Food Fraud Advisors

You are here: Home / Archives for foodfraudadvisors

by

Preventing food fraud: testing is not the answer

Fraudulently adulterated food is receiving a lot of attention at the moment. While it is widely acknowledged that food fraud is a large and expensive problem requiring urgent action there is not a lot of practical advice available about exactly what actions food businesses should take to prevent, deter and detect food fraud. And, although published advice about direct action is rare, there is plenty of commentary that discusses the issue in general terms, including one very common refrain: food testing is not the answer.

Food safety hang-ups

One of the reasons we so often hear that testing is not the answer is that many food fraud commentators come from a food safety and quality assurance background. As such, our unwillingness to rely on testing for food fraud can be explained in part by our familiarity with food safety systems. Within the realms of food safety, testing can achieve nothing on its own; the prevention of risks and control of hazards is much more effective and efficient, with testing used simply to verify that the system is working.

For those who are less familiar with food safety systems, let’s take a closer look. For the sake of simplicity, imagine a hypothetical food safety system that is designed solely to prevent the growth of a pathogenic microorganism in salami. If the system relied solely on testing, one would have to take a sample from every pack of salami, test for pathogens and then discard packs which were found to be contaminated. A missed test could have deadly consequences. Worse still, the sampling itself could lead to contamination. A better way is to use preventive control methods to stop hazards before they arise and carefully monitor critical operations in the production process so that the finished product is safe. This combination of prevention and monitoring is the basis for every modern food safety system. Within those systems the food must still be tested to verify that the system is working but in fact every piece of salami that is consumed without causing illness is a form of ongoing verification.

Dairy Processing

Fraudulently adulterated food is very different from accidentally contaminated food. It usually doesn’t make people sick and can rarely be identified as fraudulent by the consumer. People who adulterate food for financial gain aim to avoid detection and for that reason adulterated food rarely causes acute illness. In fact, the Chinese government is currently assuring its citizens that the large volumes of counterfeit baby formula within that market are safe to consume. There have been instances of fraudulent food that caused illness and death, including the melamine milk scandal in China and toxic mineral oil passed off as olive oil in Spain. In another famous case, a carcinogenic industrial dye was used to make paprika powder appear fresher. In each of these cases it was some time before the link between illness and adulterated food was found.

Criminals are smarter than Salmonella.

The prevention of microbial contamination and growth in food can be achieved in a few simple steps using well-understood methods; Salmonella hasn’t figured out how to outsmart a thermal kill step yet. But people who seek to make money from adulterating food have much more imagination than your average bacterium. While there are only about 120 food borne pathogens known to man, there are almost unlimited ways to tamper with food, meaning many different types of controls are required. Unfortunately, any effective control method can be discovered and then outsmarted by a clever fraudster, making reliance on prevention a risky proposition. And the worst part is that no matter how effective a fraud prevention system is, at the end of the day it is indistinguishable from an ineffective fraud prevention system to the naked eye; without very frequent testing there is no way to know the system is working.

More testing?

Testing is a key element of effective fraud prevention. I envisage a day when every food manufacturer tests vulnerable raw materials before they are used in production, where every supermarket has the technology to verify that their food is authentic before they place it on their shelves and where even local restaurants will have access to cheap and fast authenticity testing. Testing holds the answers to many of our current food fraud challenges.  However, testing can be expensive, time consuming and much less effective than we would like.

Pesticide residue in food

A key challenge to the efficacy of testing is that when it comes to food fraud we can never be sure of the adulterant that might be present. Many currently available test methods are targeted for a particular adulterant, and are not designed to detect adulterants that are unexpected. Non-targetted tests are rapidly being developed but there are still relatively few that have been properly validated, a process that requires expensive cross-testing against other methods such as botanical testing, DNA-based methods and classical chemistry.

In less than five years, claim the makers of new rapid testing technology, we will be able to hold a scanner in our hand that can tell us the entire molecular makeup of our food. I think we will have to wait a little longer than that; food is complex and a huge amount of research will be required before we can properly interpret the results of complex molecular ‘scans’ of every food on the planet. But testing is an important tool in our fight to ensure an authentic food supply, and that’s a goal worth striving for.

Read about the latest food fraud analytical technologies here.

Are you ready to start testing for food fraud? Use our testing checklist to find out.

Want more stories?  Like us on Facebook to receive news items like these straight to your news feed. Food Fraud Advisors on Facebook

by

Honey Fraud This Month: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Honey authenticity is all over the (food fraud) news this month.  There’s good news.  And bad.

Here’s what’s happening in honey fraud right now, from Karen Constable of authenticfood.co and Food Fraud Advisors.

 

 

Video transcript:

(Karen Constable) “It’s been a tough year for honey.  There has been lots of commentary about food fraud in honey, following a big recall in the UK at the end of last year and controversy over honey testing methods.  It’s never good to hear about food fraud issues, but there is a silver lining.

The Good

The Canadian government last year committed to spending more than $20 million on food fraud testing and intelligence gathering over a five year period.  Honey is one food product that has been chosen for surveillance by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The CFIA published their honey surveillance results this month and guess what?! Authenticity is up and food fraud is down compared to last year.

The CFIA sampled both the marketplace at large and also a number of bulk honey importers and processors that were deemed to be high risk.  Only 13% of samples were deemed not-authentic, compared to 22% the previous year.  That’s a significant improvement!

The CFIA used the results of their previous honey surveillance work to design a targeted sampling plan.  Those samples that they targeted had risk factors such as a history of non-compliance, known preventive controls deficits and unusual trading patterns.  This type of targeting sampling, in which previous results are used to focus on known problem areas, is a great way to maximise the value of authenticity testing (which can be expensive).  Way to go, Canadia! (PS for more on sampling methodology, click here)

Of those samples collected from the marketplace (that is, without being targeted towards high-risk products), 98% were authentic and the only products that had ‘unsatisfactory results’ were imported products.

So testing = good.  For my food safety viewers, it’s worth noting that – unlike micro testing – food authenticity testing can not only provide valuable insights into the occurrence of food fraud but also helps to prevent it.  The fact that someone is paying attention, and doing testing can effectively drive reductions in fraud, as we have seen with the Canadian honey testing regime.  My prediction is that next year’s surveillance will have even better results than this year’s.  And that’s something to be happy about!

The Bad

The Canadian government isn’t the only one that’s been testing honey this year.  The Indian Centre for Science and Environment and a government-funded institute in the Philippines have also published honey testing results this month.

In the Philippines, a survey of 74 locally-produced honeys purchased online found that 87% of them contained sugar syrup.  Ie rendering them NOT authentic honey.  More than 80% of these products actually contained no honey at all and were just made from sugar syrup.

These are some of the worst authenticity statistics that I have ever seen!

Local products purchased in brick and mortar stores fared a little better in this study, but the results were still bad, with around 75% of samples containing adulterant(s). Interestingly, in the Philippines, imported honeys performed significantly better than the locally-produced honeys, the opposite of what was seen in Canada.

So those results were pretty bad, but it is good to see authenticity testing being done in the public arena more frequently than in the past.

The Ugly

Yep, this is really ugly.

There’s testing and then there’s testing….

India is another country that is funding food adulteration prevention. And, of course, that’s a good thing.  And they are testing honey.

However, like many countries, India’s legal definition of honey is based on the chemical signature of the sugars in the product, which is verified using C3 and C4 testing.

In December, The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE, India) reported a very high proportion of ‘inauthentic’ honeys in a survey that made use of both C3/C4 tests and more sophisticated testing that makes use of NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) analysis.   Some honeys passed the C3/C4 tests but ‘failed’ the NMR tests.

Investigators from CSE claim this is due to the products being made with special syrups that are designed to ‘trick’ the C3/C4 tests. They allege that these syrups can be purchased cheaply via online trade portals.  The syrups are apparently marketed as “all pass” syrups because the suppliers claim they can pass the Indian government’s authenticity tests.

The CSE say that their own testing has confirmed that samples containing up to 50 percent of “all pass” syrup pass the tests.

Wrap up

There’s big money to be made from food fraud, as I have said before.  I have even heard it said that olive oil fraud is 3 times more profitable than smuggling cocaine – as well as being much less risky. (I haven’t been able to find the original source of that comment, I heard it at a food fraud conference in 2017).  And where there is money to be made, criminals will find ways to cheat the system.

Sadly, worldwide volumes of honey production are way down and predicted to fall even further due to climate change and bee colony diseases. That makes genuine honey more scarce, more valuable and, as a result, more profitable to fake.  Honey fraud is – unfortunately – here to stay.

My hope is that organisations like the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the CSE in India continue to keep the pressure on honey fraudsters. Let’s keep making their lives hell!”

 

 

 

 

 

by

Nutraceuticals; a growing risk

A nutraceutical is a food or food component that is designed to provide health benefits when ingested.  The term is derived from the words nutrition and pharmaceutical.  Nutraceuticals may claim to promote health, prevent and even treat disease.  Nutraceuticals are big business; their global sales volume is estimated to be more than $382 billion in 2019.  Demand for nutraceuticals is at an all time high and growing year on year as the idea of ‘nutrition for health’ becomes more popular.

Both consumers and businesses purchase nutraceuticals; consumers buy supplements to add to food or as stand-alone pills, powders and tonics.  Businesses purchase nutraceuticals to add to the food and beverage products that they manufacture.  Nutraceuticals are also used in personal care products like face creams and in animal feed.

Nutraceuticals are not regulated in the same way as pharmaceuticals, so their claimed benefits do not necessarily have to be proven.  In many countries, they are not covered by food laws either.  As a result, nutraceuticals receive minimal regulatory oversight in many countries, including the USA.

Nutraceuticals are big business with a large global market and fast-growing demand

Fraud in nutraceuticals

Nutraceuticals are a good target for food fraud because of their high prices and high demand.  They are manufactured from specialist agricultural commodities that are often only produced in one or two locations worldwide.  As a result their global supply chains can be complicated.

Fraud in pharmaceuticals can take the form of:

  • Adulteration or dilution
  • Counterfeiting
  • Diversion and grey market

Adulteration and dilution

Adulteration and dilution fraud occurs when the claimed active ingredient is not present in the quantities that are declared by the manufacturer.  Sometimes, the ‘correct’ ingredients are replaced with cheaper ingredients that do not have the functional properties of the genuine ingredients.

Adulteration fraud is thought to occur often in nutraceuticals.  A survey of raw botanical plant parts and powders in the USA found 53% of them contained plant material that did not match the label.   In a separate study, cranberry extracts were found to have been adulterated with cheaper and more abundant grape seed extracts.  A range of aloe vera products contained no evidence of aloe vera ingredients at all.

Adulteration also takes a more insidious form, when fraudsters add extra functional ingredients without declaring them on the label.  This can put consumers’ lives at risk.  The fraud is usually perpetrated to boost the efficacy of nutraceuticals that are claimed to be natural.  For example, grapefruit seed extract, a dietary supplement that is said to have natural antimicrobial properties has been found to contain undeclared added chemical biocides such as benzylkonium chloride, methyl paraben and triclosan.  The biocides are added to mimic or increase the antimicrobial properties of the grapefruit seed.

Adulteration with pharmaceutical drugs also occurs.  Supplements for body-building and weight loss have been spiked with drugs that enhance their effects.  In 2017, the US FDA warned consumers  that body building supplements sometimes contain undeclared and illegal selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMS), which mimic the effects of testosterone.  Liver injuries and other serious side-effects occurred in people who took the so-called ‘natural’ supplements.

A 2019 study conducted in The Netherlands found 64% of supplements contained pharmacologically active substances or plant toxins such as caffeine or ephedrine.

Counterfeiting

Counterfeiting is the copying of a product by an entity other than the brand owner, so that it appears exactly the same as the legitimate product.  Counterfeited supplements may be produced in unlicensed facilities under unhygienic conditions.  They may contain less of the functional ingredients than the authentic product, or perhaps none at all.

Diversion of nutraceuticals. 1. The manufacturer sells their product into multiple countries at different price points. 2. A wholesaler in a lower-price-tier country purchases bulk quantities. 3. The wholesaler diverts the product from authorised sales channels in their own country to sell the product into markets with higher prices.

Diversion and Grey Market Fraud

Diversion and grey market fraud occurs when goods are directed away from their expected supply chain, being sold to places unintended by the brand owner.  This can be profitable if, for example, a product is sold at a higher price in one country but a lower price in another.

Distributors or importers of a nutraceutical can participate in diversion if they purchase more than they expect to sell through legitimate channels, obtaining a bulk quantity discount in the process.  The excess stock can then be sold to discount outlets or individuals who sell it on the internet or other channels that have not been authorised by the brand owner.

Products that have been diverted may be expired (past ‘best before’) or may have been held in conditions such as hot warehouses that degrade the product, causing it to lose its potency.

 

Protection from fakes and diversions

Manufacturers can protect their brands from counterfeiting and grey market sales by adding anti-counterfeiting features to product packaging.  The features can be overt or convert. Often a combination of both overt and covert features is used.

Overt brand protection features are obvious to the consumers.  They include holograms, tamper-evident labels, seals and stickers.  Overt brand protection features are used to provide consumers with a sense of safety and trust in the brand. Unfortunately, counterfeiters can easily copy overt features.

QR codes and bar codes can be added to packages so that purchasers can check the authenticity of the product.  However, barcodes and QR codes can be copied by counterfeiters.  Unless the QR or bar code is unique to a single batch or single product, then anyone who checks a counterfeit product that carries a copied bar code or QR code will be fooled into thinking it is legitimate.

Covert brand protection features are designed to be invisible.  They often require special scanners for reading and verification.  They can include fluorescing inks that can be read only under invisible wavelengths of light.  Chemically unique inks can be customised for a single manufacturer so that they are difficult for counterfeiters to reverse engineer.  These are called ‘taggant inks’.

Covert features are most useful for brand owners when they need to investigate a problem with product; they reveal whether the problematic product is genuine or not. They can also be used to find counterfeit products in authorised sales outlets and trace products that have been diverted.

Unique, serialised product identification codes provide an extra layer of protection.  Each product or product batch carries a different code.  The codes can be scanned by distributors, retailers and consumers to provide assurance that the product is authentic.

Protection from counterfeits and diversions using digital authentication. The product is marked with a unique code that can be scanned by distributors, retailers and consumers.  The code is checked against digital product information to check its authenticity.

Digital authentication as a protection against nutraceutical fraud. The product is marked with a unique code that can be scanned by distributors, retailers and consumers. The code is checked against digital product information to check its authenticity.

 

When the unique identifier is scanned, the brand owner can find out where the product is geographically located.  If that does not match the expected location of that product within the authorised supply chain that could signal diversion.  Likewise, if a single ‘unique’ barcode or QR code is scanned by multiple consumers that would indicate fakes in the market; counterfeiters have copied one code and applied it to whole batches of product.

One company to have benefitted from such a system is Windmill, a well-known Dutch brand of potato starch.  The company claims that its products were affected ‘up to 50%’ by counterfeits and look-alikes in overseas markets until it implemented digital security features including a unique ID code on each pack.  The code allows the purchaser to confirm authenticity, while the act of checking provides the brand owner with “valuable data… which can be used to make the entire supply chain more transparent and to generate crucial market insights.”

Nutraceuticals are high value products with complex global supply chains, making them an attractive target for food fraud.  Brand owners have been caught manufacturing and supplying products that contain less than the amount of functional ingredients.  Other brands have been found to contain undeclared pharmacological components, which can be dangerous. Diversion and counterfeiting of legitimate product also affects nutraceuticals.  With growing global demand for nutraceuticals, consumers and businesses alike need to be on the look out for food fraud in this sector.

by

Organic Food Fraud in 2020

Twelve million dollars buys a lot of raspberries. Even if they are organic. In August 2019, a $12m shipment of (supposedly) organic raspberries was intercepted at the Chilean border, as they were being exported to Canada. They were accompanied by fake organic declarations and fraudulent paperwork claiming they were grown in Chile.

It was an all too common occurrence; organic food fraud, committed by criminals to profit from the higher prices consumers will pay for organic, “clean” produce. The raspberries were not grown in Chile; they had been shipped all the way from China; imported to Chile so the fraudsters could pretend they were locally grown.

And they were not organic.

Organic berries are vulnerable to food fraud

 

Sales of organic food have increased since the global corona virus pandemic started. Sales in the USA were up 50% in March 2020. An Organic Trade Association poll of “likely organic shoppers” found 90% of respondents think buying organic has become more important because of the virus, presumably because of an increased focus on health and healthy eating.

Sales of organic food are increasing year on year. In 2019, American consumers bought $55.1 billion worth of organic food, up on the previous year by 4.6% .

As organic food becomes ever-more popular, frauds like the raspberry heist are becoming more common. It is impossible for a consumer to know whether food is authentically organic or not. This makes organic fraud easy for criminals to get away with. Organic foods are one of the food types most frequently affected by food fraud, according to the Decernis Food Fraud Database.

The good news for the USA is that after many years of criticism of its organic program, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is making a visible effort to reduce fraud in the organic supply chain.  In fact, they are proposing new rules that aim to strengthen control systems, improve traceability for organic produce, and increase enforcement of the USDA organic regulations.

Organic peas vegetable pesticide
Organic foods and food fraud are like two (freshly picked) peas in a pod.

How to protect your business from organic fraud

If you have a food business that buys or sells organic food, you are at risk, now more than ever. Global supply chains have been disrupted by the pandemic and these disruptions mean many suppliers are struggling to deliver foods that meet specifications. It is tempting for wholesalers and distributors to substitute conventionally-grown produce for organic to make extra profits, or simply to allow them to fulfill customers’ orders.

Step 1: Become aware

Don’t be blind to the risks. Organic fraud happens more often than most people realise. Would you be able to tell the difference between an organic raspberry and a conventionally grown raspberry? Probably not. If criminals in Chile found it profitable to transport fake organic raspberries right across the globe before the pandemic, you can bet they are even more motivated to perpetrate fraud in the current economic climate.

Step 2: Educate yourself

If you own a food business, educate yourself about the risks. Learn about organic fraud; how it is perpetrated, what it looks like.

Michigan State University and the USA Organic Trade Association have published a free online course in Organic Fraud Prevention. It is US-centric but contains fraud detection and prevention strategies that can be applied anywhere.

Step 3: Assess your ingredients and products

Make a list of the organic food ingredients or food products that your business purchases. For each item on the list, ask yourself the question: “Can I be sure this is really organic?”.

Right now, you probably rely on verbal assurances from suppliers or pretty logos on packaging or invoices. That’s a fool’s game.

Instead, seek proper documentation from suppliers: request copies of organic certificates and cross-check them against invoices and labels. Or take a minute to research the certifications and logos on labels. All reputable organic certification bodies maintain a list of certified products or suppliers that you can check online. If the product or grower has a genuine organic certification, you will find it listed on the certification body’s website.

Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for food companies to use organic logos without having the proper certifications.  Always check.

You can also check the list of fraudulent certificates on the USDA organic program website.

If your business operates a food safety program it should already have a food fraud vulnerability assessment.  Review that assessment.  All organic foods should be rated as “vulnerable” in the vulnerability assessment and they must have appropriate mitigation strategies applied to reduce the risks.

Step 4; Take steps to reduce the risk

If you can’t be sure of the authenticity of the ingredients or products you are buying (and selling) you only have two choices:

(i) change your supplier to one with a properly certified organic program, or

(ii) stop making organic claims about the products you sell.

To do anything else puts you at risk of inadvertently committing food fraud, which is a criminal offence.

Consumers are buying more organic foods than ever before.  At the same time, the unstable global economy makes fraud more tempting and supply chain disruptions provide extra opportunities for criminals.  Organic food fraud puts your business and brands at risk.

Now is not the time for complacency; stay alert and keep your brands safe.

 

by

Influence of the COVID pandemic on food fraud

Is food fraud going to increase because of the pandemic?

Karen Constable of Food Fraud Advisors, thinks that it probably will.  Here’s why.

Food fraud is driven by the desire for economic gain.  Always.  That is the definition of food fraud. Someone who tampers with food for other reasons – say by adding poison to scare consumers – is not committing food fraud.  In the food industry we consider tampering for malicious purposes an issue of ‘food defense’ not food fraud.

So, food fraud perpetrators seek economic benefits when they commit fraud, which most commonly manifests as an attempt to receive more money when a food is sold.  As an example, if a seller of ground turmeric adds a small amount of bright yellow lead chromate to a sack of poor quality turmeric, the brighter colour might mean that he receives more money than he would for a sack of pure, low-grade turmeric.  He gains a direct financial benefit when he commits that type of food fraud.

In addition to direct economic gains, there are less direct methods that criminals use to derive financial rewards from food fraud, such as by avoiding taxes and duties, or by acting dishonestly to fulfill customer orders so as not to lose their business.

One such fraud occurred in Canada in 2013 and 2014 when a fresh produce supplier was unable to source locally-grown cucumbers for their customers.  They instead purchased cucumbers from Mexico and relabelled the cartons with ‘Product of Canada’ before dispatch.  The company was later fined $1.5 million by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and a further $3.2 million by the The Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers association.

In addition to the desire for economic benefits, for fraud to occur there also needs to be opportunity.  Current events in the global food market and in the wider economy are increasing both the desire for economic gains and also the number of opportunities to commit food fraud.

Direct economic pressures on food sellers

In 2020, most parts of the world are facing extreme economic downturns.  The economic situation arising from the pandemic can reasonably be expected to increase criminals’ motivation to commit food fraud for the purpose of increasing profits directly.  In addition, we are already experiencing shortages in supply chains that will result in food suppliers experiencing extra pressure to deliver products to their customers.  As a result, it is reasonable to expect that there may be an increase in frauds committed for the purpose of retaining existing customers, or even gaining new ones, by supplying goods that are not easily available.  Companies may be tempted to take short cuts or turn a blind eye to things that do not appear quite right when they source food and ingredients.

Food manufacturers are under pressure during the pandemic

 

Increased opportunities for criminals

Disruptions in food supply chains caused by the pandemic have provided new food fraud opportunities for criminals.  These new opportunities can be organised into three loose groups; excess products, reduction in oversight and changed buying patterns.

Local oversupply of certain food types

Unusual excesses of supply have affected numerous food types and sectors since the pandemic began.  Examples include an overabundance of keg-beer in Australia, that was not consumed because bars were closed;  a glut of live pigs in the United States after pork processors shut down; excess quantities of milk that had to be dumped by dairy farmers.  In the United Kingdom, suppliers are concerned with an oversupply of expensive cuts of meat that would usually be consumed in restaurants or special family events; consumers are instead buying cheaper cuts to cook at home, leaving the more expensive parts of the animal unpurchased.

Wherever there are unusual patterns of oversupply, there are opportunities for fraud perpetrators to make use of the cheap and readily available excess foods for fraudulent purposes.  One such fraud of this type has occurred in the United Kingdom in recent years, where cheap, abundant beef has been used to replace some or all of the lamb in dishes sold by food service outlets.

Challenges with oversight

The pandemic has, to date, had a massive impact on the ability of governments and private entities to inspect, audit and test food for authenticity and safety.  Lockdown and social isolation rules have prevented audits and inspections, while economic factors have led to cuts in funding and staffing levels in inspection agencies.  In Europe, there have been changes to food, veterinary and phytosanitary inspections.  In the United States a consumer group has claimed that the Department of Agriculture’s new rules for swine fever inspections are inadequate to protect humans.  There have also been reports of problems at ports in Europe that have affected inspection protocols.

Within the food manufacturing sector, businesses are struggling to operate properly due to stay-at-home rules, which have affected staffing levels.  Reductions in on-site staff numbers can hamper a manufacturer’s ability to inspect incoming materials or to properly assess new suppliers for their food fraud and food safety risks.  In the longer term, cost-cutting measures in economically impacted businesses may reduce their ability to perform food authenticity testing, which can be expensive compared to other food tests.  Together, the reduction in personnel resources and authenticity testing leaves manufacturers more vulnerable to inadvertently purchasing and using fraudulent food ingredients.

Purchasing behaviour

The pandemic has resulted in significant changes to purchasing behaviour across the whole food supply chain.  Online retail food purchases have increased sharply in the first half of 2020.  Food sold online has frequently been accused of being less safe and subject to less oversight than food sold in ‘brick and mortar’ stores.  In May 2020, online-sold curry was recalled in Britain after it was found to be adulterated with an illegal dye.  In the same month, consumer group Which reported that it had found banned childrens’ foods for sale on Amazon.

Some food types have experienced a sudden and unexpected jump in demand.  In March 2020, Nestle reported its best sales growth in five years, as more people purchased food to cook and eat at home.  Hersheys reported a doubling of its e-commerce sales for March 2020.  The defence forces in South Africa experienced an unexpected demand for soldiers’ ration packs, which were needed as personnel were deployed to assist with infection control efforts.  That sudden demand might have contributed to a reported incidence of expiry date tampering that affected ration packs for South African soldiers.

There is evidence that the pandemic’s effect on global supply chains has already changed attitudes to importing and exporting food, with local food being favoured by both consumers and governments.  This has been termed ‘food trade nationalism’.  Such nationalism might provide more incentive for criminals to fraudulently mis-represent imported produce as being locally grown or produced.

Food trade nationalism is a risk to importers and exporters and may increase the likelihood of fraudulent mis-representation of geographical origin of some foods

 

It is also reasonable to expect that the current economic and trade environment will result in governments expanding food subsidy schemes to help protect staple foods in developing countries.  Subsidy schemes can be defrauded by corrupt food producers, such as occurred with some fruit growers in Sicily in 2017 and with shrimp export subsidy scams in China in 2015 and 2016.  Investigators have already uncovered corruption related to the pandemic in Uganda, where government officials were arrested over fraudulent activities related to procurement of maize flour and beans for COVID food relief.

What’s the good news?

The good news is that producers, governments and not-for-profit organisations are working together to get excess food to people who need it.  Ohio dairy farmers are turning their excess milk into cheese for charities; the USDA is purchasing unwanted vegetables from farmers for donation to food banks and New York has donated money to food banks to purchase cheese, yoghurt and butter made from excess milk.   In Boston, a brewery is using its unwanted beer to make enough ethanol-based hand sanitizer to clean five-hundred thousand hands every week.

Hand hygiene awareness has improved dramatically and food safety experts hope that this will result in long term improvements in hand washing compliance in the food and health care industries.

There are now improved online training options and technology-enabled remote audit options for businesses located outside of major cities and towns, making life easier for our country colleagues.

Finally, food safety culture leaders have been applauding the renewed calls for rules that grant paid sick leave for food handlers, in those jurisdictions where such protections are not yet in place.

What can you do?

Food businesses are at increased risk from food fraud in these difficult times.  Food fraud criminals are more likely to target businesses that have less checks and systems in place, seeking out the ‘low hanging fruit’.  Therefore, even a small amount of increased vigilance and care can reduce the risk.  Now is the time to review food fraud vulnerability assessments and update mitigation plans.  Try these activities to help protect your business from food fraud:

  • Seek out (and properly check) extra approved suppliers for critical raw materials, ingredients and products.
  • Consider sourcing commodities that are used in your key ingredients; they could be used to provide to your suppliers if the suppliers experience problems with procurement.
  • Wherever possible, do not use the pandemic as an excuse to avoid performing internal audits or supplier audits.
  • Reassess your supply chain in light of the new economic climate, focussing on the people in the supply chain as well as the business entities. The aim is to identify suppliers that might be under financial pressure and people with a history of questionable business dealings.  Check business registers and publicly available information such as old newspaper articles for any mention of fraud, bankruptcy, court cases or prosecutions.
  • Consider creating a system that allows your employees to anonymously report suspicious activities within your business. This can help reduce the likelihood of theft of finished products or materials from within your own facility or the downstream supply chain.

Are you struggling with teleconference training?  Learn how to get your company’s old face-to-face training online, fast here.