van Ruth Saskia M, van der Veeken Joris, Dekker Pieter, Luning Pieternel A, Huisman Wim
Food Quality and Design Group, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 17, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands; Wageningen Food Safety Research, P.O. Box 230, 6700 AE Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Food Quality and Design Group, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 17, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Food Res Int. 2020 Jul;133:109158. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109158. Epub 2020 Mar 9.
This study examines fraud vulnerability in the food service industry; identifies underlying fraud vulnerability factors; and studies the differences in fraud vulnerability between casual dining restaurants, fine dining restaurants and mass caterers for four product groups. Vulnerability was assessed by an adapted SSAFE food fraud vulnerability assessment, tailored to the food service sector situation. The 15 food service operators rated high vulnerability for 40% of the fraud indicators. This is considerably more than food manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers did previously. In particular, more opportunities and fewer controls were noted. Overall fraud vulnerability was more determined by the type of food service operator than by the type of food product. Casual dining restaurants appeared most vulnerable, followed by fine dining restaurants. Mass caterers seemed the least vulnerable operators, because they had more adequate food fraud controls in place. Considering its high vulnerability, reinforcement of mitigation measures in the food service industry is urgently recommended.
本研究考察了食品服务行业的欺诈易发性;识别了潜在的欺诈易发性因素;并研究了休闲餐厅、高档餐厅和大规模餐饮服务商在四类产品组方面的欺诈易发性差异。通过一项针对食品服务行业情况进行调整的SSAFE食品欺诈易发性评估来评估易发性。15家食品服务运营商对40%的欺诈指标评定为高易发性。这比食品制造商、批发商和零售商之前的比例要高得多。特别是,发现了更多的机会且控制措施更少。总体欺诈易发性更多地取决于食品服务运营商的类型而非食品产品的类型。休闲餐厅似乎最易发生欺诈,其次是高档餐厅。大规模餐饮服务商似乎是最不易发生欺诈的运营商,因为它们有更充分的食品欺诈控制措施。鉴于其高易发性,迫切建议加强食品服务行业的缓解措施。