Food Fraud Annual Report 2022 to 2023

We posted on Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), Instagram and LinkedIn to share information and build awareness about food fraud. We put up 80 posts about food fraud on our social media channels. The posts received 478,377 impressions (impressions means the number of times the post was displayed to users) and 16,253 engagements (such as likes, shares, comments and clicks).

This year, we released the 3rd video in our food fraud series, Putting fish DNA to the test. It highlights our work to detect fish species substitution and mislabelling using DNA testing. The web version received more than 700 page views and the social media version of the video had over 4,000 views. We also posted a short video on social media explaining how we tackle food fraud. It received over 11,000 views.

We also hosted and participated in podcasts about honey adulteration. The First Sixteen Podcast invited CFIA Chemist Jonathan Haché to discuss food fraud and honey authenticity testing. This podcast received more than 600 listens. Our Inspect and Protect English podcast discussed honey adulteration with Jake Berg, a Saskatchewanian beekeeper, and Carmen Leung, a policy and program leader at the CFIA. The French podcast featured Scott Plante, a Quebec beekeeper, and Alia'a Ghiba, a policy manager at the CFIA. These podcasts received more than 900 listens.

From January 10 to February 6, an advertising campaign appeared on screens in shopping centres, grocery stores, convenience stores, and food courts in various locations across Canada. The aim was to raise awareness about food fraud and how to report it. The ad received more than 51.5 million impressions (that is, the number of times people had the opportunity to view the ad).

This year we implemented updates to our website to make food fraud content easier to find and use. This included creating a new topic page and making food fraud more visible on our website. Over the course of the fiscal year this new food fraud web page received 8,317 visits. CFIA web content related to food fraud received more than 43,000 visits this fiscal year, an increase of approximately 18,000 visits over the previous year.

In February, we launched a media outreach campaign aimed at informing Canadian consumers about the impact of food fraud, as well as what they can do if they suspect their food is misrepresented. These radio spots were picked up by 53 media outlets and reached approximately 1.89 million people.

As part of our research and analysis, we regularly conduct media monitoring on food fraud to verify accuracy of reporting by news outlets. This research allows us to better understand the needs and concerns of consumers and industry so that we can improve programs and services.

We promote compliance with food regulatory requirements by actively engaging with industry stakeholders, associations, regulated parties, academia and federal, provincial and territorial partners. This year we conducted or supported 30 external engagement sessions with various parties regarding what we are doing to prevent, detect and deter food fraud. We also talked about the roles of other players and potential areas for collaboration.

We also published an updated Notice to Industry (Honey) to clarify the techniques used at the CFIA to detect adulteration of honey with foreign sugars.

Fish species substitution testing

We conducted surveillance sampling to detect fish species substitution (this means when higher value species are replaced with less expensive species).

88 percent of the samples for fish were satisfactory (43 out of 49) and 12 percent were unsatisfactory (6 out of 49). Results are rounded to the nearest whole number.

6 additional samples were taken but given no decision. Those samples could not be assessed because a DNA barcode could not be generated for various reasons (for example, due to DNA degradation or fish cross-contamination).

• Snapper: 1 out of 1 sample was unsatisfactory
• Pacific snapper: 1 out of 1 sample was unsatisfactory
• Cod: 1 out of 12 samples was unsatisfactory
• Pacific cod: 1 out of 3 samples was unsatisfactory
• Sea bass: 2 out of 2 samples were unsatisfactory

The remaining 30 samples were compliant and included 17 other fish species such as albacore tuna, Atlantic cod, halibut, Pacific halibut and sole.

• Domestic processors: zero out of 5 samples was unsatisfactory
• Importers: 1 out of 15 samples was unsatisfactory
• Retailers: 5 out of 29 samples were unsatisfactory

Of the 6 fish samples that were unsatisfactory for fish species common name declared on the label, these were the declared origin or foreign state of origin:

• Canada (1 snapper and 1 Pacific cod)
• China (1 cod)
• Chile (1 sea bass)
• Greece (1 sea bass)
• origin not declared (1 Pacific snapper)

It is mandatory to declare the country of origin on the label of imported prepackaged fish. Practices leading to non-compliance may have occurred at various points of the supply chain (for example, during processing, packaging/repackaging), so an unsatisfactory result may not always mean there is an issue in the place of origin or the place of sampling.

Sampling at retail was conducted on fish that are prepared, packaged and labelled by retail establishments.

Label verification – Net quantity

We also conducted 54 net quantity verifications on fish and seafood at importers, domestic processors and retailers to determine the accuracy of the net weight declared on the label.

Fish and seafood can be uniquely vulnerable to net quantity violations due to a combination of its high value and the opportunity for the excessive use of ice or water, which can lead to an increased declared net weight. However, the net weight of fish and seafood is required to be declared without including the weight of any ice or water. If it is included, the financial impact can be significant, as the business is charging for the value of the fish, but is providing water instead. For these reasons, as well as based on other intelligence provided through environmental scanning, we prioritized fish and seafood for net quantity verification this year.

85 percent of the results were compliant (46 out of 54) and 15 percent were non-compliant (8 out of 54). Results are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Of the 8 fish and seafood samples that declared a non-compliant net quantity:

• 2 were imported products that were prepackaged in a foreign state (1 basa fillet, 1 smoked salmon)
• 3 were imported products that were packaged and labelled at retail (2 shrimp, 1 scallop)
• 1 was imported bulk product that was found at retail (1 crab cluster)
• 2 were from domestic processors (1 lobster, 1 smoked Atlantic salmon)

Practices leading to non-compliance may have occurred at various points of the supply chain (for example, during packaging/repackaging or labelling), so a non-compliant result may not always mean there is an issue in the place of origin or the place of sampling.

Enforcement actions

As a result of the fish species substitution surveillance testing and net quantity label verification, the CFIA took the following actions:

• We detained 1,785 cases of fish, which were returned to the country of origin.
• 4,532 kg of lobster were permitted to be relabelled with the accurate net quantity.
• We issued requests for corrective action and we continue to follow up on cases of non-compliance where necessary.

View the results on the Open Government Portal for Fish.

Honey testing for adulteration with foreign sugars

We conducted surveillance sampling to detect misrepresentation of honey adulterated with foreign sugars (such as those derived from sugar cane, corn syrups or rice syrups) in both domestic and imported honey sold in Canada.

84 percent of the results were satisfactory (69 out of 82) and 16 percent were unsatisfactory (13 out of 82). Results are rounded to the nearest whole number.

• Domestic processors: zero out of 20 samples were unsatisfactory
• Importers: 13 out of 62 samples were unsatisfactory

Of the 13 honey samples that were unsatisfactory for the presence of foreign sugars, these were the declared origin or foreign state of origin:

• Greece (1)
• India (7)
• Islamic Republic of Iran (2)
• Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1)
• Tanzania (1)
• Republic of Türkiye (1)

It is mandatory to declare the country of origin on the label of honey. Practices leading to non-compliance may have occurred at various points of the supply chain (for example, during processing, packaging/repackaging), so an unsatisfactory result may not always mean there is an issue in the place of origin or the place of sampling.

Enforcement actions

As a result of this surveillance testing, the CFIA took the following actions:

• We detained 89,774 kg of honey. Of this,1,528 kg were voluntarily destroyed and 4,440 kg were removed from Canada. We continue to follow up on the amount remaining under detention.
• We issued 4 letters of non-compliance.
• We also issued inspection reports, including requests for corrective action, and we continue to follow up on cases of non-compliance where necessary.

View the results on the Open Government Portal for Honey.

Meat species substitution testing

We conducted surveillance sampling to detect substitution of meat species (typically with lesser value species than what is declared) in raw and heat treated, domestic and imported meat sold in Canada.

98 percent of the results were satisfactory (133 out of 136) and 2 percent were unsatisfactory (3 out of 136). Results are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Four additional meat samples were taken but given no decision. These samples could not be assessed because the way the product was processed might interfere with the testing, the sample submission was missing required information or the sample was sent to the incorrect laboratory for analysis.

• Ground beef: 1 out of 25 samples was unsatisfactory
• Ground pork: 2 out of 9 samples were unsatisfactory

The remaining 101 samples were compliant and included different raw and ready-to-eat meat products such as deli meat, hamburger patties, meat cannelloni and sausage.

• Domestic processors: zero out of 74 samples were unsatisfactory
• Importers: zero out of 34 samples were unsatisfactory
• Retailers: 3 out of 28 samples were unsatisfactory

All 3 meat samples that were unsatisfactory for meat species common name declared on the label were manufactured or prepared in Canada. It is mandatory to declare the country of origin on the label of imported meat products, except if the meat is further manufactured or prepared in Canada. Practices leading to non-compliance may have occurred at various points of the supply chain (for example, during processing, packaging/repackaging), so an unsatisfactory result may not always mean there is an issue in the place of origin or the place of sampling.

Sampling at retail was conducted on meat products that are prepared, packaged and labelled by retail establishments.

Enforcement actions

Root cause analysis determined that the unsatisfactory results appear to be due to unintentional cross-contamination. We followed up on the corrective action taken by retailers and we continue to follow up on cases of non-compliance where necessary.

View the results on the Open Government Portal for Meat.

Olive oil testing for adulteration

We conducted surveillance sampling to detect misrepresentation of olive oil adulterated with lower value oils, including misrepresentation of claims such as "extra virgin", "virgin", "cold pressed" or "unrefined".

83 percent of the results were satisfactory (55 out of 66) and 17 percent were unsatisfactory (11 out of 66). Results are rounded to the nearest whole number.

• Olive oil: zero out of 4 samples were unsatisfactory
• Virgin olive oil: 2 out of 4 samples were unsatisfactory
• Extra virgin olive oil: 9 out of 58 samples were unsatisfactory

Of the 11 olive oil samples that were unsatisfactory, indicating adulteration, these were the declared origin or dealer locations:

• People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (1 virgin olive oil)
• Canada (1 extra virgin olive oil)
• Greece (3 extra virgin olive oils)
• Italy (3 extra virgin olive oils)
• Japan (1 extra virgin olive oil),
• Morocco (1 extra virgin olive oil)
• Syrian Arab Republic (1 virgin olive oil)

It is not mandatory to declare the country of origin on the label of olive oil. However, a company may choose to voluntarily declare the country of origin on the label, provided it is truthful and not misleading. Where the country of origin was not declared and documentation to support the country of origin was not provided through the course of inspection, the dealer location provided on the label has been used in this report. Practices leading to non-compliance may have occurred at various points of the supply chain (for example, during processing, packaging/repackaging), so an unsatisfactory result may not always mean there is an issue in the place of origin or the place of sampling.

Basic label verification

We also conducted 13 label verifications of olive oils at importers and domestic packagers and labellers to determine compliance to legislative requirements including mandatory labelling, composition, claims and country of origin declared on the label. The results indicated that 9 (69%) label verifications were compliant, while 4 (31%) were non-compliant. One non-compliance was directly related to a claim resulting in misrepresentation of the product. We also found 3 other labelling non-compliances that were not directly related to misrepresentation, such as mandatory information not shown in both official languages and infractions in the Nutrition Facts table.

Enforcement actions

As a result of this surveillance testing and label verification, the CFIA took the following actions:

• we detained 728.5 L of olive oil. Of those, 203.5 L were voluntarily destroyed and we continue to follow up on the amount remaining under detention.
• We issued 2 letters of non-compliance.
• We also issued inspection reports, including requests for corrective action, and we continue to follow up on cases of non-compliance where necessary.

View the results on the Open Government Portal for Oils.

Other expensive oils testing for adulteration

We conducted surveillance sampling to detect substitution or dilution of expensive oils adulterated with lower value oils, including misrepresentation of claims such as "extra virgin", "virgin", "cold pressed" or "unrefined"

62 percent of the results were satisfactory (50 out of 81) and 38 percent were unsatisfactory (31 out of 81). Results are rounded to the nearest whole number.

• Almond oil: 1 out of 6 samples was unsatisfactory
• Avocado oil: 3 out of 8 samples were unsatisfactory
• Coconut oil: 13 out of 21 samples were unsatisfactory
• Flaxseed oil: 3 out of 7 samples were unsatisfactory
• Grapeseed oil: 6 out of 9 samples were unsatisfactory
• Hazelnut oil: 1 out of 3 samples was unsatisfactory
• Sesame oil: 4 out of 22 samples were unsatisfactory

The remaining 5 samples were compliant and included the following types of oil: sunflower and walnut.

Of the 31 expensive oil samples that were unsatisfactory, indicating adulteration, these were the declared origin or dealer locations:

• Canada (3 flaxseed oils, 1 coconut oil)
• Dominican Republic (1 coconut oil)
• France (1 grapeseed oil, 1 hazelnut oil and 1 sesame oil)
• India (2 coconut oils)
• Italy (2 grapeseed oils)
• Mexico (1 avocado oil, 1 coconut oil and 2 sesame oils)
• Pakistan (1 almond oil and 1 sesame oil)
• Philippines (6 coconut oils)
• Spain (2 avocado oils, 3 grapeseed oils)
• Sri Lanka (2 coconut oils)

It is not mandatory to declare the country of origin on the label of expensive oils. However, a company may choose to voluntarily declare the country of origin on the label, provided it is truthful and not misleading. Where the country of origin was not declared and documentation to support the country of origin was not provided through the course of inspection, the dealer location provided on the label has been used in this report. Practices leading to non-compliance may have occurred at various points of the supply chain (for example, during processing, packaging/repackaging), so an unsatisfactory result may not always mean there is an issue in the place of origin or the place of sampling.

Basic label verification

We also conducted 8 label verifications of expensive oils at importers and domestic processors, packagers and labellers to determine compliance to legislative requirements including mandatory labelling, composition, claims and country of origin declared on the label. The results indicated that 4 (50%) label verifications were compliant, while 4 (50%) were non-compliant. Two non-compliances directly related to misrepresentation: 1 involving the common name declared and the other, a false claim on the label. The other 2 non-compliances were not directly related to misrepresentation, such as mandatory information not shown in both official languages and infractions in the Nutrition Facts table.

Enforcement actions

As a result of this surveillance testing and label verification, the CFIA took the following actions:

• We detained 28,315 L of expensive oils. Of these, 27,649 L were removed from Canada and 666.2 L were destroyed. We continue to follow up on the amount remaining under detention.
• We also detained 257 cases of another expensive oil.
• 31 cases and 41.5 L of non-compliant product was also voluntarily destroyed.
• We issued 4 letters of non-compliance.
• We also issued inspection reports, including requests for corrective action, and we continue to follow up on cases of non-compliance where necessary.

View the results on the Open Government Portal for Oils.

Spices testing for adulteration

We conducted surveillance sampling to detect adulteration or dilution of single ingredient ground spices by the addition of bulking agents, dyes and other unpermitted ingredients (for example: undeclared allergens, unpermitted chemicals, colours or dyes).

• 86 percent of the samples were satisfactory (254 out of 294)
• 9 percent of the samples were unsatisfactory (25 out of 294)
• 5 percent of the samples were investigative (15 out of 294)

Results are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Samples of spices were assessed as investigative when either peanut or gluten protein was detected and the package included a precautionary statement, or when the presence of colouring agents was detected at levels that may indicate adulteration. In these cases, further inspection of the regulated party's preventive controls may have been necessary.

• Black pepper: 2 out of 48 samples were unsatisfactory, 1 was investigative
• Coriander: 5 out of 34 samples were unsatisfactory, 11 were investigative
• Cumin: 15 out of 53 samples were unsatisfactory, 2 were investigative
• Turmeric: 2 out of 56 samples were unsatisfactory, 1 was investigative
• White pepper: 1 out of 19 samples was unsatisfactory, zero were investigative

The remaining 84 samples were compliant and included the following spices: cinnamon and paprika.

Of the 25 spice samples that were unsatisfactory, indicating substitution or adulteration, these were the declared origin or dealer locations:

• Bangladesh (1 cumin)
• Canada (2 coriander)
• China (3 cumin)
• India (3 coriander and 9 cumin)
• Islamic Republic of Iran (1 black pepper and 1 turmeric)
• Netherlands (1 cumin)
• United States (1 cumin and 1 turmeric)
• Vietnam (1 black and 1 white pepper)

It is not mandatory to declare the country of origin on the label of spices. However, a company may choose to voluntarily declare the country of origin on the label, provided it is truthful and not misleading. Where the country of origin was not declared and documentation to support the country of origin was not provided through the course of inspection, the dealer location provided on the label has been used in this report. Practices leading to non-compliance may have occurred at various points of the supply chain (for example, during processing, packaging/repackaging), so an unsatisfactory result may not always mean there is an issue in the place of origin or the place of sampling.

Basic label verification

We also conducted 64 label verifications of spices at importers and domestic processors, packagers and labellers to determine compliance to legislative requirements including mandatory labelling, composition, claims and country of origin declared on the label. The results indicated that 55 (86%) label verifications were compliant, while 9 (14%) were non-compliant. Of the 9 non-compliant results, 2 were connected to unsatisfactory lab results related to the presence of allergens (gluten or peanuts) without a precautionary statement on the label. The 7 other non-compliances were related to other missing information, such as mandatory information on the label not shown in both official languages and other missing mandatory information (for example, net quantity, lot code or dealer name and address).

For non-compliance related to the presence of allergens or colours, we assessed and mitigated potential health risks, as necessary.

Enforcement actions

As a result of this surveillance testing and label verification, the CFIA took the following actions:

• 1,197 kg of spices were voluntarily destroyed.
• We issued 5 letters of non-compliance.
• Root cause analysis determined that 22 of the 25 unsatisfactory surveillance testing results appear to be related to unintentional cross-contamination in the field or in the processing facility, rather than intentional addition of a bulking agent. Following confirmation of the root cause of the non-compliance, some of the products were permitted to be relabelled as part of the regulated party's corrective action plan (for example, adding a precautionary statement or removing a gluten-free claim).
• We also issued inspection reports, including requests for corrective action, and we continue to follow up on cases of non-compliance where necessary.

View the results on the Open Government Portal for Spices.

Grated hard cheese testing for adulteration

We conducted surveillance sampling of grated hard cheese to detect excess use of anti-caking agents (for example, cellulose, which is a food additive). When present beyond levels permitted in the legislation, these anti-caking agents could be present as fillers and could then be considered adulterants. This practice can result in financial impacts: a loss to consumers who end up paying the price of cheese for excess anti-caking agents, and a gain for businesses engaging in this practice.

68 percent of the results were satisfactory (13 out of 19) and 32 percent were unsatisfactory (6 out of 19). Results are rounded to the nearest whole number.

All unsatisfactory grated hard cheese samples were declared as Parmesan on the label. The satisfactory samples included the following types of cheese: Asiago, Grana Padano, Parmesan and Romano.

Health Canada did not identify a food safety concern with the levels of cellulose in grated hard cheese that were found in the unsatisfactory samples.

Of the 6 grated hard cheese samples that were unsatisfactory, indicating excess use of anti-caking agents, the declared origin was Canada. It is mandatory to declare the country of origin on the label of imported prepackaged dairy products. Practices leading to non-compliance may have occurred at various points of the supply chain (for example, during processing, packaging/repackaging), so an unsatisfactory result may not always mean there is an issue in the place of origin or the place of sampling.

Enforcement actions

As a result of this surveillance testing, the CFIA took the following actions:

• We issued inspection reports and took appropriate actions, including issuing letters of non-compliance and requesting corrective actions.
• We continue to follow up on cases of non-compliance where necessary.

View the results on the Open Government Portal for grated hard cheese.

Fruit juice testing for adulteration

We conducted surveillance sampling to detect adulteration of fruit juices. Adulteration of fruit juice can occur when foreign sugars or acids are added, the juice is diluted with water, or some of it is substituted with less expensive juice(s).

90 percent of the results were satisfactory (36 out of 40) and 10 percent were unsatisfactory (4 out of 40). Results are rounded to the nearest whole number.

• Cranberry juice: 1 out of 3 samples was unsatisfactory
• Lemon juice: 1 out of 10 samples was unsatisfactory
• Lime juice: 1 out of 5 samples was unsatisfactory
• Grape juice: 1 out of 3 samples was unsatisfactory

The remaining 19 samples were compliant and included the following types of juice: clementine, grapefruit, pineapple and white grape.

• Domestic processors: 1 out of 10 samples was unsatisfactory
• Importers: 3 out of 30 samples were unsatisfactory

Of the 4 fruit juice samples that were unsatisfactory, indicating adulteration, these were the declared origin or foreign state of origin:

• Canada (1 cranberry juice)
• India (1 lemon juice)
• Islamic Republic of Iran (1 lime juice)
• United States (1 grape juice)

It is mandatory to declare the country of origin on the label of imported prepackaged fruit juice. Practices leading to non-compliance may have occurred at various points of the supply chain (for example, during processing, packaging/repackaging), so an unsatisfactory result may not always mean there is an issue in the place of origin or the place of sampling.

Enforcement actions

As a result of this surveillance testing, the CFIA took the following actions:

• We detained 13,923 L of fruit juice.
• We issued 1 letter of non-compliance.
• We also issued inspection reports, including requests for corrective action, and we continue to follow up on cases of non-compliance where necessary.

View the results on the Open Government Portal for fruit juices.