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 Supply Chain

22nd August 2025 by Karen Constable

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.

Share this:

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

Filed Under: Adulteration, Food Fraud, Horizon Scanning, Supply Chain

21st September 2021 by foodfraudadvisors

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)

Share this:

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

Filed Under: Food Fraud, Supply Chain

21st April 2019 by foodfraudadvisors

Secrets of the horsemeat scandal

How did the enactment of an obscure transport law in Eastern Europe change the face of food manufacturing forever?  Karen Constable investigates the link between Romanian road rules and the horsemeat scandal.

More than six years after it first made headlines, the series of incidents that became known ‘horsegate’ continues to impact the global food industry.  It began in January 2013, when Irish authorities revealed they had discovered horsemeat in burgers that were supposed to contain 100% beef.  The discovery sparked a frenzy of testing and soon horsemeat was being discovered in dozens of different products in countries all over Europe and beyond.  The sheer scale of the contamination sent shock waves through the food manufacturing world.  Occurring five years after the melamine in milk powder scandal of 2008, which sickened over 300,000 babies in China, this incident was unfolding much closer to home for food manufacturers in Europe.  It was a wakeup call for our industry: we could no longer pretend that food fraud of a similar scale and impact as the melamine milk scandal could not happen in the western world.

Numerous massive recalls

The scandal resulted in market withdrawals of tens of millions of food products across Europe, millions of euros of lost business and multiple prosecutions.  Consumers’ trust in manufactured food plummeted and sales of frozen hamburgers and frozen ready meals dropped by 43% and 13% respectively in the United Kingdom in the month following the first product withdrawal.

Multiple investigations

Despite some media reports claiming that the first horsemeat discovery was the result of ‘routine’ testing, it is now known that the scandal was uncovered almost by accident.  As strange as it may seem to the wider community, it is unusual for food manufacturers and regulatory authorities to test foods for materials that are not expected to be present.  This is, of course, how the perpetrators of the Chinese melamine fraud could conduct their activities on such a large scale for what is thought to be a significant length of time.  The original horsemeat tests were conducted by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland because a sharp-eyed inspector had noticed a discrepancy between packaging and labelling of frozen meat.

As the investigations began it became apparent that law enforcement and regulatory authorities were ill-equipped to manage the complex cross-border issues that arose.  Supply chains seemed hopelessly complicated to unravel, with on-paper ownership of meat often disconnected from the physical whereabouts of the food.  By the time the scandal was declared over, investigators had identified at least three entirely separate supply chains involving different slaughterhouses, traders, processors and criminals.

Beef an easy target

Horsemeat and beef meat are similar in appearance, texture and flavour.  Yet the European market for horsemeat is relatively small compared with beef; it is not consumed by people in many Western European cultures. For unscrupulous merchants, however, horsemeat’s abundance and low price made it the perfect substitute for beef.   With access to a cheap, abundant adulterant, the criminals appeared to have an easy job of it.  It was so easy, in fact, that swapping horse for beef appears to have been a long-term business plan for at least one of the meat traders involved in the scandal, Jan Fasen.  Fasen had been convicted and jailed for a similar fraud in 2007.  The name of his company, Draap, is the Dutch word for horse spelt backwards.

In 2019, Fasen and his partner Hendricus Windmeijer were convicted of false labelling by a court in Paris for their role in the supply of 500 tons of meat to ready-to-eat meal-maker Comigel in France in 2012 and 2013.

Complex supply chains

Much of the horsemeat found in the affected products originated in Romania, the by-product of a unique set of circumstances which affected the availability and price of horse meat in that country.  Six years prior to the scandal, a law had been passed banning horse drawn vehicles from the streets of cities and towns in Romania.  Within a few years there was a surplus of unwanted horses, with abandoned animals roaming city streets and parks.  The horses were rounded up and exported to slaughterhouses in neighbouring countries where they were slaughtered for legitimate human and pet food.  By 2007, however, concerns about the spread of equine infectious anaemia, a disease which was endemic in Romania, resulted in a ban on the trading of live Romanian horses.  With live exports stopped, there was nowhere for the horses to go.  Enterprising local businessmen built their own slaughterhouses in Romania and began to export horse meat to Europe.

Draap Trading, a company operated from Belgium and registered in Cyprus, was among those that purchased Romanian horsemeat.  It shipped the meat to the Netherlands where it was re-labelled as beef.  From there it was sold to legitimate meat processors, including one in France who supplied the factory in Luxembourg that manufactured lasagne and spaghetti bolognese for Findus and Aldi.

Separately, a French meat processing company, À la Table de Spanghero was also purchasing horsemeat from Romania and selling it to food manufacturers labelled as beef.  The former director and manager of Spanghero were convicted for their crimes in Paris in April 2019, with the former director being jailed for his role in the saga.

Romania was not the only source, however: the burgers at the centre of the initial discovery in Ireland contained horsemeat that came not from Romania but from Britain, Germany and Poland, via another Dutch trader, Willy Selten.  In 2015 Selten was jailed for 2.5 years for crimes related to the fraudulent supply of horsemeat in 2011 and 2012.  In November 2016 he was ordered to pay €1.2m – the estimated proceeds of his crimes – to the Dutch government.

A long history of horsemeat adulteration?

Given the history of Selten and Fasen, it seems likely that undeclared horse was present in the European food supply for many years, remaining undetected and causing no apparent harm to consumers.  We will never know whether those responsible considered the safety of consumers when planning their crimes.  We do know that unsafe adulterants are more likely to be detected, which makes them less attractive to fraudsters.  Certainly, in the melamine scandal in China, just a few years prior, consumer harm played an important role in the detection of the fraud.  In that case, it is likely that low levels of melamine had been added to milk powder and other products for many months or years without causing any immediate or obvious harm to anyone.  It is thought that the concentration of melamine in baby formula increased in 2007 and 2008 and it was the higher levels that caused kidney problems in babies.  The fraud was uncovered by authorities investigating the illnesses.  Perhaps the extra melamine had been added by mistake, or perhaps the fraudsters got greedy.  Either way, the adulteration was costly for the criminals as well as their victims: two of the people responsible were executed by firing squad in China in 2009.

During the horsemeat fiasco, and to the relief of the entire industry, no person was sickened or injured by the presence of horse in ‘beef’ products.  There was, however, a major health scare: horsemeat can contain veterinary drugs, including phenylbutazone – “bute”, which can be harmful to human health.  It was a lucky coincidence that the overwhelming majority of the contaminated products proved not to contain phenylbutazone.

From horse and beef to chicken, donkey and buffalo

As investigators worked behind the scenes, public events in the European food industry took on the appearance of collapsing dominoes: first was the withdrawal of 10 million burgers by Tesco, Lidl, Aldi, Dunnes Stores and Iceland in United Kingdom.  Tesco lost £300m in market value overnight.  In the following weeks, Asda also removed tens of thousands of products from its shelves; Tesco and Aldi extended their withdrawal from burgers to ready meals; Waitrose withdrew meatballs because of fears they might contain pork; slaughterhouses in Yorkshire and Wales were raided by regulatory authorities; the scandal spread to France and multiple arrests were made on both sides of the English Channel.

By the end of March 2013, authorities had found horse labelled as beef in three Polish factories; equine DNA had been found in chicken nuggets in Greece; water buffalo and donkey had been found in South African burgers and more big brands, including Ikea, Birdseye and Nestle had been affected with their products withdrawn from markets in Cyprus, Belgium, Spain and Czech Republic.

By year’s end, Tesco’s annual profits had fallen by 52%.  Consumer trust in large food manufacturers and retailers was at an all-time low: British consumer organisation ‘Which?’ reported that sixty percent of consumers had changed their shopping habits because of the scandal.

Standards updated

The British government commissioned Professor Chris Elliott to review and report on the implications of the horsemeat contamination for the British food industry.  The Elliott review, as it became known, resulted in the creation of a special food fraud crime unit in that country and the development of a range of other collaborative enterprises across Europe including special functions within the European Joint Research Council (JRC) and food-focussed operations by Interpol known as Operation Opson, now in its sixth year.

The food safety community, initially shocked and alarmed at the potential safety implications of the adulteration soon began a period of discussion and introspection, which often centred around the unspoken question ‘What if the meat had been dangerous?’.  The scandal broke at a time when the GFSI food safety standards were consolidating their revered positions at the pinnacle of ‘best practice’ manufacturing: the standards were being strengthened, lengthened and broadened.  Audit durations were increasing, auditor qualifications and certification systems had become more stringent and standards for packaging, storage and distribution had been upgraded.  And yet these GFSI-endorsed food safety management systems, considered to be the gold-standard for food manufacturing and administered with the strictest oversight, had revealed an Achilles heel the size of Bucharest.   The GFSI promptly created the ‘Food Fraud Think Tank’ to address the gaps and suggest solutions.  This resulted in changes to GFSI’s guidance for food safety standards, with GFSI-endorsed standards being updated to reflect the updated guidance.  The new guidance requires food businesses to formally address the risks from fraudulently adulterated ingredients when they design their food safety management systems.

The food safety landscape had changed, seemingly overnight, from one that was focussed almost exclusively on unintentional or natural contamination to one that requires food manufacturers to consider, control and prevent more unpredictable and sinister events.

In the wake of these changes, a new discipline of food study has appeared.  It is now possible to study food fraud at prestigious educational institutions, attend international conferences devoted to the topic and tune in to webinars conducted by specialists in compliance, legislation and testing.  Analytical chemistry researchers are developing ever-more sophisticated test methods for detecting adulterants.  Food businesses large and small are developing better systems to prevent, deter and detect economically motivated adulteration within their supply chains.

Food manufacturers are slowly regaining the trust of consumers, helped by the visible presence of enforcement operations and government initiatives such as the United Kingdom’s Food Crime Unit and Interpol’s Operation Opson in Europe as well as the Food Safety Modernisation Act (FSMA) in the United States.

And what of the adulterated beef?  We can only guess at how many tonnes of it was eaten by unsuspecting consumers in countries all over Europe before the scandal broke.  Contaminated product that was withdrawn from the market – tens of millions of units – was destroyed; either buried in landfill or used as animal feed.  It seems a sad and wasteful journey for the unwanted horses of Romania; a journey conceived by men who wanted to be rich and one that ultimately changed the face of food manufacturing forever.

Share this:

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

Filed Under: Adulteration, Food Fraud, Food Safety, Impact of Food Fraud, Supply Chain, Traceability

10th June 2017 by Karen Constable

Letter from Thailand – food fraud, food safety, food excellence

The World of Food Safety Conference was held in Bangkok in conjunction with THAIFEX in early June 2017.  Delegates represented large and medium sized food businesses in South East Asia as well as government and trade organisations.  Thai, Singaporean, Malaysian and Myanmar delegates dominated the group.  The attendees were hungry for knowledge about food fraud and food fraud prevention; almost 50% of the topics across the two-day conference were related to food fraud, traceability, supply chain management and crisis management.

As well as speaking about recent trends and developments in food fraud, I enjoyed learning from the other speakers, sampling the wonders of THAIFEX and enjoying Thai food which was truly excellent.

Karen Constable spoke about Food Fraud at World of Food Safety Conference

 

Background checks as an aid to fraud mitigation

I was lucky to gain some fantastic insights into the intricacies and challenges of performing background checks on business people in Asia from Jingyi Li Blank,  Mintz Group.  Background checks on business owners are a great way to understand vulnerabilities to food fraud when seeking new suppliers or investigating sources of new raw materials.  South East Asia and China present some challenges for companies performing background checks, including the way that people in the area often have multiple spellings and versions of their names, as well as issues related to cross-border jurisdictions.

Prevalence of food fraud prevention systems

Julia Leong from PricewaterhouseCoopers shared some statistics on current levels of compliance among food companies who have interracted with the PwC SSAFE tool: 41% of companies have no systems to detect or monitor fraud, 36% have no whistle-blowing systems and 38% do not perform background checks on employees. Food businesses that neglect these areas are exposing themselves to serious financial risks from food fraud.

Support for food businesses in developing countries from GFSI

It was heartening to hear about the new program being launched by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) in developing countries.  The Global Markets Program is designed to bridge the gap between food operations with no formal food safety systems and those who have GFSI-endorsed certification by helping companies to develop food safety management systems through a process of continuous improvement.  Within the program, manufacturing support systems related to hygiene and other basic principles of food safety are implemented progressively over a defined time period as the companies work to attain either a basic or intermediate level of compliance.  The results are not accredited but become the foundation for further improvements so that the business can work towards implementing a complete food safety program.

Sustainability in the food supply chain; palm oil and coconut oil

Matthew Kovac of Food Industry Asia presented on behalf of Cargill, providing a fascinating introduction to the sustainability programs Cargill has introduced in their palm oil and coconut oil supply chains.  Cargill is a major grower, purchaser and refiner of palm oil and are aiming for a 100% sustainable target by 2020.   For Cargill, sustainability in palm oil means:

  • No deforestation of high value areas
  • No development on peat (burning beat causes air pollution and contributes to climate change)
  • No exploitation of indigenous peoples
  • Inclusion of small land holders

Coconut oil sustainability is being improved in conjunction with The Rainforest Alliance, by providing training and support for Filipino growers so that they can increase their yields, as well as providing them with access to wood fired dryers that allow the growers to produce copra that has better colour, less aflatoxins, less environmental contaminants and lower free fatty acids than traditionally sun-dried copra.

The many and varied hazards in HACCP for fish

It was both fascinating and scary to be reminded of the hazards to food safety from fresh fin fish by Preeya Ponbamrung, from Handy International: pathogenic bacteria, viruses, biotoxins such as ciguatera, biogenic amines (histamine being the most common), parasites and chemicals such as water pollutants and antibiotics used in aquaculture.  That’s quite a hazard list; it was heartening to hear Ms Ponbamrung describe the control methods employed by the fish processing industry to keep those hazards out of our food supply.

Crisis communications; winners and losers

We learnt about successful methods – and not-so-successful-methods – that food companies use to communicate food safety and food fraud risks to consumers.  Nestle was applauded for its fast, clear and practical response to reports of counterfeit versions of its popular MILO chocolate drink powder in Malaysia.  The brand owner promptly published instructions for consumers on social media and in the local press explaining how to tell the difference between the fake and the real product.

Image: MILO Malaysia Facebook, March 2015

 

Some other companies do not do so well with crisis communications.  Cesare Varallo of Inscatech, showed us that the public communications of Chipotle in the USA about its food safety problems were less than ideal.  The brand has suffered serious losses and it has been reported that 13% of its former customers say they will never return.  Time is of the essence in a food safety or food fraud crisis.  Does your company have a crisis plan?

Want to know more about any of these topics?  Get in touch with us, we love to help.

Share this:

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

Filed Under: Crisis Management, Food Fraud, Supply Chain

9th May 2016 by foodfraudadvisors

A serial (cereal) offender is behind bars in Italy

News from Malta today tells the story of a serial food fraudster who has been detained over the export of counterfeit organic grains and oil seeds.  Malta Today reports that 350 000 tons of corn, soybeans, wheat, rapeseed (canola) and sunflower seeds worth €126 million and sold as organic over a period of six or more years probably weren’t organic at all.  Italian investigators found that the grains were grown in Moldova, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, certified as organic or bio by untrustworthy regulators in those countries and purchased by a Maltese company which then exported them to Italy.

The man behind the Maltese company is awaiting trial. Previously, he has been arrested over a shipment of GMO corn in 2014, implicated in counterfeit organic food scandals in 2011 and was tried for falsification of an invoice in 2010. Could we call him a cereal (serial) offender?

Share this:

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

Filed Under: Food Fraud, Impact of Food Fraud, Regulatory, Supply Chain

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next Page »

MORE FROM FOOD FRAUD ADVISORS

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 … [Read More...]

What is a food fraud team? (and what to do if you can’t get one)

A food fraud prevention team is a group of employees in a food business that is responsible for creating, implementing … [Read More...]

Food Fraud Databases Compared

Updated 30 April 2025 A food fraud database is a collection of information about food fraud incidents and food fraud … [Read More...]

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' … [Read More...]

Paprika, Chilli Powder and Sudan Dye Contamination

Can paprika and chilli powder be “too red”? This post was originally published in The Rotten Apple … [Read More...]

follow

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

© Copyright 2015 - 2025 Food Fraud Advisors · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Return and Refund Policy