, Interpol and the Australian Federal Police.

It analysed 221 processed tomato products from 39 brands, including paste, passata and diced tomato.

Twenty-two per cent of the products failed country-of-origin testing, while a further 6 per cent were flagged for further testing.

All of the tomato products that failed testing came from China. Of those, the lab traced 53 per cent to Xinjiang. The rest were confirmed as Chinese but the exact region could not be identified.

...

Web Archive link

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
23 comments in c/news@aussie.zone view that post
[–] 24 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Affecting so many brands, many of whom pride themselves on sourcing from Australian growers. I suspect it's a subset of the growers themselves (or a single supplier) behind this, rather than the brands. It is too much to believe that 30 brands all sourced from some Chinese supplier independently. I would love to find out how far this rabbit hole goes.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    A lot of fake Italian tomatoes too.

    and here's the thing, farms in Italy exploit a lot of refugees and illegal immigrants from Africa as farm workers

    Aussie toms are the way to go 👍I buy ardmona

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    This should have a serious jail time for all involved. Fucking with people's food is not acceptable.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    My only choices of oranges right now in my Canadian grocery stores are "USA" and "South Africa". Thanks trump! Thanks musk! Where are my Moroccan clementine's!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (9 children)

    I would like to see the tests results, and the datasets used to calibrate them before believing them. This entire article shouts "trust us, we did science" without actually sharing any of the results or the methods used to obtain them.

    That's not how science works. Show us your methodology.

    Edit: just had a read of the Source Certain website to see if the actual methodology is listed there somewhere, and not only do they have no useful information at all, they claim to use "proprietary science", aka, not science, because there is no peer review.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (8 children)

    They covered it (briefly) in the program. They analyze for various metals and elements which provides a 'fingerprint' of the source of the goods.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Yes, the general concept is explained, but not the raw data, or how they come to their "98% certainty" figure.

    There are a number of factors that can effect the trace element and isotopes ratios in a crop, and they have made no effort to share what factors they have controlled for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

    It's a documentary, not a scientific paper. Why would they give you source data?

    I'd trust the scientist with years of expertise over the denials of every company.

    The parallels are eerily similar with the sunscreen fiasco, where all the companies caught with vastly lower SPF factors than they claimed, all denied it, and claimed the Choice testing was wrong or invalid. Then, one by one, they fessed up, and blamed it on suppliers, their own testing and everyone else except themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Guy sounds like an anti vaxer/ home scientist...where's the source data. I want to do my own analysis of it to find the truth they are hiding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Nope, just an engineer who has seen similar methods fail hilariously when the trying to extrapolate from a limited datasets.

    When the only data supplied is opaque guarantees from a private company that profits from enticing more interest in their services, they need to state clearly how they came to make those guarantees.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Most articles won't provide a decent level of sources. Then again most articles (journalism) are shit.

    I will say decent journalists will answer emails. Depends on volume of articles written and if its a well worded discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Lying cunts preying on people trying to support local farmers, and with forced-labour sourced goods no less.

    All off my shopping list for good, and hoping to see ACCC action. This is clearly deceptive labeling and false advertising.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    In my opinion, the maximum fines courts can impose are too low, and even then, judges too often don't award the maximum fines :(

    If a company has a net worth over a certain amount, I reckon a jury should get final say. The class interests of judges are too different to the common person in our current society

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    If companies are "persons" they should also face jail time or house arrest (i.e. trading restrictions) as punishment for breaking the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Absolutely. Though I don't believe that particular legal precedent exists in Australia (I am not a lawyer).

    Completely agree though, that these consequences are too lax, and are just the cost of doing business...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Wow. This sucks.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    I was surprised by so many brands now being owned by US giant Simplot.

    Birds Eye – Frozen vegetables, frozen fish, frozen meals, hot chips

    Edgell – Canned vegetables, frozen vegetables, beans, corn, hot chips

    Leggo's – Pasta sauces, tomato paste, pasta, cooking sauces (featured in the doco)

    John West – Canned tuna, salmon, canned seafood, frozen seafood

    Chiko – Chiko Rolls and frozen snack foods

    Harvest – Shelf-stable meals, canned meals, cooking ingredients

    I&J – Frozen seafood

    Captain's Catch – Frozen seafood

    Chicken Tonight – Cooking sauces

    Raguletto – Pasta sauces and pasta products

    Five Brothers – Pasta sauces

    Seakist – Canned tuna and seafood

    Ally – Canned seafood

    Providore d'Italia – Italian-style sauces

    Top Sail – Seafood products

    And then this guff on the Simplot website: “ Our products have to be Australian sourced. Customers want to see that we are supporting the Australian business.” hmmm

  • source