Codex and Food Fraud: Public Comments for the Electronic Working Group, Sixth Draft

Attached is our response to the US Codex Delegation request for public comments to the Codex Alimentarius Electronic Work Group on Food Fraud. The most recent draft discussion paper is very close to being completed and hopefully approved. Our detailed comments are below.

Reference: for more, see the linked complete public comment submission:

• Spink, John (2024). Comments to the US Codex Delegation for the Food Fraud EWG Discussion Document
• Codex Alimentarius (2023). CCFIC – Draft of FF EWG document Dec 14, 2023, for Comments, “Proposed Draft Guidelines on the Prevention and Control of Food Fraud (at Step 2),”

It is incredibly important for food fraud prevention that CODEX is creating a formal discussion paper that includes definitions and the scope of the application. The publication of the CODEX food fraud discussion paper will create a formal definition of food fraud, the scope including the types of fraud and types of products, as well as an emphasis on prevention and controls. This will be a central document that will help refine and formalize the importance of food fraud prevention in the other widely adopted CODEX standards, guidelines, and codes of practice.

The summary of our public comments is included. These public comments are submitted to the US Codex Delegation, which considers and consolidates comments for them to present to the Electronic Working Group (EWG) on Food Fraud. The EWG on Food Fraud will edit and distribute an updated draft for vote or discussion at the next CCFICS meeting.

Definition of Food Fraud

Since there was no single, overall, formal food code definition of food fraud, CODEX created its own definition. There is a need to further define the types of food fraud (all) as well as clearly define the products (not just raw materials). You will notice that all the definitions are nearly the same – which is good since this is an example of a common focus of activities.

• Food Fraud (CODEX, draft Food Fraud Discussion Paper, 2023):  “Any deliberate action of food business operators (FBO) or other individuals to deceive others in regard to the prescribed specifications or expected characteristics or integrity of food to gain an unfair advantage.”

This is similar and correlates with the most widely used definition of food fraud. This definition is used in other formal and official publications, such as the EU food fraud report:

• Food Fraud (Common definition): “Intentional deception of food or food ingredients for economic gain and includes all types of fraud (e.g., not only adulterant-substances and counterfeits to include stolen and some diverted goods) and all products (e.g., raw materials and finished goods).” (Spink & Moyer, Journal of Food Science, 2011)

Also, for example, here is a definition from the first formal European Union report on food fraud:

• Food Fraud (EU, food fraud report, 2013): “EU law does not currently provide a definition of food fraud’ but “According to Spink and Moyer, ‘Food fraud is a collective term used to encompass the deliberate and intentional substitution, addition, tampering, or misrepresentation of food, food ingredients, or food packaging; or false or misleading statements made about a product for economic gain.”

Finally, another widely adopted definition is the definition used for most of the industry-adopted food safety management systems that are based on the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI):

• Food Fraud (GFSI, Benchmarking Document 2017 to current): “A collective term encompassing the deliberate and intentional substitution, addition, tampering or misrepresentation of food, food ingredients or food packaging, labeling, product information or false or misleading statements made about a product for economic gain that could impact consumer health.”

Summary of Recommendations and Comments to the CODEX Draft

Our full comments are provided in the linked PDF. Below are our (FFPA) most important recommendations and suggestions from that document.

• FFPA – Recommendation: Accept the manuscript as-is to finalize the document and not lead to any more extensions. There is a need for a CODEX definition of food fraud, and it is not worth delaying the report’s publication versus the benefit of any additional or supplemental details. While it would be ideal to include all of the related definitions, the details can be added to future works.

Suggestions (Considerations if the manuscript is not accepted as-is):

• (Note: this text was deleted): “Food Fraud Vulnerability:  Susceptibility or exposure to a gap or deficiency that could place consumer health at risk and/or have an economic or reputational impact on a food company’s operations if not addressed.” & “Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment:  The process of collecting and evaluating information on potential food fraud risk factors as well as mitigation measures which, when combined, determine the actual fraud vulnerability.”
  • FFPA – Suggestion: Consider re-inserting these deleted definitions. While it is crucial to define food fraud, it is also useful to help the users understand how to address the problem. The foundation of prevention is the concept of vulnerability versus risk, plus a vulnerability assessment.

• “Types of food fraud can include: Addition: Adding an undeclared substance to food products that would not ordinarily be present, or present in that quantity, in the food; Substitution: Replacing an ingredient, in whole or in part, of a food product, with another ingredient, in whole or in part of a product [of lower value] without declaring it; and Dilution: Adding a material to make another ingredient present at a lower concentration than represented.”
  • FFPA – Comment: Together, these three types are often categorized under adulterant-substance.
  • FFPA – Note: Presumable “addition” is an “adulterant” – but adulturant is not defined in any CODEX document.
    • Adulterant/ Adulterant-Substance (CODEX): not defined.
    • To note, CODEX does define “contaminant” in the CODEX Procedural Manual as
    • “Contaminant (CODEX, Procedural Manual: “Any substance not intentionally added to food, which is present in such food as a result of the production, manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, packaging, transport or holding of such food or as a result of environmental contamination. The term does not include insect fragments, rodent hairs, and other extraneous matter.” (CODEX STAN 193-1995)
  • FFPA – Suggestion: include “adulterant-substance” as the overarching term that includes addition, substitution, and dilution. This is the common, globally used term. Most importantly, it helps clarify the difference between the US food law use of “adulterated/adulteration.”

• “Counterfeiting: Making an imitation of food products with the intention to deceive or defraud for the purpose of economic gain.”
  • FFPA – Suggestion: Counterfeiting should clarify either (1) application to intellectual property rights of trademark/ patent or (2) the entire product and packaging has been completely illegally copied. As it is stated, this is the exact same definition as food fraud – but food fraud and ‘counterfeit food’ are different. It is suggested to add to the end “…that is an intellectual property rights infringement such as trademark or patent.”

Background regarding CODEX and activities:

• CODEX: Codex Alimentarius (CODEX) is the world food code that the World Health Organization and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations coordinate. CODEX creates a harmonized set of “international food standards, guidelines, and codes of practice [that] contribute to the safety, quality, and fairness of this international food trade.” While CODEX creates reference materials, many countries often accept the documents as their food laws and regulations.
  • Regarding CODEX from the USDA website: “Food regulators can incorporate Codex texts into their regulations knowing they are science and risk-based while being no more trade restrictive than necessary. Food producers can follow Codex texts when formulating products or implementing practices to ensure the products they produce are safe while maximizing their potential to enter international trade. And, at home and abroad, consumers can be assured of the safety and quality of the foods they eat because Codex constantly develops and updates its reference texts to reflect the latest risk assessment and scientific evidence.”
• CCFICS: The overall CODEX activities are managed by committees. Food fraud is assigned under the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export and Certification Systems (CCFICS). Often, the overall annual meeting is referred to by the abbreviation of the committee and the session, which is not the number associated with the year (e.g., the 2017 session that addressed food fraud was CCFICS23).
• CODEX EWG: The CODEX committees create an electronic working group (EWG) to work on specific projects between the full meetings. Previously, there was a unique distinction between a group that only met electronically (only remotely) and a group that only met physically, but now they are all EWGs.
• CODEX and Food Fraud: Food fraud is officially assigned to the EWG on Food Integrity and Authenticity.
• CODEX and Food Fraud: In 2016, at the CCFICS22 meeting, food fraud was identified as an important topic, including the need for definitions of terms. In 2017, at the CCFICS23 meeting, an Electronic Work Group convened to address the topic of food fraud (FF EWG). In March 2021, the FF EWG updated the Discussion Paper. The host country is the USA, and the co-host countries are China, the European Union, and Iran (Islamic Republic of).
• CODEX and Food Fraud Activity Timeline:
  • 2015: During the open comment period of the CODEX Alimentarius Commission (CAC) meeting in July 20251, a new business item to create a discussion paper on “Food Integrity/ Authenticity” was proposed by Iran. The next step was the creation of the discussion paper to possibly be discussed at the next annual CAC or other committee meeting.
  • 2016: The food fraud topic was first on a CODEX agenda in July 2017 but time expired before the topic was discussed (CX/FL 16/43/2-Add.1). The conclusion of CODEX Alimentarius Commission (CAC) 39^th session in July 2016 was that “In the future, it might be appropriate to establish either an EWG of the Commission or an Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Food Integrity/ Authenticity.” A draft of the discussion paper was started later in 2016 for presentation at the 2017 event. This was led by Iran with co-leaders of the Netherlands and Canada. Note: I initially noticed “Food Integrity/ Authenticity” on the provisional agenda for the CODEX Alimentarius Commission (CAC) 39^th session in July 2016. I found the documentation, and in November 2016, I emailed the lead author of the report.
  • 2017:  The discussion draft document was first presented and discussed in the public CCFICS meeting in Mexico City. I attended and participated under the US Codex Delegation for this meeting, see the blog post review of the event).
  • 2018: The second draft of this CCFICS annual meeting.Note: The USA became the host country.
  • 2021: The third draft (my comments attached).
  • 2022: The fourth draft (my comments attached).
  • 2023: The fifth draft (my comments attached).
  • 2024: The sixth draft was distributed for comments (which is the subject of today’s blog post)

Additional CODEX history related to ‘intentional adulteration’:

• 2007: In CCFICS in 2007, there was a Discussion Paper on the Development of Guidance on the Prevention of Intentional Contamination of Food submitted and led by the USA.  The scope was the broad ‘intentional adulteration’ that was aligned with the then current USA focus of food defense covering all intentional acts (e.g., food defense and food fraud).
  • “The United States prepared a Discussion Paper addressing the Committee’s requests and noting that the scope of the work would include both intentional contaminations arising from economic adulteration in which harm is caused and intentional contamination arising from the direct and purposeful addition of a hazard to a food.”
  • “Several delegations noted that guidance relating to the control of intentional contamination arising from economic adulteration already generally existed. Further, some delegations noted that they believed that purposeful, intentional contamination of food was outside the mandate of Codex as it was the result of criminal behavior. / The Committee agreed that it would not recommend new work in this area but noted that some aspects of the control of intentional contamination could be considered in the context of work to be undertaken on guidance for national food control programs.”