Foodlaw-Reading
Dr David Jukes, The University of Reading, UK
|
|
FSA Board Paper (FSA 22-12-15), 24 November 2022
 |
FSA Board Paper: National Food Crime Unit External Review 2022 A copy of this paper is available on this site (click on image). Provided under the Open Government Licence. The original webpage was available at: |
The following is the Introduction from the Review report which appears in Annex A of the FSA Board Paper:
Introduction
On a day-to-day basis, the decisions people make unconsciously are informed by theirp assumptions about the Government’s role in protecting them from harm. Quite rightly, the British public expect state-regulated controls and measures to be in place so as to ensure that the products they purchase are safe, genuine and as described. When a consumer purchases the latest smartphone from a trusted retailer, unquestioningly they expect their newly acquired possession to be bona fide. When they are handed medicines from their pharmacist, they do not pause to consider whether the components of the drugs they intend to consume to treat their illness derive from a legitimate source. And when they purchase what is described to be wild, Scottish freshwater salmon from their local supermarket, not for one moment do they suspect it could have been sourced from a Norwegian salmon farm and stored in a freezer for months before making it to the fish counter.
In a developed country, which recognises consumer trust as a critical component of a thriving domestic market, such things are taken for granted. For the British consumer, the range of likely outcomes emanating from a purchasing decision are limited by their confidence in a system of regulation and compliance, largely perceived to be invulnerable. But in 2013, news broke of a criminal scandal that would severely test consumer confidence in the food system and its regulation.
Horse meat was first detected in foods labelled as beefburgers. For those that had purchased these tainted products, the possibility of them being derived from, or contaminated by, an equine source was unimaginable. Though the public health implications were largely negligible, as far as the British consumer was concerned, the system had failed them. Their trust in those charged with regulating the food sector seemingly had been misplaced. If horse meat could have found itself into the supply chain, what about meat products not fit for human consumption? The implications were serious and wide-ranging; immediate action was required from Government to restore faith and to demonstrate that these failings would be addressed.
The horse meat issue came to fruition due to criminal actors penetrating the food supply chain. This was not a new phenomenon: from time immemorial bad actors have sought to dupe retailers and consumers for financial gain. For those with knowledge of the vulnerabilities in our food integrity mechanisms, and the intent and capability to exploit them, the prize can be huge profits amidst little risk of detection. On the one hand, such criminality may appear trivial: the purchase of substandard but safe products. But in some circumstances, criminal impropriety can lead to catastrophe. What one person may experience as a stomach bug could be a life-threatening event for another. Much as a dodgy batch of Ecstasy could render a night-clubber hospitalised, so too could unsafe foodstuffs served to an elderly nursing home resident. In each case, the supplier has no knowledge of the vulnerability of the end consumer and the tragic loss of life is a real possibility. But whereas the night-clubber knew they were exposing themselves to risk by their decision, the care home resident was entitled to trust that no such risk was present. And they had no choice but to eat the food provided to them.
In the wake of the 2013 horsemeat issue, the Government needed to act to restore confidence in the integrity of the UK food supply chain. Professor Chris Elliot, a leading food safety academic and Director of the Institute for Global Food Security at Queen’s University Belfast, was tasked with conducting an independent review into the assurance of food supply networks. His findings and recommendations led to a nascent law enforcement unit being established within the national food regulatory body: the Food Standards Agency (FSA). Created in 2015 as the National Food Crime Unit (NFCU), this unit would initially have a criminal intelligence function: collecting and analysing intelligence relevant to the food crime threat. But in May 2018, the NFCU received funding to expand its ability to effect operational outcomes, including by investigating those involved in food crime and presenting evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in anticipation of proceedings in the criminal courts.
The creation of the NFCU was a step change in the way food crime was policed in the UK. The FSA was not new to investigations and prosecutions: as a regulator it has the power to bring punitive actions against those not acting within the laws and standards central to good food governance. But the NFCU would be there to close an identified gap in the system that was allowing those with clear criminal intent - not just those falling foul of statutory standards - to profit with little risk of detection.
Since inception, the NFCU has been subject to several independent reviews (namely, the Kenworthy Review in 2016 and the Savill Review in 2020). In June 2018, when the FSA Board (hereon “the Board”) approved the expansion of NFCU activities, they stated that a formal full organisational review would be conducted after 3 years. This review of the NFCU commenced in June 2022 and builds upon the NFCU’s response to those previous (i.e., 2016 and 2020) reviews. As the Review Team, collectively, we have decades of experience in law enforcement and food integrity; this Report sets out our findings and recommendations.
