Patterns of food frauds and adulterations reported in the EU rapid alert system for food and feed and in Finland

Tähkäpää, Satu; Maijala, Riitta; Korkeala, Hannu; Nevas, Mari

doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.07.007

Cited by 100 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fourteen percent of respondents are occasionally concerned about them through casual conversation or via social media, while 28% of respondents are not concerned about it. Existing research also shows that a growing concern is the introduction of hazards by deliberate human actions known as food fraud or economically motivated adulteration (Everstine et al, 2013;Moore et al, 2012;Tähkäpää et al, 2015; Zhang & Xue, 2016). In addition, when our survey respondents were asked about unsafe food reports, most said they know which grains are unsafe through reports about unsafe food events and thus to avoid them.…”

Section: Attention To Unsafe Food Reportsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Consumer anxieties about food grain safety in China

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article available under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version -refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher's website. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. Abstract: China has a long history of eating staple plant foods which are mainly derived from food grains, especially rice and wheat. Food grain safety has been a worrying challenge on health and nutrition grounds in China, although evidence clearly suggests that expanding agricultural production is linked to reducing undernourishment. The focus of this study is to investigate consumers' anxieties about food grain safety in China. The nature and extent of consumer anxieties about grain safety, the cause of these anxieties, and possible ways to relieve anxiety are empirically analyzed. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with 142 grain consumers in 29 provinces of China, in both rural and urban areas, during 2016. The results show that consumers are worried about the production and processing safety of food grains and genetically modified cereals and that the causes of anxiety are varied. Anxiety is amplified by social media reports of food scandals, polluted ecological environments, the high incidence of food-related chronic diseases and cancer, concerns about food system governance and lack of knowledge and ability to identify grain quality. Consumers seek to relieve their anxiety by identifying grain quality themselves, choosing foreign grains and paying close attention to reports about unsafe food. These findings have important implications for future programs aimed at improving consumer confidence about grain safety.

show abstract

Section: Attention To Unsafe Food Reportsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Consumer anxieties about food grain safety in China

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…financial or social pressure), employment (corporate or management derived pressure) and external pressure (business or stakeholder pressure to incur financial return, social environmental and market price pressure) (Gbegi and Adebisi 2013;Kleboth et al 2016); opportunity to commit fraud, influenced by the extent of formal control systems (countermeasures) and/or the potential for weaknesses or gaps in the business network (Gbegi and Adebisi 2013;Tähkäpää et al 2015;Kleboth et al 2016;Manning et al 2016); rationalisation, the ability of the individual to assess their behaviour as acceptable, if excusable to themselves or others (Gbegi and Adebisi 2013;Kleboth et al 2016;Manning et al 2016;TiFSiP 2016), the lack of a strong deterrent i.e. penalties (Tähkäpää et al 2015;Manning et al 2016;TiFSiP 2016); capability, the power or ability to undertake the fraud (Wolfe and Hermanson 2004;Gbegi and Adebisi 2013), the motivation or benefit of undertaking the fraud (e.g. guaranteed economic benefit) (Canter 2000;Williams 2001;Dennis and Kelly 2013;Smith and Laing 2013;Spink et al 2013;Elliott 2014;Tähkäpää et al 2015;Manning et al 2016), and the personal integrity or category of offender (Canter 2000;Williams 2001;Smith and Laing 2013;Spink et al 2013Manning et al 2016).…”

Section: Food Fraud Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…penalties (Tähkäpää et al 2015;Manning et al 2016;TiFSiP 2016); capability, the power or ability to undertake the fraud (Wolfe and Hermanson 2004;Gbegi and Adebisi 2013), the motivation or benefit of undertaking the fraud (e.g. guaranteed economic benefit) (Canter 2000;Williams 2001;Dennis and Kelly 2013;Smith and Laing 2013;Spink et al 2013;Elliott 2014;Tähkäpää et al 2015;Manning et al 2016), and the personal integrity or category of offender (Canter 2000;Williams 2001;Smith and Laing 2013;Spink et al 2013Manning et al 2016). A number of academics have attempted to construct models to illustrate these factors.…”

Section: Food Fraud Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the food industry, food fraud creates economic and sustainability concerns, evident in food businesses which are hit with the cost of recalling products and the subsequent impact on brand reputation (Jacquet and Pauly 2008), and places pressure on smallto-medium sized enterprises to purchase cheaper ingredients in order to compete and sustain their business. Although the intention is for profit and not to cause harm, the availability of potential contaminants and allergens introduces the unknown into the supply chain and can lead to severe illness or death depending on the potency of the materials used and the susceptibility of the consumer (Pascual et al 2008;Sheth et al 2010;Triantafyllidis et al 2010;Spink and Moyer 2011;Chen et al 2012;Dennis and Kelly 2013;Paiva 2013;Stamatis et al 2015;Tähkäpää et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The seafood supply chain from a fraudulent perspective

Mitchell²,

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food fraud is an intentional act for economic gain. It poses a risk to food integrity, the economy, public health and consumers' ethics. Seafood is one commodity which has endured extensive fraudulent activity owing to its increasing consumer demand, resource limitations, high value and complex supply chains. It is essential that these fraudulent opportunities are revealed, the risk is evaluated and countermeasures for mitigation are assigned. This can be achieved through mapping of the seafood supply chains and identifying the vulnerability analysis critical control points (VACCP), which can be exposed, infiltrated and exploited for fraudulent activity. This research systematically maps the seafood supply chain for three key commodities: finfish, shellfish and crustaceans in the United Kingdom. Each chain is comprised of multiple stakeholders across numerous countries producing a diverse range of products distributed globally. For each supply chain the prospect of fraud, with reference to species substitution, fishery substitution, illegal, unreported and unregulated substitution, species adulteration, chain of custody abuse, catch method fraud, undeclared product extension, modern day slavery and animal welfare, has been identified and evaluated. This mapping of the fraudulent opportunities within the supply chains provides a foundation to rank known and emerging risks and to develop a proactive mitigation plan which assigns control measures and responsibility where vulnerabilities exist. Further intelligence gathering and management of VACCPs of the seafood supply chains may deter currently unknown or unexposed fraudulent opportunities.

show abstract

“…The majority of these reports deals with food fraud in the country where the media report appears and generally does not involve discussions on fraudulent documentations, such as mainly reported in RASFF. Based on the results, RASFF seems to tackle most of the cases originating from outside the borders of the EU by mainly preventing document fraud, such as HC, illegal importation or improper or missing documentation (Tähkäpää, Maijala, Korkeala, & Nevas, 2015). Furthermore, a bias is expected in the RASFF data since often the testing is risk-based and is performed by the border inspections on food products imported into the EU.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of food fraud media monitoring system based on text mining

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food fraud is receiving considerable attention with the growing body of literature that recognises its importance. No system exists that collects media reports on food fraud. In this study, we used the infrastructure provided by the European Media Monitor (EMM), in particular it's MedISys portal for this purpose. We developed a food fraud tool (MedISys-FF) that collects, processes and presents food fraud reports published world-wide in the media. MedISys-FF is updated every 10 min 24/7. Food fraud reports were collected with MedISys-FF for 16 months (September 2014 to December 2015) and benchmarked against food fraud reports published in Rapid Alert for Food and feed (RASFF), Economically Motivated Adulteration Database (EMA) and HorizonScan. The results showed that MedISys-FF collects food fraud publications with high relevance > 75% and the top 4 most reported fraudulent commodities in the media were i) meat, ii) seafood, iii) milk and iv) alcohol. These top stories align with those found in RASFF and EMA but differences in frequency are apparent. Analysis of the collected articles can help understanding food fraud issues in the origin countries and can facilitate the development of control measures and to detect food fraud in the food supply chain.

show abstract

Patterns of food frauds and adulterations reported in the EU rapid alert system for food and feed and in Finland

Cited by 100 publications

References 11 publications

Consumer anxieties about food grain safety in China

Consumer anxieties about food grain safety in China

The seafood supply chain from a fraudulent perspective

Development of food fraud media monitoring system based on text mining

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About