Jul 28, 2026 by Mark Dingley
Australian consumers expect the information printed on food packaging to be accurate. For manufacturers supplying private-label products to major retailers, maintaining that trust means having confidence not only in the finished product, but in every ingredient, packaging component and supplier claim upstream.
That challenge was brought into sharp focus by an eight-month ABC investigation into food fraud. Independent testing commissioned for the program raised questions about the stated origin or authenticity of products including processed tomatoes, spices, eggs, seafood and alcohol.
Several companies and retailers disputed the findings or questioned the testing methodology, referring to their own supplier assurances, traceability records and verification processes. The examples should therefore be treated as reported findings rather than final determinations of wrongdoing.
Even so, the investigation highlighted an important issue for the wider food and beverage industry. Records may show where a product was supposed to come from, but how confidently can a manufacturer prove what was actually received, processed and packed?
For private-label suppliers, that question goes well beyond regulatory compliance. It can affect retailer relationships, audit performance, recall exposure, consumer trust and the ability to protect margins.
Traditional traceability establishes the documented movement of materials through the supply chain. It records who supplied an ingredient, which batch was received, when it entered production and which finished products contain it.
Authenticity asks a different question: is the ingredient, product or claim genuinely what the supplier says it is?
A complete chain of invoices, certificates and batch records can provide traceability without independently proving authenticity. If incorrect information enters the system at the source, each participant may unknowingly preserve and pass it on.
The answer is not to abandon documentation. It is to strengthen it with risk-based verification and connect it more effectively to what happens on the production line. That means bringing supplier assurance, production data, coding, inspection and finished-product identification into one controlled process.
.jpg)
The investigation reported that independent testing questioned the stated country of origin of several processed tomato and seafood products. The businesses involved disputed the findings and referred to their supplier documentation and traceability records.
For manufacturers, the lesson is clear. Purchase orders, certificates, declarations and batch records are essential, but they may not always prove geographic origin or species authenticity on their own.
This is particularly important where products carry premium claims such as Australian grown, Italian made, locally sourced or sustainably caught. In these cases, stronger assurance may require greater visibility beyond the immediate supplier, closer scrutiny of source locations, mass-balance checks or targeted authenticity testing.
The objective is not to test everything. It is to build stronger evidence around the claims that carry the greatest commercial, regulatory or reputational risk.
The ABC also reported that testing of some turmeric products indicated adulteration or the presence of unexpected materials. One reported result indicated lead chromate, while other samples were reported as containing additional plant material.
This matters because food fraud is not always limited to economic substitution or inaccurate labelling. Adulteration can introduce contaminants, undeclared allergens or materials that would not normally form part of a manufacturer’s hazard assessment.
Powders, oils, purees and ground ingredients can be particularly difficult to assess visually. They are often sourced through complex supply chains and can present a stronger commercial incentive for dilution or substitution.
Manufacturers should therefore consider both the likelihood of adulteration and the potential food-safety consequence when setting supplier-approval, testing and monitoring controls.
The ABC investigation also questioned claims relating to egg production methods and product origin. These examples are relevant to any manufacturer producing food with claims such as free-range, organic, grass-fed, sustainably sourced, locally grown or ethically produced.
These claims can influence buying decisions and justify a price premium. They also create an evidence obligation. A claim printed on the finished package should be supported by approved suppliers, current certifications, controlled specifications, production records and batch-level evidence.
The stronger the claim, the stronger the evidence behind it needs to be.
Major retailers maintain their own supplier standards, audit programs, product-information systems and responsible-sourcing requirements alongside Australian food law.
The exact requirements depend on product category, manufacturing site, supply agreement and whether the product is retailer-owned or vendor-branded. Suppliers should always refer to the current controlled documents available through the relevant retailer portal.
Coles publishes dedicated requirements for Coles Brand food suppliers, as well as broader quality, supply-chain and ethical-sourcing requirements. Coles Fusion is used to support the management of own-brand product information.
Woolworths operates a dedicated supplier program for food, supported by its supply standards, responsible-sourcing program, vendor guidance and product lifecycle management systems.
.jpg)
For manufacturers, the practical expectation is consistent across both retailers: product information must remain controlled, accurate and retrievable throughout the product lifecycle.
An approved product specification has limited value if a later supplier substitution, packaging change or coding error is not reflected in the same process.
The goal should be a connected evidence chain:
When this information is connected, manufacturers can respond faster to retailer enquiries, investigate issues more precisely and avoid relying on manual searches across disconnected spreadsheets, folders and systems.
“One step back” traceability may identify a distributor or importer, but not necessarily the farm, fishery, processor, packaging converter or consolidator behind the product.
For higher-risk materials, manufacturers need a clearer view of where products originate, where they are processed and which intermediaries handle them along the way. That includes approved subcontractors, brokers, cold stores, repacking facilities and alternative sources used during shortages.
This visibility matters because substitution, co-mingling and undocumented changes often occur beyond the first-tier supplier. A supplier may be approved, but the sites, processors or subcontractors behind that supplier may still change. Those changes need to be visible, controlled and formally approved.
Not every ingredient or packaging component warrants the same level of scrutiny. A risk-based approach helps manufacturers direct time and resources where they will have the greatest impact.
Higher-risk materials may include premium ingredients, commodities with volatile pricing, powders or oils that are difficult to identify visually, and products carrying strong origin, ethical or production-method claims. Unexpectedly low prices, sudden changes in availability or new intermediaries should also prompt closer review.
Depending on the risk, stronger verification may involve species identification, origin testing, allergen screening, certification checks, packaging-composition testing or unannounced supplier audits.
The purpose is not to create more paperwork. It is to establish stronger confidence where the potential consequences are highest.
Ingredients are not the only source of compliance risk. Packaging can introduce incorrect origin statements, allergen declarations, certifications, barcodes, date formats or retailer-specific information. A single packaging error can create the same retailer and consumer impact as an incorrect ingredient.
Packaging materials should therefore be managed with the same discipline as food inputs. Approved artwork and specification versions need to be controlled. Obsolete labels and film stock need to be removed. Incoming packaging should be checked against current specifications, and packaging batch or reel information should be linked to the relevant production run.
This becomes especially important when one facility produces similar products for multiple retailer brands. The risk is not always that the wrong product is made. Sometimes the right product is packed in the wrong packaging.
Even accurate source data can be undermined if the wrong product, label, batch code or date is selected on the production line. This is where connected production systems add real value.
A stronger process links incoming ingredient and packaging batches to the production order, finished product, carton, pallet and customer destination.
Centralised code management can reduce manual entry and send approved data to the correct coding and labelling equipment. Vision inspection and barcode validation can then confirm that the right information has been applied and remains readable.
Platforms such as Matthews iDSnet can help create a controlled flow of information from the approved production order to the physical code applied on pack, carton and pallet.
This reduces the risk of operator selection errors and creates an electronic production record that can be retrieved when a retailer, auditor or quality team needs evidence. For manufacturers, that means less time chasing paperwork and more confidence in what actually happened on the line.
Traceability is only valuable if the information can be retrieved quickly and trusted when it matters. Mock recalls should test both speed and accuracy. They should also go beyond finished-product contamination scenarios.
A practical exercise might begin with a questioned ingredient origin, an unapproved supplier change or incorrect packaging claim. The team should then identify every affected ingredient batch, production order, finished product, carton, pallet and customer destination.
This is where gaps between systems often become visible. A business may hold all the required information, but if it sits across different teams and platforms, retrieval can still take hours or days.
Retailers value confidence and speed. A manufacturer that can provide a clear, evidence-based response quickly is in a much stronger position than one relying on manual investigation.
Traditional linear barcodes generally identify a product type. GS1-compatible 2D codes can carry or connect to more detailed information, including the GTIN, batch or lot number, use-by date and serialised identifiers.
The practical value becomes clear during an investigation. If a manufacturer is notified that an imported ingredient batch may be affected by an authenticity or origin issue, batch-level identification can help determine precisely which products, cartons and pallets are involved.
Without this connection, the manufacturer may need to quarantine a full day or week of production while records are reviewed. When 2D codes are linked to trusted production data, affected products can be identified more accurately—reducing stock placed on hold, minimising waste and supporting a faster, more confident retailer response.
Consumer-facing QR codes or GS1 Digital Link can also provide access to information that does not fit comfortably on a label, including provenance, certifications, allergen details, sustainability information and recall notices.
However, the code itself does not prove that a claim is true. Its value depends on the quality and governance of the supplier, production and product data behind it.
Explore the Matthews 2D Barcode Learning Centre for practical guidance on 2D barcode applications, printing, validation and implementation. Teams can also build their knowledge of barcode standards and common compliance requirements through the free online Matthews Barcode Academy.
Traceability is often treated as a compliance cost. In practice, strong traceability can also create commercial value.
Manufacturers with reliable control of ingredients, packaging and production data are better placed to respond to retailer questions, support premium provenance claims and reduce the scope of withdrawals or recalls.
They can isolate affected batches more precisely, introduce new suppliers with greater confidence and avoid lengthy manual investigations during audits. That capability can also strengthen tender and ranging discussions.
When a manufacturer can demonstrate lower compliance risk, faster response times and stronger protection of the retailer’s brand, the conversation becomes about more than unit price.
It becomes about confidence, resilience and the ability to protect long-term supply. That is a more defensible source of value and a stronger foundation for protecting margins.
Use the following questions to assess the strength of your current process:
The biggest traceability risks rarely sit within one isolated process. They occur where information becomes disconnected between suppliers, specifications, production, coding, inspection and packaging.
An in-person Matthews Way production line consultation provides a practical review of how product information moves through your facility and how it is coded, checked and captured.
Drawing on more than 40 years of experience with over 2,000 manufacturers across Australia and New Zealand, our team can help identify opportunities to reduce manual intervention, strengthen batch traceability and prepare for evolving retailer and 2D coding requirements.
It is not a regulatory audit or legal assessment. It is a practical production-line review focused on creating a more connected and verifiable process that supports production performance, retailer confidence and the reputation behind every product you make.
