Thank you Brummy Jim
Came across the following article and this has tests and procedures for determination of pH, fat content, moisture content and seive residue over a 200 U.S sieve size.
These tests would only validate the COA but not tell us whether the Cocoa itself has been adulterated though. I'll look into the labs you advised and get back.
I think finger printing could be a better test for origin testing.
We have other measures in place such as GFSI only for Cocoa powder but we wanted to take some extra measures for the Authenticity section of BRC7
We're struggling with this too. We're BRC Issue 7 certified, and there just aren't that many options yet in the food industry to do authenticity tests. Most of the labs I know aren't yet doing this. What you're referencing is exactly what I do for my food fraud analysis, and I get that information from the US Pharmacopoeia (looks like you do too). I have specifically called labs for this reason, and they aren't offering it right now. I think BRC has sort of "jumped the gun" so to speak, by putting this in place before labs can actually incorporate the analysis on a wide-scale basis. All of the information from the foodfraud site thus far has come from specialized research studies; it's not like an analysis for Free Fatty Acid or pH where the testing standards have been accepted and widely known.
It seems most auditors realize this, and understand the challenges we're facing. The best advice I can give you is to make sure you at least list all of the testing methods you mentioned into your hazard analysis, and make sure you have proof of calling labs to find out whether or not they offer such a test. At least, you have done as much as you can do on your end. If you can verify the COA by profile, for example, if natural cocoa powder exhibits a certain profile specific only to that cocoa powder, you can test it to find out if it is 100% cocoa powder and not adulterated. The problem is that in many instances, profile ranges are too broad to narrow anything down.