Food Fraud Advisors

You are here: Home / Blog

by

Saffron Fraud (Everything You Ever Wanted to Know)

What is Saffron?

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

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

 

Why is Saffron Vulnerable to Food Fraud?

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

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

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

Saffron Fraud

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

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

Saffron threads. Photo by Syed F Hashemi

 

Adulterants in Whole Saffron

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

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

Adulterants in Saffron Powder

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

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

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

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

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

Saffron testing

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

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

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

Take a Look at The Rotten Apple Newsletter

by

How to do a Vulnerability Assessment for Storage and Distribution

From the desk of Karen Constable, our Principal Consultant

The other day, a frustrated food safety manager wrote to me, wanting help to figure out how to do a food fraud vulnerability assessment for storage and distribution (BRCGS Issue 4).

It’s such a tricky one, because storage and distribution (S & D) facilities have so little direct control over product choices.  And the BRC standard is so wordy!

The good news is that when BRC first added product fraud to their storage and distribution standard in 2018 (Issue 3), they wrote a position paper that attempted to provide some guidance.

Even though Issue 4 is a bit different to Issue 3, the guidance in the position paper is still useful.

Here’s just a small portion of guidance from BRC Position Paper:

“The Standard does not define the exact process that the company must follow when completing the vulnerability assessment;however, it is likely to incorporate the following steps:

  • draw up a list of products and services and the controls that are already in operation (e.g. approval of suppliers by customers, pre-packaged products purchased)
  • consider any relevant information regarding potential fraud for each product and service
  • complete a risk assessment on the vulnerability of the products.

The output of the vulnerability assessment is usually a ranking or scoring of the materials to identify those which need additional controls. The ranking and actions required could, for example, be as follows:

  • Very high – a high-profile product with recent reports of adulteration or substitution published by regulatory authorities. Action or monitoring is required to ensure that only genuine materials are purchased.
  • High – a high-profile product that provides an attractive target for potential substitution or adulteration. Some action and/or monitoring is required to ensure that only genuine materials are purchased.
  • Low – this product is unlikely to be a target for substitution or adulteration. However, a re-assessment may be necessary if new information becomes available.
  • Negligible – no further action is required as the product is extremely unlikely to be a target for fraud.”

 

There’s more in the position paper, which you can read or download from the BRC Website: https://www.brcgs.com/media/1055426/sd308-position-statement-accommodating-the-requirements-of-gfsi-benchmark-72-into-issue-3-v2-12082019.pdf

If you are completely new to vulnerability assessments, we have step-by-step instructions on our website, which might help a little if you haven’t seen it yet.  Plus, our on-demand, online food fraud training might also help.  Although both of these resources were created primarily for food manufacturers the concepts of vulnerability assessments also apply to S & D facilities.

I can also assist with custom one-on-one consulting, guidance/feedback or custom templates if you need.   Just get in touch and we can hop on a phone call to discuss.

Regards,

Karen Constable

Food Fraud Advisors

by

Frequently Asked Questions

Vulnerability Assessment Tool (BRC Method) – Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Is this assessment tool suitable for businesses operating to food safety management system standards other than BRC?

This spreadsheet is designed for food fraud vulnerability assessments for businesses that manufacture food in accordance with the requirements of BRC’s (British Retail Consortium) GLOBAL STANDARD FOOD SAFETY, Issue 7 and Issue 8, which require that businesses assess their ingredients and raw materials for vulnerability to economically motivated adulteration, substitution or dilution.

The risk assessment methodology and matrix are based on the recommendations of the British Retail Consortium in their document Understanding Vulnerability Assessment (2015).  It is not suitable for vulnerability assessments on finished food products.  It is not recommended for businesses that need to meet the requirements of other food safety management system standards.  It is not suitable for food defense vulnerability assessments.  We recommend you purchase our other tools instead.

Is this assessment tool suitable for businesses that do not operate a food safety management system?

If your business is not operating to a food safety management standard and does not have supplier approval processes, purchasing specifications and robust systems for receiving materials then it is more vulnerable to accepting fraudulent material and this tool will underestimate the risk.

If your business is not operating to a GFSI standard, you should check out our other tools to help you prepare your vulnerability assessment.

What happens if I can’t complete all the questions?

If you have not answered all the questions the tool will calculate a high vulnerability rating. However it is possible to supplement the calculated rating with your own estimate if desired. This means that if you already think that a particular raw material has a very low risk of occurrence or detection you may choose to simply enter your best estimates of likelihood instead of completing all the data fields. This will allow you to prioritise your time and focus on the most important raw materials and ingredients first.  Note that if you do this the resulting assessment documents are unlikely to be acceptable to an auditor because they will not contain a complete explanation of how the risk assessment was performed.  To obtain a complete explanation, every question should be answered.

What if I disagree with the results?

The Vulnerability Assessment Tool calculates likelihood of occurrence and detection using information entered by the user.  Users are encouraged to also enter their own estimates.  The reported results are based on the user’s estimates if they have been entered; if not, calculated results are used.

Why are some of the questions repeated?

The tool was developed to be closely aligned with the recommendations of the British Retail Consortium in their document Understanding Vulnerability Assessment (2015).  That guidance document describes the elements that should be considered when assessing likelihood of occurrence and likelihood of detection and according to the British Retail Consortium’s methodology there are a number of elements that should be included in both occurrence and detection assessments.

Why is the Vulnerability Assessment Tool an Excel spreadsheet instead of specialised software?

The tool was created for Quality Assurance Mangers and Food Safety Managers to use. It was created with Microsoft Excel because most of its intended users are familiar with excel and so can begin entering data as soon as they open the spreadsheet, with no special training.   Data can be copied, pasted and searched just as you would in any spreadsheet and results can be easily extracted for use in other documents. Blank and completed spreadsheets can and should be incorporated into a company’s controlled documents and record-keeping system and Microsoft Excel files are usually suitable for this purpose.

The tabular format of the data entry pages allows users to have a ‘whole picture’ visual understanding of the data that has been entered and the gaps that need to be filled.  Other types of software such as questionnaire-style assessments do not provide a visual overview and require information to be entered in a defined series of steps which can be frustrating. Within the tables of the Vulnerability Assessment Tool, colour-coding functions provide instant feedback about whether an answer affects vulnerability in a positive or negative way, which can be a valuable learning tool.

Why are some of the cells password protected?

Password protection has been applied to many of the cells in the spreadsheet.  There are a number of reasons for this, the most important of which is so that users do not accidentally ‘break’ the formulas which would be very easy to do if it was unlocked.

This means that users are not able to make changes to the wording of the questions or the automatically generated answers.

Can I copy the results into my own spreadsheet or other document?

Yes. The data can be copied, pasted, sorted and manipulated as in any spreadsheet. When copying from the tool use the excel function ‘paste special – values’, which will prevent pasting formulas that might return error values in a different document.

Do I have to purchase a new spreadsheet for each material group?

No, you may make as many copies of this spreadsheet as you need for ONE food business in one manufacturing location.  You may not share it with other food businesses or take it when you change jobs.  For complete terms and conditions click here.

Is there a telephone number I can call for help and support with the tool?

For support, please email support@foodfraudadvisors.com with your query, including your preferred contact details and geographical location (for time zone purposes). We will contact you by telephone or Skype or email an answer to you.

January 2022: Why aren’t the formulas working?

Microsoft 365 recently switched its default Excel formula settings so that by default, formula calculations are turned off.

This means that none of the formulas in any spreadsheet will work until you switch the calculation function back on. To switch formula caluculations on, go to the ‘Formulas’ tab on the Excel ribbon and choose ‘Calculation Options’ on the far right. Set calculations to ‘Automatic’. This will fix the problem.

Can I have access to the formulas that generate the results?

If you disagree with the results the tool allows you to override them; the reported results are based on the user’s estimates if they have been entered; if not, calculated results are used.

If you think the methodology, including the risk calculations should be amended or you think there is an error in any formula please contact us. We want the Vulnerability Assessment Tool to be the best that it can and value your feedback.

Want to buy an unlocked version that is fully customisable?  Request a quote here.

My security settings will not allow me to run macros, is this a problem?

No problem; the Vulnerability Assessment Tool has been created without macros to keep things safe and secure and to prevent headaches with your internal IT systems.

I only have Microsoft Excel 1997 – 2003, will this be a problem?

No problem; the Vulnerability Assessment Tool is compatible with Microsoft Excel 2004 onwards (file extensions .xlsx) and Microsoft Excel for Mac 2011 onwards.  For more information about compatibility, click here.

Can I get a tax receipt?

Australian purchasers receive a tax invoice for GST purposes in their confirmation email.  Purchasers in other countries are not charged any tax but receive an itemised purchase receipt in their confirmation email.

by

Pesticide Residues Found in ‘Organic’ Fruit and Veg

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

About the Pesticide Data Program

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

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

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

Results for Organic Foods

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does this compare with previous data?

Click here to view the results for 2014

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

Tomatoes

  Fresh basil

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

Is this food fraud?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want updates like this delivered straight to your inbox? 

Join our mailing list


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

by

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?

 

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

by

Future and emerging threats of food fraud

Food fraud: you don’t want it.

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

Learn how to monitor food fraud threats here.

by

Interpol and Food Fraud; Celebrating 10 Years of Operation Opson

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

This year marks the tenth iteration of Operation Opson.

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

Honey

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

Beverages

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

Horsemeat

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

Other Meat

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

Unsafe and Fraudulent Seafood

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

Food Supplements

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

Want updates like this delivered straight to your inbox? 

Join our mailing list


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