The EU Joint Research Centre (JRC) have published today their monthly collation of fraud media reports for October and November 2025.  The full index of reports can be found here

The JRC collation underpins a searchable front-end for media reports of food fraud incidents.  It allows filtering by commodity, country, fraud type and other key criteria.

This is just one of the incident databases available from different organisations.  Different databases collect different information, in different ways, and therefore show a different angle on the true picture.  All of these sources are signposted on FAN.  Best practice is to use a combination of all sources, but the final critical question is “how vulnerable is my own supplier”.

• JRC – These are solely media reports.  They exclude cases not in the public domain, and can be biased by shocking but highly localised incidents in local food supply within poorly regulated countries.  For the past few years, FAN member Bruno Sechet has produced a useful infographic based on each month's data
• EU Agri-Food Suspicions – These are solely EU Official Reports, and only suspicions.  The root cause of each incident is unknown.  The data include cases less likely to be deliberate fraud such as pesticide residues above their MRLs or unpermitted (but labelled) additives.  FAN produce our own infographic on a rolling 3-month basis.
• Food Industry Intelligence Network Fiin SME Hub – These are aggregated anonymised results from the testing programmes of large (mainly UK) food companies.  The testing programmes are targeted and risk-based, not randomised, and the fraud risks within the suppliers of large BRC-certified retailers and manufacturers may be different than the companies supplying small manufacturing businesses or hospitality firms.

Many testing laboratories also supply their own customers with incident collations, and there are many commercial software systems that scrape reports from the internet.  All collect and treat the data slightly differently.  FAN produce a free annual aggregate of "most adulterated foods" from three of the largest commercial providers (Fera Horizonscan, Meriux SafetyHud, FoodChainID), which gives very high level smoothed data.

Here is our latest monthly graphic from the EC Reports of Agri-Food Fraud Suspicions, showing a rolling 3-month trend. 

Our interpretation of the reports is subjective. In order to show consistent trends we have excluded cases which appear to be unauthorised sale but with no intent to mislead consumers (e.g. unapproved food additives, novel foods which are declared on pack), we have excluded unauthorised health claims on supplements, and we have excluded residues and contaminants above legal limits.  We have grouped the remaining incidents into crude categories.  Our analysis is intended only to give a high-level overview. 

It is notable how consistent is the relative frequency of different types of fraud.  The highest proportion always relate to falsified or unlicenced trade in high risk food (illegal operators, missing or falsified health certificates, attempts at illegal import) and relating to falsified or missing traceability documentation.  Particularly prominent over the past 3 months were:

• Documentation forgeries (eg invoices)  to falsify traceability
• Smuggling (deliberate avoidance of import checks)
• Excess water or low net weight of frozen seafood
• Non-prosecco “Prosecco”
• Adulterants in Dubai chocolate

Some incidents relate to absence of expected “premium” ingredients in manufactured food.  This is a reminder that compliance is judged not only against the ingredient declaration but also against the artwork (including any pictures alongside online sales) which give the impression that the product contains a particular ingredient.

These Agri-Food suspicions are just one of the incident databases available.  Different databases collect different information, in different ways, and therefore show a different angle on the true picture.  All of these sources are signposted on FAN.  Best practice is to use a combination of all sources, but the final critical question is “how vulnerable is my own supplier”.

• JRC – These are solely media reports.  They exclude cases not in the public domain, and can be biased by shocking but highly localised incidents in local food supply within poorly regulated countries.  They now incorporate a search and trending tool to produce graphs and charts
• EU Agri-Food Suspicions – These are solely EU Official Reports, and only suspicions.  The root cause of each incident is unknown.  The data include pesticide residues above their MRLs. unapproved supplements and novel foods, and unapproved health claims.
• Food Industry Intelligence Network Fiin SME Hub – These are aggregated anonymised results from the testing programmes of large (mainly UK) food companies.  The testing programmes are targeted and risk-based, not randomised, and the fraud risks within the suppliers of large BRC-certified retailers and manufacturers may be different than the companies supplying small manufacturing businesses or hospitality firms.  The Fiin dataset has just (November 2025) been updated.

Many testing laboratories also supply their own customers with incident collations, and there are many commercial software systems that scrape reports from the internet.  All collect and treat the data slightly differently.  FAN produce a free annual aggregate of "most adulterated foods" from three of the commercial providers, which gives very high level smoothed data.

The EU Joint Research Centre (JRC) have now published their monthly collation of fraud media reports for July 2025 and September 2025 (these collations are published retrospectively, and August’s report was published in advance of July’s).  The full index of reports can be found here

These new reports have also been added to the JRC database that underpins a searchable front-end for media reports of food fraud incidents.  It allows filtering by commodity, country, fraud type and other key criteria.

The JRC collation is just one of the incident databases available.  Different databases collect different information, in different ways, and therefore show a different angle on the true picture.  All of these sources are signposted on FAN.  Best practice is to use a combination of all sources, but the final critical question is “how vulnerable is my own supplier”.

• JRC – These are solely media reports.  They exclude cases not in the public domain, and can be biased by shocking but highly localised incidents in local food supply within poorly regulated countries.  For the past few years, FAN member Bruno Sechet has produced a useful infographic based on each month's data
• EU Agri-Food Suspicions – These are solely EU Official Reports, and only suspicions.  The root cause of each incident is unknown.  The data include cases less likely to be deliberate fraud such as pesticide residues above their MRLs or unpermitted (but labelled) additives.  FAN produce our own infographic on a rolling 3-month basis.
• Food Industry Intelligence Network Fiin SME Hub – These are aggregated anonymised results from the testing programmes of large (mainly UK) food companies.  The testing programmes are targeted and risk-based, not randomised, and the fraud risks within the suppliers of large BRC-certified retailers and manufacturers may be different than the companies supplying small manufacturing businesses or hospitality firms.

Many testing laboratories also supply their own customers with incident collations, and there are many commercial software systems that scrape reports from the internet.  All collect and treat the data slightly differently.  FAN produce a free annual aggregate of "most adulterated foods" from three of the largest commercial providers, which gives very high level smoothed data.

This project, funded by the UK Food Standards Agency and conducted by Fera Science Limited, aimed to identify and review current and emerging methods to detect adulteration in edible oils, focusing on issues relevant to UK consumers and the economy. The study involved a comprehensive literature review, stakeholder engagement, and consultation of proficiency testing and Fera Science’s HorizonScan™ data to assess future risks.

The review covered rapid screening methods, mainly spectroscopic, and confirmatory techniques such as fatty acid and triacylglycerol profiling.

The authors report that many approaches are still under development and lack thorough validation. A key challenge is the increasing sophistication of fraud within the supply chain, with businesses often relying on proprietary protocols, which hampers standardisation.

The report recommends addressing the lack of standardisation and regulation in edible oil testing, investment in widespread testing and point-of-use methods, and developing confirmatory techniques. Spectroscopy methods like Fourier Transform Infrared and Raman show promise for rapid, low-cost testing, while triacylglycerol analysis could serve as a confirmatory method for laboratories. Authentic certified reference materials are also essential to support quality control and encourage proficiency testing uptake.

A link and signpost to this report has been added to FAN’s Research Reports index.

Here is our regular monthly graphic from the EC Reports of Agri-Food Fraud Suspicions, showing a rolling 3-month trend.  These EU reports are a useful tool for estimating fraud incidents, signposted on FAN’s Reports page.  They can be found here.

Our graphical analysis contains some subjectivity in the interpretation of the report data. In order to show consistent trends we have excluded cases which appear to be unauthorised sale but no intent to mislead consumers of the content/ingredients of a food pack (e.g. unapproved food additives, novel foods), we have excluded unauthorised health claims on supplements, and we have excluded residues and contaminants above legal limits.  We have grouped the remaining incidents into crude categories.  Our analysis is intended only to give a high-level overview. 

The absolute count of incidents are creeping up a little but are generally fairly steady.  The split of incidents between different categorisations is also fairly consistent over time, with a significant number relating to falsified or unlicenced trade in high risk food (illegal operators, missing or falsified health certificates, attempts at illegal import) and relating to falsified or missing traceability documentation.

Another consistent theme is underweight premium ingredient content in processed food, generally (but not always) the meat or seafood content.  Often this is associated with excess glaze or water in frozen food. 

Although we do not count unapproved (but declared on-pack) additives in these graphs, it is noteworthy that there has been a consistent rise in recent months in the number of regulatory siezures of food (often confectionary) imported into the EU that contains titanium dioxide (an additive permitted in many regions of the world, but now banned in the EU).  This increased enforcement activity may account for some of the general insight reports, based on analysis ot EU Agri-Food Suspicions, that "food fraud incidents are increasing". 

The EC Monthly reports are only one source of information.  A comparison of the many different information sources now available, and the complementary insight that can be gained from using a variety of information sources, is given in an earlier blog this year.

New front-of-pack labelling requirements are being introduced in the US.  This will introduce a motivation for fraud which already exists in many other countries with similar compulsory traffic light systems: deliberately omitting or under-declaring a “bad” ingredient or additive in order to make the front-of-pack summary look “healthier”.

The US “Transparency, Readability, Understandability, Truth, and Helpfulness” (TRUTH) in Labelling Act was introduced last month and would require FDA’s proposed rule regarding front of package nutrition labelling (90 FR 5426 (Jan. 16, 2025)) to be finalized within 180 days of the bill’s enactment.

A principal display panel must identify foods with high amounts of added sugars, sodium, and saturated fat.  High amounts will be based on Daily Reference Values (DRVs). The phrase “High in” and a conspicuous exclamation point icon would be required.

The front of pack panel must also declare the presence of non-nutritive sweeteners and a “factual” statement that such sweeteners are not recommended for children. The wording of this statement has still to be defined, is contentious, and may be dropped from the final version.

Source: Keller and Heckman blog on the Lexology platform.

Photo by Tsvetoslav Hristov on Unsplash

The latest version of this regular free round-up of US and Canadian regulation in the food industry, from legal firm DLA Piper, has been published on the Lexology blog platform.

August's edition includes commentary on:

• Plans to reorganise the USDA
• New senior appointments at USDA and FDA
• CFIA inspection frequency of Safe Food for Canadians (SFC) licensed premises
• FDA releases new food toxicity screening tool
• FDA food traceability compliance deadline extended to 2028
• FDA-commissioned report: "Roadmap to Produce Safety: Summary Report of the Produce Safety Dialogue"
• Saskatoon Farm foodborne illness outbreak linked to contaminated water.
• FDA moves to reclassify a synthetic opioid derived from kratom as a controlled substance
• FDA announces 2026 user fees for VQIP and TPP.
• FDA proposes amending Standard of Identity for pasteurized orange juice
• Canada-Australia beef trade reopens after 20-year ban.
• Brazilian coffee companies redirect coffee sales to China in response to US tariffs
• US tariffs may hurt US chocolate producers
• Misleading “Made in Canada” branding prompts scrutiny of grocer compliance
• Federal lawsuit targets Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act
• CDC: Americans get more than half of their calories from ultra-processed foods.
• IFIC report: consumer confidence in safety of the food supply is at a 13-year low
• Avian flu update.

The EC Monthly Reports of Agri-Food Fraud Suspicions reports are a useful tool for estimating fraud incidents, signposted on FAN’s Reports page.  They can be found here.

FAN produces rolling 3-month graphical analysis, a little later than usual this month due to holiday. In order to show consistent trends we have excluded cases which appear to be unauthorised sale but no intent to mislead consumers of the content/ingredients of a food pack (e.g. unapproved food additives, novel foods), we have excluded unauthorised health claims on supplements, and we have excluded residues and contaminants above legal limits.  We have grouped the remaining incidents into crude categories.  Our analysis is subjective, intended only to give a high-level overview. 

Our main takeaway message is that industry risk-assessment too often focusses on specific ingredients as "high risk".  In actual fact, it is the TYPE of fraud that is consistent; falsification of traceability or health documents/certification, illegal import, bulking out more expensive ingredients with cheaper ones.  The affected ingredients or products vary.  This suggests that risk assessment should focus more on motivation and opportunity in the supply chain, and less on "counting RASFFs".

As with all incident collation reports, interpretation must be drawn with care.  This EC collation is drawn from the iRASSF system – these are not confirmed as fraud, and the root cause of each issue is usually not public.  There are important differences in the data sources, and thus the interpretation that can be drawn, of these data compared to other incident collations.  For example:

• JRC Monthly Food Fraud Summaries (which underpin the infographics produced monthly by FAN member Bruno Sechet) - these are unverified media reports, rather than official reports, but hugely valuable in giving an idea of which way the fraud winds are blowing
• Official reports (as collated from commercial databases such as Fera Horizonscan or Merieux Safety Hud, which underpin FAN's annual Most Adulterated Foods aggregation) - these are fewer in number and give a much more conservative estimate of fraud incidence, and may miss some aspects which have not been officially reported
• The Food Industry Intelligence Network (Fiin) free SME Hub.  This excellent resource collates anonymised UK industry test results for the benefit of Small and Medium Enterprises in the food sector (registration and approval required to obtain login).
• Verified reports (where the root cause has been scrutinised and interpreted by a human analyst, for example the FoodChainID commercial database) - these are also few in number, less suitable for drawing overall trends, but give specific insight and information.

The EC Monthly Reports of Agri-Food Fraud Suspicions reports are a useful tool for estimating fraud incidents, signposted on FAN’s Reports page.  The April and May 2025 reports have been added and can be found here.

FAN produces rolling 3-month graphical analysis. We have excluded cases which appear to be unauthorised sale but no intent to mislead consumers of the content/ingredients of a food pack (e.g. unapproved food additives, novel foods), we have excluded unauthorised health claims on supplements, and we have excluded residues and contaminants above legal limits.  We have grouped the remaining incidents into crude categories.  Our analysis is subjective, intended only to give a high-level overview. 

• Unlicenced trade in high-risk foods (which includes attempts at illegal import, along with production from unlicenced operator sites) continues to feature frequently
• Fraudulent or missing traceability paperwork (including Heath Certificates and analytical test certificates) continues to be prevalent
• The increase in suspected false DoP/PGI claims in May was largely attributed to fraudulent Proscecco
• Ingredient quantities and quality feature persistently, particularly meat and fish in manufactured food
• Of incidents of traditional "adulteration", edible oils (particularly olive oil) and honey feature regularly.  Vanilla, coffee, spices, jams and spirits make more sporadic appearance.

As with all incident collation reports, interpretation must be drawn with care.  This EC collation is drawn from the iRASSF system – these are not confirmed as fraud, and the root cause of each issue is usually not public.  There are important differences in the data sources, and thus the interpretation that can be drawn, of these data compared to other incident collations.  For example:

• JRC Monthly Food Fraud Summaries (which underpin the infographics produced monthly by FAN member Bruno Sechet) - these are unverified media reports, rather than official reports, but hugely valuable in giving an idea of which way the fraud winds are blowing
• Official reports (as collated from commercial databases such as Fera Horizonscan or Merieux Safety Hud, which underpin FAN's annual Most Adulterated Foods aggregation) - these are fewer in number and give a much more conservative estimate of fraud incidence, and may miss some aspects which have not been officially reported
• The Food Industry Intelligence Network (Fiin) free SME Hub.  This excellent new resource collates anonymised UK industry test results for the benefit of Small and Medium Enterprises in the food sector (registration and approval required to obtain login).
• Verified reports (where the root cause has been scrutinised and interpreted by a human analyst, for example the FoodChainID commercial database) - these are also few in number, less suitable for drawing overall trends, but give specific insight and information.

If looking at trends over time, you must also be wary of step-changes due to the introduction of new data sources.  For example, Turkey's public "name-and-shame" database of foods subject to local authority sanctions went online in January 2025 and has resulted in an apparant increase in incident reports from Turkey.

The Food Authenticity Network works on a 3-year governance cycle of strategies and targets.  We have been working on our strategy for 2025-2027, and have published a summary here.  Please take a look.  The document summarises our achievements over the past 3-year period and lays our path for the next.

The strategy restates our commitment to being an open-access network, free to all global stakeholders, advancing and sharing best practice in food fraud prevention and detection.  We will leverage our impact by collaborating with other likeminded organisations.  We will seek to accelerate our successful membership growth (currently over 5,700 members), reducing our current bias towards UK members (currently 50%) by targeting membership growth particullarly within Europe and the "5-eyes" intelligence alliance countries.  We will continue to review the resources we offer and signpost, in order to provide maximum benefit and insight to our members, from multinational food companies and testing laboratories to local small businesses and enforcement officials.  The strategy relies upon a sustainable funding model, and includes targets to grow and diversify our valued funding partner organisations and to strengthen the resilience of our IT infrastructure.

As we approach our 10-year anniversary, our vision remains as a world where collaboration and shared best practices in food fraud detection and prevention creates a safer, more transparent, and trusted global food supply for all consumers.  It is as relevant now as it was at FAN's inception.

The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission have published their monthly collation of food fraud reports for March 2025 here Thanks again to FAN member Bruno Sechet who has turned these into an infographic.  The original infographic, along with his commentary, is on Bruno's LinkedIn feed where you can also access his other food safety infographics and services.

These collations from the JRC are based on global media reports, and so give a different picture to EU agri-food "suspicions" (as analysed in our most recent blog), which is different again to annual collations of official reports as aggregated in our annual summaries.  It is important, when conducting your own risk assessments, to appreciate what a specific data source includes and what it does not.  It is helpful to look at multiple, complementary, data sources and aggregates.

The EC Monthly Reports of Agri-Food Fraud Suspicions reports are a useful tool for estimating fraud incidents, signposted on FAN’s Reports page.  The March 2025 report was added earlier this week and can be found here.

FAN has produced this rolling 3-month graphical analysis. We have excluded cases which appear to be unauthorised sale but no intent to mislead consumers of the content/ingredients of a food pack (e.g. unapproved food additives, novel foods), excluded unauthorised health claims on supplements, and we have excluded residues and contaminants above legal limits.  We have grouped the remaining incidents into crude categories.  Our analysis is subjective but intended to give a high-level overview.  One consistent stand-out is unlicenced production, trade or import in high risk foods, often backed up by forged documentation.  Although the details behind the reports are not public, allegorical evidence is that these cases are not just "grey market" trade to small shops and market stalls.  Much of the suspicious trade enters mainstream markets.

As with all incident collation reports, interpretation must be drawn with care.  This EC collation is drawn from the iRASSF system – these are not confirmed as fraud, and the root cause of each issue is usually not public.  There are important differences in the data sources, and thus the interpretation that can be drawn, of these data compared to other incident collations.  For example:

• JRC Monthly Food Fraud Summaries (which underpin the infographics produced monthly by FAN member Bruno Sechet) - these are unverified media reports, rather than official reports, but hugely valuable in giving an idea of which way the fraud winds are blowing
• Official reports (as collated from commercial databases such as Fera Horizonscan or Merieux Safety Hud, which underpin FAN's annual Most Adulterated Foods aggregation) - these are fewer in number and give a much more conservative estimate of fraud incidence, and may miss some aspects which have not been officially reported
• Verified reports (where the root cause has been scrutinised and interpreted by a human analyst, for example the FoodChainID commercial database) - these are also few in number, less suitable for drawing overall trends, but give specific insight and information.

If looking at trends over time, you must also be wary of step-changes due to the introduction of new data sources.  For example, Turkey's public "name-and-shame" database of foods subject to local authority sanctions went online in January 2025 and has resulted in an apparant increase in incident reports from Turkey.

The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission have published their monthly collation of food fraud reports for February 2025 here Thanks again to FAN member Bruno Sechet who has turned these into an infographic.  The original infographic, along with his commentary, is on Bruno's LinkedIn feed.

These collations are based on global media reports, and so give a different picture to EU official "suspicions" (as analysed in our recent blog), which is different again to annual collations of official reports as aggregated in our annual summaries.  It is important, when conducting your own risk assessments, to appreciate what a specific data source includes and what it does not.  It is helpful to look at multiple, complementary, data sources.

The EC Monthly Reports of Agri-Food Fraud Suspicions reports are a useful tool for estimating fraud incidents, signposted on FAN’s Reports page.  The February 2025 report can be found here.

As with all incident collation reports, interpretation must be drawn with care.  The EC collation is drawn from the iRASSF system – these are not confirmed as fraud, and the root cause of each issue is usually not public.  There are important differences in the data sources, and thus the interpretation that can be drawn, of these data compared to other incident collations.  For example:

• JRC Monthly Food Fraud Summaries (which underpin the infographics produced monthly by FAN member Bruno Sechet) - these are unverified media reports, rather than official reports, but hugely valuable in giving an idea of which way the fraud winds are blowing
• Official reports (as collated from commercial databases such as Fera Horizonscan or Merieux Safety Hud, which underpin FAN's annual Most Adulterated Foods aggregation) - these are fewer in number and give a much more conservative estimate of fraud incidence, and may miss some aspects which have not been officially reported
• Verified reports (where the root cause has been scrutinised and interpreted by a human analyst, for example the FoodChainID commercial database) - these are also few in number, less suitable for drawing overall trends, but give specific insight and information.

If looking at trends over time, you must also be wary of step-changes due to new data sources.  For example, Turkey's public "name-and-shame" database of foods subject to local authority sanctions went online in January 2025 and has had a big impact on the data captured by all commercial incident databases.

In FAN’s graphical analysis of the Agri-Food Fraud Suspicions, shown here, we have excluded cases which appear to be unauthorised sale but no intent to mislead consumers of the content/ingredients of a food pack (e.g. unapproved food additives, novel foods), excluded unauthorised health claims on supplements, and we have excluded residues and contaminants above legal limits.  Our analysis is subjective but intended to give a high-level overview.

We have grouped the remaining cases into crude categories.  It can be seen that the majority are either unregistered trade (e.g. illegal import, or unlicenced premises), falsified certification or traceability records, or substandard meat quality/content in processed foods (what used to be termed “QUID”).  It can be useful to compare a series of consecutive months to see if there is any evidence for materialisation of frauds flagged as risks by supply-and-demand pressures (e.g. the recent increase in cocoa prices).  So far, we only have two months of analysis but we will continue to publish these trends over the year..

This review (open access) presents a comprehensive summary of the principles and recent advancements in the application of stable isotope techniques for authenticity assessment. It examines their use in detecting fraud (e.g., identifying edible alcohol, exogenous water, carbonylation, and trace compounds), vintage identification, and geographical origin determination across various alcoholic beverages, with a particular focus on wine, Chinese baijiu, and beer.   It cites over 100 publications from the past 15 years.

The authors conclude that stable isotope analysis is a powerful tool for verifying the authenticity of alcoholic beverages, offering effective solutions to combat counterfeiting, mislabeling, and adulteration. They recommend that future studies should focus on understanding the ecological, biological, and hydrometeorological factors influencing isotope signatures and develop advanced multi-isotope and chemometric approaches to improve reliability. Expanding global databases and integrating emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning will further enhance the effectiveness and accessibility of stable isotope techniques, ensuring safer and higher-quality alcoholic beverages for consumers worldwide.

Photo by Ibrahim Boran on Unsplash

The results of the EC 2021-2022 honey sampling and analysis co-ordinated action, following the  From the Hives report, were concerning.  This 2023 report concluded that all 10 of the sampled honeys imported from the UK were “suspicious”. 

This finding prompted further investigation by the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

Defra have now published an independent expert review into the analytical methods used in the survey.  There is a lot of technical content in the review.  It re-emphasises that no single honey authenticity test is likely to be definitive, and that a weight of evidence approach should be used with some tests being weighted higher than others.  When the total weight of evidence is not strong then phrasing such as “warrants further investigation” would be a fairer conclusion than “suspicious”.

One specific learning from the review is that laboratories must take care with the selection of authenticity markers, depending on the analytical question being asked.  The example given is oligosaccharides.  Some of these markers are known to vary between honey that has had moisture mechanically removed compared to honey that has not.  Moisture removal may be a production necessity (in humid climates where honey will not evaporate naturally) or a commercial choice to speed the harvest cycle (as is commonly used in China).  Moisture-removed honey is common within UK blends of Chinese origin honeys  but is not permitted in some EU countries.  Thus a test based on oligosaccharide markers could differentiate UK honey from EU for reasons that are already understood.  It might not provide any new insight, for example, on sugar or syrup adulteration.

Photo by Art Rachen on Unsplash

FSA-funded project: Review of current and emerging analytical methods for the testing of oil for authenticity (Project FS900520)

With funding from the UK Food Standards Agency, Fera Science Limited (Fera) in York, UK is currently undertaking a project to review the current and emerging analytical methods for testing edible oils and support the further development of analytical methods which will underpin and uphold the authenticity of edible oils in the supply chain. 

As part of the project’s evidence gathering, Fera would like to invite parties involved in sourcing, processing, and/or testing edible oils to participate in an online questionnaire. 

The fundamental mission of the FSA is food you can trust. The FSA strategy sets out FSA’s vision to ensure that the UK food system is safe, and that food is what it says it is. This involves building scientific capability in Public Analyst (PA) Official Laboratories (OLs) and working with Defra’s food authenticity programme to conduct research and development for analytical methods. Suitable analytical methods are required to ensure that food is what it says it is and to manage risk around food authenticity.

 As key stakeholders, your insight will help to inform FSA regarding issues in oil authenticity and future-proofed analytical tools to support both industry and regulators, while maintaining consumer confidence in our food. 

 Your participation will be very much appreciated and your views and insight will be invaluable to the project aims.

 A summary of key findings from the questionnaire will be included in the final report, but no sensitive information will be published.

Please complete the questionnaire here. If you have any questions, please contact info@fera.co.uk.

Your kind participation will be very much appreciated and your views and insight will be invaluable to the project aims.

Photo by Stephanie Sarlos on Unsplash