Nearly a year on from the horsemeat scandal, the UK food industry and consumers remain at risk from criminals – and only a dramatic change in industry culture will protect them.
That is the stark warning from Professor Chris Elliott, whose interim report on the UK food system, commissioned by Defra in the wake of the horsemeat scandal, was published today (12 December).
“My review to date has identified a worrying lack of knowledge regarding the extent to which we are dealing with criminals infiltrating the food industry”
Prof Chris Elliott
Criminals saw food as an increasingly attractive area because it offered the potential for “huge profits” and the risk of detection was low, yet intelligence on food crime was currently so poor that industry and regulators had little to no idea how big the problem actually was, Elliott said in the report.
“My review to date has identified a worrying lack of knowledge regarding the extent to which we are dealing with criminals infiltrating the food industry. I believe criminal networks have begun to see the potential for huge profits and low risks in this area. The food industry and thus consumers are currently vulnerable,” he said.
Better intelligence and data on food crime was desperately needed, Elliott said, adding “data collection and well-structured surveys should be considered as a matter of urgency”. “In order to deal with the problem we must know the extent of the problem.”
In his report, which contains a total of 48 recommendations for industry and government, Elliott calls for a raft of new measures to better protect consumers and industry from food crime, including:
- a move from announced to unannounced industry audits
- more robust inspections and testing
- better intelligence sharing
- changes to the Food Standards Agency’s relationship with government
- and the creation of a new specialist unit to deal with food-related crimes.
Elliott also urged the industry to take a “zero-tolerance” approach to all compliance breaches and dishonesties, no matter how minor, to send a clear signal to criminals they should expect to be caught.
“In sectors where margins are tight and the potential for fraud is high, even minor dishonesties must be discouraged and the response to major dishonesties deliberately punitive,” Elliott’s report said.
Elliott acknowledged the UK food industry in general worked hard to supply consumers with “safe, competitively priced products”, but said some industry attitudes had left him concerned, such as the belief by some that food fraud was a “victimless crime” and a reluctance to share intelligence about possible crimes for fear it might damage profits and competitiveness.
“Producers and retailers who knowingly turn a ‘blind eye’ in reaction to attempted or actual frauds, or who are willing to split hairs about the difference between knowledge and suspicion, need to consider their ethics of not passing intelligence on to competitors,” he warned.
Elliott’s final review is due to be published in the spring.
Defra response
Responding to the interim review published today, environment secretary Owen Paterson said: “I am pleased that Professor Elliott’s interim review recognises that there are good systems in place to ensure UK consumers have access to some of the safest food in the world. We want to keep it that way.
“We will continue to work closely with the food industry, enforcement agencies and across local and central Government to improve intelligence on food fraud and our response to it”
Owen Paterson
“It is appalling that anyone was able to defraud the public by passing off horsemeat as beef. That is why I commissioned an urgent review into the integrity of our food network.
“The UK food industry already has robust procedures to ensure they deliver high quality food to consumers and food businesses have a legal duty to uphold the integrity of food they sell. It is rightly highly regarded across the world and we must not let anything undermine this or the confidence of consumers in the integrity of their food.
“We will continue to work closely with the food industry, enforcement agencies and across local and central government to improve intelligence on food fraud and our response to it.”
1 Readers' comment