Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables and figures
- Notes on contributors
- Introduction
- Section I Thinking about food crime
- Section II Farming and food production
- Section III Processing, marketing and accessing food
- Section IV Corporate food and food safety
- Section V Food trade and movement
- Section VI Technologies and food
- Section VII Green food
- Section VIII Questioning and consuming food
- Index
10 - Regulating food fraud: Public and private lawresponses in the EU, Italy and theNetherlands
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 April 2022
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables and figures
- Notes on contributors
- Introduction
- Section I Thinking about food crime
- Section II Farming and food production
- Section III Processing, marketing and accessing food
- Section IV Corporate food and food safety
- Section V Food trade and movement
- Section VI Technologies and food
- Section VII Green food
- Section VIII Questioning and consuming food
- Index
Summary
Introduction
The horsemeat scandal in 2013 brought food fraud to theattention of both the public and authorities in theEuropean Union (EU). ‘Food fraud’ is used toindicate a wide variety of violations of food law,such as the use of non-authorised ingredients,adulteration of food substances, and irregularlabelling or counterfeiting of geographicalindications. Such violations may affect consumers’economic interests or health. Depending on theintention of the perpetrator, some distinguish ‘foodfraud’ (economic gain) from ‘food defence’ (harmfuleffects) (Spink and Moyer, 2011). The distinguishingfactor between these involves their objective: economic gain ordamage, respectively. In this chapter, food fraud isunderstood as any intentional violation of food laws.
In most EU member states, food fraud may be subjectedto either civil or criminal prosecution. In Italy,for example, some violations (for example,incomplete labelling) are punished viaadministrative fines (see Article 18 of Act109/1992), while in other cases (Article 440 onadulteration and counterfeiting of food substances)they are subject to criminal sanctions. Similarly,the Netherlands does not specifically define foodfraud, but Article 32a of Warenwet (The CommoditiesAct) does refer to intentional or recklessinfringements that may cause harm to public healthor safety.
To contribute to conceptualising food fraud, thischapter analyses public law and policy responses tothe horsemeat scandal, both at EU and member statelevels (in the Netherlands and Italy), as well as byprivate standards enforced by food businessesthemselves. The chapter is organised as follows.First, it sets out a brief history of approaches tofood fraud developed in the EU. Next, the politicaland legislative responses to the horsemeat scandalare assessed, followed by a presentation of privateschemes, including a discussion of their relevanceto prevent food fraud. Finally, the added value ofprivate schemes in dealing with food fraud isinvestigated.
The EU framework, ‘mad cow disease’ and thehorsemeat scandal
In the countries that later formed the EU,falsification of food (now called ‘food fraud’) wasa significant matter of concern, even prior to theformation of the EU. The first half of the 20thcentury involved periods of food shortages.Unscrupulous businessmen took advantage of thissituation by selling counterfeit foods, andgovernments responded by legislating for the propercomposition of food products and enforcingcompliance with these standards.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- A Handbook of Food CrimeImmoral and Illegal Practices in the Food Industry and What to Do About Them, pp. 159 - 174Publisher: Bristol University PressPrint publication year: 2018
- 2
- Cited by