Criminal and Legal Consequences of Adulteration and Imitation in Food Supplements

Introduction

Food supplements (“Supplements”) are defined in Law No. 5996 on Veterinary Services, Plant Health, Food and Feed (“Law”) as products intended to supplement the normal diet, consisting of concentrated or extracted forms, whether alone or in combination, of nutrients such as vitamins, minerals, proteins, carbohydrates, fibre, fatty acids and amino acids, as well as substances of plant, herbal or animal origin, bioactive substances and similar substances with nutritional or physiological effects, prepared in forms such as capsules, tablets, lozenges, single-dose powder sachets, liquid ampoules, dropper bottles and other similar liquid or powder forms, with a specified daily intake.

Supplements are legally classified as food and may not be used for the prevention or treatment of disease. Nevertheless, practices such as concealing a product’s actual composition, adding undeclared substances, or imitating reputable brands or packaging may endanger consumer health and infringe the rights of trademark owners.

Accordingly, conduct amounting to imitation or adulteration cannot invariably be treated merely as an administrative violation of food legislation. Depending on the product’s actual composition, its effects on human health, the manner in which it is placed on the market, and the trademarks or packaging elements used, the provisions of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (“TPC”) concerning the trade in spoiled or altered food or medicines, the production or sale of medicines in a manner endangering health, and fraud, as well as the rules on unfair competition and trademark infringement, may also apply. Each form of liability must, however, be assessed separately by reference to its own legal elements.

Legal Framework

The legal regime governing Supplements is not contained in a single legislative instrument. Rather, it comprises a multi-layered framework of statutes, regulations, communiqués, rules on health claims and administrative implementation instructions. The principal instruments are outlined below.

• Law

The Law regulates the concepts of imitation, adulteration and food safety, and establishes the responsibilities of food business operators and the principles governing official controls. To protect consumer health and interests, the Law authorises the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (“Ministry”) to inspect products placed on the market, take samples and commission laboratory analyses.

• Regulation on Food Supplements

The Regulation on the Import, Production, Processing and Placing on the Market of Food Supplements (“Regulation”) governs business registration, product approval, conditions for placing products on the market, the responsibilities of food business operators, traceability, precautionary measures and official controls. Under the Regulation, Supplements may not be produced, processed, imported or placed on the market without Ministry approval. Approval is product-specific rather than business-wide. Approval of one product belonging to a particular business does not imply approval of that business’s other products.

• Turkish Food Codex Communiqué on Food Supplements

The Turkish Food Codex Communiqué on Food Supplements (Communiqué No. 2013/49) (“Communiqué”) regulates the technical specifications applicable to food supplements. It covers the vitamins and minerals that may be used in Supplements and their permitted forms, maximum daily amounts, restrictions applicable to botanicals and other substances, additives, contaminants, hygiene requirements, packaging, labelling, transport and storage, and sampling and analytical procedures. Under the Communiqué, only the permitted forms of the vitamins and minerals specified in its annexes may be used in Supplements.

• Current Implementation Instruction

The Implementation Instruction on Approval Procedures for Food Supplements, dated 3 July 2026 and issued by the Ministry’s General Directorate of Food and Control (“Instruction”), sets out the current administrative practice governing applications for approval of Supplements and the updating of existing approvals. The Instruction is an administrative instrument that must be applied consistently with the Law, the Regulation and the Communiqué.

• Other Relevant Legislation

Depending on the nature of the conduct, unlawful practices concerning Supplements may fall within different legislative regimes. The Law may apply to administrative supervision and sanctions; the TPC to criminal liability; the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 ( “TCC”) to unfair competition; and the Industrial Property Code No. 6769 (“IPC”) to trademark infringement. Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection and advertising legislation may apply to misleading advertising and commercial practices, while the Regulation on the Use of Health Claims in Food and Food Supplements and the relevant guidelines may apply to health claims, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Conceptual Framework and Forms of Imitation and Adulteration

The legislation outlined above establishes the general legal framework applicable to Supplements. Within this framework, distinguishing conduct constituting imitation from conduct constituting adulteration is important in determining the applicable administrative, criminal and private-law consequences.

Unlawful practices in the supplement sector may include the use of undeclared substances, discrepancies between label information and the product’s actual composition, presenting a product as possessing characteristics it does not have, creating the impression that it is identical to another product or brand, and producing products without the required registration or approval. Not every such practice, however, automatically constitutes both imitation and adulteration. The legal characterisation of the conduct must be determined separately by reference to the statutory elements of imitation and adulteration under the Law.

The Law defines adulteration as the unlawful removal, in whole or in part, of the components or nutritional values that give a product covered by the Law its essential characteristics; the alteration of their quantity; or the substitution of another substance that does not have the same value while presenting it as the original substance. Imitation is defined as presenting products covered by the Law, by reference to their form, composition or characteristics, as possessing features they do not have or as being identical to another product.

Within these definitions, a discrepancy between a product’s composition and its label declarations does not, in every case, constitute imitation or adulteration by itself. A mismatch between declared label information and the product’s composition or analytical values should first be assessed under Article 24(3) of the Law, which prohibits misleading labelling, promotion and presentation, together with Article 40(1)(k), which prescribes the corresponding sanction. If the discrepancy results from the unlawful removal of a component that gives the product its essential characteristics, or from an alteration in the amount of that component, the conduct may also constitute adulteration. If the product is presented as having a characteristic it does not in fact possess, or as being identical to another product, it may constitute imitation.

Accordingly, where a vitamin, mineral, botanical ingredient or other substance stated on the label of a Supplement is present in an amount lower or higher than declared, the conduct may, depending on the circumstances, constitute misleading labelling, adulteration or a breach of food-safety requirements. If the variance from the declared quantity creates a danger to human health, Article 21 of the Law concerning unsafe food and Article 40(1)(a) concerning food that endangers human life and health may also become relevant. The legal assessment of concealed dosage increases must therefore consider not only the labelling discrepancy but also the nature and quantity of the substance and the danger it poses to human health.

Production outside the registration or approval system, commonly referred to in practice as “backstreet” or unlicensed production, may, independently of imitation or adulteration, breach registration and approval obligations, hygiene rules and food-safety requirements. Where products manufactured by such businesses are offered for sale through e-commerce channels, liability must be assessed separately for food business operators that manufacture or import the product, place it on the market under their own name or trade name, or offer it to consumers without ensuring traceability. An e-commerce intermediary may be held liable under the Law only where, in the circumstances of the particular case, it qualifies as a food business operator or retail food business operator and has breached obligations imposed by the Law.

The use on counterfeit products of names, logos, packaging or designs belonging to legitimate brands may also give rise to liability under trademark, design and unfair-competition law. Such liability does not arise directly under the Law; it depends on whether the requirements prescribed by the relevant intellectual and industrial property legislation are satisfied in the specific case.

Sanctions Under the Law

Where official controls and laboratory analyses of Supplements establish imitation, adulteration, non-compliance with food-safety requirements, or misleading labelling, promotion or presentation, administrative fines and other administrative sanctions may be imposed according to the nature of the violation. Sales may be suspended, products may be withdrawn or recalled from the market, and, where necessary, consumers may be invited to return the products. Depending on the circumstances and the nature of the product, seizure, transfer of ownership to the State, use for purposes other than placement on the market as food, or destruction may also be ordered.

Where laboratory findings conclusively establish that food has been imitated or adulterated and the statutory conditions are met, the Ministry may disclose to the public, through its Food Public Disclosure system, the name of the manufacturer or importer together with the product name, trademark, and batch and/or serial number.[1]

Not every administrative violation, however, constitutes a criminal offence. Criminal liability arises only where the conduct satisfies the statutory elements of an offence defined in the TPC or in a special statute such as the Law. The initiation of a criminal investigation requires concrete facts giving rise to an appearance that an offence has been committed; a conviction requires the material and mental elements of the offence to be proved by lawfully obtained evidence. The establishment of an administrative violation, the imposition of an administrative sanction and the criminal-law characterisation of the conduct must therefore be assessed separately.

Criminal Liability Under the TPC

Turkish law does not contain a standalone offence of “food fraud” encompassing every form of counterfeiting, imitation and adulteration involving Supplements. Legal scholarship notes that, although Article 24(4) of the Law prohibits imitation and adulteration, Article 186 of the TPC criminalises only the sale, supply or possession of spoiled or altered food or medicines in a manner that endangers human life or health. Consequently, certain acts of imitation, adulteration or mislabelling that do not create a health risk may fall outside the scope of that offence.[2]

Criminal liability should therefore not be assessed by reference to a single offence. The product’s composition, its classification as food or medicine, the danger it poses to human health, the method of sale and the perpetrator’s intent must be considered together. In practice, particular importance attaches to Article 186 of the TPC, governing the trade in spoiled or altered food or medicines; Article 187, governing the production or sale of medicines in a manner endangering health; and the fraud offences under Articles 157 and 158. Although fraud is the offence whose name and structure most closely correspond to the concept of food fraud, the principal legal interest protected by the offence of fraud is property, whereas food safety and the right of access to safe food concern a distinct sphere of legal protection.[3]

Criminal liability is not limited to these offences. If a substance used in the product is poisonous and its production, possession or sale is subject to authorisation, Article 193 of the TPC on the manufacture of and trade in poisonous substances may apply. If a substance dangerous to health is supplied or offered for consumption to children, persons with mental illness or persons who use volatile substances, Article 194 on the supply of substances dangerous to health may become relevant. Depending on the consequences of the particular case, offences involving intentional or negligent injury or causing death may also require consideration. Because the statutory elements of each offence must be established independently, a finding of imitation or adulteration does not, by itself, establish that any of these offences has been committed.

The Law itself also provides for certain sanctions of a criminal-law nature. Article 40(1)(a) provides for imprisonment and a judicial fine in respect of food business operators that manufacture or import food endangering human life and health, or place such food on the market under their own name or trade name. Article 40(1)(l) further provides, in respect of certain operators, for sanctions including a judicial fine and disqualification from sectoral activity where imitation or adulteration is repeated for a second time within the prescribed period.

Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement

Placing counterfeit or compositionally altered, that is, adulterated or imitated, Supplements on the market may harm not only consumers but also the commercial interests of businesses operating in accordance with the law and principles of honest commercial practice.

Imitating the packaging, logo or product name of a reputable brand may cause consumers to confuse a counterfeit product with the genuine product and may constitute unfair competition under the TCC. Misleadingly exploiting a competitor’s commercial reputation and concealing product-related risks may likewise fall within the scope of unfair-competition rules. The unauthorised use of a registered trademark, or of a sign indistinguishably similar to it, may constitute trademark infringement under the IPC. Manufacturing, selling, distributing, commercially possessing or storing counterfeit-trademark goods may give rise to private-law and criminal liability.

In such circumstances, the trademark owner may seek a determination of infringement, prevention and cessation of the infringing acts, and, where the statutory conditions are met, pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and seizure of the goods. The same conduct may constitute both unfair competition and trademark infringement.

Court of Cassation Decisions

• In one dispute, it was alleged that the packaging of a registered omega-3 fish-oil product had been imitated and that the defendant, when promoting its product, used wording equivalent to “... equivalent” by reference to the claimant’s trademark. The court of first instance found that the product packaging was not sufficiently similar to create a likelihood of confusion and that use of the expression “food supplement” did not constitute unfair competition. It nevertheless held that the reference to the claimant’s trademark through the expression “... equivalent” was misleading and constituted unfair competition. The Regional Court of Appeal upheld that assessment, and the Court of Cassation affirmed it.[4]

• In another decision, sildenafil was detected as an active ingredient in a herbal mixed paste. After a report of the Council of Forensic Medicine determined that the substance was harmful to human health, the defendant’s conduct was held to constitute the offence under Article 186(1) of the TPC concerning the trade in spoiled or altered food or medicines. The Court of Cassation found the conviction for the basic offence appropriate but quashed the judgment insofar as the sentence had been increased under Article 186(2), on the ground that the defendant was not practising a profession or trade subject to official authorisation.[5]

• In a decision not directly concerning Supplements, a non-prosecution decision relating to allegedly counterfeit plant-protection products, packaging and production materials was found to be based on an incomplete investigation and insufficient reasoning because no adequate, product-specific expert examination had been conducted in relation to the complainant company’s products. The Court of Cassation held that the investigation should have been expanded and quashed, in the interests of law, the decision rejecting the objection. The decision illustrates the importance of technical examination in investigations concerning counterfeit products and trademark infringement.[6]

• In another case, the Court of Cassation upheld a conviction under Article 187(1) of the TPC for “producing or selling medicines in a manner endangering the life and health of persons” where counterfeit Supplements containing a substance dangerous to human health had been manufactured and sold online. The Court nevertheless held that the conduct constituted exclusively the offence under Article 187(1) and did not additionally constitute fraud and therefore quashed sixteen separate fraud convictions.[7]

These decisions demonstrate that the nature of the product and the health risk it creates must be established through technical examination, and that the elements of each alleged offence must be assessed independently.

Conclusion

Counterfeiting, imitation and adulteration involving Supplements may constitute not only violations of food legislation but also, depending on the product’s composition, its effects on health and the way it is placed on the market, grounds for administrative, criminal and private-law liability. In addition to administrative measures such as withdrawal, recall, destruction and public disclosure, criminal liability under the TPC and the rules governing unfair competition and trademark infringement may therefore become applicable.

Turkish law does not, however, contain a standalone food-fraud offence encompassing all aspects of such conduct. Each case must therefore be assessed on its own facts. The case law of the Court of Cassation likewise demonstrates that a product’s classification as food or medicine, the danger it poses to human health, and the constituent elements of the relevant offences must each be established through separate technical and scientific examination. Effective protection of consumer health and the rights of trademark owners therefore depend on the coordinated operation of administrative supervision and criminal and private-law enforcement mechanisms.

With thanks to Abdullah Rauf İçer for his contributions.

References

10th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2023/13328, K. 2024/18908 Numbered and 20.05.2024 Dated Decision. (2024, 05 20). Retrieved from Lex Pera: https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/10-ceza-dairesi-e-2023-13328-k-2024-18908-t-20-5-2024

10th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2023/4512, K. 2023/3330 Numbred and 11.04.2023 Dated Decision. (2023, 04 11). Retrieved from Lex Pera: https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/10-ceza-dairesi-e-2023-4512-k-2023-3330-t-11-4-2023

11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2024/6896, K. 2025/446 Numbered and 03.02.2025 Dated Decision. (2025, 02 03). Retrieved from Lex Pera: https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/11-hukuk-dairesi-e-2024-6896-k-2025-446-t-3-2-2025

15th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2015/5326, K. 2018/4809 Numbered and 28.06.2018 Dated Decision. (2018, 06 26). Retrieved from Lex Pera: https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ictihat/yargitay/15-ceza-dairesi-e-2015-5326-k-2018-4809-t-28-6-2018

(Only in Turkish) Foods Subject to Imitation or Adulteration. Retrieved from The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of the Republic of Türkiye: https://guvenilirgida.tarimorman.gov.tr/GuvenilirGida/GKD/TaklitVeyaTagsis

Yerdelen, E., & Taş, B. (2023, 06). (Only in Turkish) Gıda Güvenliği Kapsamında Gıda Dolandırıcılığı. (S. I. Adem Sözüer, Editor, & O. İ. Yayıncılık, Producer) Retrieved from Lexpera: https://www.lexpera.com.tr/literatur/derleme-makaleler/gida-guvenligi-kapsaminda-gida-dolandiriciligi-food-fraud-in-the-context-of-food-safety-d-turkiye-de