Food fraud is rising but why aren’t Aussie retailers testing for it?

Australia’s food industry is facing an uncomfortable reckoning over a question it has long assumed was settled: whether the label on a product actually matches what’s inside it. The two-part ABC series, Duped: Food Exposed, spent eight months combing through food import inspection records, national recalls, state regulatory data and international food fraud intelligence, before commissioning independent forensic testing on products spanning cage-free eggs, seafood, spices, alcohol and most virally, tomato paste.The results were damning enough to force statements from Coles, Aldi and Simplot, all of which strongly denied the findings and defended the provenance of their products. But beyond the headline-grabbing brand names, the investigation exposes a much deeper structural weakness. Despite hundreds of contaminated or unsafe products being detected at the border each year, only a fraction of imported food is inspected, and testing for dangerous contaminants has declined since 2019. Honey remains the only imported food routinely tested for adulteration, and even then at a rate of just 5 per cent.A question bigger than the labelMuch of the public conversation has centred on whether consumers can trust what’s printed on packaging. But for Australian brands, importers and retailers, the more uncomfortable question is one step removed: can they trust the information their own suppliers are handing them?That’s the issue Martin Stone, Technical Director at HACCP Australia, has spent his career untangling. Stone works across food manufacturing, retail and auditing to help businesses manage risk in increasingly complex supply chains, and his read on the industry’s reliance on paperwork is blunt. “In some cases, yes,” Stone told Inside FMCG when asked whether FMCG businesses lean too heavily on supplier declarations, specifications and certificates rather than validating what’s actually in the product. “Supplier declarations, specifications and certificates are essential, but they should be one part of a broader supplier assurance programme, not the end of the process,” he said.The distinction that matters most, according to Stone, is one many businesses blur. “Traceability tells you where a product came from, where it went and which batches may be affected if there is a problem,” he explained. “Verification asks whether the information itself is accurate,” he said. A supplier can produce invoices, batch records and declarations pointing to a particular origin, but as Stone put it, “that provides a documented chain of supply, but it does not independently confirm that the origin, species or composition is correct”.The reputational cost of getting it wrongFor brands like Simplot’s Leggo’s, which has traded on more than a century of Australian trust, the stakes of a mismatch between claim and reality extend well past a regulatory fine. Stone is direct about where accountability lands. “Consumers generally hold the brand of the product responsible,” he said. “They are unlikely to distinguish between a supplier’s failure and the failure of the company whose name appears on the packaging. Once that trust is lost, it can be difficult to rebuild”.Industry voices are also using the moment to push back on retailers directly. National Farmers Federation Horticulture Council executive officer Richard Shannon argued that scrutiny should not fall on growers alone. “If the ABC can commission testing, it is reasonable to expect that retailers have the capacity to ask similar questions of their own supply chains,” Shannon said in a statement. He was equally firm on where confidence should sit for shoppers navigating the fallout, saying “our message to consumers is simple: wherever possible, buy fresh and buy Australian”.Building verification that actually worksSo what should a genuinely defensible supplier assurance program look like? Stone’s answer resists a one-size-fits-all checklist, instead calling for risk-calibrated diligence. “The level of verification should reflect the risk,” he said. “Documentation may be sufficient for an established, low-risk product from a trusted supplier. Higher-risk ingredients, unusual claims or complex supply chains may justify additional checks such as audits, certificate validation, sample reviews or independent testing,” he said.He also flags practical red flags too often waved through, from certificates showing suspiciously identical results batch after batch to pricing that undercuts the market without explanation. “If a product is being offered well below the wider market rate without a reasonable explanation, businesses should ask why,” Stone said.Ultimately, Stone frames robust risk management as relational as much as procedural. “For critical suppliers, I strongly encourage manufacturers to visit the operation and speak directly with the people who grow, manufacture or process the product, not only the sales team,” he said. As he summed it up: “The strongest programmes combine good systems with good relationships. They do not rely on one certificate, one audit or one test to provide assurance”. For Australian brands facing a consumer base newly attuned to provenance claims, that combination may now be a commercial necessity rather than a best-practice aspiration.