Food Fraud Advisors

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Our Services
  • Tools, Templates and Training
  • Learn about food fraud
  • Report a food crime
  • News
You are here: Home / Archives for intentional adulteration

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.

No alternative text description for this image
Fig. 3. Saffron flower (Crocus sativus L.) showing the stigma. Image credit: Lorenzo Lamonica.

 

Source: Saffron Test | Devi M Krishna

Paprika

Paprika powders containing added colourants.
Fig. 4. Paprika powders containing added colourants Sudan 1 & IV (left) and annato (right). Image: Tarantelli, Sheriden (2016)

 

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

Dried oregano leaves are pictured next to dried cistus, olive and myrtle leaves, showing the similarities between the products.
Fig 6. Dried oregano leaves look a lot like other dried leaves. Image: Elliott, C. (2016) Addressing complex and critical food integrity issues using the latest analytical technologies [webinar]

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.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Adulteration, Food Fraud

22nd June 2023 by foodfraudadvisors

HACCP, VACCP and TACCP

What do HACCP, VACCP and TACCP mean?

They are acronyms used in food safety.

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

VACCP and TACCP are no longer used by most food safety experts, and have been superseded by ‘food fraud programs’ and ‘food defense plans’.

 

What does HACCP stand for?

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

What does VACCP stand for?

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  Has been superseded by ‘food fraud prevention’.

What does TACCP stand for?

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  Has been superseded by ‘food defense’.

What is HACCP?

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

What is VACCP and TACCP?

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

 

What to say instead of VACCP and TACCP?

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

Learn more

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

food safety food fraud

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Learn, TACCP, VACCP

24th May 2023 by foodfraudadvisors

Acronym Decoder

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

CoOL or COOL: Country of Origin Labelling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GMO: Genetically Modified Organism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Learn

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.

Filed Under: Food Defense, Learn

10th August 2019 by foodfraudadvisors

Learn the lingo; food fraud terms explained

Food fraud occurs when food or drink is sold in a way that deliberately misleads or deceives consumers or customers for financial gain (Food Fraud Advisors, 2015)

(other definitions)

Food fraud occurs in two different forms:

1. Fraudulent activity that does not involve tampering with the food itself:

This includes activity such as avoidance of taxes, duties and quota restrictions (fishing), fraudulent paperwork such as forged importation documents, misrepresentation of origin, changing best-before dates and counterfeiting of popular brands.

2. Adulteration of food for economic gain:

This is sometimes referred to as economically motivated adulteration or EMA.  In this phrase, the word ‘adulteration’ is used to encompass many types of tampering, such as adding unauthorised substances, substituting undeclared substances for genuine components of a food or diluting a food product with cheaper substances.

Food fraud is a type of food crime, with food crime including food fraud and other activities such as the use of food shipments to mask drug trafficking and money-laundering through the trading of food and food commodities.

food fraud,defense,safety,security

Food fraud and the risks it presents to the food industry is a separate subject to food safety, although fraud-affected food can be unsafe.  Food safety relates to unintentional contamination of food and the presence of naturally occurring contaminants.

Food defence (food defense) is a term that has come to be defined as the effort to prevent acts of adulteration that are intended to cause harm to a food business or to consumers, such as acts of terrorism or attempted extortion.

Food security, as defined by the World Health Organisation exists “when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life”.

Risk or vulnerability?  In the language of food fraud, the term risk is usually replaced with the term ‘vulnerability’, so food standards bodies are increasingly talking about vulnerability assessments rather than risk assessments.  ‘Vulnerability’ is used because food fraud ‘risks’ do not exactly fit with the accepted definition of risk as something that has occurred frequently, will occur again and for which there is enough data to make quantitative assessments.  Vulnerability is a better term for food fraud, due to the fact that the ‘risk’ of a specific fraudulent activity occurring cannot be quantitatively assessed.

Horizon scanning is another term that has been co-opted to the language of food fraud.  Horizon scanning is the act of looking for and analysing threats and opportunities that will emerge in the medium to long term.  It is used across many industries, including the financial and health care industries.  Within the food industry, horizon scanning refers to the act of collecting information about current trends in food production and predicted incidences that could increase the likelihood of food fraud for a particular food material.  For example, climate change is likely to affect coffee production which could drive up prices and increase fraudulent activity in that sector.  Click here for the complete low-down on horizon scanning.

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

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

Intentional Adulteration:  Although food fraud activities often involve the intentional adulteration of food with unauthorised substances, within the food safety industry, Intentional Adulteration has recently been given a more specific meaning.  And it is not related to food fraud at all.  It is related to food defense, and more specifically to activities intended to cause wide scale harm to consumers.  There is a rule within the USA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), that addresses these activities.  It is known as the Intentional Adulteration rule.  According to the US FDA (2019), Intentional Adulteration is the deliberate contamination of food with a biological, chemical, radiological, or physical agent by an individual or group of individuals with the intent to cause wide scale public health harm.  How to protect against intentional adulteration. 

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Learn, TACCP, VACCP

MORE FROM FOOD FRAUD ADVISORS

Two packets of paprika powders that have been adulterated with dye and annatto.

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. … [Read More...]

Close-up of a pile of frozen shrimp.

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, … [Read More...]

A group of honey bees on beeswax.

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 … [Read More...]

Photo of a can of Coca-Cola Diet . The brand is one of the most popular soda products in the world and it is sold almost everywhere.

Counterfeit Diet Coke in London?

Counterfeiting is the imitation of a food or beverage, including its brand, packaging, or labeling, with the intent to … [Read More...]

A woman wearing safety glasses and a lab coast holds up a blood sample in a test tube.

Massive fraud in U.S. antibiotic-free meat

Consumers perceive antibiotic-free meat as a healthier, more ethical choice than meat from animals raised with … [Read More...]

follow

  • View foodfraudadvice’s profile on Facebook
  • View karenconstable4’s profile on Twitter
  • LinkedIn

© Copyright 2015 - 2026 Food Fraud Advisors · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Return and Refund Policy