Food Fraud and Food Authenticity News, Advice, Resources

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’.

14th September 2021 by Karen Constable

How To Do a Vulnerability Assessment for Food Fraud

Updated 30th December 2022

What is a vulnerability assessment?

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

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

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

Why ‘vulnerability’ and not ‘risk’?

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

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

Why do a vulnerability assessment?

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

7th September 2021 by foodfraudadvisors

Future and emerging threats of food fraud

Food fraud: you don’t want it.

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

Learn how to monitor food fraud threats here.

12th August 2021 by Karen Constable

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.

20th June 2021 by foodfraudadvisors

Food Fraud Online Training Course

Food fraud requirements of BRC, SQF, FSSC and other food safety standards

How to meet the food fraud prevention requirements of major food safety standards

This course will make audit preparation a breeze. It contains step-by-step instructions, worked examples and downloadable templates to help you meet the food fraud requirements of all major food safety standards.

Learn about food fraud and how it can put your brand and your consumers at risk
Hear food fraud stories that will surprise you and learn ways to protect your business
Get step-by-step instructions for food fraud vulnerability assessments and food fraud mitigation plans, using real life examples
Download templates for vulnerability assessments, mitigation plans and food fraud prevention procedures
Proceed at your own pace; skip forward and back through the lessons, start and stop at your convenience*

The content is a mix of written words and short video clips, plus downloadable worked examples.

Ask the trainer a question at any time.

What’s included?

Food Fraud Commonly Affected Foods Ebook
Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment template
Food Fraud Prevention Procedure template
Food Fraud Mitigation Plan template
Vulnerability assessment document – worked example
Raw Material Specification template
Food Fraud Team Job Descriptions
Top tips for audit preparation
Special 40% discount code for use on www.foodfraudadvisors.com
Optional exam and Certificate of Competency

Duration: 3.5 hours

Visit our training academy today

* course is available for 6 months after commencement

11th June 2021 by foodfraudadvisors

Food Fraud Update June 2021

What’s new in food fraud and food fraud prevention? Food Fraud Advisors’ Principal, Karen Constable provides an update.

Alarming Results from the Beverage Sector (97% of businesses affected by Food Fraud)

Food fraud is rife in the beverage sector, with alcoholic beverages most at risk. Counterfeiting and smuggling are thought to be the most prevalent types of food fraud for alcoholic drinks, however the activity with the most serious public health impact is illicit manufacture of beverages. Incorrect methods of fermentation can result in methanol, rather than ethanol, being present in the finished drink. Methanol may also be added deliberately to illicitly-manufactured products. Methanol is poisonous. Each year a significant number of deaths are recorded from the consumption of bootleg alcoholic drinks.

Operation OPSON is an annual Interpol-Europol operation against food and beverage fraud. Alcoholic beverages are usually targeted in the operation, because of the threats fraud activities pose to public health and to public revenue. Interestingly, though, energy drinks and soda pop were a focus of enforcement activity by authorities in Africa and the Middle East during the OPSON IX operation in Dec 2019 – June 2020. Non-alcoholic drinks worth almost USD 350,000 were seized by authorities. During the same operation, 1,613 tonnes of counterfeit and substandard alcoholic drinks were seized, including wine, vodka and whiskey.

The beverage sector is well aware of the risks posed to their consumers and their brands from food fraud activities. A survey by Lloyds Register of 100 senior executives from the beverage sector found that almost all of their businesses (97%) had been affected by food fraud in the 12 months prior to the survey. Food fraud is a growing concern for 80% of beverage businesses and only 22% of beverage manufacturers are very confident that their suppliers meet food safety standards. Get access to the survey report here.

The COVID Pandemic and Food Fraud

More than one year since the COVID pandemic began, its impact on food fraud is still unquantified. A number of commentators (including me) predicted that the pandemic would increase the international food industry’s vulnerability to food fraud. Interestingly, Decernis, the publisher of the most comprehensive and well-respected food fraud database, reported that the actual number of verified incidents of food fraud had not increased during the pandemic. This was unexpected. But we may now have an answer.

Last week, Europol and Interpol jointly published a report on their most recent annual operation targeting fake and substandard food and beverages, Operation OPSON IX. The report describes operations carried out between December 2019 and June 2020; which included the first few months of the pandemic.

Unsurprisingly, the results for this iteration of OPSON were atypical compared to previous operations. This is due in part to the reduction in flow of goods at national and international levels during that period, as well as the impacts of personnel movement restrictions on local enforcement activities. The authors also suggest that organized crime groups may have switched their focus from food and beverage to medicines and medical devices. They report there was an increase in organized crime activity in the medical sector and hypothesize that is the reason for a significantly lower number of organized crime groups being associated with food crime in the 2019 – 2020 operation compared to previous operations.

It’s disappointing to find out that other sectors are being targeted by criminals, but it does at least go some way towards explaining why we didn’t see an increase in reported incidents of food fraud in 2020 compared to 2019.

Operation OPSON IX focused on wine, alcohol, milk, dairy products and horses’ passports. Alcoholic beverages, meat, cheese and olive oil were the foods and drinks most often targeted by criminal organizations. As in previous years there were problems with the traceability of horses, and smuggling of alcoholic beverages from Eastern European countries into the European Union. Notable and unusual results include an increase in seizures of expired food. Seizures of fruit, vegetables and legumes were also high compared to previous years. Saffron worth USD350,000 was seized in Spain and Belgium. The saffron seized in Spain was mixed with other types of plant material. Apricot kernels, which are poisonous but were being sold as cancer treatment for high prices, were seized in the USA. This operation also included notable seizures of raw animal feed, mostly in Portugal. The Operation OPSON IX report is available here.

Food Fraud Resilience Tool

The National Food Crime Unit of United Kingdom has launched a food fraud self assessment tool for food businesses in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The tool helps businesses to identify the risks from food crime and outlines steps that they can take to mitigate the risks. Access the tool here.

SQF and FSSC Standards Updated

Food Safety Management Systems Standards published by SQF and FSSC have both been updated. SQF Edition 9 is in force from May 2021 and FSSC 22000 Scheme Version 5.1 was published in November 2020. The food fraud-related requirements have not changed significantly, in terms of what needs to be done by food businesses. Both still require food fraud vulnerability assessments and food fraud mitigation plans. However, both standards have new wording and slightly different clause numbers so internal audit checklists will need updating.

The most notable change is that SQF Edition 9 explicitly refers to training of personnel for food fraud mitigation-related activities. It has also dropped stolen goods from the list of susceptibilities that need to be considered in a vulnerability assessment.

Need advice? Looking for someone to update your food fraud prevention program? Karen can help. Contact Us to arrange a no-obligation, free introductory consultation.

17th February 2021 by foodfraudadvisors

What is the Difference Between Food Fraud and Food Defense?

Food Fraud	A crime done for financial gain
Food Defense	Protecting food from malicious adulteration, such as acts of terrorism or extortion

The difference between food fraud and food defense is that food fraud is done to make money, while food defense relates to acts that are done to create harm. Food fraud perpetrators do not seek to cause harm, they seek to increase profits or otherwise benefit financially, so we say food fraud is economically motivated. Food defense attacks are done to cause harm to consumers and companies.

Intentional Adulteration	… happens when food is contaminated for the purpose of causing harm to consumers
Food Defence	Protecting food from malicious adulteration, such as acts of terrorism or extortion

Intentional adulteration is the act of contaminating a food product with the intention of causing harm to the people who eat the food. Food defense is a broader term that includes protection against adulteration of food, but can also extend to protection of equipment, assets and workers in food businesses.

Pesticide Residues Found in ‘Organic’ Fruit and Veg

About the Pesticide Data Program