Tag Archives: vulnerability assessments

Karen Everstine, Decernis
FST Soapbox

Food Fraud Quick Bites: Media Sources for Food Fraud Intelligence

By Karen Everstine, Ph.D.
No Comments
Karen Everstine, Decernis

A recently published paper advocates the inclusion of media reports as a source of information for assessing food fraud vulnerability.1 Those of us who maintain the Food Fraud Database could not agree more. We have been monitoring media reports for years and they are an important source of information in the database (accounting for 45% of all primary source references).

As I mentioned in last month’s post, there are challenges with using media reports to inform food fraud vulnerability. Many media reports are general discussions of the issue of food fraud and are not necessarily reporting new information. It may be difficult to filter out these types of reports without manual review. There may also be concerns about the validity of media reports on food fraud. This is the reason we implemented a classification for “weight of evidence” for incident records in the database. Overall, approximately 30% of the incident records in our database are classified as a “low” weight of evidence due to unverifiable data or a lack of corroborating reports. Some of our users choose to filter these out of their searches.

We have received requests for information about how the data in the Food Fraud Database compares with numbers reported in the paper. Table 11 in the paper described the top product categories, countries and type of fraud as reported in four food safety tracking systems.1 We have adapted that table below to data from the Food Fraud Database.

Product Category % Country of Origin % Type %
Meat/Poultry 18 India 26 Dilution/substitution (misrepresentation of animal origin) 26
Seafood 16 China 9 Dilution/substitution (“other”) 19
Dairy Products 14 United States 9 Dilution/substitution with a non-food substance 14
Alcoholic Beverages 6 Columbia 6 Dilution/substitution (misrepresentation of botanical origin) 12
The most common food fraud records (“cases”) in the Food Fraud Database (2014-2015)

As shown in Table 11 in the paper, the top four products by number of articles in the media monitoring system (in 2014-2015) were meat, seafood, milk and alcohol. As shown above, when looking at data in the Food Fraud Database from 2014 and 2015, the top ingredient categories are very similar: Meat/Poultry, Seafood, Dairy Products, and Alcoholic Beverages. However, there was little agreement in the country of origin of the reported cases among any of the systems. For the Food Fraud Database (shown above), the top countries of origin in 2014–2015 were India, China, the United States and Colombia. According to the paper, the top countries of origin reported by the food fraud media monitoring system were Egypt, the United States, the U.K. and Saudi Arabia. The top country of origin reported by RASFF was China and by HorizonScan was the Czech Republic.

Table 4 reported the “types” of food fraud (which correspond to what we call “reasons for adulteration”) and the corresponding number of articles collected, which we have also adapted to the data in the Food Fraud Database below.

Types of Food Fraud in Records in the Food Fraud Database (2014–2015)
Type of Food Fraud Number of Records %
Dilution/substitution – misrepresentation of animal origin 212 26
Dilution/substitution (other) 159 19
Dilution/substitution with a substance not approved for use in foods 118 14
Dilution/substitution – misrepresentation of botanical origin 101 12
Unknown 87 11
Fraudulent labeling 64 8
Artificial enhancement of apparent protein content 58 7
Artificial enhancement with color additives 57 7
Other 41 5
Dilution/substitution – misrepresentation of geographic origin 40 5
Dilution/substitution – misrepresentation of varietal origin 28 3
Use of unapproved biocides (antibiotics, anti-fungal agents, preservatives, etc.) 21 3
Artificial enhancement (other) 7 1
Formulation of an entirely fraudulent product using multiple techniques and adulterants 2 0
TOTAL 828 *
* Greater than 100% because one record can have multiple types of associated fraud

It is not possible to make meaningful comparisons among the reported fraud “types” without harmonized definitions and standardization of data collection processes, as noted in the paper. A glance at Table 1 from the paper illustrates the variety of food fraud categorizations in use among the various systems.1 Generally, it is a challenge to directly compare any of the information coming from various sources such as RASFF, HorizonScan, the Food Fraud Database and others, due to the differences in the way data is collected, standardized and reported.

In contrast with foodborne illnesses, which are generally required to be reported to public health agencies, food fraud typically does not result in acute illness and is difficult to track. The nature of food fraud combined with differences in data tracking systems make it almost impossible to reconcile the data among the various systems. Regardless of which system is reporting, the reports are likely just a fraction of the true occurrence of food fraud; however, each can provide valuable perspective on risks to food safety (including those from food fraud). A holistic assessment of food fraud vulnerability should take into account a wide variety of information sources, including media reports.


  1. Bouzembrak, Y., et al. (November 2018). Development of food fraud media monitoring system based on text mining. Food Control. Vol. 93. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.06.003

How Safe Is Your Facility from Threats?

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments

Vulnerability assessments are a key provision of the FSMA final rule, Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration. With this requirement comes the “identification of vulnerabilities and actionable process steps” that must be taken to mitigate potential threats. During the IAFP annual meeting Lance Reeve, senior risk management consultant for food safety and defense at Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co., reviewed the important and sometimes-overlooked areas that companies should be looking at when conducting vulnerability assessments.

Inside the Plant

To start, vulnerability assessments should be conducted at different times of the day, and the process should involve a team approach, said Reeve. Food defense cannot effectively be managed by a single person within a facility: It needs to involve all departments, from human resources to IT to production to warehousing, and extend to outside suppliers and vendors. How is the flow of employees and visitors around the facility managed? Do staff members wear color-coded badges? Some companies have a color-coding plan to prevent contamination, but it is also a useful tool to ensure that unauthorized employees, outside contractors and visitors aren’t in restricted areas. For example, the maintenance shop may contain deadly food contaminants—do you really want general employees to be able to get into this area? Consider using electronic technology such as biometric access control to limit access based on employee/security credentials.

Working with the human resources department is a critical part of protecting a facility. Does your company have the capability to conduct thorough background checks on all employees? In addition, with all the different types of contractors and vendors who enter your facility it’s important to find out whether your contracting companies are doing the same level of background checks as your organization when they hire employees.  And finally, examine how the culture within the organization. Do employees challenge the presence of visitors who shouldn’t be on the premises?

Outside the Facility

In many cases, companies will look at the inside of their facility for potential hazards and vulnerabilities, but what about the perimeter? How are you controlling the people who are coming onto company property? While this may seem obvious, Reeve recommended physical objects to establish authority: Fences (establish physical border), signs (establish where control begins), and CCTV cameras (establishes security). And when looking at the outside of the building itself, how secure is the roof? What access does a potential attacker have into the facility via the roof? How often are security checks conducted here (if at all)?

Throughout any given day, a company can receive several cargo shipments from a variety of different suppliers. Are you familiar with the food safety programs of your suppliers? They play a critical role in food defense strategies. And when your company receives shipments, Reeve advised that companies go beyond looking at the seals on trucks and examine the transportation system itself. Is cargo removed in a secure area? Is an authorized employee supervising the process or is it left in the hands of the third-party driver?

And finally, a critical part of your mitigation strategy should be to challenge the system. Once you think you may have found all the vulnerabilities, conduct penetration testing.