Food defense

Last updated
Food risk matrix [1]
Consequence
Gain: economic Food quality Food fraud
Harm: Public health, economic, or terror Food safety Food defense
UnintentionalIntentional
Action

Food defense is the protection of food products from intentional contamination or adulteration by biological, chemical, physical, or radiological agents introduced for the purpose of causing harm. It addresses additional concerns including physical, personnel and operational security. [2]

Contents

Food defense is one of the four categories of the food protection risk matrix [1] which 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 behavior but without intention to cause harm.

Overarching these four categories is food security, which deals with individuals having access to enough food for an active, healthy life. Food protection is the umbrella term encompassing both food defense and food safety. These six terms are often conflated.

Along with protecting the food system, food defense also deals with prevention, protection, mitigation, response and recovery from intentional acts of adulteration. [3]

History in the United States

Food defense event types

Food defense events can generally be categorized into three types. These could be carried out by a disgruntled employee, sophisticated insider, or intelligent adversary with a specific goal in mind. This goal 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.

Industrial sabotage

These events include intentional contamination by a disgruntled employee, insider or competitor with the intention of damaging the brand of the company, causing financial problems from a widespread recall or sabotage, [14] 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. [15]

An example of a disgruntled employee is the contamination of frozen foods produced by a subsidiary of Maruha Nichiro with malathion, a pesticide. The contamination resulted in a recall of 6.4 million potentially tainted products. [16] Nearly 1,800 people are estimated to have been affected, and public confidence in food quality was shaken. [17]

Terrorism

The reach and complexity of the food system has caused concern for its potential as a terrorist target. [18]

The first and largest food attack in the US is the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. 751 individuals were poisoned in The Dalles, Oregon through the contamination of salad bars with Salmonella with the intention of affecting the 1984 Wasco County elections.

An example of one business attempting to force a change of government policy by threatening another business, was the 2014 extortion threat against New Zealand milk and infant formula. Jeremy Hamish Kerr, a businessman who produced a cyanide-based poison (Feratox) for killing possums in New Zealand, threatened dairy producer Fonterra and Federated Farmers that infant formula and other dairy products would be poisoned with 1080 (monofluoroacetate) if they did not persuade the New Zealand government to halt the use of 1080 which is widely used by the Department of Conservation to control possums in New Zealand. [19] Because statistically-based sampling plans are ineffective as protection against a deliberate malicious act, in order to maintain confidence in the safety of their products Fonterra had to test every single tanker of milk and every single batch of infant formula for the presence of 1080 until the offender was caught by police. [20] [21] [22] Jeremy Kerr was found guilty of blackmail and sentenced to eight and a half years jail. [23] [24] (Note: During the trial is as determined that the perpetrator sold a competing product so that even though the result was a food defense incident the root cause was economic gain. “He was found to have been financially motivated when he sent two letters to Fonterra and Federated Farmers threatening to poison baby formula with 1080. Kerr had invented a rival poison and a judge found he believed he would receive a financial benefit if the use of 1080 was stopped.”)

Economically motivated adulteration (EMA)

The FDA's working definition of EMA is

the fraudulent, intentional substitution or addition of a substance in a product for the purpose of increasing the apparent value of the product or reducing the cost of its production, i.e., for economic gain. EMA includes dilution of products with increased quantities of an already-present substance (e.g., increasing inactive ingredients of a drug with a resulting reduction in strength of the finished product, or watering down of juice) to the extent that such dilution poses a known or possible health risk to consumers, as well as the addition or substitution of substances in order to mask dilution. [25]

EMA -- using the FDA working definition is one type of Food Fraud -- commonly occurs for financial advantage through the undeclared substitution with alternative ingredients [26]. This poses a health concern due to allergen labeling requirements. In 2016 a restaurateur was jailed for manslaughter after a customer died because cheaper ground nut powder (containing peanut allergen) was used instead of almond powder in preparing a takeaway curry, three weeks after another customer suffered an allergic reaction which required hospital treatment. [26] These deliberate acts are intended to evade detection, posing a challenge to regulating bodies and quality assurance methodologies. [27] [28] [29]

Cases of EMA have been seen in the horse-meat scandal, melamine contamination scandal and the Salmonella outbreak involving the Peanut Corporation of America. The most commonly counterfeited product is extra-virgin olive oil. Other products commonly associated with food fraud include fish and seafood, honey, meat and grain-based foods, fruit juices, organic foods, coffee, some highly processed foods, tea and spices. [30] Experts estimate that up to 10% of food products in retail stores contain some degree of adulteration, and EMA events cost the US food industry between $10 billion and $15 billion a year. [31]

Protection strategies

Regulatory bodies and industry can implement strategies and use tools in order to protect their supply chains and processing facilities from intentional contamination or adulteration. Defined as protection or mitigation, this process involves both assessing the risk and vulnerabilities of a single supply chain or facility and working to mitigate these risks in order to prevent an event, and reducing the severity of an event.

Tools

The FDA has developed several tools for the food industry, including among others: [32]

Risk assessments

It is difficult to quantify the risk in a system, due to the stochastic nature of the events. However, it is possible to use other sources of information, such as gathered intelligence, economic and social drivers and data mining to assess the potential weaknesses and entry points of a system, along with the scale of consequences related to a breach in that system. Tools being developed for this purpose by the National Center for Food Protection and Defense include Focused Integration of Data for Early Signals (FIDES) and Criticality Spatial Analysis (CRISTAL). [37]

Food industry stakeholders can perform a vulnerability assessment to understand the vulnerabilities of their system, the consequences of an event and the potential threats and agents. This allows companies to assess and prioritize vulnerabilities within their facility and system. A software tool has been developed by the FDA to assist with this process. [38] Companies are encouraged to create a Food Defense Plan based on the vulnerability and risk assessments performed, detailing their plan of action in the case of an intentional or unintentional contamination event.

Vulnerability assessment tools

The FDA has identified four key activities, or common vulnerabilities within the food system: bulk liquid receiving and loading, liquid storage and handling, secondary ingredient handling, and mixing or similar activities. Knowledge of these key activities can direct action plans.

CARVER + Shock is used to consider the factors involved in an intentional contamination event [39] (Note: as of the publishing of the FSMA Intentional Adulteration final rule this software is no longer available or supported by FDA.

Supply chain control

Understanding the supply chains involved in a food system is difficult due to their complex and often obscured nature, but having a good understanding of where incoming ingredients come from can help to mitigate contamination and adulteration. Good supply chain management coupled with regular audits and quality assurance analyses can help to safeguard companies from contamination originating outside the facility.

In addition, companies can take advantage of existing scenario based tools and should follow Good Manufacturing Practice guidelines.

Mitigation strategies

Physical measures

  • Secure the facility perimeter and perform periodic checks
  • Use controlled-access procedures for people or vehicles entering the plant or parking area
  • Install an alarm system, cameras and sufficient lighting
  • Designate restricted areas for authorized employees, restrict non-employees to non-production areas
  • Limit access to control systems
  • Use tamper-evident or tamper-resistant packaging
  • all entry maintain key and lock control processor

Policy measures

  • Use a system to identify personnel by their specific functions
  • Conduct background checks on all employees and contractors who will be working in sensitive operations
  • Train employees on food defense and security awareness, including recognition of suspicious behavior or individuals

Management

  • Maintain records to allow easy trace-back and trace-forward of materials and products
  • Have available a list of contacts for local, state and federal agencies
  • Implement an inventory control system

More strategies for various categories and nodes of the food system can be found in the various mitigation strategies databases available through the FDA and USDA.

Stakeholders involved in food defense

Global

United States

Federal level

State level

  • State health departments
  • State departments of agriculture
  • Local law enforcement

Other groups

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food and Drug Administration</span> United States federal agency

The United States Food and Drug Administration is a federal agency of the Department of Health and Human Services. The FDA is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the control and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, caffeine products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs (medications), vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED), cosmetics, animal foods & feed and veterinary products.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Meat Inspection Act</span> 1906 U.S. law regulating the meat industry

The Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 (FMIA) is an American law that makes it illegal to adulterate or misbrand meat and meat products being sold as food, and ensures that meat and meat products are slaughtered and processed under strictly regulated sanitary conditions. These requirements also apply to imported meat products, which must be inspected under equivalent foreign standards. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspection of poultry was added by the Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957 (PPIA). The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act authorizes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to provide inspection services for all livestock and poultry species not listed in the FMIA or PPIA, including venison and buffalo. The Agricultural Marketing Act authorizes the USDA to offer voluntary, fee-for-service inspection services for these same species.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pure Food and Drug Act</span> 1906 consumer protection law in the US

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, also known as Dr. Wiley's Law, was the first of a series of significant consumer protection laws which was enacted by Congress in the 20th century and led to the creation of the Food and Drug Administration. Its main purpose was to ban foreign and interstate traffic in adulterated or mislabeled food and drug products, and it directed the U.S. Bureau of Chemistry to inspect products and refer offenders to prosecutors. It required that active ingredients be placed on the label of a drug's packaging and that drugs could not fall below purity levels established by the United States Pharmacopeia or the National Formulary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harvey Washington Wiley</span> First US Commissioner of Food and Drugs

Harvey Washington Wiley was an American chemist who advocated successfully for the passage of the landmark Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and subsequently worked at the Good Housekeeping Institute laboratories. He was the first commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration.

Food quality is a concept often based on the organoleptic characteristics and nutritional value of food. Producers reducing potential pathogens and other hazards through food safety practices is another important factor in gauging standards. A food's origin, and even its branding, can play a role in how consumers perceive the quality of products.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hazard analysis and critical control points</span> Systematic preventive approach to food safety

Hazard analysis and critical control points, or HACCP, is a systematic preventive approach to food safety from biological, chemical, and physical hazards in production processes that can cause the finished product to be unsafe and designs measures to reduce these risks to a safe level. In this manner, HACCP attempts to avoid hazards rather than attempting to inspect finished products for the effects of those hazards. The HACCP system can be used at all stages of a food chain, from food production and preparation processes including packaging, distribution, etc. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) require mandatory HACCP programs for juice and meat as an effective approach to food safety and protecting public health. Meat HACCP systems are regulated by the USDA, while seafood and juice are regulated by the FDA. All other food companies in the United States that are required to register with the FDA under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, as well as firms outside the US that export food to the US, are transitioning to mandatory hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls (HARPC) plans.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Good manufacturing practice</span> Manufacturing quality standards

Current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) are those conforming to the guidelines recommended by relevant agencies. Those agencies control the authorization and licensing of the manufacture and sale of food and beverages, cosmetics, pharmaceutical products, dietary supplements, and medical devices. These guidelines provide minimum requirements that a manufacturer must meet to assure that their products are consistently high in quality, from batch to batch, for their intended use. The rules that govern each industry may differ significantly; however, the main purpose of GMP is always to prevent harm from occurring to the end user. Additional tenets include ensuring the end product is free from contamination, that it is consistent in its manufacture, that its manufacture has been well documented, that personnel are well trained, and that the product has been checked for quality more than just at the end phase. GMP is typically ensured through the effective use of a quality management system (QMS).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act</span> Acts of the United States Congress

The United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is a set of laws passed by the United States Congress in 1938 giving authority to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to oversee the safety of food, drugs, medical devices, and cosmetics. The FDA's principal representative with members of congress during its drafting was Charles W. Crawford. A principal author of this law was Royal S. Copeland, a three-term U.S. senator from New York. In 1968, the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions were added to the FD&C. Also in that year the FDA formed the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation (DESI) to incorporate into FD&C regulations the recommendations from a National Academy of Sciences investigation of effectiveness of previously marketed drugs. The act has been amended many times, most recently to add requirements about bioterrorism preparations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food policy</span> Area of public policy

Food policy is the area of public policy concerning how food is produced, processed, distributed, purchased, or provided. Food policies are designed to influence the operation of the food and agriculture system balanced with ensuring human health needs. This often includes decision-making around production and processing techniques, marketing, availability, utilization, and consumption of food, in the interest of meeting or furthering social objectives. Food policy can be promulgated on any level, from local to global, and by a government agency, business, or organization. Food policymakers engage in activities such as regulation of food-related industries, establishing eligibility standards for food assistance programs for the poor, ensuring safety of the food supply, food labeling, and even the qualifications of a product to be considered organic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002</span>

Signed into effect on 12 June 2002, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (PHSBPRA) was signed by the President, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food safety</span> Scientific discipline

Food safety is used as a scientific method/discipline describing handling, preparation, and storage of food in ways that prevent foodborne illness. The occurrence of two or more cases of a similar illness resulting from the ingestion of a common food is known as a food-borne disease outbreak. This includes a number of routines that should be followed to avoid potential health hazards. In this way, food safety often overlaps with food defense to prevent harm to consumers. The tracks within this line of thought are safety between industry and the market and then between the market and the consumer. In considering industry-to-market practices, food safety considerations include the origins of food including the practices relating to food labeling, food hygiene, food additives and pesticide residues, as well as policies on biotechnology and food and guidelines for the management of governmental import and export inspection and certification systems for foods. In considering market-to-consumer practices, the usual thought is that food ought to be safe in the market and the concern is safe delivery and preparation of the food for the consumer. Food safety, nutrition and food security are closely related. Unhealthy food creates a cycle of disease and malnutrition that affects infants and adults as well.

The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition is the branch of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that regulates food, dietary supplements, and cosmetics, as opposed to drugs, biologics, medical devices, and radiological products, which also fall under the purview of the FDA.

In China, the adulteration and contamination of several food and feed ingredients with inexpensive melamine and other compounds, such as cyanuric acid, ammeline and ammelide, are common practice. These adulterants can be used to inflate the apparent protein content of products, so that inexpensive ingredients can pass for more expensive, concentrated proteins. Melamine by itself has not been thought to be very toxic to animals or humans except possibly in very high concentrations, but the combination of melamine and cyanuric acid has been implicated in kidney failure. Reports that cyanuric acid may be an independently and potentially widely used adulterant in China have heightened concerns for both animal and human health.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Regulation of food and dietary supplements by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration</span> Governmental regulation of food quality

The regulation of food and dietary supplements by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is a process governed by various statutes enacted by the United States Congress and interpreted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). Pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and accompanying legislation, the FDA has authority to oversee the quality of substances sold as food in the United States, and to monitor claims made in the labeling about both the composition and the health benefits of foods.

Adulteration is a legal offense and when the food fails to meet the legal standards set by the government, it is said to have been Adulterated Food. One form of adulteration is the addition of another substance to a food item in order to increase the quantity of the food item in raw form or prepared form, which results in the loss of the actual quality of the food item. These substances may be either available food items or non-food items. Among meat and meat products some of the items used to adulterate are water or ice, carcasses, or carcasses of animals other than the animal meant to be consumed. In the case of seafood, adulteration may refer to species substitution (mislabeling), which replaces the species identified on the product label with another species, or undisclosed processing methods, in which treatments such as additives, excessive glazing, or short-weighting are not disclosed to the consumer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michael R. Taylor</span> American politician

Michael R. Taylor is an American lawyer who has played leadership roles in the US Food and Drug Administration, agrochemical company Monsanto, and law firm King & Spalding. He currently co-chairs the board of STOP Foodborne Illness, a non-profit that supports victims of serious illness and their families in efforts to strengthen food safety culture and practices in government and industry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">FDA Food Safety Modernization Act</span> 2011 United States law

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was signed into law by President Barack Obama on January 4, 2011. The FSMA has given the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) new authority to regulate the way foods are grown, harvested and processed. The law grants the FDA a number of new powers, including mandatory recall authority, which the agency has sought for many years. The FSMA requires the FDA to undertake more than a dozen rulemakings and issue at least 10 guidance documents, as well as a host of reports, plans, strategies, standards, notices, and other tasks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food Safety and Inspection Service</span> U.S. federal government agency

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is the public health regulatory agency responsible for ensuring that United States' commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged. The FSIS draws its authority from the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906, the Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957 and the Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970. The FSIS also acts as a national health department and is responsible for the safety of public food-related establishments as well as business investigation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food safety in the United States</span>

Food safety in the United States relates to the processing, packaging, and storage of food in a way that prevents food-borne illness within the United States. The beginning of regulation on food safety in the United States started in the early 1900s, when several outbreaks sparked the need for litigation managing food in the food industry. Over the next few decades, the United States created several government agencies in an effort to better understand contaminants in food and to regulate these impurities. Many laws regarding food safety in the United States have been created and amended since the beginning of the 1900s. Food makers and their products are inspected and regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture.

References

  1. 1 2 Spink, John; Moyer, Douglas C. (2011-11-01). "Defining the Public Health Threat of Food Fraud". Journal of Food Science. 76 (9): R157–R163. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02417.x . ISSN   1750-3841. PMID   22416717. S2CID   23456390.
  2. "Food Defense and Emergency Response". United States Department of Agriculture.
  3. "What Is Food Defense?". National Center for Food Protection and Defense. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2015-05-29.
  4. "Federal Meat Inspection Act". United States Department of Agriculture.
  5. "Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act". U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
  6. "Poultry Products Inspection Act". United States Department of Agriculture.
  7. "Homeland Security Act". Department of Homeland Security. 2006-08-17.
  8. "Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7". Department of Homeland Security. 2008-06-27.
  9. "Critical Infrastructure Sectors". Department of Homeland Security. 2013-03-05.
  10. "Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9". Department of Homeland Security. 2014-06-06.
  11. "Homeland Security Centers For Excellence". Department of Homeland Security. 2009-07-07.
  12. "NCFPD: Overview". National Center for Food Protection and Defense. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2015-05-29.
  13. "Protection against Intentional Adulteration, Section 106 of the Food Safety Modernization Act". Food and Drug Administration. 9 September 2020.
  14. Agres, Ted (August 6, 2013). "Food Defense and Protection". Food Quality and Safety.
  15. "Developing a Food Defense Plan for Meat and Poultry Slaughter and Processing Plants" (PDF). U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service. June 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-01-25. Retrieved 2015-05-28.
  16. "Toshiki Abe arrested for poisoning frozen food in Japan". news.com.au. January 25, 2014. Archived from the original on November 22, 2016. Retrieved May 28, 2015.
  17. Kurtenbach, Elaine (January 23, 2014). "In Japan, Frozen Food Tainted With Pesticides Leaves Hundreds Sick". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on January 27, 2016. Retrieved May 28, 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)Link is dead, but can be accessed as of April 28, 2021.
  18. Osterholm, Michael (2006). Addressing Foodborne Threats to Health. National Academies Press (US).{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  19. "Man guilty of 1080 blackmail plot named as inventor of rival poison Jeremy Kerr". Stuff. 22 February 2016. Retrieved 2017-06-14.
  20. "Fonterra Shareholders' Fund (NS)". www.nzx.com. Retrieved 2017-06-14.
  21. COONEY, TERRY P.; VARELIS, PETER; BENDALL, JUSTIN G. (2016-11-30). "High-Throughput Quantification of Monofluoroacetate (1080) in Milk as a Response to an Extortion Threat". Journal of Food Protection. 79 (2): 273–281. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-15-405 . PMID   26818988.
  22. Joseph, George (2015). "Determination of Sodium Monofluoroacetate in Dairy Powders by Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS): First Action 2015.02". Journal of AOAC International. 98 (4): 1121–1126. doi:10.5740/jaoac.int.2015.02.
  23. "1080 blackmailer jailed, cost Fonterra $20m". National Business Review. 23 March 2016. Archived from the original on 27 December 2017. Retrieved 14 June 2017.
  24. Phil.Taylor@Nzherald.Co.Nz @Philhtaylor, Phil Taylor Senior Writer (23 March 2016). "Inside the 1080 scare: Nation held to ransom by a man with a poison pen". NZ Herald. Retrieved 2017-06-14.
  25. "Economically motivated adulteration; Public meeting; Request for comment, Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0166". Federal Register.
  26. "Peanut curry death: Restaurant owner Mohammed Zaman jailed". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2016-05-23. Retrieved 1 April 2017.
  27. Everstine, Karen, John Spink, and Shaun Kennedy. "Economically Motivated Adulteration (EMA) of Food: Common Characteristics of EMA Incidents." J Food Prot Journal of Food Protection 76.4 (2013): 723-35.
  28. Spink, John (November 2013). "Economically Motivated Adulteration: Another Dimension of the "Expanding Umbrella of Food Defense"". Food Safety Magazine.
  29. Spink, John (September 2014). "Economically Motivated Adulteration: Broadening the Focus to Food Fraud". Food Safety Magazine.
  30. Johnson, Renee (January 10, 2014). "Food Fraud and "Economically Motivated Adulteration" of Food and Food Ingredients" (PDF). U.S. Congressional Research Service .
  31. "Economically Motivated Adulteration". Federation of American Scientists.
  32. "Tools and Educational Materials". US Food and Drug Administration.
  33. "Food Defense Mitigation Strategies Database". US Food and Drug Administration.
  34. "Food Defense 101". US Food and Drug Administration.
  35. "Food Related Emergency Exercise Bundle". US Food and Drug Administration.
  36. "Food Defense Plan Builder". US Food and Drug Administration.
  37. "Tools". National Center for Food Protection and Defense.[ permanent dead link ]
  38. "Vulnerability Assessment Software". US Food and Drug Administration.
  39. "CARVER+Shock Primer". US Food and Drug Administration.