News

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.

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. 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. 

One clear signal in July is the (unwelcome) return of undeclared dyes and colours - the large purple bubble top-centre of the chart.  3 of these cases are Sudan dyes in spices, an issue that has been bubbling for over 20 years.  But 3 are relatively new - green dye in pistachio paste, which is linked to the current regulatory watch-out of Dubai chocolate.

Our main takeaway message continues to be 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".

The EC Monthly reports are only one source of information.  A comparison of the many different information sources now available is given in an earlier blog this week.

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 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 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..

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 January 2025 report has been published 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.

In FAN’s graphical analysis, 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.

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) or substandard meat quality/content in processed foods (what used to be termed “QUID”).  Olive oil is the most adulterated specific product, including both substitution with other vegetable oils or mislabelling of Lampeter oil as EVOO.  Document forgery is a current watch-out in the UK, and the EU cases include a forged Health Certificate.

A reminder that the EU now publishes a monthly collation of "Agri-Food Fraud Suspicions".  A permanent link to these is also within FAN's Food Fraud Prevention reports listing. Such reports are a valuable aid to vulnerability assessment updates and reviews.

One example within the detail of September's "Suspicions" report is the potential for cause-and-effect between food safety risks and subsequent fraud risks.  Historically, the fumigant ethylene oxice (ETO) has been used to control salmonella risk in shipments of dry seeds/powder ingredients and additives, including xanthan gum.  With the EU ban on ETO, there have been recent RASFFs for residues of ETO in xantham gum.  The impact of the ban on salmonella risk is unclear.  We are now seeing cases of faked health certificates for xanthan gum.