24
Vulnerability Management Initiatives: Survey of Industry Dr Alan Sloane Department of Food Business & Development, UCC [email protected]
Vulnerability Management Initiatives: Survey of Industry
Dr Alan Sloane
Department of Food Business & Development, UCC
Format of today’s presentation …
• To encourage discussion … • … not to give definitive answers
• … to hear your questions
• “Finding the question is often more important than finding the answer” (Tukey, 1977)
• Won’t cover all that’s in the data • Full report will be published by safefood • Research continuing • Survey may be repeated ...
• Future years • Other places
• Happy to discuss further today or later …
Approach •Compare perceptions with realities
• Relatively little incidence reported • to authorities • to peers?
• But quite a lot encountered • see later in this presentation
• Incidents – caution! • Not all is dangerous • Not all is clear malfeasance
70%
84%
19%
75%
4%
58%
1%
32%
1%
21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
#1 Top 3
Food safety dangers to human consumer
Direct economic consequences in lost business, product recallsetc.
Indirect economic consequences in lost contracts, reputationetc.
Legal criminal consequences for the company e.g. prosecution,fines etc.
Legal criminal consequences for directors or employees e.g.prosecution, custodial sentences etc.
Most Important Dangers & Costs?
04/12/2018
Most important role in prevention?
5
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
#1 Top 3
Management
Food Safety and Quality Team
Individual producer or processor businesses
Employees
Regulators (FSAI,FSA-NI)
National Government
EU Commission & Legislators
Accreditation/Certification bodies (eg GFSI, BRC)
Auditors
Industry representative bodies (eg NIFDA, IBEC)
6
Answer: Firms and Employees
Structure of Survey Questionnaire
•Main themes: • Prevalence (perception) • Incidents (reality) • Awareness & Practices/Strategies (reality) • Expectations (perception)
Prevalence: Frequency? • Both adulteration and
misrepresentation are considered infrequent
• But misrepresentation is thought to be the more likely
9
Prevalence: Perpetrators?
• While terrorists are the most likely to act for non-economic reasons … • … “Insiders” may also be
similarly motivated • If suppliers are involved, it’s
most likely for economic reasons
10
Prevalence: Products?
Low Risk Products: Fruits & Vegetables Nuts & Nut Products
High Risk Products: Honey Olive Oil Organic Special Claims
Incidents: Frequency
04/12/2018
• The majority of companies hadn’t experienced any incident
in the past 3 years • 61% (excluding “Don’t Know”)
• But 39% had experienced at least one incident of
adulteration or misrepresentation in their business • 59 out of 152
• And 12% had experienced incidents “more than once a
year” • 18 out of 152
12
Incidents: Larger Companies?
13
Incidents: Location of Perpetrators?
04/12/2018
Incidents: Motivation of Perpetrators?
15
Incidents: How Detected?
16
Delistingsupplier
Enhancedaudit or
inspection of
suppliers
Enhancedproducttesting
Other(please
describe):
Recalledproduct
Alertedauthoritie
s
Undertook public-relations
orreputatio
n-managem
entexercise
Respondents (%) 53% 36% 29% 22% 20% 9% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
How did you respond? • Most common action by far
was delist supplier (54%) • Also 4% of “Other”
penalise the supplier
• Next: increase supplier
auditing (36%) or enhance
product testing (28%)
• Only 10% alerted authorities • in only 1 case did they
register it in an info-sharing
system
• Do affected firms prefer to
“silently delist” an offending
supplier?
Incidents: Response?
17
Awareness: Notorious Incidents
• Horsemeat is almost universally known • Melamine also well-known
18
Practices: Systems in Place? • 74% had systems in
place to deal specifically with adulteration and/or misrepresentation
• Another 13% were currently putting in a system or actively considering doing so
Practices: Certification
20
Practices: Databases
Expectations: New Processes?
Testing, testing, testing?
Expectations: New Technologies?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Highly promising Not at all promising
How do you rate each of the following new technologies as aids in fighting food fraud and threats?
Handheld rapid testing devices (e.g.Raman spectrometers)
DNA barcoding
RFID (traceability)
Blockchain (distributed ledgertechnology)
Active and intelligent packaging
"Big Data" and other computationaltools for data analysis
Smart contracts
3D-printed smart caps
Edible tags
Testing!
Key Finding: Proactive or Reactive Strategies?
Proactive Reactive Incident
Investigate
Analyse
Reflect Information Feedback Loop
Incorporate
Strengthen
Conclusion
•What can we do for you? •More research?
• On what? • What angles?
•More details public? • Website with interactive graphs? • Practical summaries or guides?
