EU food fraud: what 164 suspicions actually tell us

On 26 October 2026, the European Commission published its report on cross-border fraud suspicions for September. It retrieved 164 suspicions from 803 iRASFF notifications. Dietetic foods, food supplements and fortified foods were most frequently listed with 48 cases, followed by fish with 14 and meat other than poultry with 10. These are control signals, not proven frauds or market shares.

What the monthly report captures

The data come from the Alert and Cooperation Network. They cover cross-border non-compliances involving a suspicion of fraud that authorities shared with one another. Purely national cases are absent. Controls are also risk based: authorities do not randomly inspect every type of product to the same extent.

The EU definition requires indications of a rule violation, deception, undue advantage and intent. Entries in the monthly report nevertheless remain suspicions that may trigger investigations. A stated origin also describes the reported case and does not justify a blanket judgement about all products or sellers from a country.

Patterns seen in September

Of the 164 suspicions, the report classified 75 as other non-compliances involving implicit claim violations, 48 as product tampering and 41 as record tampering. Detection sources were market control for 82, border control for 25, consumer complaints for 20, company checks and media monitoring for 14 each, and whistleblower information for 9.

Individual cases range from incorrect content or quantity declarations and undeclared ingredients to misleading origin and protected names. Examples help authorities identify vulnerabilities. They do not mean every listing poses a health risk: quality fraud, a labelling breach and an acute food-safety hazard are different categories.

Why supplements are so visible

With 48 listings, the combined category for dietetic foods, food supplements and fortified foods was the largest. The report includes unauthorized ingredients, misleading online sales and problematic health claims. The high total may reflect both genuine vulnerabilities and the focus of controls on known risk areas.

The figure does not show that 48 specified products on German shelves are affected or that any purchase carries a calculable probability of a problem. A concrete warning needs the product name, batch, sales channel and action announced by the responsible authority. Those details belong in recall portals, not in generalized shopping panic.

A practical shopping checklist

• For online purchases, check the seller, full contact details, ingredients, quantity and mandatory information before paying.
• Do not confuse unusually strong healing, slimming or performance claims with officially established effects.
• For costly origin or quality claims, look for traceable labelling and a plausible price-to-value relationship.
• Use the national warning site or RASFF consumer portal for current recalls; retain the receipt and package when making a complaint.

What this means in the kitchen

The report is primarily a transparency tool for authorities and businesses. Households benefit from verifiable product information but do not need to avoid every listed category. Using less processed staple ingredients often creates a shorter supply and ingredient chain; that still guarantees neither authenticity nor safety. The recipes by ingredient and recipes by meal provide ideas.

Conclusion: the 164 suspicions show where cross-border controls found leads in September. They are neither 164 legally confirmed fraud cases nor a representative rate for the EU food market. Concrete recall notices, complete labelling, reputable sellers and documented complaints remain the most useful steps for consumers.

Sources

• European Commission: September monthly report on fraud suspicions
• European Commission: criteria and meaning of agri-food fraud
• European Commission: RASFF and its consumer recall portal

Author: Kochzauber editorial team. Updated: 29 October 2026. Suspicions are not confirmed fraud cases; specific warnings from competent authorities take priority.