Word of the Month for April 2026: Food Fraud

Do you like to cook?  Specifically, bake, grill, BBQ - essentially anything that takes food in it's raw form and converts it into a form that can be safely consumed by humans.

That's what I'm talking about.  Food that you (a person) can eat.  That's not to say that there isn't problems related to animal (dog, cat, horse, etc) food/products.  It's just that this time round, we're looking at human food.

Imagine, if you will, you are prepping some chicken to grill and you realize you've run out of olive oil.  

I hate when that happens.

So, you run over to the store to buy some extra virgin olive oil.   

Just by chance, you look at the ingredients and see that it is EXTRA VIRGIN oil and made from olives from Italy - just what you were looking for.  

But is it really? How would you know?!

What if you were to find out that the olive oil you had been using for the past decade wasn't was what you thought it was?  What if the store passed off what they marketed as extra virgin olive oil was actually refined (and slightly used) motor oil with added flavoring?

Ick!  Gross!  Can you say lawsuit?!?

Before we get deep into all this, let's define what Food Fraud is.  

For our purposes, FOOD FRAUD is the deliberate and intentional substitution, addition, tampering, or misrepresentation of food, ingredients, or packaging for economic gain.  It also includes false or misleading statements about a product for financial advantage.

This can happen at any stage of the food supply chain — from farming to processing to retail — and can involve lowering quality, hiding defects, or selling one thing as another.

As it happens, there are two common categories related to Food Fraud, namely:

1. Economically Motivated Adulteration (EMA) — cutting costs by adding/substituting something cheaper.

2. Counterfeit/Mislabeling — passing off a product as higher quality, premium origin, or even an entirely different species.

As it turns out, there are 15 categories of Food Fraud:

1. Olive oil adulteration — Mixing extra virgin olive oil with cheaper vegetable oils like soybean or sunflower.

2. Honey dilution — Adding sugar syrup, corn syrup, or rice syrup to bulk up honey volume.

3. Fish mislabeling — Selling cheaper species (e.g., tilapia) as more expensive ones (e.g., red snapper).

4. Ground meat substitution — Mixing beef with pork, horse meat, or other animal proteins without disclosure.

5. Maple syrup fraud — Replacing maple syrup with colored, flavored corn syrup.

6. Wine mislabeling — Misstating grape variety, region, or vintage to command a higher price.

7. Organic labeling fraud — Selling conventionally grown produce as “organic” without certification.

8. Spice adulteration — Adding brick dust, lead chromate, or starch to bulk up turmeric, paprika, or saffron.

9. Milk watering — Diluting milk with water, sometimes adding melamine to fake protein content (China, 2008).

10. Juice mislabeling — Selling apple juice as “100% pomegranate” or “100% cranberry” with only flavorings and colorants.

11. Coffee blending fraud — Mixing high-grade Arabica with cheaper Robusta while selling it as 100% Arabica.

12. Caviar substitution — Selling dyed fish roe (e.g., lumpfish or paddlefish) as sturgeon caviar.

13. Parmesan cheese filler — Adding cellulose (wood pulp) or cheaper cheeses and still labeling as “100% Parmesan.”

14. Vanilla extract substitution — Using synthetic vanillin instead of real vanilla from beans without disclosure.

15. Shrimp mislabeling — Selling farmed shrimp as “wild-caught” or substituting smaller shrimp for premium-sized ones.

So, looking back on our example regarding the extra virgin olive oil, what would you want to happen if the company you bought your extra virgin olive oil sold you something other than what was labeled?

In 2017, prosecutors in Turin, Italy, investigated multiple brands (including Bertolli and Carapelli, owned by Deoleo at the time) for selling lower-grade oil as “extra virgin.”  

Consequently, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States under Koller v. Deoleo USA, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-02400-RS (N.D. Cal., San Francisco) for two reason.  

First, the statement "Imported from Italy” on Bertolli olive oils was misleading because much of the olive oil came from olives grown/pressed in countries other than Italy; Second, products labeled “Extra Virgin” wouldn’t remain extra-virgin through retail sale/best-by date due to clear bottles and handling (heat/light).  

Have you ever noticed the bottles you buy olive oil in?  "Higher quality" olive oil is sold in dark, glass bottles.  Without going into the nitty gritty of things, olive oil sold in in plastic bottles tend to leach chemicals into the oil like Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), High-Density Polyethylene (HOPE), and bisphenol A (BPA).  

So, just be careful with what you're buying.

Anyway, one thing led to another and all parties settled on August 9, 2018 for $7 million resulting in serious changes to labeling and how the oil was bottled.

Thing is, if you search around long enough, you can find LOTS of cases of Food Fraud.  

Wait, there's more of this going on???  

You bet there is (and I've broken some of it into the 15 different categories):

1. Olive Oil Adulteration

1. Deoleo USA (Bertolli/Carapelli) – Mislabeling “Imported from Italy” & selling oils that didn’t meet extra virgin standards: Koller v. Deoleo USA, Inc., 3:14-cv-02400 (N.D. Cal., 2018 settlement).

2. Operation Mamma Mia (Italy, 2019) – Carabinieri seized 2,000+ tons of oil falsely sold as Italian extra virgin; actually blended with low-grade oils from abroad.

2. Honey Dilution

1. 2013 European Honeygate – Testing revealed honey from China diluted with rice syrup; seized in Germany & UK (EU anti-dumping measures evasion).

2. Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, (Slip Op. 23-162 (Ct. Int’l Trade Nov. 17, 2023) – U.S. Customs seized adulterated honey with corn syrup and undeclared antibiotics. 

3. Fish Mislabeling

1. Oceana 2013 Study – 33% of U.S. seafood mislabeled; red snapper often substituted with tilapia or rockfish.

2. 2019 Canadian Food Inspection Agency probe – 47% of fish tested in restaurants/grocery mislabeled, often swapping cheaper species.

4. Ground Meat Substitution

1. 2013 EU Horsemeat Scandal – Beef products in UK/Ireland contained undeclared horse meat (Findus, Tesco).

2. 2015 U.S. Federal Indictment – Company sold goat meat mixed with mutton/lamb without disclosure.

5. Maple Syrup Fraud

1. Maple Grove Farms Lawsuit (2016) – Class action alleged “maple” syrups were mostly corn syrup with artificial flavor.

2. Quebec, 2012 “Great Maple Syrup Heist” – 3,000 tons stolen from strategic reserve, replaced with inferior product.

6. Wine Mislabeling

1. 2010 French “PineauGate” – 18 million bottles labeled as Pinot Noir were actually Merlot/Syrah; E.&J. Gallo unwittingly bought.

2. 2018 Brunello di Montalcino Probe – Italian producers accused of blending non-Brunello grapes to boost volume.

7. Organic Labeling Fraud

1. 2017 Missouri Grain Dealer Case – Randy Constant sold $140M in non-organic grain as “organic” (largest U.S. organic fraud case).

2. 2010 Aurora Dairy Class Action – Allegations cows weren’t pastured per USDA organic rules; settled with labeling changes.

8. Spice Adulteration

1. Turmeric Recall – Found lead chromate contamination to enhance color.

2. 2016 Indian Chili Powder Seizures – Brick powder and salt adulteration for weight and color.

9. Milk Watering

1. China Melamine Scandal (2008) – Melamine added to watered-down milk to fake protein content; 300,000 affected, 6 infant deaths.

2. 2004 Milk Fraud – Diluted powdered milk sold in Kabul schools under aid contracts.

10. Juice Mislabeling

1. 2010 POM Wonderful Lawsuit vs. Coca-Cola – “Pomegranate Blueberry” juice mostly apple & grape; SCOTUS ruled POM could sue under Lanham Act.

2. 2014 FDA Warning to Apple & Eve – Mislabeling cranberry juice blends as “100% cranberry.”

11. Coffee Blending Fraud

1. 2025 Brazil Investigation – Coffee contained corn, soybeans, wood; passed off as pure coffee.

2. Widespread fraud in the coffee industry – Arabica-Robusta blends sold as 100% Arabica in premium lines.

12. Caviar Substitution

1. Caviar Trafficking in Missouri – Paddlefish roe mislabeled as beluga caviar; Lacey Act violation.

2. Fake Caviar from Bulgaria and Romania – Dyed lumpfish roe sold as sturgeon caviar in upscale restaurants.

13. Parmesan Cheese Filler

1. 2016 Castle Cheese Inc. (PA, USA) – FDA found wood pulp (cellulose) & cheaper cheeses in “100% Parmesan.”

2. 2018 Italian Grana Padano Fraud – Producers mixed in non-approved cheeses to stretch supply.

14. Vanilla Extract Substitution

1. 2019 U.S. Class Action vs. Blue Diamond – “Vanilla” almond milk flavored mostly with synthetic vanillin.

2. Is it vanilla or just vanilla flavoring? – Multiple ice cream brands labeled “vanilla” using artificial flavor only.

15. Shrimp Mislabeling

1. 2014 Oceana Study – 30% of shrimp in U.S. mislabeled; farmed sold as “wild-caught.”

2. 2018 CBC Marketplace – Found 47% of Canadian shrimp mislabeled, including species swaps.

Looking over all this you might say, yeah but that's all ancient history.  Isn't there anything more recent or is that all there is?  To which I'd reply, what kind of blogger do you think I am that I can't produce more recent events/happenings, like:

1. Feeding Our Future Pandemic Food Aid Fraud (2020–2025)

A Minnesota nonprofit, Feeding Our Future, orchestrated a massive fraud scheme by diverting over $250 million in federal funds intended for child nutrition during the COVID-19 pandemic. The organization submitted false claims for meals that were never served, leading to significant financial losses.

In September 2022, 47 individuals were federally charged, with the total indictments rising to 70 by late 2024. In June 2024, during the first trial, a juror was offered $120,000 to vote not guilty—the offer was rejected and reported and in March 2025,  Founder Aimee Bock was convicted on all counts (fraud, bribery, wire fraud).   

Consequently, Abdiaziz Shafii Farah received 28 years in prison and was ordered to pay nearly $48 million in restitution and Abdinasir Abshir pleaded guilty to wire fraud and witness tampering, forfeiting a Range Rover and agreeing to $2.3 million restitution.

The Feeding Our Future fraud scheme is formally documented in federal criminal cases filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Key cases include:

• United States v. Aimee Marie Bock, et al., Case No. 22-CR-223 (NEB/TNL)

• United States v. Abdiaziz Shafii Farah, et al., Case No. 22-CR-124 (NEB/TNL)

• United States v. Qamar Ahmed Hassan, et al., Case No. 22-CR-224 (NEB/TNL)

• United States v. Haji Osman Salad, et al., Case No. 22-CR-226 (NEB/TNL)

• United States v. Sharmake Jama, et al., Case No. 22-CR-225 (NEB/TNL)

2. EU & Global Fraud Alerts (2025)

In May 2025, The European Commission's Alert and Cooperation Network (ACN) flagged multiple suspected food fraud issues, including:

• Olive oil adulteration with other oils.

• Artificial instead of natural vanilla in Austria.

• Pork mislabeled as wild boar, forged documentation, extended expiry dates on frozen beef, unauthorized dyes in spices, and more.

• The Global Food Fraud Index (FoodAkai) highlighted sharp surges in suspicious activity in:

  • Nuts, dairy, cereals & bakery, fish & seafood, non-alcoholic beverages, and garlic—while fraud in coffee, honey, and olive oil saw declines.
    

• The FAN 2024 Global Food Fraud Report showed:

  • Main commodity targets: seafood, honey, dairy

  • Leading fraud types: botanical origin fraud, animal origin fraud, and use of non-food substances (e.g., unauthorized dyes or preservatives).
    

• FoodChain ID’s 2024 data revealed ~665 food fraud incidents, particularly affecting seafood, honey, and dairy.

3. FDA Honey Adulteration Investigations (2022–2023)

• The FDA conducted investigations into imported honey products, identifying violations where honey contained undeclared added sweeteners. These actions aimed to prevent fraudulent honey from entering the U.S. market.

4. Olive Oil Enforcements: Operation OPSON (2023)

• In late 2023, Europol, Spain, and Italy led Operation OPSON, dismantling a transnational olive oil counterfeiting ring:

  • Seized 260,000 liters of oil labeled “extra virgin” but deemed unfit for consumption

  • Arrested 11 individuals and confiscated cash and adulterated oil.

5. India Food Adulteration Convictions (2025)

• In the first quarter of India’s 2025–26 fiscal year, the state of Rajasthan convicted 489 individuals for food adulteration—only 10 acquitted out of 499 cases.

  • Between April–June 2025, officials tested 18,213 samples: 863 unsafe, 3,734 substandard, and 131 misbranded.

6. Rajasthan Food Adulteration Cases (2025)

• In the first quarter of the financial year 2025–26, courts in Rajasthan convicted 489 individuals for food adulteration offenses, with only 10 acquitted. This highlights the ongoing issue of food fraud in India. 

7. FDA Health Fraud Recalls (2020–2025)

• The FDA issued recalls for various health fraud-related products, including dietary supplements and unapproved drugs, to protect consumers from potentially harmful or fraudulent products. 

8. Honey Fraud Impacts (2024)

• In late 2024, the World Beekeeping Awards suspended its honey category due to widespread adulteration:

  • In recent competitions, 39–45% of honey entries were rejected due to suspected sugar syrup adulteration.

  • The decision was driven by unreliable testing and insufficient regulatory response.

9. Mawa (Khoya) Adulteration in Hisar, India (2025)

• Authorities in Hisar seized 8.5 quintals of adulterated mawa (khoya) stored in unsanitary conditions. The adulterated product was supplied to sweet shops, including Bikaner Sweets, and sold at inflated prices.

10. FDA Economically Motivated Adulteration (EMA) Research (2020–2025)

• EMA includes adulteration, mislabeling, and substitution of lower-quality ingredients. This can involve seafood getting mislabeled as a more expensive product, spices getting mixed with other parts of a plant to bulk production, and juices being diluted with water to boost profit margins. The FDA conducted research to identify and prevent economically motivated adulteration (EMA) in food products. This includes detecting intentional substitutions or additions to food to deceive consumers and increase profits.  

These cases illustrate the ongoing challenges and enforcement efforts related to food fraud in the United States and globally.  This just goes to show that fraud isn't just a domestic issue - it's everywhere.  Any time there is a chance to make money or take advantage, there will be someone who will step up and do so.

Sad that.

 

Ding Dong!

Picture it.  You've worked all day - exhausted you are - and you're just settling down for the evening when someone rings the doorbell.  You get up to answer the door and no one is there.  

You shut the door and just as you're about to get comfortable the bell rings again and again and again and...no one at the door.

I'm sorry to say but you've been ding door ditched.

Ding Dong Ditching, also known as "doorbell ditching" or "ring and run," is a prank that has been labeled as a rite of passage for many kids growing up. 

The basic premise is simple: ring a neighbor's doorbell and then run away, leaving the homeowner confused or annoyed when they open the door to find no one there. It's often done for the thrill of the chase, the adrenaline rush, or simply to see the homeowner's puzzled reaction.

In most cases, Ding Dong Ditching is considered a minor nuisance rather than a serious criminal offense. However, there may be situations where it can cross the line into illegal territory, such as. 

1. Trespassing: One of the primary legal concerns associated with Ding Dong Ditching is trespassing. If the prankster enters private property without permission, they could potentially be charged with trespassing, a criminal offense in most jurisdictions. However, merely ringing the doorbell and running away from the doorstep may not constitute trespassing, as the prankster typically does not remain on the property.

Real-World Example: In a small suburban community, a group of teenagers decided to engage in Ding Dong Ditching during Halloween. They rang a neighbor's doorbell, but before anyone answered, they dashed off the property and hid nearby. While their actions were undoubtedly a nuisance, they did not enter the property or cause any damage, resulting in no charges of trespassing.

2. Disturbing the Peace: Another legal consideration is whether Ding Dong Ditching can be considered disturbing the peace. If the constant ringing of a doorbell becomes disruptive and significantly disturbs the peace and quiet of a neighborhood, law enforcement may intervene and charge the pranksters.

Real-World Example: In a densely populated urban neighborhood, a group of teenagers repeatedly engaged in Ding Dong Ditching late at night, disturbing residents and causing annoyance. In this case, law enforcement was called, and the teenagers were warned about their behavior. If the disturbances had continued, they might have faced charges related to disturbing the peace.

3. Vandalism and Harassment: If a Ding Dong Ditching prank escalates to vandalism, harassment, or damage to property, the legal consequences can be much more severe. Actions that cause harm, fear, or damage to individuals or their property are taken more seriously by the law.

Real-World Example: A group of teenagers in a suburban neighborhood escalated their Ding Dong Ditching pranks by egging a neighbor's house and causing damage to the front yard. In this case, the prank went beyond a mere nuisance and resulted in criminal charges for vandalism and harassment.

4. Intent Matters: The intent behind Ding Dong Ditching is a crucial factor in determining its legality. If the prank is carried out with malicious intent, such as harassment or intimidation, it is more likely to lead to legal consequences.

Real-World Example: In a rural community, a group of teenagers targeted an elderly neighbor with Ding Dong Ditching pranks, deliberately trying to frighten her. In this situation, the intent to harass the neighbor led to legal action against the teenagers.

Anyway, say the ding dong ditching goes on for days, weeks, months and the pranksters never get caught whereas you get increasingly pissed off and the police don't do anything about it (because it's not their house so why should they care?).

Infuriating, isn't it? 

This is pretty much what happened to Tony Arnold Bernstone, 58, who was arrested back in August 2025.

Seems a group of kids having a sleepover on Friday decided to doorbell-ditch nearby homes, including Bernstone's home.  After the group rang the doorbell, Bernstone allegedly chased after them on a bicycle, eventually grabbing the victim by the shirt and yelling at him, while striking the child three times in the face and punching him in the stomach. Bernstone was consequently arrested for the alleged assault.  

One and done situation?  Yeah, I don't think so.

Back in March 2024 a man who was fed up with people ding-dong-ditching his home was charged with six counts of aggravated assault.  Court documents state 71-year-old Michael Roberts, “walked out of his house onto the porch and began firing a gun (it was a paint-gun) at a car full of teenagers."

Aaaaaaand another homeowner goes to jail.

I mean, it galls me that these kids are allowed to get away with things.  Yeah, I did it when I was a kid but years of retrospect and I'm seeing what a piece of horse manure I was.

Thing is these types of ding dong ditching scenarios happen (and have happened) a whole lot over the years, like:

Maine (July 2024) — Teen Shot in Leg

• A group of teens played “ding‑dong‑ditch” at multiple homes in Harrison, Maine.

• At the fourth house, the homeowner allegedly fired about 14 shots from a 9 mm at the fleeing group, hitting one teen in the leg.

• He was arrested and charged with assault and reckless conduct with a firearm.

Florida (July 2025) — Attempted Vehicular Assault

• In Naples, Florida, children riding scooters rang doorbells during a prank.

• The homeowner allegedly chased them in his car and tried to run them over.

• He was arrested and faces aggravated assault charges.

California (January 2020) — Car-Ramming Murders

• A group of teens played ding‑dong‑ditch in Corona, CA.

• Homeowner Anurag Chandra chased them, ramming their SUV at high speed in 40 mph zone.

• Three teens were killed, and others were injured. Chandra was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of attempted murder in April 2023.

Virginia (May 3, 2025) — Fatal Shooting During TikTok Prank

• 18‑year‑old Michael Bosworth Jr. and two friends were filming a TikTok ding‑dong‑ditch prank in Spotsylvania County, around 3 AM.

• Homeowner Tyler Chase Butler allegedly believed a burglary was in progress and opened fire.

• Bosworth was fatally shot, another teen was injured; Butler faces second‑degree murder, malicious wounding, and firearm counts.

Dean Taylor Case (San Rafael, CA – 2021)

• Former SFPD officer Dean Taylor alleged pranksters had repeatedly rang his doorbell over multiple nights. On one occasion, he chased them in his vehicle, cornered an 11-year-old boy, grabbed him by the neck, forced him into his car, and threatened to “put a bullet in his head”
  

• Taylor was arrested and charged with kidnapping, making criminal threats, false imprisonment, battery, and child endangerment. The case was pending criminal proceedings at latest reports.

Anurag Chandra Case (Corona, CA – 2020)

• A group of teens played ding‑dong‑ditch near Chandra's home. After one exposed himself and rang the doorbell, Chandra chased their car at speeds up to 99 mph, ramming it off the road. Three 16-year-old boys were killed
  

• Chandra was convicted in April 2023 of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of attempted murder and subsequently sentenced to life in prison without parole.
  

Other Notable Incidents:

• October 25, 2003 – Boca Raton, FL: A teen was shot in the back by a homeowner after knocking on a door and fleeing.

• June 13, 2011 – Louisville, KY: A 12‑year‑old was shot in the back with a shotgun by Michael Bishop during a doorbell prank. The boy survived, and Bishop was later charged with attempted murder, receiving a later pardon.

• January 1, 2016 – Oklahoma: A 14‑year‑old was shot in the back and arm during a ding‑dong‑ditch prank; he survived.

• May 5, 2018 - A Queen Creek, AZ, Johnathan Larocque assaulted teens after they repeatedly rang his doorbell. Two juveniles were hospitalized—one transported for serious injuries. He was arrested on two counts of aggravated assault

These incidents illustrate a clear claimed pattern reflecting an escalation from repeated nuisance leading to criminal charges against the homeowner: Ring the doorbell run and get attacked — but the court treats the violent act of the homeowner as criminal, not a response excused by mental breakdown.   

While in all of these instances, the homeowner was prosecuted, there are a few cases where the homeowners were justified attacking the prankster:

Exhibit A. Shooting of Ralph Yarl (Missouri, 2023)

• Incident: 16-year-old Ralph Yarl mistakenly rang the doorbell of the wrong house in Kansas City. The homeowner, Andrew Lester, opened fire through the door, believing Yarl was attempting a break-in. Yarl was shot twice but survived.

• Legal Outcome: Lester was charged with first-degree assault and armed criminal action, later pleaded guilty to second-degree assault, after a judge had ordered a mental health evaluation. He died before sentencing.
  

• Legal relevance: The case centered on perceived imminent threat, not actual attack by the teen. Lester claimed fear and confusion, arguing the teen reaching for the door = burglary threat, triggering self-defense instinct.

Exhibit B. Cleveland Heights “Robbery Prank” (Ohio)

• Incident: A group of teens, including a 17-year-old, disguised themselves in ski masks and staged a fake armed robbery on the prankster’s own mother, entering her driveway and demanding money at gunpoint—even though it was "just a prank."
  

• Legal Outcome: The teens were arrested and charged, likely with aggravated robbery, false imprisonment, and assault.

• Legal relevance: The victims (the homeowner/mother) had clear imminent threat, justifying any defensive measures—they were the direct target of the staged attack.

The question that goes through my mind after reading these summaries is why is it that the pranksters, who do the ding dong ditching, are never prosecuted?

There are several reasons why teenagers who do “ding dong ditch” pranks often aren’t prosecuted or face only minimal consequences, even though their actions can be annoying or disruptive, like:

1. Nature of the Offense — Typically Minor or Misdemeanor

• Most “ding dong ditch” pranks fall under minor offenses like trespassing, disturbing the peace, or harassment, often classified as infractions or misdemeanors.

• Law enforcement often prioritizes more serious crimes over these small pranks.  That's "prioritizes" as it didn't happen to them so they don't care.

• In many jurisdictions, first-time or youthful offenders might receive warnings rather than charges.

2. Lack of Clear Harm or Damage

• Often, no property damage or physical injury occurs.

• Courts and prosecutors require evidence of actual harm or significant disturbance to pursue charges.

• Ringing a doorbell and running away is often seen as a juvenile mischief with little lasting damage.

3. Youth and Intent

• Teenagers (especially under 18) are generally treated with more leniency under the juvenile justice system.

• Prosecutors and judges may believe the youth lack criminal intent (mens rea) passing youthful indiscretion.

• The goal is often rehabilitation rather than punishment.

4. Difficulty Identifying or Catching Perpetrators

• Pranksters run away quickly, making identification and apprehension difficult.

• Without clear suspects or eyewitnesses, pressing charges can be challenging.

5. Community and Parental Involvement Preferred

• Law enforcement may prefer to involve parents, schools, or community programs for education and discipline rather than criminal prosecution.

• Diversion programs or juvenile probation may be offered instead.

6. Discretion of Law Enforcement and Prosecutors

• Officers and prosecutors use discretion based on severity, frequency, and context.

• Repeated or escalated pranks that cause harm are more likely to lead to charges.

• Single incidents are often handled informally.

So, say you are the target of a habitual prankster.  What can you do?  What I'd do is:

• Document everything and install cameras to show who is doing what.
• Show that you are experiencing a perceived imminent threat.
• Show that harm is being done to your property.
• File complaints with the police every day/night it happens.
• If the police won't do anything to stop the harassment or the police habitually release the offending pranksters without so much as a slap on the wrist, file a complaint/lawsuit against the police.
• Call your congressman and demand they stop going after Trump and create a bill increase penalties for harassing homeowners to: 
• $500 for a first offense; 
• $2,500 for a second and 200 hours community service for the perps and 24 hours jail for the parents;
• $5,000 for each successive door dinging prank, 500 hours community service, 2 weeks jail time, a cattle prod up the arse, and 2 weeks jail time for the parents!

Well, maybe the cattle prod is a bit much but I'll bet jail time for parents would sure get some traction!

 

But It Still Smells OK

The other day I was shuffling through my spice box and noticed that many of my spices were out of date.  

Take for example my bottle of Smoked Paprika.  I love it and use it all the time - though, apparently not ALL the time as I still had some in the bottle 2 years after I bought it.  Thing is, I opened the bottle and it still smelled and tasted like Smoked Paprika. 

So, I got to thinking what other spices do I have that are "out of date?"   Turns out I had a number of items like my kosher salt and "fresh" ground pepper.  OK, it's not so freshly ground anymore but it still tastes like pepper, which is good enough for me and the people I cook for.

This all got me thinking about all of these out of date stamps found on food, these days.  If the products still taste/smell like what they're supposed to taste/smell like, then are the food companies wrong or what's the purpose of these dates, anyway.

For that matter, when did all these dates on food start?

Turns out, following concerns over foodborne illness in the 1930s, including cases linked to spoiled milk, reported mobsterAl Capone reportedly lobbied for expiration dates on dairy products.   

As people shifted from buying at local farms to supermarkets after World War 2, manufacturers added closed-coded dates for retailers to manage inventory rotation.  

Then in the 1970s widespread adoption of easy-to-read "sell-by" and "best-by" dates occurred, driven by consumers wanting to know when food was packaged.

These days, consumers can find the packaging of nearly every item labeled with dates.  One might say sell-by while another might say best-by or use-by.  Many consumers assume that all such dates are “expiration dates,” after which the food should be discarded. 

And that might be so if these expiration dates were actually regulated by the federal government.  The truth of the matter is that the Feds have nothing to do with any of these expiration dates. 

Well, let me qualify that.  Baby formula is the one major food product in the U.S. that must have a federally regulated expiration (“use by”) date. 

For most of the 20th century, infant formula was regulated only under general food law—the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.  That meant there were no formula-specific nutrient standards, no required testing for long-term nutrient stability, and no mandated “use by” dates tied to nutrition.  In other words, formula was treated basically like any other processed food.

Then in the 1970s, the turning point came about involving a product made by Syntex Corporation.  Their formula (marketed as “Neo-Mull-Soy”) had insufficient chloride.  Infants who relied on their formula developed metabolic alkalosis, growth problems, and had serious health complications

Why this was a big deal was because babies were using it as their sole nutrition source and the the harm developed over time—not immediately like food poisoning.  This exposed a regulatory gap:  Food law protected against contamination—but not against nutritional inadequacy over time.

Congressional response: Infant Formula Act of 1980

In 1980, Congress responded by passing legislation under the authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the way of the Infant Formula Act of 1980.  The issue wasn’t just what’s in the formula—it was how long it stays nutritionally valid because over time vitamins degrade, fats oxidize, and nutritional value can fall below safe thresholds.

So regulators required a scientifically supported “use by” date guaranteeing nutrition and safety up to that point.  This is why formula dates are fundamentally different from normal food labels as they are legally enforceable nutrient guarantees, not quality estimates 

Consequently, and currently, baby formula is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under:

• 21 U.S.C. § 350a (Infant Formula Act authority)

• 21 C.F.R. § 107.20 (specific regulations)

So, why are baby formula (food) regulated and adult food not?  Well, infants are fully dependent (often 100% on formula)  and are highly vulnerable to deficiencies.  

By contrast, adults eat varied diets and can tolerate fluctuations in one food.

Maybe your asking yourself: OK, that's great but what about us Adults?  Aren't we allowed to be protected, too?  Well, if the federal government required all foods to:

• Maintain full nutrient accuracy through a specific date

• Back that with stability testing

it would probably result in massive compliance costs, shorter shelf lives of key food items, higher food prices, and increased food waste (well, more than we now have).  So, Congress chose a targeted regulation model instead and left we the adults on our own.

So, knowing that we're on our own and that these expiration dates are not regulated, what do these dates actually mean?

“Sell-By” Date: This date is a message from the manufacturer to the retailer, not to you the consumer. "Sell-by is a business-to-business date" designation to ensure that stores rotate stock by pulling older products and replacing them.  In general, sell-by dates build in a buffer of time—days, weeks, or months, depending on the type of food and the rate the manufacturer assumes the consumer will use it—for the food to make it home and be used.  Food at or near the sell-by date is still perfectly fine to eat.

“Best By” Date: Unlike sell-by dates, consider "best by" and "best if used by" dates the manufacturer speaking to you, the consumer, about quality.  This label refers to quality, not safety. The food may not taste as fresh after this date, but it’s still safe to eat. 

“Use-By” Date: This one sounds the most serious and in some cases deserves the most attention, but even use-by dates are not a safety cutoff for most foods.  This label is the last date recommended for the use of the product while at peak quality.  In most cases, a one-week grace period applies if stored properly.

Expiration Date: People often use the term "expiration date" as a catch-all that can apply to any of the above types of dates.  However, if the date passes during home storage, a product should still be safe and wholesome if handled properly until the time spoilage is evident. If a food has developed and odd odor, flavor, or texture due to naturally occurring spoilage bacteria, it should not be eaten.

 

So, knowing that most of these dates are merely suggestions, how can you know whether to toss or keep something in your refriderator or pantry?  Following is a practical guide assuming proper storage:

Dairy

• Milk: ~5–7 days after opening

  • Trust your nose—sour smell = done

• Yogurt: 1–3 weeks unopened; ~1 week opened

• Sour cream: ~1–2 weeks after opening

Dairy spoils visibly/smell-wise—pretty reliable.

Meat & Fish (high risk)

• Raw ground meat: 1–2 days

• Raw steaks/chicken: 3–5 days

• Fish: 1–2 days (very perishable)

• Cooked meat: 3–4 days

If it smells off, feels slimy, or you’re unsure—don’t risk it.

Shelf-stable foods

• Canned goods: 1–5+ years (if can isn’t bulging/rusted)

• Pasta (dry): 1–2 years+

• Cereal: 6–12 months (goes stale, not unsafe)

These rarely become dangerous—just lower quality.

Condiments

• Mustard, ketchup: ~6 months opened (longer in fridge)

• Olives (jarred): 1–2 weeks after opening

• Pickled items: months (acid preserves them)

Oils & fats

• Olive oil: ~6–12 months after opening

• Other oils: similar

They go rancid, not “rotten”—smell like crayons/paint = toss.

Medications & vitamins

• Prescription drugs: Dates matter more.

  • Often still effective after, but potency can drop

  • Some (like certain antibiotics, nitroglycerin) can degrade faster

• Vitamins: Lose potency over time, not dangerous

With meds, it’s safer to respect the date.

When food is actually unsafe

Watch for:

• Sour, rotten, or unusual smell

• Slimy texture (especially meat)

• Mold (exception: hard cheese—can cut around it)

• Bulging cans (possible Botulism risk—serious) 

I suspect the moral to all of this is to use your senses first and to know that when dealing with high rist foods (meat, fish, dairy), common sense in king.  

Some rules of thumb might be: if fish smells fishy, it is and should probably not be eaten. Sour cream can go sour, and if the steak you bought 2 days ago smells funky, don't eat it.

Essentially: when it doubt, throw it out.