Food Fraud Advisors

You are here: Home / Archives for detection

by

Tomato Fraud Bombshell

A food fraud bombshell has just exploded in the Australian processed tomato industry.

The impact will be felt globally.  No matter where you are in the world, if you purchase processed tomatoes, you should be afraid. Very afraid.

Journalists from the respected Australian public broadcaster the ABC commissioned authenticity testing to determine the geographic origin of processed tomato products.  They found that many products which claimed to be made with Australian-grown tomatoes had chemical profiles that match Chinese-grown tomatoes.

Specifically, 221 products from 39 brands were tested, with “one in four” found to have a disconnect between the origin claims on pack and the origin determined by authenticity testing.

Not surprising. We have known there’s an oversupply of tomatoes in China’s Western provinces for a while. And there was a similiar issue with UK products in 2024.

What is surprising is that almost all the Australian brand owners of the suspicious products were willing to go on the record with written statements saying they had robust traceability information from their suppliers, and that this traceability information gives them “the utmost confidence” that their products were made with Australian-grown tomatoes.

[Note that Australia has super-strict laws about origin claims and every single food product sold in Australia must be labelled with its country of origin by law.]

What’s happening here? Why would brand owners go on the record saying they are sure there’s no problem with their products if there’s a credible question about their authenticity?

It’s an unusual response. In my experience, brand owners accused of authenticity issues are more likely to prevaricate or provide vague denials, rather than publish definitive, specific statements of confidence in their supply chain and their own verification processes.

This points to two unique circumstances in this investigation:

(1) The investigation began some months ago, and the results have only just been published. I can confirm this has been a long-running investigation because I assisted the journalists in the early stages of their research.

(2) The brand owners were given sufficient time to properly deep dive into their own supply chain verification systems and that of their suppliers. (Sadly this usually isn’t the case when allegations of food fraud are published).

The result: the brand owners could go back to the journalists with on-the-record statements that their supply chains are clean and that their suppliers’ traceability systems are robust enough to show the tomatoes are Australian-grown before the allegations were published.

But here’s the problem: the science disagrees.

So is the science wrong, or are the brand owners wrong?

I say neither.

I have faith in the brand owners who have had these allegations levelled against them. We are talking about large, prestigious Australian brands, with plenty of in-house technical expertise, knowledge of food fraud and years of experience. If they say the traceability records are robust, I believe them.

I also have faith in the scientists that designed and ran the authenticity tests, Source Certain. They stand behind their test results, which were obtained using trace element analysis (TEA) and/or stable isotope ratio analysis (SIRA). Their methods are robust, and this is not the first tomato origin project they have successfully completed.

So if I trust the brand owners, and the science, how can I explain the discrepancy?

What do I think has happened?

I think someone upstream in the processed tomato supply chain has done an extremely good job of creating credible traceability records, possibly accompanied by some sort of transshipping of processed tomatoes through Australian locations.

It’s a shocking allegation, but I think someone, or multiple people, have faked traceability records in a highly skilled and systematic way.  In doing so they managed to successfully deceive the brand owners of these processed tomato products, and ultimately, consumers.  And that is food fraud.

What happens next?

Will we ever find out exactly where or exactly how these records were so successfully faked?  Probably not.  Internal investigators will find out, but in these circumstances the results rarely end up being shared publicly.

What to do with this information?

If you have anything to do with the processed tomato industry, be scared, be very scared.

Fraud is rife in your industry globally, and this investigation – and the brands’ responses – has revealed that it is very widespread and incredibly sophisticated.

Source:

We tested your groceries. This is what we found | Four Corners, ABC Australia (2026).  Watch here

Need expert help with this?

Karen Constable is an Australian food fraud expert

Get in Touch

by

Fraud rates of 33% in seafood (USA)

A survey of imported frozen shrimp, squid and tilapia products found 36% (n = 28) were affected by short-weighting, which is when the package contains less weight than declared and, for frozen seafood, when the product or package contains too much water glaze or ice (“overstating the net weight of frozen seafood by including the weight of glazing (ice) is not permitted”).

Close-up of a pile of frozen shrimp.
The frozen seafood products were affected by short-weighting. Image: IrinaKur/BigStock.

 

The survey was conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during 2022-2024. The sampling included both targeted and general surveillance samples of both raw and cooked products, covering 12 businesses from 4 countries. The samples were collected during import, prior to release into U.S. commerce. Each sample consisted of 48 units from the same production lot.

Most of the samples (25 of 28) were shrimp, with 2 squid and 1 tilapia sample included. Both squid samples were found to violate short-weight rules (100%, n = 2). Eight shrimp samples were violative (32%, n = 25). The tilapia sample was compliant – United States 02/09/2025.

Source: https://www.fda.gov/food/economically-motivated-adulteration-food-fraud/sample-collection-and-analysis-imported-frozen-seafood-economically-motivated-adulteration-year-2022

This article was originally published at The Rotten Apple – a weekly newsletter for food professionals

 

by

Undercover honey investigators

I previously wrote about how my daughter, who loves honey and eats a lot of it here in Australia, complained that all the honey she tasted while travelling in Europe had no flavour, telling me it tasted like sugar water.

A German news outlet has published a documentary about their investigations into honey fraud in Europe and it certainly aligns with my daughter’s “sugar water” opinion.

While the video begins with all the information we have come to expect from honey fraud stories, such as the differences between various test methods and regulatory standards, things soon get more interesting.

Journalists set up their own fake honey business, visit honey traders and processors with hidden cameras, and even send people to China to collect evidence of fraudulent practices.

“The syrup really passes the NMR test?” asks an undercover investigator of a Chinese syrup supplier. The answer is simple: “Yes”.

The journalists even make their own fake honey using special syrups designed to trick the nuclear magnetic resonance test (NMR) widely used in Europe for honey authentication. And they succeed: a blend of authentic honey and 20% special syrup was identified in the NMR test as authentic. Blends made with ordinary syrups were flagged as inauthentic.

“The math is simple”, an anonymous German honey trader tells them, “If I add 20% syrup to my honey, my margin would almost double. You have no chance against such competitors.”

For English subtitles, click CC on the YouTube display to activate captions, then in Settings choose ‘Subtitles’, then ‘Auto-translate’, then ‘English.

This article was originally published at The Rotten Apple – a weekly newsletter for food professionals

by

Preventing food fraud: testing is not the answer

Fraudulently adulterated food is receiving a lot of attention at the moment. While it is widely acknowledged that food fraud is a large and expensive problem requiring urgent action there is not a lot of practical advice available about exactly what actions food businesses should take to prevent, deter and detect food fraud. And, although published advice about direct action is rare, there is plenty of commentary that discusses the issue in general terms, including one very common refrain: food testing is not the answer.

Food safety hang-ups

One of the reasons we so often hear that testing is not the answer is that many food fraud commentators come from a food safety and quality assurance background. As such, our unwillingness to rely on testing for food fraud can be explained in part by our familiarity with food safety systems. Within the realms of food safety, testing can achieve nothing on its own; the prevention of risks and control of hazards is much more effective and efficient, with testing used simply to verify that the system is working.

For those who are less familiar with food safety systems, let’s take a closer look. For the sake of simplicity, imagine a hypothetical food safety system that is designed solely to prevent the growth of a pathogenic microorganism in salami. If the system relied solely on testing, one would have to take a sample from every pack of salami, test for pathogens and then discard packs which were found to be contaminated. A missed test could have deadly consequences. Worse still, the sampling itself could lead to contamination. A better way is to use preventive control methods to stop hazards before they arise and carefully monitor critical operations in the production process so that the finished product is safe. This combination of prevention and monitoring is the basis for every modern food safety system. Within those systems the food must still be tested to verify that the system is working but in fact every piece of salami that is consumed without causing illness is a form of ongoing verification.

Dairy Processing

Fraudulently adulterated food is very different from accidentally contaminated food. It usually doesn’t make people sick and can rarely be identified as fraudulent by the consumer. People who adulterate food for financial gain aim to avoid detection and for that reason adulterated food rarely causes acute illness. In fact, the Chinese government is currently assuring its citizens that the large volumes of counterfeit baby formula within that market are safe to consume. There have been instances of fraudulent food that caused illness and death, including the melamine milk scandal in China and toxic mineral oil passed off as olive oil in Spain. In another famous case, a carcinogenic industrial dye was used to make paprika powder appear fresher. In each of these cases it was some time before the link between illness and adulterated food was found.

Criminals are smarter than Salmonella.

The prevention of microbial contamination and growth in food can be achieved in a few simple steps using well-understood methods; Salmonella hasn’t figured out how to outsmart a thermal kill step yet. But people who seek to make money from adulterating food have much more imagination than your average bacterium. While there are only about 120 food borne pathogens known to man, there are almost unlimited ways to tamper with food, meaning many different types of controls are required. Unfortunately, any effective control method can be discovered and then outsmarted by a clever fraudster, making reliance on prevention a risky proposition. And the worst part is that no matter how effective a fraud prevention system is, at the end of the day it is indistinguishable from an ineffective fraud prevention system to the naked eye; without very frequent testing there is no way to know the system is working.

More testing?

Testing is a key element of effective fraud prevention. I envisage a day when every food manufacturer tests vulnerable raw materials before they are used in production, where every supermarket has the technology to verify that their food is authentic before they place it on their shelves and where even local restaurants will have access to cheap and fast authenticity testing. Testing holds the answers to many of our current food fraud challenges.  However, testing can be expensive, time consuming and much less effective than we would like.

Pesticide residue in food

A key challenge to the efficacy of testing is that when it comes to food fraud we can never be sure of the adulterant that might be present. Many currently available test methods are targeted for a particular adulterant, and are not designed to detect adulterants that are unexpected. Non-targetted tests are rapidly being developed but there are still relatively few that have been properly validated, a process that requires expensive cross-testing against other methods such as botanical testing, DNA-based methods and classical chemistry.

In less than five years, claim the makers of new rapid testing technology, we will be able to hold a scanner in our hand that can tell us the entire molecular makeup of our food. I think we will have to wait a little longer than that; food is complex and a huge amount of research will be required before we can properly interpret the results of complex molecular ‘scans’ of every food on the planet. But testing is an important tool in our fight to ensure an authentic food supply, and that’s a goal worth striving for.

Read about the latest food fraud analytical technologies here.

Are you ready to start testing for food fraud? Use our testing checklist to find out.

Want more stories?  Like us on Facebook to receive news items like these straight to your news feed. Food Fraud Advisors on Facebook

by

Honey Fraud This Month: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Honey authenticity is all over the (food fraud) news this month.  There’s good news.  And bad.

Here’s what’s happening in honey fraud right now, from Karen Constable of authenticfood.co and Food Fraud Advisors.

 

 

Video transcript:

(Karen Constable) “It’s been a tough year for honey.  There has been lots of commentary about food fraud in honey, following a big recall in the UK at the end of last year and controversy over honey testing methods.  It’s never good to hear about food fraud issues, but there is a silver lining.

The Good

The Canadian government last year committed to spending more than $20 million on food fraud testing and intelligence gathering over a five year period.  Honey is one food product that has been chosen for surveillance by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The CFIA published their honey surveillance results this month and guess what?! Authenticity is up and food fraud is down compared to last year.

The CFIA sampled both the marketplace at large and also a number of bulk honey importers and processors that were deemed to be high risk.  Only 13% of samples were deemed not-authentic, compared to 22% the previous year.  That’s a significant improvement!

The CFIA used the results of their previous honey surveillance work to design a targeted sampling plan.  Those samples that they targeted had risk factors such as a history of non-compliance, known preventive controls deficits and unusual trading patterns.  This type of targeting sampling, in which previous results are used to focus on known problem areas, is a great way to maximise the value of authenticity testing (which can be expensive).  Way to go, Canadia! (PS for more on sampling methodology, click here)

Of those samples collected from the marketplace (that is, without being targeted towards high-risk products), 98% were authentic and the only products that had ‘unsatisfactory results’ were imported products.

So testing = good.  For my food safety viewers, it’s worth noting that – unlike micro testing – food authenticity testing can not only provide valuable insights into the occurrence of food fraud but also helps to prevent it.  The fact that someone is paying attention, and doing testing can effectively drive reductions in fraud, as we have seen with the Canadian honey testing regime.  My prediction is that next year’s surveillance will have even better results than this year’s.  And that’s something to be happy about!

The Bad

The Canadian government isn’t the only one that’s been testing honey this year.  The Indian Centre for Science and Environment and a government-funded institute in the Philippines have also published honey testing results this month.

In the Philippines, a survey of 74 locally-produced honeys purchased online found that 87% of them contained sugar syrup.  Ie rendering them NOT authentic honey.  More than 80% of these products actually contained no honey at all and were just made from sugar syrup.

These are some of the worst authenticity statistics that I have ever seen!

Local products purchased in brick and mortar stores fared a little better in this study, but the results were still bad, with around 75% of samples containing adulterant(s). Interestingly, in the Philippines, imported honeys performed significantly better than the locally-produced honeys, the opposite of what was seen in Canada.

So those results were pretty bad, but it is good to see authenticity testing being done in the public arena more frequently than in the past.

The Ugly

Yep, this is really ugly.

There’s testing and then there’s testing….

India is another country that is funding food adulteration prevention. And, of course, that’s a good thing.  And they are testing honey.

However, like many countries, India’s legal definition of honey is based on the chemical signature of the sugars in the product, which is verified using C3 and C4 testing.

In December, The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE, India) reported a very high proportion of ‘inauthentic’ honeys in a survey that made use of both C3/C4 tests and more sophisticated testing that makes use of NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) analysis.   Some honeys passed the C3/C4 tests but ‘failed’ the NMR tests.

Investigators from CSE claim this is due to the products being made with special syrups that are designed to ‘trick’ the C3/C4 tests. They allege that these syrups can be purchased cheaply via online trade portals.  The syrups are apparently marketed as “all pass” syrups because the suppliers claim they can pass the Indian government’s authenticity tests.

The CSE say that their own testing has confirmed that samples containing up to 50 percent of “all pass” syrup pass the tests.

Wrap up

There’s big money to be made from food fraud, as I have said before.  I have even heard it said that olive oil fraud is 3 times more profitable than smuggling cocaine – as well as being much less risky. (I haven’t been able to find the original source of that comment, I heard it at a food fraud conference in 2017).  And where there is money to be made, criminals will find ways to cheat the system.

Sadly, worldwide volumes of honey production are way down and predicted to fall even further due to climate change and bee colony diseases. That makes genuine honey more scarce, more valuable and, as a result, more profitable to fake.  Honey fraud is – unfortunately – here to stay.

My hope is that organisations like the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the CSE in India continue to keep the pressure on honey fraudsters. Let’s keep making their lives hell!”