25 replies to this topic

[kaiti.vog]

Dear all,

 

I am a Quality manager with almost 10 years experience in the food industry in quality related positions at a company that produces food supplements for  B2B customer (private label). The company is in Europe. Just for your information, food supplements are foodstuff according to european regulations and not a medicine.

 

I need your knowledge and your opinion about  a topic. Here is the issue:

 

A production employee accidentally added sodium ascorbate (0,6%) in a food supplement that normally does not contain any sodium ascorbate in the recipe. 

 

My reaction: We should inform the customer so that they can adjust their labels.

 

There was a discussion in the company between me, the CMO (who has experience in QM, worked as Quality Manager in the past and is my superior) and the CEO who has no QM experience. They both believe that this is not food fraud because there was no intention it was an accident, because there is no economical motivation behind it, and because in general sodium ascorbate is safe. So they didn´t want to inform the customer.

 

I was trying to convince them that if they decide not to inform the customer then there is an economical motivation behind it. They are afraid that the customer decides not to buy the product.

 

At the end, I convinced them to inform the customer. 

 

The problem is that they still believe that they shouldn´t have informed the customer because it is not food fraud.

 

The CMO with QM experience asked me to read about food fraud because obviously I don´t know what food fraud is. What do you think? What can you advise me? How can I convince them? 

 

Thank you in advance.

[kconf]

If the CEO says no, don't. It's in your best interest. 

 

After all, it is just unintended vitamin C. 

[kaiti.vog]

Hi kconf,

 

thank you for your answer.

 

We have already informed the customer. So it´s not about what to do and if I have to be afraid of something.

 

The question is if it is a food fraud or not and if it is how to convince them?

[Setanta]

I am thinking that any ingredient that isn't listed and was added to the mix would constitute fraud. This was caught and concerned parties notified, means both sides are ok with this.

 

If you hadn't told them I think you risk misrepresenting your product and to me that's fraud. The very low percentage just means the impact will probably be small.

[Debsday]

Hi

I would not call this food fraud, it is adulteration. If the customer has a label that does not list the ascorbate it is a regulatory issue for them to use this product. It is always better to be up front with a customer. It may lose a sale, if the customer finds out later it can hurt the company more.

[kconf]

Hi Katie,

 

It is not food fraud.

[G M]

Adulteration is how I would categorize it as well.  There are ingredients included not listed on the current label or specifications. -- There may be an 'easy' corrective action, but it wasn't supposed to be there.

 

Fraud would have required deceit or self-serving intention.

[Scampi]

um-they'd be lying so................

 

vitamin can affect how certain medications work, so the label needs to be clear

 

Not fraud, but is adulterated product  AND the nutritional facts table may also not be correct any longer

[ChristinaK]

I agree that it's adulterated product. Since it was added accidentally, it would specifically be "unintentionally adulterated."

[kaiti.vog]

Thank you all for the replies. So it was adulterated but not fraud since it was added accidentally and would only have been fraud if we haven’t informed the customer?

[kingstudruler1]

Thank you all for the replies. So it was adulterated but not fraud since it was added accidentally and would only have been fraud if we haven’t informed the customer?

 

Not quite sure I understand what food supplements are, but here are my thoughts.  

 

Fraud usually involves the addition, subtraction, or substitution of ingredients for financial gain.    Since there appears to be no intent to defraud involved, I dont think it fits into the fraud category.  

 

Adulteration is usually reserved for something that has been processed or held in a manner that renders it unsafe.    If the added ingredient would make the product unsafe then adulteration would fit.  (there are cases where fraud also renders the product unsafe)

 

If it doesnt fit into those two catagories it could be considered some form of mislableing / misbranding.  

 

Im using USA terms you may have different terms and definitions in GER.  

[manwellm]

Hello  Kaiti, 

 

Food fraud is usually willingly committed for some sort of financial gain, I.E. using cheaper ingredients in place of more expensive ones, diluting concentrations, etc. Even if you did not inform the customer about this, it still would not be considered food fraud. It would still be  unintentional adulteration.

[Spice Master]

I hate to say it but I think you are correct and I think others in this forum may be misleading you slightly. While it is true that you did not intentionally add the Sodium Ascorbate, you did catch that it was added while it was still in your custody. Sodium Ascorbate is required to be labeled on both food and supplements in the EU, so the food is adulterated, and choosing not to inform the customer is an intentional act of misrepresentation, which by EU standards would constitute fraud.

[Spice Master]

um-they'd be lying so................

 

vitamin can affect how certain medications work, so the label needs to be clear

 

Not fraud, but is adulterated product  AND the nutritional facts table may also not be correct any longer

I agree that the label needs to be clear. More specifically, the EU requires all vitamins be labeled on all food products and supplements. The product was unintentionally adulterated, sure, but the manufacturer intentionally choosing not to disclose this and instead selling the product against the SPEC/label that was already established for the product which does not include Sodium Ascorbate would almost certainly constitute fraud, no?

[kconf]

No, fraud would mean intentional addition/substitution of a valuable ingredient or part of a food, which is not the case here.  

[Spice Master]

No, fraud would mean intentional addition/substitution of a valuable ingredient or part of a food, which is not the case here.  

That is one type of fraud but that is not even close to the only type/method of fraud. Substitution and dillution are fraud, as are counterfeiting, mislabeling, concealing, misrepresenting, or even enhancing a product if not approved. You cannot sell product to a customer that does not align with what you've agreed to sell them.

 

In other words, if the SPEC or label that you agreed on with your customer is required to identify certain ingredients, and an ingredient required to be identified is in the product and you know about it but don't identify it, that is concealment, that is misrepresentation, that is deception, that is fraud, cut and dry.

[G M]

That is one type of fraud but that is not even close to the only type/method of fraud. Substitution and dillution are fraud, as are counterfeiting, mislabeling, concealing, misrepresenting, or even enhancing a product if not approved. You cannot sell product to a customer that does not align with what you've agreed to sell them.

 

In other words, if the SPEC or label that you agreed on with your customer is required to identify certain ingredients, and an ingredient required to be identified is in the product and you know about it but don't identify it, that is concealment, that is misrepresentation, that is deception, that is fraud, cut and dry.

 

The action taken wasn't, but the other managers wanted to.

 

 

...

I was trying to convince them that if they decide not to inform the customer then there is an economical motivation behind it. They are afraid that the customer decides not to buy the product.

 

At the end, I convinced them to inform the customer. 

 

The problem is that they still believe that they shouldn´t have informed the customer because it is not food fraud.

...

 

Becoming aware of the problem and failing to disclose it would be fraud for the reasons Spice Master mentions -- especially if you're aware of the problem before selling/shipping it.  Even if it was economically disadvantageous to include the ingredient, it was economically advantageous to not disclose the discrepancy.  Adulteration is one problem in itself, but deliberately selling adulterated material without disclosure adds fraud to the scenario.

[kconf]

I see your point, GM and Spice Master. But let me give you an example. 

 

Powdered sugar used in confectionery is sugar+corn starch. When manufacturers label their products, no where is corn starch listed. For instance, Nestle choc chips (sugar, cocoa butter, liquor, lecithin, etc.)  

 

Now would you say it is fraud? Mind you, corn is an allergen yet it is not on the label. 

[KellyQA]

I would argue that this could be food fraud. Here is why:

 

Food Fraud: the deliberate and intentional substitution, addition, tampering, or misrepresentation of food, food ingredients, feed, or food packaging and/or labelling, product information; or false or misleading statements made about a product for economic gain. 

 

The production employee may have accidentally added the ingredient to the product, but the issue was brought to the attention of management. If management was informed of the incident and did not inform the customer, that is INTENTIONAL. Intentionally not trying to lose a sale or customer because of an accident, to me, is considered an economic gain, regardless if the ingredient is generally safe. Food fraud can happen at any point along the food supply chain. 

 

Now, since they did inform the customer, I do not think this is a fraud situation. However, if they did not inform the customer, I would classify it as fraud. 

[Spice Master]

The action taken wasn't, but the other managers wanted to.

That's true, I think the original poster was looking for an answer to whether choosing not to inform the customer in such a scenario would be fraudulent, which is what my focus was on and I think we agree on.

[kaiti.vog]

That's true, I think the original poster was looking for an answer to whether choosing not to inform the customer in such a scenario would be fraudulent, which is what my focus was on and I think we agree on.

[kaiti.vog]

Yes the question is if it would be froud if the top management would have decided not to inform the customer. And I still believe it would be despite some different opinions. Because it would be intentional for economic gain.

[Spice Master]

I see your point, GM and Spice Master. But let me give you an example. 

 

Powdered sugar used in confectionery is sugar+corn starch. When manufacturers label their products, no where is corn starch listed. For instance, Nestle choc chips (sugar, cocoa butter, liquor, lecithin, etc.)  

 

Now would you say it is fraud? Mind you, corn is an allergen yet it is not on the label. 

I'm going to have to disagree with you from the start. We use a lot of sugar where I work and every type of powdered (confectioner's) sugar that we bring in uses Tapioca Starch as a caking agent and calls it out on the ingredient and/or SPEC sheet.

 

That being said, there are certainly some things that are not required to be identified, particularly on retail labels, however that is because there is existing legislation allowing such things. Caking agents don't need to be listed because they are used as processing aids, rather than being ingredients, and are limited to a certain concentration of usage. If somebody were to add more Corn/Tapioca Starch than was allowed by legislation, the product would be adulterated if it didn't identify it on the label, and a company choosing to ship it anyways without updating the label would be fraudulently doing so.

 

As far as corn being an allergen, I'm not aware of any jurisdictions where corn is considered an allergen. If there is somewhere where it is considered an allergen, and that place has regulations for labeling products containing allergens, to not do so would absolutely be fraudulent.

[Spice Master]

Yes the question is if it would be froud if the top management would have decided not to inform the customer. And I still believe it would be despite some different opinions. Because it would be intentional for economic gain.

The economic gain part is not relevant, as that is only one type of fraud. Even if they don't stand to gain economically, they are still misleading the customer and misrepresenting the product. Whatever the motivation for doing so is, it's still fraud.

[kconf]

Thanks for the enlightenment, Spice Master. I agree with your statements.