You are here: Home / Archives for Learn

by

Food Fraud Online Training Course

Food fraud requirements of BRC, SQF, FSSC and other food safety standards

How to meet the food fraud prevention requirements of major food safety standards

This course will make audit preparation a breeze.  It contains step-by-step instructions, worked examples and downloadable templates to help you meet the food fraud requirements of all major food safety standards.

sqf edition 8 food fraud

 

  • Learn why food fraud prevention has been included food safety standards
  • Hear food fraud stories that will surprise you and learn ways to protect your business
  • Get step-by-step instructions for food fraud vulnerability assessments and food fraud mitigation plans, using real life examples
  • Download templates for vulnerability assessments, mitigation plans and food fraud prevention procedures
  • Proceed at your own pace; skip forward and back through the lessons, start and stop at your convenience*

The content is a mix of written words and short video clips, plus downloadable worked examples.

Ask the trainer a question at any time.

What’s included?

  • Food Fraud Commonly Affected Foods Ebook
  • Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment template
  • Food Fraud Prevention Procedure template
  • Food Fraud Mitigation Plan template
  • Vulnerability assessment document – worked example
  • Raw Material Specification template
  • Food Fraud Team Job Descriptions
  • Top tips for audit preparation
  • Special 40% discount code for use on www.foodfraudadvisors.com
  • Optional exam and Certificate of Competency

Duration: 3.5 hours

Visit our training academy today

* course is available for 6 months after commencement

by

What is the difference between food fraud and food defense?

What is the difference between food fraud and food defense?

The difference between food fraud and food defense is that food fraud is done to make money, while food defense relates to acts that are done to create harm.  Food fraud perpetrators do not seek to cause harm, they seek to increase profits or otherwise benefit financially, so we say food fraud is economically motivated.  Food defense attacks are done to cause harm to consumers and companies.

What is the difference between intentional adulteration and food defense?

Intentional adulteration is the act of contaminating a food product with the intention of causing harm to the people who eat the food.  Food defense is a broader term that includes protection against adulteration of food, but can also extend to protection of equipment, assets and workers in food businesses.

 

by

Vulnerability Assessments

What is a vulnerability assessment?

In the food industry, the term vulnerability assessment refers to a risk-assessment-style evaluation of a food’s vulnerability to food fraud.  Food fraud is deception, using food, for economic gain (Food Fraud Initiative, Michigan State University 2016).  Some organisations, particularly in the United States of America, use the phrase vulnerability assessment when referring to malicious attacks on food, such as those conducted for extortion, ideological reasons or terrorism. However those types of risks are issues of food defense rather than food fraud and those risks are not considered here.  To learn more about vulnerability assessments for food defense (intentional adulteration), click here.

A food fraud vulnerability assessment is a documented assessment that identifies vulnerabilities to food fraud and explains how those vulnerabilities were identified.

 

Why ‘vulnerability’ and not ‘risk’? 

A vulnerability assessment is slightly different to a risk assessment; risk is something that has occurred before and will occur again, it can be quantified using existing data.  A vulnerability is a weakness that can be exploited by someone or something who wishes to profit or intends harm.  A vulnerability can lead to a risk.  Because food fraud is difficult to estimate and quantify, we use the word vulnerability rather than risk.  In addition, using the word ‘vulnerability’ helps to minimise confusion in the food industry where risk assessments for food safety are commonly performed and well understood.

Why do a vulnerability assessment?

  1. To protect consumers: Food that is vulnerable to food fraud presents significant risks to consumers.  Food that is adulterated or diluted   [Read more…]

by

Authenticity testing – recommended frequency

Part 3 in our series about food fraud testing

Part 1: Food testing checklist

Part 2: How to design a food testing plan

Guidance on test frequencies:

When developing a food fraud testing plan, one of the biggest challenges is choosing the frequency of testing.  Food Fraud Advisors has developed these guidelines to use as a starting point.   They are not a definitive guide, always follow the advice of your analytical laboratory and specialists.

For any given material, the frequency of testing should be based on its susceptibility to food fraud.  Suggestions for five different types of materials (A, B, C, D) are described below. Test frequencies should be reviewed and adjusted on a regular basis. Frequencies can be decreased if results are consistently acceptable and increased if problems have occurred or if there are changes to the product or the supply chain.

Type A: a material known to be very susceptible to food fraud (eg. honey, white fish fillets) but for which no specific incidences have occurred within your supply chain and for which no intelligence related to your supply chain has been received.

Phase 1: test a sample from 5 out of 5 incoming batches from every supplier and/or geographical source. For agricultural materials, this sampling protocol should be repeated on a seasonal basis across the year. The aim is to build a picture of authenticity across the year for your suppliers. Progress to phase 2 if all the results from phase 1 have been satisfactory. If test results have revealed problems with authenticity, phase 1 should continue for the affected suppliers or places of origin. Suppliers with satisfactory results can progress to phase 2.

Phase 2: reduce the frequency of testing to one sample per 5 to 10 incoming batches, with the frequency based on your estimate of the ongoing risk. As in phase 1, materials with seasonal supply fluctuations should be tested over various seasons. Use the results from phase 2 to continue to add to the overall picture of authenticity for this material type within your supply chain. Continue until you have at least 10 results. Progress to phase 3 if all results are satisfactory.

Phase 3: is an ongoing maintenance phase. Aim to test one sample per 10 to 20 incoming batches as an ongoing protocol.

Type B: Material for which you have received specific intelligence related to authenticity that pertains to your supply chain.

Phase 1: focussing on the implicated products or ingredients, take samples from at least 5 incoming batches. If the material is non-homogenous – for example if it is in individual packages, or individual pieces rather than being a bulk liquid or powder – consider taking duplicate or triplicate samples from each incoming batch, if budget allows. If all of these samples ‘pass’ the tests, consider trying alternative test methods or test types. Move to phase 2 if all test results are satisfactory.

Phase 2: reduce the frequency of testing to one sample per 5 incoming batches. Continue this frequency of testing until your intelligence information and your test results are sufficient to suggest that the risks within your supply chain have passed. If the risk has abated, reduce the frequency to that of phase 3 for type A.

Type C: Moderately susceptible materials

Phase 1: test a sample from 1 of 5 to 10 incoming batches from every supplier and/or geographical source. For agricultural materials, this sampling protocol should be repeated on a seasonal basis across the year. The aim is to build a picture of authenticity across the year.  Continue until you have at least 5 results per supplier or geographical source. Progress to phase 2 if all the results from phase 1 have been satisfactory. If test results have revealed problems with authenticity, phase 1 should continue for the affected suppliers or places of origin. Suppliers with satisfactory results can progress to phase 2.

Phase 2: test one sample per 10 to 20 incoming batches with the frequency based on your estimate of risk. As in phase 1, materials with seasonal supply fluctuations should be tested over various seasons. Use the results from phase 2 to continue to add to the overall picture of authenticity for this material type. Continue until you have 5 results. Progress to phase 3 if all results are satisfactory.

Phase 3: If all results from phases 1 and 2 are satisfactory, the frequency of testing can be significantly reduced. One test per year per supplier should be adequate for most materials and suppliers.

Type D: Food products at risk of counterfeiting or suspected of being from illegitimate sources

A market surveillance sampling plan should be devised. Retail and/or wholesale sources in high risk markets should be targeted in addition to online marketplaces. Anonymous market ‘buyers’ could be engaged to obtain the samples. Buyers can be instructed to purchase a specific number of items per batch per outlet, or they can be instructed to inspect or photograph samples in situ. The amount of surveillance will depend on the brand owner’s tolerance of counterfeiting and the testing budget.  Products at high risk of counterfeiting are likely to need ongoing surveillance.  Food products that have been found to have entered marketplaces through theft, diversion or grey market channels can have their risk reduced by implementing controls within distribution chains.

Type E: low risk materials. If a food ingredient or product has been shown to be low risk in a food fraud vulnerability assessment then authenticity testing should not be required. If the material or supply chain has changed such that the material requires authenticity testing then its food fraud vulnerability should be re-classified to medium or high risk.

by

HACCP, VACCP and TACCP

HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point)  Pronounced ‘hassup’.  HACCP = food safety.

VACCP (Vulnerability Assessment Critical Control Point) Pronounced ‘vassup’.  VACCP = prevention of economically motivated food fraud.

TACCP (Threat Assessment Critical Control Point) Pronounced ‘tassup’.  TACCP = prevention of malicious threats to food, such as sabotage, extortion or terrorism.  This type of malicious threat is also referred to as Intentional Adulteration within the US Food Safety Modernization Act.

HACCP

HACCP is a set of principles designed to control and prevent food safety risks during food production.  The ideas of HACCP form the basis of every food safety management system standard that is in use today, including GFSI food safety standards.  HACCP is not owned or regulated by any organisation.  The principles of HACCP are codified (written down) by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which is part of the United Nations (UN), in a set of documents called the Codex Alimentarius , a latin phrase which translates to “Book of Food”.   The principles of HACCP are described in the Annex of the Codex document GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FOOD HYGIENE CAC/RCP 1-1969.  You can download a copy of the code of practice here and you can view the Annex containing the principles of HACCP here.


VACCP and TACCP

VACCP and TACCP are terms that emerged during the previous decade as standards agencies, government regulators and industry groups started considering methods to prevent food fraud and malicious tampering.  The acronymns are designed to leverage the food industry’s familiarity with HACCP.  However, the critical control ‘points’ in a VACCP and TACCP plan are, in fact, nothing like the ‘control points’ in a HACCP plan.  The control points in a HACCP plan are operational steps in a manufacturing process; the process is generally linear and the ‘control points’ are operational processes over which the food manufacturer can exercise direct control.

In contrast, the actions that are required to prevent deliberate tampering within a food supply chain do not sit comfortably on a linear set of operations.  The terms VACCP and TACCP are falling out of favour within the food fraud and food defense communities.  They are not referenced specifically within any of the GFSI food safety standards, nor within the USA’s FSMA.  It is much better practice to say “Vulnerabilities to food fraud” or “threats of malicious tampering”.

More acronyms demystified here.

Learn more about food fraud here.

Or start one of our online, on-demand training courses today.

food safety food fraud