Food fraud is a growing and often invisible threat, undermining food safety, public trust, and economic stability. Its true scale remains elusive, as fraud is by definition “designed to avoid detection,” which makes it difficult to estimate its frequency or exact economic impact, states the US Department for Agriculture (USDA).

However, experts estimate that food fraud affects 1% of the global food industry at a cost of about US$10-US$15 billion a year, while more recent projections show costs can go up to US$40 billion a year.

Products like honey, olive oil, seafood, and dairy are the most targeted, spurring innovations in authenticity testing and a rise in local sourcing by companies.

In a discussion with Food Ingredients First, food fraud prevention expert Dr. John W. Spink, director of the Food Fraud Prevention Academy and assistant professor in the Department of Supply Chain Management at Michigan State University, explains how supply chain disruptions and sophisticated fraud tactics are reshaping food industry vulnerabilities and what companies can do to stay ahead. 

“Since food 

fraud is a clandestine act, it is very hard to measure the activity with any level of precision. We do know about the ‘dark figure of crime,’ which is considered the inherent under-recording and under-reporting or often even a lack of awareness that a fraudulent act has even occurred,” says Spink.

“That said, food fraud has occurred at the same rate per capita since the dawn of commerce itself. What has changed is the type of fraud act and the scale. There are wide ranges of market changes, such as consumer preferences and supply/demand changes that are only amplified by other global stressors.”

What foods are at risk?

Food fraud cases have surged tenfold over the past four years, according to the digital compliance platform SGS Digicomply. This sharp increase highlights the urgent need for stronger testing and regulatory action to protect consumers and ensure public health.

The January 2025 report from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre highlighted major food fraud seizures in Italy and Spain involving illegal fishing and document forgery, counterfeit organic ricotta cheese in Italy, and adulterated tea in India. 

The other instances reported were unlabeled chocolate in Italy and smuggled maize in Bolivia and Burkina Faso.

“I often say that your most significant vulnerability is the product you are not watching closely. While that is true, I know it is not really our question. Generally, any product is vulnerable to food fraud. The problem is not only for high-priced specialty food and also not only for raw material ingredients,” asserts Spink.

Mitigating food fraud risks

Spink developed the food fraud theory in 2011, framing the practice as a “public health” and economic risk, which differs from food safety and food defense. 

“Creating the food fraud theory was extremely interdisciplinary and significantly complex. However, once the theory is set, food fraud prevention is really pretty simple, and there are very clear methods.”

“There is guidance and training to help with very simple first steps and then support to define when more complex assessments are required.”  

He points to one of his studies published in Current Opinion in Food Science, which introduces a practical framework built around seven crucial questions to help companies assess and prioritize their food fraud vulnerabilities. 

The questions refer to previous fraud incidents, product value, sourcing regions, supply chain complexity, processing, detectability, and available testing methods, which can help companies narrow down which ingredients, products, or suppliers may need deeper assessment. 

Reporting food fraud vulnerability

Spink recently collaborated with the Institute of Food Technologists to conduct a virtual workshop on food fraud prevention in which he talked about reducing disruptions through supply chain and enterprise risk management.

He provided a deep dive into the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), which the US passed in 2002 in response to “corporate failures and fraud that resulted in substantial financial losses to institutional and individual investors.” 

“Sarbanes-Oxley Act is a reporting requirement for public companies in the US. Other countries or regions have similar regulations,” explains Spink. 

“Companies implement their own risk management oversight systems. SOX is just a reporting system wher food fraud vulnerabilities — and all vulnerabilities across the entire enterprise — are assessed and managed in one place. Thus, it is helpful to the SOX risk assessors and those of us getting evaluations from them to all use the same reporting methods.”

Prevention over mitigation

Recent food fraud incidents worldwide highlight the increased sophistication and scale of counterfeiting cases.

In 2024, UK-based Neal’s Yard Dairy fell victim to a dubious deal for £300,000 (US$398,700.6) worth of artisan cheddar cheese. The fraudster posed as a French supermarket representative with a deep understanding of the cheese industry. On fulfilling the 22 metric ton order, no payment was received.

Similarly, Suffolk-based Chapel and Swan Smokehouse shipped about £37,000 (US$49,173.7) worth of smoked salmon to a car garage in east London, considering it a French supermarket. This led to a loss of four metric tons of fish, with the owner emphasizing the need for authorities to tackle “high-end food fraud.”

“Criminals are intelligent adversaries. They adapt and evolve. Consider how wire fraud has evolved into malware that can enable identity theft that can drain your personal bank account,” notes Spink.

“There is an amazing amount of food fraud prevention work being conducted. We do need to continue to focus on vulnerabilities versus just risks and on prevention and not just mitigation.”

He suggests food manufacturers immediately “reduce your vulnerabilities” by using complex passwords, changing passwords, using two-factor authentication, and using digital wallets.

Spink also recommends that they “freeze their credit scores, invest in a high-quality anti-virus and anti-malware program, and monitor, monitor, monitor.”

“Multi-layered approach”

As scientists explore technologies like artificial intelligence, DNA sequencing, and sensors to level up the fight against food fraud, Spink agrees there are “seemingly more tools in the toolbox every day.”

“The key is ‘you’ defining what ‘your’ problem is and then seeking the most efficient and quickest option to meet ‘your’ need. Also, it is crucial to have a multi-layered approach, meaning to use several tools or systems that work in different ways.”

“With this philosophy, you  can get the maximum result as efficiently as possible and maximize the frustration of the fraudster,” he concludes.