Abstract

Milk fraud, commonly involving adulteration for economic gain, has become a significant concern for governments globally. This study aims to assess the vulnerability to fraud among three key actors within the milk supply chain. A total of 150 raw buffalo milk samples were randomly collected 50 samples each from supermarkets, street vendors, and farmers in Shebin El-Kom City, Menufia, Egypt. These samples underwent physical analyses (freezing point, and density) that indicate probability of addition of water, and chemical analyses to determine fat content, protein, solids-not-fat (SNF), total solids (TS), lactose, urea, in order to identify adulteration through water addition or fat skimming. The most un accepted percentage was in fat of supermarket milk (80%) followed by farmers milk (20%) and street vendors milk (10%), Additionally, screening was conducted for ten chemical adulterants including foreign fats (palm oil), hydrogen peroxide, boric acid, ammonium sulfate, cyanuric acid, hydroxyproline, maltodextrin, melamine, sodium bicarbonate, and formaldehyde. The results indicated that milk from all three sources was subject to adulteration to varying degrees. Supermarket samples exhibited the highest incidence of adulteration, followed by street vendors. The detection percentages in supermarket milk were 75%, 50%, 37.5%, 12.5%, 0%, 50%, 100%, 25%, 0%, and 50%, respectively, while in street vendors were 75%, 50%,37.5%, 12.5%, 0%, 50%, 100%, 25%, 0%, and 50%, respectively. Farmers’ samples showing the lowest, detecting only three adulterants (hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyproline, and maltodextrin) at rates of 12.5%, 50%, and 25%, respectively. This study reveals a low to moderate vulnerability to fraud across the milk supply chain in place, with differing contributing factors among the sources. Effective fraud risk management strategies are therefore essential.

Key words: Raw milk, Milk fraud, adulterants, formalin, food safety.