Food Fraud Advisors

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Our Services
  • Tools, Templates and Training
  • Learn about food fraud
  • Report a food crime
  • News
You are here: Home / Archives for supply chain

20th January 2016 by foodfraudadvisors

Traceability myth #3: Traceability equals authenticity

Traceability in the food supply chain leads to authentic food: it’s a myth.  In this third and final look at common misconceptions about traceability, I examine the links between traceability and authenticity of food.

Traceability can be difficult with a complex food, but it’s not impossible.  At the simplest level it is about knowing where every ingredient in a food product has come from and being able to identify the ingredients in each batch of your product to their own individual lots.  If you are a food business that has managed to achieve a transparent supply chain then in addition to basic traceability you will also know the sources of each of your suppliers and their suppliers, resulting in a ‘trail’ that leads all the way back to the farm or fishing boat.

Knowing where your ingredients have come from and being able to trace them back to your suppliers is a great start when it comes to protecting the authenticity of your finished product.  Knowing more about your supplier’s suppliers can also give a food business peace of mind when assessing the risk of receiving fraudulent materials.  Unfortunately, though, even within a completely transparent supply chain there can be opportunities for fraudulent adulteration, substitution or misrepresentation of food materials.

Take for example a bottle of virgin olive oil on the shelves of an inner city specialty grocer; the retailer purchases from a wholesaler who has a direct relationship with the olive processor which processes olives for a collective of farmers from a small olive growing region.  It’s a short supply chain and very transparent.  The retailer knows exactly where the oil comes from.  But that does not mean that the retailer knows what was going on at the oil processing facility.  Perhaps the most recent local harvest was very poor, perhaps the processor was under financial stresses and was tempted to dilute the pure local oil with cheaper bulk oil from another region or country.  Maybe the wholesaler was tempted to switch labels on some of his olive oil ranges to increase his profits…   Each of these scenarios result in fraudulently adulterated, diluted or substituted product.  If the retailer is selling the oil with regional provenance claims, organic claims or claims about special grades or standards of oil and the oil has been adulterated, diluted or substituted he is then unwittingly committing food fraud himself.  It’s an unpleasant scenario, and one that is unfortunately common.

Transparency has many benefits to supply chain management, and can provide some assurances against food fraud but it does not automatically guarantee authentic food ingredients and food products.

Traceability myth#1; consumers want transparency

Traceability myth #2; traceability is expensive

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Authenticity, Food Fraud, Supply Chain, Traceability

4th January 2016 by foodfraudadvisors

Traceability myth #2: Traceability is expensive

My recent article Traceability myth #1 ‘Consumers want transparency’ discussed how consumer attitudes to transparency are positive, but may not have much affect on purchasing decisions.

Traceability myth #2 explores the myth that traceability is expensive for food businesses.  This myth is based on the belief that traceability can only be achieved through the use of specialised business software.  Let’s explore this myth in more detail.

Specialised business software is expensive but it is not the only way to achieve traceability.  Traceability is the ability to access information about all the ingredients of a food product down to the individual batch or lot of the ingredient, to understand the disposition of all the ingredients and intermediate materials within a production process and to know where the food product went after it was manufactured.  The information should be accessible to the food business and able to be retrieved within four hours.

Why is traceability important?  Safety of consumers is the number one reason for traceability; it allows fast and effective recall of food products that have been affected by unsafe raw materials or improper processing.  Every food safety management system standard includes requirements for traceability.  Traceability can also be a huge benefit to market access; put simply, if you have robust traceability systems in place, more retail and food service customers are going to be willing to purchase your foods.  Thirdly, traceability comes with huge cost savings in the event of a recall or withdrawal situation; a food business that can accurately trace affected product down to individual lots can save huge sums of money by recalling only those lots that are affected. This can also have a positive affect on insurance premiums.

How to implement a traceability system without using expensive software? The most important thing you will need is a traceability ‘champion’ who is dedicated to the task and who has the support of top management.  As the system is implemented it is this person who will check that things are working as they should, that information is being recorded and that their colleagues in the business understand the process and the reasoning behind it.  A good first step is to start by editing production record worksheets, such as batch sheets and packing sheets and adding spaces to record a number or code that will identify each lot of finished product and intermediate product.  This code should ‘follow’ the lot through the production process, any quality checks and all the way to dispatch.  It should be able to be linked to the best before or use-by date on every pack; this can be done with a simple batch number book that contains a list of unique numbers and space to add date of manufacture, product and (afterwards) final disposition of the lot next to each number.

Production records will also need to be amended so that batch numbers or other unique identifiers for raw materials can be recorded.  Records need to be kept for all ingredients, intermediate foods and primary packaging materials that go into the process.  Personnel responsible for ‘batching’ or adding materials to the process will need to be trained and re-trained to remind them to record these numbers religiously; in a paper-based manual system, these operators are the difference between an effective traceability system and one that will be full of holes.

Raw materials and incoming goods systems are the next part of the implementation; if any of your materials are not supplied with a unique identifier or batch code you will need to create your own and attach it to each lot of material as it is received.  This same code will need to accompany any portion of the material as it moves around the facility.  Work in progress, re-work, faulty product and product that is on hold awaiting quality checks also need to be labelled.

The final piece of the puzzle is with the sales and dispatch operations; your operators will need to keep a record of which batch lots were dispatched to which customer.  The result is a batch number book that contains a unique identifier for each lot of product, with the product and final disposition (sold, destroyed, discarded) accompanied by sets of records for incoming goods, production , quality checks, on-hold or destruction records and sales or dispatch records that can all be linked back to the numbers in the batch book.

Paper-based traceability systems can be simple and relatively inexpensive but they need constant vigilance to ensure that every person who is supposed to be recording batch numbers is doing so in a conscientious manner.  All records should be cross checked by a supervisor before being filed and a traceability exercise should be conducted on each product line on a regular basis to make sure the system is working properly.

There are many advantages to be gained from an electronic traceability solution, because they typically allow for more efficient ordering and stock management processes, as well as removing much of the ‘fiddly’ and tedious work from the record-keeping processes and improving access to records.  If you have a complex business or are working with materials with a short shelf life, business management software can be worth its weight in gold.  However, paper-based systems can and do work very well and are perfectly capable of meeting the traceability requirements of the most picky customers and stringent standards.  All you need is a champion.

Traceability myth #1; consumers want transparency

Traceability myth #3; traceability equals authenticity

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Food Fraud, Supply Chain, Traceability

16th November 2015 by foodfraudadvisors

Vulnerability assessments are a waste of time according to this investigator

Vulnerability assessments are a hot topic in food safety at the moment, with Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) food safety standards set to include requirements for documented food fraud vulnerability assessments in the near future.  Most food safety and food integrity experts believe that vulnerability assessments are an important first step towards preventing fraudulent foods from reaching consumers.   However, in an interview with Food Safety News, Mitchell Weinberg, food fraud investigator and CEO of Inscatech describes food fraud vulnerability assessments as “frankly… a little bit of a waste of time.”  Mr Weinberg says that a food fraud vulnerability assessment is essentially about recording what you already know.  He explains that if a business is sourcing a food ingredient from a developing country, they should already know that it is more likely to be affected by fraud than if sourced locally.  Likewise, high value and high volume materials are more attractive to fraudsters.  Weinberg tells the interviewer:

“Just use common sense, figure out where the problem is, check it out… trust but verify.“

Weinberg is right; creating documented risk assessments of any kind is simply an exercise in writing down what we already know.  And common sense should be at the core of any risk assessment.  So is there any value in a documented vulnerability assessment?  

Absolutely!

  • A documented assessment is a record of who thought of what and when they thought of it.  It is evidence that fraud has been considered; it can be used to check that common sense was used in that consideration.  It can be audited, reviewed and updated.  It can be shared.
  • The process of creating a documented assessment can serve as a prompt to identify gaps in knowledge and provide an incentive to ‘fill in the gaps’.
  • A documented vulnerability assessment can be used to transfer knowledge.  Weinberg says creating a written assessment is making a record of what you already know; that is exactly what is needed when the person who made the assessment changes jobs or has to explain supply chain risks to a stubborn Purchasing Manager.
  • Most food businesses manufacture hundreds of food products and many more hundreds of ingredients; comparing the vulnerability assessments of different products and materials is an effective way to prioritise fraud prevention actions.  While the ultimate aim is for no product to be compromised ever, we all have to start somewhere.

Read more about Vulnerability Assessments here.

To view the interview with Mitchell Weinberg, click here.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Food Fraud, VACCP, Vulnerability Assessments

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

MORE FROM FOOD FRAUD ADVISORS

Fraud Risks for Cocoa and Confectionery Businesses

Chocolate’s supply chain is vulnerable to changes in weather, farming practices, and global trade networks. It is a … [Read More...]

food vulnerability assessment

Food Safety Standards Compared (2025)

  There are many different food safety management system standards (FSMS), and they all have different … [Read More...]

Olive Oil Fraud Update – Is the Crisis Over?

When it comes to fraud-vulnerable foods, olive oil is a rockstar. When Food Fraud Advisors began in 2015, olive oil … [Read More...]

What is a food fraud team? (and what to do if you can’t get one)

A food fraud prevention team is a group of employees in a food business that is responsible for creating, implementing … [Read More...]

Food Fraud Databases Compared

Updated 22 January 2026 A food fraud database is a collection of information about food fraud incidents and food … [Read More...]

follow

  • View foodfraudadvice’s profile on Facebook
  • View karenconstable4’s profile on Twitter
  • LinkedIn

© Copyright 2015 - 2026 Food Fraud Advisors · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Return and Refund Policy