Food Fraud Prevention – Mitigation and Prevention
Welcome! In support of the Food Authenticity Network (FAN) activity, this blog series reviews key topics related to food fraud prevention. Watch here for updates that explore the definitions of food fraud terms and concepts.
This blog post builds on our previous review of the definition of risk and vulnerability as it applies to reducing the occurrence of food fraud. The next blog post will continue the mindset shift that is needed when we consider mitigation and prevention.
The early food fraud prevention activities were created in response to ongoing incidents. Incidents such as Sudan Red, melamine, and horsemeat were ongoing events requiring quick action to find the product, remove it from the marketplace, and select detection tests to support immediate monitoring. This was the activation of ‘risk mitigation’ plans in terms of ‘rapid response systems.’ It seems that the early food fraud prevention activities were a natural continuation of ‘risk mitigation,’ so the concept of ‘mitigation’ was the critical focus of laws, regulations, standards, certifications, and industry practices (e.g., the GFSI requirement of a food fraud mitigation plan).
Risk mitigation is important, and the focus is reducing the impact of an event AFTER it occurs. During the response to an active crisis, mitigation was the critical focus.
HOWEVER, “The goal is not to catch food fraud but to prevent the event from ever occurring.” (Reference 1) While food fraud mitigation is important, the more holistic and all-encompassing concept is ‘food fraud prevention.’ The proactive focus is on prevention, reducing the possibility that the event could occur.
Mitigation Shifting to Prevention
The following are excerpts from our article “Food Fraud Prevention Shifts Food Risk Focus to Vulnerability.” (Reference 1)
The countermeasures include mitigation and prevention.
- Mitigation is intended to reduce the consequence of the event (ISO, 2007a; ISO, 2007; ISO, 2007b; DHS, 2013; Merriam-Webster, 2004). This assumes the hazard event will occur, so the goal is to mitigate or reduce the negative consequence. This focuses on reducing the risk that cannot be eliminated.
- Prevention is intended to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of the event occurring (ISO, 2007; ISO, 2007a; ISO, 2007b; ISO, 2008; Merriam-Webster, 2004). This focuses on identifying and eliminating or reducing vulnerability
Plan Shifting to Strategy
It might seem like an academic discussion, but it is also important to consider the expansion of a ‘plan’ to a ‘strategy’ – from a food fraud mitigation plan to a food fraud prevention strategy.
- Plan (ISO 15289, 24748): information item that presents a systematic course of action for achieving a declared purpose, including when, how, and by whom specific activities are to be performed
- Strategy (ISO 9000, 29995) plan to achieve a long-term or overall objective (3.7.1); plan to accomplish the organization’s (3.2.1) mission (3.7.18) and achieve the organization’s vision (3.7.17)
So, a ‘mitigation plan’ was key during the initial crisis management, but the longer-term goal was a ‘prevention strategy.’
Watch out for the next blog, which will review the application of ISO 31000 Risk Management and the concepts of likelihood versus probability and consequence versus severity.
If you have any questions on this blog, we’d love to hear from you in the comments box below.
References:
- Spink, John, Ortega, David, Chen, Chen, and Wu, Felicia (2017). Food Fraud Prevention Shifts Food Risk Focus to Vulnerability, Trends in Food Science and Technology Journal, Volume 62, Number 2, Pages 215-220, URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924224416304915
2 Spink, J, and Moyer, DC, (2011) Defining the Public Health Threat of Food Fraud, Journal of Food Science, Volume 75 (Number 9), p. 57-63, URL: https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02417.x
Comments