A new Food Crime Unit within the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) should be operational by the end of 2014 after British government Ministers agreed to implement the main recommendations of a review into food supply networks.

The review was commissioned in response to the horsemeat scandal of 2013 and conducted by Professor Chris Elliot, a food safety expert at Queen’s University Belfast. He published an interim report last December. His final report was released last week.

In it Professor Elliott makes eight main recommendations, designed to protect consumers, and taking a zero tolerance to food fraud. Included are recommendations relating to auditing and inspections, laboratory testing services and evidence gathering. However, it is the creation of the food crime unit that has attracted most interest. The unit is a response to concerns that, to date, there has been no clear leadership or co-ordination of effective investigations relating to food fraud.

Two major issues were highlighted as a result of the horsemeat scandal of 2013. Firstly the raft of different statutory bodies involved in undertaking checks on food labels in processing and retail outlets (Councils, government and the FSA). Secondly, that for many enforcement officers, food fraud was low down their list of priorities.

However, the report by Professor Elliott highlights that organised food crime has the potential to damage legitimate food businesses, while also deceiving and possibly injuring those purchasing the food.

His review places the responsibility for food fraud firmly with the FSA. He recommends basing a new unit on an existing model in the Netherlands where a food crime unit has been operational since 1988. It currently has 110 employees (up to half are ex-police) and in 2012 investigated 24 suspected crimes resulting in 77 people being charged with offences and the seizure of £5.3m of illegally gained assets.

The resultant crime unit in the UK might not have the same level of resource as the Dutch (Elliott envisages annual running costs of £2m to £4m), but the model proposed is one where there is a strong central team who can undertake criminal investigations, provide guidance to regulators (e.g. Council inspectors) and co-ordinate intelligence gathering.

Audits

Among the other main recommendations in the Elliott review is for a new inspection and auditing regime to be introduced throughout the supply chain. In his report Elliott is critical of the number of audits undertaken on behalf of retailers, describing the process as ‘variable’ and many of the requirements checked either ‘futile’ or ‘unreasonable’.

He would like retailers and other customers for product to work towards a new process that would involve less, but more effective audits of suppliers. This would also involve unannounced inspections as the norm and taking samples of product to check authenticity. Businesses which score well in this process would then see a reduction in the number of inspections by statutory authorities.