A brief summary of international research to define food fraud and the risks. Presents examples of food fraud incidents in Australia, as presented in media reports.

1. Food substitution
Janine Curll BSc (Microbiology) LLB MAIFST
PhDLaw Candidate - Monash University
jmcur9@student.monash.edu

2. OVERVIEW
• What is food substitution?
• What is food fraud?
• What is known?
• Which foods are most vulnerable?
• What is known in Australia?
• Initiatives and responses
• Tips on mitigation

3. REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 Spink J., Moyer DC., Defining the Public Health Threat of Food
Fraud, Journal of Food Science (2011) 76 R157-R162
 Wheatley VM and Spink J, “Defining the Public Health Threat of
Dietary Supplement Fraud” (2013) 12 Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food
Saf. 599.
 Spink J Defining Food Fraud and the Chemistry of the Crime
Chicago: American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) 2009 Annual Meeting
 Everstine K, Spink J and Kennedy S, “Economically Motivated
Adulteration (EMA) of Food: Common Characteristics of EMA
Incidents.” (2013) 76 J. Food Prot. 723.
 Manning L, Soon JM (2014) ‘Developing systems to control food
adulteration’ Food Policy, 49, 23-32.

4. REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 Spink J., “The Challenge of IP Enforcement for Agriculture
Technology Transfers, Additives, Raw Materials, and Finished Goods
Against Product Fraud and Counterfeiters” (2011) Journal of
Intellectual Property Rights, Vol. 16, pp183-193
 Elliott C, “Elliott Review into the Integrity and Assurance of Food
Supply Networks – Final Report A National Food Crime Prevention
Framework” (London, UK, 2014).
 Alvarez BM, Pascual M, Rusu A and Bogason (2013) A review on
existing databases for food fraud and authenticity Arch. Zootec 62
R: 73-91.
 Moore J, Spink J, and Lipp M, (2012) ‘Development and Application
of a Database of Food Ingredient Fraud and Economically Motivated
Adulteration from 1980 to 2012’ 77 Journal of Food Science 4 118-
126

5. REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 Goldern, R. E. and Warner K., The global reach of seafood fraud
(2014)http://oceana.org/en/our-work/promote-responsible-
fishing/seafood-fraud/seafood-fraud-map
 Pimentel, P. Treads and solutions in combating global food fraud Food
Safety Magazine February/March 2014
http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/februarymarch-
2014/trends-and-solutions-in-combating-global-food-fraud/
 Charlebois et al (2014) ‘Comparisons of Global Food Traceability
regulations and requirements’ Comprehensive reviews in Food Science and
Food Safety13 1104-1123
 http://www.usp.org/food-ingredients/notices/new-proposed-guidance-
document-appendix-xvii-guidance-food-fraud-mitigation
 Curll, J (2015) The significance of food fraud in Australia (2015) 43 ABLR
270

6. ‘Of all the frauds practices by mercenary dealers, there
is none more reprehensible, and at the same time more
prevalent, than the sophistication of the various articles
of food’
Fredrick Accum,
A Treatise on Adulterations of Foods and Culinary Poisons (1820)

7. FOOD SUBSTITUTION? OR FOOD
FRAUD?Developing definitions:
- Developed in the USA at Michigan State University, referred
to by the European Parliament:
‘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
Spink J and Moyer DC (2011) ‘Defining the public health threat of food fraud’
Journal of Food Science 75(9) 57-63

8. Terminology: Global Food Safety
Initiative (GFSI)

9. WHAT IS KNOWN?
Internationally and in Australia
Mary had a little lamb,
And when she saw it sicken,
She shipped it off to Packingtown,
And now it’s labelled chicken.
New York Evening Post (1906)

10. INCIDENCE UNCLEAR
European Union
• Early 2013 Food Safety Authority of Ireland broke
the European ‘horse meat scandal’: 37% of tested
‘beef’ products tested positive to equine DNA
• UK National Audit Office noted reports of fraud
recorded on the 'national food fraud database' in
2012 were up two-thirds since 2009
• 2014 UK Which? Study 40% not ‘lamb’ kebabs
and 1 in 6 fish shops not the species purchased

11. INCIDENCE UNCLEAR
Northern America
• ‘not known conclusively how widespread food
fraud is in the US or worldwide’
(Congressional Research Service 2014)
• Oceana 2 year study: 59% of tuna samples
sold had been mislabeled, 44% of all retail
outlets visited sold mislabelled fish; 74% of
seafood sold in sushi restaurants was
mislabelled.

13. INCIDENCE UNCLEAR
China
• 2008 reported adulteration of dairy products
with melamine and cyanuric acid significant for
two (2) reasons:
1. Spectacular actualisation of the public health and
safety risk associated with food fraud
2. Failure of the operating food safety management
systems to identify the potential adulterant and
control for it

14. Chihuahuas in the coal mine*
Melamine: A known and uncontrolled food safety threat:
- The ‘lack of analytical selectivity for food protein and potential
adulteration with non-protein nitrogen’ was known since mid 20th century;
- Reported in fishmeal in the 1980s;
- Contamination of commercial animal feed and deaths of thousands of pigs
in Thailand in 2007;
- Renal failure of cats and dogs, published in veterinary journals in 2004 and
2007 following contaminated wheat flour with melamine; and
- Extensive recalls of pet foods in the USA in 2006 and 2007
No standard for detecting melamine existed at the time (31 Standards existed
in China for the production, distribution of milk)
* Marion Nestle

15. Spink and Moyer (2011) Food Risk
Matrix

16. THERE IS A PUBLIC HEALTH RISK
Food fraud threat “potentially more risky than
other types of food risks” (Spink 2013)
• direct,
• indirect and
• technical

17. Exposure to acute toxicity by unknown adulterant causing
immediate or imminent danger or threat to health/life from
one exposure
Nature of risk: Direct risk
Undeclared sibutramine in
‘natural’ weight loss food
Substitution of premium
foods with cheaper
components with allergenic
potential
Toxic plant seed – cardiac
glycosides

18. Longer term exposure to harmful adulterants or the omission of
beneficial ingredients
Nature of risk – Indirect risk
Honey substituted with
sugar syrups of unknown
origin
Meats of unknown origin/
potential vet chemicals
Carcinogens as fillers in
paprika

19. Nonmaterial in nature and may include false description as to
origin, production methods, resulting in lack of traceability for
recall purposes, purchased food actually unknown food etc.
Nature of risk – Technical risk
Lack of identification and
traceability system
Mislabelling Hoggett rolled as lamb

20. VULNERABLE FOODS
USP www.foodfraud.org database

21. WHAT IS KNOWN IN AUSTRALIA?

22. Data from media releases of activity by
food type
NSW Food Authority (2007 – 2015) and
Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) (2013-2015)
• Red meats
• Poultry and egg products
• Olive oil
• Fish/seafood
• Honey
• Fruit juice
• Fresh produce
• Coffee and tea
• Nuts and seeds
• Alcoholic beverages
*Note: no requirement to prove intent to mislead, or commit the fraud for a
charge to apply

23. MEATS
• 2010: Imported pork sold as “Product of
Australia” or “100% Australian Made” or
“Meat Content 100% Australian”
• $233,325 fine plus $200,000 legal costs
• 63 charges – 45 charges of misleading conduct
and 18 charges for traceability requirement
breaches

24. MEATS
• 2012: NSW Food
Authority $7000 fines
• ‘Stress free Black Angus’
• Traceability verification
system inadequate
• 2014: ACCC enforceable
undertakings
• ‘Free range black pig’
• Traceability verification
system inadequate

25. MEATS
• 2010: Food processor
convicted of large scale
lamb substitution with
mutton
• $66,000 for 66 charges
• 33 offences for false
description; 33 for
failure to comply with
food safety scheme
(mouthing)

26. POULTRY AND EGGS
• Production claims of ‘free range’ greatly
contested
• Extensive ACCC activity and court actions
(2014-2015) on substitution and mislabelling
• No enforceable definition of ‘free range’ and
an arguably ambiguous Model Code as to
stocking densities

27. OLIVE OIL
- No mandatory, enforceable standard
- Uncertainty over analytical tests
- Australian Olive oil industry says ‘level of fraud and
consumer deception enormous and will only continue
without an enforceable standard’ in Australia
- 2013: ACCC prosecuted a company selling ‘100% extra
virgin olive oil’ substituted with 93% canola oil.
- A level of enforcement action following surveys by state
Fair Trading departments is not public

28. FISH/SEAFOOD
• Uniform fish name marketing Standard introduced
• 2007: sampling barramundi and red emperor for DNA
analysis established techniques for forensic and
enforcement purposes.
• 2007: NSW Food Authority prosecuted fish monger for
falsely describing Tilapia as Bream, and CoOL for other
seafood.
• Much debate over agencies monitoring CoOL
requirements

29. HONEY
• An enforceable standard exists in Food Standards
Code, but not enforced by food regulators
• 2014: ACCC issued penalty notices for a number of
companies selling imported sugar-syrups from Turkey,
one with the claim of ‘Victoria Honey’ found to be
misleading.
• 2014 Senate inquiry raised concerns over quality of
compliance and enforcement by food regulators in
enforcing the honey standard in the Food Standards
Code.

30. FRUIT JUICE
2008: NSW Food Authority
prosecution of a large
manufacturer over the use
of ‘de-ionised juice’ in drink
labelled ‘99% juice’ and
‘preservative free’
(technically not)
$60,500 in fines (on appeal,
reduced from $72,000)

31. FRUIT JUICE
2015: ACCC $20,400 in
penalty notices relating to
claims of ‘local’, ‘freshest
quality apples’ and ‘no
added sugar’.
• Product allegedly made
from reconstituted
apple juice concentrate
and imported from
China and sugar added.

32. FRESH PRODUCE
2014: ACCC action ‘Freshly baked in
Store’
But ‘Made in Ireland’ or ‘Made in
Denmark’

33. $2.5 million Federal Court fine

34. COFFEE AND TEA
2010: NSW Food
Authority investigation
identified a number of
importers trading in
coffees, teas and
chocolates claiming
‘natural weight loss’
properties when
sibutramine was an
undeclared ingredient.
• ‘Leptin’ Green Coffee

35. NUTS
AND
SEEDS
DNA analysis -
prohibited plant
Thevetiaw nerifolia
(Yellow Oleander)
was marketed and
sold as ‘candlenut’
claiming weight loss.

36. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
• 2007: $15,000 for
misleading labelling and
$15,000 for selling a
product as ‘whisky’
when it contained less
than 40% proof and not
from Scotland
• $80,000 court costs for
Supreme Court
• Nearly 300 bottles
seized

37. RESPONSES AND INITIATIVES
Food Fraud European Commission Resolution (Jan
2014)
UK Elliot Review Report (July, 2014)
Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) Food Fraud
Think Tank (2014)
GAO report on FDA and EMA (2013)
US Congressional Research Service Report (2014)
National Center for Food Protection and Defense –
Food Defense Plan Builder tool | FDA
Michigan State University, Food Fraud Initiative

38. Elliott Review (2014) – UK government
response includes:
Establishment of a Food Crime Unit within the Food Standards Agency
supported by law enforcement agencies, the National Fraud
Investigation Bureau and the National Trading Standards Board;
A strategic approach to food authenticity testing;
Improving co-ordination across government agencies;
Implement better intelligence sharing between government and
industry about potential threats to food integrity;
Annoymised complaint mechanisms; and
Encouraging industry to adopt robust supply chain audit systems.

39. GFSI Position Paper: Mitigating the Public
Health Risk of Food Fraud (July 2014)
Main points:
Broad definition of Food Fraud (includes misbranding and stolen goods)
Unique preventative approach requires:
1. Food Fraud vulnerability assessment
2. Appropriate control measures to reduce the risks from the
vulnerabilities
Auditor competence – similar to HACCP audits
Guidance Document Version 7 (2016) implementation

40. GFSI Position Paper: Mitigating the Public
Health Risk of Food Fraud (July 2014)
Appropriate control measures include:
Monitoring strategy
A testing strategy
Origin verification
Specification management
Supplier audits

41. Research: FOOD FRAUD COMMON
CHARACTERISTICS
• The importance of specific, effective analytical methods
• The necessity of government standards
• Industry trade groups act as a deterrent
• The need for widespread access to inexpensive genetic
testing methods
• Fraud opportunities are created by long and complicated
supply chains
• The allergenic potential of fraudulent ingredients; and
• The use of nontraditional data sources for detection
Everstine K, Spink J, Kennedy S (2013) Economically Motivated Adulteration (EMA): Common
charactertistics of EMA incidents 6(4) 723-735 at 729-731

42. TIPS TO MITIGATE:
- Understand what food fraud is how you can
prevent it (think like a detective)
- Visit GFSI and USP online information on food
fraud mitigation guidance updates
- Consider points of vulnerability within your
supply chain
- Develop a control plan with countermeasures

43. THANK YOU!
Janine Curll BSc (Microbiology) LLB MAIFST
PhD(law) Candidate, Monash University
jmcur9@student.monash.edu
Twitter: @janinecurll
Web: www.foodlabellingmatters.com