Food Fraud Advisors

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Our Services
  • Tools, Templates and Training
  • Learn about food fraud
  • Report a food crime
  • News
You are here: Home / Archives for Food Fraud

29th July 2026 by Karen Constable

Tomato Fraud Bombshell

A food fraud bombshell has just exploded in the Australian processed tomato industry.

The impact will be felt globally.  No matter where you are in the world, if you purchase processed tomatoes, you should be afraid. Very afraid.

Journalists from the respected Australian public broadcaster the ABC commissioned authenticity testing to determine the geographic origin of processed tomato products.  They found that many products which claimed to be made with Australian-grown tomatoes had chemical profiles that match Chinese-grown tomatoes.

Specifically, 221 products from 39 brands were tested, with “one in four” found to have a disconnect between the origin claims on pack and the origin determined by authenticity testing.

Not surprising. We have known there’s an oversupply of tomatoes in China’s Western provinces for a while. And there was a similiar issue with UK products in 2024.

What is surprising is that almost all the Australian brand owners of the suspicious products were willing to go on the record with written statements saying they had robust traceability information from their suppliers, and that this traceability information gives them “the utmost confidence” that their products were made with Australian-grown tomatoes.

[Note that Australia has super-strict laws about origin claims and every single food product sold in Australia must be labelled with its country of origin by law.]

What’s happening here? Why would brand owners go on the record saying they are sure there’s no problem with their products if there’s a credible question about their authenticity?

It’s an unusual response. In my experience, brand owners accused of authenticity issues are more likely to prevaricate or provide vague denials, rather than publish definitive, specific statements of confidence in their supply chain and their own verification processes.

This points to two unique circumstances in this investigation:

(1) The investigation began some months ago, and the results have only just been published. I can confirm this has been a long-running investigation because I assisted the journalists in the early stages of their research.

(2) The brand owners were given sufficient time to properly deep dive into their own supply chain verification systems and that of their suppliers. (Sadly this usually isn’t the case when allegations of food fraud are published).

The result: the brand owners could go back to the journalists with on-the-record statements that their supply chains are clean and that their suppliers’ traceability systems are robust enough to show the tomatoes are Australian-grown before the allegations were published.

But here’s the problem: the science disagrees.

So is the science wrong, or are the brand owners wrong?

I say neither.

I have faith in the brand owners who have had these allegations levelled against them. We are talking about large, prestigious Australian brands, with plenty of in-house technical expertise, knowledge of food fraud and years of experience. If they say the traceability records are robust, I believe them.

I also have faith in the scientists that designed and ran the authenticity tests, Source Certain. They stand behind their test results, which were obtained using trace element analysis (TEA) and/or stable isotope ratio analysis (SIRA). Their methods are robust, and this is not the first tomato origin project they have successfully completed.

So if I trust the brand owners, and the science, how can I explain the discrepancy?

What do I think has happened?

I think someone upstream in the processed tomato supply chain has done an extremely good job of creating credible traceability records, possibly accompanied by some sort of transshipping of processed tomatoes through Australian locations.

It’s a shocking allegation, but I think someone, or multiple people, have faked traceability records in a highly skilled and systematic way.  In doing so they managed to successfully deceive the brand owners of these processed tomato products, and ultimately, consumers.  And that is food fraud.

What happens next?

Will we ever find out exactly where or exactly how these records were so successfully faked?  Probably not.  Internal investigators will find out, but in these circumstances the results rarely end up being shared publicly.

What to do with this information?

If you have anything to do with the processed tomato industry, be scared, be very scared.

Fraud is rife in your industry globally, and this investigation – and the brands’ responses – has revealed that it is very widespread and incredibly sophisticated.

Source:

We tested your groceries. This is what we found | Four Corners, ABC Australia (2026).  Watch here

Need expert help with this?

Karen Constable is an Australian food fraud expert

Get in Touch

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Food Fraud

13th May 2026 by Karen Constable

Smart packaging to fight wine counterfeits

Wine bottle caps that contain Near Field Communication (NFC) and Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips, which can be scanned by consumers, have been developed for counterfeit protection for premium wines. The caps, which are tamper-evident, prevent refill-style counterfeiting, in which fraudsters refill empty genuine bottles of premium wines with cheaper fakes and sell them for tens of thousands of dollars.

Consumers can use their smart phone to scan the cap to verify authenticity and provenance, and to confirm the bottle hasn’t been opened or altered.

 

Source:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/drink/aussie-fights-back-against-fakes-ripping-70bn-from-wine-industry/news-story/7173f047daa93cc526ea6cfe1f78ab04

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

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Food Fraud

6th May 2026 by Karen Constable

Genuine article test: fake chocolate brand

A brand owner whose Dubai-style chocolates were faked by fraudsters has published pictures of real and counterfeit packages for consumers, so they can distinguish between real and counterfeit versions of their popular confectionery.

The counterfeit version failed to carry the correct allergen warnings about the presence of nuts.

Real and fake chocolate packaging sits side by side.
The brand owner published images with red highlights showing the differences between their packs and the counterfeits. Photo: Le Damas, via The National

The counterfeits were one of three brands of Dubai-style chocolate that were recalled in the United Kingdom in August due to the presence of undeclared peanuts, almonds, cashews, and walnuts.

At the time of the recall, the brand owner told news outlets that the affected products had not been manufactured by them or with their authorisation, saying the allergen-containing bars were counterfeits, made to mimic their products. Retailers had received the products from a mysterious trading company that was uncontactable at the time of the recall.

The company, Le Damas, told The National “We are aware of reports of potential counterfeit products being investigated by the UK Food Standards Agency and are co-operating fully with the authorities,” and said it takes “the quality, safety and authenticity of our chocolates very seriously”, and that its products are made “under strict quality controls and comply with international food safety standards”.

Read more on the suspected counterfeiting in the Dubai chocolate article in Issue 204 of The Rotten Apple.

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

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Food Fraud

29th April 2026 by Karen Constable

This is Food Fraud

Food fraud in pictures

We’ve come a long way with food fraud awareness since I started working on the subject in 2015. More and more food industry people now recognise that food fraud is a genuine threat to the safety and integrity of our food supply.

But few of us have actually seen food fraud up close. Part of the problem, of course, is that food fraud, by its very nature, is hard to spot.

This week, I’m sharing my collection of favourite food fraud images, from around the globe and across the decades, starting with turmeric extract.

Turmeric extract

No alternative text description for this image
Fig. 1. Two samples of turmeric extract side by side. The sample on the right contains about 25% curcuminoids. The sample on the left has been diluted with cornstarch and contains about 10% curcuminoids. Image: Blake Ebersole via LinkedIn.

 

Figure 1 shows a simulated “fraud” which demonstrates dilution-type fraud in turmeric extract. The sample on the right contains about 25% curcuminoids. The sample on the left has been diluted with cornstarch and contains about 10% curcuminoids.

Dilution fraud occurs when a food is diluted with material that costs less than the food to increase profits. Examples include fruit juice, milk or wine adulterated with water and sawdust added to tea powder.

Common fillers for botanical extracts are maltodextrin, starches and other materials with a cellulose base, such as carboxymethylcellulose.

Fillers and flow agents are added legitimately to botanical extracts like turmeric extract to achieve a flowable powder. However, some suppliers add more filler than needed, and this allows them to sell the same quantity of the pure extract for a higher price.

There are no legal definitions for botanical extract purity in many jurisdictions, so the amount of filler or flow agent is not regulated. If the concentration of filler or flow agent is not specified and checked by purchasers upon receipt, then the supplier may be tempted to add too much.

Purchasers of botanical extracts use visual checks, HPTLC and colour specifications as an ‘early warning signal’ when receiving material. Extracts that have a lighter colour than expected warrant further investigation, although it’s worth noting that turmeric is also vulnerable to adulteration with colourants such as metanil yellow and lead chromate.

Source: Turmeric Extract | Blake Ebersole

Saffron

diagram, engineering drawing
Fig. 2. Samples of saffron purchased from retail stores in the Netherlands, and exposed to water. One sample appears genuine, the other three indicate fraud. Image: Devi M Krishna via LinkedIn

 

Figure 2 shows a simple authenticity indicator test for saffron (Crocus sativus L.), using water. The test provides a visual indication of potential adulteration or substitution and can be used to decide which samples require further investigation.

When water is added, real saffron releases a dark golden colour over a period of a few seconds while maintaining intact stigmas. Suspicious samples release significant quantities of colour in less than 1 second, lose their structure and show evidence of non-stigma materials.

In this test, conducted by students in a food fraud course at Wageningen University on samples purchased from local stores, three of the four samples appeared inauthentic, including the most expensive samples.

Sample 3 (blue circle) was confirmed to be safflower (Carthamus tinctorius), which is substituted for, or used to adulterate, saffron, due to its similar appearance. The photographer did not share which was the genuine sample.

No alternative text description for this image
Fig. 3. Saffron flower (Crocus sativus L.) showing the stigma. Image credit: Lorenzo Lamonica.

 

Source: Saffron Test | Devi M Krishna

Paprika

Paprika powders containing added colourants.
Fig. 4. Paprika powders containing added colourants Sudan 1 & IV (left) and annato (right). Image: Tarantelli, Sheriden (2016)

 

Figure 4 shows adulteration-type fraud in two paprika products imported to the United States. The sample on the left contained very high levels of the oil-soluble dyes Sudan I and Sudan IV. The sample on the right contained the natural colour annatto (E160b).

These samples were tested by the New York State Food Lab in 2014.

Adulteration-type fraud is when something is added to food to increase its apparent value without being declared to the purchaser. Adulterants can be unsafe for consumers and often conceal quality defects. Examples include textile dyes added to spices to make them appear fresh and flavoursome, and melamine powder added to milk to boost its apparent protein content.

Sudan dyes are textile dyes which are carcinogenic and not approved for use in food. In 2024, there were 8 notifications for Sudan dyes in foods imported to the European Union. The foods included curry powder, chilli powder, palm oil, sumac powder and cheddar cheese powder.

Adulteration with unapproved dyes sometimes accompanies another type of food fraud in paprika: dilution or substitution with ‘spent paprika’.

Spent paprika is a dull fibrous material left over after paprika oleoresin – the coloured and flavoured part of paprika spice – has been extracted from the fruit (Capsicum annuum L). Paprika oleoresin has a high value and is used legally as a natural colouring agent in cheese, juices, sweets and sauces.

When spent paprika is added to whole paprika, or used in place of whole paprika, the resulting mix has a dull colour. Fraudsters then add illegal colourants such as Sudan dyes to the mixture to make it appear genuine.

diagram
Fig 5. Food laboratory Bia Analytical shared this image in a post about spent paprika, saying spent paprika is often coloured with harmful and illegal dyes like Sudan I, II, III, IV or Para Red. Image: Bia Analytical, via LinkedIn

 

Sources:

Tarantelli T., Sheriden R. (2016) Toxic Industrial Colorants found in Imported Foods. Available online at: https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/industrial-dye-presentation-12-11-2015/60160214

Bia Analytical (2025) Why is Spent Paprika Not Paprika. LinkedIn. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bia-analytical_adulterate-foodfraud-foodadulteration-activity-7313487808575250433-clM7/

Oregano

Dried oregano leaves are pictured next to dried cistus, olive and myrtle leaves, showing the similarities between the products.
Fig 6. Dried oregano leaves look a lot like other dried leaves. Image: Elliott, C. (2016) Addressing complex and critical food integrity issues using the latest analytical technologies [webinar]

Figure 6 shows the similarities between dried oregano and other leaves used to dilute it.

Oregano is the herb most often affected by food fraud, and there have been several high-profile cases of consumer groups revealing food fraud in oregano, including in the United Kingdom in 2015, Australia in 2016 and the United States in 2017.

In the Australian tests, fewer than half of the 12 samples purchased from retail outlets were pure oregano. The others contained between 10 and 90 percent leaves from other plants, including olive leaves and sumac leaves. Tests in the United Kingdom and the United States of America showed adulteration in around one-third of samples.

Have things improved with oregano in the decade since?

Unfortunately, they have not. In 2020, oregano imported to Europe from Turkiye was found to contain olive leaves. Further testing revealed one-quarter of samples were affected. Two of the samples contained no oregano at all.

In 2021, the European Commission tested 1,885 samples of spices and herbs and rated oregano the worst performer for food fraud, with 48 percent of approximately 300 oregano samples affected by adulteration, mostly with olive leaves.

And in 2024, the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency found 13 percent of 30 samples of oregano to contain leaves other than oregano, mostly olive leaves, at levels of up to 25 percent.

Comment

Food fraud affects many types of food and drink, but I only had images of herbs, spices and botanicals in my collection. That’s not a coincidence. Herbs, spices and botanicals are some of the worst-affected foods for food fraud.

I would have loved to have shown you photographs of food fraud in other commonly affected commodities such as seafood, honey, olive oil and dairy foods, but unfortunately, fraud-affected versions of these foods look almost identical to the real thing, and so photographs are both rare and unhelpful.

Side by side images of adulterated milk and pure milk. The two images look identical.
Fig. 7 Food fraud is usually impossible to see. Image by Ivan Pergasi on Unsplash used for illustration purposes only.

 

Read more: 🍏Saffron Fraud | Issue 31 | The Rotten Apple🍏

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

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Adulteration, Food Fraud

22nd April 2026 by Karen Constable

Fraud rates of 33% in seafood (USA)

A survey of imported frozen shrimp, squid and tilapia products found 36% (n = 28) were affected by short-weighting, which is when the package contains less weight than declared and, for frozen seafood, when the product or package contains too much water glaze or ice (“overstating the net weight of frozen seafood by including the weight of glazing (ice) is not permitted”).

Close-up of a pile of frozen shrimp.
The frozen seafood products were affected by short-weighting. Image: IrinaKur/BigStock.

 

The survey was conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during 2022-2024. The sampling included both targeted and general surveillance samples of both raw and cooked products, covering 12 businesses from 4 countries. The samples were collected during import, prior to release into U.S. commerce. Each sample consisted of 48 units from the same production lot.

Most of the samples (25 of 28) were shrimp, with 2 squid and 1 tilapia sample included. Both squid samples were found to violate short-weight rules (100%, n = 2). Eight shrimp samples were violative (32%, n = 25). The tilapia sample was compliant – United States 02/09/2025.

Source: https://www.fda.gov/food/economically-motivated-adulteration-food-fraud/sample-collection-and-analysis-imported-frozen-seafood-economically-motivated-adulteration-year-2022

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

 

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Food Fraud

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 17
  • Next Page »

MORE FROM FOOD FRAUD ADVISORS

Tomato Fraud Bombshell

A food fraud bombshell has just exploded in the Australian processed tomato industry. The impact will be felt … [Read More...]

Smart packaging to fight wine counterfeits

Wine bottle caps that contain Near Field Communication (NFC) and Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips, which can … [Read More...]

Red highlighting shows the difference between the real and fake chocolate packaging.

Genuine article test: fake chocolate brand

A brand owner whose Dubai-style chocolates were faked by fraudsters has published pictures of real and counterfeit … [Read More...]

Two packets of paprika powders that have been adulterated with dye and annatto.

This is Food Fraud

Food fraud in pictures We’ve come a long way with food fraud awareness since I started working on the subject in 2015. … [Read More...]

Close-up of a pile of frozen shrimp.

Fraud rates of 33% in seafood (USA)

A survey of imported frozen shrimp, squid and tilapia products found 36% (n = 28) were affected by short-weighting, … [Read More...]

follow

  • View foodfraudadvice’s profile on Facebook
  • View karenconstable4’s profile on Twitter
  • LinkedIn

© Copyright 2015 - 2026 Food Fraud Advisors · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Return and Refund Policy