Food Fraud Advisors

You are here: Home / Archives for food fraud

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

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.

by

Learn the lingo; food fraud terms explained

Food fraud occurs when food or drink is sold in a way that deliberately misleads or deceives consumers or customers for financial gain (Food Fraud Advisors, 2015)

(other definitions)

Food fraud occurs in two different forms:

1. Fraudulent activity that does not involve tampering with the food itself:

This includes activity such as avoidance of taxes, duties and quota restrictions (fishing), fraudulent paperwork such as forged importation documents, misrepresentation of origin, changing best-before dates and counterfeiting of popular brands.

2. Adulteration of food for economic gain:

This is sometimes referred to as economically motivated adulteration or EMA.  In this phrase, the word ‘adulteration’ is used to encompass many types of tampering, such as adding unauthorised substances, substituting undeclared substances for genuine components of a food or diluting a food product with cheaper substances.

Food fraud is a type of food crime, with food crime including food fraud and other activities such as the use of food shipments to mask drug trafficking and money-laundering through the trading of food and food commodities.

food fraud,defense,safety,security

Food fraud and the risks it presents to the food industry is a separate subject to food safety, although fraud-affected food can be unsafe.  Food safety relates to unintentional contamination of food and the presence of naturally occurring contaminants.

Food defence (food defense) is a term that has come to be defined as the effort to prevent acts of adulteration that are intended to cause harm to a food business or to consumers, such as acts of terrorism or attempted extortion.

Food security, as defined by the World Health Organisation exists “when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life”.

Risk or vulnerability?  In the language of food fraud, the term risk is usually replaced with the term ‘vulnerability’, so food standards bodies are increasingly talking about vulnerability assessments rather than risk assessments.  ‘Vulnerability’ is used because food fraud ‘risks’ do not exactly fit with the accepted definition of risk as something that has occurred frequently, will occur again and for which there is enough data to make quantitative assessments.  Vulnerability is a better term for food fraud, due to the fact that the ‘risk’ of a specific fraudulent activity occurring cannot be quantitatively assessed.

Horizon scanning is another term that has been co-opted to the language of food fraud.  Horizon scanning is the act of looking for and analysing threats and opportunities that will emerge in the medium to long term.  It is used across many industries, including the financial and health care industries.  Within the food industry, horizon scanning refers to the act of collecting information about current trends in food production and predicted incidences that could increase the likelihood of food fraud for a particular food material.  For example, climate change is likely to affect coffee production which could drive up prices and increase fraudulent activity in that sector.  Click here for the complete low-down on horizon scanning.

TACCP: Threat Assessment Critical Control Point.  TACCP = prevention of malicious threats to food.

VACCP: Vulnerability Assessment Critical Control Point.  VACCP = food fraud prevention.  Learn more about TACCP and VACCP here.

Intentional Adulteration:  Although food fraud activities often involve the intentional adulteration of food with unauthorised substances, within the food safety industry, Intentional Adulteration has recently been given a more specific meaning.  And it is not related to food fraud at all.  It is related to food defense, and more specifically to activities intended to cause wide scale harm to consumers.  There is a rule within the USA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), that addresses these activities.  It is known as the Intentional Adulteration rule.  According to the US FDA (2019), Intentional Adulteration is the deliberate contamination of food with a biological, chemical, radiological, or physical agent by an individual or group of individuals with the intent to cause wide scale public health harm.  How to protect against intentional adulteration. 

by

Secrets of the horsemeat scandal

How did the enactment of an obscure transport law in Eastern Europe change the face of food manufacturing forever?  Karen Constable investigates the link between Romanian road rules and the horsemeat scandal.

More than six years after it first made headlines, the series of incidents that became known ‘horsegate’ continues to impact the global food industry.  It began in January 2013, when Irish authorities revealed they had discovered horsemeat in burgers that were supposed to contain 100% beef.  The discovery sparked a frenzy of testing and soon horsemeat was being discovered in dozens of different products in countries all over Europe and beyond.  The sheer scale of the contamination sent shock waves through the food manufacturing world.  Occurring five years after the melamine in milk powder scandal of 2008, which sickened over 300,000 babies in China, this incident was unfolding much closer to home for food manufacturers in Europe.  It was a wakeup call for our industry: we could no longer pretend that food fraud of a similar scale and impact as the melamine milk scandal could not happen in the western world.

Numerous massive recalls

The scandal resulted in market withdrawals of tens of millions of food products across Europe, millions of euros of lost business and multiple prosecutions.  Consumers’ trust in manufactured food plummeted and sales of frozen hamburgers and frozen ready meals dropped by 43% and 13% respectively in the United Kingdom in the month following the first product withdrawal.

Multiple investigations

Despite some media reports claiming that the first horsemeat discovery was the result of ‘routine’ testing, it is now known that the scandal was uncovered almost by accident.  As strange as it may seem to the wider community, it is unusual for food manufacturers and regulatory authorities to test foods for materials that are not expected to be present.  This is, of course, how the perpetrators of the Chinese melamine fraud could conduct their activities on such a large scale for what is thought to be a significant length of time.  The original horsemeat tests were conducted by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland because a sharp-eyed inspector had noticed a discrepancy between packaging and labelling of frozen meat.

As the investigations began it became apparent that law enforcement and regulatory authorities were ill-equipped to manage the complex cross-border issues that arose.  Supply chains seemed hopelessly complicated to unravel, with on-paper ownership of meat often disconnected from the physical whereabouts of the food.  By the time the scandal was declared over, investigators had identified at least three entirely separate supply chains involving different slaughterhouses, traders, processors and criminals.

Beef an easy target

Horsemeat and beef meat are similar in appearance, texture and flavour.  Yet the European market for horsemeat is relatively small compared with beef; it is not consumed by people in many Western European cultures. For unscrupulous merchants, however, horsemeat’s abundance and low price made it the perfect substitute for beef.   With access to a cheap, abundant adulterant, the criminals appeared to have an easy job of it.  It was so easy, in fact, that swapping horse for beef appears to have been a long-term business plan for at least one of the meat traders involved in the scandal, Jan Fasen.  Fasen had been convicted and jailed for a similar fraud in 2007.  The name of his company, Draap, is the Dutch word for horse spelt backwards.

In 2019, Fasen and his partner Hendricus Windmeijer were convicted of false labelling by a court in Paris for their role in the supply of 500 tons of meat to ready-to-eat meal-maker Comigel in France in 2012 and 2013.

Complex supply chains

Much of the horsemeat found in the affected products originated in Romania, the by-product of a unique set of circumstances which affected the availability and price of horse meat in that country.  Six years prior to the scandal, a law had been passed banning horse drawn vehicles from the streets of cities and towns in Romania.  Within a few years there was a surplus of unwanted horses, with abandoned animals roaming city streets and parks.  The horses were rounded up and exported to slaughterhouses in neighbouring countries where they were slaughtered for legitimate human and pet food.  By 2007, however, concerns about the spread of equine infectious anaemia, a disease which was endemic in Romania, resulted in a ban on the trading of live Romanian horses.  With live exports stopped, there was nowhere for the horses to go.  Enterprising local businessmen built their own slaughterhouses in Romania and began to export horse meat to Europe.

Draap Trading, a company operated from Belgium and registered in Cyprus, was among those that purchased Romanian horsemeat.  It shipped the meat to the Netherlands where it was re-labelled as beef.  From there it was sold to legitimate meat processors, including one in France who supplied the factory in Luxembourg that manufactured lasagne and spaghetti bolognese for Findus and Aldi.

Separately, a French meat processing company, À la Table de Spanghero was also purchasing horsemeat from Romania and selling it to food manufacturers labelled as beef.  The former director and manager of Spanghero were convicted for their crimes in Paris in April 2019, with the former director being jailed for his role in the saga.

Romania was not the only source, however: the burgers at the centre of the initial discovery in Ireland contained horsemeat that came not from Romania but from Britain, Germany and Poland, via another Dutch trader, Willy Selten.  In 2015 Selten was jailed for 2.5 years for crimes related to the fraudulent supply of horsemeat in 2011 and 2012.  In November 2016 he was ordered to pay €1.2m – the estimated proceeds of his crimes – to the Dutch government.

A long history of horsemeat adulteration?

Given the history of Selten and Fasen, it seems likely that undeclared horse was present in the European food supply for many years, remaining undetected and causing no apparent harm to consumers.  We will never know whether those responsible considered the safety of consumers when planning their crimes.  We do know that unsafe adulterants are more likely to be detected, which makes them less attractive to fraudsters.  Certainly, in the melamine scandal in China, just a few years prior, consumer harm played an important role in the detection of the fraud.  In that case, it is likely that low levels of melamine had been added to milk powder and other products for many months or years without causing any immediate or obvious harm to anyone.  It is thought that the concentration of melamine in baby formula increased in 2007 and 2008 and it was the higher levels that caused kidney problems in babies.  The fraud was uncovered by authorities investigating the illnesses.  Perhaps the extra melamine had been added by mistake, or perhaps the fraudsters got greedy.  Either way, the adulteration was costly for the criminals as well as their victims: two of the people responsible were executed by firing squad in China in 2009.

During the horsemeat fiasco, and to the relief of the entire industry, no person was sickened or injured by the presence of horse in ‘beef’ products.  There was, however, a major health scare: horsemeat can contain veterinary drugs, including phenylbutazone – “bute”, which can be harmful to human health.  It was a lucky coincidence that the overwhelming majority of the contaminated products proved not to contain phenylbutazone.

From horse and beef to chicken, donkey and buffalo

As investigators worked behind the scenes, public events in the European food industry took on the appearance of collapsing dominoes: first was the withdrawal of 10 million burgers by Tesco, Lidl, Aldi, Dunnes Stores and Iceland in United Kingdom.  Tesco lost £300m in market value overnight.  In the following weeks, Asda also removed tens of thousands of products from its shelves; Tesco and Aldi extended their withdrawal from burgers to ready meals; Waitrose withdrew meatballs because of fears they might contain pork; slaughterhouses in Yorkshire and Wales were raided by regulatory authorities; the scandal spread to France and multiple arrests were made on both sides of the English Channel.

By the end of March 2013, authorities had found horse labelled as beef in three Polish factories; equine DNA had been found in chicken nuggets in Greece; water buffalo and donkey had been found in South African burgers and more big brands, including Ikea, Birdseye and Nestle had been affected with their products withdrawn from markets in Cyprus, Belgium, Spain and Czech Republic.

By year’s end, Tesco’s annual profits had fallen by 52%.  Consumer trust in large food manufacturers and retailers was at an all-time low: British consumer organisation ‘Which?’ reported that sixty percent of consumers had changed their shopping habits because of the scandal.

Standards updated

The British government commissioned Professor Chris Elliott to review and report on the implications of the horsemeat contamination for the British food industry.  The Elliott review, as it became known, resulted in the creation of a special food fraud crime unit in that country and the development of a range of other collaborative enterprises across Europe including special functions within the European Joint Research Council (JRC) and food-focussed operations by Interpol known as Operation Opson, now in its sixth year.

The food safety community, initially shocked and alarmed at the potential safety implications of the adulteration soon began a period of discussion and introspection, which often centred around the unspoken question ‘What if the meat had been dangerous?’.  The scandal broke at a time when the GFSI food safety standards were consolidating their revered positions at the pinnacle of ‘best practice’ manufacturing: the standards were being strengthened, lengthened and broadened.  Audit durations were increasing, auditor qualifications and certification systems had become more stringent and standards for packaging, storage and distribution had been upgraded.  And yet these GFSI-endorsed food safety management systems, considered to be the gold-standard for food manufacturing and administered with the strictest oversight, had revealed an Achilles heel the size of Bucharest.   The GFSI promptly created the ‘Food Fraud Think Tank’ to address the gaps and suggest solutions.  This resulted in changes to GFSI’s guidance for food safety standards, with GFSI-endorsed standards being updated to reflect the updated guidance.  The new guidance requires food businesses to formally address the risks from fraudulently adulterated ingredients when they design their food safety management systems.

The food safety landscape had changed, seemingly overnight, from one that was focussed almost exclusively on unintentional or natural contamination to one that requires food manufacturers to consider, control and prevent more unpredictable and sinister events.

In the wake of these changes, a new discipline of food study has appeared.  It is now possible to study food fraud at prestigious educational institutions, attend international conferences devoted to the topic and tune in to webinars conducted by specialists in compliance, legislation and testing.  Analytical chemistry researchers are developing ever-more sophisticated test methods for detecting adulterants.  Food businesses large and small are developing better systems to prevent, deter and detect economically motivated adulteration within their supply chains.

Food manufacturers are slowly regaining the trust of consumers, helped by the visible presence of enforcement operations and government initiatives such as the United Kingdom’s Food Crime Unit and Interpol’s Operation Opson in Europe as well as the Food Safety Modernisation Act (FSMA) in the United States.

And what of the adulterated beef?  We can only guess at how many tonnes of it was eaten by unsuspecting consumers in countries all over Europe before the scandal broke.  Contaminated product that was withdrawn from the market – tens of millions of units – was destroyed; either buried in landfill or used as animal feed.  It seems a sad and wasteful journey for the unwanted horses of Romania; a journey conceived by men who wanted to be rich and one that ultimately changed the face of food manufacturing forever.