Introduction

As food fraud is international in scope, steps must betaken to ensure international cooperation inresponding to food fraud. Food fraud is increasinglya policy priority for the European Union (EU) andits member states (European Parliament, 2016),leading to increased networking. This was stimulatedlargely by the horsemeat scandal of 2013 (FSAI,2013), which provided a wake-up call to Europeanpolicy-makers to ensure inter-EU and internationalregulatory networks were fit to respond to foodfraud. This chapter examines how regulatory networksare used to prevent and respond to food fraudincidents, and argues that networked governance isessential in dealing with modern food crimes andharms. Networked governance is essential in theresponse to food crime.

Food crime is not a new phenomenon (Paulus, 1974). Ithas the potential to damage both consumers’ safetyand their economic interests. Consumers may beinjured by food that has unsafe elements or that hasbeen processed in an unhygienic environment (Spinkand Moyer, 2011). For example, chemicals may beintroduced into food products to provide desirablecharacteristics or meat that has been illegallyslaughtered may be fraudulently placed on themarket. Consumers’ economic interests will bedamaged as they will be induced to pay forfraudulent food, which professes particularcharacteristics that it does not possess. Forexample, a consumer will pay more for Manuka honeythan for other honeys, more for olive oil than otheroils, or more for cod than other forms of whitefish. When food is deceptively sold with valuablecharacteristics that it does not possess,enforcement bodies should intervene. However,regulators acting alone may not have either theinformation or the power to take action against theperpetrators of food crime, and may not have thegeographical reach to remove deceptive food from ourshelves and our homes.

Article 8 of the EU's General Food Law (GFL) evinces anaim to prevent ‘fraudulent or deceptive practices.’While there is no formal definition of suchpractices, they can be understood as ‘violations offood law motivated by the intention to obtain anundue benefit’ (European Commission, 2017). Spinkand Moyer (2011, R157) define food fraud as ‘anintentional act for economic gain.’ Food fraud alsoamounts to a violation of Regulation 1169/2011 onfood information, as information that accompaniesfraudulent food will inevitably be misleading toconsumers.