It is accepted that there is no “silver bullet” to check for honey authenticity.  There are a plethora of test methods and analytical approaches, each of which can increase suspicion of sophisticated fraud.  A weight of evidence approach is recommended, combining a range of analytical information with supply chain illumination, audit and traceability data.  One recent review (open access) found an astonishing 386 patents and 707 published methods relating to honey authenticity testing.  It can be difficult to judge which of these go beyond proof-of-concept to being a valid addition to a weight of evidence toolkit.

One approach which has generated much recent interest is Next Generation Sequencing (NGS).  In principle, the DNA in honey (including meta-data from the microbiome) should be indicative of the local environment and flora where the bees foraged.  There have been a number of proof-of-concept studies with researchers reporting high mislabelling rates based on their findings.

The EC Joint Research Centre have published a clear and accessible article in the popular science journal Nature - Of bees and buzz: towards validated NGS-based methods in honey authentication (open access link).  This explains the principles of NGS (“meta-genomics”) methods, their great potential, but also the complexity inherent in robust validation and verification for widespread use testing real market samples.  The source of DNA meta-data depends on many interlinked variables; floral seasonality, human activities such as agriculture and urbanisation, bees’ foraging behaviour variation over the seasons, physiological state of flora, the community diversity and the competition with pathogens or other pollinators. The environmental and pollen DNA found in a honey jar is derived from this dynamic interplay, leading to a DNA composition changing during a season rather than remaining static.  Add to this the fact that honey from different hives are legally mixed, filtered and processed and the validation required to underpin classification models becomes incredibly complex.

The authors recommend a coordinated strategy to realise the potential of metagenomic classification methods.  This begins with the creation of a dedicated honey‑DNA reference library. This library should be assembled from a large, well‑documented set of authentic honeys that captures the full spectrum of botanical origins, geographic regions, seasons and the typical blends found in commercial products. Each sample must be unquestionably authentic, either by sourcing from certified producers or by confirming authenticity with orthogonal methods.  They argue that existing databases such as BEEexact  and BeeRoLaMa demonstrate feasibility of shared and curated databases, but there needs to be comparability evidence of different laboratory workflows.  They give recommendations for achieving this, and conclude that this would enable reliable discrimination between natural variability and intentional adulteration.

Image from the JRC paper

Mixed-milk cheeses (cheese made with a mix of milk from different species) are common on the European market, particularly in Spain.  They present a motive to fraudulently increasing the proportion of the cheapest milk species above its maximum legal specification.  For example, Iberico cheese must contain a maximum of 50% cow's milk and a minimum of 15% each of goat's and sheep's milk. Verifying the proportions of milk in the final product by quantitative analytical testing is a challenge.

In this study (open access) the authors developed and validated a quantitative LC-MSMS method based on protein markers for each species.  They selected their markers using shotgun proteomics of 6 cheeses of known proportions that had been specially made in a pilot plant following the industrial process for manufacturing Iberico-type cheese.

They optimised a quantitative low-resolution LC-MSMS method for these markers and then validated it following AOAC guidelines.  They report that the method demonstrated linearity with detection limits less than 1% for all 3 species and showed good repeatability (CV = 8%), reproducibility (CV = 10%) and accuracy (99.6%),.

They applied the method commercial cheeses with diverse compositions and ripening times. They report that measurements were unaffected by either ripening or production process.

Photo by Sam Carter on Unsplash

Soybean farming—providing protein-rich feed for farm animals worldwide—is the third largest driver of tropical deforestation and expanding. Importing economies are considering regulating the trade of soybeans and other deforestation-driving commodities, and trading companies will be required to conduct due diligence to ensure compliance. 

One of the biggest challenges in tackling deforestation is simply knowing where a batch of soy actually came from.

In this new paper, by combining stable isotope ratios and multi element profiles with Gaussian Process modelling, Rsearchers pinpointed the harvest origin of soybeans to within ~193 km across the main soy growing areas of South America.

In this study (open access), the authors developed a classification model for shrimp (prawn) origin using fused data from Stable Isotope Ration Analysis (SIRA) and trace elemental profiling.  They built the model using reference samples from Ecuador (n = 191), Honduras (n = 118), and Thailand (n = 66).  Reference samples were not only shrimp meat, but also telson (part of the shell), pond water, and feed.  Reference samples were collected from different pond types in different sub-regional locations, but all over one season (winter 2024/25).

The authors report that random forest models demonstrated high accuracy for country-level classification of reference shrimp (out-of-bag error = 0.47%) and retained strong predictive power at subnational catchment levels for Ecuador and Honduras (OOB = 3.08–5.32%).  They subjected the reference shrimp to typical commercial processing (e.g. tumbling with polyphosphates or sulphites) and found that the treated shrimp retained chemical fingerprints comparable to their reference shrimp meat counterparts, achieving a 100% successful assignment to subnational areas.  Spearman tests among shrimp meat, telson, feed, and water revealed strong isotopic and elemental correlations. The telson samples were correctly classified to their country of origin when tested against reference models built from shrimp meat data, demonstrating that telson shell chemistry reliably mirrors the geographic signature of the edible tissue.

They applied their model to a survey of retail samples and report that these exhibited low assignment accuracy (16%), suggesting either post-processing alteration or false/fraudulent labeling of origin.

Photo by Fernando Andrade on Unsplash

This review (open access) examines state-of-the-art technologies developed to support traceability and anti-counterfeiting in agri-food supply chains, considering their application across the full spectrum of stakeholders. It includes sections on

• AI and Internet-of-Things
• Barcode, Non-electronic approaches, and molecular traceability
• RFiD and Near Field Communication tags
• Distributive ledgers

To provide a system-level perspective, the review adopts a five-layer socio-technical traceability and anti-counterfeiting framework, comprising identity, sensing, intelligence, integrity, and interaction layers, which is used to map enabling technologies and reinterpret the evolution of traceability systems as a progression of functional capabilities rather than isolated technological upgrades. Using this framework, the review analyzes the advantages and limitations of current solutions and clarifies how traceability and anti-counterfeiting functions emerge through technology integration. It further identifies gaps that hinder large-scale and equitable adoption. Finally, future research directions are outlined to address current technical, economic, and governance challenges and to guide the development of more resilient, trustworthy, and sustainable agri-food traceability systems.

This study (open access) builds upon previously published work.  The authors expand the scope of multiplex digitalPCR (dPCR) analysis for undeclared GM soy to simultaneously check for 19 different GM events and the lectin (Le1) endogene, and proved the method’s transferability to a popular commercial dPCR platform.

They used a nanowell plate-based all-in-one dPCR system, the QIAGEN QIAcuity One. The method used four 5-plex assays, taking advantage of the platform’s multiple fluorescence detection channels.  DNA was extracted by the cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) method, with RNase-A and proteinase-K for removal of RNA and protein, respectively, as described in Annex A.3 of ISO21571:2005.  Quantification by simplex and multiplex assays was compared by testing CRM solutions containing single GM events.  The authors report that all four 5-plex assays showed results comparable with simplex assays

They report that the methods complied with the minimum performance requirements in terms of specificity, trueness, precision, sensitivity and dynamic range, making them suitable for use in routine detection and quantification of GM crops.

They conclude that approach represents a significant step forward by providing discriminative quantification of a large number of targets. The use of a commercial system prooves that quantitative multiplexing can become time and cost-effective, and they believe that their approach is particularly well suited to regulatory compliance testing. Sample compartmentalization, temperature cycling, and fluorescence detection are all performed automatically on the same machine, greatly simplifying the workflow and minimizing hands-on time. The experimental protocol requires no specialized sample handling, allowing it to be performed by operators familiar with qPCR workflow without additional training.

Photo by Meredith Petrick on Unsplash

One in four UK medium-to-large businesses experienced fraud in 2024.  The most common vulnerabilities cut across sector and food industry businesses have been amongst the victims.  They include cyberattacks, unauthorised push payment fraud, and cargo theft using sophisticated fake commercial documentation or company details.

 The UK Government have published their Fraud Strategy 2026 = 2029.  Highlights include

1 Increased investment

• Over £250 million of additional funding.

2  Strengthened public-private collaboration

Launch of a new Online Crime Centre in April 2026, with £31 million committed to improving intelligence‑sharing between law enforcement, national security agencies and private‑sector partners.

3 Sector‑specific interventions,

Including Calls for Evidence in 2026 on:

• proportionate measures to reduce anonymity in the UK communications sector;
• drivers of unauthorised push‑payment (APP) fraud.
• Development of a secure digital tool to manage UK telephone numbers.

4 Improving the reporting system

Further improvements to Report Fraud (introduced in December 2025), with a focus on better technology, faster referrals, and enhanced victim support.

5 Supporting victims

Introduction of a Fraud Victims Charter in 2027, establishing minimum national standards for response times, reimbursement guidance, prevention, recovery and access to support services.

6 Strengthening civil and criminal justice

• Introducing judge‑only trials for the most complex fraud cases to reduce delays in court.
• Consideration of Jonathan Fisher KC’s recommendations to tackle barriers to prosecution and modernise the legislative framework.
• Responsible use of AI to modernise disclosure processes. This is to address the problem that fraud cases take almost eight times longer than the average case to reach charge.
• Exploration of civil penalties for fraud and for facilitating money laundering,  These would be as an alternative or complement to criminal proceedings.

Additional commitments

• Sponsoring the Global Fraud Summit.
• Expanding the Stop! Think Fraud public‑awareness campaign.
• Increasing proactive policing as part of the national PROTECT response.

Summary taken from Lexology blog by Freddy Faull, Edmunds, Marshall & McMahon

Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

Each year, we publish aggregated trends from some of the main commercial tools that log global food fraud incidents.  Our 2025 report is now available.

The number of regulatory food fraud reports published in 2025 remained low relative to food safety incident reports.    

We concentrated on reports published by regulatory agencies.  These only give one angle, but they are recorded consistently and in a form that enables data aggregation and trend analysis.

These provide some evidence of an emerging upward trend of reported fraud incidents between 2023 and 2025. Further data is required to see if this is a consistent and continuing trend. As a comparator, for the same period there is a clear upward trend in the number of food safety incident reports. 

The top three commodity groups accounting for the most food fraud reports in 2025 varies depending on the source of reports and the commercial database interrogated:

• Using regulatory reports only, ‘Processed foods’, ‘Milk & diary products’ and ‘Beverages’.
• Using regulatory, media & peer reviewed publication reports, ‘Dairy’, ‘Meat & Poultry’ and ‘Herbs & Spices’.

It should be noted that the featuring of commodity groups in this report does not necessarily mean that these are the foods associated with the most fraud, as reported food fraud incidents could either be a measure of actual food fraud incidents or a measure of regulatory activity. Thus, reporting is influenced by a range of factors including, sampling rate changes, targeted campaigns/ regulatory focus on commodity groups, inter-agency operations (e.g. Europol, Interpol etc.) and available budget. 

Labelling, use of non-food substance, dilution/ substitution and artificial enhancement fraud were the top four types of food fraud reported by regulators in 2025. Of these frauds, using non-food substances in food has the potential to do the most harm as seen in the previous incidents such as, Sudan dyes in chilli powder and melamine in infant formula. 

Commercial food fraud incident collation tools are not all the same; there are differences in functionality and purpose. Before choosing a tool, it is important to understand how it collects, classifies and curates its data and what insight it is intended to provide.  Our analysis used Horizonscan, SafetyHud and FoodChainID.  We are extremely grateful for them providing data “in-kind”.  Contact details for each company are in the report. 

You can read the full report here.   

Summaries from previous annual reports are here. 

It is the third annual report to be produced for this FAN Partner project. Platinum and Gold FAN Partners receive dashboard reports at the end of each quarter. Please contact FAN, if you are interested in becoming a partner and receiving these quarterly updates.

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

. 

Interpretation is full of caveats, explained below.  But there is a strong consistency in trends. 

• The highest proportion of suspicions relate to illegal trade – for example, unlicenced operators or attempting to evade import checks.  During January 2026, many of these related to trade in milk products.
• Meat/fish content fraud (previously referred to as “QUID”) is increasing pro-rata month-on-month.  Most relates to excess water glaze or water content in frozen shellfish, fish or meat.  This may be aided by excess use of polyphosphates.
• Falsified or missing documentation (e.g. health certificates, analytical certificates) appears frequently
• “Classic” adulteration such as meat species substitution or olive oil grade is a constant, but accounts for a lower pro-rata proportion of reports than instinct might suggest.
• Some frauds never seem to go away.  January 2026 included Sudan dyes (in palm oil) and glycerol (in wine).  These would not have seemed out of place 20 years ago.

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 multiple sources.

• 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 such 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 based on official reports.  Look out for our 2025 summary to be published over the next few days.

Our interpretation of the Agrifood suspicion 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

Misrepresentation and Counterfeiting of Wine - FSA - NFCU Rating - RED - Action strongly advised

SUBJECT OF ALERT: The Food Standards Agency’s National Food Crime Unit is asking businesses to be aware of several brands of wine that have been found to be misrepresented in regards to protected origins and have been counterfeited.

WHY ARE WE ISSUING THIS ALERT? A recent NFCU investigation in collaboration with the ICQRF in Italy has discovered large volumes of wine that is not of the expected quality, counterfeited or is not the variety as described on the label.

Photo by Hermes Rivera on Unsplash

 ACTION RECOMMENDED: The following products have been found to be affected by the issues mentioned in this alert:

• Product 1 Name: RIANNA MONTEPULCIANO D.O.P
• Product 2 Name: RIANNA PROSECCO
• Product 3 Name: CASTELLO LONGOBARDO TREVISO PROSECCO EXTRA DRY.

Read the full alert for how to spot the counterfeits: English version.

Camgyfleu a Ffugio Gwin - FSA - NFCU - Sgôr – Coch - Argymhellir yn gryf y dylid cymryd camau gweithredu

Testun y Rhybudd: Mae Uned Genedlaethol Troseddau Bwyd (NFCU) yr Asiantaeth Safonau Bwyd (ASB) yn gofyn i fusnesau fod yn ymwybodol o sawl brand o win y canfuwyd eu bod wedi’u camgyfleu o ran tarddiad gwarchodedig ac wedi’u ffugio.

Pam rydym yn cyflwyno’r rhybudd hwn? Mae ymchwiliad diweddar gan yr NFCU, gan gydweithio â’r ICQRF yn yr Eidal, wedi darganfod cyfaint mawr o win nad yw o’r ansawdd disgwyliedig, sydd wedi’i ffugio, neu nad yw’n cyd-fynd â’r amrywiaeth a ddisgrifir ar y label.

Camau gweithredu a argymhellir: Canfuwyd bod y problemau a nodir yn y rhybudd hwn yn effeithio ar y cynhyrchion canlynol:

• Enw cynnyrch 1: RIANNA MONTEPULCIANO DOP
• Enw cynnyrch 2: RIANNA PROSECCO
• Enw cynnyrch 3: CASTELLO LONGOBARDO TREVISO PROSECCO EXTRA DRY.

Darllenwch y rhybudd llawn am sut i adnabod y nwyddau ffug: fersiwn Cymraeg.

BRCGS has launched Directory Pro, a new online tool designed to help businesses verify and monitor BRCGS certifications across their supply chains. Directory Pro provides a searchable registry of certificated sites, live status data, and downloadable PDF certificates — giving procurement teams, brand assurance, investigators and laboratories fast access to authenticated certification information to support authenticity and due‑diligence checks.

Key features

• Searchable database of certificated sites with scope and scheme details.
• Live status indicators showing current certification standing and expiry.
• Downloadable, authenticated PDF certificates for record-keeping and supplier validation.
• Filtering and reporting tools to support supplier risk screening and audit planning.

Why this matters for food authenticity; certificate fraud and misrepresentation are common vulnerabilities in complex food supply chains. Directory Pro reduces that risk by providing verified, up‑to‑date certification data from BRCGS. This helps buyers and investigators more quickly identify uncertified or out‑of‑date suppliers, focus sampling and audit resources where risk is greatest, and corroborate supplier claims during authenticity investigations.

Practical considerations

• Directory Pro complements — but does not replace — on‑site audits, laboratory testing and wider supplier assurance measures. Users should continue multi‑layered verification (document checks, audits, testing).
• Coverage depends on the schemes and regions included; users should confirm whether relevant suppliers are listed.
• Check access model (subscription, licence tiers) and data update frequency before integrating into procurement workflows.

Visit the BRCGS Directory Pro page for further information.

The European Food Fraud Community of Practice (EFF-CoP) is bringing together the food integrity community for the 1st Authentic Food Festival and Conference, taking place 27–28 May 2026 at University College Dublin, Ireland.

This two-day event combines scientific exchange, practical insights, and interactive experiences, creating a meeting point for researchers, regulators, industry experts, and students working to protect the authenticity of our food systems.

Participants will explore the latest developments in food fraud detection, prevention strategies, policy insights, and supply-chain transparency, while also engaging in interactive sessions, discussions, and collaborative activities. 

Key Dates to Remember

Abstract Submissions

📅 21 March 2026 – Deadline for oral and regular poster presentations
📅 20 May 2026 – Deadline for last-minute poster presentations

Registrations

📅 31 March 2026 – Early bird registration deadline (reduced fee)
📅 20 May 2026 – Regular registration deadline

 🎓 Student rate available: €25 (€20 early bird until 31 March 2026). Email effcop@ucd.ie (proof of university registration required).

Featured Speakers

The festival-conference will host leading voices from academia, industry, and policy who are shaping the fight against food fraud:

• Prof. Maarten Boksem: “Honestly Dishonest: Exploring the Cheating Brain”– Erasmus University Rotterdam.
• Dr Alex Kupatadze: “Detecting the Invisible: How Trade Data Exposes Illicit Activity in Supply Chains”– School of Politics and Economics, Kings College London, UK.
• Prof. Chris Elliott: “From the Lab to the Front Line” – Queen's University Belfast.
• Frank Cederhout: “How to become a Fraudster” – Forensic Accountant/Forensic Investigator, Deloitte.
• Roland Hassel: “Anti-Corruption Training in the Aid Sector: From Research to Practice” – German Red Cross Corruption Prevention Manager & Anti-Corruption Consultant.
• Prof. Alan Reilly: “From the Horse’s Mouth – The Scandal That Put Food Fraud on the EU’s Menu”– Adjunct Professor, UCD/Former Chief Executive of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. 

Session Chairs and Moderators

The programme will also feature experienced moderators guiding discussions and interactive sessions:

• Dr Selvarani Elahi, Chair Session: Innovation meets Trust – LGC
• Dr Di Wu, Chair Session: Tech meets Trust – Queen's University Belfast
• Dr Hans van der Moolen, Moderator: Clinic “Under Pressure” – Eurofins Food Safety Solutions
• Prof. Saskia van Ruth, Moderator: Clinic “Under Pressure” – University College Dublin
• Frank Cederhout, Moderator: Clinic “Under Pressure” – Deloitte. 

Round Table: Good Practices, Shared Insights

A dedicated round table will bring together experts from public authorities and industry to share practical approaches to tackling food fraud:

• Dr Karen Gussow – Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority - Intelligence and Criminal Investigations Unit (NVWA-IOD)
• Ivo Muller – QFS Risk Management Strategy Director, Danone Quality and Food Safety
• Quincy Lissaur – SSAFE, Moderator
• Ray Bowe – Director Food Safety & Quality, Musgrave Group. 

Interactive Workshop

Beverly Wenger-Trayner and Etienne Wenger-Trayner from Wenger-Trayner will moderate the workshop: “From Gaps to Action: Strengthening Food Fraud Education Across Europe.” 

Join the Community

The 1st Authentic Food Festival and Conference is designed not only to share knowledge but also to build connections across the food integrity community. From scientific presentations and expert panels to interactive workshops and networking opportunities, the event aims to inspire collaboration and new ideas in the fight against food fraud.

📍 Dublin, Ireland — 27–28 May 2026

For registration, abstract submission, and the preliminary agenda, visit: https://www.eff-cop.eu/festival  

Honey fraud, particularly the adulteration of honey with cheap sugar syrups and mislabelling of origin,remains a high-profile and contentious issue.

This article, by The Grocer, explores how investigations and testing programmes have flagged potential concerns in some imported, lower-cost and blended honeys, but also highlights significant disagreement over the reliability and interpretation of current analytical methods, including advanced techniques such as NMR. The Framework for interrogation of honey authenticity databases, jointly funded by the Government Chemist and Defra, is featured in this article.

The article also outlines how increasingly sophisticated fraud practices can evade detection, while also noting the role of complex global supply chains in obscuring traceability.

A clear divide emerges between stakeholders: retailers and industry bodies point to due diligence and existing controls, whereas beekeepers and campaigners argue these are insufficient and that fraud is undermining genuine producers and consumer confidence.

The article emphasises that while there are indicators of fraud, the variety of methods used and lack of harmonisation mean the true scale of honey fraud remains unresolved, reinforcing the need for improved testing, greater transparency, and stronger international alignment.

Food authentication and traceability in high-risk products: analytical approaches for regulatory control

Guest editors:

Marta Ferreiro González - University of Cadiz, Cadiz, Spain

Widiastuti Setyaningsih - Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Marco Ciulu - University of Verona, Verona, Italy

Special issue information:

Food fraud and adulteration continue to pose significant challenges to consumer protection, fair trade, and official control systems worldwide, including in the European Union. Foods such as honey, fruit juices, jams, powdered milk, and similar products (many of which are regulated by EU Breakfast Directives), as well as other globally relevant foods (olive oil, coffee, tea, wine, spices, among others), are particularly vulnerable to fraudulent practices such as misleading labelling, dilution, substitution, and false claims regarding the origin of the raw materials or their geographical provenance. Recent regulatory developments in the EU and globally have emphasized the need for robust, harmonized, and enforceable analytical strategies capable of supporting both official control and regulatory decision-making.

This Special Issue invites contributions that showcase cutting-edge analytical and data-driven approaches for food authentication and fraud detection, emphasizing rapid, sustainable, and practical methods relevant to both research and official control laboratories. We particularly encourage submissions on non-targeted analytical approaches, spectroscopic techniques, chemometrics, machine learning, and traceability frameworks. Topics covering method validation, harmonization, traceability, and origin verification are highly welcomed, providing a platform to discuss current challenges, scientific gaps, and future needs in regulatory contexts.

By combining innovative analytical methodologies with advanced computational and data analysis tools, this Special Issue seeks to bridge the gap between scientific research and practical regulatory applications. We aim to highlight emerging challenges, methodological gaps, and opportunities for enhancing food fraud detection and prevention, ultimately guiding both the scientific community and regulatory authorities toward more reliable, harmonized, and effective strategies. This Special Issue serves as a critical forum for advancing enforceable analytical solutions that ensure global food integrity and consumer trust.

Manuscript submission information:

Interested authors can submit their papers at https://www.editorialmanager.com/foodcont/default.aspx? before March 20th, 2027.

Please make sure to select the appropriate article type "VSI: Food authentication and traceability" while submitting.

In case of any questions please contact the above Guest Editors directly.

Check out the FAQs on special issues.

Learn more about the benefits of publishing in a special issue.

Interested in becoming a guest editor? Discover the benefits of guest editing a special issue and the valuable contribution that you can make to your field.

Many of FAN’s posts tend to deal with the detection or prevention of fraud from a technical viewpoint; either detection methods, fraud incidence reports or risk management techniques.  At a fundamental level, however, fraud is a crime committed by a person(s).  To understand the crime you need to understand the person.  We signpost relatively few resources on criminology.

This special edition of the European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research (open access) is devoted to food fraud.  It has six articles which give a criminological viewpoint on a range of different examples, and is an interesting read for technical specialists looking to approach the topic from a slightly different angle.

 “Preventing Illegal Enterprise in the Norwegian Fisheries Industry” by Svorken, Kvlakik and Lord

“Agri-Food Certifications in Latin America: Drivers of Accountability or Gateways to Fraud and Corruption?” by Marta Avesani

“The Paradox of Saving Fish by Eating them: Food Crime at the Intersection of Green Criminology and Political Ecology” by Rubio-Ramon and Pons-Hernandez

“Nature as victim: a vignette study on factors impacting perceived blameworthiness and harmfulness of manure pollution” by Wesselius et al

"Food Crime: Deterrence of a Potential Money Laundering Typology Through Block­chain and Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI)” by Tiwari, Rathore and Jecklin

 “Understanding Blockchain Technology against Food Fraud: A Criminological Per­spective” by Rizzuti and Davies

This is the Food Standards Agency's first Incident Prevention Update and covers: 

• Recent incidents
• Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) incident summary
• Signals and emerging issues
• Root Cause Analysis (RCA): Animal feed and pet food incidents
• Did you know?
• New FSA and Institute for Grocery Distribution (IGD) incidents framework 
• Publications you may have missed

Figure 1 shows the total number and percentage (%) of the main hazard categories identified in signals; compositional issues was the highest reported hazard, [49%], followed by novel foods, [22%], pathogenic micro-organisms, [8%], labelling related non-compliances, [5%], non-compliance, [5%], other hazards, [5%], allergens, [4%] and heavy metals, [2%].

Between April 2025 and February 2026, 549 signals linked to food supplements were identified and processed by the FSA signal monitoring function. Hazards and issues identified in signals triaged by the FSA were compositional non-compliances, including excess vitamins and minerals, (notably vitamins D, B6, A and iron), unauthorised substances, labelling deficiencies and (unlabelled or incorrectly labelled ingredients). Other food safety concerns identified, albeit at a lower frequency but are potentially serious included pathogenic micro-organisms, [i.e. Salmonella spp.], undeclared allergens and heavy metals.

During this period, FSA observed an increase of non-compliance reports in supplements for compositional failures, non-compliant novel foods, and Salmonella spp. contamination, in particular botanical powders. The country of origin with the highest number of signals identified for supplements was the United States, primarily for composition and unauthorised substances.

The FSA has recently updated its supplement guidance for consumers.

Read full Incident Prevention Update here.

Given the diversity of traded bivalve molluscs (scallops, oysters, mussels etc), broad taxonomic coverage is essential for untargeted screening to verify species authenticity. 

To address this challenge, the authors of this paper (open access) developed and validated a DNA metabarcoding approach employing two PCR assays, a singleplex and a duplex, to amplify mitochondrial 16S rDNA fragments (160–203 bp) across seven families: Ostreidae, Pectinidae, Mytilidae, Pharidae, Veneridae, Glycymerididae, and Cardiidae.

Taxa were identified at the species or genus level in 38 reference samples and four model food samples, with individual species detected at concentrations as low as 0.008–0.014% (w/w).

They report that all main and most minor components were detected in 40 DNA extract mixtures, with a small number of false negatives which they hypothesise result from primer-template mismatches causing amplification bias.

In a follow-up surveillance exercise they tested 70 commercial food products. They concluded that 29% of samples were mislabeled (either adulteration or substitution), with scallops being the most frequently affected family.

They conclude that the method is suitable for detecting species substitution and adulteration. This study presents the first DNA metabarcoding method targeting a broad taxonomic range of bivalves. The validated approach is particularly-suited for qualitative screening in routine food authentication and can support laboratories and regulatory agencies in enforcing international monitoring strategies.

Thanks to FAN member, and author, Julia Andronache for flagging this paper.  If you have a publication that it would be useful to share with our members then please get in touch.

The EC-JRC manuscript entitled "Interlaboratory validation of thirteen qPCR methods to quantify adulterants in culinary spices and herbs”, has recently been published (open access) in the journal of European Food Research and Technology.

The paper describes the results of a recent inter-laboratory trial using 13 qPCR assays for the detection of  significant adulterants in  paprika/chili, turmeric, saffron, cumin, oregano and black pepper.  For paprika, adulterants tested were maize seed, tomato, and sunflower seed.  For saffron, adulterants were safflower and Mexican marigold.  For cumin, carroway seed.  For turmeric, maize seed, rice seed, oat seed and bell pepper.  For oregano, goose-foot leaf.  For black pepper, rice seed.

The thirteen qPCR methods had already passed in-house validation criteria (from an original pool of 30 methods – results previously published).  This study was an inter-laboratory trial involving fifteen European laboratories. For each method the participants received DNA templates of binary mixtures for five standard samples together with five test samples of unknown adulterant concentration. Interlaboratory validation parameters included repeatability, reproducibility and trueness. Measurement uncertainties, limits of detection and limits of quantification were also determined.

The authors report that, after data examination and outlier removal, relative repeatability standard deviation ranged from 4% to 25%, relative reproducibility standard deviation ranged from 6% to 25% and trueness bias ranged from − 11% to 27%.

They conclude that the thirteen qPCR methods are therefore fully validated and may be included in international standards for deployment in official control laboratories.

Photo by Tamanna Rumee on Unsplash

This paper (open access) proposes an approach to deal with surface scattering in the Near-Infrared (NIR) analysis of particulates.  The authors use coffee cultivarl testing as an example.

Surface scattering is a major confound in near-infrared (NIR) analysis of particulate foods. In roasted coffee powders, inhomogeneous scattering can obscure cultivar differences. Standard practice eliminates scattering (extended/multiplicative scatter correction) via reference-anchored polynomial projection.  The problem is that in heterogeneous matrices this is order-sensitive and can remove analyte-relevant variance.

The approach proposed in this paper is to encode scattering explicitly.  Per-spectrum polynomial slope, curvature and cubic baseline coefficients are determined and appended as descriptors and models are trained on the augmented matrix.

The authors reported that, using 300 diffuse-reflectance FT-NIR spectra (10 000–4000 cm⁻¹) from 25 lots covering 7 Arabica cultivars, this strategy improved test-set authentication.  Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) increased from 70.8% to 83.3%; Support Vector Machine (SVM)-linear from 63.9% to 84.7%, while Quadratic Discriminant Analysis (QDA) remained high (88.9%).

They conclude that the approach provides a quantitative scattering-aware method, treating it as information rather than aiming for its blind elimination. This method is an interpretable, easily implemented alternative and is applicable to other particulate and microstructured foods (e.g., cocoa, tea, spices)

The European Commission launched a new artificial intelligence (AI) platform on 10 March, TraceMap, to accelerate the detection of food fraud, contaminated food and foodborne disease outbreaks across the EU. TraceMap is accessible to national authorities in all Member States,.

TraceMap will use AI to:

• Improve food safety risk assessments by streamlining access and analysing critical data.
• Rapidly identify links between operators and consignments.  
• Monitor the entire agri-food supply chain, once a risk is identified, enabling faster recalls of unsafe or fraudulent products.

The intent is to enable national authorities to better target controls and carry out more thorough investigations, without requiring additional resources. It will use the extensive data in the existing EU agri-food systems to track trade patterns and production flows. The platform will improve screening accuracy, speed up the detection of suspicious operators and help investigators to detect food fraud and food borne outbreaks and remove non-compliant products from the market quickly. It will  enable better control of imported goods, in line with the strengthened measures set out in the Vision for Agriculture and Food.

TraceMap has been created by the Commission, using AI technology that processes, structures and interprets data from different food safety management platforms across the EU, including the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES). A pilot version of TraceMap was recently used to support the identification and recall of infant milk formula made with contaminated ARA oil from China.

Photo by Mario Verduzco on Unsplash