554738 research-article2014
RSH0010.1177/1757913914554738PolicyPolicy
Policy
Food fraud: ensuring the integrity of our food supply When the horsemeat scandal hit the UK, there was an outcry about food safety and labelling. While it has subsequently become clear that health was not at risk, the Elliott review, published at the beginning of September, seeks to ensure that in the future, our food will be less easily adulterated. The Food Standards Agency1 defines food fraud as when ‘food is deliberately placed on the market, for financial gain, with the intention of deceiving the consumer’. Food crime, according to the Elliott Review, ‘no longer involves random acts by “rogues” within the food industry but becomes an organised activity by groups which knowingly set out to deceive, and/ or injure, those purchasing food’.2 Research suggests that adulterated olive oil is the biggest agricultural fraud in the European Union. Products labelled Italian extra virgin olive oil are frequently found to have originated in Tunisia or Libya and may simply be ordinary olive oil coloured with green chlorophyll.3 It has been suggested that the profits from olive oil fraud are ‘comparable to cocaine trafficking but with none of the risks’.4 It is estimated that 1,700 tonnes of manuka honey are produced annually in New Zealand; however, 1,800 tonnes are sold annually in the UK alone and around 10,000 tonnes worldwide.5 The biggest food fraud in US history also involved honey – although, in this case, Chinese honey – that was deliberately shipped through other Asian nations to disguise its origins and evade import duties.6 Most worrying are cases when foods are tainted or mislabelled in a way that can result in direct consumer harm. In China, powdered milk has been affected at least twice: in 2005, 13 babies died after being fed powdered milk that had no nutritional value, and in 2008, almost 300,000 children fell ill and at least six died after milk powder was contaminated with melamine, a poisonous, industrial chemical used to boost protein levels.3 An investigation in 2005 in Ireland found that category 3 animal by-products were being repacked and re-labelled as fit for human consumption.7 Category 3 products are not suitable for consumption – they may be parts of animals that we don’t normally eat (hides, hair, feathers, bones) or they may be waste from food factories and retail premises. Although lower risk than category 1 and 2 by-products, if they enter the food chain, they have the potential to negatively affect public health (both causing physical harm and mental distress), not least because the products may not have been stored appropriately based on food safety requirements. In anticipation of the publication of the final Elliott review, the RSPH asked a representative sample of the UK public (n = 2,010) which issues most concerned them about food fraud. We found that almost three quarters (73%) of the public were either very concerned or concerned about the recycling of animal by-products back into the food chain, and an equal proportion (73%) had concerns about the packing and selling of beef and poultry with an unknown origin. While the opinion poll also shows that concern about food fraud is high irrespective of income group, the reality is that the poorest in society are likely to be disproportionately affected. With many trapped buying cheap, processed food, which is the most likely type to be adulterated, the recommendations of the Elliott Review need to be swiftly implemented to protect those who have little choice about the food they buy. Alongside research with the public, we surveyed RSPH members who work within food safety and a number of measures were suggested to address food fraud. These included ensuring that those tasked with tackling food fraud from within the local authority have sufficient time and resources, and that the issue of food fraud is prioritised in the local authority environment. One way that this can be supported is through its inclusion in the local food safety strategy. Members also felt that there needs to be improvement to food testing, including sufficient budgets for food sampling and more investment in food analysis. For as long as money can be made from food fraud, there will be those willing to test the system. Hopefully, Professor Chris Elliott’s recommendations will help strengthen this system and ensure that the public can be confident in both the provenance and safety of the food they eat. Caitlyn Donaldson Policy and Research Manager, RSPH
References 1. Food Standards Agency (FSA). Food Fraud, 2014. Available online at: https://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/enforcework/foodfraud (Last accessed 17th September 2014). 2. DEFRA. Elliott Review into the Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks – Final Report, 2014. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/350726/elliot-review-final-report-july2014.pdf (Last accessed 17th September 2014). 3. Shears P. Food fraud – A current issue but an old problem. British Food Journal 2010; 112(2): 198–213. 4. Mueller T. Slippery Business. The New Yorker, 2007 August 17. Available online at: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/08/13/slippery-business (Last accessed 17th September 2014). 5. Ministry for Primary Industries. Options for Defining Monofloral Manuka Honey. New Zealand Government, 2013. Available online at: http://www.foodsafety.govt. nz/elibrary/industry/options-for-defining-monofloral-manuka-honey/2013-38-proposals-for-nz-manuka-honey-claims.pdf (Last accessed 17th September 2014). 6. Berfield S. The Honey Launderers: Uncovering the Largest Food Fraud in U.S. History. Bloomberg Businessweek, 2013. Available online at: http://www.businessweek. com/printer/articles/153774-the-honey-launderers-uncovering-the-largest-food-fraud-in-u-dot-s-dot-history?src=longreads (Last accessed 17th September 2014). 7. DEFRA. Elliott Review into the Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks – Interim Report, 2013. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/264997/pb14089-elliot-review-interim-20131212.pdf (Last accessed 17th September 2014).
November 2014 Vol 134 No 6 l Perspectives in Public Health 311 Downloaded from rsh.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 4, 2015
RSH0010.1177/1757913914554738PolicyPolicy
Policy
Food fraud: ensuring the integrity of our food supply When the horsemeat scandal hit the UK, there was an outcry about food safety and labelling. While it has subsequently become clear that health was not at risk, the Elliott review, published at the beginning of September, seeks to ensure that in the future, our food will be less easily adulterated. The Food Standards Agency1 defines food fraud as when ‘food is deliberately placed on the market, for financial gain, with the intention of deceiving the consumer’. Food crime, according to the Elliott Review, ‘no longer involves random acts by “rogues” within the food industry but becomes an organised activity by groups which knowingly set out to deceive, and/ or injure, those purchasing food’.2 Research suggests that adulterated olive oil is the biggest agricultural fraud in the European Union. Products labelled Italian extra virgin olive oil are frequently found to have originated in Tunisia or Libya and may simply be ordinary olive oil coloured with green chlorophyll.3 It has been suggested that the profits from olive oil fraud are ‘comparable to cocaine trafficking but with none of the risks’.4 It is estimated that 1,700 tonnes of manuka honey are produced annually in New Zealand; however, 1,800 tonnes are sold annually in the UK alone and around 10,000 tonnes worldwide.5 The biggest food fraud in US history also involved honey – although, in this case, Chinese honey – that was deliberately shipped through other Asian nations to disguise its origins and evade import duties.6 Most worrying are cases when foods are tainted or mislabelled in a way that can result in direct consumer harm. In China, powdered milk has been affected at least twice: in 2005, 13 babies died after being fed powdered milk that had no nutritional value, and in 2008, almost 300,000 children fell ill and at least six died after milk powder was contaminated with melamine, a poisonous, industrial chemical used to boost protein levels.3 An investigation in 2005 in Ireland found that category 3 animal by-products were being repacked and re-labelled as fit for human consumption.7 Category 3 products are not suitable for consumption – they may be parts of animals that we don’t normally eat (hides, hair, feathers, bones) or they may be waste from food factories and retail premises. Although lower risk than category 1 and 2 by-products, if they enter the food chain, they have the potential to negatively affect public health (both causing physical harm and mental distress), not least because the products may not have been stored appropriately based on food safety requirements. In anticipation of the publication of the final Elliott review, the RSPH asked a representative sample of the UK public (n = 2,010) which issues most concerned them about food fraud. We found that almost three quarters (73%) of the public were either very concerned or concerned about the recycling of animal by-products back into the food chain, and an equal proportion (73%) had concerns about the packing and selling of beef and poultry with an unknown origin. While the opinion poll also shows that concern about food fraud is high irrespective of income group, the reality is that the poorest in society are likely to be disproportionately affected. With many trapped buying cheap, processed food, which is the most likely type to be adulterated, the recommendations of the Elliott Review need to be swiftly implemented to protect those who have little choice about the food they buy. Alongside research with the public, we surveyed RSPH members who work within food safety and a number of measures were suggested to address food fraud. These included ensuring that those tasked with tackling food fraud from within the local authority have sufficient time and resources, and that the issue of food fraud is prioritised in the local authority environment. One way that this can be supported is through its inclusion in the local food safety strategy. Members also felt that there needs to be improvement to food testing, including sufficient budgets for food sampling and more investment in food analysis. For as long as money can be made from food fraud, there will be those willing to test the system. Hopefully, Professor Chris Elliott’s recommendations will help strengthen this system and ensure that the public can be confident in both the provenance and safety of the food they eat. Caitlyn Donaldson Policy and Research Manager, RSPH
References 1. Food Standards Agency (FSA). Food Fraud, 2014. Available online at: https://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/enforcework/foodfraud (Last accessed 17th September 2014). 2. DEFRA. Elliott Review into the Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks – Final Report, 2014. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/350726/elliot-review-final-report-july2014.pdf (Last accessed 17th September 2014). 3. Shears P. Food fraud – A current issue but an old problem. British Food Journal 2010; 112(2): 198–213. 4. Mueller T. Slippery Business. The New Yorker, 2007 August 17. Available online at: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/08/13/slippery-business (Last accessed 17th September 2014). 5. Ministry for Primary Industries. Options for Defining Monofloral Manuka Honey. New Zealand Government, 2013. Available online at: http://www.foodsafety.govt. nz/elibrary/industry/options-for-defining-monofloral-manuka-honey/2013-38-proposals-for-nz-manuka-honey-claims.pdf (Last accessed 17th September 2014). 6. Berfield S. The Honey Launderers: Uncovering the Largest Food Fraud in U.S. History. Bloomberg Businessweek, 2013. Available online at: http://www.businessweek. com/printer/articles/153774-the-honey-launderers-uncovering-the-largest-food-fraud-in-u-dot-s-dot-history?src=longreads (Last accessed 17th September 2014). 7. DEFRA. Elliott Review into the Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks – Interim Report, 2013. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/264997/pb14089-elliot-review-interim-20131212.pdf (Last accessed 17th September 2014).
November 2014 Vol 134 No 6 l Perspectives in Public Health 311 Downloaded from rsh.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 4, 2015
