FOOD FRAUD - TACD
FOODFRAUDConsumentenbond Food fraud1
CONSUMER TRUST &FOOD INTEGRITYFood fraud: consumers’ opinionsand the identificationof authenticity deviationsConsumentenbond September 2016Nelleke PoldermanThomas CammelbeeckHenry UitslagLinda de GouwConsumentenbond Food fraud2
INDEXSummary 4Introduction 51 Research plan 72 Results 93 Conclusions 37Literature 40Appendix 1 42Consumentenbond Food fraud3
SUMMARYIn this report, Consumentenbond (Dutch consumers’ association) is presentingthe results of its Consumer Trust & Food Integrity research, subsidised by theMinistry of Economic Affairs. Our team has investigated how consumers feelabout food fraud, and to what extent they trust food products. Qualitative andquantitative consumer surveys have been conducted to find out. Also variousauthenticity tests have been performed on categories of foods that are known tobe susceptible to authenticity problems.Research confirmed that two-thirds of consumers are worried about food fraud.They expect fraud to occur most frequently in products like meat, chicken, readymeals and (shell)fish. In addition, they have relatively little faith in organicproducts sold in supermarkets. In recent years, these product groups have beenthe subject of food scandals.According to authenticity analyses, 33 out of 156 products tested (21%) showeddeviations. Relatively many were found in Manuka honey, lamb and olive oil. Asfar as oregano and cod are involved, deviations were found on a more limitedscale.It is not known at what stage in the supply chain the adulteration occurred andwhether it was done on purpose. Therefore, it cannot be stated that a certaincompany has committed fraud. Nevertheless, this research confirms consumersare often misled. This is an issue of concern.According to this research, consumers believe more effective and frequentchecks combined with stricter measures should help combat food fraud.Consumentenbond argues that European and national governments and thefood industry should take sufficient measures to end this problem. This will helpincrease consumer trust in food.Publications based on this research (in Dutch) Article in Consumentengids (Consumentenbond’s main magazine)October 2016 Information on nbond Food fraud4
INTRODUCTIONConsumers are confronted with reports on food fraud on a regular basis.Probably the biggest food scandal in recent years was the one involvinghorsemeat. In 2013, discovering horsemeat processed in e.g. deep-frozenlasagna and ‘beef’ burgers caused quite a stir. Other examples of food fraud thatreached the news headlines only recently, involved ‘organic’ eggs and cheap fishsold as a more expensive species.These incidents have put consumer trust under pressure. The authorities andfood industry have responded to this issue, also by setting up the Taskforce FoodTrust.These developments have prompted Consumentenbond to investigate howconsumers feel about food fraud, and to what extent they trust their food. Inaddition, more than 150 products in different categories have been subjected toauthenticity analyses using sophisticated methods. The project has beensubsidised by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.Consumentenbond Food fraud5
Consumentenbond Food fraud6
1 RESEARCH PLAN1.1 Research questionsThe project is based on the topics and questions below:1.1.1 The problem:a What is food fraud and what is causing it?b How often does food fraud occur?c Which products are most prone to fraud?1.1.2 Consumers’ opinions:a To what extent do consumers trust their food?b According to consumers, which product groups are susceptible tofraud and which types of fraud are the most serious?c How do consumers feel about measures taken in order to stop foodfraud and the possible consequences of additional checks performedby companies and/or the authorities (e.g. higher prices at the stores ormore taxes for companies or consumers)1.1.3 Identification:a Are consumers’ expectations consistent with the facts?b How can food fraud be identified?c Does Consumentenbond detect food fraud?1.1.4 Conclusions:a How serious is this problem?b How should consumers, companies and the authorities (help) solvethis problem?1.2 Research methods1.2.1 The problemThese research questions were answered based on literary reviews.1.2.2 Consumers’ opinionsConsumers’ opinions have been studied, using qualitative and quantitativeconsumer surveys.The qualitative survey took place in July 2015. Two group discussions/focusgroups were held (120 minutes each), with eight respondents in each group.Participants were aged 25-45 year versus 45 years. Both groups werecategorised in terms of sex, educational background and family environment.Consumentenbond cooperated with an external research agency specialising inqualitative consumer surveys.Consumentenbond Food fraud7
The quantitative survey was held in March 2016. The questionnaire came with 13questions on examples of food fraud and how consumers feel about it. Thequestionnaire was presented to 1059 consumers whose responses representDutch citizens based on age, sex and region. The respondents were recruited byan external research agency.1.2.3 IdentificationIn order to answer these research questions, expert labs have been invited toperform authenticity measurements. The products chosen are susceptible tofood fraud; also appropriate authenticity methods are available for theseproducts. The following product groups have been tested: Cod Lamb Manuka honey Olive oil Oregano Various products that have exceptional ingredients (wild meat, crab meat/surimi, exotic fruits, truffle).The selection made for each product group and the research methods appliedare elaborated in Section 2.4. The authenticity analyses have been performedfrom mid-2015 to mid-2016.Those providing the products under investigation were notified on the results ofthe analyses during a monitoring procedure in January 2016 (Manuka honey) orJune-July (other products). They were given the opportunity to comment. Majorcompanies were also invited to describe their food integrity policy.Consumentenbond Food fraud8
2 RESULTS2.1 Results of the literature reviewsWhat is food fraud?Food fraud is a broad concept. It has been defined by various researchers andorganisations. Common definitions are the following:“Food is deliberately placed on the market, for financial gain, with the intentionof deceiving the consumer” (Food Standards Agency, quoted in Gussow, 2014).”The deliberate and intentional substitution, addition, tampering, ormisrepresentation of food, food ingredients, or food packaging; or false ormisleading statements about a product for economic gain.” (Spink and Moyer2011, p. 158)Food fraud can be subcategorised according to the type of fraud involved. Forinstance, administrative food fraud means certificates are being falsified. As faras physical food fraud is involved, ingredients are exchanged for cheaperalternatives (Gussow, 2014).Based on the above, we prepared the following definition which we used in thisstudy:“Food fraud involves cases in which consumers are misled on purposebecause labels and names are being misrepresented. In many cases, foodfraud involves ingredients that have been exchanged for inferior/cheaperalternatives. Also the origin can be misrepresented.”What is causing food fraud?Food fraud is usually committed for economic reasons. Food fraud pays off.Additional and related factors causing food fraud are the following (EPRS, 2014): The financial crisis Rising food prices Demand for cheap food Complex food supply chain Low risk of detection Lack of focus on detecting fraud Lack of a strong deterrent (penalties)Food fraud is often considered to be an economic problem. However, humanhealth and the environment might also be facing its negative consequences. Byusing toxic melamine in milk powder, in 2008 nearly 300,000 Chinese childrenbecame ill, 6 died (EPRS, 2014). Also herbs contaminated with protein from (pea)nuts can be life-threatening for those allergic to these foods. Seafood fraudmeans endangered species could be consumed unintentionally.Consumentenbond Food fraud9
How often does food fraud occur?Food fraud is not a new phenomenon. Affected wine and olive oil wereidentified already in ancient Rome. And for centuries, water has been added tomilk, chalk to flour. Whether food fraud is more common today remains to beseen because now different types of fraud are involved, and also contemporarychecks are different. Nevertheless, different sources confirm there have beenmore cases of food fraud in recent years (EPRS, 2014; Weesepoel and Van Ruth,2015).The British Food Standards Agency believes about 10% of all the food that wepurchase in supermarkets has been adulterated. In 2010, the Food Safety andStandards Authority of India stated 13% involved adulterated food, after testing117,000 samples (Evershed and Temple, 2016). Estimates or any reliable statisticsare non-existent as far as the Netherlands is involved. Although we do know thatthe occurrence of authenticity problems depends heavily on the product groupin question.Which products are most prone to fraud?Olive oil, fish and organic products are most frequently associated with foodfraud (European Parliament, 2013 and Moore et al, 2012). Meat is not on thisTop-10 list. Other sources, however, refer to various fraud cases involving meat(Food Fraud Network, 2014). In 2015, Rikilt published a Top-9 list with the mostfrequent fraud cases in the period 2008-2013, see Table 1 (Weesepoel andVan Ruth, 2015).Table 1 Fraud cases most frequently reported in 2008-2013 involvedthese product groups:1Herbs and spices2Olive oil3Fish (products)4Milk (products)5Meat and edible offal6Vegetable oil (excl. olive oil)7Nuts and seeds8Honey and royal jelly9Other seafoodAnother exploration revealed fraud cases reported in the Netherlands usuallyinvolved meat (products), fish (products), cattle feed and eggs. This isinconsistent with the worldwide pattern (Van Wagenberg et al, 2015).Consumentenbond Food fraud10
2.2 Results of consumer surveysTo what extent do consumers trust their food?To find the answer to this question, consumers were presented with a number ofstatements.StatementsStatement: ‘I worry about food fraud’24,6%21,4%19,4%15,9%10,7%Fully agree4,0%4,1%Fully disagreeDon’t know/No opinionStatement: ‘I trust the information on the product label is accurate’25,5%23,5%19,3%12,5%12,1%3,8%3,4%Fully agreeFully disagreeDon’t know/No opinionStatement: ‘The cheaper the food, the more likely food fraud is’21,7%9,5%23,8%18,4%10,7%9,9%5,9%Fully agreeFully disagreeDon’t know/No opinionThey present a mixed picture, confirming many consumers are worried aboutfood fraud. Product labelling information cannot be taken for granted at alltimes; people sense food fraud is much more common nowadays. Manyconsumers were not quite convinced that the authorities and food industry aredoing their utmost to combat food fraud.Consumentenbond Food fraud11
Statement: ‘Today food fraud occurs more frequently than before’25,9%21,5%16,7%15,0%10,9%6,4%Fully agree3,6%Fully disagreeDon’t know/No opinionStatement: ‘I trust the authorities are doing whatever they can to stopfood fraud’23,5%23,4%18,7%13,0%11,6%5,4%4,3%Fully agreeFully disagreeDon’t know/No opinionStatement: ‘I trust food industry is doing whatever it can to combat food fraud’26,6%22,9%19,0%10,4%11,7%4,8%Fully agree4,5%Fully disagreeDon’t know/No opinionHow do consumers feel about food fraud?Respondents were asked what is the first thing that comes to their mind whenthey hear the words ‘food fraud’. Many of them answered: “ingredients beingmispresented,” “messing with food on purpose,” and “selling horsemeat labelledas beef” or something similar. Others mentioned things like “mispresenting shelflife,” “adding ingredients without mentioning them” and “mispresenting theorigin.”Consumentenbond Food fraud12
According to consumers, which product groups are susceptible to fraud? Whichtypes of fraud do they find the worst?Consumers believe food fraud is most common in ‘meat and chicken,’ ‘readymeals,’ ‘fish and shellfish’. They believe food fraud is least common in ‘fruit,vegetables and potatoes,’ ‘milk and yoghurt,’ ‘bread and pastry’ (see figure 1).Figure 1 Fraud expectations for each product groupMeat, chicken51,7%Ready meals44,2%(Shell)fish38,1%Juices, soft drinks25,3%Biscuits, candy, chocolate23,8%Olive oil22,4%Eggs21,2%Dried herbs14,4%Honey13,7%Wine, beer12,8%Coffee, teaCheeseBread, pastryMilk, yoghurtFruit, vegetables, potatoes12,7%11,2%10,2%9,3%8,8%* Question: “How often do you believe fraud occurs in these product groups in the Netherlands?”Consumers suspect food fraud is more common in organic food and privatelabels available in supermarkets compared to premium brands and productssold in local markets as well as health food stores. They believe food fraud iseven less common in fresh stores like fish shops, butcher shops and bakeries.(see figure 2).Figure 2 Fraud expectations according to supplier/ type of productOrganic products sold in supermarkets33,3%Restaurant food29,2%Private label products sold in supermarkets29,0%Premium brands sold in supermarkets24,4%Food sold in local markets22,0%Organic products sold at health food stores18,5%Fairtrade food16,8%Products sold at fish shops14,4%Products sold at butcher shopsProducts sold in grocery storesProducts sold in bakeries13,9%9,5%8,3%* Question: “How often do you believe food fraud occurs in the following products?”The focus groups also confirmed consumers expect supermarkets to commitfood fraud more often compared to fresh stores. Consumers believe it isbecause supermarkets have many suppliers, which means monitoring productsis more challenging. According to consumers, fresh store owners are personallyinvolved and they can be held responsible more easily. The focus groups alsohad their doubts when it comes to the authenticity of organic products sold insupermarkets. Some say it is an easy way to charge more.Consumentenbond Food fraud13
Consumers were presented with a number of examples, asking whether theybelieve food fraud is involved, and if so, to what extent. Table 2 presents theresults.Table 2 Examples of food fraud and consumers’ opinionsExamples of food fraudPercentage ofconsumers whobelieve this isfood fraudPercentage ofconsumers whobelieve this is a(very) serious problemTurkey meat being sold as lamb95,6%65,2%Minced beef containing horsemeat94,5%67,5%Minced lamb containing turkey meat93,1%53,9%Halal meat not really halal84,6%34,4%Wild boar pate containing nothing but pork84,5%44,3%Crispy chicken schnitzel containing 60% of chicken meat and40% of turkey meat70,3%27,4%A 50% cod and 50% pangasius mixture sold as 100% cod92,9%54,8%Pangasius sold as cod92,5%56,3%Alaska Pollock sold as cod90,7%52,2%Organic eggs that are not organic93,0%53,5%Barn eggs sold as free-range eggs80,5%41,5%Manuka honey that did not come from New Zealand’s Manukatree/tea tree, but rather from less exclusive flowers81,6%28,7%Honey containing added sugar58,7%34,4%‘Painted’ olives to make them look fresh88,8%62,9%Cheap sparkling wine labelled as Champaign88,4%42,9%‘Italian’ olive oil produced in Spain77,0%23,7%Using banned pesticides to grow fruits and vegetables76,9%70,5%Oregano to which olive twigs have been added57,2%22,6%Meat:Fish:Eggs:Honey:Other products:* Question: Is this an example of food fraud according to you? (left-hand column) & How serious is this problemas far as you’re concerned? (right-hand column)Sometimes, food fraud is not considered as such by some consumers. Messingwith meat is definitely an example of food fraud according to most of them.Fewer believe oregano to which olive twigs/leaves have been added is foodfraud. The extent to which fraud is considered a (serious) problem differs. Turkeymeat sold as lamb is regarded as a problem by many consumers. On the otherhand, olive oil the origin of which is misrepresented is found to be less harmful.The focus groups showed consumers believe health-threatening fraud is themost severe type of fraud. It probably explains why many believe using bannedpesticides is unacceptable.Consumentenbond Food fraud14
How do consumers respond to food fraud?News reports on cases of food fraud is dividing consumers into principled andhabitual purchasers. The former group will intentionally avoid any affectedproducts as well as those producing them. “The second I find out, I will definitelyreconsider my purchasing behaviour,” said one of them. Habitual purchasers willhold on to their purchasing patterns even though fraud has been committed.One of them commented as follows, “News on fraud will get me thinking, yes,however it won’t scare me. I guess I’ll never be the victim.”One of the differences between habitual purchasers (who will continue to buythe product) and principled buyers (who won’t) presents itself in the quantitativeresearch as well. Respondents were presented with a fictitious case of beeffraud. Initially, they had no idea which shop or product was involved. Themajority of these respondents (53%) said they would change nothing and waitfor more details to come out; 37% said they would not buy any beef and wait formore information. After they were told the beef in question was purchased on aregular basis in the fictitious supermarket called ‘SUPERGOED’, 43% said theywould temporarily stop purchasing the product, however they might reconsiderin the future; 29% said they would never buy the product again; 13% wouldcontinue to buy and eat the product.What do consumers believe should happen to stop food fraud?Consumers believe the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product SafetyAuthority (hereafter: NVWA) and the food industry have a key role when it comesto combatting food fraud in the Netherlands (Figure 3). They believe ‘moreefficient controls’, ‘more frequent inspections’ and ‘higher penalties’ should helptackle this problem.Figure 3 Responsibility for food fraud prevention according to consumersWho is responsible for preventing food fraud in the Netherlands?The inspection agency (NVWA)71,1%The food industry67,4%The authorities62,4%The importer43,9%Retailers (supermarkets)39,8%Primary producers (farmers, gardeners, livestock breeders)35,5%The Netherlands Nutrition Centre (‘Voedingscentrum’)26,6%ConsumersI do not knowSomebody elseConsumentenbond Food fraud14,2%3,3%0,5%15
Some of the consumers are willing to pay more (5 to 10% extra) for their food,provided additional food checks are carried out (figure 4).Figure 4 Consumers’ willingness to pay more in order to combat food fraudStatement: “I’d be happy to pay more, provided additional food checks arecarried out.”37,5%29,3%12,7%8,6%8,9%3,0%Fully agreeFully disagreeDon’t know/No opinionHow much more are consumers willing to payfor food that is checked more frequently?16,9%11,4%6,4%max 5%5% - 10%10% - 25%1,6%1,8%More than 25%Otherwise/Don’t know (yet)* Question: “How much more money are you willing to pay for food that is checked more frequently?”This question was answered by 404 consumers who said they are willing to pay more.Consumentenbond Food fraud16
2.4 Results of the authenticity analysesA total of 156 products were checked for authenticity, 33 of which (21%) showeddeviations. Table 3 represents the results. Relatively many deviations were foundin Manuka honey, lamb and olive oil. Deviations were more limited in oreganoand cod. The sections 2.4.1 up to and including 2.4.6 specify these results.Appendix 1 covers the results of all products investigated.Table 3 DeviationsPercentage ofdeviations identifiedProducts investigatedDeviationsCod3%341Lamb47%3014Manuka honey50%84Olive oil31%3912Oregano11%182Miscellaneous (wild,crab and surimi, exoticfruit and truffle)0%270Total21%15633Are consumers’ expectations consistent with the facts?Consumers expect food fraud to be more common in meat, chicken and fish.These are sensitive product groups according to food fraud experts. In thisresearch, problems with lamb have been encountered. However, hardly anyproblems were found as far as cod is involved.Consumers expect fewer problems in ‘milk and yoghurt’, although fraud occursin milk (products) on a regular basis. Consumers also believe fraud hardly occursin ‘dried herbs’ and ‘honey’, and yet research confirmed fraud is often identifiedin these product groups.How can food fraud be identified? Does Consumentenbond trace food fraud?spectroscopy and isotope analyse. In addition, organisations monitoring fraudintensively use other detection methods as well, including financial verificationsas well as the investigation of companies’ incoming and outgoing flows.The authenticity analyses performed within this research proved thatauthenticity deviations were found in some of the product groups. However,food fraud could not be proven. Based on the authenticity analyses alone, onecannot say whether actions were taken on purpose and in which part of thechain the authenticity issues presented themselves. Within the framework of thisresearch, one cannot be certain whether these are structural or perhapsConsumentenbond Food fraud17
incidental deviations. Statements can only be made for those productsinvestigated.2.4.1 CodFraud is common in fish (products) (Weesepoel and Van Ruth, 2015). Cod is amore expensive type of whitefish which makes it sensitive to fraud. In November2015, the environmental organisation known as Oceana reported 31.8% of 280samples purchased in Brussels were labelled incorrectly. Most cases involvedBluefin tuna (95% inaccurate label), cod (13%) and sole (11%) (Oceana, 2015). In2014, the British consumer organisation ‘Which’ purchased 45 fish samples fromFish &Chip shops in cities across the UK. In seven cases, the fish claimed wasnowhere to be found. Haddock was served instead of cod; whiting instead ofhaddock (Which, viationsidentifiedSelectionDeep-fried cod 32 ‘deep-fried cods’ (‘lekkerbekjes van kabeljauw’) were purchased at fishstores located in Scheveningen and Rotterdam and the immediatelysurrounding places (Schiedam, Vlaardingen, Hoogvliet). Deep-fried cod was ordered every single time. In Rotterdam and environs,this product is usually called the ‘special’. If the first measurement proved cod was not involved, the product waspurchased and analysed once more. Products were purchased in February 2016, and again in March andJune 2016.Consumentenbond Food fraud18
Cod burgers Cod burgers were purchased from two different supermarket chains. Products were purchased in October 2015.MethodsThe fish species was determined using Next Generation DNA Sequencing.ResultsDeep-fried cod (‘lekkerbek van kabeljauw’)In 31 cases, the ‘lekkerbek’ contained cod .Once, hake fish was used instead. During two return visits, it turned out thiscompany was serving hake fish even though cod was required.Cod burgersBoth cod burgers that had been tested consisted of cod.Companies commentingThe company supplying hake fish instead of cod (Zeevishandel Jaap den Ouden)commented as follows:Our ‘speciaaltje’ and ‘lekkerbek’ are sold mixed together. Customers call themdifferently. We provide fish fillet that is widely available at that moment.Price matters. We are doing everything we can to charge a fair price. At the timeof your order, hake fish was available. In case one of our salesmen informed youcod was involved, then he should have asked to be sure.It is not on our pricelist for sure. Whatever you purchase (‘speciaaltje’ or‘lekkerbek’) our sales slip will say: fried fish fillet 16.50 p/kg.Interestingly, this fish shop is selling specials and ‘lekkerbek’ mixed together.According to other shops in Rotterdam, these are two different products. In thisparticular case, Consumentenbond’s purchasers requested deep-fried cod atthree different moments.Consumentenbond Food fraud19
2.4.2 LambMeat fraud is quite common in the Netherlands (Van Wagenberg et al., 2015).Because lamb is more expensive than other meat, fraud is more likely to occur.According to research conducted by NVWA, lamb is not always 100% lamb. Sixout of 57 butcher shops and small supermarkets were selling unpacked lambwhich they had mixed with turkey meat (3 locations) or beef (3 locations)(NVWA, 2015). According to research conducted by a Dutch TV program knownas ‘Keuringsdienst van Waarde’, meaning Food Inspection Service, in 2015, dicedlamb sold by 10 cheap butcher shops based in The Hague did not alwayscontain lamb, but turkey instead (3 times), or a mixture of both (once). Lambfraud is also committed in the UK. In 2014, Consumer Organisation Whichreported that 40% out of 60 take-away meals that were supposed to containlamb contained other meat (Which, %deviationsidentifiedSelection Three different products were chosen: lamb curry, lamb shoarma/kebab andminced lamb. (10 of each product). As for lamb shoarma/kebab, the restaurants addressed offered their meals onthe website www.thuisbezorgd.nl (delivery to De Pijp district in Amsterdam). Selecting lamb curry: 10 restaurants were picked at www.thuisbezorgd.nl,filtering Oriental Indian food and selecting the first 10 restaurants that supplylamb curry. Selecting lamb shoarma/kebab: At www.thuisbezorgd.nl, restaurants wereanalysed that delivered lamb shoarma and lamb kebab meals to the addressmentioned above. A random selection was made out of 44 restaurants. Sevenkebab and three shoarma meals were ordered. Minced meat was purchased from butcher shops in and around De Pijp districtin Amsterdam. If the first measurement confirmed meat consisted not only of lamb, and sothe product was purchased and analysed a second time. Twice it wasimpossible to do so because the restaurant in question no longer existed or ithad discontinued its home delivery services. Products were purchased in February and March 2016.Consumentenbond Food fraud20
MethodsThe real-time PCR method was used in order to identify the following types ofmeat: Beef (Bos taurus) Pork (Sus scrofa) Mutton/lamb (Ovis aries) Goat (Capra hircus) Horsemeat (Equus caballus) Chicken (Gallus gallus) Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)The amount identified has been presented for each type of meat, using thefollowing categories: major part (60-100 %) medium part (30-60%) minor part (5-30%) diminutive part (1-5 %) very diminutive part ( 1%)If less than 60-100% of the meat consisted of lamb, then this is considered adeviating result.ResultsIn 14 out of 30 cases, less than 60% of lamb was involved, using beef (9 times)and turkey (5 times) instead. In 6 cases (20%), no lamb was used at all. Mostdeviations were found in lamb shoarma/kebab. Table 4 covers the main results.Table 4 Lamb resultsProduct contains/consists of lambProduct contains/consists of lamband other meatProduct contains/is no lambLamb curry80210Minced lamb72110Lamb shoarma/lamb kebab16310168630TotalConsumentenbond Food fraudTotal21
Companies commentingSome of the restaurants and butcher shops responded to our test results.Restaurant Kervan (kebab containing beef and lamb) commented as follows:In January 2016, we changed our minced beef recipe. It is because pure lambwas too greasy to put on the grill, so the meat would burn. Also the smell wasunpleasantly intense and customers were complaining about it. We forwardedthe new recipe to our menu designer. Unfortunately, we failed to communicateproperly. We will do our utmost to change the menu as early as this week,introducing our new recipe instead (minced lamb and beef).Indeed, the description has now been changed on www.thuisbezorgd.nl. March2016: ‘highly seasoned lamb kebab’. July 2016: ‘highly seasoned lamb and beefkebab’.Restaurant Il Defino Blu (no lamb was found in sis kebab) commented as follows:This is Thuisbezorgd’s mistake. We told them months ago that these productscontained beef instead of lamb. Unfortunately, they did not change theinformation but still, we should have checked. We change our menus on aregular basis and no mistakes had happened before. In this case we took theright information for granted. We shouldn’t have.The description has now been changed on Thuisbezorgd’s website. March 2016:‘sis kebab, diced lamb skewers’. July 2016: ‘sis kebab, diced tenderloin skewers’.We are not in a position to verify whether Thuisbezorgd indeed failed to meetprevious change requests. However, if this is the case, then the restaurant shouldhave mentioned the incorrect description while delivering the order.Keurslagerij Van Vliet (no lamb in minced lamb) commented as follows:I have extensively investigated this mistake. Some of our minced beef waslabelled incorrectly, stating lamb instead. We always store large amounts ofminced meat, so at the time of the second visit the labels were still incorrect. Wejust got ourselves new cash registers with a labelling option. We can assure you,this mistake was not on purpose. Obviously, we have solved this problem.Consumentenbond Food fraud22
2.4.3 Manuka honeyManuka is a small tree or bush from New Zealand. It is also known as tea tree.Manuka honey is produced by bees collecting nectar from the Manuka bushflowers. This honey has an antibacterial activity with methylglyoxal (MGO) beingthe main antibacterial ingredient (Grainger, 2015). The more MGO honeycontains, the better the quality. The latter is presented in a Unique ManukaFactor (UMF), corresponding with the MGO level.It is an expensive type of honey because of its scarcity. ‘Manuka honey’,however, often does not contain real Manuka honey . In the UK alone, moreManuka honey is sold than the amounts produced in New Zealand (The Grocer,2014).Manuka ionsidentifiedSelection Eight Manuka honey samples were purchased from Dutch webshops,supermarkets and health food stores. Seven
misrepresentation of food, food ingredients, or food packaging; or false or misleading statements about a product for economic gain.” (Spink and Moyer 2011, p. 158) Food fraud can be subcategorised according to the type of fraud involved. For instance, administrative food fraud means certificates are being falsified. As far
Types of economic crime/fraud experienced Customer fraud was introduced as a category for the first time in our 2018 survey. It refers to fraud committed by the end-user and comprises economic crimes such as mortgage fraud, credit card fraud, claims fraud, cheque fraud, ID fraud and similar fraud types. Source: PwC analysis 2
Types of economic crime/fraud experienced Customer fraud was introduced as a category for the first time in our 2018 survey. It refers to fraud committed by the end-user and comprises economic crimes such as mortgage fraud, credit card fraud, claims fraud, cheque fraud, ID fraud and similar fraud types. Source: PwC analysis 2
Card Fraud 11 Unauthorised debit, credit and other payment card fraud 12 Remote purchase (Card-not-present) fraud 15 Counterfeit Card Fraud 17 Lost and Stolen Card Fraud 18 Card ID theft 20 Card not-received fraud 22 Internet/e-commerce card fraud los
Food Fraud and "Economically Motivated Adulteration" of Food and Food Ingredients Congressional Research Service 1 Background Food fraud, or the act of defrauding buyers of food and food ingredients for economic gain— whether they be consumers or food manufacturers, retailers, and importers—has vexed the food industry throughout history.
GUIDANCE ON FOOD FRAUD MITIGATION Cod IL-FF Ed: 2/ Oct 19 Pg 6 din 6 APPENDIX 1 TYPES OF FOOD FRAUD –DEFINITION AND EXAMPLES (PWC; Spink, Fortin et al) GFSI Type of Food Fraud Definition from SSAFE Examples from GFSI FFTT General Type of Food Fraud Dilution The process of
Detection of Fraud Schemes Fraud is much more likely to be detected by tips than by any other method. 2012 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. 26 Detection of Occupational Frauds 2012 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. 27 Why Employees Do Not Report Fraud According to a Business Ethics Study (Association of Certified Fraud Examiners), employees do not .
Fraud by any other name is still fraud “Relatively few occupational fraud and abuse offenses are discovered through routine audits. Most Fraud is uncovered as a result of tips and complaints from other employees.” Association of Fraud
The Curriculum and Instruction Department . Mukilteo School District . Independent Daily Reading Goal: To practice reading at your independent reading level. Directions: 1. Read a book at your independent reading level. 2. Have a family member ask you 2-3 questions and discuss the story with them. 2nd Grade Fiction Questions What did you picture as you read this story? What words or phrases .
