Food Fraud Advisors

You are here: Home / Archives for Karen Constable

by

Tomato paste scandal: Chinese origins in ‘Italian’ products exposed

In December 2024, allegations of forced labour in the tomato puree supply chains of major British retailers caused shockwaves in Europe.

On the surface, the allegations appeared massively shocking. Firstly, the purees were portrayed as the products of the torture and abuse of Chinese religious minorities. Secondly, the news coverage implied large-scale fraud with respect to the origin of the purees, many of which were marketed with the word ‘Italian’ on the pack.

It seemed that British and German supermarkets were selling ‘Italian’ tomato purees that contained Chinese tomato puree supplied by companies that relied on forced labour.

Shocking.

But when I sat down to share the news with you in Issue 168, I found the legal situation was so murky that I actually couldn’t pin a definite ‘food fraud’ label on any of it.

The BBC, reporting on the issue, used very careful language when referring to the allegations, saying “[some products] are likely to contain Chinese tomatoes” and asserting that “most Chinese tomatoes come from the Xinjiang region, where their production is linked to forced labour by Uyghur and other largely Muslim minorities.”

Most of the details that would have helped to reveal whether this was a case of food fraud were not shared publicly or were not known to the BBC at the time. For example, we weren’t told how much Chinese puree was in any of the products – were they 100% Chinese or only 50%, for example?

We could not decipher the degree of fraud (or not) related to the ‘Italian’ claims, since the BBC did not share the exact claims on the packs of products that were found to contain some Chinese tomatoes.

And finally, while the BBC published interviews with workers who had picked tomatoes under forced labour conditions in China, the information it published was not direct evidence of forced labour in the supply chain of any of the puree products mentioned in the story.

Aside: The most compelling part of the 2024 story, for me, was that one of the Italian manufacturers that supplied some British supermarkets, the company that made ten of the seventeen samples which contained Chinese tomatoes, had previously been accused of fraud by Italian authorities for falsely claiming its products contained ‘100% Italian tomato’.

That’s right, the Italian company supplying ‘Italian’ tomato puree that allegedly contained Chinese tomatoes had been accused of fraud by Italian food authorities three years prior.

Background checks, anyone? A simple Google search of the company name followed by the word tomato revealed instant red flags: two of the top three search results were stories about the company’s 2021 brush with Italian food fraud investigators.

After the BBC report, all seemed quiet on the tomato paste front.

Not so.

The tomato paste market underwent a huge upheaval following the BBC investigation. Suddenly, everyone was paying attention to the origin of their tomato paste. No one wanted tomato paste from China and the Italian paste suppliers who had been importing it for use in their products stopped buying it.

In the months that followed, Italian processors reduced imports of tomato concentrate from China by 76%, according to the CEO of Mutti, a leading Italian maker of tomato purée and passata, leaving China with a huge stockpile of 600,000 to 700,000 tonnes of tomato paste, equivalent to around 6 months of exports.

Tomato News reports that while Chinese tomato exports to Western Europe and Italy have fallen dramatically, the surplus is being taken up by countries in Eastern Europe, Central America, and the Far East. Production in China has also fallen dramatically, with less than half the volume of tomatoes expected this year compared to 2024.

So, with China no longer supplying major markets in Western Europe, where will those markets get their tomato paste – that all-important ingredient for pizzas, pastas, ready meals and soups?

Can Italian tomato growers step up production to meet demand? Or will the supply-demand gap be so large that fraud becomes almost inevitable?

Tomato paste production in Xinjiang ramped up rapidly to 11 million tonnes in 2024 and is projected to fall to 3.7 million tonnes in 2025

 

Food authenticity expert Professor Chris Elliott believes the current situation is ripe for fraud, suggesting the following scenarios are possible:

  1. The large stockpile of tomato paste in China could be transhipped or reprocessed in third countries to conceal its Chinese origins, making it palatable for Western European markets.
  2. Other false claims of origin could be made about tomatoes from other major growing areas such as Spain, Portugal, Chile and Iran.
  3. Lower-quality paste may be blended into higher-value pastes (noting this is not fraud unless accompanied by deceptive claims about quality or origin).
  4. Undeclared fillers and diluents, such as starches or sugars, could be used to extend the volume of scarce non-Chinese tomato paste.
  5. Undeclared and unauthorised colourants could be added to enhance the appearance of low-quality, diluted or age-degraded pastes.

With tomato paste having a long shelf life, these fraud risks will remain for as long as surplus stock remains in China and while European market demand is unsatisfied. And that could be for years to come.

Key takeaway

We are currently in a perfect storm for tomato paste fraud. There is an oversupply of Chinese-made tomato paste and an undersupply of genuine Italian tomato paste. This creates vulnerabilities, particularly for products marketed with specific country of origin claims. Possible frauds include transhipping and reprocessing to disguise the true origin of Chinese pastes, other false origin claims, blending, dilution, addition of fillers and other adulterants to extend the volume or enhance the apparent value of low-quality pastes. Also note that Chinese-origin tomato pastes have been linked to labour violations and modern slavery.

 

Read more:

🍏 Tomato Puree Fraud by Big Name Retailers? | Issue 168 🍏

This article was originally published at The Rotten Apple  – weekly newsletter for food professionals.

by

Fraud Risks for Cocoa and Confectionery Businesses

Chocolate’s supply chain is vulnerable to changes in weather, farming practices, and global trade networks. It is a truly global product, with the beans mostly grown in developing nations and processed into chocolate in wealthy nations.

Supply chain challenges include problems with cultivation, trade, sustainability, and compliance.

Threats to production

In recent years, the combined effects of extreme weather events, tree diseases and climate change in the world’s biggest cocoa-growing regions have severely impacted yields.

Cocoa farmers are reportedly abandoning their trees or choosing not to replace ageing trees as the crop becomes less profitable due to rising production costs and declining yields.

In Côte d’Ivoire, for example, prolonged droughts, unpredictable rainfall, and increased plant diseases like swollen shoot disease have made cocoa farming unprofitable for many, leading farmers to leave their plantations or switch to alternative crops.

In Ghana, the world’s second largest cocoa producer, gold mining is now impacting cocoa production and taking over fertile land once used for cocoa growing.

The area of land used for growing cocoa is decreasing in Ghana. Data source: FAO.org

 

The Swiss media outlet Swissinfo reported in 2022 that cocoa farmers were selling their land to illegal gold miners, with swathes of farmland transformed into wastelands dotted with piles of clay contaminated with mercury, a by-product of gold extraction.

In the same year, a survey by the Ghanaian cocoa board revealed that 19,000 hectares of cocoa plantations had been lost, taken over or damaged by illegal gold mining.

With recent large increases in the price of gold and more problems with cocoa production due to disease and climate change, there is increasing recognition that more cocoa farmland will be lost to mining in 2026..

Cocoa futures (in USD per tonne) reached an all-time high in April 2024 and remain at more than 3 times the average price in 2023. Chart: Tradingeconocmis.com

 

With production declining, cocoa prices are rising. They increased by 25% in the two years to 2024.

Prices have since stabilised somewhat, but cocoa futures today are still more than three times higher than they were in 2021 – 2023.

Read more: 🍏The surprising link between illegal gold mining and chocolate 🍏

Threats to trade and compliance

Chocolate has always been considered an at-risk product for unethical labour practices, particularly in West Africa, which supplies around 60 to 70% of the world’s cocoa. Structural poverty, low farm-gate prices, and lack of bargaining power among farmers create conditions where forced labor, debt bondage, and child trafficking can occur to meet demand and maintain profitability.

Estimates indicate that over 1.5 million children are involved in child labor on cocoa farms in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire, with many engaged in hazardous work, and there have been documented cases of both child and adult workers being subjected to exploitative or slave-like conditions in other cocoa-producing countries as well.

In 2023, the commodities trader Cargill was ordered to pay more than $120,000 by a Brazilian court after prosecutors alleged it did not know the extent of child labour in its Brazilian cocoa supply chains because it purchases from hundreds of producers, co-operatives and merchants. Cargill denied the allegations.

In 2021, Hershey and the Rainforest Alliance were sued for false advertising in the US, with Hershey accused of turning a blind eye to child labour in their supply chain and the Rainforest Alliance accused of being unable to prevent or even account for it.

Certification schemes like Rainforest Alliance and FairTrade are supposed to give assurance of ethical work practices in the production of the certified foods, but their efficacy has been questioned.

Researchers who reviewed the ability of schemes like FairTrade to assure child-labour-free processes in 2018 were told by a certifier “We are working with around 11,800 cocoa farmers, so we have not been able to visit any farms as of now”. Instead, they relied on farmers’ cooperatives to verify the working standards at farms.

The cooperatives receive a premium for certified cocoa, compared to uncertified cocoa, so self-reporting about their farmers’ compliance with certification standards for labour practices is problematic.

In 2025, the bigger concern with compliance and sustainability in cocoa is related to the coming enforcement of the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). Under these rules, due to be enforced from December 2025, cocoa and chocolate products imported into the EU must be proven to be deforestation-free, meaning the land used for cocoa production has not been deforested after 2020.

The importer must provide geolocation data, traceability to farm level, and comprehensive documentation at multiple points in the supply chain.

In West Africa, the major growing region, there are significant differences between the way beans are regulated and priced between the two largest producers, Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana.

Some cocoa farmers in Côte d’Ivoire sell their beans to traffickers who smuggle them out of the country to be resold in places such as Guinea and Liberia, where they can fetch a higher price than the government-mandated prices in their country. In 2024, 150,000 tonnes of Ivorian cocoa beans were said to have been illegally exported in this way.

Threats to forests

In 2024, a media outlet in France reported that rules and checks implemented by the Côte d’Ivoire government and designed to prevent deforestation had resulted in cocoa farmers leaving the country and setting up plantations in neighbouring Liberia instead.

Liberia, they say, has “an almost total lack of monitoring”, making it attractive for farmers who grow beans on newly deforested land there, before moving the beans back into Cote d’Ivoire to avoid traceability checks. Tens of thousands of cocoa farmers have reportedly crossed the border already, threatening thousands of hectares of virgin forest.

Chocolate and food fraud

With supply chains both complicated and threatened by multiple supply-demand imbalances and uncertainties, it’s no surprise that cocoa is extremely vulnerable to food fraud, with cocoa beans claimed to be organic, fair trade and ethically or sustainably sourced the most at-risk for fraud.

Fraud in cocoa beans can take the form of theft, smuggling, misrepresentation of fairtrade/rainforest status, false organic claims or misrepresentation of geographical origin; as well as simpler frauds such as adding rocks or sticks to bags of beans to increase their weight.

The EUDR, which includes significant traceability requirements and penalties for cocoa beans from recently deforested land, creates significant pressure on cocoa bean producers and traders to falsify bean origin and traceability data to make beans appear to have originated in non-deforested or ‘low-risk’ designated areas.

There is significant smuggling of cocoa beans between West African countries, due to price differences between countries, and this confounds traceability attempts.

In addition to fraud in cocoa beans, manufactured chocolate also has food fraud challenges.

Counterfeit chocolate – chocolate products packaged to look like premium brands but made without the permission of the brand owner – is perhaps the most commonly reported type of fraud in chocolate.

A notorious example of counterfeit chocolate is ‘Wonka’ bars, which periodically resurface in the United Kingdom. The Wonka brand is owned by Ferrero, which hasn’t sold Wonka chocolate bars in the United Kingdom for years.

The fake bars are produced or repackaged by unregistered businesses or individuals with no regard for hygiene or labeling regulations, making them potentially unsafe to eat, particularly for people with food allergies due to undeclared allergens. Incidents have included unhygienic manufacturing conditions, incorrect or missing ingredient lists, and the use of fake business addresses on packaging.

Dubai-style chocolate products have also been counterfeited, including some that had to be recalled due to the presence of undeclared peanuts, almonds, cashews, and walnuts.

Chocolate confectionery has been affected by counterfeit-style food fraud

 

Other frauds that have been unmasked include an ‘artisan’ producer in Italy who was allegedly buying industrially produced Easter chocolates, discarding the wrapping and then reselling them as ‘own production’ (i.e., artisanal); and smuggling operations.

In January 2025, a woman was caught in Germany with 460 bars of chocolate concealed in her luggage after an international flight. Customs officials suspect the chocolate bars were being imported for commercial sale, because of the large number of bars and because chocolate of that type had been made popular on TikTok, with each bar fetching around 25 euros.

The bars had no ingredient or allergen information on their packs, posing a health risk to consumers. If successful, the smuggling would have resulted in the woman evading more than 330 euros of import duties.

In February 2025, authorities in Europe discovered chocolate from the United Arab Emirates and Turkiye made with hydrogenated palm oil instead of cocoa fat, containing undeclared colourants and with a higher fat content than declared.

And in July 2025, Dubai-style chocolate from Turkiye was found to contain undeclared colourants (green mulberry leaf, brilliant blue FCF (E 133)) in Dubai chocolate.

It’s likely these frauds are just the tip of the iceberg. I estimate there are many instances of inauthentic claims made about artisanal and boutique chocolate products in wealthy countries. ‘Single origin’ chocolate, organic chocolate and fair trade chocolate products are moderately likely to be affected by inaccurate claims due to problems in their supply chains or intentional deception by the brand owner.

This article was originally published at The Rotten Apple – a weekly newsletter for food professionals

by

Food Safety Standards Compared (2025)

 

food vulnerability assessment

There are many different food safety management system standards (FSMS), and they all have different requirements.  So how do you know which standard is the best one for your food company?

When it comes to food fraud, the food safety standards have minor differences in their requirements. For example, some standards require food businesses to include counterfeiting in their vulnerability assessments, while others don’t; some standards specify that vulnerability assessments must be performed on ingredients, while others state they should be done on finished products.  Some explicitly require training in food fraud awareness, while others do not.

Confused? We are here to help.  Read on to find out which standards have what requirements, and get recommendations for creating a great food fraud prevention (VACCP) program.

Background

Food safety standards are standards that describe requirements for food and related businesses.  The requirements aim to ensure that food and food-related goods are safe for consumers and customers.  The correct term for such standards is food safety management systems standards (FSMS).

There are food safety standards for all types of operations within the food supply chain, including:

  • growing and packing fresh produce;
  • manufacture of food and food ingredients;
  • buying and selling food (“brokers”);
  • storage and transport of food;
  • manufacture or converting of packaging materials;
  • manufacture of animal feed or pet food;
  • services such as cleaning, laundry, or pest control for food businesses.

The overarching aim of all food safety standards is to keep consumers safe, but most standards also have secondary aims. Some of the most popular food safety standards were developed by food retailing groups, and these standards were written to protect the retailers’ brands as well as keep consumers safe. Other standards were developed to help food businesses understand best practices and gain a way to demonstrate their excellence through independent certifications.  Some standards include quality parameters, while others only address food safety issues.

There are dozens of internationally accepted food safety management system standards, each with slightly different requirements.  This can make it difficult to know which standards are ‘better’ or more suitable for your food company.

To solve this problem, a standard for food safety standards was created by the GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative).  The GFSI assesses and approves food safety standards using a process called benchmarking. The aim of GFSI benchmarking is to define best practices for food safety standards and provide a way to compare and align different food safety standards.

Among the dozens of food safety standards, some are benchmarked by the GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative), while others are not.  Benchmarked standards usually have more requirements and more rigorous expectations than non-benchmarked standards.  The auditing and certification processes for benchmarked standards are typically more time-consuming and more expensive than for non-benchmarked standards.

Food Fraud in Food Safety Standards

Food fraud prevention activities are an important part of all food safety management systems because food fraud can pose a risk to food safety.  Some food safety standards have separate, stand-alone requirements for food fraud prevention activities, while others do not.  Standards that are GFSI-benchmarked all include explicit, separate food-fraud-related requirements. Other standards rely on the hazard analysis elements of the food safety system to identify and control hazards from food fraud.

The GFSI requires all benchmarked standards to require food companies to do a vulnerability assessment for food fraud and create a mitigation plan for food fraud prevention.  Most GFSI-benchmarked standards also include details about which materials should be assessed and which types of food fraud need to be managed.

Non-GFSI standards vary in how they require a food company to approach food fraud.  Some specify or recommend a VACCP program, which is based on food fraud vulnerability assessment activities. Others, like AIB, require that food fraud risks be considered in the supplier approvals processes.  The regulations of the USA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) require that food businesses identify hazards from economically motivated adulteration-type food fraud (EMA) and implement preventive controls to minimise the risks.

Among the most well-known standards, there are some notable differences. For example, the SQF Food Safety Code requires food businesses to assess and manage risks from counterfeit-type food fraud, while the BRC Food Safety Standard only requires businesses to assess the risks from adulteration or substitution activities. BRC requires horizon scanning activities, while the SQF and IFS standards explicitly mention food fraud training.

Below you will find a table that compares the current food fraud requirements of each of the major food safety standards.

Table 1.  Food fraud requirements of major food safety standards, 2025  

Click here to open or download a pdf version of this table

 

 AIB*

 

BRC*FSSC*GlobalGAP*IFS*SQF*
Food types to include in food fraud prevention activitiesIngredients (implied)Raw materialsProducts and processesNot describedRaw materials,

Ingredients,

packaging,

outsourced processes

Raw materials,

Ingredients,

finished products

 

Food fraud typesEconomically motivated adulteration (only)Adulteration,

substitution

(only)

Any type where consumer health is at risk (in definition, Appendix A)Examples are provided and include: counterfeit plant protection products, unauthorized propagation material, origin of packaging and access to packaging.Substitution, mislabelling, adulteration, counterfeitingSubstitution, mislabelling, dilution,

counterfeiting

Vulnerability assessments explicitly required?A food fraud risk assessment is listed in Appendix AYesYesRisk assessmentYesImplied (Edition 9)
Mitigation plan required? –Mitigation activities are to be included in the vulnerability assessmentYesYesYesYes
Does packaging need to be included in the vulnerability assessment?Yes

(implied)

Yes

(see 3.5.1.1)

Yes

(as per food fraud definition, Appendix A)

YesYesImplied

(primary packaging is a ‘raw material’)

Is a separate food fraud procedure explicitly required?––Vulnerability assessment method and verification procedures must be documented (ISO 22002-100:2025)

 

–Implied

(“responsibilities shall be defined”)

Implied

(“methods and responsibilities shall be documented”)

Is training in food fraud explicitly mentioned? –“Knowledge” is required

(Clause 5.4.1)

Yes (in ISO 22002-100:2025)–Yes

(Clause 3.3.4)

Yes
Is an annual review explicitly mentioned?–YesYes (in ISO 22002-100:2025)–YesYes
Other–Horizon scanning for developing threats must be done (Clause 5.4.1)–Must consider ‘intentional inaccurate information’Criteria for vulnerability assessments must be defined

(4.20.2)

Food safety risks from food fraud must be specified (2.7.2.2)

*  The full names of the standards are:

AIB International Consolidated Standards for Inspection of Prerequisite and Food Safety Programs, 2023

BRCGS Global Standard Food Safety, Issue 9

FSSC 22000, Version 6

GlobalG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance (IFA), Version 6 GFS

IFS Food, Version 8

SQF Food Safety Code, Edition 9

Get a complete guide to all food fraud clauses in every standard, including human food, packaging, logistics and animal feed in our affordable e-book. Learn more.

Takeaways

Among the major food safety management system standards, there are small but significant differences between food fraud prevention requirements.  Key differences include whether finished products or ingredients are to be assessed, which types of food fraud must be included and the presence/absence of requirements related to horizon scanning and training.

If that all seems confusing, don’t despair…

Recommendations for a robust and compliant food fraud prevention program (VACCP)

At Food Fraud Advisors, we have been working at the intersection of food fraud and food safety since the very first days of food fraud requirements in food safety standards… and we’ve been helping businesses since day one.

Creating a robust and compliant food fraud program can take time and effort but it isn’t complicated.  Follow the steps below to get started:

  1. Carefully read the food fraud clauses of the standard you are/will be certified to. Pay attention to the food types and the food fraud types that are mentioned in your standard.  HINT: you may need to check the definitions or glossary. Carefully read the food fraud clauses of the standard you are/will be certified to.
  2. Pay attention to the food types and the food fraud types that are mentioned in your standard. HINT: you may need to check the definitions or glossary.
  3. Create a robust vulnerability assessment (here’s how) and a mitigation plan for identified vulnerabilities.
  4. Create a food fraud prevention procedure that defines the methods, responsibilities and criteria for food fraud prevention.
  5. You should also conduct training for all relevant staff and ensure that the food fraud system is reviewed at least annually.

Get a complete guide to the food fraud requirements of all the major food safety standards from us, the food fraud experts, here.

by

Olive Oil Fraud Update – Is the Crisis Over?

When it comes to fraud-vulnerable foods, olive oil is a rockstar.

When Food Fraud Advisors began in 2015, olive oil was considered one of the most fraud-affected foods on earth, with reports of fraud dating back to the first century AD.

And then things got worse – much worse – for olive production and fraud rates in olive oil skyrocketed.

Olive groves in some of Europe’s major growing areas were decimated by the bacterial disease Xylella fastidiosa, which infects the xylem of olive trees and other trees. The disease, which is native to the Americas, has a mortality rate of up to 100% in susceptible olive cultivars. It is spread by insects that feed on sap, such as the meadow spittlebug (Philaenus spumarius).

Since its discovery in Italy in 2013, more than 21 million olive trees have been destroyed by the disease in Southern Italy, devastating local olive oil production.

Puglia in Italy once produced half of Italy’s olive oil and was home to 60 million of olive trees, many of which were hundreds of years old but has lost 21 million trees to Xylella fastidiosa since 2013.

 

In addition to tree losses from Xylella fastidiosa, droughts and heatwaves in the 2022-2023 season affected key growing areas in Spain, the world’s largest producer, causing harvest volumes to plummet. Similar losses were experienced in Morocco, after annual production dropped to less than half of 2021 levels following two years of drought in the country.

However, things may finally be looking up for olive production and for olive oil. The olive oil industry has been predicting strong harvests and a return to more typical prices for oils since early 2025.

Wholesale commodity prices are currently at just 65 percent of their all-time high, which was reached in January 2024.

Wholesale commodity prices in July 2025 are just 65 percent of their all-time high in January 2024. Image: YCharts, with data from the International Monetary Fund (https://ycharts.com/indicators/olive_oil_price)

 

Frauds in olive oil include false claims about geographical origin, ‘extra virgin’ status and ‘organic’ (bio) status, counterfeiting of premium brands, theft of oil, theft of olives, clandestine manufacturing, blending with undeclared oils, replacement with other oils and addition of colourants.

 

The 2024 olive oil crisis

In 2024, I captured an unprecedented number of reports of olive oil fraud in public media, more than double any previous year since 2015. There were 15 incident reports in 2023 and more than double that number in 2024. In 2025, the numbers are trending back towards 2023 levels, with 7 incidents recorded in the first half of the year.

While an increased number of media reports does not necessarily mean more fraud, the fact that both wholesale and retail prices were very high in 2024, and significant enforcement operations were reported frequently, gives me confidence that the increased number of reports is a true reflection of more fraud activity.

 

An unscientific tally of food fraud incidents, 2015 – 2025, by the author, with the dotted region denoting an extrapolated count for 2025.

 

Note: the counts I’ve described are indicative at best because they only capture incidents and survey results that have been reported by mainstream media outlets or scientific journals, AND discovered by me and my software systems during my weekly searches for food fraud intelligence.

Did we see the crisis coming?

In 2022, olive oil was predicted to become 25 percent more expensive due to droughts in the main olive-growing areas of Europe. However, the predictions fell short and prices rose by significantly more than that, more than doubling between 2022 and 2024.

In October 2023, I warned that due to the shortage of olives in Europe, non-European-grown oils could be fraudulently misrepresented as European oils.

Olives in Europe became so expensive and scarce in 2023 and 2024 that criminals were chainsawing off fruit-laden branches of olive trees, and even taking whole olive trees from orchards by night. Some growers resorted to microchipping their trees in response to the spate of thefts.

Spanish law enforcement agencies responded to the crisis by undertaking 300 different operations in olive growing areas in 2023, stopping vehicles full of stolen fruit, raiding oil mills, and arresting mill operators who were processing stolen fruit.

In Greece, the government warned consumers of increased fraud risks and recommended they only buy oil from reputable vendors.

Is the crisis over?

The most recent European harvest was strong, 12% higher than the five-year average, due to favourable growing conditions in key European growing regions.

In Spain, which accounts for 50 percent of global olive oil production, the most recent crop was almost double what was grown in the 2022-2023 season.

Wholesale prices began falling for consumer olive oils earlier this year and a spokesperson for a major Spanish olive oil supplier said in February 2025 that the price drops could be expected to reach supermarket shelves with a three-month lag.

While various pests and diseases are still a risk to olive trees that are stressed by climate change, Xylella fastidiosa is currently contained in Europe. The European Commission has declared the outbreak in Puglia closed.

Portuguese and Spanish outbreaks are similarly declared over, while in Corsica (France) the disease is considered to be contained. Countries continue to monitor for the presence of the disease.

The Xylella fastidiosa containment zone of Puglia, Italy, depicted in orange. The buffer zone (zona cuscinetto) is blue. Source: European Commission (https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/plant-health-and-biosecurity/plant-health-rules/control-measures/xylella-fastidiosa/latest-developments-xylella-fastidiosa-eu-territory_en)

 

Unexpectedly, some groves that were thought to have been completely destroyed by Xylella fastidiosa have recovered, with a complete restoration of the crown of trees observed in 2024 in some areas of Italy, even among susceptible cultivars. The recovery phenomenon has been observed in young, old and even centennial groves, with some trees once again yielding commercial quantities of fruit.

In the past year, Greek production has rebounded significantly, with the most recent harvest almost double that of the previous year, which was the worst many had seen.

“Last year’s [Greek growing season] was probably the worst period I’ve seen in 20 years,” Prokopios Magiatis, olive production scientist at the University of Athens, who says this year is significantly better.

But the longer-term outlook remains challenging due to our rapidly warming climate.

In Greece, 130,000 olive trees were lost to fires in Evros in 2023, and wildfire burned 11,000 acres of olive orchards in 2024.

Climate change is causing rains to fall at the wrong time of year, leaving the trees with little moisture during winter. Warm winters also cause havoc with the trees’ reproductive cycles – if the nights do not get cold enough, the trees don’t enter the winter dormancy that helps them prepare for the following season.

In 2023, the European Union’s largest wildfire on record burnt olive groves near Alexandroupolis, Greece. Photo: Konstantinos Tsakalidis (via The Greek Herald,https://greekherald.com.au/news/greece-wildfires-burn-60-percent-of-evros-olive-groves/)

 

So, although some industry sources report things are looking up for olive production in Europe in 2025, other sources say extreme heat during flowering and the first fruit set period has already imperiled next season’s crop in some parts of Spain. The Andalusian region of Spain is predicted to have a small harvest for 2025-2026, due to heavy pest pressure, including praying olive blight.

And although Turkiye’s olive industry had a bumper season in 2024-2025, this year’s harvest is predicted to be just 60% of last year’s.

What about olive oil’s food fraud vulnerability?

As supplies of oil improve and prices ease, the motivating factors behind food fraud decrease – or to put it another way, when olives and their oils are not outrageously expensive, it’s less profitable for criminals to fake them, steal them and engage in illegal trading.

An increased focus by authorities in Spain and Italy has likely also caused some criminals to think twice about olive oil crime. In the coming months, I’m expecting to see many more reports of convictions and sentencing for crimes committed in 2021 and 2022, as investigations are brought before the courts in Europe.

In June 2025, four people were sentenced to prison in Spain for their roles in a multi-year-long fraud in which low-quality oils and sunflower oils were sold as extra virgin and organic olive oils, using a false geographical origin in the brand name. The crimes were discovered in 2021.

But while things are probably going to be slightly less crazy for olive oil fraud in the second half of this year and into 2026, I still consider olive oil to be particularly vulnerable to food fraud, because there has been no change to the characteristics that have made it a target since the earliest days of agriculture.

The oil is valuable, has multiple grades and variations that are difficult for most consumers to differentiate, carries significant price premiums for organic versions and certain provenances, and has a relatively short shelf life compared to other edible oils. Its liquid form makes it easy to dilute with cheaper oils, with the large price differential making such dilutions very profitable and the addition of colourants making it hard to detect without expensive analytical tests.

There is also a large pool of independent eateries and grocers in Europe which are sometimes willing to purchase from informal supply chains. Together, these characteristics make olive oil particularly vulnerable to food fraud.

Takeaways for food professionals and consumers

If you or your business purchases olive oil, limit your risk of purchasing fraud-affected oil by:

  • purchasing from reputable vendors and authorised stockists – avoid online stores, markets, street vendors, small independent outlets and anonymous sellers which are more likely to sell counterfeits and products from unauthorised or grey market sources;
  • purchasing premium brands, which are more likely to tightly control their supply chains;
  • paying attention to the taste and aroma of the oil and informing the vendor of any defects.

In short: 🍏 Olive oil has been vulnerable to food fraud since ancient times 🍏 Experts have been warning of impending supply problems for olive oil due to the climate crisis since 2016 🍏 Tree diseases decimated harvests in major olive growing regions, and drought also had a severe impact on the 2022-2023 harvest, precipitating huge price increases for olive oils in 2023 and 2024 🍏 Reports of olive oil fraud were significantly more numerous in 2023 and 2024 compared to previous years 🍏 Harvests have recovered somewhat, although threats from climate change remain 🍏 Fraud activity and the number of reports of fraud in olive oil is expected to be significantly lower in 2025 compared to 2024, however olive oil remains highly vulnerable to food fraud 🍏

Sources: Links to all sources are hyperlinked within the text.

🔹 Many of the sources used for this article were discovered using iComplai’s AI-powered food fraud risk prediction system 🔹

This post originally appeared in The Rotten Apple.

by

What to do About Food Fraud (USA)

I was talking to a new client the other day.  They are based in the United States and had discovered their competitors’ products contain undeclared ingredients.

What should they do, they asked.

There is no simple answer, especially not in the US where there is a patchwork of overlapping government agencies and rules to navigate.

Here’s the process I follow with this type of enquiry:

  1. Establish whether food fraud has occurred or not
  2. Categorise the fraud into one of two types
  3. Determine which regulations and agency(s) are relevant to the fraud
  4. Review the evidence – what made you think this was fraud in the first place?
  5. Decide whether more evidence is needed before pursuing the matter
  6. Choose who to tell, and in which order
  7. Choose how to progress after initial responses
  8. Inform interested parties
  9. Follow up if needed
  10. Execute further action if required

Example: hazelnut oil

We’ll use the example of a company that sells pure hazelnut oil and has discovered that their competitors’ products, labelled “100% pure hazelnut oil” actually contain significant quantities of sunflower oil.

1. Establish whether food fraud has occurred or not

Is this food fraud?  Yes, because consumers or customers are being misled by the labels, the mislabelling provides an economic benefit to the seller and the mislabelling is illegal.

2. Categorise the fraud into one of two types

At this step, I ask myself “Has the food itself been affected in some way – for example by adding or subtracting an ingredient – or not?”, and categorise accordingly.

In this example, the food contains an ingredient that isn’t expected or declared.  Therefore the food has been affected.  On the other hand, if the fraud was a false organic claim on the pack I would categorise that as not affected.

Why is this important?  Because it can highlight any urgent food safety issues and helps me to decide how/where to report and what evidence will be needed.

Speciality oils like hazelnut oil are vulnerable to food fraud, including dilution with cheaper oils like sunflower oil. Image generated with Canva AI

 

3. Determine which regulations and agency(s) are relevant to the fraud

For the hazelnut oil example, the two main agencies are the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): the FTC because the oil is ‘misbranded’ according to the Food, Drugs & Cosmetics Act (misbranding means the label is false or misleading); and the FDA because they are responsible for ingredient lists, traceability and quality defects in foods.

4. Review the evidence

In this example, we knew that the fraud-affected products contained sunflower oil because of testing my client had performed.  Before we decide on a course of action we need to know more about this testing:

  • Who did the testing?  Is the testing laboratory independent?  Is it accredited for this scope?
  • What method was used? Has the method been validated or approved?  What is the accuracy and precision?
  • How were the samples chosen?
  • Does the laboratory impose conditions on the use of results and reports?
  • Would the results stand up in court if needed?
  • Have duplicate or repeat test(s) been done?  Alternative methods tried?

For the hazelnut oil, we concluded we can be confident that the results show evidence of fraud, however, an internal laboratory was used, and this means the results are not independent and would not stand up in court, or to media scrutiny.

5. Decide whether more evidence is needed before pursuing the matter

In this case, the test results are not independent, so further testing would be needed if the matter were to be pursued in a court of law, or presented to media outlets.

6. Choose who to tell, and in which order

Who you choose to tell about a fraud depends very much on your relationship with the suppliers of the fraud-affected foods.

For example, if you are a customer – that is if you purchase the fraud-affected products – you should talk to the supplier on the telephone to explain what you found and find out what they have to say.  It’s entirely possible that the company is a victim of their supplier and are unaware of any problem.

If you are a competitor it is best practice to let the company know what you found.  Again, they could be victims of their suppliers.  Give them the laboratory report (if an external lab) and tell them to direct any questions to the lab – if the lab is okay with this.  Let them know you intend to take the matter further.

You can report the fraud to enforcement agencies immediately after you have told the company, or wait to see how they respond.

If there is a credible food safety risk you must report the issue to the relevant authorities so that they can take action to protect consumers.

The hazelnut oil company is in the United States, so we decided to report the issue to the organizations below, after informing the owners of the affected brands.

7. Choose how to progress after initial responses

We decided that if the brand owners did not take action to correct the frauds and prevent them from occurring in future – for example by changing the claims on product labels, or by altering formulations – that we would commence a civil lawsuit against the brand owners.

A lawsuit would require us to obtain further evidence, including independent tests performed by an accredited laboratory.

8. Inform interested parties

We contacted the brand owners first, then the authorities, keeping accurate records of conversations and correspondence.

9. Follow up

We expect to have to follow up with the companies and the enforcement agencies, and have set timeframes for this.

10. Further actions

We hope to avoid taking legal action against the perpetrators in the civil courts, and would like to see the matter pursued by the FTC and the FDA in a timely manner.

We will repeat the tests in the internal laboratory in a few months’ time to see if there have been any changes to the formulation of the products.

Want help with a situation like this?

If can brief senior management, help formulate a plan of action, work with your laboratory and take charge of all the communications.

Get in touch with me