You are here: Home / Archives for Regulatory

by

Food Safety Hazards from Food Fraud (EMA)

Updated 31st December, 2022

Are you confident in your FSMA preventive controls for hazards from food fraud?

This post is for you if your company manufactures food in the USA or exports food to the USA.

Food companies in the USA must comply with food safety regulations that require them to identify and address hazards from economically motivated adulteration (EMA), a type of food fraud.

In this post you can learn what EMA is and how to identify food safety hazards from EMA.  You can also discover what type of preventive controls are best for EMA hazards.

Definitions

EMA is short for economically motivated adulteration which is a type of food fraud.  Other types of food fraud include counterfeiting, making false claims (for example, fake ‘organic’ food) and species substitution (for example, selling cheap white fish labelled as snapper).

“Economically motivated adulteration (EMA) occurs when someone intentionally leaves out, takes out, or substitutes a valuable ingredient or part of a food. EMA also occurs when someone adds a substance to a food to make it appear better or of greater value.” (US FDA)

FSMA denotes the Food Safety Modernization Act (USA). is a set of rules for food manufacturers. Under the rules, food manufacturers must assess food safety hazards and implement preventive controls. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for the enforcement of the rules.  If your company is outside the USA but exports to the USA, you must also comply with the FSMA rules.

Hazards are chemical, physical and biological agents that may be present in food and that are capable of causing harm to consumers of the food.  (Find the official FDA definition here)

Preventive controls are procedures and systems that are designed to ensure that food safety hazards are prevented or minimized to an acceptable level.

Rules for food fraud (USA)

FSMA requires that preventive controls are implemented by food manufacturers to prevent hazards to human health.  The relevant regulation is called the FSMA Final Rule for Preventive Controls for Human Food, and is commonly known as the Preventive Controls Rule.

The Preventive Controls Rule requires food manufacturers to identify and control hazards that could arise from:

  • natural occurrences (for example, some raw meat products naturally contain certain human pathogens);
  • unintentional contamination (for example food may be accidentally contaminated with a pesticide during a pest control treatment), and
  • economically motivated adulteration (EMA).

After food manufacturers have identified the hazards, they must minimize or prevent the hazards by creating and implementing preventive controls in their food manufacturing operations. These are procedures and systems that are documented and that include monitoring, corrective actions systems and verification activities.  The preventive controls form part of the food manufacturer’s food safety plan.

Learn more about the preventive controls rule on the FDA’s preventive controls guidance webpage.

A separate part of the FSMA rules also requires food manufacturers to create and implement systems to prevent intentional, malicious adulteration.  The FDA calls this type of adulteration Intentional Adulteration (IA). It is different from economically motivated adulteration.  Intentional adulteration prevention is also known as food defense.  Click here to learn more about food defense.

Hazards are chemical, physical and biological agents that may be present in food and that are capable of causing harm to consumers of the food

Examples of hazards from economically motivated adulteration (EMA)

Economically motivated adulteration (EMA) is a subset of food fraud.   Food fraud includes many types of deception carried out for the purposes of economic gain.  It includes activities such as mislabeling (for example, making false claims about the geographical origin of a food product) and other fraudulent activities that do not involve the adulteration of food.

Economically motivated adulteration is a type of food fraud in which a person has added a substance to food to enhance its apparent value or profitability.  Often the added substance will boost the apparent quality or appearance of the food, other times the substance will be a diluent, which dilutes or replaces the genuine material with a cheaper material, thereby increasing the profitability of the resulting mix.

Food businesses are required by law to about hazards that may be in their products and must create and implement systems that will prevent, minimize or eliminate those hazards.  The systems must be documented in a food safety plan.

Economically motivated food fraud (EMA) happens when food fraud perpetrators add materials to increase the apparent value of the food or to extend its shelf life in an undeclared or unlawful manner.  Materials that are added to make food or ingredients seem bigger, or heavier include water and other liquids, or fillers and bulking agents, such as starches, husks or sawdust.  Adulterants that are added to make food look better include unauthorised colorants, glosses and glazes.  Adulterants that extend shelf life include non-approved preservatives.

The food safety risks from such adulterations include acute or chronic chemical poisoning, allergenic reactions, and microbial illnesses from pathogens introduced during the adulteration processes.

Example: Unauthorized color in turmeric

A significant proportion of powdered turmeric traded worldwide contains unsafe levels of lead.  Researchers in Bangladesh have confirmed that the lead is added to the spice in the form of toxic lead chromate which has an intense yellow-gold color, the color favoured by turmeric traders and buyers as an indicator of freshness and quality.  Curry powder, cumin and cinnamon have also been affected.  A survey of more than 1496 samples of 50 spices from 41 countries found that 50% of the spice samples had detectable lead, and more than 30% had lead concentrations greater than 2 ppm, a level that is 200 times higher than the recommended maximum lead content of candy in the USA.  Lead is a potent neurotoxin that damages organs including the brain.

Example: Undeclared peanuts in chopped hazelnuts

Peanuts are cheaper than most other nuts which makes them an attractive ‘filler’ or bulking agent in chopped nuts, powdered nuts and nut pastes.  When a food fraud perpetrator adds peanuts to a tree nut product, they gain more profit than if they sold a pure paste or powder.  In Germany in 2017, authorities found bulk quantities of chopped hazelnuts adulterated with 8% chopped peanuts.  The chopped hazelnuts were sold as ‘pure’ hazelnuts and did not declare any peanut ingredients on the label.  Because peanuts are a regulated human food allergen, their presence in the hazelnut product presented a serious food safety hazard.

 

How to identify hazards from economically motivated adulteration (EMA)

Follow the five steps below to identify hazards from EMA food fraud for your food manufacturing preventive controls plan.

  1. For each raw material that your company purchases to use in the food manufacturing process, investigate whether economically motivated adulteration is likely to occur within the supply chain.  Ask yourself: could adulterants be present in the raw material when it is purchased?  Learn how to investigate susceptibility to food fraud here.
  2. For each raw material and each finished product your company makes, also investigate whether economically motivated adulteration could occur inside your manufacturing facility or storage areas.  This is sometimes known as ‘insider activity’.
  3. After you have understood whether adulteration is likely to occur for each raw material, make a list of adulterants that could be added to each of the susceptible foods.   Historical records of past incidences of food fraud provide the best indication of the types of adulterants that can be expected in different foods and ingredients.  This page has a list of databases you can use to find historical records. .
  4. For each possible adulterant, make a note of whether it could be hazardous to human health if present in the food.  As an example, olive oil is commonly adulterated with (non-olive) vegetable oils.  That type of adulteration is unlikely to be hazardous and as such it would not require a preventive control under the FSMA rules*.   Document your decisions and justifications for such.
  5. Add the economically motivated hazards you have identified to your company’s food safety plan.  Implement preventive controls for each hazard.  Supplier approvals programs are commonly used for control of economically motivated hazards in incoming raw materials.

Need to learn more about food fraud prevention?  Visit our online training school.  Courses start at just US$29.

*Even if not strictly required under FSMA rules, it is always a good idea to prevent any type of food fraud from affecting your products.  This will protect your company and brand as well as your consumers’ health.

 

by

Interpol and Food Fraud; Celebrating 10 Years of Operation Opson

Operation Opson is a joint activity of Interpol and Eurpol that targets counterfeit and sub-standard food and beverages.

This year marks the tenth iteration of Operation Opson.

Operation Opson X ran from December 2020 to June 2021 in 72 countries. Food and drinks worth €53.8 M were seized and 663 arrest warrants were issued.  Honey, beverages and horsemeat were areas of focus for this operation.  You can find the official Europol press release here.

Honey

Authorities performed 495 checks on honey samples as part of Opson X.  Samples were obtained from all along the supply chain, including from the farmgate, wholesalers, distributors and retailers. Most of the checks aimed to detect added sugars or corn syrup in the honey.  Of the 495 checks, 7% were found to be non-compliant and 51,000 kg of honey was seized.

Beverages

During Opson X, the most problematic beverages were wine and vodka.  A total of 1.7 M liters of alcoholic beverages were seized by authorities.  For wine, fraudulent bottling and labeling was a notable problem, with wine bottling operation(s) in Italy allegedly applying labels that misrepresented the geographical origin of the wine. In Spain, whisky with added colorant was found.  The colorant was said to have been added to enhance the perceived quality of the product.

Horsemeat

Horsemeat and the use of unapproved horsemeat for human food continues to be a focus for food fraud enforcement in Europe.  During Opson X, authorities uncovered sophisticated operations in which horses that were not approved for human consumption were being traded across international borders with false documents.  Investigations are continuing.

Other Meat

A survey of meat products in Germany found that 3% of samples (n = 264) were affected by species substitution, that is, the meat contained species that were not declared on the label. Source: Food Safety News

Unsafe and Fraudulent Seafood

Spanish and Portugese authorities identified illegal fishing of bivalve seafood such as clams in a wide-ranging investigation.  The seafood was harvested illegally and was not processed, handled or labeled properly, resulting in potential food safety issues.  At least 12 fishing vessels were implicated.

Food Supplements

In this iteration of Operation Opson, food supplements and additives were the second most seized food type, by quantity, after alcoholic beverages.  At the time of writing no details of such seizures are available.

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

Eight things you need to know about GM salmon

  1. AquAdvantage Salmon is the first transgenic animal to be approved for food in the USA. The US FDA announced that the salmon is safe to eat in 2015.
  2. A transgenic animal is one that has been genetically modified by adding genes from other species. In this case, the Atlantic salmon was modified with genes from Chinook salmon and ocean pout (a perch-like fish with good tolerance to low temperatures).
  3. The FDA review and assessment process took 20 years.
  4. The FDA’s safety assessment considered risks to people who are allergic to fish. The allergenicity of AquAdvantage Salmon was found to be no different to other types of salmon.
  5. The fish are only allowed to be raised in tanks in land-locked areas to prevent them from cross-breeding with other fish.
  6. The developers of the fish are promoting their environmental benefits, including less ocean pollution and a reduced requirement for wild-caught fish which are used as feed when farming salmon. The GM fish eat less and grow to market weight faster than conventionally farmed salmon.
  7. Food from transgenic organisms, including AquAdvantage Salmon has to be labelled as such in the United States.
  8. Michele Henry, Toronto Food Writer, describes the eating experience as “Exquisite”
Source: AquaBounty.com
Source: AquaBounty.com

Updated: November 2020.

by

Supplements, the last frontier?

The supplement industry received a wakeup call last year, particularly in the USA, after the New York attorney general commenced legal proceedings against 13 supplements manufacturers alleging that the supplements did not contain exactly what they should have contained.  The sampling and test methodology used to support the prosecution has been widely criticised, and the industry considers the results to be questionable at best.  Nevertheless, the issue of authenticity and adulteration has received extra attention among producers and users of supplements since then.

Some examples of recent supplement frauds have involved grape seed extract adulterated with peanut skins.  Ironically, grape seed extract has also been found to be an adulterant itself, with some cranberry products adulterated.  Within the supplements investigated by the New York attorney general, valerian was found to contain garlic and wild carrot, echinacea was found to contain rice and buttercup DNA while St Johns wort was alleged to contain DNA from a species of ornamental house plant.

What’s being done?  Well you won’t read about it in the press but there’s no question that large retailers, including those that were targeted by the New York attorney general, such as Walmart, Target, GNC and Walgreens, have reviewed and tightened up their purchasing contracts; supplement testing methodology has been reviewed and reputable supplement manufacturers are testing more of their ingredients more often.  And that’s great news for consumers.

 

by

Food fraud; meet the perpetrators

Criminals, con-men, fraudsters… whatever we might like to call them, it’s a fair bet that many people who are responsible for food fraud don’t see themselves as ‘proper’ criminals.  And it’s timely to remember that, although we often talk about food fraud using abstract concepts like ‘supply chain’, and ‘grey market’, the real story behind food fraud is men and women conducting illegal activities.

So who are the people responsible for food fraud?  Although research specific to food-related fraud is scarce, within the broader world of ‘white collar crime’, fraud is overwhelming thought to be committed by men rather than women.  People involved in food fraud can be classified into two types;

  • Opportunistic fraudsters; and,
  • Organised fraudsters.

Opportunistic criminals are those who are ‘in the right place at the right time’.  They are most likely to be an employee or owner of a business within the food supply chain who has identified an opportunity to make a profit.  Unfortunately, it appears that within this group there are many who feel compelled to commit fraud after finding their business in difficult circumstances.  Commonly, the fraud will be committed to meet supply contracts or expectations of customers or to prevent bankruptcy.

close up of poultry processing in food industry

Organised food fraud criminals have different motivations and often work in groups that actively seek out opportunities to make money without regard for laws and regulations.  Often, these criminals will operate within other industries in addition to the food industry.  Their frauds tend to be larger, more complicated and continue for longer periods of time than opportunistic frauds. The people behind these crimes are less likely to be legitimate employees of the food industry, but will know people inside the industry whom they use to gain access to the supply chain.  Compared to opportunistic fraudsters,  the activities of organised criminals tend to involve more people and the fraud is more likely to have a broader affect along and across supply chains.  Combined with the fact that organised criminals are very likely to repeat their crimes if they prove to be profitable this means the frauds perpetrated by organised criminals can have a very large impact.

Opportunistic Organised
Food industry connections More likely to be employed within industry Contacts and links to industry
Motivations One-off financial gains or motivated by the need to prevent business financial failure or meet sales/supply contracts Motivated by direct financial gain to support other criminal activities
Knowledge of food processes Detailed knowledge of some processes Both detailed and limited knowledge of various processes
Knowledge of detection likelihood Often limited knowledge about the likelihood of detection Often limited knowledge about the likelihood of detection
 Knowledge of successful strategies  Usually well informed about the likelihood of success Usually well informed about the likelihood of success
Repeat offences Less likely to repeat More likely to repeat if successful
 Impact of activities  Less potential impact than organised fraudsters Potentially higher impacts due to broader reach and higher likelihood of repeating a fraud

blue drums on pallet

Food fraud perpetrators from around the globe

Yakub Moosa Yusuf has been described as Britain’s most notorious food fraud criminal and has been jailed twice over fraudulent meat trading, including selling meat that was falsely declared to be halal.

In Asia, a Taiwanese seafood company allegedly found itself with an oversupply of expensive frozen shrimp after sales were affected by a downturn in the number of tourists from China.  Rather than discard the shrimp and face financial losses, the owner and his son are alleged to have tampered with the expiry dates and sold the stock, saving their business and reportedly making a tidy sum of US$22m in the process.

North America’s Mucci Farms attracted plenty of negative media attention and a $1.5m fine after a three year investigation by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency  found that the business had been misrepresenting the country of origin of produce, including cucumbers and peppers, to meet the demand for locally-grown food.  Inspectors first became suspicious when they noticed that the outside of some cardboard cartons appeared to have had stickers peeled off and replaced with stickers that said “Product of Canada” stickers, while stickers on the inside of the cartons “Product of Mexico.”  Court documents described one scenario in which Mucci needed to supply Canadian-grown mini-cucumbers but could not find local sources.

In Europe, this French olive supplier sold cheaper Spanish olives to local olive oil producers, misrepresenting their provenance, after having problems sourcing local olives due to harvests being affected by the olive fruit fly pest.

And finally, a cab driver from Chester, in England endangered the lives of his customers by selling fake vodka containing toxic chemicals.  He was found with illegal tobacco and alcohol worth £1,700.

Read Part 2 of Meet the Perpetrators