News

The food sector is subject to illegal practices of various types such as adulteration or exploitation of labour. In the media and public discourse, this phenomenon is often associated to activities by organised crime groups. Drawing on a socio-legal empirical study on the perception and conceptualisation of food crime in English and Italian public institutions, this paper unpacks the involvement of organised crime and mafia-type actors in the food sector. Considering data collected through in-depth interviews with representatives of law enforcement and other public authorities, supported by documentary sources, this research points out that, from both an institutional perspective that narrowly conceptualises as food crime as food fraud, as well as from a wider perspective that addresses other practices happening in the food sector, organised crime is involved in food crime. By referring to the English and Italian cases, and by merging different bodies of literature, such as green criminology and enterprise theory, this article advocates for conceptual clarity when referring to the involvement of corporate crime, organised crime and mafia-type groups active in the food sector. In so doing, it presents and reflects upon ‘organised food crime’ as a new socio-legal category and highlights its policy outcomes.

Read open access paper.

The same author published another related paper in 2020:

Food Crime: A Review of the UK Institutional Perception of Illicit Practices in the Food Sector

Food offers highly profitable opportunities to criminal actors. Recent cases, from wine and meat adulteration to milk powder contaminations, have brought renewed attention to forms of harmful activities which have long occurred in the food sector. Despite several scandals over the last few decades, food has so far received scant criminological attention and the concept of food crime remains subject to different definitions. This article assesses regulations in the United Kingdom (UK) and UK authorities’ official reports published between 2013 and 2018 through a review of academic literature published in English. It charts the evolution of the food crime concept, its various meanings, and different harmful activities associated with food crime, which originate from unlawful acts and omissions. This article also points out that further criminological research needs to address the definitional issue of food crime and inform a more integrated policy approach by considering activities beyond food fraud and the protection of food safety.

Read open access paper:

Ghana Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) has sent a strong warning to Palm Oil Producers across the country to desist from using the Sudan dye to mix the red oil before sending them to the market.

According to the FDA, its outfit has a set of strict regulatory sanctions that will be applied to all persons who are caught in this act.

The FDA warned that “Sudan 4 dye is not approved for use in food products, Sudan dyes are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as Group 3 carcinogens and are banned as food additives worldwide (IARC, 1987)”.

Chief Executive of FDA, Delese Mimi Darko, announced this when she speaking at the launching of the Artisanal Palm Oil Millers and Outgrowers Association app in Accra, a digital technology device aimed at protecting the industry, and also to ensure authentic and healthy palm oil exportation for the global market.

The association has developed an app to enable consumers to track the source of palm oil and its producers before purchase and consumption to curb the menace of a chemical called Sudan IV, which is sometimes added to palm oil.

Read full article.

A law enforcement operation jointly coordinated by INTERPOL and Europol has highlighted the vast quantities of illicit food and beverage products circulating throughout the global economy.

Codenamed OPSON X, the operation mobilized police, customs, national food regulatory authorities and private sector partners to undertake coordinated enforcement actions between December 2020 and June 2021 against illicit food and drink posing serious health risks to consumers.

Operation OPSON X saw law enforcement globally net 15,451 tonnes of illegal products, with an estimated street value of EUR 53.8 million.  Nearly 68,000 checks were carried out by the 72 participating countries, resulting in more than 1,000 criminal cases being opened.                                                                                                                                                       
The enforcement actions have uncovered a wealth of new leads for food crime investigations. More than 600 arrest warrants were issued during the course of the operation, which is estimated to have disrupted the activities of 42 organized crime groups around the world.

The most seized goods in Operation OPSON X were alcohol and food supplements, followed by cereals and grain products. Alcoholic drinks were the most commonly counterfeited according to seizure results, as well as products protected by trademarks, geographic indications or appellations of origin.

Though not directly targeted in the operation, enforcement actions also turned up other illicit items, including fake test kits for COVID-19, HIV and malaria, cigarettes, weapons and ammunition, bush meat and other products of wildlife crime.

In Russia, police discovered a case containing more than 12,000 copies of pirated computer software, valued at around EUR 100,000. Meanwhile, Namibian authorities detected 24 irregular migrants during their actions carried out under OPSON X.

The most common types of food fraud include:

• mislabeling (42 percent)
• replacements/dilutions/additions/removals in product (20 percent)
• unapproved treatment and/or process (16 percent)
• document failings that are either falsified or manipulated (15 percent).

Further information on OPSON X.

Genome editing, also known as gene editing, is one of the precision breeding techniques in food that may be adopted by the government after EU Exit. Therefore DEFRA have run a public consultation on genetic technologies in food (Opens in a new window).

This research by the Food Standards Agency complements the consultation by gathering evidence specifically on consumer interests. For more information about genome editing in food, view our FSA Explains video.

Key findings  

• Consumers tended to have very low awareness and very low knowledge of GE food.
• More informed consumers were, or became, more accepting of GE food.
• Consumers tended to find GE food more acceptable than GM food. However, consumers found GM or GE applied to plants more acceptable than applications to animals, for example, due to human safety and animal welfare concerns.
• Most consumers felt it would be appropriate to regulate GE foods separately from GM foods. At the same time, many felt regulation should be just as thorough as for GM.
• Most consumers felt labelling should always inform the consumer of the presence of GE ingredients using the full term ‘genome edited’.  
• Overall, consumers wanted thorough regulation and transparent labelling if GE foods reach the UK market, and they suggested social media information campaigns and TV documentaries would help educate the public on GE food. 

Download report and appendices.

Download here

The Government Chemist Annual Review provides a summary of the work undertaken by the Government Chemist team, including highlights from the referee cases, advisory work and capability building activities. The review also details the impact of the work obtained though active engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. The main topics described in this review are:

• Referee cases: analysis of food for genetically modified organisms, antibiotics in honey and food labelling

• Advisory role: overview of the activities associated with the advisory role, including responding to enquiries from stakeholders and consultations and horizon scanning on the area of honey authenticity to further facilitate the provision of advice to UK Government on this topic

• Capability building: the review highlights particular projects the Government Chemist team worked on to be ready for future challenges. In this review, the ongoing work related to food allergy topics, and CBD and controlled cannabinoids is described

• Knowledge sharing activities to further the impact of the referee and advisory functions: the review highlights some of the knowledge sharing activities undertaken by the team to ensure that the breadth of knowledge generated through the Government Chemist’s programme reaches its target audiences.

Purpose of assessment
This assessment is intended to support the FSA in understanding changes in the food system related to the COVID-19 pandemic, as they relate to the FSA mission. It is limited in scope to understanding the implications for the work of the FSA and so does not consider the wider societal impacts. It builds on key findings from existing research and analysis undertaken throughout the period of the pandemic.

Key Judgements
1. Behaviour changes brought about by COVID-19 restrictions and health practices are likely to have led to a temporary drop in the incidence of some food borne diseases (para 1).
2. The adoption of an increasing range of online platforms by consumers and food businesses during the pandemic will almost certainly remain and present challenges to food regulation and its enforcement (paras 2-4).
3. It is highly likely that people’s lives when it comes to food have become increasingly varied and will continue to present a more diverse risk environment for the FSA to deal with after the pandemic. This is particularly driven by the longterm trend towards increasing food insecurity (exacerbated by COVID-19) and the underlying economic divergence (paras 5-12).
4. There is almost certainly an increased appetite for government intervention to ensure food safety and availability. This is not universal, but experiences during the pandemic are likely to have shifted public attitudes, presenting an opportunity for interventions (paras 13-14).
5. Although there is likely to be increased vulnerability to food crime in some consumer groups due to COVID-19 related changes, there is very little evidence of this being exploited (paras 15-17).
6. The response to the pandemic forced a reconfiguration of FSA activities, leading to changes in working practices, and a renewed focus on intelligence and risk led activities (paras 18-21).

Read full board paper.

 This independent report, published on 15 July 2021, looks at the entire food chain, from field to fork. This includes production, marketing, processing, sale and purchase of food (for consumption in the home and out of it). It also looks at the consumer practices, resources and institutions involved in these processes. Part one of this independent report was published in July 2020.

The review was led by Henry Dimbleby supported by an advisory panel and Defra officials. Henry Dimbleby is co-founder of Leon restaurants, the lead non-executive director at Defra and co-author of The School Food Plan.

The strategic objectives of the plan are to:

1. Escape the junk food cycle to protect the NHS.
2. Reduce diet-related inequality.
3. Make the best use of our land.
4. Create a long-term shift in our food culture.

Fourteen recommendations have been put together, which are intended to create the kind of food system the people of this country say they want – and need:

• Recommendation 1. Introduce a sugar and salt reformulation tax. Use some of the revenue to help get fresh fruit and vegetables to low income
  families
• Recommendation 2. Introduce mandatory reporting for large food companies
• Recommendation 3. Launch a new “Eat and Learn” initiative for schools
• Recommendation 4. Extend eligibility for free school meals
• Recommendation 5. Fund the Holiday Activities and Food programme for the next three years
• Recommendation 6. Expand the Healthy Start scheme
• Recommendation 7. Trial a “Community Eatwell” programme, supporting those on low incomes to improve their diets
• Recommendation 8. Guarantee the budget for agricultural payments until at least 2029 to help farmers transition to more sustainable land use
• Recommendation 9. Create a Rural Land Use Framework based on the Three Compartment Model 
• Recommendation 10. Define minimum standards for trade, and a mechanism for protecting them
• Recommendation 11. Invest £1 billion in innovation to create a better food system
• Recommendation 12. Create a National Food System Data programme
• Recommendation 13. Strengthen government procurement rules to ensure that taxpayer money is spent on healthy and sustainable food
• Recommendation 14. Set clear targets and bring in legislation for long-term change.

Next steps

Over the next six months, the Government will develop a Food Strategy White Paper informed by this independent review, the wider stakeholder community and other evidence. 

The Food and Drink Sector Council (FDSC) – a formal industry partnership with government – will publish its own vision for the future of the supply chain in September. This will focus upon key areas where the food chain can make a difference.

The International Association for Food Protection (IAFP) (https://www.foodprotection.org/) is one of the three largest food-related professional associations, with more than 4,500 individual food safety professionals focusing on “advancing food safety worldwide.” IAFP started in 1911 as the International Association of Dairy and Milk Inspectors. Their focus expanded to food sanitarians and the current, broader food protection focus. For those of you not familiar with the food industry, “The term public health sanitarian shall mean a person who applies the principles of the natural and social sciences for the detection, evaluation, control and management of those factors in the environment which influence the public’s health.” (reference)

IAFP also is the publisher of several scholarly journals, including the Journal of Food Protection and Food Protection Trends. “The Journal of Food Protection is the leading publication in the field of food microbiology and remains the premier journal dedicated to food safety.”

The IAFP Food Fraud Professional Development Group has published an “interest survey” to be completed by IAFP and PDG members, plus the public at large. We are reviewing our direction for 2021 and beyond. This survey is your opportunity to be heard and to help lead the direction of food fraud prevention.

The survey takes only a few minutes to complete. 

Link to the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FfPdg2021JulyIntroduction

QR code to the survey:

The Food Authenticity Network (FAN) is pleased to announce support from the Food Industry Intelligence Network (FIIN), an industry-led consortium which enables a collaborative and targeted approach to supply chain assurance.

Both FAN and FIIN were established in 2015 in response to the recommendations of the ‘Elliott Review’ to respectively, bring together global information on food authenticity testing and to create a ‘safe haven’ for industry members to collect, collate, analyse and disseminate information and intelligence to protect the interests of the consumer.

Helen Sisson, Industry Co-Chair of FIIN said, ‘’On behalf of the FIIN membership we are delighted to commit support for the Food Authenticity Network. One of the FIIN founding objectives is to ‘Help ensure the integrity of food supply chains and protect the interests of the consumer’. In order to support delivery of this objective effective authenticity testing, harnessing advances in analytical testing methodologies and identifying competence and capability in the testing arena is pivotal to FIIN succeeding in its goals. The Food Authenticity Network enhances FIIN with these additional capabilities and therefore our support is a natural extension of the FIIN evolution.’’

Selvarani Elahi MBE, UK Deputy Government Chemist and Executive Director, Food Authenticity Network, said: “I am very happy that FIIN has committed to supporting us as FAN and FIIN share many values and both seek to help secure global food supply chains. FIIN and its 48 food industry Members bring a wealth of invaluable global food industry experience to the Food Authenticity Network, and I definitely think we will be stronger by working together.”

Professor Chris Elliott OBE, Queen’s University Belfast and author of the ‘Elliott Report’¹ said: “I am delighted to see how two concepts that were crafted in the Elliott Review have flourished and become such successes. Both FIIN and FAN are unique initiatives with nothing quite like them elsewhere in the world. The challenges of combating food fraud are set to remain and potentially worsen. This collaboration strengthens our position to be able to better combat food fraud collectively and I am very excited to see what FIIN and FAN can achieve together.”

Horizon Europe Cluster 6 Work Programme 2021-2022 on Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment includes two proposed calls related to food authenticty:

• HORIZON-CL6-2022-FARM2FORK-01-04: Innovative solutions to prevent adulteration of food bearing quality labels: focus on organic food and geographical indications p199
• HORIZON-CL6-2022-FARM2FORK-01-11: Effective systems for authenticity and traceability in the food system p217

Further information can be found at: wp-9-food-bioeconomy-natural-resources-agriculture-and-environment_horizon-2021-2022_en.pdf (europa.eu)

The commission are also hosting a number of information days that run until 16 July for those who might be interested in preparing a proposal. Homepage | Horizon Europe Info Days 2021 (horizon-europe-infodays2021.eu)

This site also contains a document library under each topic with useful information.

For UK specific information visit: https://www.gov.uk/business-finance-support/horizon-2020-business-grants-uk

This study provides a preliminary quantitative and qualitative analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on European agriculture and the agri-food supply chain in light of the responses deployed by the European Union and its Member States to mitigate its effects.

KEY FINDINGS
• Overall, during the pandemic, the EU agri-food supply chain has demonstrated a high degree of resilience. The
value of the output of the agricultural industry declined by 1.4% in 2020 compared to 2019, although, when
compared to the 2015-2019 average, it grew by 2.9%. Nonetheless, sectors highly dependent on the food service
(e.g. wine, beef and veal) have faced major difficulties. Flowers and plants and sugar have also suffered
considerable financial losses.
• The EU response was highly effective in preserving the integrity of the Single market. Conversely, measures
adopted under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) had mixed results having been implemented partially or
inconsistently across Member States (MSs).
• The costs of the crisis for the EU agri-food sector will be borne primarily by MSs. National financial support - namely
in the form of State aids (estimated EUR 63.9 billion) and other instruments – has been significantly higher than
EU support (EUR 80 million in private storage aids).
• To better respond to future crises, policy responses should be designed following a ‘food systems approach’.
Moreover, the reasons behind the limited impact of CAP measures during the pandemic should be better
investigated. Consideration should also be given to the decoupling of the CAP crisis reserve from farmers’ direct
payments to reinforce EU financial capacity during crises. Finally, because of the economic consequences of the
pandemic, food assistance programmes for the most deprived are needed.

In March 2021, the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific published a booklet entitled “Food fraud – Intention, detection and management”. This concise resource explains the key aspects of food fraud, and discusses a set of measures that food safety authorities can take to stop food fraud. Among these, legal interventions combined with the use of new technologies are promising tools.

Examples of these interventions, such as adopting a definition for food fraud and implementing food standards as well as applying DNA barcoding and blockchain technology, are included in the booklet. Links are readily available in the booklet for those who wish to have greater know-how on the guidance on food labelling, technological interventions and food import and export certification systems provided by FAO and the Codex Alimentarius.

Download the publication:
FAO Food safety toolkit booklet 5 - Food fraud – Intention, detection and management

For more information:

• Handbook on food labelling to protect consumers
• Food for thought on food fraud. Development Law – Issue 1
• Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems. Discussion Paper on “Food Integrity and Food Authenticity”, CX/FICS 18/24/7
• Food safety page - FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific 

This report contextualises the topic of food fraud across Canada’s agri-food system and presents a novel intervention framework to Deter, Identify and Prosecute (DIP) food fraud.

In this context, deter refers to the strengthening of regulatory and legal deterrents. Identify refers to the
scientific methods to identify food fraud and prosecute refers to the ability to use
the scientific evidence as a basis to prosecute bad actors.

The authors believe that this novel framework captures and integrates the key components which are essential
to reducing the risk of food fraud in Canada.

Read full report.

Two men and one woman accused of being at the basis of Belgium’s biggest-ever food fraud have been sentenced by a court in Antwerp.

The three were among seven accused and four companies charged with using the insecticide Fipronil (flea control products for pets) in the cleaning of poultry farms. The pollution that was caused as a result led to the destruction of two million hens and 77 million eggs that were polluted with the chemical.

The court heard, that one of the accused failed to inform the poultry farmers of the contents of the product he was using, which was indeed effective in controlling pests, were it not for the small problem of contamination with a banned product. According to witnesses, he told prospective customers the product his company used was reinforced with menthol and eucalyptus.

Read full article here.

The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) has published its May 2021 Food Fraud Monthly Summary reporting food fraud incidents and investigations from around the world.

Food fraud cases reported in May:

• Honey
• Royal jelly
• Herbs
• Spices
• Fish
• Fish products
• Bivalve molluscs and products thereof
• Fats
• Oils
• Meat
• Meat products
• Alcoholic beverages
• Fish
• Fish products
• Fruit
• Vegetables, and other.

Thanks again to our Member Bruno Séchet for creating this infographic and allowing us to share it with the rest of the Network.

You can download the April 2021 Summary here

Your business’s culture is its ‘DNA’. It represents the unique way it operates; ‘How we do things around here’. It’s what diff erentiates your business and defines its values. Leaders set the tone for this culture and, in this sense, leadership is the dynamic way that each organisation is led by either an individual or group (eg, board or management).

Dishonesty within any business, be it internal or external, can result from many factors. One factor that is often overlooked is leadership – not in the sense of governance but as a key dynamic impacting culture and therefore engagement. Engagement is key. Failing to instil the right culture can lead to heightened risk of employee disenchantment, which can present itself in many ways – from simple acts of ignorance through to dishonest activity. It is often cited that pressure initiates symptoms that lead to dishonest behaviour. Pressure can encourage employees to act dishonestly as they use it to rationalise their conduct. That is the traditional fraud triangle.¹

However, in all sectors, we overlook how pressure is associated with fraud and is directly attributable to leadership.

Read full article.

The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) has published its March 2021 Food Fraud Monthly Summary reporting food fraud incidents and investigations from around the world. 

Thanks again to our Member Bruno Séchet for creating this infographic and allowing us to share it with the rest of the Network

Read the March 2021 Summary here

Food crime is a key threat to food companies and consumers around the world. The cost to the global food industry for food fraud (which is only one type of crime) has been estimated at around EUR 30 billion every year, according to a 2018 report by the European Commission.

Many companies are making important efforts to reduce and prevent crime from happening across the supply chain and protect their customers and consumers everywhere.

In order to help the food sector to continue strengthening its efforts in preventing food crime, SSAFE has partnered with five leading experts to develop a free educational video series. Dr. John Spink, Dr. Chris Elliott, Dr. Wim Huisman, Jason Bashura and Neal Fredrickson take us on a journey through the world of food fraud, food defence and food integrity – what it is, what the issues are, what is being done, and what can be done in the future in order to help reduce and prevent food crime from occurring.

“Throughout history food crime has been a serious problem” says Adrian Sharp, President of SSAFE. “Working together with some of the best leading experts in the world on food fraud, food defence and food integrity SSAFE continues to help increase awareness and strengthen the food supply chain across the world. This lecture series should be very helpful and informative in helping the food industry, from farm to fork, reduce food crime for a better future.”

This free video series, which can be accessed through the SSAFE website (www.ssafe-food.org), will help people working across the food sector better understand what food crime is, the different types of crime that may occur, and what a food business can do about it. Through a broad series of short videos these global experts share their decades worth of knowledge and experience to help strengthen food supply around the world.

Dr. Chris Elliott says “The SSAFE Food Crime Prevention Series is the first of its kind and I hope that both industry and government agencies will find the videos informative and helpful in combatting the growing menace of criminal activity in our global food system.”

This video series complements other important tools from SSAFE such as the Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment tool developed in 2016 available through the 'Tools' page of the Food Authenticity Network's Food Fraud Mitigation section. This tool (available for free in ten languages) enables any food company to self-assess their vulnerability to food fraud. The tool has been a great success with 40,000+ downloads and more than 7,500 online assessments completed across 70+ countries.

In addition to these tools, SSAFE will be launching a free Food Safety Culture assessment tool this summer. Please visit the SSAFE website next month (April 2021) for further information.

The SSAFE Food Crime Prevention Lecture Series has also been added to the 'Guidance' page of the Food Authenticity Network's Food Fraud Mitigation section.

Over a quarter of consumers actively stated that they distrust government authorities and manufacturers (29% and 26% respectively) found the EIT #FoodTrustReport.

What's damaging consumer trust? Anthony Warner - known as The Angry Chef - says: "there's too much information [about food choices]. It's all very confusing."

In this episode of #EITFoodFight, he and Liesbet Vranken explore:

➡️ Food marketing and health claims like 'detox'
➡️ The role of social media influencers
➡️ Where consumers can get trustworthy information.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has published a report on fish species substitution surveillance.

Fish filets in fresh, frozen, dried, or salted format were collected to determine if the common name was accurately represented in relation to the species of fish. CFIA inspectors collected fish samples at domestic processors, importers and retail establishments (fish packaged at retail). The Ministère de l'Agriculture, Pêcheries et l'Alimentation du Québec (MAPAQ) collected retail samples in Québec. From April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020, 362 samples were collected from across Canada.

The samples were tested at a CFIA laboratory using DNA-based fish species identification testing. This method compares DNA of samples against DNA barcode sequences for known fish species contained in a database.

The results showed that 92% of the samples tested were assessed as being satisfactory.

Read full report.