Food Fraud Advisors

You are here: Home / Archives for transparency

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

Letter from Thailand – food fraud, food safety, food excellence

The World of Food Safety Conference was held in Bangkok in conjunction with THAIFEX in early June 2017.  Delegates represented large and medium sized food businesses in South East Asia as well as government and trade organisations.  Thai, Singaporean, Malaysian and Myanmar delegates dominated the group.  The attendees were hungry for knowledge about food fraud and food fraud prevention; almost 50% of the topics across the two-day conference were related to food fraud, traceability, supply chain management and crisis management.

As well as speaking about recent trends and developments in food fraud, I enjoyed learning from the other speakers, sampling the wonders of THAIFEX and enjoying Thai food which was truly excellent.

Karen Constable spoke about Food Fraud at World of Food Safety Conference

 

Background checks as an aid to fraud mitigation

I was lucky to gain some fantastic insights into the intricacies and challenges of performing background checks on business people in Asia from Jingyi Li Blank,  Mintz Group.  Background checks on business owners are a great way to understand vulnerabilities to food fraud when seeking new suppliers or investigating sources of new raw materials.  South East Asia and China present some challenges for companies performing background checks, including the way that people in the area often have multiple spellings and versions of their names, as well as issues related to cross-border jurisdictions.

Prevalence of food fraud prevention systems

Julia Leong from PricewaterhouseCoopers shared some statistics on current levels of compliance among food companies who have interracted with the PwC SSAFE tool: 41% of companies have no systems to detect or monitor fraud, 36% have no whistle-blowing systems and 38% do not perform background checks on employees. Food businesses that neglect these areas are exposing themselves to serious financial risks from food fraud.

Support for food businesses in developing countries from GFSI

It was heartening to hear about the new program being launched by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) in developing countries.  The Global Markets Program is designed to bridge the gap between food operations with no formal food safety systems and those who have GFSI-endorsed certification by helping companies to develop food safety management systems through a process of continuous improvement.  Within the program, manufacturing support systems related to hygiene and other basic principles of food safety are implemented progressively over a defined time period as the companies work to attain either a basic or intermediate level of compliance.  The results are not accredited but become the foundation for further improvements so that the business can work towards implementing a complete food safety program.

Sustainability in the food supply chain; palm oil and coconut oil

Matthew Kovac of Food Industry Asia presented on behalf of Cargill, providing a fascinating introduction to the sustainability programs Cargill has introduced in their palm oil and coconut oil supply chains.  Cargill is a major grower, purchaser and refiner of palm oil and are aiming for a 100% sustainable target by 2020.   For Cargill, sustainability in palm oil means:

  • No deforestation of high value areas
  • No development on peat (burning beat causes air pollution and contributes to climate change)
  • No exploitation of indigenous peoples
  • Inclusion of small land holders

Coconut oil sustainability is being improved in conjunction with The Rainforest Alliance, by providing training and support for Filipino growers so that they can increase their yields, as well as providing them with access to wood fired dryers that allow the growers to produce copra that has better colour, less aflatoxins, less environmental contaminants and lower free fatty acids than traditionally sun-dried copra.

The many and varied hazards in HACCP for fish

It was both fascinating and scary to be reminded of the hazards to food safety from fresh fin fish by Preeya Ponbamrung, from Handy International: pathogenic bacteria, viruses, biotoxins such as ciguatera, biogenic amines (histamine being the most common), parasites and chemicals such as water pollutants and antibiotics used in aquaculture.  That’s quite a hazard list; it was heartening to hear Ms Ponbamrung describe the control methods employed by the fish processing industry to keep those hazards out of our food supply.

Crisis communications; winners and losers

We learnt about successful methods – and not-so-successful-methods – that food companies use to communicate food safety and food fraud risks to consumers.  Nestle was applauded for its fast, clear and practical response to reports of counterfeit versions of its popular MILO chocolate drink powder in Malaysia.  The brand owner promptly published instructions for consumers on social media and in the local press explaining how to tell the difference between the fake and the real product.

Image: MILO Malaysia Facebook, March 2015

 

Some other companies do not do so well with crisis communications.  Cesare Varallo of Inscatech, showed us that the public communications of Chipotle in the USA about its food safety problems were less than ideal.  The brand has suffered serious losses and it has been reported that 13% of its former customers say they will never return.  Time is of the essence in a food safety or food fraud crisis.  Does your company have a crisis plan?

Want to know more about any of these topics?  Get in touch with us, we love to help.

by

Coming to a store near you….

Keeping abreast of food fraud and food safety news is a daily activity and one of my favourite work tasks.  This week, as I skimmed through food industry trivia and pondered the launch of chocolate cheese (seriously), the two most alarming and unusual food fraud incidents I came across were news of thirty five businesses who were caught by Chinese authorities adding opium to food and a British business that was prosecuted for selling ‘almond’ powder that contained peanut.  By the way,  you did see that correctly: opium.  And just for the record, opium is not a permitted food additive.  Peanut-contamination of anything is, of course, a very serious risk to the safety of allergic consumers and has resulted in deaths in recent years.  It’s tragic to see that this type of adulteration continues to occur.

Having digested thousands of words of information about prosecutions, investigations, trends in food fashions and the changing regulatory landscape, I began to notice some patterns and found a couple of big red flags for future risks of food fraud.

Halal

Halal certifications are increasingly needed for market access for almost every food type at both the retail and wholesale level.  A halal product is often indistinguishable from its non-halal counterpart which means that everyday consumers are not able to verify food sellers’ claims about halal status.  Falsely claiming halal for a food item is an easy fraud to perpetrate, especially during the retail sale of un-packaged food in restaurants and takeaway stores.  Halal fraud can be as sophisticated as forgery of certification documents accompanying bulk shipments of food or as simple as dishonest signage in a takeaway store.  There have been a number of incidences of halal fraud in the news lately and these are almost certainly the tip of the iceberg.  I see very high risks in the South East Asian countries of Indonesia and Malaysia; these being some of the world’s biggest markets for halal food and having variable and sometimes chaotic food supply chains accompanied by uneven regulatory enforcement.  However, halal forgery can happen even in the most sophisticated markets with a recent prosecution in the United Kingdom in which the fraudster is alleged to have netted a quarter of a million pounds.  With this kind of money up for grabs, you can expect halal fraud to continue.

Is this meat halal?

Probiotics

Probiotics are among the hottest food ingredients for the healthy eating market right now.  New technology is claimed to enable probiotic bacteria – good bacteria – to survive in an ever-increasing range of food types, taking them beyond traditional yoghurts and ‘Yukult’ style dairy drinks.  Probiotic foods command a premium price and, as with many of the most vulnerable food fraud targets, the probiotic components are indiscernible to consumers.  There is a real and growing risk that fraudulent claims will be made about the quantity and types of live bacteria in food products, with the possibility of both accidental and deliberate frauds.  Any food business can make a mistake with formulations and shelf life, leading to discrepancies between the quantity of live bacteria in the food and what is claimed on the pack.  Premium brand owners are less likely to risk their reputation with unsubstantiated claims and these businesses are more likely to have the in-house expertise and resources to properly verify their on-pack claims.  It’s the smaller food companies and newer brands that I worry about:  they are much more likely to find themselves inadvertently or knowingly selling ‘probiotic’ products that don’t live up to the marketing hype.

Cold Brew Coffee

Can you fake cold brew coffee?  Cold brewed coffee appears to be here to stay but it has a high price tag and would be easy to fake.  Could the average consumer taste the difference between conventional and cold-brew coffee?  I’m pretty sure that I couldn’t, especially when served icy cold or with lots of milk.  The production method for cold brewed coffee is slower than conventional brewing, which usually means more costly.  And that means food businesses could be tempted to cut a few corners.  Even hipster brands that build their messages around product authenticity can find themselves in a scandal when financial pressures increase, as was the case with an ultra-premium bean-to-bar chocolate brand recently.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few incidences of fraudulent claims about cold-brewed coffee hitting the headlines this year.

Cold brew coffee: hot food fraud risk

by

Supplements, the last frontier?

The supplement industry received a wakeup call last year, particularly in the USA, after the New York attorney general commenced legal proceedings against 13 supplements manufacturers alleging that the supplements did not contain exactly what they should have contained.  The sampling and test methodology used to support the prosecution has been widely criticised, and the industry considers the results to be questionable at best.  Nevertheless, the issue of authenticity and adulteration has received extra attention among producers and users of supplements since then.

Some examples of recent supplement frauds have involved grape seed extract adulterated with peanut skins.  Ironically, grape seed extract has also been found to be an adulterant itself, with some cranberry products adulterated.  Within the supplements investigated by the New York attorney general, valerian was found to contain garlic and wild carrot, echinacea was found to contain rice and buttercup DNA while St Johns wort was alleged to contain DNA from a species of ornamental house plant.

What’s being done?  Well you won’t read about it in the press but there’s no question that large retailers, including those that were targeted by the New York attorney general, such as Walmart, Target, GNC and Walgreens, have reviewed and tightened up their purchasing contracts; supplement testing methodology has been reviewed and reputable supplement manufacturers are testing more of their ingredients more often.  And that’s great news for consumers.

 

by

Food Fraud Survey

Have you ever been a victim of food fraud, either as a consumer or while working in the food industry?  It’s likely that at some point you have paid too much for a ‘premium’ product that was not exactly what it should have been.  Foods such as olive oil, organic products, fish and specialty beef products are commonly misrepresented to purchasers.  Take the food fraud survey to find out it you have been affected.

Take the survey