142 | Food Fraud in a Global Context | Food Safety Scorecard | Oysters |
Plus, an important notice for paying subscribers
Food Safety Scorecard;
Food Fraud in a Global Context;
Food Safety News and Resources;
When Oysters Were a Poor Man’s Food (just for fun);
Food fraud news, emerging issues and recent incidents
Well hi there,
Welcome to a world-view week in food safety and food fraud with The Rotten Apple.
I’m writing to you from LA, having just arrived in America for the very first time. I’ve spent the day pondering the differences between my home country of Australia and the USA. Interestingly, we have similar ideas about which parts of the food system we trust the most: farmers. That goes for Europeans too. I compare consumer trust in food systems for Australia/New Zealand, Europe and the USA in this week’s issue.
Also this week, I explore ideas from a new global report on illicit trade in food from the World Trade Organisation. My post includes a basic overview if you’re new to food fraud and new figures and added insights if you’ve been following the topic for a while.
As always, this week’s issue has food fraud news for paying subscribers, and, for everyone, food safety news, which includes - this is mad - a recall for packaged crocodile feet which are/were on sale at food retail outlets with skin and claws and a risk of metal contamination. Yum.
Have a great week,
Karen
P.S. Shoutout and huge thank you to new subscribers 👏👏 Grace and Kav from the UK, Rajesh, Klaus, Pedro, Tara, Tracy 👏👏 and to long-term supporters Victoria, Simona, Jeffrey, Zach, Jenny, Sophie, Ina, Joanne, Marthica, Theresa, Stephanie, Charlies, QA, Shilpa, Richard, Rachel, Graham and CM👏👏 your subscriptions make this newsletter possible, you’re the best!
“Thank you for your insightful and informative newsletters” Agnethe, Chemistry and Food Safety Specialist, Norway
Payment Problems?
We’ve had a lot of failed subscriber payments in the past month. Some of you have been with me for more than three years (!) and credit cards expire periodically. When they expire your subscription is at risk.
If you want to retain access to paid subscriber benefits including food fraud news and incident reports, and if you want to keep supporting my efforts to bring you the best ad-free, not-boring food safety news each week, please take a moment to update your credit card details.
Food Safety Scorecard
Trust in food systems from three global regions
Australians and New Zealanders have high levels of confidence in the safety of our food, according to a new survey. I was curious about how that compared to other regions, so I did some searching. Here’s what I found.
In a survey of 2,000 Australians and New Zealanders published last month, 72% said they were confident in the safety of their food. Compared to that, a similar figure, 70%, of United States residents are confident their food is safe. But Europeans? Only 53% of Europeans have confidence in the safety of their food.
The Australia-New Zealand survey is by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and is the first of an annual series designed to track consumer attitudes to the food system over time.
It has interesting parallels with a recently published survey of 19,642 Europeans. While far fewer Europeans expressed trust in the safety of their food supply, they had the same ideas about which sectors of the food industry are the most (and least) trustworthy. Farmers were most trusted by Australians/New Zealanders, Europeans and United States survey respondents, followed by retailers/grocery stores. Food manufacturers were the least trusted of the three, by respondents in all three regions.
What could be done to increase trust? The International Food Information Council included questions in its 2023 survey that asked “What would increase your confidence in the safety of the food supply?”
36% suggest understanding “how the government currently ensures that food is safe.”
35% suggest understanding “how food companies currently ensure that food is safe.”
35% want to see “stricter regulation around the safety of the food supply.”
Sources:
1) Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2024) 2023 CONSUMER INSIGHTS. Available from: https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-05/Consumer%20Insights%20Tracker%202023%20Simple%20Report.pdf
2) EIT Food Trust Report 2023. Available from: https://www.eitfood.eu/reports/trust-report-2023
3) International Food Information Council (2023) 2023 Food and Health Survey. Available from: https://foodinsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/IFIC-2023-Food-Health-Report.pdf
4) IFT (2023) A 'Clear' Path to Regaining Public Trust in Food and Beverage. Available from: https://www.ift.org/news-and-publications/digital-exclusives/ift-first-23-regaining-public-trust-in-food-and-beverage
Read more about the drivers of consumer trust in the global food system: Consumer Trust in Food and the Food System: A Critical Review (mdpi.com)
Food Fraud in a Global Context
The recent release of the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Report on Illicit Trade in Food and Food Fraud inspired me to create a ‘back to basics’ overview of the current global situation with food fraud. In the post I’ll talk about the costs of food fraud – and who bears those costs – definitions of food fraud and global prevention and enforcement strategies.
Costs of food fraud
Food fraud is estimated to cost US$30 to $50 billion per year globally*, excluding trade in illicit alcoholic beverages. Illicit alcoholic beverages cost US$8.9 billion annually in lost revenue.
Global trade values of frequently affected commodities
Meat: US$168 billion
Seafood: US$160 billion
Alcoholic beverages: US$98 billion
Coffee: US$42 billion
Milk: US$31 billion
Fruit and vegetable juice: US$15 billion
Spices: US$13 billion
Olive oil: US$9 billion
Honey: US$3 billion
Organic foods: Unknown value.
The sum of these values, excluding alcohol, is $438 billion, which puts the percentage value of fraud $30 - $50 billion at 7 to 11 percent. That’s right, around ten percent of our global food system is affected by food fraud.
Comment:
Ten percent seems a good estimate to me, for an activity that is, by its very nature, impossible to measure. It is rare for any survey which explores the authenticity of a food to find fraud levels lower than 10 percent, unless there have been recent enforcement actions in the same commodity and market.
For example, Côte d’Ivoire’s cocoa industry lost about 125,000 tonnes of cocoa to smuggling in the 2017 growing season*, equivalent to 9 percent of its harvest. Similarly, the losses estimated from illicit trade in alcoholic beverages come to 9 percent of global trade values.
Who pays these costs and losses?
The costs of food fraud are borne by many organisations and groups from the food system, including legitimate businesses, government-funded organisations and consumers. The nature of the costs borne by each are listed below.
Legitimate businesses: loss of sales (direct) and loss of sales through lowering of consumer confidence;
Governments: loss of revenue from tax evasion – for example from the smuggling of foods or beverages across borders, thereby avoiding duties and tariffs;
Governments: the cost of enforcement actions;
Governments and citizens: healthcare costs from illnesses and injuries from fraudulently adulterated food;
Consumers: healthcare costs from illnesses and injuries from fraudulent adulterated foods, loss of income and other indirect costs from illnesses and injuries; loss of money from purchasing fraud-affected products, loss of trust in the food system.
Definitions of food fraud
There is no globally agreed definition of food fraud. The Food and Agriculture Organisation’s Codex Alimentarius (Food Commission) has been working to create one for some years now. The World Trade Organization did not attempt to create its own definition for the purposes of the report, despite seeing itself as having a pivotal role in the global prevention of illicit trade in food.
Below are a list of food fraud definitions.
The Transnational Alliance to Combat Illicit Trade (TRACIT, 2019):
“The intentional substitution or dilution of an authentic food or ingredient with a cheaper product (such as replacing extra virgin olive oil with a cheaper oil), flavour or colour enhancement using illicit or unapproved substances, or substitution of one species with another.” TRACIT’s definition of illicit food trade includes the smuggling of agricultural products.
Reference: Transnational Alliance to Combat Illicit Trade (TRACIT) (2019), Mapping the Impact of Illicit Trade on the UN Sustainable Development Goals, New York: TRACIT.
United States of America (FDA):
Economically motivated adulteration (EMA) occurs “when someone intentionally leaves out, takes out, or substitutes a valuable ingredient or part of a food” or “when someone adds a substance to a food to make it appear better or of greater value.” (Link)
European Union
European Union considers food fraud to be a “suspected intentional action by businesses or individuals for the purpose of deceiving purchasers and gaining undue advantage there from, in violation of the rules referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625” on EU agri-food chains. (Link)
Academic definition (Spink and Moyer (2011))
“Food fraud is a collective term used to encompass the deliberate and intentional substitution, addition, tampering, or misrepresentation of food, food ingredients, or food packaging; or false or misleading statements made about a product, for economic gain.” (Link)
Comment:
Food fraud definitions have been a source of almost constant academic discussion since I started working in food fraud in 2015. Definitions are used to describe the scope of studies, surveys and databases, and each of these will look quite different depending on the definition used.
For example, the European Commission’s Monthly Reports on EU Agri-Food Fraud Suspicions** contain hundreds of notifications related to too-high pesticides or unauthorised pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables imported to European countries. Is every one of these notifications linked to a case of deliberate fraud? Unlikely.
In many of these cases, an accidental violation is at least as likely as a deliberate fraud. Perhaps the farmer used improper pesticide practices or used a pesticide allowed in their country but banned in Europe without knowing the crop would be sent to Europe. Or perhaps a trader was unaware of the differences in pesticide rules from country to country. These would be accidental violations that could be included in the EU Food Fraud (Suspicions) Reports.
On the other hand, some traders might decide to ‘try their luck’ with produce they know could be non-compliant, on the hope that they are not caught, and that would be fraud.
This brings us to the second issue with defining food fraud: the legal and enforcement perspective.
In fraud law generally, (not just food fraud), a person can usually only be successfully prosecuted for fraud if they can be shown to have had ‘intent’, that is, if they intended to defraud their victim. Creating a food fraud definition that would require enforcement agencies to show evidence about the intention – the private thoughts - of a food trader could be counterproductive. The fear is that if the definition is not good enough, some perpetrators may be excused on a legal loophole.
Note that the United Kingdom’s Food Crime Unit has avoided these challenges by using the term ‘Food Crime’ and avoiding the term ‘food fraud’ in its public-facing information.
My favourite definition of food fraud is not mentioned in the WTO report. It is:
“Food fraud is deception, using food for economic gain (Spink, et al 2016)”
Are new definitions and new laws needed to fight food fraud?
Until recently, media outlets and commentators discussing major food fraud events would almost always call for ‘tougher laws’ to catch food fraud perpetrators. Food academics and criminologists would call for better definitions.
Those days are over. The WTO report does not mention the creation of new laws, nor suggest that new definitions are needed.
Current laws are suitable. It has been illegal to defraud your customers and associates, and to evade taxes by smuggling since the earliest days of criminal law. Food purity, safety and ‘wholesome-ness’ laws have been in place since the 19th century in most countries. Contract law prevents trading partners from willfully supplying goods that do not meet agreed standards. These are the laws with which food crimes are pursued.
In its report, the WTO mentions that it provides a legal framework so that “members” (countries) can enforce their trade laws. The two main legal frameworks are the WTO’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission also has a Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food (1979) which states that “International trade in food should be conducted on the principle that all consumers are entitled to safe, sound and wholesome food and to protection from unfair trade practices.” … and that food which is unsafe, deceptively labelled or past its expiry date should not be in international trade. (Link)
How should the global system deal with food law?
Prevention is better than cure, says the WTO report. The report also calls for more cross-border cooperation in the investigation and enforcement of food crimes.
Operation Ospon is a joint operation of Europol and INTERPOL which targets fake and substandard food and beverages. It is in its 12th year and each year results in hundreds of tonnes of food and drinks being removed from commerce and dozens of enforcement actions such as prosecutions and fines.
Other notable cross-border, anti-food-fraud operations include last year’s honey enforcement action in Europe, “From the Hives”, in which Sixteen EU Member States plus Switzerland and Norway tested a total of 320 consignments of honey imported from 20 countries. The results prompted a number of enforcement actions and the operation has been followed by new rules for honey traceability and honey origin information for consumers in Europe, colloquially known as ‘The Breakfast Directive’.
Comment:
While there are sufficient laws to make food fraud ‘illegal’, the way that enforcement agencies understand the scope of food fraud activities, and the degree of importance they place on investigating and prosecuting such crimes varies widely from place to place. For example, an organised crime investigation unit might see that a crime group they are investigating is selling illicit olive oil, but might not have the resources to trace the oil back to its original source. Similarly, they might not understand the danger such oil poses to consumers.
The food industry has created initiatives to help share information about potentially fraud-affected ingredients and products, and provide resources to legitimate food businesses. These include the Food Authenticity Network and the Food Industry Intelligence Network.
Vulnerabilities which allow illegal food trade to flourish
When it comes to illicit international trade in food and beverages, there are many regions of the world that are particularly vulnerable for the following reasons:
the lack of legal enforcement activities, weak border controls;
long and porous borders between countries, allowing cross-border smuggling;
weak enforcement within borders;
informal supply chains;
consumer demand for cheap food.
Takeaways for food professionals
Food fraud is more prevalent and more costly than many people imagine, affecting approximately ten percent of the global food supply.
Most food fraud goes undetected and unreported. Some food fraud reports, however, include large numbers of notifications that could be the result of accidental violations rather than intentional fraud activities, such as pesticide residue violations in the European Commission’s food fraud suspicion reports.
Information sharing and laboratory expertise have improved since 2015, with better resources available to food businesses, including from the Food Authenticity Network and its list of expert laboratories (“Centres of Excellence”). The Food Authenticity Network and the Food Industry Intelligence Network are recommended for legitimate businesses that wish to protect their consumers and brands from the impact of food fraud.
In short: We don’t have hard data on the costs of food fraud, but estimates put the value at US$30 to $50 billion per year globally 🍏 I estimate that around ten percent of the global food supply is affected by food fraud 🍏 The costs are borne by legitimate businesses, governments and consumers 🍏 Definitions of food fraud vary from country to country and there is no global legal definition 🍏 Current laws are sufficient to tackle food fraud, however enforcement is challenging, even in wealthy countries 🍏 Industry initiatives including the Food Authenticity Network and the Food Industry Intelligence Network have valuable resources and information sharing systems for food businesses 🍏
*Unless otherwise linked, all sources in this post are from Chapter 1 the World Trade Organisation’s Report on Illicit Trade in Food and Food Fraud, Chapter One, by Doaa Abdel-Motaal, Senior Counsellor, WTO - Agriculture and Commodities Division.
**European Commission’s Monthly Reports on EU Agri-Food Fraud Suspicions
Food Safety News and Resources
Our news and resources section has not-boring food safety news plus links to free webinars and guidance documents: no ads, no sponsored content, only resources that I believe will be genuinely helpful for you.
This week: paralytic shellfish poisoning, a mystery STEC outbreak in the UK and🐊 crocodile feet!
Click the preview below to access it.
Oysters Were Once A Poor Man’s Food (Just for Fun)
These days oysters are luxury foods to be savoured with Champagne. But not so long ago they were a cheap and plentiful source of protein in New York City where oysters were grown in their thousands.
Long Read: Oysters: The luxury delicacy that was once a fast-food fad (bbc.com)
Below for paying subscribers: Food fraud news, horizon scanning and incident reports
📌 Food Fraud News 📌
Fraud suspected in dodgy beeswax
A beeswax supplier is being investigated for deception, attempted deception, misleading commercial practices, sale of falsified agricultural products, fraud and breach of trust after beekeepers complained that embossed wax sheets were causing high mortality in their hives. The sheets were found to
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to The Rotten Apple to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.