News

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.

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 review (open access) analyses trends in reported food fraud incidents over the past 5 years and trends in detection technologies, particularly the integration of AI and digital traceability and detection systems with analytical testing.  The authors base their analysis on the EC Joint Research Centre monthly collation of food fraud media reports.

The authors highlight that food fraud is a worldwide issue, but its incidence is unevenly distributed across countries. A few countries account for a disproportionate share of reported cases. Notably, Italy has the highest number of food fraud incidents, with over 300 cases. India, and Pakistan also rank in the highest quintile, each reporting well over 150 cases. These three countries alone represent the upper 20 % bracket of fraud occurrence globally. A second tier of countries, including Spain, Brazil, Bolivia, Malaysia, Colombia, and Argentina, report a few dozen cases each.  This skewed distribution suggests that detections of food fraud are concentrated where high-risk products, and active enforcement intersect.

The authors conclude that igrating AI-based predictive analytics with traditional and emerging lab methods significantly improves fraud detection, while blockchain and Internet of Things (IoT) innovations enable secure, real-time tracking of food authenticity. These technologies collectively strengthen the ability to uncover fraud

The paper emphasizes the need for interdisciplinary collaboration, harmonization, and updated regulatory frameworks to support the adoption of these multi-disciplinary approaches.

It is notoriously difficult to collate fraud incidents in order to track trends and prioritise generic risks by either food commodity or country.  One of the more useful free tools for the past 10 years has been the monthly EU Joint Research Centre (JRC) collation of fraud media reports.

The JRC have just launched a searchable front-end for their database of reports.  It allows filtering by commodity, country, fraud type and other key criteria.

The JRC collation is just one of the incident databases available.  It must be remembered that 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 pesticide residues above their MRLs.  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 commercial providers, which gives very high level smoothed data.

 A new JRC study reveals cases of fraud and non-compliance with the food safety legislation in cinnamon sold at EU retailers. 

As part of the European Commission efforts to fight fraud in the herbs and spices sector, JRC scientists used four in-house developed innovative screening methods to detect and identify possible fraudulent practices. 

They went beyond identifying the substitution of Ceylon cinnamon the most valuable variety, with cassia, a cheaper and less aromatic alternative, and identified other likely types of substitution, investigated compliance with existing European legislation and international standards. The analysis involved  104 cinnamon samples – 44 of which were labelled as Ceylon cinnamon – purchased at retailers in 10 EU countries, and in the UK, Serbia and Sri Lanka.

Over 66 % of the samples analysed failed to meet international quality standards, were non-compliant with EU food safety legislation, suspected of fraud, and/or potentially exceeded the legal coumarin limits. Coumarin is a natural aromatic compound found in cassia and other plants, potentially toxic for liver.

The results of the investigation can help the scientific community and policy makers to set threshold values for the different cinnamon components, and to define when to consider a sample as suspicious. This will allow to undertake a more detailed surveillance and help competent authorities take action.

In 2023, cinnamon was the fifth most imported spice in the EU following ginger, paprika, pepper and turmeric; with cinnamon demand expected to grow over the next years, cinnamon is an attractive target for fraudsters.

Read full article.

Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence (EDXRF) is a cheap non-destructive technique to measure metal and mineral content, typically operated as a laboratory benchtop method.

In this study (open access), researchers at the European Commission Joint Research Centre used market samples of oregano that had been previously tested under the EU co-ordinated official control plan to investigate whether EDXRF could be used as a screening technique.  This was a serendipitous extension of the use of EDXRF for checking compliance with EU limits for copper contamination.  After a relatively simple sample preparation, they measured a panel of 36 metals and minerals.

They found that, at it simplest level, the ratio of copper-to-zinc was a good indicator of adulteration with olive leaves without any need for modelling statistics.  Once multivariate statistics were used, samples could also be classified by geographic origin.  This classification required 2-stage modelling (SIMCA then PLS-DA) to achieve full potential, and then was limited because the reference dataset was not sufficiently comprehensive in terms of countries of origin.

The researchers concluded that their work demonstrates that EDXRF is a suitable screening method to detect oregano adulteration with other species, and to authenticate the geographical origin of the product. The method is clean, cheap and has a high sample throughput because it does not require sample digestion. For those reasons, the approach is ideal to be used by control laboratories.

SIMCA allowed the authentication of the geographical origin of oregano. The performance of the authentication could be improved with a combination of SIMCA with PLS-DA that provides sensitivities and specificities higher than 90 %. However, a database well populated with results obtained with samples coming from all the main producing countries, would be needed.

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 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.

Further to the review of methods used in the EU co-ordinated survey of honey collected 2021-22 (“From the Hives” survey) – see previous blog here:

The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission have now published (open access) more details of some of the test methods used and results interpretation.  This publication relates particularly to the two qualitative Liquid Chromatography–High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry (LC-HRMS) methods that were developed to detect mannose (Man), difructose anhydride III (DFA III), 2-acetylfuran-3-glucopyranoside (AFGP), and oligo-/polysaccharides with degrees of polymerization (DPs) of 6 to 11.

The presence of mannose and unusual oligo-/polysaccharides was the main reason that many of the samples were flagged as “suspicious” in the previously published report.

The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission have published their monthly collation of food fraud reports for January 2025 here, following on quickly from the final 2024 collations which were highlighted in our blog on 5^th February..  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.

The source for the JRC collation are global media reports, and these always gives a slightly different picture than collating official reports.  Best practice in horizonscanning is to look at multiple collations of fraud incidents/suspicions along with their commentaries, both official and media, and make an intelligent assessment of their complementary scopes and limitations when drawing insight.  FAN's annual aggregated report gives a high-level annual overview for 2024 from official reports.

The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission have published their monthly collation of food fraud reports, combined for November and December 2024, here.  Thanks again to FAN member Bruno Sechet who has turned these into an infographic.  The original infographic (in much better resolution!), along with his commentary, is on Bruno's LinkedIn feed.

The source for the JRC collation are global media reports, and these always gives a slightly different picture than collating official reports.  Best practice in horizonscanning is to look at multiple collations of fraud incidents/suspicions along with their commentaries, both official and media, and make an intelligent assessment of their complementary scopes and limitations when drawing insight.  FAN's annual aggregated report gives a high-level overview of food fraud incidents in 2023 as recorded in official reports. The 2024 version is in preparation and will be published on our website soon.   

The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission have published their October 2024 collation of food fraud reports here..  Thanks to FAN member Bruno Sechet who has again collated these as an infographic.  The original infographic, along with his commentary, is on Bruno's LinkedIn feed.

The JRC collation uses global media reports, and this always gives a slightly different picture than collating official reports.  Both sources continue to highlight that fraud is global, and that the same “usual suspect” commodities are routinely targeted by fraudsters.  FAN's recent report gives a high-level annual overview for 2023 from official reports. 

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission have published a report that includes an overview of food fraud information sharing networks and incident data held around the world.  (including both the Food Industry Intelligence Network, Fiin, and the 2022 Defra report FA0175 into food fraud drivers and mitigation tools).

The report recommends the funding of a new predictive analytics model to try and prioritise future fraud risks based on historic patterns of reported incidents.  This would be predicated on improved data sharing between different countries and between industry and governments.  The report recommends a public-private partnership model to develop the concept.

The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission have published their latest collation of food fraud reports here. They have combined the reports from July and August 2024 into a single summary.  Thanks to FAN member Bruno Sechet who has again collated these as an infographic.  The original infographic, along with his commentary, is on Bruno's LinkedIn feed.

The JRC collation uses global media reports, and this always gives a slightly different picture than collating official reports.  FAN's recent report gives a high-level annual overview for 2023 from official reports. 

The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) has published guidance on the selection and use of DNA extraction methods.

Extracting DNA of suitable quality and quantity from a test sample is a fundamental upstream step that underpins the confidence in a number of downstream analytical molecular biology based methods (e.g., qPCR. dPCR, NGS, etc.,).

This official guidance document provides advice on the selection and use of fit for purpose DNA extraction methods. Whilst this guidance uses the example of DNA extraction in the context of official controls for the analysis of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the principles it describes are universally applicable to all DNA based methods including those for food authenticity.

Advice is provided on the selection of different protocols and decision support systems, and guidance provided on validation approaches and the assessment of DNA quality parameters, further illustrated with practical examples/solutions based on extensive collective experiences.

Access guidance: DOI: 10.2760/76162 (online)

This guidance has also been added to the Quality section of this website.

The Food Integrity Unit of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), is looking for laboratories with expertise in beeswax analyses, interested in participating in a method validation study by inter-laboratory comparison according to ISO 5725-2.                                                                
The goal is to evaluate repeatability and reproducibility of the gas chromatography based analytical method for quantifying paraffin n-alkanes respectively stearin/stearic acid in beeswax with the aim to identify potential adulteration of beeswax.                                                                                         
The participants will receive a set of beeswax test samples, the detailed analytical protocol of the method, and the necessary consumables, free of charge.                                                                   
If you interested in being part of this important project that will lead to the future standardisation of the method by an international standardisation organization, please contact: Christina.CHRISTIA@ec.europa.eu 

Thanks again to FAN member Bruno Sechet of Integralim (www.integralim.net)  who has formatted the JRC monthly food fraud report as this pictorial infographic. 

The original report, along with those from previous months, can be found here. 

Remember that you can sign up on the JRC website to be notified when each report is published. 

Labelling can help consumers make informed, healthy and sustainable food choices.

The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) publishes the results of a scientific study related to food information to consumers on origin labelling.

The European Commission will use the findings of these studies as input for a proposal to revise the EU rules on the information provided to consumers as part of the EU’s ‘Farm-to-Fork’ Strategy and Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan.

The scientists reviewed the literature on the impact of origin information of food products on purchase decisions and consumption. They looked into how and why consumers use, understand, and are influenced by origin information, coming to the following conclusions:

• Information about both country of origin and place or region of origin has a substantial influence on consumers’ food choices.
• Consumers attach importance to origin information as:
  1. a cue to good quality and environmentally friendly products;
  2. on average they like to support their local or domestic farmers and food industry.
• Consumers report (in surveys) that they attach importance to origin information. However, when actually shopping, they may focus less on origin information than they would like to (because of time pressure, the attractiveness of brands etc.).

Read the full report: Consumer understanding of origin labelling on food packaging and its impact on consumer product evaluation and choices: A systematic literature review.

This Technical Report presents challenges, opportunities and good practice examples in relation to the implementation of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products.

Competent authorities of the Member States are required to not only detect violations of the rules governing the agri-food chain but also to identify possible intentional violations of those rules, perpetrated through fraudulent or deceptive practices by operators for the purpose of gaining an undue advantage.

Between 2020 and 2022 a series of pilot and fact-finding studies of eight Member States were carried out with the aim to identify good practice examples and challenges Member State authorities face with the implementation of fraud related controls. The results of these fact-finding studies form the basis of this report. The reports of the six fact findings studies have also been published:
Sweden: https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4421
Latvia: https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4432
Poland: https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4461
Germany: https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4511
Portugal: https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4561
Bulgaria: https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4560

The report states that as fraud is driven by opportunity and motivation, detecting fraud requires good knowledge about the sector, the fraud risks and the way fraudsters operate. 

The report advocates a risk-based approach based on a vulnerability assessment. The best approach to risk-based planning will differ between authorities, control areas and Member States, but the risk-based planning should be based on a vulnerability assessment. A fraud risk assessment should be tailored to the control areas for which the competent authority is responsible. The report acknowledges that a one-size-fits-all solution across all sectors does not exist and provides key considerations for undertaking vulnerability assessments.

Furthermore, the use of mechanisms for the exchange of information between competent authorities on suspicions of fraudulent practices and criminal investigations (fraud part of iRASFF, Secure Information Exchange Network Application - SIENA, etc.) is crucial.

The purpose of this technical report therefore is to promote the uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2760/31366

Today, the European Commission has published the results of the EU-wide coordinated action “From the Hives” on honey contaminated with sugars.

These investigations aimed to put a stop to operators voluntarily placing contaminated honey onto the EU market and sanction them accordingly if needed. Of the 320 samples taken at EU borders and analysed by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), 147 (46%) were suspected of being non-compliant.

This suspicion rate was considerably higher in comparison to an earlier EU-wide coordinated control plan conducted in 2015-17, where 14% of the analysed samples did not comply with established benchmark criteria to assess honey authenticity.

However, the JRC applied a different set of methods, with improved detection capability, throughout the current exercise, which may explain this contrast.

For more information:

• Q&A (DG SANTE)
• Video (OLAF)
• Press Release (JRC)
• Press release (OLAF)