Food fraud detection and reporting by food control officers in Finland

Figures & data

Table 1. Characterization of the finnish food control officers who responded to the questionnaire (N = 95) or were interviewed (N = 17).

Variable	Number of respondents (%)	Number of interviewees (%)
Respondent
Health inspector or similar	67 (70.5)	10 (58.9)
Veterinarian	22 (23.2)	7 (41.2)
Head of the unit	14 (14.7)	7 (41.2)
Region
Southern Finland	43 (45.3)	4 (23.5)
Western and Inland Finland	18 (18.9)	3 (17.6)
Southwestern Finland	15 (15.8)	4 (23.5)
Eastern Finland	8 (8.4)	4 (23.5)
Northern Finland	4 (4.2)	2 (11.7)
Lapland	3 (3.2)	0 (0)
Performs food control inspections	89 (93.7)	14 (82.4)
Has participated in control tasks related to a food fraud case	53 (55.8)	13 (76.5)

Table 2. Finnish food control officers’ (N = 50) observations leading to a suspicion or detection of food fraud in an establishment (open-ended question).

Observation	Number of respondents (%)
Documentation and traceability	21 (42.0)
Problems with documentation related to food products or traceability issues	19 (38.0)
Falsified own-check documentation	2 (4.0)
Food business operator	20 (4.0)
Aggression, failure to cooperate, hindering inspections, lying, or disobedience	16 (32.0)
Operating under a false name or business ID or giving other misleading information of the company	5 (1.0)
Other offences or observations	4 (8.0)
Indifference, avoiding efforts or expenses	3 (6.0)
Establishments and activities	15 (30.0)
Unregistered or unapproved premises or activities	8 (16.0)
Poor hygiene or generally bad performance	3 (6.0)
Sales without giving receipt	2 (4.0)
Other	3 (6.0)
Information given on food products	14 (28.0)
Labelling of raw materials or products	13 (26.0)
Marketing	2 (4.0)
Food products	12 (24.0)
Suspicious or outdated products or package material	6 (12.0)
Other characteristics of the food products	5 (10.0)
The quality of the product incl. sensory or laboratory findings	4 (8.0)
Notifications, tip-offs or rumours	10 (20.0)
Pricing	6 (12.0)

Table 3. Finnish food control officers’ perceived knowledge of the establishments they inspect.

Claim	All respondents who performed inspections^a (detectors/non-detectors^b)	% of all respondents (% of detectors/non-detectors^b)				Mean from 1 to 4^c	p-value^d
		In all establishments	In many establishments	In a few establishments	In none of the establishments
I know what kind of products the establishment produces	83	33.7	66.3	0.0	0.0	3.34
	(56/24)	(32.1/40.0)	(67.9/60.0)	0 (0/0)	(0/0)		0.495
I know the customer groups of the establishment	85	17.6	74.1	7.1	1.2	3.08
	(57/25)	(17.5/20.0)	(70.2/80.0)	(10.5/0)	(1.8/0)		0.256
I know what the company advertises in their website	82	15.9	65.9	18.3	0.0	2.98
	(55/25)	(12.7/24.0)	(67.3/60.0)	(20.0/16.0)	(0/0)		0.291
I know the establishment’s manufacturing methods well	84	15.5	83.3	1.2	0.0	3.14
	(57/25)	(14.0/20.0)	(84.2/80.0)	(1.8/0)	(0/0)		0.418
I know well which raw materials the establishment uses	84	10.7	83.3	6.0	0.0	3.05
	(57/25)	(8.8/16.0)	(84.2/80.0)	(7.0/4.0)	(0/0)		0.299
I know whether the company uses agency-hired labour	82	9.8	35.4	48.8	6.1	2.49
	(56/24)	(5.4/20.8)	(37.5/29.2)	(50.0/45.8)	(7.1/4.2)		0.262
I know where the establishment purchases their raw materials	85	8.2	77.6	14.1	0.0	2.94
	(57/25)	(7.0/12.0)	(78.9/76.0)	(14.0/12.0)	(0/0)		0.539
I know what the company advertises on Facebook or other social media	82	7.3	34.1	48.8	9.8	2.39
	(56/24)	(7.1/8.3)	(30.4/37.5)	(48.2/54.2)	(14.3/0)		0.220
I have a notion about the economic situation of the company	82	3.7	28.0	61.0	7.3	2.28
	(56/24)	(3.6/4.2)	(26.8/33.3)	(62.5/54.2)	(7.1/8.3)		0.643
Sum variable “knowledge of establishments”	85					2.9
	(57/25)					(2.8/3.0)	0.141

^aIn total, 89 respondents performed inspections, but there were 4–7 “I don’t know” responses or missing answers per claim.

^bRespondents who had suspected or detected food fraud (N = 57) vs. respondents who had not (N = 25).

^cAnswer options were coded from 1 = in none of the establishments to 4 = in all of the establishments.

^dSignificance of the difference between those who had suspected or detected fraud and those who had not (Mann-Whitney U test).

Table 4. Finnish food control officers’ use of different inspection methods.

Inspection method^a	All respondents who performed inspections^b (detectors/non-detectors^c)	% of all respondents (% of detectors/non-detectors^c)			p-value^d
		Always or often	Seldom	Never
I interview personnel responsible for the business’s own-check practices	83	98.8	1.2	0.0
	(55/25)	(98.2/100)	(1.8/0)	(0/0)	0.294
I ask personnel to open closed cupboards, cold storage rooms or storerooms	84	96.4	3.6	0.0
	(57/24)	(98.2/91.7)	(1.8/8.3)	(0/0)	0.324
I follow the operations	85	92.9	7.1	0.0
	(57/25)	(91.2/96.0)	(8.8/4.0)	(0/0)	0.430
I measure temparatures myself	84	85.7	11.9	2.4
	(56/25)	(85.7/84.0)	(12.5/12.0)	(1.8/4.0)	0.708
I interview management	84	79.8	19.0	1.2
	(56/25)	(80.4/76.0)	(17.9/24.0)	(1.8/0)	0.784
I interview workers	83	77.1	19.3	3.6
	(55/25)	(78.2/72.0)	(18.2/24.0)	(3.6/4.0)	0.785
I compare the amount of incoming raw material with the number of food products	81	14.8	46.9	38.3
	(54/25)	(20.4/4.0)	(46.3/48.0)	(33.3/48.0)	0.078
I compare the amount of incoming raw material with the number of by-products	80	7.5	52.5	40.0
	(53/25)	(9.4/4.0)	(50.9/56.0)	(39.6/40.0)	0.768

^aAnswer options were coded from 1 = never to 4 = always.

^bIn total, 89 respondents performed inspections, but there were 4–9 “I don’t know” responses or missing answers per inspection method.

^cRespondents who had suspected or detected food fraud (N = 57) vs. respondents who had not (N = 25).

^dSignificance of the difference between those who had suspected or detected fraud and those who had not (Mann-Whitney U test).

Table 5. Responses to inspection-related claims by food control officers who inspected food establishments and had (N = 57) or had not (N = 25) suspected or detected fraud.

Claim	% of respondents (n/N)^a		p-value^b
	Suspected and/or detected	Not suspected or detected
If I suspected fraudulent activities in an establishment that I inspect, I would know how to proceed (fully or partially agree)	80.4 (45/56)	58.3 (14/24)	0.022
Unannounced inspections should be performed also outside office hours if needed to detect activities that are against the law (fully or partially agree)	92.7 (51/55)	47.6 (10/21)	0.04
I feel that I have a realistic chance of detecting food fraud during inspections (fully or partially agree)	58.9 (33/56)	39.1 (9/23)	0.065
The inspection frequency is sufficient such that I am able to adequately familiarize myself with the establishment (in all or many of the establishments)	71.9 (41/57)	92.0 (23/25)	0.076
The length of inspections is sufficient such that I am able to adequately familiarize myself with the establishment (in all or many of the establishments)	70.2 (40/57)	84.0 (21/25)	0.139
I know what kind of food fraud might occur in the types of food premises that I inspect (fully or partially agree)	73.2 (41/56)	75.0 (18/24)	0.597
In inspections performed according to the inspection guidelines, factors important to food fraud detection are not inspected (fully or partially agree)	68.8 (33/48)	75.0 (12/16)	0.965

^aIn total, there were 0–18 “I don’t know” responses or missing answers per claim.

^bIndependent samples Mann-Whitney U test was performed using the four-point scale.

Table 6. Emerging themes in the interviews of food control officers (FCOs) (N = 17) working in local food control units (N = 9) concerning challenges related to food fraud detection at inspections.

Theme and subtheme		N	Interviewee quotes^a
Organizational factors
	Insufficient resources	8	“If you think of resources, it is rarely possible to perform, for example, traceability cross-checks.” [Head of the unit I5]
	Regional jurisdiction of the food control unit	6	“When, for example, the [FBO’s^b] wholesale operations may be located on a different municipality than their retail sales, it makes it more difficult for the FCO to follow.” [Health inspector I6]
	Lack of analytical capability	1	“And then there is of course [the challenge that] for verifying the origin [of a product] or the species of a meat product … analytics may be required.” [Head of the unit I11]
Inspection-related factors
	Inability to inspect or trust documentation	14	“If documents are not in order [during the inspection], [the FBO] is allowed to send them to us after the inspection. … And that of course makes it more difficult, as [the documents] may be forged to fulfill the required purpose.” [Health inspector I1]
	Lack of time during inspections or inability to concentrate on food fraud detection	7	“Then there is of course the problem that … we have these recommended durations for inspections, and these things cannot be noticed during a quick inspection.” [Head of the unit I10]
	Low inspection frequency	5	“Well, I visit the establishment once a year or once in two years and I see the situation for an hour or two. It’s momentary. So that’s a challenge.” [Health inspector I3]
	Preannouncement of inspections	4	” … [I]f the FBO is notified of an inspection, there is a big risk that the inspector may not see the real situation [at the establishment].” [Health inspector I17]
	Inspection guidelines and practices	3	“Our inspection system Oiva strongly directs the inspections and their contents. And there are dreadfully many things that can be inspected. … So Oiva may not highlight things that may be important in food fraud. … It is possible that something substantial goes unnoticed when you are focusing on the Oiva items.” [Head of the unit I5]
	Other issues	3	“These [forged dates] are very difficult to detect, as the dates are not [inspected] much, unless the FBO has been careless and you see that the [original expiration date] has been covered with a new label.” [Health inspector I9]
Food control officer-related factors
	Focus on other issues than fraud	4	“We are still pretty traditional food control officers and focus on hygiene. If we don’t have training and awareness of observing these things, then they will remain undetected.” [Head of the unit I8]
	FCOs’ excessive trust in the FBO	4	“ … Finland is a society based on trust. I think that often the inspectors’ first thought is … that an issue with import documents, for example, is due to the FBO’s inexperience, ignorance, or thoughtlessness. This way of thinking is quite strong in some FCOs, that they, or we quite easily trust what the FBO says and if you go and look through the issue then the truth may be something else.” [Head of the unit I5]
	Unwillingness to detect food fraud	3	“I’ve seen that there are inspectors who don’t dare to see [food fraud], I don’t know whether they’re scared because they haven’t done that type of work before, or whether they’re scared, because, for example, I have been explicitly threatened with violence.” [Health inspector I14]
	Insufficient knowledge of products	2	“If you don’t know the product it is very difficult to suspect something. If you don’t, for example, know when Finnish strawberries are in season, or that whether a certain variety is even available locally. … My knowledge of the products may not be good enough for alarm bells to ring.” [Head of the unit I7]
Food business operator-related factors
	Challenging food establishment types	7	“There are many self-storage facilities, the operators’ own storage facilities are easier to control, but we have facilities where the operator rents out storage units and there may be hundreds of FBOs [who store their products in these facilities]. And there may be, for example, an FBO that has stuff in ten different storage facilities. So this is a big challenge for food control. If you had the time to look through them, then you could find something.” [Head of the unit I10]
	Language barrier	2	“Well sometimes there’s a language barrier between the inspector and the FBO.” [Head of the unit I11]
	Other issues	5	”[The FBO] has been difficult, we have not been able to perform inspections when we should have, and [the FBO’s] behaviour has made performing inspections more difficult.” [Head of the unit I13]

^aIn the quotes, “ … ” implies omission and text in square brackets has been added by the researcher for clarity. The original language of the interview quotes is Finnish.

^bFBO=food business operator.