Four years post-horsegate: an update of measures and actions put in place following the horsemeat incident of 2013

Abstract

Complexities in food supply chains were highlighted by the so called ‘horsegate’ crisis in 2013, where beef meat was fraudulently adulterated with horse meat causing widespread recalls and subsequent investigations across both retail and food service markets in the European Union (EU). The beef supply chain is a complex supply chain, with global (EU and Non EU) sourcing strategies in order to secure supply. However, managing these complex supply chains can be difficult and consequentially can expose vulnerabilities similar to that of horsemeat, where horsemeat was found in beef meat within EU supply chains. Six months after the crisis broke, an independent review into the integrity and assurance of food supply networks was commissioned by the UK government and undertaken by Professor Chris Elliott of Queen’s University, Belfast. The review recommended eight pillars of food integrity to industry and government: consumers first, zero tolerance, intelligence gathering, laboratory services, audit, government support, leadership and crisis management. This article examines the extent to which these recommendations have been implemented using personal communications from Professor Chris Elliott and relevant industry bodies. Following the review, industry attitudes have changed substantially, testing and surveillance systems have been integrated into normal industry practice and the government is more prepared for future incidents through the establishment of the National Food Crime Unit (NFCU). Horsegate raised the profile of food fraud and crime in supply chains and despite improvements to date, further collaboration between industry and government is required in order to align fully with the recommendations.

Moving from risk communication to food information communication and consumer engagement

“…the 2013 EU horse meat scandal, where beef was replaced with horse meat demonstrated that, in the EU, oversight of the meat industry and its traceability system was not as robust as consumers were led to believe. 5…”

Food ethics: the moral maze

“…The fact that food companies employ staff who have a primary responsibility for the ethical conduct of their organisations does not however absolve other staff of the responsibility for acting ethically in the pursuance of company objectives. Consider the example of the so‐called Horsegate [6] incident of 2013 to appreciate the extent to which food business staff straying from the path of moral rectitude in pursuit of profit can bring the values of an industry sector sharply into ethical question and disrepute.…”

Food Supply Chain Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Sharing Information to Detect and Prevent Food Integrity Issues

“…Ellis, Muhamadali, Haughey, Elliott, and Goodacre [6] stressed that the ever-expanding portfolio of analytical methods, techniques and technologies in food control and future pervasive and predictive computation will together take on the role of a technology-based capable guardian for food systems. Simultaneously, more than ever before, experts recognize that food integrity is a challenge that requires a joint strategy and coordinated efforts involving all stakeholders, and that a strengthening of the collaboration between industry and governments is necessary [7]. The development of an integrated private–public strategy requires clearly defined roles for each participating stakeholder and clarity and shared agreement on the specific purpose [8].…”

“…Following the horsemeat incident, several actions were taken, and new initiatives were set up. For example, in the United Kingdom, the incident led to the establishment of the Food Industry Intelligence Network (FIIN), and on a European level it led to the Food Fraud Network (FFN), both aiming at the type of intelligence gathering that the Elliott review recommended [7].…”