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 / Blog

6th July 2023 by foodfraudadvisors

Fraud in Botanical Products and Dietary Supplements

Fraud in dietary supplements and herbal medicines is dangerous and costly

 

Fraud is estimated to affect around 10% of food products and dietary supplements are almost certainly affected at levels of at least 10% as well.

Supplement fraud surfaces often in my food fraud searches. Food supplements and additives were the second most seized food type, by quantity, after alcoholic beverages in Interpol’s annual food fraud operation, Operation Opson X in 2021.

Just last month, I shared the stories of how two supplement brands were working to prevent online counterfeits of their products after finding fake versions of their products in the market.

In May, NOW Foods explained how to spot fake versions of their supplements on their website

Fraud in supplements comes in at least eight different ‘flavours’

(1) Fraudulent, misleading or unsubstantiated claims of efficacy. For example, glucosamine, a supplement marketed as effective for reducing osteoarthritis, may work no better than a placebo. In fact, one study was halted because the group taking glucosamine reported worse joint pain than the placebo group! (source)

(2) False claims of potency and purity, such as listing more active ingredient on the label than is actually in the product. For example, a survey of curcumin supplements in France in 2022 found that less than half of the products contained as much active ingredient as was declared on the label. (source)

(3) The addition of materials to trick analytical tests, making an ingredient seem authentic when it is not. For example, pigments from black rice added to elderberry to boost the amount of anthocyanins (source);

(4) The use of undeclared fillers and bulking agents. This is sometimes legitimate and sometimes fraudulent, depending on the filler, product labelling and regulations.

(5) Adulteration with undeclared pharmacological ingredients such as sildenafil (Viagara) and stimulants. Weight loss products and sexual function products are most often affected. For example, a pre-workout booster supplement from the USA was found to contain DMBA by German authorities earlier this year. DMBA is a stimulant that is an unauthorised substance in Germany (source).

(6) Misrepresentation of synthetic ingredients as ‘natural’. For example, 70% of “all-natural” turmeric extract supplements purchased in the USA in 2021 contained curcumins from non-natural sources (source).

(7) Addition of unsafe or unauthorised colourants. For example, powdered turmeric is adulterated with unsafe colourants lead chromate, metanil yellow, acid orange 7 and Sudan Red G (source).

(8) Counterfeiting, in which an entity that is not the brand owner creates and sells products that resemble the brand’s products. For example, a review of supplements that contained insufficient active ingredients found that most of them carried ‘fake’ barcodes, that either belonged to fictitious, unregistered companies or to companies that do not supply supplements (source). In Hungary, forty percent of young people reported that they had encountered counterfeit dietary supplements (source).

Fraud in Botanicals

A ‘botanical’ is a part of a plant, extract or essential oil that is traded for its therapeutic properties, flavour(s), or aroma(s)

If you want to know about fraud in botanical ingredients like herbs and complementary medicines, there is a fabulous resource provided by the American Botanical Council’s Botanical Adulterants Prevention Bulletins (BAPP bulletins).

Each Botanical Adulterants Prevention Program (BAPP) bulletin provides detailed information about a single material. Take the saffron bulletin, for example. It is seventeen closely written pages about saffron, its adulteration and the detection of such, including the molecular structure of its most important chemical compounds, its common name in a multitude of languages, its geographical distribution, the size of the market and, most importantly, a deep dive into the known adulterants for saffron and the methods for detecting them.

The Botanical Adulterants Prevention Bulletins are seriously detailed. This is an extract from the Saffron bulletin.

Fighting Adulteration in Botanicals

Earlier this year, the team behind the BAPP bulletins published an ambitious paper that sought to combine all the knowledge from all the previously published bulletins into a single, peer-reviewed journal article, in the Journal of Natural Products.

It is a truly remarkable article, with thousands of words of detailed information about every reasonably foreseeable adulterant for dozens of botanical ingredients used in complementary medicines, food supplements, functional foods, and cosmetics.

I was delighted to get a chance to talk with its lead author, and Director of BAPP, Stefan Gafner, PhD about the paper and the program last month.

KC: Is the BAPP an independent program? How is it funded?

SG: BAPP is funded by direct financial support, predominantly from industry sponsor members of the American Botanical Council. Memberships and endorsements for the ABC come from not just manufacturers and suppliers but from analytical laboratories, law firms, research centres and media companies from about 80 countries worldwide.

KC: Can you tell me about your recently published Botanical Ingredients Forensics paper: why did you create it and who was it made for? What do you hope it will be used for?

SG: The inspiration for the paper was to combine the knowledge from multiple past [BAPP] bulletins so that all the information is in one place. We wanted to make the knowledge more accessible to a larger audience. The main target is QC people in industry labs.

The paper discusses three main adulteration types and how to test for them in dozens of botanicals:

  • Bulking agents, such as undeclared starches or fillers;
  • Addition of extra marker compounds to trick the analytical tests, such as pigments from black rice added to elder berry to boost the amount of anthocyanins;
  • Removal of valuable constituents, such as ginger or cinnamon with the essential oils removed before being ground up and sold as ginger powder or cinnamon powder.
Three classes of fraud in botanicals: fillers, undeclared marker compounds, removal of valuable components

KC: Do you worry (like I do) that sharing too much information about adulteration and adulterants that can evade detection is helpful to the bad guys?

SG: I am concerned that BAPP work may provide some information on adulteration to bad actors. Some people tell me that I help unethical people learn how to adulterate, rather than how to prevent adulteration. But there are other ways for fraudsters to figure it out since most of the information we summarise is already publicly available. However, there is a risk that some of the less sophisticated adulterators could become more sophisticated; that’s my main concern.

I know that some of our documents have been translated into other languages, and I’ve been told they are available in Chinese via WeChat so I can imagine that other countries may have that information and may try to see how to get around [the tests].

But we know the BAPP information is making a positive impact. When we surveyed ABC members and asked if they had changed their quality control procedures, specifications or suppliers based on the information provided in BAPP, twenty to thirty percent said “Yes”, they did change specifications or suppliers based on the information, so the program has had a very good impact [in preventing fraud].

KC: How much fraud is occurring in botanical ingredients every day?

SG: We don’t know. There are too many unknowns. No one has done a comprehensive analysis of the market. While it is possible to summarise results from various papers there are many potential confounders. For example, you do end up counting duplicate samples this way and the sampling is often not designed to have been representative of the geographic market.

However, there have been two papers that attempted to get these figures, and came up with approximately 25% of samples being adulterated based on DNA with similar results for chemical analyses*. However, it is very variable between different products. For example, Gingko leaf extract could have an adulteration rate as high as 57% (this is from soon-to-be-published research reviewing tests of 533 samples).

Europe and North America had very similar results in the Gingko study, about 60% [of samples adulterated] for both.

We think there is less fraud in Europe in regulated herbal medicines, compared to food supplements which are less regulated.

KC: Wow so fraud in botanicals is a pretty big problem. How does the food supplement industry cope with fraud in botanical ingredients?

SG: Reputable suppliers are doing a good job of mitigating fraud. They know their own supply chain well, and some even grow their own ingredients. That is, they have vertically integrated supply chains. For example, during my time at Tom’s of Maine, a significant portion of the herbal ingredients, including echinacea, chamomile, thyme and calendula were grown at its farms in Vermont, USA.

Ingredient suppliers that grow their own botanicals are also less likely to supply fraudulent materials to their customers. Being vertically integrated obviously has its benefits.

However, there is more fraud when the supply chain is less well-controlled. An example is liquorice root, which is typically grown in small quantities on individual farms in China and India, and sold on to intermediate persons, aggregators and traders who grade and blend the root from all different places. This makes it impossible to really ‘map’ the supply chain or keep control of the quality or authenticity.

Another big problem is that consumers in the USA have been taught to expect to pay prices that are too low for quality herbal products. American consumers think about some herbal extracts like a medication like paracetamol (‘Tylenol’) or ibuprofen… they think it’s all the same and so it’s fine to just buy the cheapest. However, not all Echinaceas are the same. That is one of the biggest issues we have at the moment. The high-quality herbal supplements are usually more expensive.

KC: Are you seeing any new and worrying trends in fraud in botanicals? Any good news?

SG: The good news is the BAPP program has gained good support in its twelve years, with a substantial percentage of industry now supporting it, including from Europe, Asia and Australasia. The program is having real impact.

My biggest concern is the spiking of supplements with prescription drugs, followed by fortification with marker constituents, for example, ellagic acid added to pomegranate peel extracts (Punica granatum, Lythraceae) and synthetic curcumin used in place of genuine turmeric extract.

A new vulnerability is the increasing popularity of products containing mixtures of botanicals, say six or seven ingredients. These can include ingredients that are only present in sub-therapeutic doses, and that contain excipients instead of adequate levels of the labelled botanicals.

KC: Thank you Stefan, that was a fascinating insight into the industry and the important work you do to prevent adulteration in botanicals.

🍏🍏🍏🍏🍏

*Ichim, M.C. (2019). The DNA-Based Authentication of Commercial Herbal Products Reveals Their Globally Widespread Adulteration. Frontiers in Pharmacology, [online] 10. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2019.01227 and Ichim, M.C. and Booker, A. (2021). Chemical Authentication of Botanical Ingredients: A Review of Commercial Herbal Products. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 12. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.666850.

Main source:

Gafner, S., Blumenthal, M., Foster, S., Cardellina, J.H., Khan, I.A. and Upton, R. (2023). Botanical Ingredient Forensics: Detection of Attempts to Deceive Commonly Used Analytical Methods for Authenticating Herbal Dietary and Food Ingredients and Supplements. Journal of Natural Products. doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.2c00929.

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

22nd June 2023 by foodfraudadvisors

HACCP, VACCP and TACCP

What do HACCP, VACCP and TACCP mean?

They are acronyms used in food safety.

HACCP has been around for decades, VACCP and TACCP were introduced in the 2010s.

VACCP and TACCP are no longer used by most food safety experts, and have been superseded by ‘food fraud programs’ and ‘food defense plans’.

 

What does HACCP stand for?

  • HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point)  Pronounced ‘hassup’.  HACCP = keeping food safe from accidental and natural risks to food safety.

What does VACCP stand for?

  • VACCP (Vulnerability Assessment Critical Control Point) Pronounced ‘vassup’.  VACCP = prevention of food fraud.  Has been superseded by ‘food fraud prevention’.

What does TACCP stand for?

  • TACCP (Threat Assessment Critical Control Point) Pronounced ‘tassup’.  TACCP = prevention of malicious threats to food, such as sabotage, extortion or terrorism, sometimes called Intentional Adulteration within the US Food Safety Modernization Act.  Has been superseded by ‘food defense’.

What is HACCP?

  • HACCP is a set of principles designed to control and prevent food safety risks during food production.
  • HACCP is not enforced or regulated by any single organization.
  • The ideas of HACCP form the basis of every food safety management system standard that is in use today, including GFSI food safety standards.
  • The principles of HACCP are codified (written down) by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), in a set of documents called the Codex Alimentarius , a latin phrase which translates to “Book of Food”.
  • FAO’s General Principles of Food Hygiene CXC 1-1969 contains the HACCP principles (sometimes called HACCP Codex).  Download the 2020 revision of the HACCP Code here: http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/codex-texts/codes-of-practice/ (click the green check/tick mark on the right side of the page to download).

What is VACCP and TACCP?

  • VACCP and TACCP are terms that emerged during the 2010s as standards agencies, government regulators and industry groups started considering methods to prevent food fraud and malicious tampering.
  • VACCP is for food fraud.
  • TACCP is for food defense.
  • The acronyms VACCP and TACCP are designed to leverage the food industry’s familiarity with HACCP.  But they are unhelpful terms.  The controls in food fraud and food defense plans are nothing like the ‘critical control points’ in a HACCP plan.  The control points in a HACCP plan are operational steps in a food manufacturing process over which the food manufacturer has direct control.  Food fraud and food defense controls are different and they do not work the same way as ‘critical control points’ in HACCP.
  • The terms VACCP and TACCP are falling out of favor within the food safety industry.  They are not referenced specifically within any of the GFSI food safety standards, nor within the USA’s FSMA.

 

What to say instead of VACCP and TACCP?

  • Instead of ‘”VACCP” it is better to say food fraud prevention program.
  • Instead of “TACCP” it is better to say food defense plan.

Learn more

  • Go to our Acronymn Decoder post to discover what other acronyms and initialisms mean.
  • Visit our Food Fraud post to learn ‘What is Food Fraud?’
  • Click here to learn more about food fraud vulnerability assessments.
  • Take a free short course on food fraud here.

food safety food fraud

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: Learn, TACCP, VACCP

7th June 2023 by Karen Constable

Fake (Counterfeit) Health Supplements

Two US supplement companies share their food fraud stories

Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash

Supplements are supposed to be good for you, but two major brands in the USA have recently gone public over their challenges with counterfeits… and the counterfeits are not at all healthy.

Some of the counterfeit products contained plain rice flour instead of the labelled active ingredients. Some contained undeclared allergens like gluten and soy. One even contained traces of a scheduled pharmaceutical.

The brands NOW Foods and Fungi Perfecti recently went public about their discoveries of unauthorised copies (‘counterfeits’) of their products on Amazon, the online store platform. A third leading brand is said to also be affected.

The NOW Foods counterfeits were discovered after the brand owner received information from loyal consumers who noticed problems with products they had bought online and realised their purchases were not genuine.

One consumer reported that the product did not have the correct smell, colour or capsule size. The company has released images to educate consumers about how to identify genuine and fake versions of their products. Their vice president of global sales and marketing says the brand has experienced significant problems with counterfeits internationally for “years” and says the company is “looking into” anti-fraud measures.

Amazon reported that the fake NOW Foods products had originated in Kenya and contacted consumers who had purchased the product, telling them to throw it away and issuing refunds. Together, the brand owner, Amazon and the Department of Homeland Security plan to pursue and prosecute the supplier.

NOW Foods explains how to spot a fake on their website.

NOW Foods explains how to spot a fake on their website

 

The Fungi Perfecti counterfeits were discovered by the brand owner, which continuously monitors its sales channels to protect its brand. During recent monitoring, the company discovered packages with “irregularities” in one Amazon store and went on to find 23 separate Amazon storefronts all selling counterfeit versions of its products.

Adulterants and allergens

One counterfeited NOW Foods product was labelled as a herbal supplement but turned out to be simply capsules of plain rice flour.

When Fungi Perfecti tested their ‘fake’ products they were alarmed to learn that they all contained the allergens gluten and soy, while the genuine products do not.

Amazon has notified the Fungi Perfecti (fakes) purchasers and removed the products from their site. The brand owner has published the names of the storefronts that were selling counterfeit versions of their products and issued an allergen warning on their website.

Like NOW Foods, they also published images and descriptions showing consumers how to identify counterfeits, as well as a list of authorised sellers of their genuine products.

Amazon reportedly removed 6 million counterfeit items from its online sales platform in 2022, including food, fashion and electronics.

Sources:

https://www.newhope.com/news/now-foods-fungi-perfecti-still-investigating-counterfeit-products-sold-amazon

https://hostdefense.com/blogs/press-releases/fungi-perfecti-makers-of-host-defense-mushrooms-discovers-counterfeit-products-with-known-allergens-being-sold-on-amazon


This story was originally published in The Rotten Apple, a weekly newsletter for food professionals, policy-makers and purveyors. Subscribe for free for weekly insights, latest news and emerging trends in food safety, food authenticity and sustainable supply chains.

🍏 Discover The Rotten Apple 🍏

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

27th May 2023 by foodfraudadvisors

Food fraud hot list

The products below are those that appear to be most commonly affected by food fraud, which includes economically motivated adulteration, substitution and dilution.

A high quality vulnerability assessment includes an in-depth investigation into the incidences of food fraud that have occurred for the particular raw material or ingredient type, so using the list below is just a ‘quick and dirty’ option.  Click here for information about how to investigate previous occurrences using food fraud and food crime databases.

Food Fraud Hot List

  • herbs and spices
  • olive oil
  • organic foods
  • honey and maple syrup
  • seafood
  • milk
  • coffee and tea
  • wine and spirits
  • some fruit juices
assortment of herbs and spices
assortment of herbs and spices

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, Learn, Vulnerability Assessment Tools

24th May 2023 by foodfraudadvisors

Acronym Decoder

BRC and BRCGS: British Retail Consortium (superseded) and British Retail Consortium Global Standards.  The British Retail Consortium (BRC) is a group of British companies that published guidance and standards for food manufacturers, including a food safety standard that was also commonly referred to as BRC.  The standards owner is now known as BRCGS.

CoOL or COOL: Country of Origin Labelling.

EMA: Economically motivated adulteration or substitution. EMA is a subset of food fraud and is defined as the fraudulent, intentional substitution or addition of a substance, or dilution of a substance for the purposes of economic gain.  Non-EMA food fraud includes black market importation and trading of food and alcoholic beverages for the purposes of avoiding duty and taxes.

DEFRA: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, a United Kingdom government department responsible for food production and standards as well as environmental and agricultural responsibilities.

FDA:  Food and Drugs Administration.  The FDA is the name of a regulatory body in a number of countries, including USA, Philippines and India.

FSA: Food Standards Agency, a United Kingdom government regulatory body.

FSMA: Sometimes pronounced ‘Fizzmah’.  Stands for Food Safety Modernisation Act (United States of America).

FSSC 22000: A food safety management system standard similar to ISO 22000 but with extra requirements incorporated to meet the requirements of a GFSI standard.

FSVP:  Standards for Foreign Supplier Verification Program.  It is part of the requirements of the US Food Safety Modernisation Act and applies to US importers of food and their suppliers.

GFSI: Global Food Safety Initiative.  The GFSI is a group of food companies whose mission is to harmonize, strengthen, and improve food safety management systems around the globe.  The GFSI provides direction and approval to organizations that create food safety management systems, so a GFSI-approved food safety standard is one that represents international best practice.  Well known GFSI standards include BRC, FSSC 22000 and SQF.

GMO: Genetically Modified Organism.

HACCP:  HACCP is a set of principles designed to control and prevent food safety risks during food production.  The principles of HACCP are codified (written down) by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).  Download the 2020 revision of the HACCP Code here.

HARCP: Hazard Analysis Risk-based Preventive Control.  HARCP = food safety as legislated by the United States.  This acronymn being used by some in the USA when talking about the requirements of the recently enacted Food Safety Modernisation Act (FSMA) in that country.  HARCP is claimed to differ from HACCP by including requirements for preventive controls.  Read more about HARCP here.

IA: Intentional Adulteration.  Within the US Food Safety Modernisation Act (FSMA), Intentional Adulteration specifically refers to malicious adulteration that is intended to cause widescale harm.  Learn more about intentional adulteration here.

ISO 22000:  ISO is the International Organization for Standardization.  They have thousands of standards across many different businesses, products and systems.  ISO 22000 is the ISO standard for food safety management systems.  Like other major food safety management systems it is based on the principles of HACCP.

NSF:  a pseudo-government organization head-quartered in the United States that is active in the area of food safety and sanitation.

PCQI:  Preventive Controls Qualified Individual.  The name of the role held by an expert food safety professional who meets certain requirements under the (US) Food Safety Modernisation Act.

SQF:  Safe Quality Food Institute.  The Safe Quality Food Institute owns and publishes a group of food safety standards also known as SQF that is a GFSI – approved standard.

USP: United States Pharmacopeial Convention.  USP is a non-profit organization that creates identity and purity standards for food ingredients and food chemicals, as well as for medical drugs.

TACCP: Threat Assessment Critical Control Point.  TACCP = prevention of malicious threats to food.

VACCP: Vulnerability Assessment Critical Control Point.  VACCP = food fraud prevention.  Learn more about TACCP and VACCP here.

Learn about Vulnerability Assessments, what they are and how to do them, here.

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: Learn

1st May 2023 by foodfraudadvisors

FSSC 22000 and IFS Food Standards (Updated)

FSSC 22000 and IFS Food Standard have been updated recently, with FSSC 22000 Version 6 to be enforced from April 2024, and IFS Food Version 8 enforced from October 2023.

You can get (free) copies of the newly updated standards from the standards owners:

FSSC 22000 Version 6

IFS Food Version 8

Changes to Food Fraud Requirements in the Standards

FSSC 22000

There have been minor changes to the food fraud requirements in FSSC 22000 for Version 6.  The clause numbers remain the same: 2.5.4.1 and 2.5.4.2.

  • The biggest change is that this standard now explicitly requires that the methodology for the vulnerability assessment process be defined.
  • Version 6 does not make any mention of the “documented procedure” for vulnerability assessments that was part of the previous version (Version 5.1).
  • The definition for food fraud in FSSC 22000 (Appendix 1) has had “feed” added to its scope.
  • For businesses within the FSSC category FII (food brokering, trading and e-commerce), they must also ensure that their suppliers have a food fraud mitigation plan.

 

Food Fraud Requirements of FSSC 22000, Version 6 (with new wording in blue)

2.5.4 Food Fraud Mitigation

2.5.4.1 Vulnerability Assessment

The organization shall:

    • Conduct a food fraud vulnerability assessment based on a defined methodology, to identify and assess potential vulnerabilities; and
    • Develop and implement appropriate mitigation measures for significant vulnerabilities.

The assessment shall cover the processes and products within the scope of the Organization.

2.5.4.2 Plan

    1. a) The organization shall have a documented food fraud mitigation plan, based on the output
      of the vulnerability assessment
      , specifying the mitigation measures and verification procedures. 

      b) The food fraud mitigation plan shall be implemented and supported by the organization’s
      FSMS.
      c) The plan shall comply with the applicable legislation, cover the processes and products
      within the scope of the organization and be kept up to date.
      d) For food chain category FII*, in addition to the above, the organization shall ensure that
      their suppliers have a food fraud mitigation plan in place.

*FII = Food brokering, trading, and E-commerce activities

⭐⭐⭐

IFS Food

The new version of IFS Food, Version 8, has had its requirements significantly re-worded.  The clause numbers remain the same: 4.20.1 to 4.20.4.

The new wording is easier to understand and makes the requirements more easily enforced for auditing.  But does not change what a food business must do to comply.  For example, while the previous version required that food fraud vulnerability assessments be reviewed “at least annually and/or in the event of increased risks”, the new version says they should be reviewed “at least once within a 12-month period or whenever significant changes occur.”

The only notable change to meaning is that the phrase “full commitment from the senior management” has been removed from clause 4.20.1, presumably because it is not easily auditable.

Food Fraud Requirements of IFS Food, Version 8 (with new wording in blue)

4.20 Food Fraud

4.20.1 The responsibilities for a food fraud vulnerability assessment and mitigation plan shall be clearly defined. The responsible person(s) shall have the appropriate specific knowledge and full commitment from the senior management.

4.20.2 A documented food fraud vulnerability assessment, including assessment criteria, shall be documented, implemented and maintained.  The scope of the assessment shall cover all shall be undertaken on all raw materials, ingredients, packaging materials and outsourced processes, to determine the risks of fraudulent activity in relation to substitution, mislabelling, adulteration or counterfeiting. The criteria considered within the vulnerability assessment shall be defined.

4.20.3 A documented food fraud mitigation plan shall be documented, implemented and maintained developed, with reference to the vulnerability assessment, and shall include the testing and monitoring methods.  and implemented to control any identified risks. The methods of control and monitoring shall be defined and implemented.

4.20.4 The food fraud vulnerability assessment shall be reviewed, at least once within a 12-month period or whenever significant changes occur. regularly reviewed, at least annually, and/or in the event of increased risks. If necessary, the food fraud mitigation plan shall be revised/updated accordingly.

⭐⭐⭐

Takeaways

There are no big surprises in these two updates, but it pays to read all clauses carefully.

The good news is that if you have to stay up to date with multiple standards we’ve got you covered – at least when it comes to staying on top of food fraud requirements 😊

We’ve just released Edition 3 of our authoritative guide to current food fraud requirements in all major food safety standards, for auditors, consultants and food fraud specialists, with updates for the amended FSSC and IFS requirements.

Get all the food fraud requirements of all the major standards in one convenient e-book (updated)

Download it instantly, print or save it and keep it as a handy reference.

It costs USD27, which includes all future updates.  Learn more about it here.

⭐⭐⭐

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: Consultancy, VACCP

31st March 2023 by foodfraudadvisors

Honey Fraud – Much Worse Than We Thought?

From the desk of Karen Constable, principal consultant at Food Fraud Advisors.

My daughter loves honey and eats a lot of it. She spent a few months in Europe last year – mostly in Spain –  and told me the honey there had no flavour.  She said it tasted like sugar water.

‘Honey’ that doesn’t taste like honey may have been diluted with water and adulterated with non-bee sugar syrups: food fraud.  Honey is one of the most fraud-affected foods on the planet, so perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising to hear that “honey in Europe just doesn’t taste like honey”.

But I was surprised. Europe takes its honey seriously.  And it takes food fraud seriously, too.  I wouldn’t have been surprised to hear about flavourless probable-fraud-affected ‘honey’ in other parts of the world, but I was surprised to hear my daughter say it was “everywhere” in Europe.

Listen to this post on YouTube by clicking the preview below.

 

The last time I saw Europe-wide honey fraud results they were quite good.  For example, a honey-checking operation that was part of the famous Europol/Interpol anti-food-fraud activity, Operation Opson X, in 2021, found that of the  495 honey samples tested, 93% were compliant.  Separately, a European honey fraud survey in 2015 – 2017 reported only 14% ‘suspicious’ samples.Seven percent, fourteen percent, as non-compliance rates, they are hardly fantastic but they don’t match my daughter’s claim that all the honey she tasted in Europe was affected.

But new results have just been published for a multi-year European anti-honey-fraud operation and they are pretty bad.  Of the 320 samples tested in the operation, almost half were suspected of being non-compliant with the provisions of the European honey standard (the Honey Directive).

What is going on here? Why are these results so much worse than past surveys?

Firstly the samples that were tested do not represent the European-wide honey market.  The sampling focussed only on imported honey and only on adulteration with sugar syrups.

Secondly, the methods used in this most recent round of testing are almost certainly different from previous European surveys.  The test methods are only suitable to identify “suspicions of fraud” by looking for chemical markers of extraneous sugars (presence/absence only) and they are different from the officially-approved honey test methods.

The European Joint Research Council (JRC) says these methods are “the most sophisticated methods” currently available but they have not been validated and they are not part of the regulatory framework.

For this enforcement activity, the analytical results were used only as a tool to decide whether further investigations were needed to uncover fraud in the honey supply chain.  Further investigations included on-site inspections, examination of documents, computers and phone records.

Investigators reported that fraudsters appear to be deliberately adjusting the levels of adulterants so that they can evade border control checks.  The European Union’s Food Safety Commission says that officially-approved honey authenticity test methods are not keeping up with the fraudsters, claiming that analytical methods used for border control checks “lack sufficient sensitivity to detect low and intermediate levels of sugar adulterations”.

Something is just not right with honey in Europe

The investigations began more than eighteen months ago, but it appears likely that there are still high levels of fraud-affected honeys in the European market now. More than sixty percent of importers were found to have imported at least one suspicious consignment.

In fact, the European Food Safety Commission, last week reported that “there is a strong suspicion that a large part of the honey imported from non-EU countries and found suspicious by the JRC of being adulterated remains present and undetected on the EU market” (source).

Takeaways

Honey fraud is difficult to detect and expensive for government agencies to investigate.  Fraud perpetrators have been shown to use sophisticated systems to evade detection, and these investigations appear to show that importers and exporters are working together to defraud customers and governments.

If your business purchases honey, food fraud mitigation activities must go beyond checking documents or relying on letters of guarantee.

As a consumer, it is impossible to tell whether honey is fraud-affected or not, but if you suspect honey of being fraudulent, contact the brand owner as a first step and share your concerns.

…. Or you could seek out incense honey, a premium mono-floral honey from the incense flower in Portugal, for which all samples in a recent analytical test were found to be authentic 😊.

🍏 Source: https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/eu-agri-food-fraud-network/eu-coordinated-actions/honey-2021-2022_en 🍏

 

*** This post originally appeared in Issue #81 of The Rotten Apple Newsletter.  Subscribe to The Rotten Apple to get unique, helpful food safety and food fraud information direct to your inbox every Monday  ***

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

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • …
  • 19
  • Next Page »

MORE FROM FOOD FRAUD ADVISORS

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

In December 2024, allegations of forced labour in the tomato puree supply chains of major British retailers caused … [Read More...]

Fraud Risks for Cocoa and Confectionery Businesses

Chocolate’s supply chain is vulnerable to changes in weather, farming practices, and global trade networks. It is a … [Read More...]

food vulnerability assessment

Food Safety Standards Compared (2025)

  There are many different food safety management system standards (FSMS), and they all have different … [Read More...]

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...]

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