Food Defense

What is Food Defense? 

Food defense is executing measures in place that will reduce the chances of the food supply from becoming intentionally contaminated using a variety of chemicals, biological agents or other harmful substances by people who want to harm others, where such agents could include materials that are not naturally-occurring or substances not routinely tested for in food products. A terrorist’s goal might be to kill people, disrupt any country’s economy, or ruin someone’s business. Intentional acts generally occur infrequently, can be difficult to detect, and are hard to predict. There are four types of food protection risks that include food safety, which is based on unintentional or environmental contamination that can cause harm; food fraud, which is based on intentional deception for economic gain; and food quality, which may also be affected by profit-driven behaviour but without intention to cause harm. There are three types of food defense events that can happen in an unfortunate place which could be carried out by a disgruntled employee, sophisticated insider, or intelligent adversary with a specific goal in mind. This goal in return may be to impact the public, brand, company or the psycho-social stability of a group of people depending on the type. However an event may contain aspects of more than one category.

However, Food defense is not same as food safety, since food safety addresses the accidental contamination of food products during storage and transportation which focuses on biological, chemical or physical hazards. The main types of food safety hazards are microbes, chemicals and foreign objects. Products can become contaminated through negligence and contamination can occur during storage and transportation. 

What is the relationship between Food Defense, Food Safety, and Food Security?

In order to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from threats and hazards of greatest risk to the food supply, it is important that preparedness efforts encompass food safety, food defense, and food security. While there are distinct differences between these three concepts, a comprehensive approach that addresses food safety, food defense, and food security considerations improves resilience and protects public health.

Food Defense - the protection of food products from contamination or adulteration intended to cause public health harm or economic disruption which can be further explained as procedures adopted to assure the security of food and drink and their supply chains from malicious and ideologically motivated attack leading to contamination or supply disruption.

Food Safety - the protection of food products from unintentional contamination.

Food Security - when all people, at all times, have both physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2014). The term technically refers to the confidence with which communities see food being available to them in the future except in the limited sense that a successful attack may affect the availability of food.

Food protection – it is the umbrella term encompassing both food defense and food safety. Along with protecting the food system, food defense also deals with prevention, protection, mitigation, response and recovery from intentional acts of adulteration. Food defense is the protection of food products from contamination or adulteration intended to cause public health harm or economic disruption.

Types of Threats

Considering the protection of food from deliberate misuse to risk human health, following threats are considered as most common types which are further segregated to understand them before act on them. The safety of the food are at risk at more than ever due to the globalization and development of communication technologies.

Food Fraud

Food fraud committed when food is deliberately placed on the market, for financial gain, with the intention of deceiving the consumer. Although there are many kinds of food fraud the two main types are:  

The sale of food which is unfit and potentially harmful, such as recycling of animal by-products back into the food chain; packing and selling of beef and poultry with an unknown origin; knowingly selling goods which are past their ‘use by’ date.

The deliberate misdescription of food, such as products substituted with a cheaper alternative, for example, farmed salmon sold as wild, and Basmati rice adulterated with cheaper varieties; making false statements about the source of ingredients, i.e. their geographic, plant or animal origin.

Food fraud may also involve the sale of meat from animals that have been stolen and/or illegally slaughtered, as well as wild game animals like deer that may have been poached.

Industrial Sabotage

These events include intentional contamination by a disgruntled employee, insider (Individual within or associated with an organization and with access to its assets but who may misuse that access and present a threat to its operations) or competitor with the intention of damaging the brand of the company, causing financial problems from a widespread recall or sabotage, but not necessarily with the goal of causing widespread illness or public harm. These internal actors often know what procedures are followed in the plant, and how to bypass checkpoints and security controls.

Terrorism

The reach and complexity of the food system has caused concern for its potential as a terrorist target, i.e. the first and largest food attack in the US is the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack.

Economically Motivated Adulteration (EMA)

The motivation of EMA is financial, to gain an increased income from selling a foodstuff in a way which deceives customers and consumers. This may be by either passing off a cheaper material as a more expensive one, or it may be that a less expensive ingredient is used to replace or extend the more expensive one. The avoidance of loss may also be an incentive for adulteration. Limited supply of a key material may encourage a producer to improvise to complete an order rather than declare short delivery to the customer. The intention of EMA is not to cause illness or death, but that may be the result. This was the case in 2008 when melamine was used as a nitrogen source to fraudulently increase the measured protein content of milk, resulting in more than 50,000 babies hospitalized and six deaths after having consumed contaminated infant formula.

The common factor in many cases of EMA is that the adulterant is neither a food safety hazard, nor readily identified, as this would defeat the aim of the attacker. Common adulterants include water and sugar; ingredients that may be properly used and declared but improper use is food fraud. EMA is likely to be more effective for an attacker, and therefore present a greater threat to a food business, upstream on the food supply chain close to manufacture of primary ingredients. A successful adulteration (from the point of view of the attacker) continues without detection. EMA may need an insider but could be revealed by audit, for example: from purchases which are unexplained by recipes, such as sudan dyes which have no place in spice manufacture; or where there are differences between quantities sold and quantities purchased, such as beef mince sold and bovine meat purchased, with horsemeat to make up the difference.

Malicious Contamination

Materials which could be used by an attacker to gain publicity, or to extort money, are more readily found than those needed to cause widespread harm. In 2007, a bakery found piles of peanuts in the factory, where the company withdrew product and closed for a week long deep clean to re-establish its nut-free status. The case of allergens shows the harm, impact and cost that can be caused to a business with little risk to the attacker. Contamination close to point of consumption or sale, as it is more likely to cause harm to health than an attack on crops or primary ingredients.

Extortion

The motivation for extortion by either an individual or group is financial, to obtain money from the victim organization. Such activity is attractive to the criminal mind when the product like baby food, which is sensitive or where a company is seen as rich. A small number of samples can be used to show the company that the attacker has the capability and is enough to cause public concern and media interest.

Espionage

The primary motivation of espionage is for competitors seeking commercial advantage to access intellectual property. They may infiltrate using insiders to report, or may attack remotely through information technology systems. Alternatively, organizations may try to entice executives to reveal confidential information or use covert recording to capture such material, or they may simply steal the material.

Counterfeiting

The motivation for counterfeiting is financial gain, by fraudulently passing off inferior goods as established and reputable brands. Both organized and petty crime can cause companies financial loss and harm to their reputation. The former, for example, can use sophisticated printing technologies to produce product labels that are indistinguishable from the genuine ones. The latter can steal genuine packs or even refill single use containers for resale. Organized criminals may try to mimic the food contents closely to delay detection and investigation. Petty criminals may be tempted by a ‘quick killing’ and be less concerned about the safety of the food.

Cyber Crime

Modern information and communications technologies provide new opportunities for malpractice. In the UK for the year to February 2013, Action Fraud received 58 662 cyber-enabled frauds and 9 898 computer misuse crime reports representing 41% of all of its reports, with an average loss of £ 3,689.16. It is common for the attacker to try and exploit individual ignorance of the technologies involved. Identity theft is perhaps more familiar to the public, but organizations may be aware of their identity being stolen to enable procurement fraud, in which goods are ordered in their name but diverted to the fraudsters premises leaving it to carry the cost and litigation.