of the food to its consumption. A few
participants held the opinion that food
defense was, at least to some degree, the
defense of consumers/customers. Most
expressed the view of protecting the
food itself and the equipment used to
produce, process and provide it.
There was widespread linking of food
defense to reducing various risks associated with intentional tampering of food
supplies. Some definitions indicated a
clear assumption that food defense
would be conducted within a risk analysis framework. Some focused on the risk
of an attack of some sort, some on the
risk of a successful attack and others
focused on risks to consumers.
It is clear that intentionality is an
important distinguishing characteristic
of food defense. The prevailing food
protection focus clearly linked the intentional contamination of food defense to
the unintentional contamination of
food safety. Intentional threat, adulteration, contamination, sabotage or other
malicious acts are included in the definition.
The likely hazards to the food or
food facilities include biological, chemical, radiologic, physical or financial hazards. The physical hazards include damage and destruction to infrastructure and
equipment as well as the entire range of
physical materials that can be added to
food. A few participants noted that the
mere threat or claim of an attack could
be sufficient to inflict economic damage
on a producer.
Many definitions included some
notion of risk management. Several participants specifically suggested that food
defense needed to be proactive while
others pointed to the need to include
“reacting” to an attack as an element of
their definition of food defense. Perhaps
“response” to an attack is a more faithful
interpretation of their intent, based on
discussions that attended the development of the definition. Management
measures were sometimes described in
terms of controlling the various procedural operations in the food chain.
Taking action to prevent attacks was also
an element within several definitions.
Relatively few people included any
explicit mention of “vulnerabilities” but
one offered a definition centered on this
concept. It included understanding,
anticipating and evaluating vulnerabilities, as well as taking subsequent steps to
mitigate these vulnerabilities. Numerous
definitions mentioned taking measures
to reduce risks, without explicitly
addressing the need to assess the hazards that cause the risks.
Terrorists, bioterrorists, individuals
and inside saboteurs were mentioned as
the likely types of people to perpetrate
an attack. Several participants offered a
definition that specified that food
defense should be a strategic initiative,
as opposed to a tactical measure. When
participants included actions to be taken
in their definitions they tended to use
such verbs as training, screening, assessing,
managing, communicating, planning, analyzing, implementing, preventing, recalling,
recovering and responding.
After lengthy discussions and
PROTECT YOUR BRAND
One in every four foodservice chains
trust Steton’s software to manage quality, safety,
regulatory compliance, and risk.
“With the leading-edge tools Steton
has to offer, Applebee’s executives
gain access to meaningful data,
rather than meaningless numbers.”
Sam Rothschild
V.P. Franchise Operations
Applebee’s International
Quickly & easily
conduct audits/
inspections
with a handheld
computer
RISKS
REDUCED
Identify
trends with
real-time reports that
auto-generate immediately.
Receive alerts instantly when
critical issues are uncovered
and effectively manage
corrective actions.
www.steton.com
Find Out More
Foodservice, food retail, food processing,
and public health professionals rely
upon Steton for effective compliance
management. Request a free online
demonstration by calling 888.343.5655
or visit www.steton.com.
