Food Fraud - II

Strategies for Prevention of Food Fraud in Manufacturing

In the intricate dance of the global food supply chain, the ominous shadow of food fraud casts doubts on the authenticity and safety of the products we consume. While food fraud takes on various forms, the article delves into a specific and insidious culprit: economically-motivated adulteration (EMA) in the food manufacturing sector. EMA involves the intentional and deceptive manipulation of food products for economic gain, posing severe threats to consumer health and undermining the foundational trust between producers and consumers.
 
Beyond EMA, food fraud unfolds in a myriad of ways, encompassing counterfeiting, product tampering, theft, smuggling, document fraud, and product diversions. While each form presents unique challenges, the focus here remains on EMA due to its prevalence and the dire consequences it inflicts on both public health and the economic stability of the industry.
 
Understanding the Landscape of Food Fraud
EMA manifests in two primary forms, each with its distinct risks to the quality and safety of the food, which are:

Sale of potentially harmful food e.g., include such as recycling animal by-products back into the food chain, selling meat with an unknown origin, and knowingly retailing goods past their 'use by' date.

 

Deliberate mislabelling of food such as substituting products with cheaper alternatives (e.g., selling farmed salmon as wild) or providing false information about the source of ingredients, such as their geographic, plant, or animal origin.

 

Further, there are several other forms of food fraud such as counterfeiting, product tampering, theft, smuggling, document fraud, and product diversions, nor does it address food adulteration intended to cause public health harm, economic harm, or terror (i.e., food defense issues).

 
The Dangers of Food Fraud

While the primary intent of food fraud is economic gain, its consequences can reach far beyond financial implications. A poignant example is the 2008 melamine scandal, which was fraudulently added to milk in order to inflate protein content. Tragically, over 50,000 infants were hospitalized, and six lost their lives after consuming contaminated infant formula, where the incident underscores the potential for food fraud to cause not just economic harm but serious illness and even death.
 
What sets food fraud apart is the surreptitious nature of its adulterants. Unlike typical food safety hazards, these substances are neither readily identifiable nor inherently harmful, allowing fraudsters to operate in the shadows. Common adulterants include seemingly benign substances like water and sugar, as well as ingredients that may be legitimately used but are improperly employed, constituting fraud, where food fraud deceives consumers by providing lower quality foodstuff against their knowledge and will.
 
Economically-motivated adulteration robs consumers of the quality products they intend to purchase, leading to potential health risks and compromising the very foundation of consumer trust. As such, preventing food fraud becomes paramount, not only to protect consumers but also to sustain fair and ethical business practices within the industry.
 
Key Concepts in Food Fraud Prevention
Understanding the importance of preventing food fraud involves grasping key concepts such as Economically Motivated Adulteration (EMA), which is the intentional adulteration of foods driven by economic gain.
 

Vulnerability Assessment: A critical step within a food fraud management system aimed at evaluating factors that create vulnerabilities in the supply chain, pinpointing weak points where fraud is more likely to occur.

 

Mitigation Measure: Actions taken to decrease vulnerability to a specific type of adulteration in a given supply chain.

 

Mitigation Strategy: A curated set of measures designed to prevent food fraud in a particular supply chain.

 

Stakeholders: Understanding the roles of key players, including food operators (involved in processing, manufacture, packaging, storage, transportation, import, and distribution), suppliers, and buyers, is essential for effective collaboration in fraud prevention efforts.

 
Assessing Ingredient Vulnerability

Characterizing the vulnerability of an ingredient involves evaluating three critical aspects:

Inherent Vulnerability: Intrinsic factors like market price, fraud history, composition, physical state, and processing level independently contribute to the inherent vulnerability of a food ingredient.

 

Business Pressure: External factors such as demand volume, extent of use, and market price fluctuations may elevate vulnerability to fraud.

 

Preventive Measures and Strategies

Raw Material Specifications: Establishing comprehensive specifications for raw materials, including authenticity criteria, is pivotal for mitigating inherent vulnerabilities. For instance, UV absorbance may be specified to detect potential adulteration of extra virgin olive oil with refined oils.

 

Analytical Surveillance: Implementing surveillance plans involving both targeted analyses and untargeted techniques helps verify the authenticity of raw materials. This builds confidence in suppliers and allows for the detection of potential food fraud issues.

 

Supplier Relationship: Developing a close and transparent relationship with suppliers is crucial. The closer the relationship, the more knowledge and confidence are shared, reducing the risk of food fraud.

 

Trusted Supplier: A long-standing partnership marked by transparency, confidence, and shared information.

 

Trusted Supplier, New Ingredient: Similar to a trusted supplier, but with a recent introduction of a particular ingredient.

 

Established Supplier, Some Relationship: A shorter history with a well-respected supplier, with no significant issues reported.

 

Supplier Audit: Auditing raw material production/handling sites is vital to minimizing the risk of purchasing fraudulent or adulterated raw materials.

 

Supply Chain Transparency and Simplification: Mapping and simplifying the supply chain enhances transparency, traceability, and the management of material safety and quality standards. This also reduces opportunities for fraudsters to infiltrate the supply chain.

 

Mapping Supply Chain: Identifying immediate suppliers and gathering information to assess risk.

 

Simplification: Eliminating sources of risk by streamlining the supply chain.

 

Routine Monitoring and Alert Systems: Regularly monitoring industry publications provides early warnings of changes that may trigger new threats or shift the priority of existing threats. Equally important is triggering an alert when fraudulent material is detected, preventing its spread through the value chain.

 
Understanding Food Vulnerability Assessment

In the complex tapestry of the global food supply chain, ensuring the safety and authenticity of the food products is a paramount concern. Food vulnerability assessment emerges as a critical tool in this endeavor, serving as the vigilant guardian against the insidious threats of economically motivated adulteration and fraud, unraveling its importance, methodologies, and implications for securing the integrity of food supply.

Food vulnerability assessment is a systematic and comprehensive evaluation of various factors within the food supply chain that may render it susceptible to fraudulent activities. The primary objective is to identify weak points or vulnerabilities where fraud is more likely to occur, enabling proactive measures to mitigate risks effectively. This strategic approach acknowledges that preventing food fraud is not merely a reactive response but a proactive stance rooted in understanding and addressing potential vulnerabilities.
 
Types of Food Vulnerability

Inherent Vulnerability: This type of vulnerability is driven by factors inherent to the food ingredient itself. Characteristics such as market price, composition, physical state, and level of processing contribute to the inherent vulnerability of a food item. Certain ingredients may be naturally more susceptible to adulteration, making them prime targets for fraudulent activities. For example, apple juices or purees may be more vulnerable than whole apple pieces.

 

Business Pressure-Driven Vulnerability: External factors impacting the business, such as the demand volume for a specific ingredient, the extent of its use across various products and businesses, and market price fluctuations, contribute to increased vulnerability to fraud. Understanding the dynamics of these business pressures is crucial for assessing the susceptibility of an ingredient to adulteration.

 

Importance of Food Vulnerability Assessment 

Proactive Fraud Prevention: By identifying and addressing vulnerabilities in the supply chain, food vulnerability assessments enable proactive measures to prevent economically-motivated adulteration. Early detection of potential weak points allows for the implementation of targeted mitigation strategies.

 

Consumer Safety and Confidence: Safeguarding the integrity of the food supply chain is synonymous with ensuring the safety and confidence of consumers. Assessing vulnerabilities helps in preventing fraudulent practices that could compromise the quality and safety of food products.

 

Regulatory Compliance: Food vulnerability assessments align with regulatory requirements and industry standards, enhancing compliance and reinforcing the commitment to fair business practices.

 
Methodologies in Food Vulnerability Assessment
Fraud History Analysis: Examining past cases of adulteration involving specific raw materials provides valuable insights into their potential vulnerability. Understanding the history of fraud involving certain ingredients serves as an indicator of potential vulnerabilities and aids in the identification of adulterants that require detection and deterrence.
 

Raw Material Specifications: Establishing robust specifications for raw materials is a crucial preventive aspect against food fraud. Authenticity criteria, such as UV absorbance to detect potential adulteration, should be included in raw material specifications to mitigate inherent vulnerabilities identified in the assessment.

 

Analytical Surveillance: Once the risks of adulteration have been characterized for a given raw material, implementing a surveillance plan is essential. Analytical methods, both targeted (linked to parameters specified in raw material specifications) and untargeted (fingerprinting), verify the authenticity of raw materials and ensure the effectiveness of fraud prevention measures.

 
Collaborative Approaches and Stakeholder Involvement

Supplier Relationship: Establishing a transparent and collaborative relationship with suppliers is paramount in the fight against food fraud. Suppliers play a crucial role in sharing information about their supply chain and processes, contributing to the development of a trusted network that minimizes the risk of fraudulent activities.

 

Supplier Audits: In response to reported food fraud issues, supplier audits have become a key component of food safety schemes. Targeted examinations during audits, such as detecting unapproved additives or equipment used in adulteration, contribute to minimizing the risk of purchasing fraudulent or adulterated raw materials.

 

Food vulnerability assessment stands as a sentinel, diligently guarding the global food supply chain against the ever-present threat of economically-motivated adulteration. As our understanding of fraud prevention evolves, embracing proactive strategies and collaborative efforts becomes imperative. By unraveling the layers of food vulnerability assessment, the food industry will not only fortify its defenses but also reaffirm its commitment to providing consumers with safe, authentic, and quality food products. In the dynamic landscape of the food industry, staying ahead of potential vulnerabilities is not just a necessity but a responsibility that everyone shares in securing the future of the global food supply. Hence, the battle against food fraud requires a multifaceted and unwavering approach, whereby comprehensively understanding the types of economically-motivated adulteration, conducting robust vulnerability assessments, and implementing preventive strategies, which collectively fortify the defenses. Only through diligence, collaboration, and a commitment to transparency can safeguard the food plate and uphold the trust consumers place in the products they consume.
 
References
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10572764/#:~:text=Economically%20motivated%20adulteration%2C%20the%20most,causing%20illness%20has%20been%20reported.
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/12/19/3522 “Incidents and Potential Adverse Health Effects of Serious Food Fraud Cases Originated in Asia”
https://inspection.canada.ca/science-and-research/our-research-and-publications/food-fraud-report/eng/1673406031553/1673406032162
https://inspection.canada.ca/food-labels/food-fraud/what-is-food-fraud/eng/1648661693364/1648661694161
https://foodfraudadvisors.com/hazards-from-ema/
https://www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp/document/our-work/Foods/food-fraud-mitigation-guidance.pdf
https://www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp/document/our-work/Foods/food-fraud-mitigation-guidance.pdf
https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/asset-library/documents/library/documents/suppliers/food-fraud-prevention.pdf
 
 
 

Food Fraud

Economically Motivated Adulteration

In the complex tapestry of the global food industry, the insidious specter of economically motivated adulteration (EMA) continues to pose a significant challenge. From deliberate ingredient substitutions to deceptive labeling practices, EMA not only undermines the authenticity of our food but also jeopardizes public health and economic stability. Hence, EMA on a global scale requires greater attention, exploring its various manifestations, consequences, regulatory responses, and the imperative need for heightened vigilance.
 
EMA, often interchangeably referred to as food fraud, is a deliberate act aimed at boosting economic gains through the manipulation of food products. The tactics employed are diverse, ranging from substituting premium ingredients with cheaper alternatives to mislabeling products for deceptive marketing. This global phenomenon affects a broad spectrum of food categories, including meats, seafood, dairy, oils, spices, and more. As the food supply chain becomes increasingly globalized, vulnerabilities to fraud multiply. The extended distances that food products travel, coupled with the complexity of supply chain networks, create ample opportunities for unscrupulous actors to engage in fraudulent activities. This globalization, while fostering culinary diversity, also amplifies the challenges of traceability and quality assurance.
 
The true extent of food fraud remains elusive, both within the United States and on a global scale. The clandestine nature of those perpetrating food fraud, coupled with their intention to avoid detection without necessarily causing direct harm, contributes to the challenge of accurately gauging its prevalence. Many incidents escape notice, especially when they don't pose immediate food safety risks and consumers remain unaware of any quality issues. While the documented cases of food fraud are but a fraction of the actual occurrences, the Grocery Manufacturers Association estimates a substantial financial impact on the global food industry—placing the cost between $10 billion and $15 billion annually, affecting roughly 10% of all commercially sold food products.
 

The potential consequences escalate when fraud poses risks to food safety or public health, carrying significant financial and public relations implications for affected industries or companies. Despite the absence of a statutory definition for food fraud or "economically motivated adulteration" (EMA) in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adopted a working definition in 2009, characterizing EMA as the intentional and fraudulent substitution or addition of a substance in a product to enhance its apparent value or reduce production costs for economic gain. Ongoing efforts aim to gather and document current and historical data on food fraud and EMA incidents through the establishment of comprehensive databases and repositories.
 
In response to the rising tide of EMA, regulatory bodies worldwide have implemented measures to safeguard the integrity of the food supply. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in the United States stands as a noteworthy example, mandating preventive controls to identify and mitigate hazards, including those arising from economically motivated adulteration. A global collaborative effort is imperative to establish consistent standards and frameworks to combat this multifaceted challenge. To effectively counteract EMA, a proactive approach is required. Food manufacturers must diligently investigate the susceptibility of raw materials to adulteration within the supply chain. This involves considering not only intentional acts but also accidental or environmental contamination. Historical records of food fraud incidents provide valuable insights into potential adulterants, aiding in the development of robust preventive controls. A nuanced understanding of the factors contributing to food fraud is essential. Economic motivations, the globalization of the food market, lack of transparency, market demand pressures, technological advancements, and resource limitations in regulatory agencies all play pivotal roles in fostering deceptive practices.
 

For food business owners, the responsibility extends beyond compliance with regulations. Establishing a comprehensive food safety management system and traceability program is crucial. Embracing advanced technologies that facilitate transparency and traceability, such as various smart food safety management system software, becomes a cornerstone in the battle against fraudulent activities. The ripple effects of food fraud extend far and wide, transcending borders and affecting various facets of society, the economy, and public health. From posing health risks to consumers and eroding consumer confidence to distorting markets and inviting legal consequences, the consequences of EMA are profound and complex.
 
Prevailing food safety management systems, designed primarily to address conventional safety concerns, have not explicitly targeted prevention and control of food fraud. Thus, assessing vulnerabilities related to food fraud has traditionally been conducted separately from risk assessments focused on biological, chemical, and physical hazards, allergens, and food quality issues. However, recent trends indicate a shift towards the integration of various risk assessments, including food fraud vulnerability assessments (FFVA), into industry standards for food safety and quality. Fraud vulnerability encompasses opportunities for exploitation within the system and is characterized by three core elements: opportunities, motivations, and control measures. Notably, the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) has embraced "VACCP" (Vulnerability Assessment and Critical Control Points) as a tool to mitigate food fraud, focusing on identifying and managing vulnerabilities in the food supply chain.
 

Hence, given systematic approach aims to prevent potential intentional or unintentional food adulteration by pinpointing weaknesses within the supply chain. However, challenges persist in implementing FFVA, stemming from the lack of a universally validated global framework and limited comprehensive data on documented fraud instances in the food industry. The industry's exposure to fraudulent activities remains unclear due to a shortage of emphasis on fraud as a policing priority, resulting in a backlog of uninvestigated cases. Moreover, food operators face hurdles in adopting mitigation measures due to a scarcity of both human resources and financial capacity. Therefore, fostering a culture within the food industry that rigorously examines supply chain origins and upholds broader food integrity becomes imperative.
 
Adulteration within the food industry emerges as a pressing global concern, casting a shadow over public health and the economy. The repercussions extend beyond consumer confidence, tarnishing the reputation of entire nations. Economic motives serve as the primary catalyst for these adulterations, facilitated by intricate and challenging-to-assess methods concealed in manufacturer-declared product information. Effectively combating food fraud necessitates robust controls, including rigorous scrutiny of raw materials and a comprehensive system to monitor food handling, processing, and distribution. Governments play a pivotal role in mitigating fraudulent practices by enforcing stringent food safety regulations and promoting good manufacturing practices across the entire food supply chain.
 

The establishment of a real-time global alert system emerges as a critical measure to safeguard the food industry, curbing fraud and reducing associated public health risks. For sustained prevention, addressing and resolving underlying economic issues, whether on a national or international scale, becomes imperative. In the pursuit of a more resilient and trustworthy global food system, combating economically motivated adulteration requires a concerted effort. As we navigate the intricate web of the global food industry, vigilance, transparency, and collaborative initiatives are our best weapons against the clandestine threat of EMA. Only through a united front can we ensure the authenticity and safety of the food that nourishes us all.
 
References
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10572764/#:~:text=Economically%20motivated%20adulteration%2C%20the%20most,causing%20illness%20has%20been%20reported.
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/12/19/3522 “Incidents and Potential Adverse Health Effects of Serious Food Fraud Cases Originated in Asia”
https://inspection.canada.ca/science-and-research/our-research-and-publications/food-fraud-report/eng/1673406031553/1673406032162
https://inspection.canada.ca/food-labels/food-fraud/what-is-food-fraud/eng/1648661693364/1648661694161
https://foodfraudadvisors.com/hazards-from-ema/
https://www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp/document/our-work/Foods/food-fraud-mitigation-guidance.pdf

Food Regulations

Developments in Food Regulatory Systems  

Modern food systems are diverse and complex, involving everything from subsistence farming to multinational food companies. where everyone relies on food systems, whether local or global as everyone has to eat. The movement of food and food ingredients in food systems includes animals and animal products, plants and plant products, minerals, and vitamins.
 
The emergence of megacities has been a major driver of food regulatory changes, bringing together large populations within defined boundaries and requiring complex governance to deliver sufficient quantities and quality of food, where advances in food storage, with hematic sealing and other curing methods, have given tremendous improvements in food safety and regulations. Further, the use of animal transport, sailing ships, and trains to move larger volumes than can be carried by individuals, i.e., trade in ingredients like salt as well as live animals and agricultural products, as well as increased political and military conflict for resources also have impacted furthering regulatory requirements for the food equally along the supply chain developments. The existence of extensive trading routes over the globe for salt, spices, tea, and pepper for thousands of years has further helped the improvements in regulatory space.
 
Nonetheless, the Iron Age and the Roman Empire brought expanding empires and the beginning of global food regulations, including regional specialization in products traded throughout empires. Food regulations began to be organized alongside the food systems on a grand scale to feed larger cities and fuel local economies, where trade networks for grain, nuts, oils, fruit, and wine developed using both roadways and sailing routes, which depended on standardized weights and measures that were established along the supply chains with the expansion of money and accounting.
 
The Middle Ages saw the emergence of the merchant class and banknotes. Prior to the Middle Ages, selling was considered a task for one of the lower classes of civilization, The Middle Ages also saw banknotes replacing coinage, first with the Song dynasty in China and then later in Europe around 1661. As a wealthy class emerged, they became more sophisticated in their food preferences, where the resulting demand of consumers began to impact on the quality and the safety of the food trade in addition to the supply.
 

Science and technology represent another major driver for regulator developments, changing the way that food is grown, processed, preserved, and transported. The Industrial Age brought a transition from manual labor and draft animal–based economies to machines, which further increased in agricultural productivity brought about by technology such as the seed drill, the iron plow, and the threshing machine freed up labor for the factories in the 1700s, where the Industrial Revolution also created per-capita income growth. The emerging middle class had discretionary income to spend on its food preferences. Transportation breakthroughs were ushered in during the Industrial Age, where canal systems, improved roadways, steam engines used for traction, railroads, and steamships helped the expansion of the food industry that required controls to safeguard consumers. Food preservation, important to both the storage and transport of food, also changed over time, where drying was one of the early food preservation methods, certainly known in ancient times, improved due to the involvement of technology. Fermentation also was an early method of food preservation, with pasteurization applied to wine in China as early as 1117. Salting of food has been used for at least 500 years, beginning when the fishing fleets from Europe used drying and salting to store fish caught in Newfoundland and the Grand Banks in order to get them back to consumers in Europe. Two preservation methods, canning, and freezing, allowed food to be stored and transported in an almost-fresh state. Canning grew out of military research in 1810. Ice storage was developed in northern climates where ice could be cut from lakes in the winter for use later in the year. Commercial refrigeration followed in the 1800s. The first refrigerated ship, the SS Dunedin in 1882, revolutionized the meat and dairy industries in Australia and New Zealand, where refrigerated and frozen food products now could be traded globally.
 
The 20th century saw the intensification of agricultural production with the mechanization of planting and harvesting, selective breeding of animals and plants, and more attention to animal nutrition and feed input costs. Increased scale of production drove down the per-unit cost of products and fostered greater specialization in food systems. Advances in plant and animal disease control also helped, such as the movement of pigs and poultry indoors to decrease disease exposure and to enhance efficiency by controlling the environment. Colonization and war have been important political influences on food systems, where food regulations have begun to emerge, creating distributed ownership of food systems and highlighting a need for global regulatory agreements. Colonialism allowed for population growth in the industrialized countries where there were limited domestic opportunities to create employment or to grow food. Thus, settler colonies captured market opportunities for the colonizing country's exports and provided import sources for raw materials, including food and food ingredients. Trade underwent dramatic changes in the 20th century as a result of the two world wars. The war-associated food shortages, economic crises, and disease spread set the stage for global trade agreements as well as regulatory agreements where organizations were designed to address global public food issues. The 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was created to reduce tariff-based trade barriers and to prevent the downward spiral of world trade seen in the Great Depression from 1929 to 1933. Monthly trade dropped from $3.0 billion in January 1929 to $0.9 billion in March 1933 as protectionist measures reduced trade worldwide.
 

Up to the 20th century many countries had supply-driven economies, but newly amended policies favored increased agricultural production to ensure adequate domestic supplies of basic feedstuffs, where increased the supply with reduced the costs of foods were political slogans of popular national priorities at the time. Thus, self-sufficiency in food was a powerful motivation, especially for countries that had experienced food shortages in the past. Hence countries that exceeded domestic demand used export markets and food aid programs to deal with the excess, which created a demand-driven economy. Rising discretionary incomes in Europe and North America in the 20th century impacted food demand, regulatory control, and global food trade. Rising consumer demand for chicken drove the development of the broiler industry while creating considerable food safety risks for the mass populations as mass production and transportation systems can be vulnerable to the spread of disease and food poisoning emergencies, where food regulations became part of the food systems, creating global food safety regulations to prevent problems before happening. Further, food systems are dynamic and ever-changing in response to natural forces e.g., weather, demographics such as the emergence of megacities, economics i.e., currency values, technological advances in processing such as high-pressure pasteurization, entrepreneurism, or development and marketing of new products, and consumer preferences, which adapted continuous improvements to keep up with the face. As a result of these constant changes, food systems, and their regulations are increasingly complex, requiring complex regulatory systems for assuring global food safety.
 
Preferably, the recent technological developments in tracking and monitoring food trade supply chains are extensive, i.e., cold chains, which in essence are responsible for keeping perishable foods frozen until they reach their final retail markets. While refrigeration is most likely an energy-intensive activity, the need for food supply chains to reduce product waste and ensure food safety to end markets is in line with current global food security. Leading cold supply chain logistics companies use applications such as computational fluid dynamics systems that can correct inefficiencies at pre-cooling stages. Radiofrequency, wireless sensors, and thermal imaging neural networks round out the technological advancements to keep food frozen to ensure greater food safety of shipped products. The use of DNA barcoding to speciate products (i.e., finfish fillets) sold and consumed is a truly effective regulatory tool according to the published studies. From a food safety perspective, some consumers may have allergies to certain types of products (i.e., finfish) even though allergens are not declared by species, where mislabeling leads to lost consumer trust in the safety of seafood products, undermining efforts toward sustainable marine ecosystem management. Fraud may in this context be a more important issue with regard to species mislabelling, where consumers unfairly pay the price of a more expensive species.
 

Another technological development making its way into food supply chains, and which can lend itself to food safety is blockchain, because, food traceability is very challenging for companies, retailers, and government regulating authorities because of the myriad modifications that can take place with ingredients, bacteria or viruses for example. While blockchain may still be relatively new as an application, this technology may become more integrated into food-tracking systems for regulatory controls. Blockchain algorithms have the potential to store data and enable quick tacking across many supply chain process steps, giving stakeholders the ability to monitor much faster. Another futuristic possibility is to use blockchain to detect food safety parameters, such as microbial infestation or contamination, such as mold toxins, heavy metals, pesticides, or allergens. Blockchain can also indicate concerns over geographic origin or biological and chemical identity and methods of production. Combining blockchain with the data points tracking with an Internet-of-Things, especially in the food trade would be a powerful framework for revolutionizing the food industry.

 
References
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114491/
https://cdn.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/sites/agri-food/Benchmarking%20Food%20Safety%20-%20AAL%20FINAL%20Report.pdf
Ercsey-Ravasz M, Toroczkai Z, Lakner Z, Baranyi J. Complexity of the International Agro-Food Trade Network and Its Impact on Food Safety. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(5):e37810.

Artificial Intelligence in Food Industry

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Food Safety and Quality Management

Modern-day food safety management involves collecting and analyzing data from various sources, including temperature sensors, quality control devices, supply chain partners, etc., where integration allows the software to gather data automatically from these sources and centralize it in one location by seamlessly connecting with inventory management systems, point-of-sale systems, or other related platforms. Integration capabilities can streamline data sharing, reduce duplication of efforts, and enhance total efficiency, which reduces manual data entry errors and ensures that all valid data is available in real-time, where most of the AI-based modern software solutions offer real-time data exchange, thus providing up-to-date information across the management. Nonetheless, food safety regulations and standards are also continually evolving, where integration features with regulatory databases and authorities permit the automatic updation of compliance requirements so that the company remains in adherence to the latest regulations, reducing compliance-related risks.

 

Nevertheless, leveraging technology can significantly streamline food safety management processes, whereas automation tools and software solutions can assist in data collection, analysis, and real-time monitoring, facilitating quick and informed decision-making. Moreover, advanced technologies such as blockchain and IoT (Internet of Things) enable enhanced traceability, transparency, and accountability across the food supply chain, reducing the risk of fraud and ensuring the integrity of the products. Further, regular auditing and certification play a pivotal role in maintaining and continuously improving food safety management systems. Thus, independent third-party audits provide an objective assessment of a company's adherence to food safety standards, highlighting areas for improvement and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements, where implementing a recognized food safety certification such as ISO 22000 can demonstrate the management’s commitment to food safety, which also can instill confidence in consumers, suppliers, and business partners.

 

The contemporary food industry is based on a holistic approach to organizing, analyzing, integrating, and generating conclusions that can help benchmark and track key performance indicators (KPIs) related to food safety and quality, whereas the application of machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) can provide the conceptual tool to transform food safety and quality data management, driving it from a parallel and repetitive control base model toward a value-based food safety and quality system. Hence, AI can deliver from the need to have a feedback loop for existing food safety and quality programs as well as whether they are meeting the needs and expectations of the organization/regulatory quality assurance management and generate frequent analytical information that can be summarized in reports for the company senior management teams. Further, AI may provide a number-based system to justify investment in a company’s food safety and quality programs, redirect resources to where they have the most impact, and potentially lower food safety and quality costs while enhancing the delivery of superior food safety and quality control and management.

 

AI emphasizes the creation of intelligent machines that work and react similarly to humans, where the early adaptation of AI included speech recognition, facial recognition, biometrics, planning, and computer-based problem-solving. The AI algorithms can learn and improve their effectiveness similar to the learning process for human food safety and quality professionals, where structured data are fed into the computer systems and identified with a label or annotation to be recognizable to the algorithm’s data point during the AI learning process. Nevertheless, the algorithm starts to examine the input data and compare it with known data that the algorithm already has analyzed, as well as modify the results by receiving more data inputs or solving equations for the human operator, where the algorithms can learn from data that are either numerical, i.e., such as colony count or pH, or a statement, such as an auditor note creating an output such as a simple grouping of data with means, modes, etc., or more valuable outputs such as statistical probability or classification or categorization. Hence, the more data fed into the algorithm, the more learning, data outputs, probabilities, and classifications can be derived. In addition, AI’s reach and applicability are expanding rapidly, whereas AI is enabling computers to think and learn in a manner to similar humans. Thus, the use of AI as a tool for food safety and quality is in its infancy, but with extended effort and investment, it has the potential to emerge as a game changer, forming a structural foundation to incorporate facility, industry, and government data to form a complete picture of risks, vulnerabilities, and opportunities for improvement.

 

Further, the successful application of AI can be used to analyze vast amounts of data on previous violations related to food safety, including time since the last inspection, operation period, nearby garbage and sanitation complaints, 3-day high-temperature readings, nearby burglaries, and tobacco or alcohol licenses issued by Public Health agencies to help identity at-risk restaurants to form a collective picture of the potential for food safety or quality risks and violations. The algorithm output is also can designate high- and low-risk restaurants and public places using the AI system and following the indicated KPIs designated by the food safety expert for the AI system where the AI results and the software design may publicly available, which requires the input of a significant amount of data to allow the algorithm to learn and optimize its performance for an AI solution to be successful.

 

There are two categories of food safety and quality data, which are internal and external data, where external data such as product recalls, foodborne outbreaks, relevant electronic health records, and finished product testing help to form a more complete picture and are being actively collected by numerous nongovernmental and governmental organizations. On the other hand, internal data include sanitation verifications, pest control programs, internal audits, supplier verification, consumer complaints, hazard analysis critical control point and preventive control data, good manufacturing practice and supplier verification data, foodborne illnesses, and company-generated internal and external lab records.

 

The data collection and analysis need to consider both external and internal risk-related data on various areas of industrial and public activities. Regardless of all the critical controls the world has overtaken over the years, still the most commonly reported foodborne diseases are listeriosis, salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis, and illnesses triggered by Shiga toxin-producing strains of Escherichia coli throughout the developed as well as developing world, while other zoonotic (transmitted by animal) foodborne diseases such as brucellosis are a significant public health issue in developing countries, where Trichinellosis and echinococcosis are diseases caused by animal parasites in humans. Antimicrobial resistance, caused by increasing usage of antibiotics in animal feed, are human-created condition that is gaining importance, while persistent organic pollutants, acrylamide, pesticides, and dioxin represent public health risks that all are chemical contaminants and hazards in food due to human activities.

 

Determination of all possible indicators that might affect food safety and quality as well as determination of the best approaches to monitor those parameters and variables are the key to a better analysis. Thus, food safety and quality data in a manufacturing plant can be collected using automated sensors that feed data to computers, as well as by individuals, i.e., ATP readings, pH, temperature, and composition of the in-process product; metal detectors; and optical scanners as well as outside contract laboratory testing can provide data on pH, microbial load (environmental and possibly finished-product pathogen testing), allergen residues, and labeling compliance, which are also important sources of food safety data. In addition, the design of experiments and/or predictive modeling using AI and machine learning approaches can provide systematic approaches that can optimize the impact of input variables from food safety and quality data measurement with the results of the food safety system implementations (outcomes), where already available software applications can be used to conduct such experimental designs that incorporate practical and easy-to-understand and approaches. Further, the conversion of the data into actionable information is the most important part of the food safety and quality database implementation system, where the overall structure of the food safety and quality database incorporates all elements discussed to build the holistic approach to AI-based food safety. On the other hand, the challenges of using AI in food safety and quality programs are also very important as food safety data have tremendous diversity in format, type, and context, whereas merging big food safety and quality data into conventional databases is challenging and hard to implement.

 

Therefore, one of the major challenges for food safety professionals is that the people creating algorithms for food safety and quality purposes are not the food safety professionals, where both food safety professionals and computer specialists need to learn more about each other’s profession or employ a translator that understands the interests and professions of both. However, there are a number of other challenges such as industrial data release, data interpretation, and data inaccuracy are very common in the food industry. Access to data is challenging because, accessing confidential industrial food safety and quality records is strictly protected, where issues such as data ownership and the right to access or sell data to other AI and non-AI companies include potential security breach consequences related to the food safety data. Although all data are valuable, the data interpretation is further challenging as internal and external inspector and auditor notes are unstructured, making them difficult to interpret and process, whereas the variability and inconsistencies in the format and location of the data require additional effort to organize the data into standard structures, which is a waste of resources and drives up the operations costs to use the AI technology effectively. Data inaccuracy has a major impact on results, where all data must undergo some type of cleaning or verification testing to ensure they are accurate and representative of what they are measuring.

 

Regulatory requirements are another major area, where relatively new food safety laws and regulations in many countries allow government inspectors to have access to all food safety and quality data, including that generated as the result of using AI. On the other hand, liability is another major factor, where the liability of the AI-processed data is important. Hence, the use of AI technology creates a larger liability burden for a company related to its food safety and quality programs, and the impact related to liability insurance must also be included when companies agree to insure food manufacturing companies using AI as a tool. Further, trust another very important factor where the food manufacturer’s senior management should be willing to trust a food safety and quality-related prediction from a software algorithm instead of a human, which is also can be a very challenging issue.   

 

Considering the current trends and ongoing cost-inefficient factors, hybrid models of AI applications can be the best tools for improving food safety and quality programs for food manufacturers by using internal and external data points collected from many sources and then integrating and analyzing them to predict the likelihood of unfavorable food safety events. The application of AI with human instinct and experience from internal and external inspectors, auditors, and food safety and quality professionals will support the detection, preventive action, and identification of risk factors, recognizing that food safety and quality professionals and company senior management retain the ultimate responsibility for making the right food safety and quality decisions.

Reference:

https://www.foodprotection.org/files/food-protection-trends/nov-dec-20-tajkarimi.pdf
https://smartfoodsafe.com/essential-guide-to-food-safety-management-software/
https://www.digicomply.com/blog/food-safety-management
https://www.rapidmicrobiology.com/news/leveraging-data-analytics-for-enhanced-food-safety-and-quality-control-download-white-paper
https://www.carlisletechnology.com/blog/improved-food-safety-through-data-collection
https://www.specpage.com/food-safety-lims/

Food Safety Practice Tests - X

ISO 22000:2018 Lead Auditor Model Paper 2

This is another practice test aimed at ISO 22000:2018 practitioners who are planning to sit for the lead auditor exam after successful classroom lessons. These are open-book exams, where participants are expected to use their own copy of ISO 22000:2018 standard for the references. The answers are given at the end of the paper but try not to look at them first and try to complete the paper beforehand.

 

 ISO 22000:2018 Lead Auditor Practice Test – Model Paper 2

Time: 01 Hour

Answer all the questions

 

1.     In which clause of ISO 22000:2018 is the scope of the standard defined?

A.    Clause 1

B.     Clause 2

C.    Clause 3

D.    Clause 4

 

2.     What is the primary goal of ISO 22000:2018?

A.    Ensuring product quality

B.     Preventing food fraud

C.    Reducing environmental impact

D.    Ensuring food safety throughout the food chain

 

3.     ISO 22000:2018 specifies the requirements for?

A.    Product quality control

B.     Occupational safety management

C.    Food safety management systems

D.    Environmental sustainability

 

4.     Organizations can exclude certain elements from their FSMS scope if?

A.    They have a high employee turnover rate

B.     Those elements don't impact food safety

C.    The elements are related to HACCP

D.    The elements are already regulated by local laws

 

5.     Which of the following is a key component of a Food Safety Management System (FSMS)?

A.    Marketing strategies

B.     Product pricing

C.    HACCP principles

D.    Employee dress code

 

6.     Normative references provide?

A.    Guidance on marketing strategies

B.     Mandatory requirements for an FSMS

C.    Suggestions for product packaging

D.    Recommendations for employee training

 

7.     A normative reference is a document that is?

A.    Produced by the organization itself

B.     Not relevant to the organization's industry

C.    Produced by a regulatory authority

D.    Produced by an external organization

 

8.     Compliance with normative references is?

A.    Optional

B.     Mandatory

C.    Required for smaller organizations

D.    Required only during audits

 

9.     What is the purpose of implementing prerequisite programs in a food safety management system?

A.    To enhance product flavor

B.     To control critical control points

C.    To create a pleasant dining environment

D.    To establish a foundation for food safety

 

10.  Which of the following is NOT a type of prerequisite program in ISO 22000:2018?

A.    Pest control

B.     Product marketing

C.    Food packaging design

D.    Employee training

 

11.  Which step of the HACCP plan involves identifying hazards and assessing their severity and likelihood?

A.    Monitoring

B.     Verification

C.    Hazard analysis

D.    Control

 

12.  In ISO 22000:2018, where can you find definitions for terms used in the standard?

A.    Clause 1

B.     Clause 2

C.    Clause 3

D.    Annex A

 

13.  What is the purpose of standardized definitions in ISO 22000:2018?

A.    To confuse auditors during assessments

B.     To simplify communication within the organization

C.    To increase the length of the standard

D.    To reduce the number of employees required

 

14.  ISO 22000:2018 defines "control measure" as?

A.    Any measure to control pests

B.     A measure to control the process of product labeling

C.    A measure to eliminate food safety hazards

D.    A measure to ensure the quality of finished products

 

15.  What distinguishes a "critical control point" (CCP) from an "operational prerequisite program" (OPRP)?

A.    CCPs are preventive while OPRPs are corrective

B.     CCPs are only relevant for primary production

C.    CCPs focus on personnel training, while OPRPs focus on equipment maintenance

D.    CCPs address hazards that could lead to unsafe products, while OPRPs address significant hazards

 

16.  How can organizations ensure that their employees understand and use the standardized definitions from ISO 22000:2018?

A.    By conducting regular management reviews

B.     By delegating definition interpretation to external consultants

C.    By providing training and awareness programs

D.    By limiting the use of technical terms in documentation

 

17.  Critical Control Points (CCPs) are points in the process where?

A.    Employee breaks are allowed

B.     Hazards can be eliminated, reduced, or controlled

C.    Routine maintenance is conducted

D.    Packaging is finalized

 

18.  According to ISO 22000:2018, which clause discusses understanding the organization and its context?

A.    Clause 2

B.     Clause 3

C.    Clause 4

D.    Clause 5

 

19.  Why is it important for organizations to identify internal and external issues that can affect their FSMS?

A.    To impress auditors during assessments

B.     To eliminate all issues before implementing the FSMS

C.    To ensure alignment between food safety objectives and organizational goals

D.    To increase the complexity of the FSMS

 

20.  Provide an example of an external issue that might impact an organization's FSMS?

A.    Employee training programs

B.     Changes in customer preferences

C.    Supplier audits

D.    Food labeling practices

 

21.  How can organizations effectively monitor and review the internal and external issues identified in ISO 22000:2018?

A.    By ignoring minor issues and focusing on major ones

B.     By conducting weekly meetings with top management

C.    By regularly reviewing the FSMS to ensure its effectiveness

D.    By delegating this responsibility to external parties

 

22.  How does understanding the organization's context contribute to the successful implementation of an FSMS?

A.    It reduces the need for communication with suppliers

B.     It ensures that only top management is aware of potential issues

C.    It allows the organization to tailor its FSMS to its unique environment

D.    It decreases the need for management involvement

 

23.  Why is communication essential along the food chain according to ISO 22000:2018?

A.    To promote competitive pricing

B.     To facilitate food waste disposal

C.    To ensure effective control of food safety hazards

D.    To encourage the use of non-approved suppliers

 

24.  Which group is NOT considered a relevant external interested party for communication purposes in ISO 22000:2018?

A.    Competitors

B.     Regulatory authorities

C.    Customers

D.    Suppliers

 

25.  In ISO 22000:2018, which clause emphasizes the role of top management in establishing the FSMS?

A.    Clause 3

B.     Clause 4

C.    Clause 5

D.    Clause 6

 

26.  What are the key responsibilities of top management in relation to ISO 22000:2018?

A.    Setting food prices and marketing strategies

B.     Ensuring employee satisfaction

C.    Providing adequate resources and demonstrating commitment

D.    Focusing solely on production efficiency

 

27.  How can top management demonstrate their commitment to the FSMS according to ISO 22000:2018?

A.    By ignoring food safety concerns

B.     By attending only the opening session of management review meetings

C.    By delegating all food safety responsibilities to the quality department

D.    By actively participating in the management of the FSMS

 

28.  Why is it important for top management to allocate resources for the effective implementation of the FSMS?

A.    To ensure the FSMS achieves its intended outcomes

B.     To increase employee workload

C.    To maintain financial stability

D.    To ensure the FSMS is aligned with competitor standards

 

29.  How does leadership involvement influence the overall food safety culture within an organization?

A.    It doesn't impact the food safety culture

B.     It sets the tone for the importance of food safety and encourages employee engagement

C.    It leads to excessive documentation and procedures

D.    It focuses solely on financial performance

 

30.  ISO 22000:2018 specifies requirements for which planning-related aspect?

A.    Financial planning

B.     Marketing planning

C.    Risk-based thinking

D.    Legal planning

 

31.  The organization must plan its FSMS to address risks and opportunities that can affect?

A.    Supplier relations only

B.     Food safety and achieving its intended outcomes

C.    Profit margins only

D.    Employee satisfaction only

 

32.  What should the organization determine when planning its FSMS?

A.    Only the financial budget for the next year

B.     The strategic marketing plan for the next decade

C.    The processes needed and their interactions

D.    The best employee attire for the production area

 

33.  How does risk-based thinking contribute to effective FSMS planning?

A.    By avoiding all types of risks

B.     By minimizing the use of resources

C.    By addressing potential issues before they become problems

D.    By focusing exclusively on internal risks

 

34.  ISO 22000:2018 requires organizations to determine criteria for?

A.    Employee promotions

B.     Supplier selection

C.    HACCP certification

D.    Customer satisfaction surveys

 

35.  In ISO 22000:2018, which clause addresses the support required for the FSMS?

A.    Clause 4

B.     Clause 5

C.    Clause 6

D.    Clause 7

 

36.  ISO 22000:2018 emphasizes the importance of providing resources for?

A.    Only employee training

B.     Marketing campaigns

C.    Effective implementation and maintenance of the FSMS

D.    New product development

 

37.  What is the purpose of competence requirements in ISO 22000:2018?

A.    To ensure that employees are qualified to perform their tasks

B.     To reduce employee workload

C.    To promote individual creativity

D.    To increase management involvement

 

38.  ISO 22000:2018 requires organizations to communicate relevant information on the FSMS to?

A.    Competitors

B.     Regulatory authorities only

C.    Interested parties and employees

D.    External consultants

 

39.  Which sub-clause of ISO 22000:2018 specifies requirements for documented information?

A.    7.1.1

B.     7.2

C.    7.3

D.    7.4

 

40.  In ISO 22000:2018, which clause addresses the operational planning and control requirements?

A.    Clause 6

B.     Clause 7

C.    Clause 8

D.    Clause 9

 

41.  Which type of control is typically applied to raw materials and ingredients in the food chain?

A.    Marketing control

B.     Operational control

C.    Financial control

D.    Regulatory control

 

42.  ISO 22000:2018 requires organizations to establish processes to?

A.    Monitor employee attendance

B.     Monitor the effectiveness of operational controls

C.    Reduce customer complaints

D.    Increase marketing efforts

 

43.  Which clause of ISO 22000:2018 emphasizes the importance of ensuring that products are handled, stored, and transported under controlled conditions?

A.    8.1

B.     8.2

C.    8.3

D.    8.4

 

44.  ISO 22000:2018 requires organizations to establish a traceability system to identify?

A.    Only raw material sources

B.     Only CCPs

C.    The flow of products through the entire food chain

D.    Only internal audits

 

45.  In ISO 22000:2018, which clause addresses the requirements for performance evaluation?  

A.    Clause 7

B.     Clause 8

C.    Clause 9

D.    Clause 10

 

46.  ISO 22000:2018 requires organizations to monitor, measure, analyze, and evaluate?

A.    Only customer complaints

B.     Only financial performance

C.    The FSMS's conformity and effectiveness

D.    Only employee satisfaction

 

47.  Which sub-clause of ISO 22000:2018 addresses the need for internal audits?

A.    9.1

B.     9.2

C.    9.3

D.    9.4

 

48.  What is the purpose of an internal audit in ISO 22000:2018?

A.    To assess the effectiveness of the FSMS

B.     To expose the weaknesses of competitors

C.    To verify the conformity of products

D.    To compare employee performance

 

49.  The internal audit program should consider the status and importance of?

A.    Only regulatory compliance

B.     Only employee training

C.    All areas of the organization

D.    Only financial performance

 

50.  ISO 22000:2018 requires organizations to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of?

A.    Only CCPs

B.     Only marketing campaigns

C.    The FSMS

D.    Only customer complaints

 

51.  In ISO 22000:2018, which clause addresses the requirements for improvement?

A.    Clause 8

B.     Clause 10

C.    Clause 9

D.    Clause 11

 

52.  ISO 22000:2018 emphasizes the importance of continually improving the suitability, adequacy, and?

A.    Flexibility of the FSMS

B.     Efficiency of marketing efforts

C.    Performance of external suppliers

D.    Performance of regulatory authorities

 

53.  The organization should consider the results of data analysis when deciding on opportunities for?

A.    Improvement

B.     Reducing employee workload

C.    Increasing product variety

D.    Supplier relations

 

54.  ISO 22000:2018 requires organizations to identify opportunities for?

A.    Only financial gain

B.     Continual improvement in the FSMS

C.    Reducing employee training

D.    Reducing product variety

 

55.  Corrective action is taken to eliminate the causes of?

A.    Employee absenteeism

B.     Only customer complaints

C.    All non-conformities

D.    Only CCP failures

 

56.  Continual improvement in ISO 22000:2018 involves?

A.    Identifying opportunities to enhance food safety management

B.     Reducing the variety of products offered

C.    Making abrupt changes to the manufacturing process

D.    Decreasing employee engagement in decision-making

 

57.  How can organizations achieve continual improvement in their food safety management systems?

A.    By sticking to existing practices

B.     By addressing nonconformities and reviewing the FSMS

C.    By avoiding any changes to processes

D.    By eliminating all external communication

 

58.  Food safety culture refers to?

A.    The types of food consumed by employees during lunch breaks

B.     The shared values, beliefs, and norms related to food safety within an organization

C.    The cultural festivals organized by the company

D.    The music played in the cafeteria

 

59.  What is the role of top management in fostering a positive food safety culture?

A.    Ignoring food safety concerns to maintain employee morale

B.     Setting a positive example and providing necessary resources

C.    Outsourcing food safety responsibilities to external consultants

D.    Minimizing the importance of food safety training

 

60.  What is an outsourced process in the context of ISO 22000:2018?

A.    A process conducted exclusively by top management

B.     A process that is no longer in use

C.    A process that is performed by an external organization on behalf of the organization

D.    A process operated outside the premises

 

 

 

 

ISO 22000:2018 – Practice Tests

Module Paper 2

  

Answer Key
01	A	02	D	03	C	04	B
05	C	06	B	07	D	08	B
09	D	10	B	11	C	12	D
13	B	14	C	15	D	16	C
17	B	18	C	19	C	20	B
21	C	22	C	23	C	24	A
25	D	26	C	27	D	28	A
29	B	30	C	31	B	32	C
33	C	34	B	35	D	36	C
37	A	38	C	39	B	40	C
41	B	42	B	43	B	44	C
45	C	46	C	47	B	48	A
49	C	50	C	51	B	52	A
53	A	54	B	55	C	56	A
57	B	58	B	59	B	60	C