You are here: Home / Archives for Food Fraud

by

Saffron Fraud (Everything You Ever Wanted to Know)

What is Saffron?

Saffron is a spice made from the dried stigma (part of the flower) of the saffron plant (Crocus sativus). You can see the red stigmas in the pictures.

Saffron flowers showing the red coloured stigmas. Image credit: Lorenzo Lamonica

 

Why is Saffron Vulnerable to Food Fraud?

Genuine saffron is harvested by hand, highly prized for its colour and flavour and very expensive.  In fact, it is the most expensive spice and costs between USD $1,100 to $11,000 per kg.  The international saffron market was worth US $430 million in 2018.

Saffron trade is complicated.  Saffron’s most important growing areas are in Iran, Greece, Morocco and India. Afghanistan and Spain are also important sources of saffron.  Saffron labelled Spanish is mostly grown in other countries but packed in Spain. Iran accounts for most global production at 90% – 93% but only accounts for 40% of direct global exports, according to the report (confusing!), apparently because the Iranian saffron is resold by other countries.

With so much of its production in one country, and with a short harvesting season, saffron supply is extremely vulnerable to weather events.  For example, there was a tripling of prices from 2006 to 2009 because of heavy frost in Iran in 2007.  Climate change is a threat, with increased moisture in some areas leading to more fungal plant diseases, and drought in other areas limiting yields.

Saffron Fraud

Saffron is one of the most frequently adulterated foods.  Powdered saffron is more at risk than whole saffron.

The biggest food safety issue with saffron fraud is probably the use of synthetic dyes to boost the colour of fraudulent whole saffron and saffron powder. Sudan I-IV and Rhodamine B dyes have been found in saffron and are considered potentially genotoxic and carcinogenic.

Saffron threads. Photo by Syed F Hashemi

 

Adulterants in Whole Saffron

Here are some of the things that are added to saffron to fraudulently increase its value.

  • Parts of saffron flowers, including the yellow style and the white style.
  • Filaments from other plants, including corn fibres, safflower stigmas, calendula stigmas, pomegranate fruit fibres
  • Filaments from other sources including silk.  Adulterant filaments may be dyed with plant dyes including beetroot, pomegranate, fruit peel.
  • Liquids that are added to increase weight, including oils, glycerin and honey
  • Dyes and aroma compounds as listed below

Adulterants in Saffron Powder

Here are some of the things that are added to saffron powder to fraudulently increase its value.

  • Turmeric powder
  • Paprika powder
  • Ground seeds of sweet fennel, or annatto
  • Dried marigold flowers
  • Gardenia (Cape Jasmine) extract, for their crocetin esters which are also in saffron
  • Natural dyes from flowers and roots
  • Artificial dyes including erythrosine, ponceau 4R, tartrazine, Sudan dyes, magenta III and rhodamine B
  • Safranal, which is a synthetic aroma compound

Also, there are historical reports of fillers added for increasing the product’s weight, including chalk, gypsum and heavy spar (barium sulfate)

Other Types of Fraud (Non-Adulteration-Type Food Frauds)

  • Selling Philippine saffron or “saffron flowers” as if they are real saffron (C. sativus).  They are instead safflower or kasubha.
  • Exhausted saffron sold as whole saffron
  • Coloured paper shreds sold as saffron
  • Provenance fraud, in which the geographical origin of the saffron is misrepresented

Saffron testing

Testing is a challenge.  Microscopic inspections can be done on powdered as well as whole saffron, but they are time-consuming and expensive.  In addition, visual examinations won’t necessarily recognise adulteration with colourants or safranal.

Some DNA-based tests struggle to differentiate safflower from saffron, because they are closely related.  DNA tests also don’t find safranal or dyes.  Spectroscopic methods can be simple and quick but they are not very sensitive and won’t pick up all adulterants.   There are many other authenticity test methods, each with its own challenges.  It is recommended that a suite of complementary tests be used to cover all types of adulteration and fraud.  Provenance testing has been successfully done using stable isotope methods.

This piece was orginially published in The Rotten Apple, a weekly newsletter about food safety, food fraud and sustainable supply chains. 

Take a Look at The Rotten Apple Newsletter

by

Food Fraud Databases Compared

Updated 26 July 2022

A food fraud database is a collection of information about food fraud incidents and food fraud risks. There are paid and free databases operated by governments, not-for-profits and private companies.  The type of data varies from database to database, as does the cost and the features.

Pay-To-Use Databases

There are four well-known, pay-to-use food fraud databases.  Since 2020, company mergers, acquisitions, and name changes have made it hard to understand which database is which – and which one is best for you.  The four best-known commercially operated databases are listed below.

(1) EMAlert by Battelle.  This database has been around for many years, but no longer has a high profile.  It still exists, but contains information for only a limited number of commodities.  https://www.emalert.org/

(2) HorizonScan (FERA).  This tool was developed by the UK government’s Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA). It is widely used and includes alert systems and information about food safety, food fraud and suppliers.  https://horizon-scan.fera.co.uk/

(3) Decernis’ Food Fraud Database (formerly the United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) Food Fraud Database).  The Decernis Food Fraud Database includes scholarly articles on testing and detection methods as well as food fraud incidents.  https://decernis.com/products/food-fraud-database/

(4) Agroknow’s FoodAkai is the most recently developed tool.  It uses sophisticated AI to analyse data from global food safety agencies to offer insights into hazards in raw materials, ingredients and products.  Like HorizonScan, it includes food safety as well as food fraud issues and incidents.  https://agroknow.com/foodakai/

FoodChainID is another big name in food fraud tools and they also list a product called HorizonScan™ on their website.  Confusingly, FoodChainID’s HorizonScan™ is the same as FERA HorizonScan.  The difference is in the regional distribution rights for each product.  FoodChainID – a company – distributes the HorizonScan product in the USA.  FERA distributes it in non-US markets.

FoodChainID also has a partnership with EMAlert and recently bought the company Decernis, which owns the (formerly USP) Food Fraud Database.  This makes FoodAkai the only well-known paid tool that is independent of FoodChainID.

A less well-known paid service is MerieuxNutriSciences’ Safety HUD, which monitors official agencies and other sources for alerts on food safety and frauds. Safety Hud 2.0 | Food Compliance Solutions (mxns.com)

Costs

There is a notable lack of transparency in the pricing of food fraud databases.  Fees to access the databases are usually levied on a subscription basis.  The cost varies depending on the number of users and whether you are a consultant or a single food company.

All the databases listed above offer either a free trial or a guided demonstration, so you can compare them to decide which might be best for your company’s needs.

Affiliation

Food Fraud Advisors has no financial relationships with the products or companies listed here, though we do have contacts at each organisation, so if you would like a no obligation introduction, just ask. We do not earn a commission from such introductions.

Free Databases

(1) Food Fraud Advisors’ Food Fraud Risk Information Database (hosted on Trello) is a free and open-access online database of food fraud incidences and emerging threats, organised by food type.  No log-in required.  https://trello.com/b/aoFO1UEf/food-fraud-risk-information

(2) FoodSHIELD is a US Government-Academic partnership.  Access to the FoodSHIELD food fraud and food defense database is limited to representatives from local, state, and federal governments, the military and laboratories that perform analyses.  https://www.foodshield.org

(3) Food Protection and Defense Institute (USA)’s Food Adulteration Incidents Registry. Access by special request only. https://incidents.foodprotection.io/about

(4) Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) is managed by a group of European national food safety authorities and alerts its member states to incidences of food and feed safety and integrity.  RASFF publishes a searchable database for investigating incidences of food fraud.  To learn more about RASFF click here.  For direct access to the database, open the RASFF Portal.

(5) US FDA’s Recalls and Food Safety Alerts, has a searchable database and includes incidents arising from food fraud.  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/

 

Which Database Should I Use?

How do I know which database will meet my needs?

 

What are your needs? Check the headings below to see which best describes your company’s needs for food fraud information. 

 

Low budget and/or need information infrequently

If you have a low budget and don’t need to access information often, Decernis’ Food Fraud Database has cost-effective single month or month-to-month subscriptions.

Custom alerts for specific ingredients or foods

All four paid databases allow you to create custom alerts for products, ingredients of interest.  You receive an email or other notification when a new incident occurs.

Food safety and food fraud alerts

HorizonScan and FoodAkai both include food safety hazards as well as food fraud hazards in their reporting and alert systems.

Analytical test methods information

Decernis’ Food Fraud Database includes test method information and research papers.

Large number of users across multiple sites

If you have a high number of users who want to access the database or a very large number of products, HorizonScan and FoodAkai have enterprise level subscriptions so users on different sites can set up their own reports and alerts.

Predictions about future hazards

FoodAkai promises early warning of emerging risks, which are predicted using AI technology. The makers of FoodAkai say their software predicted the multi-country, multi-product ethylene oxide in sesame recall disaster of 2020-2021.

Students, occasional needs, non-food professionals

The Food Fraud Information Database hosted on Trello is a great place to start your food fraud journey if you are a student or new to the food industry.  It is free and contains good summaries of the types of food fraud that affect various foods.  However, it is not easily searchable (you can buy a searchable ‘snapshot’ in Excel form) and it does not provide custom alerts.  Incidents added to the database are mostly drawn from international media and are heavily weighted to English language media, so are not suitable for accurate counting or mapping of incidents.

Other free information about European and North American foods

RASFF (Europe) and FDA Recalls and Food Safety Alerts (USA) mostly contain food safety incidents, with few food fraud incidents.  Much of the data derives from cross-border food movements, especially in RASSF.  They are both free and searchable and can be a useful adjunct to the free food fraud database on Trello.

 

by

Pesticide Residues Found in ‘Organic’ Fruit and Veg

The most recent survey of pesticides in foods (USA) found that more than 98 percent of the tested foods had no or acceptable (safe) levels of pesticide residue. These figures are great overall.  But the results for organic foods are not so good.  Organic fraud is one of the most common types of food fraud.  Karen Constable of Food Fraud Advisors took a deep dive into the results of the survey to see how organic foods performed.

About the Pesticide Data Program

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) surveys the nation’s food supplies every year, checking for residues of pesticides, pesticide by-products and environmental contaminants, which are chemicals no longer used as pesticides, but known to persist in the environment.

The 2019 survey tested almost 10,000 samples of 21 types of fresh, frozen and canned fruit and vegetables, plus tomato paste, dried garbanzo beans, rice and oats.  The foods were sampled throughout the year, across the country from wholesale markets, retail outlets and distribution centres.  Both domestic and imported foods were sampled.  Each commodity was tested using sensitive analytical tests to check for residues of approximately 500 pesticides and around 20 environmental contaminants.

The official report (find it here ) contains excellent and detailed information about the sampling systems.  The report also provides a broad overview of results for commodities and discusses the differences between domestic and imported products.  But it does not specifically discuss the results for organic foods.

Results for Organic Foods

In 2019 and 2020 the USDA acknowledged widespread problems with compliance in US organic certification programs.  In the USA, organic certification is regulated by the USDA and their organic program is the only organic certification scheme that may be used.

Among the 9,697 samples that were tested in 2019 by the USDA in their pesticide data program, 845 (8.7%) of them were labeled as ‘organic’.   The pesticide survey is not designed to sample specifically for organic foods and the official report does not report results for organic foods as a category.

However, the raw data from the survey is publicly available and can be analysed to find out which foods were labeled as ‘organic’ but contained residues of non-organic-approved pesticides.

For the 2019 survey there were 845 samples labeled ‘organic’ and two that were labeled ‘pesticide free’.  Both of the products labeled ‘pesticide free’ contained detectable levels of pesticide, but at safe* levels.  Around one quarter of organic-labeled foods contained residue(s) of at least one pesticide and just under half of those had unsafe** levels.  There was a small number of notable samples (1%) that contained either very many residues or unsafe levels of multiple pesticides.

Summary

  • 26% of ‘organic’ samples had detectable levels of pesticide(s)
  • 9% of ‘organic’ samples had unsafe** levels of at least one pesticide
  • 1% of ‘organic’ samples contained four or more pesticides at unsafe** levels
  • 1% of ‘organic’ samples contained traces of more than 10 pesticides

26 percent of ‘organic’ samples had detectable levels of pesticide(s)

Every sample in the USDA survey was tested for approximately 500 pesticides and environmental contaminants.  Of the 845 samples that were labeled as ‘organic’, 220 (26%) contained detectable levels of at least one pesticide.

Note that not all organic-approved pesticides are included in the tests.  The main organic-approved pesticides that were included in 2019 were Spinosad and Spinosad A.

9 percent of ‘organic’ samples had unsafe* levels of at least one pesticide

Of the 845 organic products that were tested, 72 (9%) were found to contain at least one pesticide at levels that exceed or were presumed to exceed the EPA ‘tolerances’ for that pesticide.  The tolerances are ‘the maximum amount of a pesticide allowed to remain in or on a food’.

7 ‘organic’ products contained four or more pesticides at unsafe* levels

There were 7 products (<1%) that were found to contain unsafe levels of four or more pesticides.  Five of those seven products were fresh basil (4 grown in USA, 1 imported from Mexico).  The other products were fresh cilantro (grown in USA) and white basmati rice imported from India.

Only one of those seven products contained detectable levels of the organic-approved pesticides Spinosad or Spinosad A.

5 ‘organic’ samples contained residues of more than 10 pesticides

Of the 845 samples that were labeled ‘organic’, 5 (<1%) contained detectable levels of more than 10 different pesticides.  These five products were locally grown fresh basil, fresh mustard greens, imported basmati rice and imported frozen strawberries.

USDA Pesticide Survey (PDP), 2019; results for foods labeled ‘organic’

How does this compare with previous data?

Click here to view the results for 2014

  2014   2019
Proportion of ‘organic’ samples that contained detectable levels of at least one pesticide   22%   26%
Proportion of ‘organic’ samples that contained at least one pesticide at ‘unsafe’ levels   2%   9%
Worst performing commodities***   Frozen cherries

Tomatoes

   Fresh basil

*** Note that none of these commodities were sampled in both 2014 and 2019

Is this food fraud?

Organic foods should not contain residues of non-organic-approved pesticides.  But the presence of such residues is not necessarily the result of food fraud.

Analytical tests can detect extremely low levels of pesticides.  Low levels of pesticides can be present on samples due to accidental contamination, such as by blowing from another field during application, or by being transferred from other produce during transport or storage.

Where residues are present at higher or unsafe** levels, there is a greater likelihood that the pesticide(s) were applied to the food deliberately.  Interestingly, of the seven ‘organic’ foods that contained four or more pesticides at unsafe levels, all contained multiple other residues at lower levels, but only one contained any residue of the organic-approved pesticide Spinosad/SpinosadA.

A properly controlled organic supply chain should not result in produce that contains non-approved pesticides at unsafe levels.  It is reasonable to assert that such produce has been deliberately treated with the pesticide(s), such as would occur during conventional growing or post-harvest processes.  It would be reasonable to conclude that the products were therefore conventionally grown rather than being authentically organic.

In this survey between 1 and 9 percent of the organic samples appear to have been grown using conventional methods but were marketed as ‘organic’.  This mislabeling represents food fraud.

*safe levels:  For the purposes of this report, ‘safe’ = any analytical result that was reported as being detected but not annotated as being (i) Residue at with presumptive violation – No Tolerance, (ii) Residue with a presumptive violation – No Tolerance (iii), Residue with a presumptive violation – Exceeds Tolerance.  The tolerance is a limit set by the EPA that is ‘the maximum amount of a pesticide allowed to remain in or on a food’.

**unsafe levels:  For the purposes of this report, ‘unsafe’ = any analytical result that was reported as being detected and annotated with either (i) Residue at with presumptive violation – No Tolerance, (ii) Residue with a presumptive violation – No Tolerance (iii), Residue with a presumptive violation – Exceeds Tolerance.  The tolerance is a limit set by the EPA that is ‘the maximum amount of a pesticide allowed to remain in or on a food’.

Want updates like this delivered straight to your inbox? 

Join our mailing list


(We don’t share your email address with anyone else.  Unsubscribe at any time)

by

Vulnerability Assessments

What is a vulnerability assessment?

 

A vulnerability assessment is a risk-assessment-style evaluation of a food’s vulnerability to food fraud.

A food fraud vulnerability assessment is a documented assessment that identifies vulnerabilities to food fraud and explains how those vulnerabilities were identified.

Vulnerability assessments are also done to assess the threat of a malicious attack on food.  Malicious attacks include attacks conducted for extortion, ideological reasons or terrorism. We call these issues of food defense. To learn more about vulnerability assessments for food defense (intentional adulteration), click here.

Why ‘vulnerability’ and not ‘risk’? 

 

  • A risk is something that has occurred before and will occur again. A risk can be quantified using existing data.
  • A vulnerability is a weakness that can be exploited.  A vulnerability can lead to a risk.

Food fraud is difficult to estimate and quantify, so we use the word vulnerability rather than risk.

Why do a vulnerability assessment?

 

  1. To protect consumers: Food that is vulnerable to food fraud presents significant risks to consumers.  Food that is adulterated or diluted   [Read more…]

by

Future and emerging threats of food fraud

Food fraud: you don’t want it.

  • If you are manufacturing, wholesaling or retailing food or beverages, fraudulent activities within your supply chain pose risks to your brand and to your customers.
  • Different food types vary in their susceptibility to food fraud.
  • The risks change over time.
  • Purchasers of food and food ingredients must remain vigilant about new and emerging risks.
  • The requirement to monitor emerging and predicted food fraud issues is a part of all major (GFSI) food safety standards.

Learn how to monitor food fraud threats here.