Appendices A to C — Taxonomy, scoring and decision tree
5 min read
Appendix A — Types of food fraud: quick reference
| # | Type | Short definition | Emblematic example |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Substitution | Replacement with a lower-value product | Horse meat sold as beef (Europe, 2013) |
| 2 | Addition / Dilution | Adding a substance to increase volume | Honey adulterated with corn syrup |
| 3 | Manipulation | Concealing defects or deterioration | Fish treated with CO to appear fresh |
| 4 | Misrepresentation | False claims on labels or documents | Olive oil with a false geographical origin |
| 5 | Unapproved enhancements | Adding unauthorised substances | Melamine in infant formula (China, 2008) |
| 6 | Counterfeiting | Imitation of a protected brand or designation | Counterfeit wine from premium appellations |
| 7 | Stolen goods | Stolen product reintroduced onto the market | Meat shipments stolen in transit |
Appendix B — Complete scoring matrix
B.1 Summary of sub-factors and scales
| Pillar | Sub-factor | Code | Scale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opportunity | Availability of substitutes/adulterants | O1 | 1-5 (1=very low, 5=very high) |
| Opportunity | Supply chain complexity | O2 | 1-5 |
| Opportunity | Ease of undetected adulteration | O3 | 1-5 |
| Opportunity | Transaction volume and mode | O4 | 1-5 |
| Motivation | Economic value / margin of the fraud | M1 | 1-5 |
| Motivation | Documented history of fraud | M2 | 1-5 |
| Motivation | Economic pressures in the sector/region | M3 | 1-5 |
| Motivation | Regulatory and compliance environment | M4 | 1-5 |
| Countermeasures | Supplier verification programme | C1 | 1-5 (1=very low, 5=very high) |
| Countermeasures | Analytical and testing capability | C2 | 1-5 |
| Countermeasures | Traceability system | C3 | 1-5 |
| Countermeasures | Organisational culture and governance | C4 | 1-5 |
The descriptors for each level are in section 5.
B.2 Formulas
O = (O1 + O2 + O3 + O4) / 4 → Range: 1.0 – 5.0 M = (M1 + M2 + M3 + M4) / 4 → Range: 1.0 – 5.0 C = (C1 + C2 + C3 + C4) / 4 → Range: 1.0 – 5.0 V = (O × M) / C → Range: 0.20 – 25.00
Opportunity4.0
Motivation3.8
Countermeasures2.8
V5.5
High0.22.05.010.025.0
Honey: sugar syrup adulteration is widely documented and hive-level traceability is limited.
B.3 Vulnerability classification
| Level | V range | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Low | < 2.0 | Routine monitoring |
| Medium | 2.0 – 4.9 | Increased attention, review within 6 months |
| High | 5.0 – 9.9 | Significant vulnerability → VCCP, implement within 90 days |
| Critical | ≥ 10.0 | Immediate action → VCCP, implement within 30 days |
Appendix C — Decision tree for determining a VCCP
(Reproduced in full in Step 10 of this guide.)
Summary of the flow:
- Q1: Is V ≥ 5.0? → NO: document and monitor. YES: continue.
- Q2: Is there a specific mitigation measure in place? → NO: a VCCP is required. YES: continue.
- Q3: Is the measure verifiable (measurable criteria + monitoring)? → NO: a VCCP is required. YES: continue.
- Q4: Has the measure been shown to be effective (12 months of evidence)? → NO: a VCCP is required. YES: it is a VCCP that is already managed.
Special rule: If V ≥ 10.0, the VCCP is established automatically (skip to Step 11).
p1
Is the overall vulnerability score V ≥ 5.0?
The book in other formats
Reading online is complete and free, and so is the PDF. If you would like to support the work, the book is on Amazon.