What Is Food Fraud?

Food fraud is the act of purposely altering, misrepresenting, mislabeling, substituting or tampering with any food product at any point along the farm–to–table food supply chain. Fraud can occur in the raw material, in an ingredient, in the final product, or in the food’s packaging.

Fraudulent and intentional substitution, dilution, or addition to a raw material or food product, or misrepresentation of the material or product for financial gain (by increasing its apparent value or reducing its cost of production) or to cause harm to others (by malicious contamination), is food fraud.

Food fraud is the deception of consumers through intentional food adulteration.

What is Food Adulteration?

Food adulteration is the intentional addition or modification of a food product with inferior, cheaper, or non-authentic substances, often to increase volume or weight, or to improve appearance, which can compromise the product’s quality, safety, and nutritional value.

Food adulteration often takes the form of the following:

• Substituting one product for another.
• Using unapproved enhancements or additives.
• Misrepresenting something (e.g., country of origin).
• Misbranding or counterfeiting.
• Stolen food shipments.
• Intentional contamination with a variety of chemicals, biological agents, or other substances harmful to private or public health.

A discussion of food fraud and food adulteration must include:

• Economic motivation.
• Unintended private and public health consequences.
• Ethical/religious concerns.
• Intended harm.
• Criminal liability.

Historical Perspective and Contemporary Challenges of Food Fraud

Since the 13th Century during the reign of King John, England has had food fraud laws against diluting wine with water, adding ash to pepper, and packing flour with chalk.

Food fraud and adulteration were first addressed in the U.S. by food laws as far back as 1784. The U.S. FDA, in the 19th Century, began protecting consumers from snake oil salesman and other charlatans that preyed on the susceptible public with their alchemy–spiked tonic and elixirs.

Food Fraud Detection and Prevention

To help counter this, FDA has several hundred agents deployed worldwide as part of its chemical investigations division to investigate food fraud.

One of the main reasons that food fraud doesn’t get as much attention as it deserves is because the effects on the human body usually go unnoticed, or the connection between illness and fraudulent–food consumption is not clear.

What are the Most Adulterated Foods?

The Food Authenticity Network reports the following as the top 5 most adulterated foods, based on 2022 data:

1. Seafood
2. Meat/poultry
3. Dairy products
4. Herbs/spices
5. Alcoholic beverages

Economic Motivation and Public Health Consequences of Food Fraud

Food fraud is a global business worth in excess of $50 billion annually. As of 2024, the U.S. FDA estimates the global cost of food fraud to be between $10 billion to $40 billion per year.

Economically motivated adulteration can result in public health consequences, like these infamous cases:

• Melamine in dairy products (China): Hundreds of thousands of illnesses and at least 6 infant deaths.
• Industrial–grade rapeseed oil, sold as olive oil (Spain): 20,000 illnesses and at least 300 deaths.
• Mislabeled fish could have come from polluted water; if eaten by pregnant women, mercury or cadmium could affect health of an unborn child.

Preventive Controls and Hazard Analysis in Food Industry

In the Preventive Controls for Human Food, during Hazard Analysis, economically motivated adulteration is limited to “only those agents that can cause illness or injury.” For example:

• Melamine in infant milk formula.
• Lead–containing dyes in spices and candy.
• Sudan 1, a carcinogen, in chili powder.

The regulation states, “Do not include horsemeat for beef, corn syrup for honey, or peanuts for cumin”. When a Preventive Control is needed, a Supply Chain Preventive Control program is typically used.

Global Issues with Fraudulent Blending of Food Products

Fraudulent blending of food products with meats from undeclared species…

• Is a problem on a global scale, as exemplified by the European horsemeat scandal in 2013.
• Affects consumer rights from the economic point of view.
• Might be a significant problem for people with ethical or religious concerns regarding the consumption of meat from species such as horse or pork.

Instances of Meat-Species Substitution Food Fraud

In the late 1970s, a well–known case of “meat–species substitution fraud” involved representation of kangaroo meat and horsemeat as frozen beef trimmings. Purchased from an Australian meat broker, it was used by grinders to produce “ground beef” patties for a fast–food franchise operation.

In 2011, a suit was filed in a state district court, by a private citizen, against another quick–service operator, claiming that the company’s Mexican–style foods did not contain “enough beef.”

In both cases, a qualitative and quantitative analysis system (i.e., ELISA) was used to speciate the meat samples with a level of detection down to 0.5% of the matrix.

Since then, new analytical systems (using combinations of DNA barcoding, PCR, HPLC and/or MS) have been developed with a level of detection down to 0.1% of the matrix. One of the world’s largest beef–burger restaurant chains recently reported it requires grinders to randomly sample and perform meat speciation tests of incoming raw materials throughout its global supply chain.

Research on Meat Mislabeling

Chapman University in California tested ground meat and exotic game meats for presence of beef, chicken, lamb, turkey, pork, and horsemeat and reported that…

• 38 of 48 ground meat samples were labeled correctly.
• 1 sample was mislabeled in its entirety and 9 samples contained additional species.
• Meat from online distributors, local butchers, and supermarkets, respectively, was mislabeled 35%, 18%, and 6% of the time.
• Exotic game meat from online distributors was mislabeled 18.5% of the time.

The researchers concluded that, although mislabeling could have occurred from cross–contamination in facilities that process meat from multiple species, over half of species substitutions may have been economically motivated.

Food Fraud Cases and their Impact

A firestorm of cases involving food fraud, stoked by greed and economical gains, is growing by the year both domestically and worldwide. For example:

• China (2008) melamine in baby food; (2015) “zombie” frozen meat.
• Russia (2015) palm oil in milk.
• Italy (2011) illegal organic produce; (2014) hydrogen peroxide on seafood.
• England (2013) beef burgers containing pork and horsemeat.
• Australia (2013) free–range eggs from caged hens.
• Mexico (2005–present) meat from undeclared species.
• USA (2009–present) Salmonella in peanuts, honey–laundering, meat from undeclared species.

While usually harmless, some food fraud incidents have resulted in serious public health consequences and, thus, illustrate vulnerabilities in regulatory and quality assurance systems that could be exploited for malicious intentional harm.

Food Safety Management Systems and Food Fraud

The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) highlights the importance of tackling food fraud in its guidance documents and has been increasingly emphasizing its significance in food safety management systems. GFSI requires food companies to have a food fraud vulnerability assessment in place and a mitigation plan to address the identified vulnerabilities.

Specifically, GFSI has recognized three different aspects of potential adulteration in the food supply chain:

1. Food Safety: Handled via the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) system, which is designed to prevent unintentional adulteration.
2. Food Defense: Managed via Threat Assessment Critical Control Points (TACCP), which focuses on the prevention of intentional adulteration due to ideological or behavioral motivations.
3. Food Fraud: Addressed via Vulnerability Assessment and Critical Control Points (VACCP), which focuses on economically motivated adulteration.

The detailed requirements or suggestions may vary according to the specific GFSI-recognized schemes, such as BRCGS Food Safety, SQF certification, and FSSC 22000.

Instances of Malicious Intentional Adulteration

Examples of malicious intentional adulteration include:

• September 1984: A religious sect intent on disrupting local elections in The Dalles, Oregon contaminated restaurant salad bars, creating ‘a large community outbreak of Salmonellosis.
• September 2002: A snack–bar owner in Nanjing China spread lethal rat poison into the food of his business rival, killing 38 people and leaving hundreds seriously ill.
• May 2016: Kyle Bessemer, in Michigan, sprayed mouse poison on food in snack bars.

Operation Opson VIII: Interpol and Europol’s Crackdown on Food Fraud

Operation Opson VIII (December 2018 to April 2019 in 78 countries by Interpol and Europol) found $118 million worth of potentially dangerous food and drink.

It found tampered expiration dates on cheese and chicken, controlled medicines added to drinks, and meat stored in unsanitary conditions.

Europol says, “This shows that criminals will take advantage of any opportunity to make a profit. Food fraud deceives consumers, hurts their wallets, makes them pay for something they do not get, and can result in serious harm to the public’s health.”

Operation Opson VIII identified these food fraud incidents:

• Counterfeit honey (Eritrea).
• Forged documentation of apples (Belarus).
• Counterfeit vodka (Russia).
• Alcoholic beverages for export sold domestically (South Africa).
• Counterfeit candy (Lithuania)
• Extra virgin olive oil that was actually sunflower oil
• Products claimed to be “Organic” that were not (16 EU member states).

In 2019, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency stopped the import of >28,000 pounds of EMA honey.

The Most Fraudulent Food Products in the USA

In a 2019 report, the most fraudulent food products in the U.S. were identified as…

• Organic
• Free-range
• Wild-caught
• Halal

Particularly, the USDA’s National Organic Program was exploited due to gaps in its verification system. Consequently, conventionally grown crops from countries such as Turkey and Ukraine were falsely labeled as “Organic”, massively inflating their value.

Notably, one study found that 37% of tested Chinese “Organic” products contained pesticide residues. The issue also persists domestically; for example, a fraudulent scheme involving five farmers/brokers in Missouri, Nebraska, and Iowa resulted in selling $142 million worth of conventionally grown grain as “Organic”.

Seafood Fraud: A Major Issue

One sector particularly susceptible to food fraud is seafood.

A large-scale investigation by Oceania™ revealed that a third of sampled seafood products were not as they were purported to be. Additionally, two cases of fraud related to beef products were recorded in September 2019, involving conspiracy to defraud the United States, selling uninspected or misbranded meat, and altering meat grades.

Misbranding of Plant-Based Foods

Controversy emerges as numerous companies “misbrand” plant-based food products, using names historically limited to traditional dairy and meat products.

Although the FDA is responsible for preventing such misrepresentation, the agency has been somewhat lax in enforcing these regulations, leading to the prevalence of plant-based products like “Almond Milk,” “Peanut Butter,” and “Beyond Beef”.

Findings from the 2019 Food Safety Insights Survey

In a 2019 survey, approximately 36% of US/Canada (US/C) and 33% of International (INT) food processors considered economically motivated adulteration to be a significant issue. For combined US/C and INT food producers, 15% reported detecting food fraud in their supply chains, and 29% use analytical testing for detection.

EMA was considered a significant issue for various commodities including…

• Spices (56%)
• Seafood (44%)
• Beverages (42%)
• Meat (36%)
• Dairy products (35%)
• Fruits/vegetables (31%)
• Grains and milled products (24%)

Food Defense Plans and Regulation

Several entities in the USA are actively combatting food fraud, including…

• Food Protection and Defense Institute
• US Pharmacopeia
• Food Fraud Initiative
• NSF International
• FDA
• Food Safety and Inspection Service
• Global Food Safety Initiative
• SSAFE

These organizations use various strategies including maintaining databases of food fraud incidents, enhancing detection methods, inspection, laboratory testing, developing early warning systems, promoting corporate integrity, and fostering international cooperation.

Additionally, they push for increased regulatory action, stronger food safety culture and personnel training, and the development of comprehensive food defense plans that assess vulnerabilities, implement preventive controls, and maintain rigorous recordkeeping and verification processes.

Discover how to perform a food fraud vulnerability assessment for your facility in this free webinar presented by our regulatory partners at EAS Consulting Group, A Certified Group Company.

Whistleblowing in the Food Industry

Some food fraud experts say that the best way to prevent adulteration is for food industry employees to speak up when they see wrongdoing. NSF International recommends encouraging whistle–blowing by company employees based on a COSO study indicating that “a tip” was the most successful source of initially detecting occupational fraud.

Suspect Personality Traits

The Food Standards Agency in the UK suspects that fellow employees should be alert for people of certain personality traits who might develop into malicious attackers. The FSA has characterized such persons as “extortionists”, “opportunists”, “extremists”, “irrational individuals”, “disgruntled individuals”, “hacktivists”, or “professional criminals”.

Detection and Prevention of Food Fraud

That being said, food fraud detection through consumer vigilance is often impractical; testing is the best solution to this problem. However, it raises a concern that untested contaminants, substances, and additives may go unnoticed, indicating a gap in the current testing approach.

Legal Considerations in Food Fraud

In criminal law, the infraction must be mens rea (latin for ‘with intent’) to lead to a felony conviction. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act:

• The standard for a misdemeanor is “strict criminal liability” and not “criminal intent”.
• Executives can be convicted of a misdemeanor for “holding a position of authority and having had the ability to prevent a food safety violation”.
• Officials do not need proof of criminal (or, fraudulent) intent to pursue a misdemeanor conviction, which could lead up to a year in jail and a fine up to $250,000.

The FDA’s power to bring charges against corporate executives was solidified in 1975, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the president of a major grocery chain.

Case Studies in Food Fraud Prosecution

In that case, the president was found criminally liable for the unsanitary conditions of a warehouse, notwithstanding his argument that he had delegated the responsibility for maintaining the cleanliness of the warehouse to his subordinates. The Supreme Court concluded that if a company unknowingly ships adulterated food, the management can be charged, under the Park Doctrine, without knowledge, intent, or even negligence. In each case, FDA will consider the individual’s position within the company, their relationship to the violation, and whether they were in a position (or, had the authority) to correct the violation. An executive cannot use “ignorance of the violation” as a defense.

Midamar Corporation and Islamic Services of America have been ordered to forfeit $600,000 in the US District Court. Three defendants, William, Jalel, and Yahya Aossey, admitted to a scheme involving falsification of export certificates to ship Halal beef to customers in Malaysia and Indonesia. They face up to 5 years in jail plus a $250,000 fine for a felony conspiracy violation plus 1 year and $100,000 for each misdemeanor charge.

Stewart Parnell (Peanut Corporation of America) was sentenced to 28 years in prison based on a felony: “Intent to defraud based on emails and fabricated certificates of analysis of his peanut product shipments”.’ The sentence was historic, marking the first sentence of significant jail time for causing foodborne illness. US prosecutors have won convictions in 4 other foodborne outbreak cases in the last 3 years (e.g., the DeCosters and the Jensens).

Contact us to find out how our North American network of 30+ ISO 17025 accredited labs can help combat food fraud and safeguard your supply chain.

References:

• COSO Study, Analysis of US Public Companies. 1998
• Dybunco et al. 2013. Journal of Food Science.
• eNewsletter. 2016 http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com (accessed 2016)
• Everstine et al. 2013. Food Safety & Quality. 4:14–15.
• FDA. 2016. Preventive Controls for Human Food.
• Focused Mitigation Strategies To Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration. FDA Proposed Rule, Code of Federal Regulations. 2016
• Food Fraud Mitigation Guidance. US Pharmacopeial Convention. 2015
• Food Standards Agency. 2016. food.gov.UK
• Gabbett, Rita Jane. 2015. Meatingplace. (October Issue)
• GFSI Position on Mitigating the Public Health Risk of Food Fraud. MyGFSI. 2014
• Labs, Wayne. 2016. Food Engineering. (February Issue)
• Labs, Wayne. 2016. Food Engineering. (March Issue)
• Maday, John. 2015. Bovine Veterinarian. (August Issue)
• Murano, Elsa. 2016. personal communication.
• National Center for Food Protection and Defense. 2013
• NSF International. 2014
• Sayer, Steve. 2015. Meatingplace. (September Issue)
• Schug, Debra. 2016. Food Engineering. (January Issue)
• Sifferlin, Alexandra. 2015. TIME. (September Issue)
• SSAFE, www. ssafe–food.org. (accessed 2016)
• Stevens, Shawn. 2015. Meatingplace. (July Issue)
• The Food Fraud Initiative, http://foodfraud.msu.edu (accessed 2016)
• Theno, Dave. 2015. personal communication
• von Bargen et al. 2014. J. Agr. Food Chemistry.
• Zoroya, Gregg. 2015. USA Today. (June Issue)