Food Fraud: Truly Troubling Or Hyper Hysteria?

By Laurel Maloy, contributing writer, Food Online

Food fraud can be either economically motivated or intentionally malicious. Neither is comforting, but just exactly how at risk is the food-supply chain?

The idea that food fraud is just an import/export issue is a fallacy.  Predominantly, the cases we hear about occur overseas. However, increasingly, those looking to make more, and fraudulent, money are finding ways to exploit the chinks in our food-safety armor. The fact that everything, from unprocessed, raw ingredients to the finished product, often traverses oceans provides plenty of opportunity for intentional contamination or adulteration.

Food Fraud: It’s More Than Food Defense

Some of the most publicized incidents of fraud involved intentional contamination, such as the Tylenol incidents of 1982 and 1986. The deliberate tampering demonstrated the necessity for improved product protection. Johnson & Johnson has been fighting diligently to protect its brand due to a number of quality-control issues.  In 2010, the company was forced to recall 288 million items, of which 136 million were bottles of pain reliever and allergy liquids for infants and children.  Many of the company’s factories producing multiple product lines have been the subject of recalls due to both intentional and unintentional adulteration.

Those who say, “It can’t happen to my company,” may want to reassess that thought process. Johnson and Johnson executives most likely said the same thing… until it happened to them. It may be a good idea to remember as we curse during the struggle of opening tamper-proof packaging, it’s better than the possible, fraudulent alternative.

This brings up food safety.  When thinking about the number of people involved in the process of food manufacturing, it’s naïve to think that this vulnerable supply has not — or cannot be — exploited. Be it for financial gain or to further a personal vendetta, the global, food-supply chain offers untold opportunities as our foods go from the farm to the fork.

Protect Your Brand: Ensure Food Safety & Compliance With Quality-Management Systems

In response to this ongoing threat, the FDA has asked for input to FSMA’s proposed rule for Preventive Controls for Human Food. The question being asked is, “Should be required to address the issue of Economically Motivated Adulteration (EMA) in its Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) plans?” This same issue is also addressed in FSMA’s proposed rule for Focused Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration, though the means to prevention is the Food Defense Plan, rather than HACCP. The question you may be asking yourself is, “Does the FDA know something we don’t know?”  Or, “Is the FDA making a mountain out of a mole-hill?”

Once those questions are answered, the opportunity to speak to this and other specific proposed revisions to the Preventive Controls rule is available. Click here to voice your concerns and insights through December 15.