Viewpoint

Food contamination: Understanding andpreventing risks
A structured approach to fostering food safety and defense

Globalization and increasing legislative complexity have brought high levels of market pressure to food companies,
hampering production and supply chain management. Companies are urged to develop risk-based management
frameworks to prevent notable losses and protect their reputation and licenses to operate, thus ensuring sustainable futureperformance.
Some cases of contaminated food have indicated that productquality risk is one of the main vulnerabilities in the production
and global supply chain. A series of company scandals have
hit the food industry in the past years, affecting reputation andcausing product recall, with notable losses as a consequence.
Statistics show that the number of cases of contaminated foodhas increased, as well as that of recalls.

Number of food recalls
between 2012 and2017 in the US

The average direct costof a food recall

People who would
choose the samebrands following a recall

+300%

$10M

-45%

on intentional contamination (e.g., PAS 96:2017 “Guide toprotecting and defending food and drink from deliberate attack”,
by the British Standards Institution), their application in complex
environments is often difficult: many food manufacturers andretail companies lack structured food safety and defense plans.
These, implemented through a risk-based approach, are key
to preventing, mitigating and monitoring possible sources offood contamination. The origin of product contamination can bedivided into two large categories in relation to intentionality.
Accidental contaminations stem from unintentional humanactions or other unexpected events, which typically occur in one
or more activities carried out along the supply chain.

Source: Arthur D. LittleIt is widely known that product recalls represent a major
concern for businesses, as they typically involve assemblinga crisis team, removing the product from the market,investigating and addressing the cause, and managing the public
relations fallout. What’s more, indirect costs depend on thecircumstances of recall events, and involve litigation, stock-value
decline, fines, loss of sales, and potential industry impact.
The damage to public opinion is typically very strong, andmay irreversibly affect the company’s reputation. Despite
an increasing number of guidelines having been issued
by international institutions in recent years, also focusing

One of the largest US
egg producers recalled
more than 206 millions
eggs potentiallycontaminated withsalmonella (2018)

A major french retail
A major US foodcompany recalled
company recalled
millions of snacks from coffee pods due to highlevels of ochratoxin
55 countries due to(2016)
potential contamination
with plastics (2017)

Source: Arthur D. Little

Intentional contaminations involve deliberate actions aimed
at compromising food destined for human consumption. The
final purpose is to cause injuries, death and/or the breakdownof social, economic or political stability. Relevant past cases aregiven in the following figure.

Viewpoint

Area

Over 600 farmers wereforced to dump tons ofstrawberries due to thefinding of needles insome boxes in Australia(2018)

6 million packages offrozen food wererecalled due tocontamination withpesticide in Japan(2014)

Bottled water wascontamined withammonium, injected bymeans of syringes, inItaly (2003)

Source: Arthur D. Little“... These recalls demonstrate just how complex andinterconnected our food system is today. When you buy
something from the store, it’s possible the company thatproduced it was three companies ago ...”
USA Today
Arthur D. Little has developed a structured, homogeneous andquantitative framework to drive food safety and defense incomplex organizations in the food industry; based on a tailormade approach, a risk assessment can be applied to a wide
range of manufacturing facilities, logistics hubs and retail stores,
and adjusted for specific procedures and services (e.g., homedelivery). The framework consists of four main phases: 1. Scopedefinition; 2. Development of a tailored risk assessment tool; 3.
Risk mapping; 4. Definition of risk reduction strategies.

Weight (%) Sub-area Weight (%)

External
areas

15%

1.1 Distance from waste disposal

1. Truckparking

20

1.2 Integrity and maintenance5030

2. Wastestorage30

1.3 Order and cleanliness
2.1 Distance from storage/productionareas
2.2 Integrity and maintenance3. Food
unloading50

Key variables

2. Development of a tailored risk assessment tool
The framework is based on a macro-micro approach: each area/activity within the perimeter is divided into sub-areas and thenkey variables. Such variables represent the factors potentially
impacting the frequency of occurrence of the contamination
event. Each area, sub-area and key variable is given a weightbased on its relevance. Therefore, a checklist containing analgorithm can be structured to estimate the unwanted event
frequency. Hence, the on-site assessment is carried out,
assigning a score to each key variable: a simplified checklist
extract of an unintentional contamination risk assessment forexternal areas is given below.

22040

2.3 Order and cleanliness40

3.1 Respect of smoking/eating bans

10

3.2 Integrity and maintenance20

3.3 Order and cleanliness40

3.4 Presence of insect bait/mousetraps

30Weight (%)
20

1.1 Distance from waste disposal

Score
0.25

0.51> 20m

Between 10and 20 m

< 10 mSource: Arthur D. Little

The overall result is a normalized value of frequency as a
combination of weighted key variables. A polar diagram gives
an immediate overview of critical issues. Three thresholds arealso identified based on the algorithm, and can be tailored basedon specific needs: a “low” frequency (green) one represents a“comfort” area, while the “moderate” and “high” ones require
increasing levels of attention.
External areas (15%)
100%
80%
60%
40%

83%

Procedures (15%)

28%

69%

20%

1. Scope definition
Food exposure to contamination highly varies, depending on
the surrounding environment and particular activities performedby the organization. Hence, the first phase consists ofunderstanding the client context. Preliminary on-site visits andinterviews to department managers and operating personnel
are recommended to gain insight into relevant issues andconsolidate the analysis perimeter. Clear comprehensionof the client’s needs and strategy (e.g., its willingness tostrengthen employees’ awareness, rather than investing in newtechnologies) is key to deploying effective tools to conduct thestudy.

Weight(%)
20

Key variables

Storage (20%)

0%

155%

Test, inspection,
maintenance (20%)
Low76%
Moderate

High

Processing (30%)
Site / Plant

Source: Arthur D. Little

The severity provides a quantitative estimation of theconsequences stemming from contamination events. It is
usually defined based on organizational issues and businesspeculiarities: it can be related to the expected amount ofaffected people; however, some companies may consider
a single injury/fatality irreversible reputational damage, andpreferably relate it to the site/facility size – for example, thenumber of operating personnel, production rate or storage
capacity.

3. Risk mapping
Risk maps give an immediate overview of the company portfolio
and its risk level; the assessment can be replicated periodically,
and the map allows analysis of the performance trend.
Examples include benefits introduced by new technologies andprocedures, worsening performance due to portfolio expansionin less regulated countries, and acquisition of activities with risk
management measures that are still embryonic.

Food contamination: Understanding and preventing risks – A structured approach to fostering food safety and defenseViewpoint

therefore essential to adopt structured approaches to support
management in its decision-making process. A cost-benefit
analysis supporting the prioritization of investment options helps
with selection of corrective actions and their prioritization, and it
facilitates the development of a structured investment plan overtime.

100%
90%

High risk

80%70%60%

Severity
50%(normalized)
40%

What kinds of benefits could food players expect?

Averagerisk

30%20%
10%

Our experience in food safety and defense proves that astructured product contamination risk analysis yields several
advantages, on both an economic and a reputational level.

Low risk

0%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Risk mapping is recommended for organizations withcomplex and differentiated portfolios. High- and medium-levelrecommendations are provided to close relevant gaps and alignfood safety and defense practices in similar areas. A need for
additional in-depth analysis may result from the outcome of therisk mapping. In this case, a detailed on-site visit is performed
to look for strengths and weaknesses in the entire process, andfocused recommendations are provided for each improvementarea.

4. Definition of risk reduction strategies
Strategies to reduce risk typically involve both technical/physicalimprovement actions and human factor/procedural ones.
An example of relevant measures to enhance food defense
management is reported below.
◼
Technologicalchanges◼
◼

Physical &layout changes

Organizational& proceduralmeasures◼

◼
◼

Install video surveillance and biometric control
systems at the site access gate
Implement metal detectors in food-processing
lines
Improve the existing fence to prevent
unauthorized personnel from entering the site
Review the warehouse layout, providing
adequate separation of loading/unloading bays
and storage area
Ensure that trucks are properly locked andsealed before unloading raw materials
Provide specific controls to identify potential
adulteration of unpackaged foodSource: Arthur D. Little

Further actions are “quick wins”, as they refer to human behavior
and can be promptly put in place, leading to an immediaterisk reduction (e.g., ensuring that cleaning and sanitizing
chemicals are stored in designated areas while not in use).
Identification of corrective actions should be made, consideringthat some risks can only be reduced to lower thresholds; theserepresent “residual risks” that cannot be erased. Moreover,
implementation of improvement actions highly depends on thecompany “risk ambition”, which should consider both the risk
exposure if the action is not implemented and its feasibility. Itshould also take into account budget and time constraints. It is

Increased consumer trust and appreciation for thecompany
Reduced insurance premiums thanks to provenanalysis and commitment
Increased awareness of the issue, spreading of goodpractices across the company
Source: Arthur D. Little

Ensure sensitive food is safe
It is widely known that food contamination has a strong impact
on community and public opinion. Some products, such as baby
food, are even more sensitive. If not prevented and promptly
detected, such events may cause irreversible damage.

Case study: Baby food contamination risk analysis
The client was a major dairy manufacturer, with production
plants in Italy and worldwide. Its baby formula was a niche
product, with specific characteristics that made it moresensitive to the risks of accidental contamination. We
interviewed key personnel and organized workshops togain knowledge of relevant issues, and then developed
a checklist with which to perform the on-site visit andassess quantitatively the current level of food safety
practice implementation. The result was a detailed reportthat included improvement areas and recommendations,
together with a risk assessment for each analyzed area.
Therefore, we supported site management in its decisionmaking process by providing a cost-benefit analysis of thesuggested corrective actions.
100

1. External areas

5. Procedures
and controls

10080
60
40
20080
2. Storage
areas

4020

4. TIMS
activities

Source: Arthur D. Little

3. Food
processing

56%

60

63%

30%

28%
15%

0Raw materials
storage

Source: Arthur D. Little

Reduced risk of product recalls, with the related
economic losses

Ingredients
dosingRestaurant

Machine B

Retail store

Machine A

Distribution hub

Pasteurization

Frequency (normalized)
Processing plant

Food contamination: Understanding and preventing risks – A structured approach to fostering food safety and defense3Viewpoint

Defend the entire supply chain

Contacts

Preventing acts intended to cause large-scale harm to publichealth or compromise the company reputation is a must forlarge manufacturing and retail players. However, strengthening
security measures within a complex organization can be difficultand costly if not supported by a risk-based approach.

Austriataga.karim@adlittle.com

Belgiumvanaudenhove.f@adlittle.com

Czech Republicbrabec.dean@adlittle.com

FranceCase study: Enhancing food defense

bamberger.vincent@adlittle.com

The client was a major Italian food manufacturing andretail company, with production sites and over 100 foodstores. The aim was to enhance food defense practices
along the value chain. We supported the client in drawing
up a risk assessment tool based on proven international
requirements, and performed on-site visits to distribution
hubs, manufacturing plants and selected retail stores.
The outcome consisted of risk maps showing the currentexposure to intentional contamination, and common/specific improvement areas. We coordinated and monitored
the action plan development and defined the frameworks
for reporting the progress status of food defense practices.

Germany

Fence surveillance

raaaaaa

Anti-intrusion

aarr

Outdoor surveillanceaaaa

Contractor accessarar

Vehicle access

rr

r

r

Employee accessr

aar

Vulnerability

0.3

0.47

0.61

0.71

Source: Arthur D. Little

54%

49%

srinivasan.srini@adlittle.com

Italymilanese.stefano@adlittle.com

Japanito.yuma@adlittle.com

Korea

lee.kevin@adlittle.com

Latin America

guzman.rodolfo@adlittle.com

Norwaythurmann-moe.lars@adlittle.com

Russian Federation

ovanesov.alexander@adlittle.com

Singapore

ito.yuma@adlittle.com

Spainmira.carlos@adlittle.com

Swedenkillefors.petter@adlittle.com

Switzerland

doemer.fabian@adlittle.com

Turkeybaban.coskun@adlittle.com

UKteixeira.tom@adlittle.com

USAwylie.craig@adlittle.com

kalkman.jaap@adlittle.com

Authors

33%

Stefano Milanese, Emanuele Salvador, Michele Piola

Frequency (normalized)

Conclusion
National and international organizations issue legislation andgood practices applicable to the food industry; however,structured risk assessments to go beyond legislativerequirements can identify dormant issues early, before theyturn into non-conformities or threats to human health. Ourquantitative framework allows approaching the risk throughout
the food supply chain, including analyzing both accidental eventsand deliberate acts. The methodology ensures a consistent,
reliable way to gain insight into complex organizations, and issuitable for a wide portfolio of food players. Food manufacturers,
logistics operators and retail companies could all benefit
from structured plans to prevent and mitigate the risk of foodcontamination; it translates not only into safer and more reliable
services to clients, but also recall cost reduction and reputation
enhancement towards customers, consumers and stakeholders.

“... Many emphasized that food safety can be impacted inmany ways; you can never be sure where something could gowrong, so you should maintain your focus and diligence ... ”
Food Safety Magazine

India

eikelenboom.martijn@adlittle.com

Middle East
65%

DocumentarycheckaSurveillance\measuresSite fence

1009080706050403020100Vehicle
identification

Site A Site B Site C Site D

Driveridentification

Variables

doemer.fabian@adlittle.com

The Netherlands

Arthur D. Little
Arthur D. Little has been at the forefront of innovation since1886. We are an acknowledged thought leader in linking
strategy, innovation and transformation in technology-intensive
and converging industries. We navigate our clients throughchanging business ecosystems to uncover new growth
opportunities. We enable our clients to build innovation
capabilities and transform their organizations.
Our consultants have strong practical industry experience
combined with excellent knowledge of key trends anddynamics. ADL is present in the most important businesscenters around the world. We are proud to serve most of theFortune 1000 companies, in addition to other leading firms andpublic sector organizations.
For further information please visit www.adlittle.com orwww.adl.com.
Copyright © Arthur D. Little Luxembourg S.A. 2019.
All rights reserved.
1

www.adl.com/FoodContamination