PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 3, 2026Journal of Food Process Engineering0 citations

Smart Detection of Food Fraud Using Supervised Learning: A Comparative Analysis of Ensemble and Traditional Classification Models

View Full Paper
AAAnshul AgrawalSTShruti TraymbakSKSanjeev Kadam

Key Points

  • This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of various supervised learning models in detecting food fraud.
  • Assessed four supervised learning techniques: logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, and XGBoost.
  • Utilized a dataset of 12,000 food items from multiple sources including the UK Food Standards Agency.
  • Applied SMOTE to address class imbalance in the dataset.
  • Measured model performance using accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and AUC.
  • XGBoost outperformed other models with a precision of 0.919, recall of 0.675, and F1-score of 0.779.
  • AUC for XGBoost reached 0.95, indicating high reliability in detecting food fraud.
  • This study presents a scalable system beneficial for food businesses and regulators.

Abstract

ABSTRACT There is increasing complexity in global food supply chains and an increase in mislabeling, adulteration, and ingredient fraud. The study assesses and compares four supervised machine learning techniques: Logistic regression (LR), Decision tree (DT), Random Forest (RFT), and XGBoost (XGB) to identify fraudulent food products from the multisource data of 12,000 real‐world items comprising UK Food Standards Agency source, Open Food Facts, and Kaggle. The dataset covers seven fraud‐relevant features such as origin mismatch, absence of label items, presence of additives, allergen declaration statement, number of ingredients, etc. After applying SMOTE to address class imbalance, the dataset was divided into 80% for training and the remaining 20% for testing. The models' performance was measured through accuracy, precision, recall, F1‐score, and AUC. Among all, XGB outperforms others, with the highest Precision (0.919), Recall (0.675), F1‐score of 0.779, and AUC of 0.95, highlighting strong potential for reliable detection of food fraud. This piece of work is novel in that it combines multi‐source product‐level data, domain‐specific feature engineering, and comparative analysis of traditional and ensemble ML classifiers and overcame the shortcomings of its predecessors, which utilized small‐scale datasets more often, single‐product datasets, and lab‐based datasets. The results indicate that XGB provides a strong, scalable system of early fraudulent food product detection, which has a practical purpose in food businesses, regulators, and surveillance as a way of improving food authenticity and consumer confidence.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Agrawal et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69cf5e745a333a821460cccchttps://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.70447
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Real-Time Detection of Milk Adulteration with a Portable Multispectral Analysis Device: A Multispectral Sensor and Optimized Logistic Regression Approach2024 · 4 citations
  2. 2The Journey of Artificial Intelligence in Food Authentication: From Label Attribute to Fraud Detection2025 · 30 citations
  3. 3Olive Oil and the Hallmarks of Aging2016 · 93 citations
  4. 4Machine learning identification of edible vegetable oils from fatty acid compositions and hyperspectral images2024 · 29 citations
  5. 5Food fraud detection using explainable artificial intelligence2023 · 97 citations