Foodchain ID: Consumer demand and supply chain risks are reshaping traceability

During Vitafoods Europe 2026, FoodChain ID was positioning traceability and transparency as no longer optional extras, but core requirements for ingredient suppliers navigating a more complex and scrutinized market. From clean label expectations and sustainability claims to tightening regulations and supply chain volatility, the pressure on manufacturers to prove product integrity is intensifying across every stage of the value chain.

Ahead of the show, Dr. Ruud A. Overbeek, SVP, Corporate Development & Strategic Relationships, at FoodChain ID, discussed how consumer attitudes toward traceability are evolving, why transparency is becoming a commercial necessity, and where the industry still faces major implementation challenges. He also examines the limitations of blockchain in food supply chains, the growing importance of integrated digital traceability systems, and the role of verification in protecting both brands and consumers.

In conversation with Food Ingredients First, he also explores the realities of ingredient fraud in the natural and organic sectors, including common patterns such as dilution, substitution, and mislabeling, as well as the operational barriers preventing full farm-to-fork traceability.

Do consumers actually engage with traceability information on-pack, or is it just a trust-building backstop?

Overbeek: There is a clear split. A meaningful segment of consumers, particularly Gen Z, actively engages with traceability information because they want to understand what is in the product and where it comes from. That interest is also reinforced by parents, who are making decisions around health, wellness, and safety for their families. This ties directly into broader trends, such as the clean label and ultra-processed foods movement, and increasing concern around sustainability, including soil health and how products are produced. For these consumers, traceability is not passive; it informs purchasing decisions. Consumers are, for example, increasingly trying to avoid ultra-processed foods but struggle to identify them. Labels are seen as a way to improve transparency and push companies to reformulate products. Separately, products marketed as sustainable now account for over 25% of US consumer packaged goods sales, according to research from Circana and the New York University Stern Center for Sustainable Business. Despite representing only a quarter of the market, these products have contributed nearly half of total CPG growth since 2013, and consumers are willing to pay a 9% premium for them. At the same time, for a large part of the market on-pack information still functions as a trust mechanism in the background. They may not actively scan or verify, but they expect the information to be there. For manufacturers, this creates a dual role, both a credibility baseline and a marketing opportunity in a fast-growing segment focused on origin, ingredients, and transparency. 

At Vitafoods Europe 2026, FoodChain ID emphasized that traceability and transparency are now essential for ingredient suppliers in an increasingly complex market.

What is making transparency more urgent now, regulations, retailer requirements, or genuine consumer demand?

Overbeek: It is not one single driver, but a combination of the above, and they reinforce each other. On one side, supply chains are becoming more volatile. Government policies, trade barriers, climate events, and disease outbreaks are forcing companies to change sourcing more frequently than ever. That creates uncertainty and increases risk exposure. At the same time, consumer demand for transparency continues to rise, particularly as discussed around clean label and product origin. Retailers are responding to that demand, and private label, which is one of the fastest-growing segments, is moving quickly to incorporate transparency as a competitive lever. Regulation adds another layer, however the urgency is really coming from this convergence, supply chain instability combined with market and consumer pressure. Claims are becoming more consequential, and more revenue depends on them. This increases scrutiny and need for verification and transparency. 

Is blockchain becoming standard practice for traceability, or still niche solutions for premium brands?

Overbeek: Blockchain is not becoming standard practice. Known constraints are cost, scalability, and data validation. Transactions are expensive, and the model does not easily scale across highly fragmented, multi-actor supply chains. Blockchain technology has its inherent technical limitations and requires governance frameworks to ensure proper implementation and use. If a farmer entered incorrect information, the blockchain would record it without alteration, which would lead to misinformation and therefore mistrust. These challenges highlight the need for a more comprehensive approach to food traceability that goes beyond the capabilities of blockchain alone. There are emerging integrated approaches based on distributed governance, which apply some of these principles without relying on full blockchain infrastructure.

The market itself is highly distributed, with many players and no single dominant platform. GS1 plays an important role, particularly in Europe. However, even there, it is a framework rather than a single controlling system. So the idea of one technology standard taking over the market does not reflect how the industry actually operates. 

Beyond blockchain, which digital tools deliver the best ROI for mid-sized ingredient suppliers?

Overbeek: The highest return does not come from a single tool, but rather it comes from integrated approaches that combine different technologies under a distributed governance model. RFID is one example, particularly when combined with other data sources such as satellite imaging, where it can provide end-to-end visibility in specific use cases like livestock. QR codes and other data carriers also play a role. However, the key constraint is that the food supply chain is too complex for a one-size-fits-all solution. The best ROI comes from selecting technologies that match the structure of the specific supply chain, rather than trying to implement a universal system across all products and geographies. 

The most common integrity issues are dilution, substitution, and mislabeling, such as blending olive oil with cheaper oils.

What are the biggest barriers to implementing traceability across complex ingredient supply chains?

Overbeek: The first barrier is structural complexity. Supply chains involve many actors across multiple tiers, and aligning them is inherently difficult. The second is commercial sensitivity. Companies are often reluctant to share information about sourcing relationships because they view it as intellectual property. That resistance can slow or block implementation. The third is technological capability at the farm level. True traceability requires farm-to-fork visibility, but many producers, especially smallholders, lack the infrastructure to participate in digital systems. As a result, implementation is constrained by the least tech-enabled participant in the chain, and that makes full alignment both slow and uneven. 

What are the most common ingredient fraud patterns you are seeing in the natural and organic sectors?

Overbeek: The most common patterns are dilution, substitution, and mislabeling. Dilution involves mixing a product with cheaper alternatives, such as olive oil blended with lower-cost oils. Substitution replaces the declared ingredient entirely, for example, selling one species of fish as another. Mislabeling, particularly around the country of origin, is also widespread. There are also cases of adulteration where substances are added to enhance appearance or perceived quality, such as colorants. In more severe cases, these additions can be harmful. In Europe, the categories most prone to fraud are dairy, olive oil, and seafood. These sectors combine high value with complex supply chains, which increases vulnerability. 

Will full traceability become table stakes for all suppliers, or remain a premium product differentiator?

Overbeek: Traceability to aid transparency is moving toward becoming table stakes. Regulation is already pushing this in certain markets, such as the US, where traceability requirements are being formalized for specific supply chains under FSMA 204. At the same time, increasing supply chain disruption, whether from climate events, geopolitical factors, or food safety incidents, is forcing companies to strengthen risk management. Implementation remains difficult because of supply chain complexity, but adoption is increasing. Companies are investing in traceability not only as a differentiator, but as a necessary capability to manage risk and maintain market access. The direction is clear, even if full implementation may take time.