Introducing the Food Fraud Prevention Cycle (FFPC): A dynamic information management and strategic roadmap

Food authenticity and the interactions with human health and climate change

Food authenticity and fraud, as well as the interest in food traceability have become a topic of increasing interest not only for consumers but also for the research community and the food manufacturing industry. Food authenticity and fraud are becoming prevalent in both the food supply and value chains since ancient times where different issues (e.g., food spoilage during shipment and storage, mixing decay foods with fresh products) has resulted in foods that influence consumers health. The effect of climate change on the quality of food ingredients and products could also have the potential to influence food authenticity. However, this issue has not been considered. This article focused on the interactions between consumer health and the potential effects of climate change on food authenticity and fraud. The role of technology and development of risk management tools to mitigate these issues are also discussed. Where applicable papers that underline the links between the interactions of climate change, human health and food fraud were referenced.

Food Fraud Conceptualization: An Exploratory Study with Portuguese Consumers

Food fraud refers to deceptive practices conducted for economic gain, and incidents of such fraud are often reported in the media and scientific literature. However, little is known about how European consumers perceive food fraud. To address this gap, a study explored Portuguese consumers' knowledge and perceptions of food fraud using qualitative methods such as free word association and semi-structured interviews. For this research, 340 participants were recruited, providing 911 valid words, classified into categories, major categories, and dimensions. Differences between consumers' previous exposure to food fraud and sociodemographic characteristics were explored. Additionally, other thirty-six participants were selected and interviewed, following a semi-structured guide. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a thematic analysis procedure. The results suggest that Portuguese consumers view food fraud as a morally reprehensible deception and are aware of its causes and impacts. However, not all consumers know the different forms of food fraud or the types of products vulnerable to fraud. Among the most repeated words were "deception", "expiration date", and "falsification". Despite this food fraud awareness, most consumers believed they were not exposed to food fraud and stated that they do not conduct daily practices to reduce exposure to it. Following the chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests, significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were identified between participants exposed and not exposed to food fraud. The study also found that consumers with higher education and self-reported exposure to food fraud had a better understanding of the issue. This study provides insights for quantitative research on consumer perceptions and beliefs about food fraud to explore further vulnerable food categories and types of food fraud in real-world scenarios.

Food fraud threats in UK post-harvest seafood supply chains; an assessment of current vulnerabilities

Seafood fraud is commonly reported on food fraud databases and deceptive practices are highlighted by numerous studies, with impacts on the economy, health and marine conservation. Food fraud assessments are a widely accepted fraud mitigation and prevention activity undertaken to identify possible points of deception within a supply chain. This study aims to understand the food fraud vulnerability of post-harvest seafood supply chains in the UK and determine if there are differences according to commodity, supply chain node, business size and certification status. The SSAFE food fraud vulnerability assessment tool was used to assess 48 fraud factors relating to opportunities, motivations and controls. The analysis found seafood supply chains to have a medium vulnerability to food fraud, with the highest perceived vulnerability in technical opportunities. Certification status was a stronger determinant of vulnerability than any other factor, particularly in the level of controls, a factor that also indicated a higher perceived level of vulnerability in smaller companies and the food service industry. This paper also reviews historic food fraud trends in the sector to provide additional insights and the analysis indicates that certain areas of the supply chain, including uncertified prawn supply chains, salmon supply chains and food service companies, may be at higher risk of food fraud. This study conducts an in-depth examination of food fraud vulnerability relating to the UK and for seafood supply chains and contributes to a growing body of literature identifying areas of vulnerability and resilience to food related criminality within the global food system.

The 11 sins of seafood: Assessing a decade of food fraud reports in the global supply chain

Due to complex, valuable, and often extremely opaque supply chains, seafood is a commodity that has experienced a high prevalence of food fraud throughout the entirety of its logistics network. Fraud detection and prevention require an in-depth understanding of food supply chains and their vulnerabilities and risks so that food business operators, regulators, and other stakeholders can implement practical countermeasures. An analysis of historical criminality within a sector, product, or country is an important component and has not yet been conducted for the seafood sector. This study examines reported seafood fraud incidents from the European Union's Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, Decernis's Food Fraud Database, HorizonScan, and LexisNexis databases between January 01, 2010 and December 31, 2020. Illegal or unauthorized veterinary residues were found to be the most significant issue of concern, with most reports originating from farmed seafood in Vietnam, China, and India. For internationally traded goods, border inspections revealed a significant frequency of reports with fraudulent or insufficient documentation, indicating that deceptive practices are picked up at import or export but are occurring further down the supply chain. Practices such as species adulteration (excluding veterinary residues), species substitution, fishery substitution, catch method fraud, and illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing were less prevalent in the databases than evidenced in the scientific literature. The analysis demonstrates significant differences in outcomes depending on source and underlines a requirement for a standardized and rigorous dataset through which food fraud can be scrutinized to ensure enforcement, as well as industry and research resources are directed accurately. Practical Application: Levels of historic food fraud in a product, sector, supply chain node or geographic location provide an indication of historic criminality, the methods used and the location of reported frauds. This study provides an overview of historic levels of seafood fraud that can be used to inform seafood fraud prevention and mitigation activities by the food industry, regulators and other stakeholders.

Methods to perform risk-based inspections of food companies

Risk‐based monitoring programs are increasingly applied for cost‐effective monitoring of food safety. Such programs ideally consist of three steps: risk‐ranking, risk‐based inspections, and cost‐effective monitoring. Various methods have been described to perform the first step of risk‐based monitoring. However, once the risk‐ranking has been completed, identifying the hazard‐food combinations to monitor, the frequency of inspection needs to be established based on a prioritization of food business operators (FBOs). The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of methods available for risk‐based inspections. Literature shows that FBO's food safety compliance can be assessed based on company size, historical monitoring data, and socio‐economic factors influencing compliance behavior. Non‐compliance can either be intentional or unintentional. The latter can be assessed by evaluating the food safety culture of a company. Various models—ranging from qualitative (e.g., focus groups) to quantitative (e.g., scoring)—can be used for this purpose. These models usually include an evaluation of the organizational structure (e.g., management control, communication, commitment), the technical food safety environment (e.g., hygienic design, zoning), and employee characteristics (e.g., knowledge, risk awareness). Intentional non‐compliance can be assessed using food fraud vulnerability tools. These tools incorporate factors influencing the likelihood of food fraud at the company, that is, opportunity, motivation, and (lack of) control measures. The literature indicates that either self‐assessment tools or risk matrices are applied. There is no global consensus on the methods to apply for risk‐based inspections. Depending on time and budget available as well as preferred output, one of the presented methods may be applied for prioritizing FBOs.