The application of public policy theory to the emerging food fraud risk: Next steps

Spink, John; Hegarty, Peter; Fortin, Neal D.; Elliott, Christopher T.; Moyer, Douglas C.

doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2019.01.002

Cited by 44 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Food Fraud-including the U.S. FDA defined subcategory of economically motivation or EMA-is illegal deception conducted for economic gain (China Daily Newspaper, 2014;DEFRA, 2014;EC, 2014;Food Standards Agency, 2014;FSA/UK, 2006;GFSI, 2014aGFSI, , 2014bISO, 2010ISO, , 2011IUFoST, 2016;Spink et al, 2014;WU, 2017). There is an increased vulnerability to the deception since the global food industry is faced with rapid innovation driven by technology advances and market changes as consumer choices and preferences evolve (Huisman & Van Erp, 2013;Lord, Flores Elizondo, & Spencer, 2017;Silvis, van Ruth, van der Fels-Klerx, & Luning, 2017;Spink, 2019;Spink, Hegarty, Fortin, Elliott, & Moyer, 2019b; van Ruth, Luning, Silvis, Yang, & Huisman, 2018). Regulations and standards covering the safety of food are also evolving to keep up with these changes in the marketplace, all aimed at protecting the consumer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

International Survey of Food Fraud and Related Terminology: Preliminary Results and Discussion

Spink

Bedard²,

Keogh

et al. 2019

Journal of Food Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The food industry is advancing at a rapid pace and consumer sensitivity to food safety scares and food fraud scandals is further amplified by rapid communication such as by social media. Academia, regulators, and industry practitioners alike struggle with an evolving issue regarding new terms and definitions including food fraud, food authenticity, food integrity, food protection, economically motivated adulteration, food crime, food security, contaminant, adulterant, and others. This research addressed some of the global need for clarification and harmonization of commonly used terminology. The 150 survey responses were received from various food‐related workgroups or committee members, communication with recognized experts, and announcements to the food industry in general. Overall food fraud was identified as a “food safety” issue (86%). The food quality and manufacturing respondents focused mainly on incoming goods and adulterant‐substances (<50%) rather than the other illegal activities such as counterfeiting, theft, gray market/diversion, and smuggling. Of the terms included to represent “intentional deception for economic gain” the respondents generally agreed with food fraud as the preferred term. Overall, the preference was 50% “food fraud,” 15% “economically motivated adulteration” EMA, 9% “food protection,” 7% “food integrity,” 5% “food authenticity,” and 2% “food crime.” It appears that “food protection” and “food integrity” are terms that cover broader concepts such as all types of intentional acts and even possibly food safety or food quality. “Food authenticity” was defined with the phrase “to ensure” so seemed to be identified as an “attribute” that helped define fraudulent acts. Practical Application Food Fraud—illegal deception for economic gain using food—is a rapidly evolving research topic and is facing confusion due to the use of different terms and definitions. This research survey presented common definitions and publication details to gain insight that could help provide clarity. The insight from this report provides guidance for others who are harmonizing terminology and setting the overall strategic direction.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Considering the definitions and scope is important for setting a research and policy development foundation (Spink et al., ). There are many other issues that should be considered when reviewing the definitions such as the full scope of activities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Survey of Food Fraud and Related Terminology: Preliminary Results and Discussion

Spink

Bedard²,

Keogh

et al. 2019

Journal of Food Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Incidents such as Sudan Red dye in ground chili, melamine in infant formula and pet food, horsemeat in beef products, peanut allergen in cumin, waste oil in cooking oil, and others—all demanded complex international reactions and illustrated vulnerabilities in food regulatory systems around the world. 12,13…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global perspectives on food fraud: results from a WHO survey of members of the International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN)

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This survey of International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN) members regarding food fraud prevention, management, education, and information sharing included 166 WHO member states that resulted in 175 responses. The respondents engage in food fraud prevention (70%) or are responsible for food fraud incident response (74%). Nearly all respondents acknowledged a desire for more guidance and information on best practices in managing the full range of “food safety events involving food fraud” (97%), but also for prevention of such events (97%), indicating a need to provide technical support beyond acute incident response. The scope of food fraud covered in the survey comprised the full range of fraudulent activities, including the addition of adulterant-substances, tampering (including mislabeling), theft, smuggling, gray market/diversion, and counterfeiting (intellectual property rights). Key needs included: capacity-building/education; a platform for information sharing; and utilization of INFOSAN as an interagency/intergovernmental collaboration point.

show abstract

“…When considering the data collection needs, it is essential to:Address all types of food fraud not just adulterant-substances: GFSI (and regulations including the U.S. Food Safety Modernization Act Preventive Controls Final Rule) require addressing all “agents” that lead to a possible or actual “health hazard” that are “economically motivated” so the compliance requirements will be for all types of food fraud. 25 Conduct a FFVA for all types of fraud, but level of detail in undefined: The current regulatory and certification requirements are only defined to conduct “a” vulnerability assessment with little additional specificity.Consider other enterprise-wide financial or securities assessments that are a non-food compliance or certification requirement: These are industry-specific financial reporting requirements such as Sarbanes-Oxley in the USA and others in other countries or regions. These regulatory compliance requirements include statements of internal controls and an integrated framework for reporting of risks to equity such as crime or fraud.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Address all types of food fraud not just adulterant-substances: GFSI (and regulations including the U.S. Food Safety Modernization Act Preventive Controls Final Rule) require addressing all “agents” that lead to a possible or actual “health hazard” that are “economically motivated” so the compliance requirements will be for all types of food fraud. 25…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food fraud data collection needs survey

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research project was conducted to understand the data collection needs when addressing food fraud prevention. The foundation for an understanding of the fraud opportunity utilizes a holistic and all-encompassing information sharing system. The anonymous online survey was distributed first to a targeted group of food fraud leaders from manufacturer or brand owner companies and then to a public group. From the 96 survey responses, first, regarding “data” there is generally “enough” and “good enough” data to meet the current assessments and compliance needs. Second, regarding the process, there is a need for more guidance or harmonization on vulnerability assessments, strategy development and management, and correlation to all other enterprise-wide risks (ERM/COSO). Third, there is the general activity of conducting food fraud vulnerability assessments, but there is a lack of clarity or direction on the scope (all types of fraud) and confidence in the conclusions (a clear insight or diagnosis of root-cause). This survey suggests there is a need for more definition and formality of the method and process for addressing food fraud. Finally, a focus on harmonizing terms, vulnerability assessment methods, and then of common policy/strategy will enable the risk assessors to define their future data collection requirements and needs. Further research should explore the specifics of the data collection needs and expand to other stakeholders such as regulators and enforcement.

show abstract

The application of public policy theory to the emerging food fraud risk: Next steps

Cited by 44 publications

References 19 publications

International Survey of Food Fraud and Related Terminology: Preliminary Results and Discussion

International Survey of Food Fraud and Related Terminology: Preliminary Results and Discussion

Global perspectives on food fraud: results from a WHO survey of members of the International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN)

Food fraud data collection needs survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About