You are here: Home / Blog

by

Honey Fraud This Month: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Honey authenticity is all over the (food fraud) news this month.  There’s good news.  And bad.

Here’s what’s happening in honey fraud right now, from Karen Constable of authenticfood.co and Food Fraud Advisors.

 

 

Video transcript:

(Karen Constable) “It’s been a tough year for honey.  There has been lots of commentary about food fraud in honey, following a big recall in the UK at the end of last year and controversy over honey testing methods.  It’s never good to hear about food fraud issues, but there is a silver lining.

The Good

The Canadian government last year committed to spending more than $20 million on food fraud testing and intelligence gathering over a five year period.  Honey is one food product that has been chosen for surveillance by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The CFIA published their honey surveillance results this month and guess what?! Authenticity is up and food fraud is down compared to last year.

The CFIA sampled both the marketplace at large and also a number of bulk honey importers and processors that were deemed to be high risk.  Only 13% of samples were deemed not-authentic, compared to 22% the previous year.  That’s a significant improvement!

The CFIA used the results of their previous honey surveillance work to design a targeted sampling plan.  Those samples that they targeted had risk factors such as a history of non-compliance, known preventive controls deficits and unusual trading patterns.  This type of targeting sampling, in which previous results are used to focus on known problem areas, is a great way to maximise the value of authenticity testing (which can be expensive).  Way to go, Canadia! (PS for more on sampling methodology, click here)

Of those samples collected from the marketplace (that is, without being targeted towards high-risk products), 98% were authentic and the only products that had ‘unsatisfactory results’ were imported products.

So testing = good.  For my food safety viewers, it’s worth noting that – unlike micro testing – food authenticity testing can not only provide valuable insights into the occurrence of food fraud but also helps to prevent it.  The fact that someone is paying attention, and doing testing can effectively drive reductions in fraud, as we have seen with the Canadian honey testing regime.  My prediction is that next year’s surveillance will have even better results than this year’s.  And that’s something to be happy about!

The Bad

The Canadian government isn’t the only one that’s been testing honey this year.  The Indian Centre for Science and Environment and a government-funded institute in the Philippines have also published honey testing results this month.

In the Philippines, a survey of 74 locally-produced honeys purchased online found that 87% of them contained sugar syrup.  Ie rendering them NOT authentic honey.  More than 80% of these products actually contained no honey at all and were just made from sugar syrup.

These are some of the worst authenticity statistics that I have ever seen!

Local products purchased in brick and mortar stores fared a little better in this study, but the results were still bad, with around 75% of samples containing adulterant(s). Interestingly, in the Philippines, imported honeys performed significantly better than the locally-produced honeys, the opposite of what was seen in Canada.

So those results were pretty bad, but it is good to see authenticity testing being done in the public arena more frequently than in the past.

The Ugly

Yep, this is really ugly.

There’s testing and then there’s testing….

India is another country that is funding food adulteration prevention. And, of course, that’s a good thing.  And they are testing honey.

However, like many countries, India’s legal definition of honey is based on the chemical signature of the sugars in the product, which is verified using C3 and C4 testing.

In December, The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE, India) reported a very high proportion of ‘inauthentic’ honeys in a survey that made use of both C3/C4 tests and more sophisticated testing that makes use of NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) analysis.   Some honeys passed the C3/C4 tests but ‘failed’ the NMR tests.

Investigators from CSE claim this is due to the products being made with special syrups that are designed to ‘trick’ the C3/C4 tests. They allege that these syrups can be purchased cheaply via online trade portals.  The syrups are apparently marketed as “all pass” syrups because the suppliers claim they can pass the Indian government’s authenticity tests.

The CSE say that their own testing has confirmed that samples containing up to 50 percent of “all pass” syrup pass the tests.

Wrap up

There’s big money to be made from food fraud, as I have said before.  I have even heard it said that olive oil fraud is 3 times more profitable than smuggling cocaine – as well as being much less risky. (I haven’t been able to find the original source of that comment, I heard it at a food fraud conference in 2017).  And where there is money to be made, criminals will find ways to cheat the system.

Sadly, worldwide volumes of honey production are way down and predicted to fall even further due to climate change and bee colony diseases. That makes genuine honey more scarce, more valuable and, as a result, more profitable to fake.  Honey fraud is – unfortunately – here to stay.

My hope is that organisations like the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the CSE in India continue to keep the pressure on honey fraudsters. Let’s keep making their lives hell!”

 

 

 

 

 

by

The Cost of Deception (the not-so-sweet-story of an ice cream company’s food fraud)

Food fraud takes many forms.  When a food company makes deceptive claims about its products to gain an economic advantage, that is food fraud.  The American company Blue Bell Creameries created a deadly food fraud incident in 2015.  Now the former president is facing a grand jury and potential jail time over his role in the affair.

At a glance:

  • Blue Bell and its former president have been accused of covering up food safety problems.
  • Three people died and at least 10 more were sickened by dangerous bacteria after eating Blue Bell ice cream.
  • After authorities stepped in, the company had to shut down production, lay off a third of its workforce and risked liquidation.
  • The former president of the company is facing a grand jury on fraud charges and, if found guilty, could be jailed.
  • The company has already paid fines and penalties totaling more than $19 million.

Blue Bell Creameries is one of America’s largest ice cream manufacturers.  Early in 2015, Texan authorities notified Blue Bell that two of its products contained a dangerous bacterium: Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria isn’t your average run-of-the-mill food poisoning bacterium; it has a high mortality rate in vulnerable populations, affects pregnant mothers and older people severely, causes miscarriages, stillbirths and deaths.  The other scary thing about Listeria is that it survives – even thrives – in low temperatures.  Like in ice cream.

For an ice cream company, finding Listeria in your product is a terrible thing.  Your consumers are in danger and should be protected at all costs.  All the affected product should be immediately recalled from the marketplace, customers should be informed of the problems, consumers should be told to discard the food, more testing should be done to see how many other products are affected and manufacturing should be halted until the source of the contamination has been found and eliminated.  As you might imagine, the costs to the company can be astronomical.  Worse still, the damage to a brand from having to tell consumers that there is a dangerous pathogen in your food can be severe.

In February 2015, Blue Bell knew there was Listeria in its products.  Yet it did not tell its customers.  Instead, it’s alleged that Blue Bell’s president, Paul Kruse, chose to cover up the Listeria problem.  He allegedly directed that the Listeria testing program be discontinued. He did not immediately initiate a recall, despite supposedly telling authorities that one was underway.   He put consumers at risk.  Three people died and at least 10 became ill from the Blue Bell outbreak.  Paul Kruse has been charged with seven counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and will be appearing before a grand jury in Texas next week.  If found guilty he could be jailed.

A recall did eventually get underway, in April 2015.  Consumers were alerted, the company had to shut down production, resulting in mass lay offs and causing liquidity problems.

The company has already pleaded guilty to distributing adulterated food products.  It was sentenced to pay criminal penalties of $17.25 million.  Separate civil claims have been paid out by Blue Bell after shareholders and customers, including the American military, alleged that the ice cream was manufactured in unsanitary conditions and that management paid little regard to food safety ‘red flags’.  The total monies paid in fines, forfeits and civil settlements amount to $19.35 million, the second largest amount paid for a food safety matter.

Often, when people talk about food fraud, they focus on adulteration, like ‘fake’ honey made from sugar water.  But food fraud takes many forms.  In the case of the deadly Blue Bell Listeria Outbreak, it can come at a high cost to the perpetrators and an even higher cost to consumers.

by

Nutraceuticals; a growing risk

A nutraceutical is a food or food component that is designed to provide health benefits when ingested.  The term is derived from the words nutrition and pharmaceutical.  Nutraceuticals may claim to promote health, prevent and even treat disease.  Nutraceuticals are big business; their global sales volume is estimated to be more than $382 billion in 2019.  Demand for nutraceuticals is at an all time high and growing year on year as the idea of ‘nutrition for health’ becomes more popular.

Both consumers and businesses purchase nutraceuticals; consumers buy supplements to add to food or as stand-alone pills, powders and tonics.  Businesses purchase nutraceuticals to add to the food and beverage products that they manufacture.  Nutraceuticals are also used in personal care products like face creams and in animal feed.

Nutraceuticals are not regulated in the same way as pharmaceuticals, so their claimed benefits do not necessarily have to be proven.  In many countries, they are not covered by food laws either.  As a result, nutraceuticals receive minimal regulatory oversight in many countries, including the USA.

Nutraceuticals are big business with a large global market and fast-growing demand

Fraud in nutraceuticals

Nutraceuticals are a good target for food fraud because of their high prices and high demand.  They are manufactured from specialist agricultural commodities that are often only produced in one or two locations worldwide.  As a result their global supply chains can be complicated.

Fraud in pharmaceuticals can take the form of:

  • Adulteration or dilution
  • Counterfeiting
  • Diversion and grey market

Adulteration and dilution

Adulteration and dilution fraud occurs when the claimed active ingredient is not present in the quantities that are declared by the manufacturer.  Sometimes, the ‘correct’ ingredients are replaced with cheaper ingredients that do not have the functional properties of the genuine ingredients.

Adulteration fraud is thought to occur often in nutraceuticals.  A survey of raw botanical plant parts and powders in the USA found 53% of them contained plant material that did not match the label.   In a separate study, cranberry extracts were found to have been adulterated with cheaper and more abundant grape seed extracts.  A range of aloe vera products contained no evidence of aloe vera ingredients at all.

Adulteration also takes a more insidious form, when fraudsters add extra functional ingredients without declaring them on the label.  This can put consumers’ lives at risk.  The fraud is usually perpetrated to boost the efficacy of nutraceuticals that are claimed to be natural.  For example, grapefruit seed extract, a dietary supplement that is said to have natural antimicrobial properties has been found to contain undeclared added chemical biocides such as benzylkonium chloride, methyl paraben and triclosan.  The biocides are added to mimic or increase the antimicrobial properties of the grapefruit seed.

Adulteration with pharmaceutical drugs also occurs.  Supplements for body-building and weight loss have been spiked with drugs that enhance their effects.  In 2017, the US FDA warned consumers  that body building supplements sometimes contain undeclared and illegal selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMS), which mimic the effects of testosterone.  Liver injuries and other serious side-effects occurred in people who took the so-called ‘natural’ supplements.

A 2019 study conducted in The Netherlands found 64% of supplements contained pharmacologically active substances or plant toxins such as caffeine or ephedrine.

Counterfeiting

Counterfeiting is the copying of a product by an entity other than the brand owner, so that it appears exactly the same as the legitimate product.  Counterfeited supplements may be produced in unlicensed facilities under unhygienic conditions.  They may contain less of the functional ingredients than the authentic product, or perhaps none at all.

Diversion of nutraceuticals. 1. The manufacturer sells their product into multiple countries at different price points. 2. A wholesaler in a lower-price-tier country purchases bulk quantities. 3. The wholesaler diverts the product from authorised sales channels in their own country to sell the product into markets with higher prices.

Diversion and Grey Market Fraud

Diversion and grey market fraud occurs when goods are directed away from their expected supply chain, being sold to places unintended by the brand owner.  This can be profitable if, for example, a product is sold at a higher price in one country but a lower price in another.

Distributors or importers of a nutraceutical can participate in diversion if they purchase more than they expect to sell through legitimate channels, obtaining a bulk quantity discount in the process.  The excess stock can then be sold to discount outlets or individuals who sell it on the internet or other channels that have not been authorised by the brand owner.

Products that have been diverted may be expired (past ‘best before’) or may have been held in conditions such as hot warehouses that degrade the product, causing it to lose its potency.

 

Protection from fakes and diversions

Manufacturers can protect their brands from counterfeiting and grey market sales by adding anti-counterfeiting features to product packaging.  The features can be overt or convert. Often a combination of both overt and covert features is used.

Overt brand protection features are obvious to the consumers.  They include holograms, tamper-evident labels, seals and stickers.  Overt brand protection features are used to provide consumers with a sense of safety and trust in the brand. Unfortunately, counterfeiters can easily copy overt features.

QR codes and bar codes can be added to packages so that purchasers can check the authenticity of the product.  However, barcodes and QR codes can be copied by counterfeiters.  Unless the QR or bar code is unique to a single batch or single product, then anyone who checks a counterfeit product that carries a copied bar code or QR code will be fooled into thinking it is legitimate.

Covert brand protection features are designed to be invisible.  They often require special scanners for reading and verification.  They can include fluorescing inks that can be read only under invisible wavelengths of light.  Chemically unique inks can be customised for a single manufacturer so that they are difficult for counterfeiters to reverse engineer.  These are called ‘taggant inks’.

Covert features are most useful for brand owners when they need to investigate a problem with product; they reveal whether the problematic product is genuine or not. They can also be used to find counterfeit products in authorised sales outlets and trace products that have been diverted.

Unique, serialised product identification codes provide an extra layer of protection.  Each product or product batch carries a different code.  The codes can be scanned by distributors, retailers and consumers to provide assurance that the product is authentic.

Protection from counterfeits and diversions using digital authentication. The product is marked with a unique code that can be scanned by distributors, retailers and consumers.  The code is checked against digital product information to check its authenticity.

Digital authentication as a protection against nutraceutical fraud. The product is marked with a unique code that can be scanned by distributors, retailers and consumers. The code is checked against digital product information to check its authenticity.

 

When the unique identifier is scanned, the brand owner can find out where the product is geographically located.  If that does not match the expected location of that product within the authorised supply chain that could signal diversion.  Likewise, if a single ‘unique’ barcode or QR code is scanned by multiple consumers that would indicate fakes in the market; counterfeiters have copied one code and applied it to whole batches of product.

One company to have benefitted from such a system is Windmill, a well-known Dutch brand of potato starch.  The company claims that its products were affected ‘up to 50%’ by counterfeits and look-alikes in overseas markets until it implemented digital security features including a unique ID code on each pack.  The code allows the purchaser to confirm authenticity, while the act of checking provides the brand owner with “valuable data… which can be used to make the entire supply chain more transparent and to generate crucial market insights.”

Nutraceuticals are high value products with complex global supply chains, making them an attractive target for food fraud.  Brand owners have been caught manufacturing and supplying products that contain less than the amount of functional ingredients.  Other brands have been found to contain undeclared pharmacological components, which can be dangerous. Diversion and counterfeiting of legitimate product also affects nutraceuticals.  With growing global demand for nutraceuticals, consumers and businesses alike need to be on the look out for food fraud in this sector.

by

Organic Food Fraud in 2020

Twelve million dollars buys a lot of raspberries. Even if they are organic. In August 2019, a $12m shipment of (supposedly) organic raspberries was intercepted at the Chilean border, as they were being exported to Canada. They were accompanied by fake organic declarations and fraudulent paperwork claiming they were grown in Chile.

It was an all too common occurrence; organic food fraud, committed by criminals to profit from the higher prices consumers will pay for organic, “clean” produce. The raspberries were not grown in Chile; they had been shipped all the way from China; imported to Chile so the fraudsters could pretend they were locally grown.

And they were not organic.

Organic berries are vulnerable to food fraud

 

Sales of organic food have increased since the global corona virus pandemic started. Sales in the USA were up 50% in March 2020. An Organic Trade Association poll of “likely organic shoppers” found 90% of respondents think buying organic has become more important because of the virus, presumably because of an increased focus on health and healthy eating.

Sales of organic food are increasing year on year. In 2019, American consumers bought $55.1 billion worth of organic food, up on the previous year by 4.6% .

As organic food becomes ever-more popular, frauds like the raspberry heist are becoming more common. It is impossible for a consumer to know whether food is authentically organic or not. This makes organic fraud easy for criminals to get away with. Organic foods are one of the food types most frequently affected by food fraud, according to the Decernis Food Fraud Database.

The good news for the USA is that after many years of criticism of its organic program, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is making a visible effort to reduce fraud in the organic supply chain.  In fact, they are proposing new rules that aim to strengthen control systems, improve traceability for organic produce, and increase enforcement of the USDA organic regulations.

Organic peas vegetable pesticide
Organic foods and food fraud are like two (freshly picked) peas in a pod.

How to protect your business from organic fraud

If you have a food business that buys or sells organic food, you are at risk, now more than ever. Global supply chains have been disrupted by the pandemic and these disruptions mean many suppliers are struggling to deliver foods that meet specifications. It is tempting for wholesalers and distributors to substitute conventionally-grown produce for organic to make extra profits, or simply to allow them to fulfill customers’ orders.

Step 1: Become aware

Don’t be blind to the risks. Organic fraud happens more often than most people realise. Would you be able to tell the difference between an organic raspberry and a conventionally grown raspberry? Probably not. If criminals in Chile found it profitable to transport fake organic raspberries right across the globe before the pandemic, you can bet they are even more motivated to perpetrate fraud in the current economic climate.

Step 2: Educate yourself

If you own a food business, educate yourself about the risks. Learn about organic fraud; how it is perpetrated, what it looks like.

Michigan State University and the USA Organic Trade Association have published a free online course in Organic Fraud Prevention. It is US-centric but contains fraud detection and prevention strategies that can be applied anywhere.

Step 3: Assess your ingredients and products

Make a list of the organic food ingredients or food products that your business purchases. For each item on the list, ask yourself the question: “Can I be sure this is really organic?”.

Right now, you probably rely on verbal assurances from suppliers or pretty logos on packaging or invoices. That’s a fool’s game.

Instead, seek proper documentation from suppliers: request copies of organic certificates and cross-check them against invoices and labels. Or take a minute to research the certifications and logos on labels. All reputable organic certification bodies maintain a list of certified products or suppliers that you can check online. If the product or grower has a genuine organic certification, you will find it listed on the certification body’s website.

Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for food companies to use organic logos without having the proper certifications.  Always check.

You can also check the list of fraudulent certificates on the USDA organic program website.

If your business operates a food safety program it should already have a food fraud vulnerability assessment.  Review that assessment.  All organic foods should be rated as “vulnerable” in the vulnerability assessment and they must have appropriate mitigation strategies applied to reduce the risks.

Step 4; Take steps to reduce the risk

If you can’t be sure of the authenticity of the ingredients or products you are buying (and selling) you only have two choices:

(i) change your supplier to one with a properly certified organic program, or

(ii) stop making organic claims about the products you sell.

To do anything else puts you at risk of inadvertently committing food fraud, which is a criminal offence.

Consumers are buying more organic foods than ever before.  At the same time, the unstable global economy makes fraud more tempting and supply chain disruptions provide extra opportunities for criminals.  Organic food fraud puts your business and brands at risk.

Now is not the time for complacency; stay alert and keep your brands safe.

 

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

Influence of the COVID pandemic on food fraud

Is food fraud going to increase because of the pandemic?

Karen Constable of Food Fraud Advisors, thinks that it probably will.  Here’s why.

Food fraud is driven by the desire for economic gain.  Always.  That is the definition of food fraud. Someone who tampers with food for other reasons – say by adding poison to scare consumers – is not committing food fraud.  In the food industry we consider tampering for malicious purposes an issue of ‘food defense’ not food fraud.

So, food fraud perpetrators seek economic benefits when they commit fraud, which most commonly manifests as an attempt to receive more money when a food is sold.  As an example, if a seller of ground turmeric adds a small amount of bright yellow lead chromate to a sack of poor quality turmeric, the brighter colour might mean that he receives more money than he would for a sack of pure, low-grade turmeric.  He gains a direct financial benefit when he commits that type of food fraud.

In addition to direct economic gains, there are less direct methods that criminals use to derive financial rewards from food fraud, such as by avoiding taxes and duties, or by acting dishonestly to fulfill customer orders so as not to lose their business.

One such fraud occurred in Canada in 2013 and 2014 when a fresh produce supplier was unable to source locally-grown cucumbers for their customers.  They instead purchased cucumbers from Mexico and relabelled the cartons with ‘Product of Canada’ before dispatch.  The company was later fined $1.5 million by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and a further $3.2 million by the The Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers association.

In addition to the desire for economic benefits, for fraud to occur there also needs to be opportunity.  Current events in the global food market and in the wider economy are increasing both the desire for economic gains and also the number of opportunities to commit food fraud.

Direct economic pressures on food sellers

In 2020, most parts of the world are facing extreme economic downturns.  The economic situation arising from the pandemic can reasonably be expected to increase criminals’ motivation to commit food fraud for the purpose of increasing profits directly.  In addition, we are already experiencing shortages in supply chains that will result in food suppliers experiencing extra pressure to deliver products to their customers.  As a result, it is reasonable to expect that there may be an increase in frauds committed for the purpose of retaining existing customers, or even gaining new ones, by supplying goods that are not easily available.  Companies may be tempted to take short cuts or turn a blind eye to things that do not appear quite right when they source food and ingredients.

Food manufacturers are under pressure during the pandemic

 

Increased opportunities for criminals

Disruptions in food supply chains caused by the pandemic have provided new food fraud opportunities for criminals.  These new opportunities can be organised into three loose groups; excess products, reduction in oversight and changed buying patterns.

Local oversupply of certain food types

Unusual excesses of supply have affected numerous food types and sectors since the pandemic began.  Examples include an overabundance of keg-beer in Australia, that was not consumed because bars were closed;  a glut of live pigs in the United States after pork processors shut down; excess quantities of milk that had to be dumped by dairy farmers.  In the United Kingdom, suppliers are concerned with an oversupply of expensive cuts of meat that would usually be consumed in restaurants or special family events; consumers are instead buying cheaper cuts to cook at home, leaving the more expensive parts of the animal unpurchased.

Wherever there are unusual patterns of oversupply, there are opportunities for fraud perpetrators to make use of the cheap and readily available excess foods for fraudulent purposes.  One such fraud of this type has occurred in the United Kingdom in recent years, where cheap, abundant beef has been used to replace some or all of the lamb in dishes sold by food service outlets.

Challenges with oversight

The pandemic has, to date, had a massive impact on the ability of governments and private entities to inspect, audit and test food for authenticity and safety.  Lockdown and social isolation rules have prevented audits and inspections, while economic factors have led to cuts in funding and staffing levels in inspection agencies.  In Europe, there have been changes to food, veterinary and phytosanitary inspections.  In the United States a consumer group has claimed that the Department of Agriculture’s new rules for swine fever inspections are inadequate to protect humans.  There have also been reports of problems at ports in Europe that have affected inspection protocols.

Within the food manufacturing sector, businesses are struggling to operate properly due to stay-at-home rules, which have affected staffing levels.  Reductions in on-site staff numbers can hamper a manufacturer’s ability to inspect incoming materials or to properly assess new suppliers for their food fraud and food safety risks.  In the longer term, cost-cutting measures in economically impacted businesses may reduce their ability to perform food authenticity testing, which can be expensive compared to other food tests.  Together, the reduction in personnel resources and authenticity testing leaves manufacturers more vulnerable to inadvertently purchasing and using fraudulent food ingredients.

Purchasing behaviour

The pandemic has resulted in significant changes to purchasing behaviour across the whole food supply chain.  Online retail food purchases have increased sharply in the first half of 2020.  Food sold online has frequently been accused of being less safe and subject to less oversight than food sold in ‘brick and mortar’ stores.  In May 2020, online-sold curry was recalled in Britain after it was found to be adulterated with an illegal dye.  In the same month, consumer group Which reported that it had found banned childrens’ foods for sale on Amazon.

Some food types have experienced a sudden and unexpected jump in demand.  In March 2020, Nestle reported its best sales growth in five years, as more people purchased food to cook and eat at home.  Hersheys reported a doubling of its e-commerce sales for March 2020.  The defence forces in South Africa experienced an unexpected demand for soldiers’ ration packs, which were needed as personnel were deployed to assist with infection control efforts.  That sudden demand might have contributed to a reported incidence of expiry date tampering that affected ration packs for South African soldiers.

There is evidence that the pandemic’s effect on global supply chains has already changed attitudes to importing and exporting food, with local food being favoured by both consumers and governments.  This has been termed ‘food trade nationalism’.  Such nationalism might provide more incentive for criminals to fraudulently mis-represent imported produce as being locally grown or produced.

Food trade nationalism is a risk to importers and exporters and may increase the likelihood of fraudulent mis-representation of geographical origin of some foods

 

It is also reasonable to expect that the current economic and trade environment will result in governments expanding food subsidy schemes to help protect staple foods in developing countries.  Subsidy schemes can be defrauded by corrupt food producers, such as occurred with some fruit growers in Sicily in 2017 and with shrimp export subsidy scams in China in 2015 and 2016.  Investigators have already uncovered corruption related to the pandemic in Uganda, where government officials were arrested over fraudulent activities related to procurement of maize flour and beans for COVID food relief.

What’s the good news?

The good news is that producers, governments and not-for-profit organisations are working together to get excess food to people who need it.  Ohio dairy farmers are turning their excess milk into cheese for charities; the USDA is purchasing unwanted vegetables from farmers for donation to food banks and New York has donated money to food banks to purchase cheese, yoghurt and butter made from excess milk.   In Boston, a brewery is using its unwanted beer to make enough ethanol-based hand sanitizer to clean five-hundred thousand hands every week.

Hand hygiene awareness has improved dramatically and food safety experts hope that this will result in long term improvements in hand washing compliance in the food and health care industries.

There are now improved online training options and technology-enabled remote audit options for businesses located outside of major cities and towns, making life easier for our country colleagues.

Finally, food safety culture leaders have been applauding the renewed calls for rules that grant paid sick leave for food handlers, in those jurisdictions where such protections are not yet in place.

What can you do?

Food businesses are at increased risk from food fraud in these difficult times.  Food fraud criminals are more likely to target businesses that have less checks and systems in place, seeking out the ‘low hanging fruit’.  Therefore, even a small amount of increased vigilance and care can reduce the risk.  Now is the time to review food fraud vulnerability assessments and update mitigation plans.  Try these activities to help protect your business from food fraud:

  • Seek out (and properly check) extra approved suppliers for critical raw materials, ingredients and products.
  • Consider sourcing commodities that are used in your key ingredients; they could be used to provide to your suppliers if the suppliers experience problems with procurement.
  • Wherever possible, do not use the pandemic as an excuse to avoid performing internal audits or supplier audits.
  • Reassess your supply chain in light of the new economic climate, focussing on the people in the supply chain as well as the business entities. The aim is to identify suppliers that might be under financial pressure and people with a history of questionable business dealings.  Check business registers and publicly available information such as old newspaper articles for any mention of fraud, bankruptcy, court cases or prosecutions.
  • Consider creating a system that allows your employees to anonymously report suspicious activities within your business. This can help reduce the likelihood of theft of finished products or materials from within your own facility or the downstream supply chain.

Are you struggling with teleconference training?  Learn how to get your company’s old face-to-face training online, fast here.

by

Best pandemic resources for food businesses

food worker dressed in PPE for coronavirus
Interesting times for the international food industry

 

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, the international food industry faces a multitude of new challenges.  We are challenged by a new economic environment, we are challenged by rapidly changing patterns of supply and demand and we desperately want to keep our workers safe, while continuing to feed the people of the world.  Food Fraud Advisors wishes everyone well in these interesting times, and provides a collection of resources that we hope you will find helpful.

COVID’s Impacts on Food and Agricultural Supply Chains and Markets (July 2020)

The pandemic and associated economic impacts have affected global commodity markets worldwide.  Jayson Lusk (Purdue University), John D. Anderson (University of Arkansas) and dozens of co-contributors have authored a paper that dives deeply into the pandemic’s impacts on multiple sectors including food service, food retail, meat processing, labour supply issues, food waste, food security and consumer behaviour.  Published on 30 June, it is available to download for free from here: https://www.cast-science.org/publication/economic-impacts-of-covid-19-on-food-and-agricultural-markets/

Cleaning and sanitising chemicals

At the time of writing, there is no evidence that COVID-19 is transmissible via food.   This means that within a food business, surfaces that are in contact with FOOD (not surfaces that are contacted by people), can continue to be cleaned and sanitised using normal food industry best practices.   Surfaces that are contacted by people will need to be cleaned and decontaminated more frequently to protect workers and customers.  This recently published scholarly article provides good guidance about disinfectants that work well and those which don’t work so well for inactivating the novel coronavirus.

Inactivation of human coronaviruses with disinfectant agents
Kampf. G (2020), Potential role of inanimate surfaces for the spread of coronaviruses and their inactivation with disinfectant agents: “In a recent review on the persistence of human and veterinary coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces it was shown that human coronaviruses such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV) can persist on inanimate surfaces like metal, glass or plastic for up to 9 days. Some disinfectant agents effectively reduce coronavirus infectivity within 1 minute such 62%–71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite. Other compounds such as 0.05%–0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate are less effective.

Risk Assessments

Find useful information about risk assessments, contingency planning for production and hand washing, among other things, in this comprehensive article by Food Quality and Safety Magazine:

Corona Outbreak Lessons for the Food Industry

Contingency Planning and Pandemic Preparedness Checklist

The USA Food Industry Association (FMI) has curated a huge volume of useful resources on their website, including a pandemic preparedness checklist.  Find these resources here:

https://www.fmi.org/food-safety/coronavirus

Food Fraud in the COVID pandemic

It is highly likely that food fraud will increase during the pandemic and related economic downturn. Food fraud is driven by the desire for economic gain, which most commonly manifests as an attempt to receive more money when a food is sold.  In addition to direct economic gains, there are less direct methods that criminals use to derive financial rewards from food fraud, such as by avoiding taxes and duties, or by acting dishonestly to fulfill customer orders so as not to lose their business. For fraud to occur there also needs to be opportunity.  Current events in the global food market and in the wider economy are increasing both the desire for economic gains and also the number of opportunities to commit food fraud.  Read more about the influence of the pandemic on food fraud here.

Keeping your workers safe

Intertek Alchemy have created  a free video training course for front line food manufacturing workers to ensure they know how to:
• Mitigate the spread of the coronavirus
• Recognize symptoms and protect ourselves from respiratory illnesses
• Prevent transmission to others
https://www.alchemysystems.com/content/covid19-training-course/

Make your own custom hand washing poster

We all know the importance of washing hands correctly.  Posters can be good reminders, but they need to change frequently or they stop catching the attention of employees.  PosterMyWall has customisable handwashing poster templates so you can add your own twist to your next  order of hand washing posters.

Perhaps you have heard the advice to sing ‘Happy Birthday’ while you wash your hands to easily time the duration?  This fun free site allows you to quickly generate hand washing infographics based on your favourite song lyrics.

Learn new skills from home

Our online, on-demand training courses have helped thousands of food safety professionals learn about the risks posed by food fraud, and how to mitigate those risks.  Learn at your own pace, from the comfort of your own home.  If you or your company are short of cash right now, write to us for a hefty 50% discount on our courses.

write to us for 50% off our training courses