we are having implemented risk-based:
a) talking to and discussing the supply chain risk with raw material suppliers and getting their monitoring results on regular basis (as results or as summary report) (in most, but not all cases)
b) doing a monitoring test (risk based e.g. 1x/2x/4x or each second or third delivery), but these are "lucky samples" even if they are taken statistically from delivered batch.
c) running an effective issue monitoring program
e.g. Fipronil in eggs
We have had in Germany a nicotin case in 1996, another in 2006 and now the fipropnil case (-> always directed to red mites). Nicotin we monitor directly. "All" (500+ package) we analyse randomly. 1x or 2x/a. Fipronil and metabolites as well as Amitraz were included (but we didn't know that, because we bought the packages where selection was done by the lab). In the governmental setup fipronil was not included. In our discussion with our suppliers we only addressed nicotin.
Last test was done in 11/2016 with < LOD. Good luck, bad luck? After 20th of July we were confronted with the crisis based on criminal energy which has presumably started already in mid 2016.
conclusion: Yes, doing monitoring as a single company is a "good luck" procedure. But I am shure that this case would have become much earlier public if many companies (supplier, customer) and the governmental organizations would monitor together. Supply chain protection for criminal activities is a common challenge for everybody involved in food industry.
Coming back to the reason, the red mites which is a real problem in this market. We have had now 3 crisis (we know about). There are about 12 substances which can be applied tio tackle the red mites. Obvious is that the monitoring should include these substances (and each "newcommer") in the monitoring program, isn't it?
This is one example, .........this is a continous process and in some cases I feel helpless in a global supply chain...but we aren't as long as we act not as a single and can see "a worldwide community".