I like the analogy, but to be fair, there are differences between the two.
Chinese-US honey fraud was discovered in the early part of this century; the illegality was that either imports were labelled as sugar syrup (thus avoiding US anti-dumping law) or that Chinese honey was mis-represented as originating in countries such as Poland, the Phillipines or Mongolia, or that the honeys contained the prohibited AFB antibiotics Chloramphenicol or Tetracycline.
This report is an easy read of US Gov. cases prosecuted in that period, and though the scale of crimininalty is shocking, it is probably a drop in the ocean in comparison with other food or manufacturing fraud.
The desire at that time to mis-represent Chinese honey looks to have been driven by an earlier US Gov. decision (in 2001) to triple import tariffs of Chinese honey in response to artifically low prices of that product (you can guess why prices may have been low). The duties were
221% of declared value!
The Honey Launderers (get a cuppa & a cosy chair) tells the human side of the story: honey tasting of sauerkraut, devious emails, shady chats over pizza, an unmarked Chevy Impala and enough dishonest excitements and fake documents to make a reasonable movie.
On the other hand, the issue of Chinese honey entering the EU & UK is not that it enters the food chain illegally (even though it may adulterated), but that our historic label regulations allow it to arrive incognito, under the vague tiny-print phrase 'Produce of EU and non-EU countries'. At last, those regs. will be tightened, but no doubt fraudsters will work hard to remain ahead in the game.
