PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURES
Food Inspections and Enforcement Systems
CS DeWaal, D Plunkett, and C Roberts, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DC, USA
r 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Glossary
Adulteration A legal standard applied to distinguish food
that is inferior, contaminated, produced under insanitary
conditions, or different from an identity standard; or food
that contains harmful, less valuable, or prohibited
substances.
Civil penalties Civil fines can be applied administratively
or by a court for lesser violations of law, providing a more
flexible response to corporate misconduct that can be
tailored to the violation.
Codex Alimentarius A collection of internationally
recognized standards, codes of practice, guidelines, and
other recommendations relating to foods, food production,
and food safety.
Criminal penalties Criminal fines or incarceration are
applied to individuals or firms following conviction on
charges of criminal behavior in a court of law.
Detention An order, typically issued by a government
authority, to temporarily hold a shipment of food so that it
cannot enter commerce pending a more thorough
examination.
Inspection The examination of food or systems of food
control in order to ensure that food meets the requirements
set by government authorities.
Introduction
Inspection is used to verify that food, and the systems used to
produce it, meet the requirements established to protect
consumers from foodborne hazards and control deceptive
marketing practices. Since ancient times, inspection has been
an essential component of regulatory control programs to
ensure the safety of food products.
Inspection services give government regulators, customers,
and consumers consistent information regarding conditions
throughout the food chain. Serving as in-house experts, in-
spectors have essential information about the food production
system that can help in responding to food safety emergencies.
Food inspection services can cover many aspects of the
food supply. Many inspection functions are focused on food
processing facilities (including slaughter facilities) and at im-
port facilities. Restaurants, farms, storage, and packing facil-
ities can also be subject to inspection. Street vendors are
subject to oversight in many places.
46 Encyclopedia of Food Safety, Volume 4
Recall Recalls are actions taken by a firm to remove a
product from the market. Recalls may be conducted on a
firm’s own initiative, by request from a food safety agency,
or, in the case of a mandatory recall, by order under a food
safety agency statutory authority.
Traceability The ability to follow the movement of a food
or ingredient through multiple stage(s) of production,
processing, and distribution.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA) The agency
that regulates production and importation of all
raw beef, pork, lamb, goat, horsemeat, chicken,
turkey, duck, and goose as well as processed meat
and poultry products and liquid, frozen, and dried egg
products in the United States.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) The US agency
that regulates domestic and imported food products
(except for most meat, poultry, and egg products),
including processed foods, dairy, shell eggs, seafood,
and products which contain minimal amount
of meat.
A variety of components contribute to the effectiveness of
inspections. The number of inspectors and facilities will im-
pact the frequency of inspection. Many programs focus most
of their resources on risky foods and higher risk sectors of the
food supply, which can leave other sectors without oversight.
Inspector training and ethics are also critically important to
ensure effective inspections.
Inspection Models, Past and Present
One of the purposes of food inspection is to deter adulteration
of food. Where inspection has been mandated by law, there
are several models:
• Carcass-by-carcass inspection for slaughter plants has been
in place for more than 100 years in the meat industry.
Some countries require government inspectors to be pre-
sent in all slaughter facilities during their operation to in-
spect each carcass for signs of illness, disease, or filth.
doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-378612-8.00318-8
 Public Health Measures: Food Inspections and Enforcement Systems
• The US and other countries require daily inspection for
many high-risk processing facilities such as processed meat,
poultry, and egg products.
• Many governments worldwide use random or periodic
inspection to check for unsanitary conditions that could
lead to adulteration as well as to verify a food facility’s food
safety system.
When food-related disease outbreaks or other food crises
occur, government agencies can be subject to significant
criticism. Some governments may practice a reactive approach
to inspection, when, for example, they send inspectors to in-
spect facilities in response to an outbreak or contamina-
tion event linked to foods from a similar type of facility.
Several governments are working to identify and define the
components of a risk-based inspection system for periodic
inspections. Under a risk-based inspection system, food fa-
cilities are inspected regularly on a schedule that reflects the
likely risk to consumers from the type of food produced, not
just in response to outbreaks. Consultation with all stake-
holders on the elements of the inspection system can help to
inform those both inside and outside of government.
Modern Inspection Systems
According to the Codex Alimentarius, inspection is the
examination of food or systems of food control in order to
ensure that food meets the requirements set by government
authorities. Inspection can be applied at many points along
the food chain, encompassing raw materials, processing, and
distribution. It can also include both in-process and finished
product testing.
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, in
advising governments that are developing or modernizing
food safety systems, have defined the responsibilities of
inspection systems as follows:
• Inspecting premises and processes for compliance with hy-
gienic and other requirements of standards and regulations.
• Evaluating Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
(HACCP) plans, their development and their implemen-
tation.
• Sampling food during harvest, processing, storage, trans-
port, and sale to establish compliance, to contribute data
for risk assessments, and to identify offenders.
• Recognizing different forms of food decomposition, or
food that is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise unfit for
consumption.
• Providing evidence and other assistance in law enforce-
ment activities.
• Conducting inspection, sampling, and certification of food
products for import/export purposes.
• Examining how rework, noncompliant raw material,
products, incidents are managed.
According to FAO/WHO, the effectiveness of the inspection
control system is highly dependent on the inspection force,
including workforce qualifications, training, and honesty.
FAO/WHO recommends that inspection personnel be trained
in food science and technology sufficient to allow them to
47
analyze a HACCP program and identify safety or quality
problems. Additionally, inspectors must have a wide variety of
skills in order to inspect premises, collect samples, conduct an
overall evaluation, understand and apply food legislation,
collect evidence, and handle HACCP audits.
The Frequency of Inspections
Inspections can be daily (as some countries require for meat
and poultry) or periodic. In either case, to maximize consumer
confidence, Codex guidance recommends that inspection or
other appropriate controls should extend to all stages of
production, manufacture, importation, processing, storage,
transportation, distribution, and trade.
For periodic inspections, managers should apply principles
of risk to ensure an adequate frequency of inspection is
maintained, i.e., foods and facilities should be evaluated to
ensure high-risk foods are inspected more frequently than
those presenting a low risk.
Codex outlines a number of components to consider when
assessing the risk of imported foods, many of which apply
equally well to domestic products:
• The scientific determination of the food safety risk, based
on foodborne illness outbreaks and epidemiologic evi-
dence, risk assessments, and contaminant or residue in-
formation, where available.
• The adequacy of processing controls in a country, as evi-
denced by the laws, infrastructure, and enforcement
capabilities.
• The compliance history of the segment of the food
industry.
• The compliance history of specific suppliers.
• Reports from other entities such as a foreign government or
other local or national agencies, where available.
Regular review of the level of assigned risk helps ensure
that the nature and frequency of inspection is appropriately
matched to the specific products. The review should be
documented, with changes over time recorded.
Other Elements of Legislation that Support Inspection
A number of elements of a food control system can make the
inspection program more effective as well as more efficient. For
example, an inventory of food facilities operating in or sup-
plying food to a particular country or region facilitates in-
spection. Here are some provisions in use in different countries:
• Facility registration to provide food control authorities
with an inventory.
• Rapid alert systems to ensure effective dissemination of
findings of adulteration or misbranding, nationally or
regionally.
• National systems to approve HACCP plans and controls,
equipment design and use, and standardized training of
inspectors.
• Export certification to provide assurance that the specific
facility or food meets the standards of the importing
country, which can facilitate the trade of foods between
countries.
48 Public Health Measures: Food Inspections and Enforcement Systems
• Laboratory systems that provide the ability to sample and
test foods and facilities for specific contaminants.
• Active foodborne outbreak surveillance systems to inform
regulators about the foods most likely to cause illness.
• Utilization of state, provincial, or potentially private in-
spectors to augment the national management scheme.
Enforcement
The role of enforcement is to provide deterrence and to pro-
mote the use of best practices. Government sanctions are the
primary means of enforcing food safety standards. However,
private lawsuits can also serve to promote compliance. En-
forcement is important to deter noncompliance in countries
where market forces alone do not provide sufficient incentive
for businesses to produce safer food.
Important government enforcement tools include:
• Detention: An order, typically issued by a government au-
thority, to temporarily hold a shipment of food so that it
cannot enter commerce pending a more thorough
examination.
• Seizure: The government takes unsafe food, which may
occur without compensating the owners, to prevent it from
reaching consumers. Seizures may require a court order.
• Injunction: An agency may seek a court ordered injunction
to stop a food establishment from producing or distributing
food.
• Civil penalties: A government agency may impose civil
fines administratively or go through the courts. Civil pen-
alties provide a flexible response targeted at restoring
compliance with food safety requirements.
• Criminal penalties: The government may prosecute indi-
viduals or firms, seeking court ordered fines and/or prison
sentences. Statutes normally specify the criminal penalties
for specific violations.
Other authorities that are useful in enforcing food laws
include:
• Business records access: Reviewing process-related business
records provides important information to regulators. For
example, access to records documenting preventive con-
trols, monitoring and verification during inspections, or
tracking information to facilitate recalls in an emergency
assists government authorities.
• Mandatory recall: Removing food from the market when a
firm violates the law is essential to protect consumers. The
threat of a costly recall order can have a strong deterrent
effect.
• Tracking food products: Mandating traceability can min-
imize the impact of foodborne outbreaks by allowing for
more rapid identification of food linked to an outbreak. It
can also provide evidence of where the problem occurred
for purposes of taking corrective action.
• Employee protections: Food handlers and plant employees
can provide valuable information to government agencies
regarding unsanitary conditions. They may only come
forward if they have protection from the threat of dismissal
for helping in an investigation.
Government Enforcement
Government actions often begin after an inspection reveals
problems in a food establishment, or may occur in response to
an outbreak of illness linked to a food. Government agencies
may utilize a multistep approach to ensure compliance. For
example, they may begin by issuing notices of deficiencies and
conducting reinspections to check on a business’s corrective
actions. If problems are not corrected or the noncompliance is
especially egregious, the agency may issue a warning letter.
If the product has been shipped to distributors, a business may
be asked to voluntarily withdraw or recall the adulterated or
misbranded product. Agencies also publicize their findings
through a public health warning and through formal ad-
ministrative procedures.
Some agencies may utilize more direct approaches such as
detaining suspect food or levying civil monetary penalties. If
the food is subject to continuous inspection or requires ap-
proval by government inspectors before being marketed, the
agency may withdraw inspectors, which effectively shuts down
the business until it demonstrates that it has come into
compliance.
Governments may also take firms or individuals to court to
seize unsafe food or issue an injunction that stops the firm
from manufacturing or distributing their products. The gov-
ernment may seek criminal sanctions if appropriate. Pros-
ecution may target the person who was in a position of
responsibility, regardless of whether that person intended to
commit a crime. Punishments can include a fine, prison,
or both.
Governments can enlist food establishments to enforce
standards. For example, the Food Safety Act of 1990 in the
United Kingdom provides a due diligence defense to en-
courage food establishments to take responsibility for their
products. A person who can prove he took all reasonable
precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the com-
mission of the offense can escape conviction. One result of
having the due diligence defense available has been the
emergence of private food safety standard setting and certifi-
cation bodies.
Private Action
Private enforcement occurs in some countries when a person
has been injured by an adulterated or misbranded food
product. Lawsuits involving food safety claims can arise from
negligence, product liability, or breach of warranty, depending
on the facts of the case. In the case of food, product liability
claims may follow ‘strict liability’ doctrine in which there is no
need to prove the defendant’s conduct contributed to the in-
jury. Although government action focuses on compliance,
private lawsuits seek to compensate victims. Even so, the
threat of lawsuits can improve compliance.
Conclusion
Inspection is a core function of a national food safety system.
It gives regulators, the regulated industry, and consumers
information regarding conditions in food facilities and
 Public Health Measures: Food Inspections and Enforcement Systems
throughout the food chain that can affect food safety. Ad-
vancements in food safety practices over time have changed
the scope and purpose of inspections and have put more
emphasis on prevention rather than enforcement.
See also: Food Safety Assurance Systems: Audits of Food Safety
Management Systems; Documentation and Record Keeping; Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Point System (HACCP): Principles and
Practice. Institutions Involved in Food Safety: FAO/WHO Codex
Alimentarius Commission (CAC). Public Health Measures:
Challenges of Developing Countries in Management of Food Safety;
Challenges of Industrialized Countries in Food Safety Management;
Food Control and Public Health Laboratories; Fundamentals of Food
Legislation; Modern Approach to Food Safety Management: An
Overview
Further Reading
Buzby JC, Frenzen PD, and Rasco B (2001) Product liability and microbial
foodborne illness. Economic Research Service/USDA 799: 1–41.
Codex Alimentarius (2009) Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification
Systems, 4th edn. Rome, Italy: World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
DeWaal CS (2007) Food protection and defense: Preparing for a crisis. Minnesota
Journal of Law, Science and Technology 8: 187–198.
DeWaal CS (2007) Food safety and security: What tragedy teaches us about our
100-year old food laws. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 40: 921–935.
DeWaal CS and Plunkett D (2009) Building a Modern Food Safety System for FDA
Regulated Foods. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest.
DeWaal CS and Robert N (2005) Global and Local: Food Safety around the World.
Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest. http://
safefoodinternational.org/international_report_051905.pdf
DeWaal CS and Guerrero Brito GR (2005) Safe Food International: A Blueprint for
Better Global Food Safety. Food and Drug Law Journal 60(3): 393–405.
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization of the United Nations
(2003) Assuring Food Safety and Quality: Guidelines for Strengthening National
Food Control Systems. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/capacity/en/
Englsih_Guidelines_Food_control.pdf
49
Plunkett D and DeWaal CS (2008) Who is responsible for the safety of food in a
global market? Government certification v. Importer accountability as models for
assuring the safety of internationally traded foods. Food and Drug Law Journal
63: 657–664.
Safe Food International (2005) Food Safety Guidelines Endorsed by WHO and FAO.
http://safefoodinternational.org/guidelines.html (available in English, French,
Spanish).
United States v. Dotterweich, 320 US 327 (1943).
US Department of Agriculture (2012) Food Safety and Inspection Service Directives.
8000 Series: Compliance Evaluation and Enforcement. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/
regulations_&_policies/8000_Series-Compliance_Evaluation_&_Enforcement/
index.asp
US Food and Drug Administration (2011) Regulatory Procedures Manual. http://
www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/RegulatoryProceduresManual/
default.htm#_top
US Food and Drug Administration (2012) Investigations Operations Manual. http://
www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/IOM/default.htm
Vapnek J and Spreij M (2005) Perspectives and guidelines on food legislation, with
a new model food law. FAO Legislative Study 87. http://www.fao.org/legal/
legstud/ls87/ls87e.pdf
Relevant Websites
http://www.cspinet.org/
Center for Science in the Public Interest.
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp
Codex Alimentarius.
http://ec.europa.eu/food
European Commission, Food Safety – From the Farm to the Fork.
http://www.fao.org/ag/agn/agns/
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Food Quality and
Standards Service.
http://safefoodinternational.org/mission.html
Safe Food International.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/
US Food and Drug Administration.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/
US Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/en/
World Health Organization, Food Safety.