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.

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 Joint Research Center (JRC) of the European Commission has published its Monthly Food Fraud Summary for November 2020.

Thanks again to our Member Bruno Séchet for creating this fantastic infographic and allowing us to share with the rest of the Network 😁.

Access JRC Monthly Food Fraud Reports.