If supplier adds preservative without notice is it food fraud?
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
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
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.
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!
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
Hi At-gh,
From memory, BRC defines fraud as, presumably validatable, (a) intentional (b) economically motivated. But this may well vary with location. Singapore ?
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
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 ?
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
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 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:
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.
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.
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
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: