Food Fraud Advisors

You are here: Home / Archives for labeling

by

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 antibiotics and pay higher prices for such meat. However, investigations reveal that many ‘antibiotic-free’ products in the United States are not what they claim to be.

I previously shared shocking figures released by the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) based on the results of a 2023 testing program that included 189 samples from 84 slaughter establishments in 24 states.

The FSIS found antibiotic residues in liver and kidney samples of 20% of cattle destined for the ‘Raised without antibiotics’ (RWA) market.

That is, approximately 20% of US beef claimed to be raised without antibiotics was being marketed with false claims.

🍏 Find my original report here 🍏

What surprised me, when I stumbled upon that data, published in August 2024, was that it had not provoked any kind of outrage – or in fact any response at all – in mainstream media outlets.

Surely this was a scandal that consumers would want to know about?

It didn’t help that the figures were not published as a report but buried in the ‘Background’ section of an FSIS page announcing a comment period on a guideline for meat labelling claims.

A woman in safety glasses and lab coat is holding up a vial of red liquid.
The USDA’s FSIS sampled material from 189 cattle destined for the ‘Raised Without Antibiotics’ market and found antibiotic residues in 20% of animals. Image: DC Studio on Freepik.

 

This was not the first time antibiotic residues had been found in RWA meat and cattle. In 2022, researchers from the George Washington University reported that 15% of US RWA cattle contained antibiotic residues. Also in 2022, advocacy group Farm Forward found antibiotics in RWA beef purchased from Whole Foods.

In letters from the USDA to the companies found to be engaging in deceptive behaviour, obtained under freedom of information by Farm Forward, the USDA told the companies they may have produced misbranded product but would not be subject to any enforcement action.

In 2025, Farm Forward publicly named the companies with positive results, revealing that antibiotics were detected in beef declared ‘Raised without antibiotics’ from three of the four largest meat processors in the US.

In their April 2025 report, Farm Forward said JBS and Cargill continue to sell RWA, while Tyson abandoned some of its RWA brands in July 2024, after the USDA tests.

Smaller companies are also alleged to be continuing to use questionable claims, with Farm Forward stating that three smaller brands that market their meat as “no antibiotics ever” and “raised without antibiotics” continue to sell meat despite receiving positive results in the USDA survey and without announcing any changes to procedures, nor sharing any subsequent test results to verify their claims.

The USDA, which must approve all RWA claims before they may be used by a company, has not made any changes to its approval process and continues to rely on producers’ self-reporting of antibiotic use.

However, the FSIS states it now “strongly encourages meat and poultry establishments to substantiate such claims by implementing a routine sampling and testing program to test for the use of antibiotics in animals prior to slaughter.” Or, as an alternative, to obtain third-party certification that involves antibiotic testing.

This means that meat marketed as ‘antibiotic-free’ or ‘raised without antibiotics’ in the U.S. may continue to be affected by false and misleading claims. The USDA does not publicly disclose violations, nor penalise companies for mislabelling. As a result, consumers continue to pay premium prices for meat that may not be true to label.

Antibiotic-free meat: the global context

Antibiotics are used in meat production to prevent and treat bacterial infections in animals. In the United States, antibiotics are also used to promote growth and improve feed efficiency, allowing farmers to produce more meat with less feed.

However, the use of antibiotics as growth promoters is effectively banned in many other countries worldwide. Such bans aim to limit antibiotic use and curb the rise of drug-resistant bacteria, which pose major threats to public health.

In the U.S., the meat industry accounts for a significant portion of all antibiotics used in that country. For example, in 2020 it purchased 69% of the U.S. supply of medically important antibiotics, with just 31% being used for humans.

There is no publicly available information about the proportion of antibiotics that are used for prophylactic purposes, such as growth promotion, compared to treatment of already-sick animals in the U.S. However, compared to the European Union, the U.S. uses nearly double the quantity of antibiotics for livestock, based on 2020 figures.

‘Antibiotic-free’ meat is supposed to come from animals that have not received antibiotics at any stage in their lives. In the U.S., these products are labelled ‘Raised Without Antibiotics’ (RWA), a claim that is regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) but which relies on self-attestation by meat producers.

Theoretically, under the USDA RWA program, if an animal falls ill and requires antibiotics, it is removed from the program by the farm operator, and its meat should not be sold under the antibiotic-free label.

Globally, only 20% of countries still use antimicrobials as growth promoters in meat production. In the European Union, antibiotics have not been permitted for use as growth-promoters since 2006, with China following suit in 2020.

There are partial restrictions in Australia, Canada, Uruguay, and Brazil, with most countries outlawing the use of antibiotics that are medically important for humans for use as livestock growth-promoters, while allowing other antibiotics to be used for such purposes.

A loophole related to the labelling and registration of feed additives exists in some countries. Feeds may contain undeclared low doses of antimicrobials, which are then unknowingly administered by farmers and veterinarians to their animals.

Globally, false claims of ‘antibiotic-free’ status may occur in any market where consumers pay a premium for meat labelled as such.

In short: USDA testing of animals destined for the ‘Raised Without Antibiotics’ market (RWA) revealed 20% of animals contained antibiotic residues 🍏 Companies were not named and no enforcement action was taken, despite the USDA telling companies they may have sold misbranded product 🍏 FSIS says it strongly encourages meat and poultry establishments to implement testing programs or engage with certifiers that use testing programs, however this is not mandatory 🍏 Purchasers of meat marketed as ‘antibiotic-free’ or ‘raised without antibiotics’ should be aware that these claims could be false 🍏

Main sources (minor sources are hyperlinked in the text):

Gillespie, K (2025) Is “Antibiotic-Free” Meat Really Antibiotic-Free?, Farm Forward [online]. Available for download from https://www.farmforward.com/publications/is-antibiotic-free-meat-really-antibiotic-free/

USDA (2023). Availability of FSIS Guideline on Substantiating Animal-Raising or Environment-Related Labeling Claims | Food Safety and Inspection Service. [online] Available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/federal-register-rulemaking/federal-register-notices/availability-fsis-guideline.

 

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

by

A faked inspection mark prompts a recall in the US

While food fraud can result in food safety problems, it’s very rare to see a recall for food fraud that is initiated prior to any reports of consumer illness. So I was very interested to see a recall in the USA in mid-2025 associated with food fraud.

The agency that initiated the recall, the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), said they were concerned that the recalled products posed a risk to consumers. It designated the recall a Class I, which is the most serious classification for recalls by that agency, reserved for hazards with a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or death.

Following the agency decision, a manufacturer in the US announced it would recall 32,000 pounds (14.5 metric tonnes) of sausage, pork chops and ribs after it was caught faking the USDA mark of inspection that must be carried on all meat products manufactured in the United States.

The product bore a false establishment number, which made it seem like it had been produced under the supervision of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspectors.

The recalled products bore false marks of inspection and carried the establishment number EST. 1785. There is no such establishment registered with the USDA.

A photo of one of the recalled foods with a red circle highlighting the false USDA establishment number.
One of the recalled foods with the false USDA establishment number. Image: FSIS

 

What made this unusual among food fraud incidents is the recall was initiated even though there had been no reports of consumer illness or injury from these products.

The recall was initiated because the FSIS considers food produced without inspection to be dangerous, saying it “may contain undeclared allergens, harmful bacteria, or other contaminants that put consumer health and safety at risk”.

Sadly, in 2024 we saw evidence that FSIS inspection is perhaps less effective than the agency seems to imagine when meat products produced WITH inspection caused the deaths of 10 people from Listeria.

The ready-to-eat liverwurst linked that Listeria outbreak was made at a USDA-registered establishment by Boar’s Head. Before the outbreak, the facility had been described as filthy and contaminated, with condensation dripping onto food, mold, insects, food residues and “general filth” by inspectors representing the FSIS – the very people supposedly positioned in the facility to prevent contamination and protect consumers.

So call me a cynic, but a relatively small selection of not-ready-to-eat food produced without FSIS inspection seems no more risky than a truckload of ready-to-eat liverwurst produced with FSIS inspection.

However, I digress. The interesting thing to note with this recall is that the root cause is fraud. The legal framework in this case is the Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act (FD&C Act (1938)), which considers food marketed with false information to be “misbranded”, making it illegal in the United States.

Beyond the FD&C Act, and using my definition of food fraud, which is “deception, using food for economic gain” this incident is an example of food fraud: the company sold their products with a fake trust symbol – the USDA establishment number – and in the process acted deceitfully to achieve economic gain, in this case by gaining market access that would not have been possible without the false USDA mark.

From a lawyerly perspective, proving ‘fraud’ in a court of law usually requires proof of intent. That is, the prosecutor has to show that the deceptive behaviour was done on purpose and was not a simple mistake.

We don’t have the same burden of proof when we discuss food fraud as non-lawyers. However, I do consider intention when deciding what to include in my weekly food fraud reports for The Rotten Apple.

I use my expertise to make a judgment about whether a deception could be intentional. If I judge an incident is more likely than not to be the result of an intentional act by someone in the supply chain, then I consider it ‘food fraud’.

Using fish species substitution as an example, the mislabelling of cheap fish like tilapia as expensive fish like Red Snapper is likely to be intentional because it gains the perpetrator extra money. Doing it the other way around – misrepresenting expensive fish as cheap fish – doesn’t result in a gain and is more likely to be accidental than intentional.

In the case of the fake USDA establishment number, I judge the deception to be intentional, with the understanding that this could be difficult to prove in a fraud case in a court of law.

But it is good to know that someone was paying attention and checking the authenticity of the establishment mark on these products and that the agency was willing to take action against the business. If only they had been so proactive at Boar’s Head.

In short: A recall has occurred after authorities learned of the fraudulent use of an establishment number on meat products in the USA 🍏 The recall was initiated to protect consumer safety, although no one was sickened 🍏 This is a rare example of a potential food safety problem from food fraud being identified by a government agency proactively, before anyone was harmed 🍏

Source: FSIS USDA Recall Notice

 

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

by

Tip-truck to table: waste diversion fraud

Organised crime groups are funnelling relabelled food back onto shelves

I’ve been wondering … what exactly happened to the 160,000 pounds (72,600 kg) of frozen shrimp that were recalled in the US in mid-2025 in relation to the radioactivity scare? Yes, it was recalled, but what happened to it after that?

What did the recalling companies and retailers actually do with each of the hundreds of thousands of 1.25 lb (570 g) bags of product? Did they empty the contents of every one and shred each package so it couldn’t be reused? Did they arrange for secure disposal with a trusted waste company and require a certificate of destruction? Or did they just dump them in a skip bin and let a contractor take them all away?

And why does this matter anyway?

It matters because the results of Operation Opson XIV have just landed. And they show that waste diversion crimes are at “unprecedented levels”.

Reminder: Operation Opson is an annual law enforcement initiative coordinated by INTERPOL and Europol with the aim of detecting and removing counterfeit, substandard, and fraudulent food and beverages from the market, and dismantling organised crime groups linked to such activities.

What are waste diversion crimes?

Waste diversion crimes in food involve illegally redirecting food, drink, or feed that is marked for disposal—such as expired, rejected, or unsafe goods—back into the human food supply chain through acts like relabelling or repackaging.

Photorealistic landscape image of identical cans with altered expiry labels in a warehouse.
Operation Opson XIV uncovered criminal-network- linked waste diversion crimes at unprecedented levels.

What do waste diversion crimes look like?

Here’s a hypothetical…

What if a seafood distributor involved in the recent US recalls decided the frozen shrimp was too valuable to throw away? What if senior management decided to make a few extra dollars by relabelling the cartons of product that had been returned to them rather than destroying them as required?

Could the distributor simply rebrand them or oversticker the cartons, add new expiry dates and keep them in the freezer until everyone has forgotten about the recalls, then sell them months or years later?

The short answer is yes.

It’s illegal and immoral, of course, but, with the shrimp worth $4 to $10 per pound, even a small quantity handled in this way can generate meaningful profits out of thin air – especially if the distributor received credits or refunds for the recalled stock.

Frozen seafood lasts many years – a man in Singapore was sentenced in 2023 for crimes related to storing frozen seafood that was almost 10 years past its expiry date – so there is plenty of scope for crime here.

In a different scenario, let’s imagine the seafood distributor does the right thing and sends the recalled shrimp for disposal.

In this scenario, what if the waste disposal company somehow had links to organisations that could relabel or repackage the shrimp and sell it back into legitimate supply chains later?

What if the waste disposal company didn’t just have links to criminals but was actually owned by an organised crime group that also owned repackaging facilities, warehouses and legitimate food distribution companies – a vertically integrated (mostly) legitimate supply chain? In this case, diverting the recalled shrimp back to retailers and restaurants would be easy.

But surely that’s too far-fetched, I hear you say. Sorry, I’m afraid it isn’t.

And anyway, Operation Opson is mostly in Europe. Surely this sort of thing isn’t happening in places like the USA? Sorry, I’m afraid it is.

The following story is not a hypothetical, but a real incident that happened in the United States.

The roadside spilling of a truckload of Skittles confectionery on its way to a cattle ranch, where it was destined for animal feed, made news headlines in 2017. When people protested that cows should not be fed Skittles, the brand owner, Mars, told reporters that the confectionery had been sent for destruction, saying they had no idea how the candies ended up on their way to a farm1.

Waste disposal crimes today

Things have changed since 2017. The price of food has increased dramatically, food security has fallen significantly, even in wealthy countries. There is also a growing body of evidence that documents the involvement of organised crime groups in food, in addition to typical crime sectors such as drugs and guns.

Today’s global landscape has made waste diversion crimes more attractive, not less.

In 2023, European law enforcement agencies dismantled two large crime groups that were reselling expired food after re-printing expiry dates or applying new labels, with 27 people arrested for their roles in a million-euro operation based in Lithuania, and selling food across multiple countries. They also arrested 3 people in Italy. In total, the agencies confiscated more than 1.5 million food and beverage items in the operations. The Lithuanian operation had been active since 2021.

At the time, Europol told reporters, “The phenomenon [of waste diversion crime] is new in its scale and diffused across several EU member states,”

Europol assured the industry that the criminals were working in food disposal, not food production, saying “There is no involvement of food producers, as intermediate suppliers or other entities working in food disposal are used as facilitators in this particular criminal activity.”

“Entities working in food disposal are used as facilitators in this particular criminal activity.” Europol (2023), via Securing Industry

In 2025, the situation seems worse. The most recent Operation Opson, Opson XIV, has just concluded, with 13 organised crime groups disrupted, 101 arrest warrants issued and €95 million worth of food and beverages seized.

One of the major trends for Opson XIV, said Europol, was finding waste disposal companies infiltrated by organised crime groups, which were using the waste companies to gain access to food destined for destruction.

This is not a new phenomenon, but this year, says Europol, the scale is “unprecedented”.

Examples everywhere?

Have you ever seen food that’s been through the waste diversion chain? You probably have, without even knowing it.

I can think of three incidents that could be linked to organised crime in waste providers.

1. Dodgy Diet Coke

‘Not right’-tasting Diet Coke discovered in London in 2025 could be expired product fraudulently reintroduced to the market – artificial sweeteners in diet soft drinks lose their sweetness, rendering old drinks tasting like soda water. Read more on the Fake Coke scandal.

2. Jars of herbs containing glass

In 2023, I reported on a waste disposal company in the Netherlands that was selling food products it had promised to destroy. The crimes were uncovered after a consumer was injured by glass in a jar of herbs from a batch sent for destruction.

The waste company was providing declarations of destruction which were false. A key person at the waste company had previously been convicted of environmental crimes.

3. Spaza shop mystery deaths

In January, I wrote about the thousands of unexplained deaths in South Africa attributed to food purchased from spaza shops (small, independent and lightly regulated retail outlets).

A key complaint about the food from these shops is that it is often expired. Much of it appears to have been illegally imported by foreign nationals operating the stores without proper immigration status.

Video footage of a raid on one shop showed foods such as savoury crackers in transparent inner packs without their outer packaging or labels. Because they are missing traceability elements such as outers and labels, these foods could be from non-legitimate supply chains.

Officially, it’s said that Spaza shop owners use collective purchasing practices to keep prices low; however, it’s possible that groups of spaza shop owners source their products from overseas suppliers with links to waste disposal companies.

Takeaways for food professionals

Enforcement agencies are discovering the presence of organised crime groups in food waste disposal operations at unprecedented levels. Food that is intended for destruction and disposal is being diverted back into the human food supply chain after expiry dates or entire labels are altered or replaced.

Purchasers of packaged foods, such as grocery stores, independent retailers and food service outlets like takeaways, restaurants and cafes should obtain their supplies from legitimate, authorised stockists and wholesalers.

Manufacturers should be vigilant when disposing of packaged or branded materials.

Supplier approval processes should include the vetting of waste disposal contractors. Background checks are recommended – for example, have key personnel got a history of criminal convictions (as was the case in the Netherlands example)?

Certificates of disposal/destruction should be verified where possible.

As a former-soft-drink-company-employee told me in response to my Diet Coke story, “The correct disposal of branded waste and reject materials is a key factor for limiting the opportunity for these crimes.”

When purchasing food as a business or consumer, be on the lookout for:

  • Food that seems too old, despite being within date
  • Outer cartons and individual packs that are more scuffed, damaged or worn than expected
  • New suppliers that appear unexpectedly and offer products from multiple disparate brands, sometimes at lower-than-usual prices
  • Corner shops/spaza shops/tuck shops selling food in inner packs marked ‘not for retail sale’, or without exterior packages that would carry the batch codes or date markings
  • Packages with foreign language labels and no local information.

If in doubt about any such food, keep a sample and contact enforcement agencies and the brand owner to describe your concerns. Big food companies will investigate and take action against waste disposal crimes affecting their brands.

… and be on the lookout for suspicious frozen shrimp in the US for the next year or two…

In short: The involvement of organised crime groups in waste disposal operations was found at unprecedented levels in the latest Europol anti-food crime operation, Operation Ospon XIV 🍏 Food intended for destruction is being diverted back into the human food supply chain, often with altered expiry dates or new labels 🍏 Purchasers are warned to be aware and to report suspect products to the brand owner and enforcement agencies for investigation 🍏

Main source:

Europol (2025) Counterfeit and substandard food worth EUR 95 million seized in global operation (Operation Opson XIV). Available online: https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/counterfeit-and-substandard-food-worth-eur-95-million-seized-in-global-operation

 

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

by

Organic Food Fraud in 2020

Twelve million dollars buys a lot of raspberries. Even if they are organic. In August 2019, a $12m shipment of (supposedly) organic raspberries was intercepted at the Chilean border, as they were being exported to Canada. They were accompanied by fake organic declarations and fraudulent paperwork claiming they were grown in Chile.

It was an all too common occurrence; organic food fraud, committed by criminals to profit from the higher prices consumers will pay for organic, “clean” produce. The raspberries were not grown in Chile; they had been shipped all the way from China; imported to Chile so the fraudsters could pretend they were locally grown.

And they were not organic.

Organic berries are vulnerable to food fraud

 

Sales of organic food have increased since the global corona virus pandemic started. Sales in the USA were up 50% in March 2020. An Organic Trade Association poll of “likely organic shoppers” found 90% of respondents think buying organic has become more important because of the virus, presumably because of an increased focus on health and healthy eating.

Sales of organic food are increasing year on year. In 2019, American consumers bought $55.1 billion worth of organic food, up on the previous year by 4.6% .

As organic food becomes ever-more popular, frauds like the raspberry heist are becoming more common. It is impossible for a consumer to know whether food is authentically organic or not. This makes organic fraud easy for criminals to get away with. Organic foods are one of the food types most frequently affected by food fraud, according to the Decernis Food Fraud Database.

The good news for the USA is that after many years of criticism of its organic program, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is making a visible effort to reduce fraud in the organic supply chain.  In fact, they are proposing new rules that aim to strengthen control systems, improve traceability for organic produce, and increase enforcement of the USDA organic regulations.

Organic peas vegetable pesticide
Organic foods and food fraud are like two (freshly picked) peas in a pod.

How to protect your business from organic fraud

If you have a food business that buys or sells organic food, you are at risk, now more than ever. Global supply chains have been disrupted by the pandemic and these disruptions mean many suppliers are struggling to deliver foods that meet specifications. It is tempting for wholesalers and distributors to substitute conventionally-grown produce for organic to make extra profits, or simply to allow them to fulfill customers’ orders.

Step 1: Become aware

Don’t be blind to the risks. Organic fraud happens more often than most people realise. Would you be able to tell the difference between an organic raspberry and a conventionally grown raspberry? Probably not. If criminals in Chile found it profitable to transport fake organic raspberries right across the globe before the pandemic, you can bet they are even more motivated to perpetrate fraud in the current economic climate.

Step 2: Educate yourself

If you own a food business, educate yourself about the risks. Learn about organic fraud; how it is perpetrated, what it looks like.

Michigan State University and the USA Organic Trade Association have published a free online course in Organic Fraud Prevention. It is US-centric but contains fraud detection and prevention strategies that can be applied anywhere.

Step 3: Assess your ingredients and products

Make a list of the organic food ingredients or food products that your business purchases. For each item on the list, ask yourself the question: “Can I be sure this is really organic?”.

Right now, you probably rely on verbal assurances from suppliers or pretty logos on packaging or invoices. That’s a fool’s game.

Instead, seek proper documentation from suppliers: request copies of organic certificates and cross-check them against invoices and labels. Or take a minute to research the certifications and logos on labels. All reputable organic certification bodies maintain a list of certified products or suppliers that you can check online. If the product or grower has a genuine organic certification, you will find it listed on the certification body’s website.

Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for food companies to use organic logos without having the proper certifications.  Always check.

You can also check the list of fraudulent certificates on the USDA organic program website.

If your business operates a food safety program it should already have a food fraud vulnerability assessment.  Review that assessment.  All organic foods should be rated as “vulnerable” in the vulnerability assessment and they must have appropriate mitigation strategies applied to reduce the risks.

Step 4; Take steps to reduce the risk

If you can’t be sure of the authenticity of the ingredients or products you are buying (and selling) you only have two choices:

(i) change your supplier to one with a properly certified organic program, or

(ii) stop making organic claims about the products you sell.

To do anything else puts you at risk of inadvertently committing food fraud, which is a criminal offence.

Consumers are buying more organic foods than ever before.  At the same time, the unstable global economy makes fraud more tempting and supply chain disruptions provide extra opportunities for criminals.  Organic food fraud puts your business and brands at risk.

Now is not the time for complacency; stay alert and keep your brands safe.

 

by

How food fraud is uncovered; two cases of origin fraud

Origin fraud occurs when a food is misrepresented with respect to its geographical origin; it’s a type of fraud that can be categorised as ‘mislabeling’.

Examples of mislabeling include:

  • describing a fruit or vegetable as ‘organic’ when it was conventionally grown
  • cheeses and meats labeled as kosher or halal that are not
  • Spanish olive oil falsely declared as being ‘Italian’.  This is origin fraud.

Mislabeling is also called misbranding in some countries.  Because it is intended to deceive customers and consumers it is illegal under consumer protection laws and trade/contract laws just about everywhere.  Because almost every type of food fraud involves mislabeling to some extent, quoting statistics on mislabeling is difficult.  As an example, a botanical supplement labelled as 100% turmeric extract but that actually contains 15% filler is both mislabeled and diluted.  To make it even trickier, different organisations using different words to describe similar food fraud activities.  Learn more about classifying food fraud types in this great Food Safety Tech Article.  Suffice to say, mislabeling fraud is very common and, according to US Grocery Manufacturers Association, it affects around 10% of food products globally.

Coffee growers in Hawaii have launched a class action to protect their products

How do we expose origin fraud?  Typically, origin fraud is uncovered after authorities have been tipped off about suspect activity in a supply chain, either by people from within the supply chain or by competitors of the mislabeled product.   The evidence used to pursue the fraudsters often comes from either fraudulent documentation, or from testing of finished products.  This year we have seen an increase in the use of authenticity testing by representatives of ‘authentic’ brands to expose fraudulent products.  This is a trend that I expect to continue as test methods are improved, refined and can more easily be extended to assess specific product attributes.

I have been following this trend with interest and was reading, today, about alleged origin fraud in coffee in the United States. This is a case that is representative of the trend to use sophisticated test methods to authenticate finished product attributes.  Another recent example would be honey testing in Australia.  In the coffee case, growers from the Kona district of Hawaii have filed a lawsuit against retailers for allegedly selling ‘Kona’ coffee that does not contain a reasonable amount of coffee from the district. Kona coffee production is 2.7 million pounds, however more than 20 million pounds of coffee labelled ‘Kona’ is sold each year.  The plaintiffs claim to have analytical test results to support their claims.  Nineteen brands of coffee, sold by retailers including Walmart, Cosco and Amazon, have been named in the complaint.  Chemical testing technology underpins this current lawsuit, as it allows the coffee growers to show, for the first time, the actual Kona content of the coffee that is being allegedly mislabeled.  For this to be possible, the coffee growers would have had to organise for testing laboratories to create a database of chemical test results of authentic samples of Kona coffee.  Databases like this are used to model a product’s unique chemical fingerprint using sophisticated mathematical computations.  The test method can then be used to compare the ‘fingerprints’ of suspect brands against those of authentic products, such as Kona-grown coffee, and infer the amount of genuine material in each sample.  Developing databases for this type of testing is expensive and time consuming.  However, there are an increasing number of laboratories that have the machinery, skills and software to perform this work, so it is becoming more accessible to brand owners.

Specialty vinegars fetch high prices and can be vulnerable to economically motivated food fraud.

In cases that do not originate with product testing, it is activities in the supply chain that provide clues to origin fraud.  This month there have been reports of origin fraud for a specialty vinegar, Modena balsamic vinegar.  Modena balsamic is protected by a special geographical designation under European regulations.  According to these rules, Modena balsamic vinegar must be produced using grapes only from certain regions in order to be considered authentically ‘Modena’.  A massive fraud involving 15 million Euros worth of materials has been uncovered in Italy after a special operation by local authorities found that the wrong grapes were being used to produce this very expensive product.  Although operational details about this investigation are scarce, these types of actions by authorities are often initiated after authorities have received a tip off from someone connected with the supply chain.   Another example of such a tip-off includes this recent wine counterfeiting operation in which authorities became aware that a printing shop had received an order for 4,500 wine labels from a company that was not the brand owner.

More tip-offs and more testing are my predictions for 2019 and 2020.  These are going to lead to more investigations, complaints and enforcement actions against perpetrators of food fraud.  And that’s a win for everyone!

Want our help with a food fraud problem?

Contact Us for Confidential Advice