Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

If supplier adds preservative without notice is it food fraud?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 At-Gh

At-Gh

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 36 posts
  • 3 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Singapore
    Singapore
  • Gender:Female

Posted 21 June 2015 - 12:56 AM

Hiii alllll,

 

If you find  a preservative  in one of your ingredients which your supplier didn’t notice about that , is a food fraud ?

 

 

Thank you


Atessa

Senior Quality Specialist


#2 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,361 posts
  • 992 thanks
263
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 21 June 2015 - 04:51 AM

Hiii alllll,

 

If you find  a preservative  in one of your ingredients which your supplier didn’t notice about that , is a food fraud ?

 

 

Thank you

 

Hi Atessa,

 

I wouldn't describe it as food fraud but 'naughty'! You should discuss it with them. It may be that they are claiming it is a processing aid and are not required to declare it on the label but I would expect that they should be declared in the specification.

 

What is the preservative you found?

 

Regards,

 

Tony



Thanked by 1 Member:

#3 At-Gh

At-Gh

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 36 posts
  • 3 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Singapore
    Singapore
  • Gender:Female

Posted 21 June 2015 - 10:59 PM

Hi Atessa,

 

I wouldn't describe it as food fraud but 'naughty'! You should discuss it with them. It may be that they are claiming it is a processing aid and are not required to declare it on the label but I would expect that they should be declared in the specification.

 

What is the preservative you found?

 

Regards,

 

Tony

Many thanks . yes you are right.

Potassium sorbet.


Atessa

Senior Quality Specialist


#4 CLS

CLS

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 11 posts
  • 1 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 22 June 2015 - 11:20 AM

I would have thought potassium sorbate should be declared in the ingredients list as it tends to play a role in the finished product. Definitely have a stern word with you supplier!



#5 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,361 posts
  • 992 thanks
263
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 23 June 2015 - 03:44 AM

Many thanks . yes you are right.

Potassium sorbet.

 

Hi Atessa,

 

Potassium Sorbate is a preservative. I would think it needs to be declared but depends on local legislation.

 

Regards,

 

Tony



#6 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,385 posts
  • 4838 thanks
943
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 23 June 2015 - 05:05 AM

Hi At-gh,

 

From memory, BRC defines fraud as, presumably validatable, (a)  intentional  (b) economically motivated. But this may well vary with location. Singapore ?


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#7 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,361 posts
  • 992 thanks
263
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 23 June 2015 - 05:53 AM

Hi At-gh,

 

From memory, BRC defines fraud as, presumably validatable, (a)  intentional  (b) economically motivated. But this may well vary with location. Singapore ?

 

BRC Global Standard for Food Safety - Appendix 9 Glossary:
Food fraud
Fraudulent and intentional substitution, dilution or addition to a product or raw material, or misrepresentation of the product or material, for the purpose of financial gain, by increasing the apparent value of the product or reducing the cost of its production.

 

Regards,

 

Tony
 



#8 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,385 posts
  • 4838 thanks
943
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 23 June 2015 - 08:40 AM

Hi Tony/at-gh,

 

Thanks for the def.

 

@Atessa, did you mean fraud in respect to the supplier, or the "defective" product's inadvertent  use by the un-knowing food manufacturer ? i assumed the latter.

 

afaik, the manufacturer is ultimately responsible for control of their product's ingredient composition/labelling. And anything else which may go wrong with it. :smile:

 

 i visualize >>>>

 

 

Assuming that legally the K.sorbate should be declared in food product, i infer mislabelling.

 

I also infer, assuming the BRC def, this is potentially included within "misrepresentation". (Strike 1)

 

i anticipate that there is a history of supporting evidence that this particular type of labelling omission is "popular" for financial "gain". (Strike 2).

 

I predict that the only meaningful defence against fraud would be due "unintentional".

 

(Ignorance of the law is afaik not an effective route).

 

in UK a diligence defence (eg boosted by possession of  BRC Certification :smile: )  would  presumably be conceivable. Elsewhere options will surely vary.  I have deduced from other posts that Liability Insurance is the primary defence in USA.(?)

.

PS - from the ingredient supplier's POV, TBH have no idea what legal constraints exist. Mea culpa.

 

PPS - @Tony, apologies, i re-arranged before i saw yr post. I do agree the "Punishment should fit the Crime" but that maybe involves R(SPC)A ?


Edited by Charles.C, 23 June 2015 - 09:53 AM.
re-arranged

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#9 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,361 posts
  • 992 thanks
263
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 23 June 2015 - 09:18 AM

No I'm not having that, because of the 'woolly' nature legislation for the labelling of 'processing aids' and I could make an argument for Potassium Sorbate being a 'processing aid' I'm going to put them on report and on detention after school for a while. :bop:

 

For prosecution I'm after the 'big fish' (like substituting catfish for cod!) that would be some catch! :thumbup:

 

Regards,

 

Tony



#10 amppyr

amppyr

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 17 posts
  • 5 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada

Posted 24 June 2015 - 01:40 PM

Hi Attessa,

 

One thing you can do is set up a "Consignment Agreement" that your supplier will sign. It should outline that the Supplier shall notify you of any changes to specifications before you receive the product.

 

A BRC auditor mentioned that to me once as an "opportunity for improvement" (he did not write it up as a non-conformance but suggested it would be a good idea to include in the program).

 

That way you have something in writing from your supplier; you can use it in the Supplier Approval program and to assess Suppliers (e.g. Supplier Scorecards) if you use scorecards as a monitoring metric.

Thanks.



#11 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,385 posts
  • 4838 thanks
943
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 24 June 2015 - 02:01 PM

Hi Attessa,

 

One thing you can do is set up a "Consignment Agreement" that your supplier will sign. It should outline that the Supplier shall notify you of any changes to specifications before you receive the product.

 

A BRC auditor mentioned that to me once as an "opportunity for improvement" (he did not write it up as a non-conformance but suggested it would be a good idea to include in the program).

 

That way you have something in writing from your supplier; you can use it in the Supplier Approval program and to assess Suppliers (e.g. Supplier Scorecards) if you use scorecards as a monitoring metric.

Thanks.

 

hi amppyr,

 

thks comment.

 

what do you suggest if the newly-detected item was unlisted in the original specification ? Caveat emptor ? :smile:


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#12 amppyr

amppyr

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 17 posts
  • 5 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada

Posted 24 June 2015 - 02:28 PM

hi amppyr,

 

thks comment.

 

what do you suggest if the newly-detected item was unlisted in the original specification ? Caveat emptor ? :smile:

 

Hi Charles,

 

There are a few considerations. I would definietly communicate the issue to the supplier as Tony mentioned. And I agree with you both: it is one of three issues:

 

1. cross-contamination.

2. undeclared, and not required by legislation.

3. undeclared and intentionally not included.

 

It may be that the formulation was recently reviewed. If this is the case, it should have been communicated to Attessa's company before approval.

 

I've seen instances where revisions of formulation have been put on hold before ordering new packaging due to the cost of primary packaging. Also I've seen companies hesitant to give all specifications/product information to their customers unless they explicitly request it.

 

Maybe a supplier audit is in order. Alternatively, you could ask the supplier to provide you with laboratory analysis from third party laboratories (at the supplier's cost) at an intensified frequency until the Ksorbate detection is satisfactory to the company. After all, the customer is always right.



#13 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,385 posts
  • 4838 thanks
943
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 24 June 2015 - 03:04 PM

Hi amppyr,

 

Thks comments.

 

I predict that the quantity ruled out contamination. I predict that its presence should thereby have equally been part of the specification.

 

Of course, the supplier may well not be the manufacturer. Or he may have enemies. Bad luck.

 

I suggest that the supplier will be just as liable for his product/specification as the food manufacturer would be in an analogous situation. Guilty unless provable innocent (or adequately diligent).

 

In the USA, i would predict "adulteration" and a nudge to voluntary recall.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#14 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,361 posts
  • 992 thanks
263
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 24 June 2015 - 06:37 PM

In the USA, i would predict "adulteration" and a nudge to voluntary recall.

 

This topic has switched around countries (Australia/Singapore) but I don't see the relevance of the USA in this?

 

Regards,

 

Tony



#15 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,385 posts
  • 4838 thanks
943
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 24 June 2015 - 09:51 PM

This topic has switched around countries (Australia/Singapore) but I don't see the relevance of the USA in this?

 

Regards,

 

Tony

Hi Tony,

 

I suppose the OP could have been answered with one line - It totally depends on the local food law. Which is seemingly unknown.

 

The international accompaniment is added for flavoring  :whistle: 


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate