USP Food Fraud Database

Why Include Food Fraud Records in Your Hazard Analysis?

By Karen Everstine, Ph.D.
USP Food Fraud Database

FSMA Preventive Controls rules require companies to identify and assess hazards.

FDA’s Appendix 1 includes 17 food categories. USP FFD includes 34 System Ingredient Groups to facilitate searching of records by food category, many of which align with the food categories in Appendix 1.

FDA Food Categories (from Appendix 1) Corresponding USP FFD System Ingredient Groups
Bakery *
Beverage Beverages (Non Alcoholic)
Chocolate and Candy Chocolate, Cocoa, and Candy
Dairy Dairy Ingredients
Dressings and Condiments *
Egg Eggs and Egg Products
Food Additives Colors, Flavors, Gums, Preservatives, Non-Nutritive Sweeteners, Emulsifiers
Fruits and Vegetables Fruit and Vegetable Juices and Concentrates
Game Meat Meat and Poultry Products
Grains Grains
Multi-Component Foods *
Nuts Tree Nuts and Peanuts
Oil Vegetable Oils, Olive Oil
Snack Foods *
Soups *
Spice Herbs, Spices, and Seasonings
Sweeteners Nutritive Sweeteners, Non-Nutritive Sweeteners
*Due to the nature of food fraud, USP FFD is organized around food ingredients. For multi-component finished products, we recommend conducting a search that includes all ingredients in that product to identify potential food fraud-related hazards.

USP FFD brings together information from a variety of public sources including documented food fraud incidents, recalls and scientific literature to assist in the identification of food fraud-related hazards. The evaluation of data about food fraud-related hazards is an important component of food safety plans.

Once hazard identification is completed, USP’s Food Fraud Mitigation Guidance supports the process of evaluating hazards and establishing control plans where needed. Beyond helping with FDA’s requirement to identify and evaluate hazards, the USP guidance is also useful for supporting compliance with GFSI-recognized certification programs, which require (or soon will be requiring) food fraud vulnerability assessments that go beyond an examination of historical records for potentially hazardous adulterants.

Related Articles

About The Author

Karen Everstine, Decernis


  1. DeeBee

    Interesting article.
    Having reporting on the Horse Meat event in the UK when it happened it was reasuring to note how the UK enforcement professionals identified the problem, how the Retailer traceability system pulled the products in hours ( in some cases minutes) and the Food Laboratories had a validated test up and running in days.
    OK it was stable doors slamming shut after the horses had gone, but at least they would know in future where the cattle would be kept and tracked.
    The UK was then able to track and charge its local criminals, but they were small beer compared to the biggest suppliers operating out of the Netherlands, Spain and other areas of mainland Europe.
    The manufacturers who were equally liable were able to ‘enforce’ stringent new standards on the producers who wanted their contracts to supply renewed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

For security, use of Google's reCAPTCHA service is required which is subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.