The cases that produced current food fraud law

Law follows failure

Reading food law chronologically is a useful exercise, because almost every significant power in it exists because something happened first. The statute book in this area is a record of past failures written in the language of prevention.

That has a practical consequence for how to read current rules. A rule that seems oddly specific usually is specific, because it was drafted against a particular problem. Understanding the problem explains the rule better than reading the rule does.

This article traces the main lines. It describes documented public matters and inquiries, and it names no company, because attributing conduct to named businesses is outside what this publication does.

Adulteration and the origins of food law

The founding problem of food regulation was adulteration: the addition of cheaper or harmful substances to food sold as something else. Nineteenth-century concern with adulterated staples produced the first general food statutes, and the conceptual structure they created is still visible.

The core offences in the Food Safety Act 1990 are recognisably descended from that period. Selling food that is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser, and falsely describing or presenting food, are both offences aimed squarely at the adulteration problem, expressed in general terms so that they cover forms of it not yet invented.

The generality is the point. A rule listing prohibited adulterants would be obsolete within a decade. A rule about the relationship between what is demanded and what is supplied does not go out of date.

Structural reform and the creation of the FSA

The Food Standards Agency was established by the Food Standards Act 1999, following a period in which public confidence in the handling of food safety had been severely damaged and in which the arrangements for food safety and for promoting the food industry sat within the same department.

The structural insight was about institutional design rather than about any specific hazard: that the body responsible for protecting consumers in relation to food should be separate from the body responsible for sponsoring the industry, and should operate with a statutory duty to act in the consumer interest and a commitment to openness.

That principle, the separation of the protective function from the promotional one, is the single most transferable lesson in the whole of food governance, and it is the reason the FSA publishes as much as it does.

The 2013 horsemeat incident

In early 2013, testing identified undeclared horsemeat in products sold as beef across a number of European markets, including the UK. It was not a food safety incident in the conventional sense. It was an authenticity and supply chain integrity incident, and that distinction is what made it structurally important.

The response included a comprehensive independent review. The Elliott Review into the Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks, led by Professor Chris Elliott, examined how the food supply system had allowed substitution on that scale to go undetected, and published its final report in 2014.

Its analysis identified a systemic gap: the food system was well equipped to detect safety hazards and poorly equipped to detect deliberate deception. Safety testing looks for things that are dangerous. Substitution of one ingredient for another cheaper one is not dangerous in the safety sense, and so was not what anyone was looking for.

Among its recommendations was the establishment of a dedicated food crime capability, and the National Food Crime Unit was subsequently created within the Food Standards Agency, with Food Standards Scotland operating the equivalent function in Scotland.

What the Elliott analysis established

Several ideas from that review have become standard vocabulary in food integrity work, and they are worth knowing because they explain a great deal about how the system now behaves.

The first is the distinction between food safety and food authenticity as separate risk domains requiring separate detection methods. The second is the idea of vulnerability assessment: examining a supply chain for the points at which substitution would be profitable and hard to detect, rather than waiting for evidence of it. The third is the importance of intelligence sharing between industry and enforcement, and of routes for people inside businesses to raise concerns.

The fourth, and the most uncomfortable, is that economic pressure in a supply chain increases integrity risk. Where margins are compressed and specifications are demanding, the incentive to substitute grows, and the chains under the most cost pressure are the ones most worth examining.

Where the framework sits now

The current framework combines general offences with specific labelling and compositional rules, a regulator with a consumer-facing statutory purpose, a dedicated food crime capability, local authority enforcement, and consumer protection law addressing misleading practices.

It is a layered system, and the layers were added at different times for different reasons. Reading it as a coherent design would be a mistake. Reading it as an accumulation, each layer marking a failure, explains it far better.

Where this stops

This article describes documented public inquiries and legislation. It names no company and makes no allegation about any business. Anyone with information about food crime should contact the National Food Crime Unit, and anyone with a complaint about a specific product should contact the trading standards service for the relevant local authority.

Elsewhere on Feedworthy. How a health claim gets authorised, and why most marketing phrases are not claims. Front of pack traffic lights: what the scheme is designed to do.