Food fraud, an unsolved problem. ‘EU Food Fraud Network’ report

0
68

Food fraud.A physiological problem that Europe is still unable to address with due political and regulatory action. The 12.4.19 report of the ‘EU Food Fraud Network‘ gives us further confirmation of this.

Food fraud in Europe, an unsolved problem

Food fraud are physiological, in the old continent’s first manufacturing sector, which still represents the leading center of international trade in agricultural commodities and processed products, globally. The outgoing European Commission recently updated the overall crisis management plan., but failed to address the dangers associated with fraudulent activities in the agribusiness sector.




The topicality of the problem




has been repeatedly highlighted



by the writer, also making reference to the resolution

of the European Parliament, adopted by a large majority on 14.1.14. Announcements of a hypothetical ‘crackdown’, by Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis, turned out to be a bluff. With the paradox of entrusting the matter to a ‘



EU knowledge center









, under the leadership of the European Commissioner for Culture.




The recurrent notifications




in the alert system (




Rapid Alert System on Food and Feed




, RASFF) – often delayed

– show how the EU system is still inadequate to the needs of public health protection. Although certainly better than those in vogue in other large markets, such as the U.S. and Canada.

Food fraud, voluntary standards and supply chain responsibility




ISO




,




International Standard Organization,




has meanwhile updated the ISO 22000:2018 standard.

. In addition to having adopted, last August, the standard


ISO 22380


:2018




, ‘




Security and resilience – Authenticity, integrity and trust for products and documents – General principles for product fraud risk and countermeasures’


. And the FSSC Foundation (


Food Safety System Certification




) – holder of an ISO 22000-based certification scheme – had already adopted, on 10.4.18, the guidelines ‘





Food Fraud Mitigation and Food Defense.





‘.

The large-scale retail trade (Large Retailers) in turn has begun to acknowledge its responsibilities on ‘compliance‘ of marketed products with respect to all applicable regulations. Legal responsibility and social of enterprise, which must be expressed both through special prevention procedures, both in the management of critical issues. Also

in case of

e-commerce




.

Theintegrity of the supply chain However, it requires greater efforts. In the private sector, purchasing is dominated by an obsession with the ‘best price,’ which inevitably exposes them to greater risks of fraud. It is therefore no coincidence that the ISO 20400:201 guidelines.

, for sourcing from sustainable supply chains, are unknown to (almost?) all ‘




buyers




‘ and top management.



‘EU Food Fraud Network’


, 2018 activity report

On 12.4.19 the ‘
EU Food Fraud Network
‘ released its report on activities conducted in 2018. (1) A summary of the exchanges of information that have taken place between the Commission and member state authorities under the ACA (Administrative Assistance and Cooperation) system is presented here. (2) In relation to ‘animals or goods related to a possible case of non-compliance with feed or food law’. With particular regard to the ‘case of non-compliance perpetrated through fraudulent and deceptive practices’. (3)


The complex nature
of our globalized food supply chains and the economic motivation to provide cheaper food products have contributed to the prevalence of food fraud‘ (European Food Fraud Network, report on activities conducted in 2018).

As it was meant to be.

Requests for cooperation and assistance registered in the ACA system by member states and Norway in 2018 is 234 (up 31 percent from 178 in 2017). Germany and France topped the list, with respective 58 and 32 reports. Almost halved the number of cases in Italy, from 20 in 2017 to 11 in 2018. Product sectors The most problematic product categories were found to be that of ‘fish and fish products‘ (46 requests), followed by ‘meat and [meat preparations, ed., and] meat products‘ (41) e ‘fats and oils‘ (30).

The fraudulent labels occupy the first place in registered suspicions of fraud (42 percent of cases). Dozens of packages with undeclared allergens? Little less than nothing compared to an endemic disease whose shortcomings are before our eyes. Indeed, we urge our readers to participate in our bottom-up survey initiative, #DetectiveFood. There are also illicit evocations of geographical indications (e.g., PDO, PGI) that are also known to be overlooked

by most of the member states except our



.

Documentary flaws pertain to 20 percent of the cases reported by the network (deficiency or falsification of documents related to traceability). This is followed (19 percent) by adulteration [and adulteration, ed.], i.e., hypotheses of substitution, dilution, removal or addition of ingredients for fraudulent purposes. Treatments not allowed in 13% of cases and finally infringement of intellectual property rights (5.47%). It is, moreover, merely an exercise in style, by no means representative of the entire food fraud ring in Europe. The cases recorded are indeed only those of cross-border extension in relation to which the contact points of the member states have voluntarily decided to activate a request for cooperation and assistance.

Food fraud, zero in conduct

The concept of ‘food fraud’ still lacks a shared definition at the European level. Zero in conduct to the European Commission, which has still failed to incorporate a simple yet indispensable concept into a regulatory proposal as a prerequisite for any equally necessary steps to be taken. For the purpose of risk management–to be graded according to the classification of its severity and possible extent–and the imposition of deterrent sanctions. It would suffice to refer to the concept developed by ‘Global Food Safety Initiative‘ (GFSI), expressed below.


Food Fraud
is the collective term encompassing the intentional substitution, addition, tampering or misrepresentation of food/feed, food/feed ingredients or food/feed packaging, labeling, product information or false or misleading statements made about a product for economic gain that could impact consumer health‘ (GFSI BRv7:2017).

The European network-while waiting for a harmonized definition of food fraud-has identified four operational criteria to distinguish whether a case should be reported as ‘suspected fraud‘ or as simple ‘non-compliance.’

1) violation of law. The existence of fraud presupposes the violation of one or more existing EU rules. To this end, the writer adds, violations of national regulations (which are relevant, for example, in identifying products by the legal name of the food) and unfair trade practices, (3)

2) Intentionality, to be ascertained by verification of a number of elements. To understand, for example, whether noncompliance may be motivated by undue pecuniary advantages (e.g., substitution of one fish species for another of lesser value),

3) gain. Fraudulent noncompliance must always result, at least in the expectations of its perpetrators (which may be thwarted by official control), in [undue, ed,




(4) deception




of consumers [or operators, at any stage of the




supply-chain


, ed]. Deception can also involve https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/etichette/controlli-il-ruolo-dellamministrazione-sanitaria/, for example, due to allergenic ingredients not declared on the label.

Nothing new On the Western Front. It reaffirms the need to overcome a stalemate that has persisted for too long and harms, among other things, the reputation of the European agrifood supply chain. Where fraud constitutes a crime in Italy and a few other member states, simple administrative violation not even better identified in many others. (4) For more on the subject, we recommend the free ebook ‘Food safety, current rules and voluntary standards‘.

Dario Dongo and Giulia Baldelli

Notes



(1) V. ‘




The EU Food Fraud Network and the System for Administrative Assistance, Annual Report 2018




‘,




https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/food-fraud_network_activity_report_2018.pdf


(2) See Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1918, 22.10.15, ‘Establishing the system of administrative assistance and cooperation (“ACA system”) under Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules‘. Regulation later repealed by reg. EU 2017/625, which in turn introduced special measures to combat fraud. See previous articles



https://www.foodagriculturerequirements.com/archivio-notizie/controlli-pubblici-ufficiali-rating-degli-operatori-e-trasparenza-si-preannuncia-una-svolta





,





https://www.foodagriculturerequirements.com/archivio-notizie/controlli-pubblici-ufficiali-le-misure-a-contrasto-delle-frodi-alimentari-previste-nel-nuovo-regolamento-ue-2017-625



(3) Information is also collected through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), operational since 1979, and the integrated computerized veterinary system(Traces) established under Decision 2004/292/EC

(3) Dir. 2005/29/EC, implemented in Italy by the Consumer Code (Legislative Decree 205/06). Directive soon to be repealed, with the entry into force of the new UTPs directive (


Unfair Trading Practices




)




https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/mercati/pratiche-commerciali-sleali-è-direttiva


(4) See Criminal Code, Article 515, fraud in trade. See the article



https://www.foodagriculturerequirements.com/approfondimenti_1/frode-in-commercio-ed-etichette-alimentari-i-casi-atipici





.

+ posts

Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.

+ posts

Graduated in nutritional chemistry and pharmaceutical technologies, expert in quality management systems, social responsibility and supply chain