Food Fraud Advisors

You are here: Home / Archives for Consultancy

by

What to do About Food Fraud (USA)

I was talking to a new client the other day.  They are based in the United States and had discovered their competitors’ products contain undeclared ingredients.

What should they do, they asked.

There is no simple answer, especially not in the US where there is a patchwork of overlapping government agencies and rules to navigate.

Here’s the process I follow with this type of enquiry:

  1. Establish whether food fraud has occurred or not
  2. Categorise the fraud into one of two types
  3. Determine which regulations and agency(s) are relevant to the fraud
  4. Review the evidence – what made you think this was fraud in the first place?
  5. Decide whether more evidence is needed before pursuing the matter
  6. Choose who to tell, and in which order
  7. Choose how to progress after initial responses
  8. Inform interested parties
  9. Follow up if needed
  10. Execute further action if required

Example: hazelnut oil

We’ll use the example of a company that sells pure hazelnut oil and has discovered that their competitors’ products, labelled “100% pure hazelnut oil” actually contain significant quantities of sunflower oil.

1. Establish whether food fraud has occurred or not

Is this food fraud?  Yes, because consumers or customers are being misled by the labels, the mislabelling provides an economic benefit to the seller and the mislabelling is illegal.

2. Categorise the fraud into one of two types

At this step, I ask myself “Has the food itself been affected in some way – for example by adding or subtracting an ingredient – or not?”, and categorise accordingly.

In this example, the food contains an ingredient that isn’t expected or declared.  Therefore the food has been affected.  On the other hand, if the fraud was a false organic claim on the pack I would categorise that as not affected.

Why is this important?  Because it can highlight any urgent food safety issues and helps me to decide how/where to report and what evidence will be needed.

Speciality oils like hazelnut oil are vulnerable to food fraud, including dilution with cheaper oils like sunflower oil. Image generated with Canva AI

 

3. Determine which regulations and agency(s) are relevant to the fraud

For the hazelnut oil example, the two main agencies are the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): the FTC because the oil is ‘misbranded’ according to the Food, Drugs & Cosmetics Act (misbranding means the label is false or misleading); and the FDA because they are responsible for ingredient lists, traceability and quality defects in foods.

4. Review the evidence

In this example, we knew that the fraud-affected products contained sunflower oil because of testing my client had performed.  Before we decide on a course of action we need to know more about this testing:

  • Who did the testing?  Is the testing laboratory independent?  Is it accredited for this scope?
  • What method was used? Has the method been validated or approved?  What is the accuracy and precision?
  • How were the samples chosen?
  • Does the laboratory impose conditions on the use of results and reports?
  • Would the results stand up in court if needed?
  • Have duplicate or repeat test(s) been done?  Alternative methods tried?

For the hazelnut oil, we concluded we can be confident that the results show evidence of fraud, however, an internal laboratory was used, and this means the results are not independent and would not stand up in court, or to media scrutiny.

5. Decide whether more evidence is needed before pursuing the matter

In this case, the test results are not independent, so further testing would be needed if the matter were to be pursued in a court of law, or presented to media outlets.

6. Choose who to tell, and in which order

Who you choose to tell about a fraud depends very much on your relationship with the suppliers of the fraud-affected foods.

For example, if you are a customer – that is if you purchase the fraud-affected products – you should talk to the supplier on the telephone to explain what you found and find out what they have to say.  It’s entirely possible that the company is a victim of their supplier and are unaware of any problem.

If you are a competitor it is best practice to let the company know what you found.  Again, they could be victims of their suppliers.  Give them the laboratory report (if an external lab) and tell them to direct any questions to the lab – if the lab is okay with this.  Let them know you intend to take the matter further.

You can report the fraud to enforcement agencies immediately after you have told the company, or wait to see how they respond.

If there is a credible food safety risk you must report the issue to the relevant authorities so that they can take action to protect consumers.

The hazelnut oil company is in the United States, so we decided to report the issue to the organizations below, after informing the owners of the affected brands.

7. Choose how to progress after initial responses

We decided that if the brand owners did not take action to correct the frauds and prevent them from occurring in future – for example by changing the claims on product labels, or by altering formulations – that we would commence a civil lawsuit against the brand owners.

A lawsuit would require us to obtain further evidence, including independent tests performed by an accredited laboratory.

8. Inform interested parties

We contacted the brand owners first, then the authorities, keeping accurate records of conversations and correspondence.

9. Follow up

We expect to have to follow up with the companies and the enforcement agencies, and have set timeframes for this.

10. Further actions

We hope to avoid taking legal action against the perpetrators in the civil courts, and would like to see the matter pursued by the FTC and the FDA in a timely manner.

We will repeat the tests in the internal laboratory in a few months’ time to see if there have been any changes to the formulation of the products.

Want help with a situation like this?

If can brief senior management, help formulate a plan of action, work with your laboratory and take charge of all the communications.

Get in touch with me

by

FSSC 22000 and IFS Food Standards (Updated)

FSSC 22000 and IFS Food Standard have been updated recently, with FSSC 22000 Version 6 to be enforced from April 2024, and IFS Food Version 8 enforced from October 2023.

You can get (free) copies of the newly updated standards from the standards owners:

FSSC 22000 Version 6

IFS Food Version 8

Changes to Food Fraud Requirements in the Standards

FSSC 22000

There have been minor changes to the food fraud requirements in FSSC 22000 for Version 6.  The clause numbers remain the same: 2.5.4.1 and 2.5.4.2.

  • The biggest change is that this standard now explicitly requires that the methodology for the vulnerability assessment process be defined.
  • Version 6 does not make any mention of the “documented procedure” for vulnerability assessments that was part of the previous version (Version 5.1).
  • The definition for food fraud in FSSC 22000 (Appendix 1) has had “feed” added to its scope.
  • For businesses within the FSSC category FII (food brokering, trading and e-commerce), they must also ensure that their suppliers have a food fraud mitigation plan.

 

Food Fraud Requirements of FSSC 22000, Version 6 (with new wording in blue)

2.5.4 Food Fraud Mitigation

2.5.4.1 Vulnerability Assessment

The organization shall:

    • Conduct a food fraud vulnerability assessment based on a defined methodology, to identify and assess potential vulnerabilities; and
    • Develop and implement appropriate mitigation measures for significant vulnerabilities.

The assessment shall cover the processes and products within the scope of the Organization.

2.5.4.2 Plan

    1. a) The organization shall have a documented food fraud mitigation plan, based on the output
      of the vulnerability assessment      , specifying the mitigation measures and verification procedures. 

      b) The food fraud mitigation plan shall be implemented and supported by the organization’s
      FSMS.
      c) The plan shall comply with the applicable legislation, cover the processes and products
      within the scope of the organization and be kept up to date.
      d) For food chain category FII*, in addition to the above, the organization shall ensure that
      their suppliers have a food fraud mitigation plan in place.

*FII = Food brokering, trading, and E-commerce activities

⭐⭐⭐

IFS Food

The new version of IFS Food, Version 8, has had its requirements significantly re-worded.  The clause numbers remain the same: 4.20.1 to 4.20.4.

The new wording is easier to understand and makes the requirements more easily enforced for auditing.  But does not change what a food business must do to comply.  For example, while the previous version required that food fraud vulnerability assessments be reviewed “at least annually and/or in the event of increased risks”, the new version says they should be reviewed “at least once within a 12-month period or whenever significant changes occur.”

The only notable change to meaning is that the phrase “full commitment from the senior management” has been removed from clause 4.20.1, presumably because it is not easily auditable.

Food Fraud Requirements of IFS Food, Version 8 (with new wording in blue)

4.20 Food Fraud

4.20.1 The responsibilities for a food fraud vulnerability assessment and mitigation plan shall be clearly defined. The responsible person(s) shall have the appropriate specific knowledge and full commitment from the senior management.

4.20.2 A documented food fraud vulnerability assessment, including assessment criteria, shall be documented, implemented and maintained.  The scope of the assessment shall cover all shall be undertaken on all raw materials, ingredients, packaging materials and outsourced processes, to determine the risks of fraudulent activity in relation to substitution, mislabelling, adulteration or counterfeiting. The criteria considered within the vulnerability assessment shall be defined.

4.20.3 A documented food fraud mitigation plan shall be documented, implemented and maintained developed, with reference to the vulnerability assessment, and shall include the testing and monitoring methods.  and implemented to control any identified risks. The methods of control and monitoring shall be defined and implemented.

4.20.4 The food fraud vulnerability assessment shall be reviewed, at least once within a 12-month period or whenever significant changes occur. regularly reviewed, at least annually, and/or in the event of increased risks. If necessary, the food fraud mitigation plan shall be revised/updated accordingly.

⭐⭐⭐

Takeaways

There are no big surprises in these two updates, but it pays to read all clauses carefully.

The good news is that if you have to stay up to date with multiple standards we’ve got you covered – at least when it comes to staying on top of food fraud requirements 😊

We’ve just released Edition 3 of our authoritative guide to current food fraud requirements in all major food safety standards, for auditors, consultants and food fraud specialists, with updates for the amended FSSC and IFS requirements.

Get all the food fraud requirements of all the major standards in one convenient e-book (updated)

Download it instantly, print or save it and keep it as a handy reference.

It costs USD27, which includes all future updates.  Learn more about it here.

⭐⭐⭐

by

Food Safety Standards Compared (2023)

 

food vulnerability assessment

There are many different food safety management system standards (FSMS), and they all have different requirements.  So how do you know which standard is the best one for your food company?

When it comes to food fraud, the food safety standards have minor differences in their requirements. For example, some standards require food businesses to include counterfeiting in their vulnerability assessments, while others don’t; some standards specify that vulnerability assessments must be performed on ingredients, while others state they should be done on finished products.  Some explicitly require training in food fraud awareness, while others do not.

Confused? We are here to help.  Read on to find out which standards have what requirements, and get recommendations for creating a great food fraud prevention (VACCP) program.

Background

Food safety standards are standards that describe requirements for food and related businesses.  The requirements aim to ensure that food and food-related goods are safe for consumers and customers.  The correct term for such standards is food safety management systems standards (FSMS).

There are food safety standards for all types of operations within the food supply chain, including:

  • growing and packing fresh produce;
  • manufacture of food and food ingredients;
  • buying and selling food (“brokers”);
  • storage and transport of food;
  • manufacture or converting of packaging materials;
  • manufacture of animal feed or pet food;
  • services such as cleaning, laundry, or pest control for food businesses.

The over-arching aim of all food safety standards is to keep consumers safe, but most standards also have secondary aims. Some of the most popular food safety standards were developed by food retailing groups, and these standards were written to protect the retailers’ brands as well as keep consumers safe. Other standards were developed to help food businesses understand best practices and gain a way to demonstrate their excellence through independent certifications.  Some standards include quality parameters, while others only address food safety issues.

There are dozens of internationally accepted food safety management system standards, each with slightly different requirements.  This can make it difficult to know which standards are ‘better’ or more suitable for your food company.

To solve this problem, a standard for food safety standards was created by the GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative).  The GFSI assesses and approves food safety standards using a process called benchmarking. The aim of GFSI benchmarking is to define best practices for food safety standards and provide a way to compare and align different food safety standards.

Among the dozens of food safety standards, some are benchmarked by the GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative), while others are not.  Benchmarked standards usually have more requirements and more rigorous expectations than non-benchmarked standards.  The auditing and certification processes for benchmarked standards are typically more time-consuming and more expensive than for non-benchmarked standards.

Food Fraud in Food Safety Standards

Food fraud prevention activities are an important part of all food safety management systems because food fraud can pose a risk to food safety.  Some food safety standards have separate, stand-alone requirements for food fraud prevention activities, while others do not.  Standards that are GFSI-benchmarked all include explicit, separate food-fraud-related requirements. Other standards rely on the hazard analysis elements of the food safety system to identify and control hazards from food fraud.

The GFSI requires all benchmarked standards to require food companies to do a vulnerability assessment for food fraud and create a mitigation plan for food fraud prevention.  Most GFSI-benchmarked standards also include details about which materials should be assessed and which types of food fraud need to be managed.

Non-GFSI standards vary in how they require a food company to approach food fraud.  Some specify or recommend a VACCP program, which is based on food fraud vulnerability assessment activities. Others, like AIB, require that food fraud risks be considered in the supplier approvals processes.  The regulations of the USA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) require that food businesses identify hazards from economically motivated adulteration-type food fraud (EMA) and implement preventive controls to minimise the risks.

Among the most well-known standards, there are some notable differences. For example, the SQF Food Safety Code requires food businesses to assess and manage risks from counterfeit-type food fraud, while the BRC Food Safety Standard only requires businesses to assess the risks from adulteration or substitution activities. BRC requires horizon scanning activities, while the SQF and IFS standards explicitly mention food fraud training.

Below you will find a table that compares the current food fraud requirements of each of the major food safety standards.

Table 1.  Food fraud requirements of major food safety standards, 2023. 

Click here to open or download a pdf version of this table

 AIB*BRC*FSSC*GlobalGAP*IFS*SQF*
Food types to include in food fraud prevention activitiesIngredients (implied)

 

 

Raw materials

 

 

Products and processes

 

 

Unclear

 

 

Raw materials,

ingredients,

packaging,

outsourced processes

Raw materials,

Ingredients,

finished products

 

Food fraud types

 

 

 

Economically motivated adulteration (only)

 

 

Adulteration,

substitution

(only)

 

 

Any type where consumer health is at risk (in definition, Appendix A)

 

Unclear, however counterfeit or non-foodgrade packaging or propagation materials are included as examples

 

Substitution, mislabelling, adulteration, counterfeiting

 

 

Substitution, mislabelling, dilution, counterfeiting

 

 

Vulnerability assessments explicitly required?Risk assessment (implied, Appendix A)YesYesRisk assessmentYesImplied (Edition 9)
Mitigation plan required?

 

 

–Mitigation activities are to be included in the vulnerability assessmentYesYesYesYes
Does packaging need to be included in the vulnerability assessment?Yes

(implied)

 

Yes

(see 3.5.1.1)

 

Yes

(as per food fraud definition, Appendix A)

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Implied

(primary packaging is a ‘raw material’)

Is a separate food fraud procedure explicitly required?––Implied (“method shall be defined”)–Implied

(“responsibilities shall be defined”)

Implied

(“methods and responsibilities shall be documented”)

Is training in food fraud explicitly mentioned?–Implied

(Clause 5.4.1)

––Yes

(Clause 3.3.4)

Yes
Is an annual review explicitly required?–Yes––YesYes
Other

 

 

–Horizon scanning for developing threats must be done (Clause 5.4.1)––Criteria for vulnerability assessments must be defined

(4.20.2)

Food safety risks from food fraud must be specified (2.7.2.2)

*  The full names of the standards are as follows:

AIB International Consolidated Standards for Inspection of Prerequisite and Food Safety Programs, 2023

BRCGS Food Safety, Issue 9

FSSC 22000, Version 6 (NEW!)

GlobalG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance (IFA), Version 5.4-1

IFS Food, Version 8 (NEW!)

SQF Food Safety Code, Edition 9

Takeaways

Among the major food safety management system standards, there are small but significant differences between food fraud prevention requirements.  Key differences include whether finished products or ingredients are to be assessed, which types of food fraud must be included and the presence/absence of requirements related to horizon scanning and training.

If that all seems confusing, don’t despair…

Recommendations for a robust and compliant food fraud prevention program (VACCP)

At Food Fraud Advisors we have been working at the intersection of food fraud and food safety since the very first days of food fraud requirements in food safety standards… and we’ve been helping businesses since day one.

Creating a robust and compliant food fraud program can take time and effort but it isn’t complicated.  Follow the steps below to get started:

  1. Carefully read the food fraud clauses of the standard you are/will be certified to. Pay attention to the food types and the food fraud types that are mentioned in your standard.  HINT: you may need to check the definitions or glossary. Carefully read the food fraud clauses of the standard you are/will be certified to.
  2. Pay attention to the food types and the food fraud types that are mentioned in your standard. HINT: you may need to check the definitions or glossary.
  3. Create a robust vulnerability assessment (here’s how) and a mitigation plan for identified vulnerabilities.
  4. Create a food fraud prevention procedure that defines the methods, responsibilities and criteria for food fraud prevention.
  5. You should also conduct training for all relevant staff and ensure that the food fraud system is reviewed at least annually.

Get a complete guide to the food fraud requirements of all the major food safety standards from us, the food fraud experts, here.

by

Where’s my tricorder?

We would all love to have a magic machine that can tell us exactly what is in a food or a health supplement, but our current technology isn’t quite at the level of Star Trek yet.  Here’s a question asked recently on Reddit/foodscience . It follows a common theme for questions asked by entrepreneurs who are investigating food and supplement business opportunities.

Supplement testing

 

Question: How do I test supplements to make sure the ingredients are authentic and organic?

The Reddit poster explained that he had stumbled upon a mix of plant extracts that helped his acne and wants to make and sell a pill with those ingredients.  He writes:  “I sourced some plant extract manufacturers in china but I do want to test the plant extracts to check if they are actually what they are and if they are truly organic. Can someone please point me in the right direction as to how to do that?“.  A food manufacturing expert suggested that he seek a contract manufacturer to make the pills for him, which he said sounded like a good idea.  Then he asked “I’d feel a lot better if there was maybe a machine I could buy to check the composition of what was in there“.

Answer: I think you want a Star Trek Tricorder

I wish it was possible to buy a magic machine that will tell you what is in a product.  On the other hand I am a food/supplement fraud expert so if there was such a thing I wouldn’t have a job.

Organic testing is ‘simple’. Sort of.  To test for ‘organic’ status in a finished capsule supplement you can check that pesticide residues are absent.  There is no technology that allows you to put a pill into a machine and ask it to look for ‘anything’, so you need to ask the machine to look for specific pesticides.  The USDA perform this type of testing every year on fruit and vegetables.  Each sample is tested separately for around 200 different pesticides.  The USDA use a network of independent labs so it should be easy to find a lab that can test your finished product for pesticide.  More on the pesticide testing program here:  https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp

Authenticity testing is not simple.

Herb-like ingredients can be tested for authenticity by an expert who looks at them under the microscope.  This only works if they are not ground up too small.

Liquid extracts and soluble powders can be tested using chromatographic methods, such as HPLC and GC.  In these methods the machine creates a chemical ‘fingerprint’ for the material and then compares that to the fingerprint of an authentic sample.  There are two things that make it difficult: firstly you need to find a lab that knows what an authentic sample fingerprint looks like for the material you want to test (they call this ‘having a database’); secondly, these methods are best suited to single ingredients.  Once you mix a whole bunch of ingredients together, if you test the mixture all the chemical fingerprints get mixed up and the machine can’t tell you which peak (which part of the ‘fingerprint’) comes from which ingredient.  There are ways around this but the methods are expensive as the databases are custom-made for each finished product that is to be tested.

Unfortunately it usually comes down to trust in your suppliers and a reliance on their systems and certifications.  Check all certifications to make sure they are not forged as unfortunately that is common in some countries.  Do this by contacting the certifier directly.

Reddit user: Karenconstable4

Want help with supplement authenticity?  Don’t know where to start?
Ask Karen

 

by

Food Fraud Advisors says hi

Food Fraud Advisors provides online consultancy, templates and training for food fraud prevention.

Authentic food is something that we all value, both as consumers and as members of the food industry.

At the moment there is growing awareness of problems with the authenticity of many food and beverages.  At the consumer level we see this awareness in investigative pieces on current affairs television shows, campaigns by consumer advocacy groups and on-line discussions on social media.  At the food business level food authenticity is becoming big news.

Right now there are big impacts for food manufacturers that are certified to GFSI-endorsed standards, since all the standards have been recently updated to include new requirements for food fraud prevention activities.

In the regulatory world food authenticity-related crimes are proving to be attractive to organized crime syndicates.  The cross-border and cross-disciplinary regulatory issues are a real challenge.

We are Food Fraud Advisors and we are here to help.