4 replies to this topic

[Deb1]

I am working on a vulnerability assessment and wanted to ask if any of you would ever consider a COO or Organic fraud situation as any more than a "minor or moderate consequence"?  I don't believe it could be considered a severe or catastrophic consequence. Thoughts? 

[Orion_sqf]

That's a great question! I feel that it would depend on the country that you get your product from. My warehouse imports meat and the one place that is a troublesome country to deal with is Brazil. Brazil has a history of being on the USDA's radar because of food fraud. Which is why USDA takes species samples to be 100% sure that the product is what Brazil states that it is. Because of this extra step that the USDA does, I would rule it as a moderate threat. We know it happens but we have something in place to stop it from going into the food supply chain. 

 

For Organic fraud, I think that would be harder to prove. I would ask for the credentials of the certifying body in that country. For example, if it is China, I would ask for the certifying body in China that signed them off for passing the audit. If you aren't able to do that then you might have issues which would put it to a severe threat. 

 

As long as you can show control/mitigate the situation, you should be good. 

 

Hope that helps.

[Deb1]

Thank you, it does help. I am confident in our's and our supplier's programs and plans to mitigate, I am just trying to categorize it for likelihood and consequence.  My thinking is that a fraud of this type would not create illness or injury and would not be considered "severe". 

[hello.fizz]

Are you using a matrix that is appropriate? I have seen quality matrices (vs the ones used for food safety risks) that have other options to injury and illness. For example the level of brand damage. Just a thought. 

[Charles.C]

Are you using a matrix that is appropriate? I have seen quality matrices (vs the ones used for food safety risks) that have other options to injury and illness. For example the level of brand damage. Just a thought. 

Hi h.f,

 

You are right. In fact, IIRC, GFSI modified their original definition of food fraud to include a safety factor.

In this respect BRC differ to SQF et (mostly)al by non-differentiating "Money" and Safety.

 

Possibly of applicability in present context - there is also a previous thread here discussing whether Psychological Harm should be included within "Safety".

 

PS - What is COO (or C00) (it defeated Google) ?