economically motivated adulteration

20th May 2026 by Karen Constable

When food fraud turns deadly: milk adulteration kills 6 people

In February 2026, six people died and seven more became critically ill after consuming contaminated milk in India. The milk is reported to have come from a processing facility, a “private milk chilling unit”, that was operating without the required permissions. The person who operated the unit was arrested.

The milk was contaminated with toxic ethylene glycol coolant after a leak, according to CNBCTV (India). Propylene glycol, not ethylene glycol, is food-safe and typically used for dairy operations, whereas ethylene glycol is used for non-food industrial applications and in automotive antifreeze.

Propylene glycol is food-safe and typically used for dairy operations, whereas ethylene glycol is used for non-food industrial applications and in automotive antifreeze.

Victims reported tasting an unusual flavour in the milk before they began to experience symptoms of acute poisoning. One media outlet reported the deaths were caused by acute renal failure.

If the allegations published by CNBCTV prove correct (investigations were ongoing at the time of this report), this is a case where a person who perpetrated food fraud – by falsely implying their milk was from a properly licensed operation – has caused multiple deaths.

The milk is reported to have come from a processing facility that was operating without the required permissions. Image: Anita Jankovic/Unsplash.

Important things to know

In India, the word ‘adulteration’ is used to refer to both accidental contamination events and deliberate addition of undeclared materials to food.

The presence of ethylene glycol in the milk appears to be the result of accidental contamination, not intentional adulteration. The unlicensed milk operator would not have wanted to sicken their customers, knowing this would bring unwanted scrutiny.

The food fraud element of this tragic situation is therefore not related to the ‘adulteration’ (contamination) of the milk, but to the deception perpetrated by the milk processor, who was operating “without the required permissions”. A properly licensed operator would not have used the highly toxic industrial coolant ethylene glycol in their refrigeration system.

Suspicious similarities…

In 2023, I wrote about the tragic contamination case(s) that caused 300 deaths of children from contaminated cough syrup in multiple countries, including Gambia, Indonesia and Uzbekistan. The deaths were attributed to the presence of ethylene glycol in the syrup, instead of the inert and safe propylene glycol, which is used as a humectant in medicated syrups.

Indonesian police investigating the cough syrup manufacturer told reporters that a chemical company had misrepresented industrial-grade ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol as pharmaceutical-grade propylene glycol.

The company name and branding of a well-known pharmaceutical supplier were used on the products, presumably without its authorisation. The perpetrators then allegedly supplied the counterfeit and highly toxic ‘Dow Chemical Thailand Pharmaceutical-grade Propylene Glycol’ to local medicine manufacturers via a distributor.

Four men from the medicine manufacturer in Indonesia were jailed, despite their legal representatives blaming the supplier of a contaminated ingredient in the medicine for the deaths, while 21 people who worked in the import, distribution and licensing of imported medicines faced court in Uzbekistan on charges including the sale of substandard medicines, tax evasion, negligence, forgery and bribery.

The Indonesian makers of the fake ‘Propylene Glycol’ and their distributors also faced criminal prosecution. The manufacturer was found at fault for the poisonings in 2024, in a civil case brought by affected families in Indonesia, and ordered to pay compensation to the families of the injured children.

Key learnings

It’s rare for food fraud events to be directly implicated in serious illnesses or deaths. However, people who are willing to cut corners and break food safety laws to make illegal profits – for example, by operating without a licence – put the safety of consumers at risk.

When illnesses and injuries do occur as a result of food fraud, it can lead to the perpetrator getting caught, and this disincentivises obviously unsafe practices by food fraud perpetrators.

In another 2020s case in India, the illnesses and subsequent traceback resulted in the arrest of the unlicensed operator.

If allegations about the nature of the poisonings in India prove correct, that is, if the milk was contaminated with toxic ethylene glycol coolant – coolant that should never be used in a food context – after a leak in an unlicensed chilling system, this will be a rare case of illegal food processing causing consumer deaths.

Main source:

CNBCTV18 India (2026). Andhra milk adulteration case: Six dead, seven people in critical condition; FSSAI seeks report. [online] Available at: https://www.cnbctv18.com/india/andhra-milk-adulteration-case-six-dead-seven-people-in-critical-condition-fssai-seeks-report-ws-l-19857629.htm

29th April 2026 by Karen Constable

This is Food Fraud

Food fraud in pictures

We’ve come a long way with food fraud awareness since I started working on the subject in 2015. More and more food industry people now recognise that food fraud is a genuine threat to the safety and integrity of our food supply.

But few of us have actually seen food fraud up close. Part of the problem, of course, is that food fraud, by its very nature, is hard to spot.

This week, I’m sharing my collection of favourite food fraud images, from around the globe and across the decades, starting with turmeric extract.

Turmeric extract

No alternative text description for this image — Fig. 1. Two samples of turmeric extract side by side. The sample on the right contains about 25% curcuminoids. The sample on the left has been diluted with cornstarch and contains about 10% curcuminoids. Image: Blake Ebersole via LinkedIn.

Figure 1 shows a simulated “fraud” which demonstrates dilution-type fraud in turmeric extract. The sample on the right contains about 25% curcuminoids. The sample on the left has been diluted with cornstarch and contains about 10% curcuminoids.

Dilution fraud occurs when a food is diluted with material that costs less than the food to increase profits. Examples include fruit juice, milk or wine adulterated with water and sawdust added to tea powder.

Common fillers for botanical extracts are maltodextrin, starches and other materials with a cellulose base, such as carboxymethylcellulose.

Fillers and flow agents are added legitimately to botanical extracts like turmeric extract to achieve a flowable powder. However, some suppliers add more filler than needed, and this allows them to sell the same quantity of the pure extract for a higher price.

There are no legal definitions for botanical extract purity in many jurisdictions, so the amount of filler or flow agent is not regulated. If the concentration of filler or flow agent is not specified and checked by purchasers upon receipt, then the supplier may be tempted to add too much.

Purchasers of botanical extracts use visual checks, HPTLC and colour specifications as an ‘early warning signal’ when receiving material. Extracts that have a lighter colour than expected warrant further investigation, although it’s worth noting that turmeric is also vulnerable to adulteration with colourants such as metanil yellow and lead chromate.

Source: Turmeric Extract | Blake Ebersole

Saffron

diagram, engineering drawing — Fig. 2. Samples of saffron purchased from retail stores in the Netherlands, and exposed to water. One sample appears genuine, the other three indicate fraud. Image: Devi M Krishna via LinkedIn

Figure 2 shows a simple authenticity indicator test for saffron (Crocus sativus L.), using water. The test provides a visual indication of potential adulteration or substitution and can be used to decide which samples require further investigation.

When water is added, real saffron releases a dark golden colour over a period of a few seconds while maintaining intact stigmas. Suspicious samples release significant quantities of colour in less than 1 second, lose their structure and show evidence of non-stigma materials.

In this test, conducted by students in a food fraud course at Wageningen University on samples purchased from local stores, three of the four samples appeared inauthentic, including the most expensive samples.

Sample 3 (blue circle) was confirmed to be safflower (Carthamus tinctorius), which is substituted for, or used to adulterate, saffron, due to its similar appearance. The photographer did not share which was the genuine sample.

Source: Saffron Test | Devi M Krishna

Paprika

Figure 4 shows adulteration-type fraud in two paprika products imported to the United States. The sample on the left contained very high levels of the oil-soluble dyes Sudan I and Sudan IV. The sample on the right contained the natural colour annatto (E160b).

These samples were tested by the New York State Food Lab in 2014.

Adulteration-type fraud is when something is added to food to increase its apparent value without being declared to the purchaser. Adulterants can be unsafe for consumers and often conceal quality defects. Examples include textile dyes added to spices to make them appear fresh and flavoursome, and melamine powder added to milk to boost its apparent protein content.

Sudan dyes are textile dyes which are carcinogenic and not approved for use in food. In 2024, there were 8 notifications for Sudan dyes in foods imported to the European Union. The foods included curry powder, chilli powder, palm oil, sumac powder and cheddar cheese powder.

Adulteration with unapproved dyes sometimes accompanies another type of food fraud in paprika: dilution or substitution with ‘spent paprika’.

Spent paprika is a dull fibrous material left over after paprika oleoresin – the coloured and flavoured part of paprika spice – has been extracted from the fruit (Capsicum annuum L). Paprika oleoresin has a high value and is used legally as a natural colouring agent in cheese, juices, sweets and sauces.

When spent paprika is added to whole paprika, or used in place of whole paprika, the resulting mix has a dull colour. Fraudsters then add illegal colourants such as Sudan dyes to the mixture to make it appear genuine.

diagram — Fig 5. Food laboratory Bia Analytical shared this image in a post about spent paprika, saying spent paprika is often coloured with harmful and illegal dyes like Sudan I, II, III, IV or Para Red. Image: Bia Analytical, via LinkedIn

Sources:

Tarantelli T., Sheriden R. (2016) Toxic Industrial Colorants found in Imported Foods. Available online at: https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/industrial-dye-presentation-12-11-2015/60160214

Bia Analytical (2025) Why is Spent Paprika Not Paprika. LinkedIn. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bia-analytical_adulterate-foodfraud-foodadulteration-activity-7313487808575250433-clM7/

Oregano

Figure 6 shows the similarities between dried oregano and other leaves used to dilute it.

Oregano is the herb most often affected by food fraud, and there have been several high-profile cases of consumer groups revealing food fraud in oregano, including in the United Kingdom in 2015, Australia in 2016 and the United States in 2017.

In the Australian tests, fewer than half of the 12 samples purchased from retail outlets were pure oregano. The others contained between 10 and 90 percent leaves from other plants, including olive leaves and sumac leaves. Tests in the United Kingdom and the United States of America showed adulteration in around one-third of samples.

Have things improved with oregano in the decade since?

Unfortunately, they have not. In 2020, oregano imported to Europe from Turkiye was found to contain olive leaves. Further testing revealed one-quarter of samples were affected. Two of the samples contained no oregano at all.

In 2021, the European Commission tested 1,885 samples of spices and herbs and rated oregano the worst performer for food fraud, with 48 percent of approximately 300 oregano samples affected by adulteration, mostly with olive leaves.

And in 2024, the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency found 13 percent of 30 samples of oregano to contain leaves other than oregano, mostly olive leaves, at levels of up to 25 percent.

Comment

Food fraud affects many types of food and drink, but I only had images of herbs, spices and botanicals in my collection. That’s not a coincidence. Herbs, spices and botanicals are some of the worst-affected foods for food fraud.

I would have loved to have shown you photographs of food fraud in other commonly affected commodities such as seafood, honey, olive oil and dairy foods, but unfortunately, fraud-affected versions of these foods look almost identical to the real thing, and so photographs are both rare and unhelpful.

Side by side images of adulterated milk and pure milk. The two images look identical. — Fig. 7 Food fraud is usually impossible to see. Image by Ivan Pergasi on Unsplash used for illustration purposes only.

Read more: 🍏Saffron Fraud | Issue 31 | The Rotten Apple🍏

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

22nd April 2026 by Karen Constable

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

15th April 2026 by Karen Constable

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

15th October 2025 by Karen Constable

Food Safety Standards Compared (2025)

There are many different food safety management system standards (FSMS), and they all have different requirements. So how do you know which standard is the best one for your food company?

When it comes to food fraud, the food safety standards have minor differences in their requirements. For example, some standards require food businesses to include counterfeiting in their vulnerability assessments, while others don’t; some standards specify that vulnerability assessments must be performed on ingredients, while others state they should be done on finished products. Some explicitly require training in food fraud awareness, while others do not.

Confused? We are here to help. Read on to find out which standards have what requirements, and get recommendations for creating a great food fraud prevention (VACCP) program.

Background

Food safety standards are standards that describe requirements for food and related businesses. The requirements aim to ensure that food and food-related goods are safe for consumers and customers. The correct term for such standards is food safety management systems standards (FSMS).

There are food safety standards for all types of operations within the food supply chain, including:

growing and packing fresh produce;
manufacture of food and food ingredients;
buying and selling food (“brokers”);
storage and transport of food;
manufacture or converting of packaging materials;
manufacture of animal feed or pet food;
services such as cleaning, laundry, or pest control for food businesses.

The overarching aim of all food safety standards is to keep consumers safe, but most standards also have secondary aims. Some of the most popular food safety standards were developed by food retailing groups, and these standards were written to protect the retailers’ brands as well as keep consumers safe. Other standards were developed to help food businesses understand best practices and gain a way to demonstrate their excellence through independent certifications. Some standards include quality parameters, while others only address food safety issues.

There are dozens of internationally accepted food safety management system standards, each with slightly different requirements. This can make it difficult to know which standards are ‘better’ or more suitable for your food company.

To solve this problem, a standard for food safety standards was created by the GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative). The GFSI assesses and approves food safety standards using a process called benchmarking. The aim of GFSI benchmarking is to define best practices for food safety standards and provide a way to compare and align different food safety standards.

Among the dozens of food safety standards, some are benchmarked by the GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative), while others are not. Benchmarked standards usually have more requirements and more rigorous expectations than non-benchmarked standards. The auditing and certification processes for benchmarked standards are typically more time-consuming and more expensive than for non-benchmarked standards.

Food Fraud in Food Safety Standards

Food fraud prevention activities are an important part of all food safety management systems because food fraud can pose a risk to food safety. Some food safety standards have separate, stand-alone requirements for food fraud prevention activities, while others do not. Standards that are GFSI-benchmarked all include explicit, separate food-fraud-related requirements. Other standards rely on the hazard analysis elements of the food safety system to identify and control hazards from food fraud.

The GFSI requires all benchmarked standards to require food companies to do a vulnerability assessment for food fraud and create a mitigation plan for food fraud prevention. Most GFSI-benchmarked standards also include details about which materials should be assessed and which types of food fraud need to be managed.

Non-GFSI standards vary in how they require a food company to approach food fraud. Some specify or recommend a VACCP program, which is based on food fraud vulnerability assessment activities. Others, like AIB, require that food fraud risks be considered in the supplier approvals processes. The regulations of the USA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) require that food businesses identify hazards from economically motivated adulteration-type food fraud (EMA) and implement preventive controls to minimise the risks.

Among the most well-known standards, there are some notable differences. For example, the SQF Food Safety Code requires food businesses to assess and manage risks from counterfeit-type food fraud, while the BRC Food Safety Standard only requires businesses to assess the risks from adulteration or substitution activities. BRC requires horizon scanning activities, while the SQF and IFS standards explicitly mention food fraud training.

Below you will find a table that compares the current food fraud requirements of each of the major food safety standards.

Table 1. Food fraud requirements of major food safety standards, 2025

Click here to open or download a pdf version of this table

	AIB*	BRC*	FSSC*	GlobalGAP*	IFS*	SQF*
Food types to include in food fraud prevention activities	Ingredients (implied)	Raw materials	Products and processes	Not described	Raw materials, Ingredients, packaging, outsourced processes	Raw materials, Ingredients, finished products
Food fraud types	Economically motivated adulteration (only)	Adulteration, substitution (only)	Any type where consumer health is at risk (in definition, Appendix A)	Examples are provided and include: counterfeit plant protection products, unauthorized propagation material, origin of packaging and access to packaging.	Substitution, mislabelling, adulteration, counterfeiting	Substitution, mislabelling, dilution, counterfeiting
Vulnerability assessments explicitly required?	A food fraud risk assessment is listed in Appendix A	Yes	Yes	Risk assessment	Yes	Implied (Edition 9)
Mitigation plan required?	–	Mitigation activities are to be included in the vulnerability assessment	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Does packaging need to be included in the vulnerability assessment?	Yes (implied)	Yes (see 3.5.1.1)	Yes (as per food fraud definition, Appendix A)	Yes	Yes	Implied (primary packaging is a ‘raw material’)
Is a separate food fraud procedure explicitly required?	–	–	Vulnerability assessment method and verification procedures must be documented (ISO 22002-100:2025)	–	Implied (“responsibilities shall be defined”)	Implied (“methods and responsibilities shall be documented”)
Is training in food fraud explicitly mentioned?	–	“Knowledge” is required (Clause 5.4.1)	Yes (in ISO 22002-100:2025)	–	Yes (Clause 3.3.4)	Yes
Is an annual review explicitly mentioned?	–	Yes	Yes (in ISO 22002-100:2025)	–	Yes	Yes
Other	–	Horizon scanning for developing threats must be done (Clause 5.4.1)	–	Must consider ‘intentional inaccurate information’	Criteria for vulnerability assessments must be defined (4.20.2)	Food safety risks from food fraud must be specified (2.7.2.2)

* The full names of the standards are:

AIB International Consolidated Standards for Inspection of Prerequisite and Food Safety Programs, 2023

BRCGS Global Standard Food Safety, Issue 9

FSSC 22000, Version 6

GlobalG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance (IFA), Version 6 GFS

IFS Food, Version 8

SQF Food Safety Code, Edition 9

Get a complete guide to all food fraud clauses in every standard, including human food, packaging, logistics and animal feed in our affordable e-book. Learn more.

Takeaways

Among the major food safety management system standards, there are small but significant differences between food fraud prevention requirements. Key differences include whether finished products or ingredients are to be assessed, which types of food fraud must be included and the presence/absence of requirements related to horizon scanning and training.

If that all seems confusing, don’t despair…

Recommendations for a robust and compliant food fraud prevention program (VACCP)

At Food Fraud Advisors, we have been working at the intersection of food fraud and food safety since the very first days of food fraud requirements in food safety standards… and we’ve been helping businesses since day one.

Creating a robust and compliant food fraud program can take time and effort but it isn’t complicated. Follow the steps below to get started:

Carefully read the food fraud clauses of the standard you are/will be certified to. Pay attention to the food types and the food fraud types that are mentioned in your standard. HINT: you may need to check the definitions or glossary. Carefully read the food fraud clauses of the standard you are/will be certified to.
Pay attention to the food types and the food fraud types that are mentioned in your standard. HINT: you may need to check the definitions or glossary.
Create a robust vulnerability assessment (here’s how) and a mitigation plan for identified vulnerabilities.
Create a food fraud prevention procedure that defines the methods, responsibilities and criteria for food fraud prevention.
You should also conduct training for all relevant staff and ensure that the food fraud system is reviewed at least annually.

Get a complete guide to the food fraud requirements of all the major food safety standards from us, the food fraud experts, here.

Important things to know

Suspicious similarities…

Key learnings

Share this:

Food fraud in pictures

Turmeric extract

Saffron

Paprika

Oregano

Comment

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

There are many different food safety management system standards (FSMS), and they all have different requirements. So how do you know which standard is the best one for your food company?

Background

Food Fraud in Food Safety Standards

Takeaways

Recommendations for a robust and compliant food fraud prevention program (VACCP)

Share this: