Politics

EU digital product passports won’t solve food fraud, but blockchain can

Published

4 hours ago

April 30, 2025

admin

EU digital product passports won’t solve food fraud, but blockchain can

Opinion by: Fraser Edwards, co-founder and CEO, Cheqd

Brutal honesty has its place, especially when confronting discomfort, so here’s one that can’t be sweetened with honey: 96% of imported honey in the UK is fake! Tests found that 24 of 25 jars were suspicious or didn’t meet regulatory standards.

Self-sovereign identity (SSI) can fix this.

The UK Food Standards Agency and the European Commission both urge reform to tackle this concern by creating a robust traceability database within supply chain networks to ensure consumer transparency and trust. Data, however, is not the problem. The issue is people tampering with it.

This is not the first time products have been revealed to be inauthentic, with the Honey Authenticity Network highlighting that one-third of all honey products were fake in 2020, a fraudulent industry amounting to 3.4 billion euros ($3.65 million) of counterfeit goods entering the EU in 2023, as reported by the European Commission.

What is EMA, and how does it affect honey?

Economically motivated adulteration (EMA) involves intentionally substituting valuable ingredients for less expensive products such as sweeteners or low-quality oil. This practice leads to severe economic and health complications — and, in some cases, disease — due to the poisonous additives from substitute products.

The adulteration often involves creating an ultra-diluted blend containing minimal nutritional value, and counterfeiters call it… honey.

Fraudsters dilute the product with high fructose corn syrup or increase the thickness with starch or gelatine. These adulterants closely mimic honey’s chemical profile, making it extremely difficult to detect with traditional tests such as isotope ratio mass spectrometry. Fake honey lacks the essential enzymes that give real honey its flavor and nutrients. To make matters worse, honey’s characteristics vary based on nectar sources, the harvest season, geography and more.

Some companies filter out pollen content, a key identifier of a honey’s geographical origin, before exporting it to intermediary countries like Vietnam or India to further obfuscate the process. Once this is done, the products are brought to supermarket shelves and labeled with false certifications to command higher prices. This tactic exploits the fact that many regulatory bodies lack the means to verify every shipment.

The hidden cost of food fraud

The supply chain is profoundly fractured, as a jar of honey passes six to eight key points in the supply chain before it arrives on the shelves in the UK. Current practices make authenticity verification extremely difficult. Coupled with the inefficient paper-based bureaucracy that makes it hard to track origin obscuration attempts in intermediary countries, we cannot reliably determine the true extent of food fraud.

One Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimate suggests that at least 1% of the global food industry, potentially up to $40 billion per year, is affected — and it could be even higher.

Recent: What is decentralized identity in blockchain?

Fraudulent practices don’t just harm consumers — they destroy beekeepers’ livelihoods, flooding the market and destroying profitability for legitimate traders. Ziya Sahin, a Turkish beekeeper, explained the frustration with food fraud regulation:

“Our beekeepers are angry, and they ask why we’re not doing something to stop it. But we have no authority to inspect,” he said. “I’m not even allowed to ask street sellers whether their honey is real.”

While there’s a growing appetite for more reliable testing and stricter enforcement, solutions are lagging. The EU’s latest attempt to fix this? Digital product passports are designed to track honey’s origins and composition, but they are already being criticized as ineffective and easy to manipulate, ultimately leaving the door open for fraud to continue.

EU passports are an ineffective solution

The European Union’s Digital Product Passport aims to tackle this by enhancing traceability and transparency in its supply chains. By 2030, all goods in the EU must have a digital product passport containing detailed information on the product’s lifecycle, origins and environmental effects.

While the idea sounds promising, it fails to recognize the extent to which fraudsters can forge certificates and obscure origins by passing products through intermediary countries alongside officials who turn a blind eye.

At the core of this issue is trust. Despite history showing that these rules can and will be bent, we rely on governments to implement laws and regulations. Technology, on the other hand, is agnostic and doesn’t care about money or incentives.

This is the fundamental flaw of the EU’s approach — a system built on human oversight that is vulnerable to the corruption these supply chains are already known for.

Self-sovereign identity (SSI) for products

Many people are already aware of the scalability trilemma, but the trust triangle is a key concept in SSI that defines how trust is established between issuers, holders and verifiers. It makes fraud much more challenging because every product must be backed by a verifiable credential from a trusted source to prove it’s real.

Issuers, like manufacturers or certification bodies, create and sign verifiable credentials that attest to a product’s authenticity. The holder, typically the product owner, stores and presents these credentials when required. Verifiers — such as retailers, customs officials or consumers — can check the credentials’ validity without relying on a central authority.

Verifiable credentials are protected by cryptography. If someone tries to sell fake products, their missing or invalid credentials will immediately reveal the fraud.

Government reforms must extend beyond current regulatory oversight and explore the approach outlined in the trust trilemma to safeguard supply chains from widespread adulteration and fraud.

SSI provides the underlying infrastructure necessary to reliably track the identity of products across multiple bodies, standards and regions. By enabling tamper-proof, end-to-end traceability in every single product — whether a jar of honey or a designer handbag — SSI ensures sufficient validators confirm the data is correct to tackle fraud and obfuscation attempts.

SSI also empowers consumers to independently verify products without relying on third-party databases. Buyers can scan the product to authenticate its origin and history directly via the cryptographic certifications confirmed by the validators to further reduce the risk of misinformation even if it reaches the shelves. This would also help reduce corruption and inefficiencies, as many checks are made on paper, which can be easily altered and is a slow process.

As honey fraud methods continue to expand, so do these products’ harm to consumers and local businesses. Steps taken to tackle these methods must thus also broaden. The EU’s Digital Product Passports aim to improve traceability; but unfortunately, they fall short of fraudsters’ sophistication. Implementation of SSI is a necessary step to effectively address the extent fraudsters take to ensure their product arrives on shelves.

Opinion by: Fraser Edwards, co-founder and CEO, Cheqd.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Politics

UK joins US in strike on Houthi target in Yemen for first time since Donald Trump re-elected

Published

48 mins ago

April 30, 2025

admin

UK joins US in strike on Houthi target in Yemen for first time since Donald Trump re-elected

The UK has joined US forces in attacking a Houthi target in Yemen for the first time since Donald Trump was re-elected.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed the strikes took place on Tuesday as part of the government’s response to Houthi attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

The ministry said careful intelligence analysis identified a cluster of buildings used by the Houthis to manufacture the sort of drones used to attack ships, located 15 miles south of the capital Sanaa.

RAF Typhoon FGR4s conducted strikes on several buildings using Paveway IV precision-guided bombs.

The planes had air refuelling support from Voyager tankers.

The ministry said the strike was conducted after dark to reduce the likelihood of civilians being in the area.

All the aircraft returned safely.

Defence Secretary John Healey said: “This government will always act in the interests of our national and economic security.

“Royal Air Force Typhoons have successfully conducted strikes against a Houthi military target in Yemen and all UK aircraft and personnel have returned safely to base.

“We conducted these strikes, supported by the US, to degrade Houthi capabilities and prevent further attacks against UK and international shipping.”

Houthis a ‘persistent threat’ to ‘freedom of navigation’

Mr Healey said Houthi activities in the Red Sea are a “persistent threat” to “freedom of navigation”.

“A 55% drop in shipping through the Red Sea has already cost billions, fuelling regional instability and risking economic security for families in the UK,” he said.

“The government is steadfast in our commitment to reinforcing global stability and protecting British working people. I am proud of the dedication and professionalism shown by the service men and women involved in this operation.”

US intensifies strikes on Houthis

It was the first time UK forces have struck a target in Yemen since May last year, the ministry confirmed.

The US has intensified its strikes on the Iran-backed Houthis under Mr Trump’s presidency, after his re-election in November 2024.

The group began launching attacks on shipping routes in November 2023 saying they were in solidarity with Palestinians over Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza.

The strike came after a Houthi-controlled TV channel claimed a US strike killed 68 people at a detention centre for African migrants in Yemen on Monday.

Politics

Labour promised MPs a vote on Trump trade deal – now Starmer doesn’t seem so sure

Published

48 mins ago

April 30, 2025

admin

Labour promised MPs a vote on Trump trade deal - now Starmer doesn't seem so sure

Will MPs get a vote on a trade deal with Donald Trump?

It used to be Labour policy, though Sir Keir Starmer didn’t sound keen on the idea at Prime Minister’s Questions.

The PM was challenged, first by Lib Dem MP Clive Jones, who wants a guarantee that parliament has the final say on any trade deal, including one with the US.

“This idea is not new,” said Clive, who used to be a director of various toy companies, and was president, chairman and director of the British Toy and Hobby Association, no less.

“It’s exactly what Labour promised to do in an official policy paper put forward in 2021, so I am asking this government to keep their promise,” he continued.

And, toying with the PM, he complained: “Currently, members of parliament have no vote or voice on trade deals.”

In reply, Sir Keir gave one of those non-answers we’re becoming used to at PMQs, saying rather tetchily: “As he knows, parliament has a well-established role in scrutinising and ratifying trade deals.”

Later, Sir Ed Davey had a go. “Will the government give MPs a vote on the floor of the House on any deal he agrees with President Trump? Yes or no?” he asked.

He fared no better. Sir Keir said again: “If it is secured, it will go through the known procedures for this House.”

Read more on the trade deal:
US ‘positive’ on talks
Deal ‘possible’ but not ‘certain’

So what are parliament’s “well-established role” and “the known procedures”? And what exactly did Labour promise in opposition back in 2021?

The 2021 promise was, in fact, one of those worthy pledges parties make in opposition and then either conveniently forget about or water down when they’re in government. U-turn if you want to.

The policy paper referred to by Mr Jones was: “Labour’s trade policy: putting workers first” – published in September 2021 by Emily Thornberry when she was shadow international trade secretary.

The secretary of state at the time was none other than Liz Truss. Whatever happened to her? Come to think of it, whatever happened to Emily Thornberry?

Back then idealistic Emily declared in her policy paper: “We will reform the parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements…

“So that MPs have a guaranteed right to debate the proposed negotiating objectives for future trade deals, and a guaranteed vote on the resulting agreements…”

A guaranteed vote. Couldn’t be clearer. And there was more from Emily.

“…with sufficient time set aside for detailed scrutiny both of the draft treaty texts and of accompanying expert analysis on the full range of implications, including for workers’ rights.”

Sufficient time for detailed scrutiny. Again, couldn’t be clearer.

Then came a section headed: Parliamentary Scrutiny of Trade Deals.

“The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG) dictates that international treaties (including trade agreements) must be laid before parliament for a period of 21 sitting days before they can become law,” we were told back then.

“At present, a treaty can only be challenged and (temporarily) rejected by means of an opposition day debate, if one is granted by the government within that time.

“The CRAG legislation was agreed by parliament before Brexit was on the horizon. Its procedures for the ratification of trade treaties, which were then negotiated and agreed at EU level, were given no consideration during the passage of the Act, and no one envisaged that they would become the mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny of the government’s post-Brexit trade deals…

“Despite the flagrant evidence of the inadequacy of the CRAG Act to allow proper oversight of trade deals, the government repeatedly blocked numerous cross-party proposals to improve the processes for parliamentary scrutiny and approval during passage of the 2021 Trade Act.

“A future Labour government will return to those proposals, and learn from best practice in other legislatures, to ensure that elected MPs have all the time, information and opportunity they need to debate and vote on the UK’s trade deals, both before negotiations begin and after they conclude.”

So what’s changed from the heady days of Liz Truss as trade secretary and Labour’s bold pledges in opposition? Labour’s in government now, that’s what. Hence the U-turn, it seems.

Parliament’s role may be, as Sir Keir told MPs, “well-established”. But that, according to opponents, is the problem. It’s contrary to what Labour promised in opposition.

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈

Sir Ed hit back at the PM: “I’m very disappointed in that reply. There was no ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. We do want a vote, and we will keep pressing him and his government on that.”

And true to their word, Mr Jones and another Lib Dem MP, Richard Foord, have already tabled private member’s bills demanding a final say on any trade deal with President Trump.

Watch this space. And also watch out for Labour MPs also backing demands for a Commons vote on a Trump trade deal before long.

Politics

UK-US trade talks ‘moving in a very positive way’, says White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt

Published

48 mins ago

April 30, 2025

admin

UK-US trade talks 'moving in a very positive way', says White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt

Trade talks between the UK and the United States are “moving in a very positive way”, according to the White House.

President Donald Trump’s press secretary Karoline Leavitt spoke about the likelihood of the long-discussed agreement during a press briefing.

In Westminster, there are hopes such a deal could soften the impact of the Trump tariffs announced last month.

Leavitt told reporters: “As for the trade talks, I understand they are moving in a very positive way with the UK.

“I don’t want to get ahead of the president or our trade team in how those negotiations are going, but I have heard they have been very positive and productive with the UK.”

She said Mr Trump always “speaks incredibly highly” of the UK.

“He has a good relationship with your prime minister, though they disagree on domestic policy issues,” she added.

“I have witnessed the camaraderie between them first hand in the Oval Office, and there is a deep mutual respect between our two countries that certainly the president upholds.”

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden gave the UK’s position on the talks when speaking to Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips.

He said there was “a serious level of engagement going on at high levels” to secure a UK-US trade deal.

Mr McFadden is one of the most powerful members of Sir Keir Starmer’s government and a key ally of the prime minister.

He was careful to not get ahead of developments, however, saying: “I think an agreement is possible – I don’t think it’s certain, and I don’t want to say it’s certain, but I think it’s possible.”

He went on to say the government wanted an “agreement in the UK’s interests” and not a “hasty deal”, amid fears from critics that Number 10 could acquiesce a deal that lowers food standards, for example, or changes certain taxes in a bid to persuade Donald Trump to lower some of the tariffs that have been placed on British goods.

Mr McFadden’s tone was more cautious than Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ last week.

She had been in the US and, speaking to Sky News business and economics correspondent Gurpreet Narwan, the chancellor said she was “confident” a deal could be done.

But she sought to play down fears that UK standards could be watered down, both on food and online safety.

“On food standards, we’ve always been really clear that we’re not going to be watering down standards in the UK and similarly, we’ve just passed the Online Safety Act and the safety, particularly of our children, is non-negotiable for the British government,” Ms Reeves said.