Pas96 2017 PDF

Licensed copy: BSI Standards, version correct as of 16/11/2017 © British Standards Institution
PAS 96:2017
and drink from deliberate attack

Guide to protecting and defending food
Publishing and copyright information

The BSI copyright notice displayed in this document indicates when the document
was last issued.
© The British Standards Institution 2017. Published by BSI Standards Limited 2017.
ISBN 978 0 580 98099 2
ICS 67.020
No copying without BSI permission except as permitted by copyright law.
Publication history
First published March 2008
Second edition March 2010
Third edition October 2014
Fourth (current) edition November 2017
PAS 96:2017
Contents
Foreword ..................................................................................................... ii
Introduction ................................................................................................. iv
1 Scope ......................................................................................................... 1
2 Terms and definitions .............................................................................. 1
3 Types of threat ......................................................................................... 4

4 Understanding the attacker .................................................................... 8
5 Threat Assessment Critical Control Point (TACCP) ................................. 10
6 Assessment ............................................................................................... 13
7 Critical controls ........................................................................................ 16
8 Response to an incident .......................................................................... 18
9 Review of food protection arrangements ............................................. 19
Annexes
Annex A (informative) TACCP case studies................................................. 20
Annex B (informative) Sources of information and intelligence about
emerging risks to food supply..................................................................... 41
Annex C (informative) Complementary approaches to food and drink
protection..................................................................................................... 43
Annex D (informative) 10 Steps to cyber security: A board level
responsibility)............................................................................................... 44
Bibliography................................................................................................. 45
List of figures
Figure 1 – A food supply chain ................................................................... 2
Figure 2 – Outline TACCP process ............................................................... 11
Figure 3 – Risk scoring matrix ..................................................................... 15
Figure A.1 Threat identification.................................................................. 22
Figure A.2 – Threat prioritization .............................................................. 28
Figure A.3 – Vulnerability assessment ........................................................ 30
Figure A.4 – FryByNite workflow ............................................................... 31
Figure B.1 – Global dissemination of information and intelligence about
emerging risks to food ................................................................................ 42
List of tables
Table 1 – Risk assessment scoring ............................................................... 15
Table 2 – Approaches to risk reduction ..................................................... 16
Table 3 – Tamper evidence ......................................................................... 17
Table 4 – Personnel security ........................................................................ 17
Table A.1 – Threat information .................................................................. 21
Table A.2 – Threat identification ................................................................ 23
Table A.3 – Threat assessment .................................................................... 26
able A.4 – Threat assessment report 20170602 ......................................... 29
Table A.5 – Threat information................................................................... 32
Table A.6 – Threat assessment .................................................................... 33
Table A.7 – Threat register.......................................................................... 36
Table A.8 – Possible sources of malicious activity affecting F. Armer &
Daughters Ltd............................................................................................... 38
Table A.9 – Threat assessment..................................................................... 39
© The British Standards Institution 2017 i

PAS 96:2017
Foreword
This PAS was sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural
Affairs (Defra) and the Food Standards Agency (FSA). Its development was
facilitated by BSI Standards Limited and it was published under licence from
The British Standards Institution. It came into effect on 16 November 2017.
Acknowledgement is given to the following This PAS is not to be regarded as a British Standard. It
organizations that were involved in the development will be withdrawn upon publication of its content in, or
of this PAS as members of the steering group: as, a British Standard.
• Agrico UK Limited
The PAS process enables a guide to be rapidly
• British Frozen Food Federation (BFFF)
developed in order to fulfil an immediate need
• Campden BRI in industry. A PAS can be considered for further
• Crowe Clark Whitehall LLP development as a British Standard, or constitute part
• Danone of the UK input into the development of a European or
International Standard.
• Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
(Defra)
• Food Standards Agency Supersession
• GIST Limited
This PAS supersedes PAS 96:2014, which is withdrawn.
• McDonald’s Europe
• National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC)
• Sodexo Limited Information about this document
• Tesco UK This is a full revision of the PAS 96:2014, and introduces
• Tulip Limited the following principal changes:
• University College London • normative and informative references have been
• Willis Towers Watson updated;
• subclause 3.7 Cyber-crime has been revised;
Acknowledgement is also given to the members of • subclause 6.2.4 added to cover vulnerabilities related
a wider review panel who were consulted in the to cyber-attacks;
development of this PAS.
• two new fictional case studies have been added as
subclauses A.5 and A.6 to illustrate cyber security
The British Standards Institution retains ownership
issues;
and copyright of this PAS. BSI Standards Limited as the
publisher of the PAS reserves the right to withdraw • Annex B updated;
or amend this PAS on receipt of authoritative advice • Annex D added covering 10 steps to cyber security;
that it is appropriate to do so. This PAS will be • some editorial amendments have been undertaken.
reviewed at intervals not exceeding two years, and
any amendments arising from the review will be
published as an amended PAS and publicized in Update
Standards.
ii © The British Standards Institution 2017

PAS 96:2017
Use of this document

As a guide, this PAS takes the form of guidance and
recommendations. It should not be quoted as if it
were a specification or a code of practice and claims of
compliance cannot be made to it.
Presentational conventions
The guidance in this standard is presented in roman
(i.e. upright) type. Any recommendations are expressed
in sentences in which the principal auxiliary verb is

“should”.
Commentary, explanation and general informative

material is presented in smaller italic type, and does not
constitute a normative element.
Contractual and legal considerations

This publication does not purport to include all the
necessary provisions of a contract. Users are responsible
for its correct application.
Compliance with a PAS cannot confer immunity from

legal obligations.
© The British Standards Institution 2017 iii

PAS 96:2017
Introduction
The food industry sees the safety of its products as its It explains the TACCP process, outlines steps that can
main concern. Over the years, industry and regulators deter an attacker or give early detection of an attack,
have developed food safety management systems and uses fictitious case studies (see Annex A) to show
which mean that major outbreaks of food poisoning its application. Broadly, TACCP places food business
are now quite unusual in many countries. These managers in the position of an attacker to anticipate
systems typically use Hazard Analysis Critical Control their motivation, capability and opportunity to carry
Point (HACCP) principles which are accepted globally.1) out an attack, and then helps them devise protection.
HACCP has proven to be effective against accidental It also provides other sources of information and
contamination. intelligence that may help identify emerging threats
(see Annex B).
HACCP principles however have not been routinely
used to detect or mitigate deliberate attacks on a The TACCP process assumes and builds on a business’
system or process. Such attacks include deliberate existing effective operation of HACCP, as many
contamination, electronic intrusion, and fraud. precautions taken to assure the safety of food are
Deliberate acts may have food safety implications likely to also deter or detect deliberate acts. It also
but can harm organizations in other ways, such as complements existing business risk management and
damaging business reputation or extorting money. incident management processes.
The common factor behind all such deliberate acts is The focus of this PAS is on protecting the integrity and
people. These people may be within a food business, wholesomeness of food and food supply. Any intending
may be employees of a supplier to the food business, attacker, whether from within a food business or its
or may be complete outsiders with no connection to supply chain or external to both, is likely to attempt
the food business. The key issue being their motivation, to elude or avoid routine management processes. It
they may aim to cause harm to human health, business should help food businesses mitigate each of these
reputation, or make financial gains at the expense threats, but the approach may also be used for other
of the business. In any of these situations it is in the business threats.
interests of the food business to protect itself from such
attacks. No process can guarantee that food and food supply
are not the target of criminal activity, but the use of
The purpose of PAS 96 is to guide food business PAS 96 can make it less likely. It is intended to be a
managers through approaches and procedures to practical and easily used guide and so is written in
improve the resilience of supply chains to fraud or everyday language and is to be used in a common-
other forms of attack. It aims to assure the authenticity sense rather than legalistic way.
and safety of food by minimizing the chance of an
attack and mitigating the consequences of a successful
attack.
PAS 96 describes Threat Assessment Critical Control

Points (TACCP), a risk management methodology, which
aligns with HACCP, but has a different focus, that may
need input from employees from different disciplines,
such as human resources, procurement, security and
information technology.
1)
Further information and guidance regarding HACCP can
be found in the CODEX Alimentarius publication, General
Principles of Food Hygiene [1].
iv © The British Standards Institution 2017

PAS 96:2017
1 Scope 2 Terms and definitions
This PAS provides guidance on the avoidance and For the purposes of this PAS, the following terms and
mitigation of threats to food and food supply. It definitions apply.
describes a risk management methodology, Threat
Assessment Critical Control Points (TACCP), which can
be adapted by food businesses of all sizes and at all 2.1 cyber security
points in food supply chains. While concerns for the

protection of devices, services and networks — and the
safety and integrity of food and drink are paramount
information on them — from theft or damage
and much of the PAS is focussed on them, it needs
to be stressed that its scope covers ‘All Threats’ and
{SOURCE: NCSC Glossary [2]}
protection of all elements of food supply. This includes
the viability of businesses within the supply chain.
It is intended to be of use to all organizations, but is of

2.2 food defence
particular use to managers of small and medium sized procedures adopted to assure the security of food
food enterprises without easy access to specialist advice. and drink and their supply chains from malicious
and ideologically motivated attack leading to
contamination or supply disruption
NOTE The term food security refers to the confidence
with which communities see food being available to
them in the future. Except in the limited sense that a
successful attack may affect the availability of food,
food security is not used and is outside the scope of this
PAS.
2.3 food fraud

dishonest act or omission, relating to the production or
supply of food, which is intended for personal gain or
to cause loss to another party2)
NOTE 1 Although there are many kinds of food fraud
the two main types are:
1) the sale of food which is unfit and potentially
harmful, such as:
• recycling of animal by-products back into the food
chain;
• packing and selling of beef and poultry with an
unknown origin;
• knowingly selling goods which are past their ‘use
by’ date;
2)
The UK Food Standards Agency discusses food crime and
food fraud at: https://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/the-
national-food-crime-unit/what-is-food-crime-and-food-fraud
[3].
© The British Standards Institution 2017 1

PAS 96:2017
2) the deliberate misdescription of food, such as: 2.6 hazard

• products substituted with a cheaper alternative,
something that can cause loss or harm which arises
for example, farmed salmon sold as wild, and
from a naturally occurring or accidental event or results
Basmati rice adulterated with cheaper varieties;
from incompetence or ignorance of the people involved
• making false statements about the source of
ingredients, i.e. their geographic, plant or animal
origin. 2.7 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
NOTE 2 Food fraud may also involve the sale of meat (HACCP)
from animals that have been stolen and/or illegally
slaughtered, as well as wild game animals like deer that system which identifies, evaluates, and controls hazards
which are significant for food safety
may have been poached.
{SOURCE: CODEX Alimentarius. General Principles of

Food Hygiene [1]}
2.4 food protection
procedures adopted to deter and detect fraudulent
attacks on food 2.8 insider
individual within or associated with an organization
and with access to its assets but who may misuse that
2.5 food supply
access and present a threat to its operations
elements of what is commonly called a food supply
chain
NOTE An example of a food supply chain is given in
Figure 1. Figure 1 is not intended to be comprehensive.
Figure 1 – A food supply chain
Upstream
Water Product Distribution

assembly
Storage
Food
preparation and
preservation
Agri-Chemicals
Retail
Seed-Crops
Farming
Animal feed
Primary
Customer Food Service
ingredient
Artificial manufacture
insemination
Materials Fishing
Waste
Consumer
disposal
Packaging
Downstream
2 © The British Standards Institution 2017
PAS 96:2017
2.9 personnel security 2.11 Threat Assessment Critical Control

procedures used to confirm an individual’s identity, Point (TACCP)
qualifications, experience and right to work, and to systematic management of risk through the evaluation
monitor conduct as an employee or contractor of threats, identification of vulnerabilities, and
NOTE 1 Not to be confused with ‘personal security’. implementation of controls to materials and products,
NOTE 2 Personnel security principles are used to assure purchasing, processes, premises, people, distribution
the trustworthiness of staff inside an organization, networks and business systems by a knowledgeable and
but may be applied to the staff of suppliers within trusted team with the authority to implement changes
processes for vendor accreditation. to procedures
2.10 threat
something that can cause loss or harm which arises
from the ill-intent of people
NOTE Threat is not used in the sense of threatening
behaviour or promise of unpleasant consequence of a
failure to comply with a malicious demand.

PAS 96:2017
3 Types of threat
3.1 General for many years.6) It is not clear whether the burgers
actually contained enough beef to satisfy any official
Deliberate acts against food and food supply take regulation.
several forms. Clause 3 describes the characteristics
of the main threats to food authenticity and safety
Case 4
– economically motivated adulteration (EMA) and
malicious contamination, and explains the nature of In 2014 the Kenyan Dairy Board claimed that hawkers
other threats, particularly the rapidly growing misuse were putting lives at risk by adding preservatives
of digital techniques. (formalin and hydrogen peroxide) in a (probably futile)
attempt to extend the shelf life of milk.7)
3.2 Economically motivated adulteration Case 5

(EMA) Staff in a European meat packer felt, mistakenly,
that they could avoid a product being condemned as
NOTE Details of many other cases are available from
carrying foot and mouth disease by covering it with
the US Pharmacopeial Convention’s Food Fraud
disinfectant.
Database at http://www.foodfraud.org/ [4].
The motivation of EMA is financial, to gain an
Case 1 increased income from selling a foodstuff in a way
In 2016, customs officials in Nigeria confiscated 2.5 which deceives customers and consumers. This may
tonnes of rice which they suspected was made from be by either passing off a cheaper material as a more
plastic.3) expensive one (see case 1), or it may be that a less
expensive ingredient is used to replace or extend the
Case 2 more expensive one (see cases 2 and 3).
Olive oil has been a frequent target for adulteration,
The avoidance of loss may also be an incentive for
often by other vegetable oils. In 2017 Italian authorities
adulteration (see cases 4 and 5). Limited supply of a
disrupted an organized crime ring which was exporting
key material may encourage a producer to improvise to
fake olive oil to the United States.4) Similarly, Brazilian
complete an order rather than declare short delivery to
officials reported that a very high proportion of olive
the customer.
oils tested did not meet the quality standards required
by their labelling.5)
The intention of EMA is not to cause illness or death,
but that may be the result. This was the case in 2008
Case 3 when melamine was used as a nitrogen source to
Spanish police have accused a beef burger fraudulently increase the measured protein content of
manufacturer of using minced pork and soya to milk, resulting in more than 50 000 babies hospitalized
increase the perceived meat content of their products and six deaths after having consumed contaminated
infant formula.8)
6)
Further information is available from: https://www.
euroweeklynews.com/3.0.15/news/on-euro-weekly-news/spain-
news-in-english/144405-police-uncover-major-beef-food-fraud-
3)
Further information is available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ in-spain [8].
news/world-africa-38391998 [5]. 7)
Further information is available from: http://www.
4)
Further information is available from: https://www. standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000107380/naivasha-hawkers-
oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-business/italy-arrests-33-accused- using-formalin-to-preserve-milk [9].
olive-oil-fraud/55364 [6]. 8)
For further details on this adulteration case see the WHO
5)
Additional case study can be found: https://www. and FAO publication, Toxicological aspects of melamine and
oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-business/brazil-reveals-widespread- cyanuric acid http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/
olive-oil-fraud/56395 [7]. melamine-cyanuric-acid/en/ [10].

PAS 96:2017
The common factor in many cases of EMA is that the that more would be distributed to the public if the
adulterant is neither a food safety hazard, nor readily company did not comply with their demands.
identified, as this would defeat the aim of the attacker.
Common adulterants9) include water and sugar; Case 9
ingredients that may be properly used and declared but
In 2007, a bakery found piles of peanuts in the factory.
improper use is food fraud.
It withdrew product and closed for a week long deep
clean to re-establish its nut-free status.
EMA is likely to be more effective for an attacker, and
therefore present a greater threat to a food business,
The motivation for malicious contamination may be to
upstream on the food supply chain (see Figure 1) close
cause localized (see case 6) or widespread (see case 7)
to manufacture of primary ingredients. A successful
illness or death.
adulteration (from the point of view of the attacker)

continues without detection. EMA may need an insider In case 7, the attacker did not want the contamination
but could be revealed by verification, for example, to be detected before it was consumed, therefore the
financial audit could reveal: contaminant had to be an effective toxin with little
• purchases which are unexplained by recipes, such as effect on the palatability of the food.
sudan dyes which have no place in spice manufacture;
or The motivation in case 8 was publicity. Public opinion
• differences between quantities sold and quantities would have been against the attackers if harm had
purchased, such as beef mince sold and bovine been caused to members of the public, but the supplier
meat purchased, with horsemeat to make up the could not take that risk.
difference.
Materials which could be used by an attacker to gain
publicity, or to extort money, are more readily found
3.3 Malicious contamination than those needed to cause widespread harm. The case
of allergens (see case 9) shows the harm, impact and
Case 6 cost that can be caused to a business with little risk to
In 2005, a major British bakery reported that several the attacker.
customers had found glass fragments and sewing
needles inside the wrapper of loaves.10) Contamination close to point of consumption or sale,
as in case 7, (downstream in Figure 1) is more likely
to cause harm to health than an attack on crops or
Case 7
primary ingredients.
In 1984, the Rajneeshee sect in Oregon attempted to
affect the result of a local election by contaminating
food in ten different salad bars, resulting in 751 people 3.4 Extortion
affected by salmonella food poisoning.11)
Case 10
Case 8 In 1990, a former police officer was convicted of
In 2013, a major soft drinks supplier was forced to extortion after contaminating baby food with glass
withdraw product from a key market when it was and demanding money from the multi-national
sent a bottle which had had its contents replaced with manufacturer.12)
mineral acid. The attackers included a note indicating
Case 11
9)
For further information on adulterants see the U.S. In 2008, a man was jailed in Britain after being
Pharmacopeial Convention Food Fraud Database Version convicted of threatening to bomb a major supermarket
2.0 at: http://www.foodfraud.org/#/food-fraud-database- and contaminate its products.13)
version-20 [11].
10)
For further details on this case of malicious contamination
see the Food Standards Agency archive at: http://webarchive.
12)
nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120206100416/http://food.gov.uk/ For further details on this food tampering case see the Q
news/newsarchive/2006/dec/kingsmill [12]. Food publication at: http://www.qfood.eu/2014/03/1989-glass-
11)
For further information see the American Medical in-baby-food/ [14].
13)
Association publication, A Large Community Outbreak For further details on this extortion case see The Guardian
of Salmonellosis Caused by Intentional Contamination of article at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jan/28/ukcrime
Restaurant Salad Bars [13]. [15].

PAS 96:2017
The motivation for extortion by either an individual 3.6 Counterfeiting

or group is financial, to obtain money from the victim
organization. Such activity is attractive to the criminal Case 14
mind when the product, like baby food (see case 10), is In 2013, enforcement officers seized 9 000 bottles of
sensitive or where a company is seen as rich (see case fake Glen’s Vodka from an illegal factory.16)
11).
Case 15
A small number of samples can be used to show the
In 2011, 340 bottles of a famous Australian brand of
company that the attacker has the capability and is
wine were seized, following complaints of poor quality
enough to cause public concern and media interest.
to the owner, which had no link with Australia.17)
The motivation for counterfeiting is financial gain, by

3.5 Espionage
fraudulently passing off inferior goods as established
Case 12 and reputable brands. Both organized and petty
crime can cause companies financial loss and harm
One business consultancy uses the theft of the
to their reputation. The former, for example, can use
intellectual property of a fictitious innovative snack
sophisticated printing technologies to produce product
product as an example of commercial espionage.14)
labels that are indistinguishable from the genuine ones.
The latter can steal genuine packs or even refill single
Case 13 use containers for resale.
In July 2014, Reuters reported that a woman was
charged in the USA with attempting to steal patented Organized criminals may try to mimic the food contents
U.S. seed technology as part of a plot to smuggle types closely to delay detection and investigation. Petty
of specialized corn for use in China.15) criminals may be tempted by a ‘quick killing’ and be
less concerned in the safety of the food.
The primary motivation of espionage is for competitors
seeking commercial advantage to access intellectual
property. They may infiltrate using insiders to report, or
may attack remotely through information technology
systems. Alternatively, organizations may try to entice
executives to reveal confidential information or use
covert recording to capture such material, or they may
simply steal the material, as case 13 suggests.
14)
For further information on this fictional case study is
available from Murray Associates at: https://counterespionage.
worldsecuresystems.com/tscm-the-missing-business-school- ) For further information on this example of counterfeiting
16)
course.html [16]. see: http://thecounterfeitreport.com/product/322/ [18].

15) 17)
For more information go to: http://www.grainews.ca/daily/ For further information on this case of counterfeiting see
chinese-woman-arrested-in-plot-to-steal-u-s-corn-technology http://www.news.com.au/finance/offshore-raids-turn-up-fake-
[17]. aussie-jacobs-creek-wines/story-e6frfm1i-1226029399148 [19].

PAS 96:2017
3.7 Cyber crime Case 19

In 2016 the FBI and US Department of Agriculture
Case 16 alerted farmers to their increasing vulnerability to
In 2014, Financial Fraud Action UK advised restaurant cyber-attack through their use of precision agriculture
managers to stay vigilant as fraudsters are attempting technology. 22)
to target their customers in a new phone scam. They
phone restaurants claiming there is a problem with Such an attack could be cyber-enabled industrial
their card payments system, the restaurant is then espionage, or hacking - gaining unauthorized access to
told to redirect any card payments to a phone number computer systems, perhaps with malicious intent.
provided by the fraudster.18)
Case 20
Modern information and communication technologies

In 2016 a major supermarket discovered that scales at
provide new and rapidly increasing opportunities
its self-service check outs had been corrupted to enable
for malpractice. In case 16 the fraudster uses social
distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks on public
engineering to try to defraud both business and
websites.
consumer. It is common for the attacker to try and
exploit individual ignorance of the technologies
DDOS can be a real nuisance to companies, and lead to
involved. The fraud in this case is ‘cyber-enabled’,
real losses when the company website is an important
that is a familiar scam made easier by electronic
trading platform. The ‘Internet of Things’ (IoT) becomes
communications. In total in England and Wales for
more and more important; the Joint NCSC/NCA Threat
the year to September 2016, the Office for National
Report23) exposes the vulnerability of (apparently
Statistics reported about 3.6 million frauds and nearly 2
innocuous) internet connected devices and their misuse
million cases of computer misuse.19)
by criminals.
Case 17 Identity theft is perhaps more familiar to the public,

In 2016, reports suggested that criminals had hacked but organizations may be aware of their identity being
Deliveroo accounts to order food on victims’ cards.20) stolen to enable procurement fraud, in which goods are
ordered in their name but diverted to the fraudsters
Case 18 premises leaving the duped supplier and supposed
purchaser to carry the cost and litigation.
In 2015, Michigan-based Biggby Coffee reported
a database breach with possible theft of customer
information derived from loyalty card applications.21)
The fraud in both cases 17 and 18 could be carried

out remotely over the Internet with little chance of
detection and justice for the perpetrator.
18)
For further information about this restaurant fraud see
https://www.financialfraudaction.org.uk/news/2014/08/13/
scam-alert-restaurants-and-diners-targeted-in-new-scam/ [20].
19)
ONS Dataset: Crime in England and Wales: Experimental
tables: Table E1: Fraud and computer misuse by loss (of money
or property) – number and rate of incidents and number
and percentage of victims from https://www.ons.gov.uk/
peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/
crimeinenglandandwalesexperimentaltables [21]. 22)
Private Industry Notification PIN 160331-001 Smart
20)
For further information see: https://business-reporter. Farming May increase Cyber Targeting Against US Food and
co.uk/2016/11/23/cyber-criminals-use-hacked-deliveroo- Agriculture Sector see https://info.publicintelligence.net/FBI-
accounts-order-food-victims-cards/ [22]. SmartFarmHacking.pdf [24].
21) 23)
For further information see: http://www.canadianbusiness. The Cyber Threat to UK Business at https://www.ncsc.gov.
com/business-news/michigan-based-biggby-coffee-reports- uk/news/ncsc-and-nca-threat-report-provides-depth-analysis-
database-breach-possible-theft-of-customer-information [23]. evolving-threat [25].

PAS 96:2017
4 Understanding the attacker
4.1 General customers or auditors, or ad hoc sampling for analysis

may deter their actions.
The success of a deliberate attack on food or food
supply depends on several things: A supplier who cannot risk failure to deliver to
a) Does the attacker have the motivation and drive a customer may take the chance that occasional
to overcome the obvious, and less obvious blocks adulteration would not be detected. Success on one
to their actions? If the blocks seem massive and occasion may make it easier to attempt a repeat.
success seems unlikely, many would-be attackers This opportunist may persuade themselves that the
would seek an easier target. adulteration is legitimate, for example, chicken in a
b) Does the attacker have the capability to carry pork sausage would still be meat.
out the attack? A group is more likely to find the
resources and learn the skills needed.
c) Does the attacker have the opportunity to carry out 4.4 The extremist
the attack? A physical attack needs physical access The extremist takes their cause or campaign so seriously
to the target, but a cyber-attack may only need that they distort its context and overlook wider issues.
access to a computer. The dedication to their cause may have no limits and
d) Would the attacker be deterred by the chance of their determination to progress it can be great.
detection and/or any potential penalties?
Extremists may want to cause harm and are likely to
enjoy publicity after the event. It may not matter, and
4.2 The extortionist may be a benefit, if they themselves are harmed. The
risk of failure is a deterrent, but the risk of capture
The extortionist wants to gain financially from after the event is not. They are typically resourceful and
an attack but does not want to be caught, and innovative in devising ways to attack.
concentrates on avoiding detection. Their target is
more likely to be a high profile business with lots to Some single issue groups may want to disrupt business
lose from negative publicity. They may work alone and operations and reputation but fear that mass harm to
be resourceful, secretive and self-interested. Cyber the public would damage their cause and lead them to
attacks across the world using ‘ransomware’ have lose support.
demonstrated both how easily extortionists can now
attack multiple victims and how difficult it is to bring
them to justice.24) Some individuals may claim to be 4.5 The irrational individual
able to take action against a business while lacking
the capability to carry it out; the business may judge Some individuals have no rational motive for their
the claim as not credible but still decide to respond actions. Their priorities and preoccupations have
appropriately. become distorted so they are unable to take a balanced
view of the world. Some may have clinically diagnosed
mental health issues.
4.3 The opportunist
This individual may be readily deterred by simple steps
The opportunist may hold an influential position within which prevent them from gaining access to their target
an operation to be able to evade internal controls. or make detection easy.
They may have some technical knowledge but their
main asset is access. They are likely to be discouraged
by the chance of detection, so unannounced visits by
24)
For further information see The Cyber Threat to UK
Business, pg 7 available from: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/news/
ncsc-and-nca-threat-report-provides-depth-analysis-evolving-
threat [25].

PAS 96:2017
4.6 The disgruntled individual Traditionally, this type of attacker has information and
communications technology expertise that can cause
The disgruntled individual believes that an organization commercial harm. However, as warned in the Joint UK
has been unfair to them and seeks revenge. For NCSC/NCA threat report [25], “The lines between those
example, they may be an aggrieved employee or committing attacks continue to blur, with criminal
former employee, supplier or customer. They may have groups imitating states …… and more advanced actors
expert knowledge of the operation and access to it. successfully using ‘off the shelf’ malware to launch
attacks.”25) This may pose an increasing threat to food
This attacker is likely to be an individual rather than
safety as internet activity increases.
part of a group. If an insider, they could be dangerous,
but are more likely to want to cause embarrassment and
financial loss than harm to the public. If not an insider,

4.8 The professional criminal
this individual is more likely to claim or boast of having
done something than actually being able to do it. Organized crime may see food fraud as a relatively
simple crime, with big gains in prospect, little chance
of apprehension, and modest penalties if convicted.
4.7 Cyber criminals and other malicious The global trade in food in which food materials
digital actors move, often with little notice, across enforcement area
borders appears to encourage the professional criminal.
Cyber criminals aim to subvert controls on The anonymity of the internet and the opportunity for
computerized information and communications systems remote intrusion into electronic systems makes cyber-
in order to stop them working effectively, to steal or crime increasingly attractive to professional criminals.
to corrupt data which they hold, and/or to disrupt
internet business. Their motivation may be criminal or They may be deterred by close collaboration between
even political, but may also be to demonstrate their food operations and national and international police
expertise and ability to beat any protective system authorities.
devised to stop them.
25)
NCSC and NCA The Cyber Threat to UK Business available
from: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/news/ncsc-and-nca-threat-
report-provides-depth-analysis-evolving-threat [25].

PAS 96:2017
5 Threat Assessment Critical Control Point (TACCP)
5.1 Broad themes 5.2 TACCP process

TACCP should be used by food businesses as part of In most cases TACCP should be a team activity, as
their broader risk management processes, or as a way that is the best way to bring skills, especially people
of starting to assess risks systematically. management skills, together. For many small businesses
the team approach is not practicable and it may be the
TACCP aims to: job of one person. The TACCP team can and should
• reduce the likelihood (chance) of a deliberate attack; modify the TACCP process to best meet its needs and
adapt it to other threats as necessary to deal with four
• reduce the consequences (impact) of an attack;
underlining questions:
• protect organizational reputation;
a) Who might want to attack us?
• reassure customers, press and the public that
b) How might they do it?
proportionate steps are in place to protect food;
c) Where are we vulnerable?
• satisfy international expectations and support the
work of trading partners; and d) How can we stop them?
• demonstrate that reasonable precautions are taken
The flowchart (see Figure 2) outlines the TACCP
and due diligence is exercised in protecting food.
process and focuses on deliberate adulteration and
contamination. Further information on each element
by, in broad terms:
of the TACCP process set out in Figure 2 is given in the
• identifying specific threats to the company’s business; corresponding numbered list [see 5.2, 1) – 5.2, 15)].
• assessing the likelihood of an attack by considering
the motivation of the prospective attacker, the
vulnerability of the process, the opportunity and the
capability they have of carrying out the attack and
the certainty of information on which the assessment
is based;
• assessing the potential impact by considering the
consequences of a successful attack;
• judging the priority to be given to different threats
by comparing their likelihood and impact;
• prioritizing threats based on risk, and communicating
such a prioritization across trading partners for
shared risk acceptance;
• deciding upon proportionate controls needed to
discourage the attacker and give early notification of
an attack; and
• maintaining information and intelligence systems to
enable revision of priorities.
Food sector professionals want to minimize the chances

of loss of life, ill health, financial loss and damage to
business reputation that an attack could cause.
TACCP cannot stop individuals or organizations

claiming that they have contaminated food, but it can
help judge whether that claim is likely to be true. Any
such claim, if judged to be credible, and any actual
incident should be treated as a crisis. The organization
needs to take steps to keep operations running and
inform those involved.

PAS 96:2017
Figure 2 – Outline TACCP process
Form 15 Monitor horizon 14 Review and 13 Decide &

TACCP scans and revise implement necessary
Team emerging risks controls
1 Assess new 11 Likelihood v 12 Identify

information Impact  Priority who could carry
it out
2 Identify and 10 Determine if 9 Identify which

assess threats control procedures supply points are
to organization will detect the threat most critical
3 Identify and
assess threats
to operation
8 Consider impact
4 Decide of threats
Product – System identified
Select product
5 Identify and 6 Devise flow chart 7 Identify key staff

assess threats of product and vulnerable
to product supply chain points
NOTE 1 An alternative risk approach is CARVER + Shock which is outlined in Annex C.

NOTE 2 Figure 2 is meant to be an indicative illustration only.
A standing TACCP team should be formed, which could • communications; and

include individuals with the following expertise: • commercial/marketing.
• security; NOTE 1 The team may include representatives of key
• human resources; suppliers and customers.
• food technology; NOTE 2 For a small organization one person may have
• process engineering; to cover all of these roles.
• production and operations; NOTE 3 While the HACCP team might provide a suitable
starting point, the Business Continuity team might
• purchasing and procurement;
be a better model. The TACCP team is typically an
• distribution and logistics; established and permanent group able to continually
• information technology; review its decisions.

PAS 96:2017
Since the TACCP process may cover sensitive material 10) assess the likelihood of routine control procedures
and could be of assistance to a prospective attacker, detecting such a threat;
all team members should not only be knowledgeable NOTE 7 For example, routine laboratory analysis
of actual processes, but also trustworthy, discreet and could detect added water or unusual fats and oils;
aware of the implications of the process. effective management of buying would challenge
unusual purchase orders.
The TACCP team should:
11) score the likelihood of the threat happening, score
1) evaluate all new information which has come to its the impact it would have, and chart the results to
attention; show the priority it should be given (see 6.3), and
2) identify individuals and/or groups which may revise if this risk assessment seems wrong;
be a threat to the organization and its systems,
NOTE 8 Some lateral thinking may be needed.

especially electronic systems, and assess their The TACCP team might ask, ”If we were trying to
motivation, capability and determination; undermine our business, what would be the best
3) identify individuals and/or groups which may be way?” It may consider how an attacker selects
a threat to the specific operation (e.g. premises, attack materials:
factory, site); • availability;
4) differentiate product threats from other threats: • cost;
a) for non-product threats, go to Clause 11; • toxicity;
b) for product threats, select a product which is • physical form; and/or
representative of a particular process;
• safety in use, for example pesticides on farms and
NOTE 4 For example, a suitable product would be aggressive flavour materials in factories may be
typical of a particular production line and could be convenient contaminants.
one which is more vulnerable.
12) where the priority is high, identify who has
5) identify individuals and/or groups that may want to unsupervised access to the product or process and
target the specific product; whether they are trustworthy, and if that trust can
6) draw a process flow chart for the product from be justified;
but not limited by, ‘farm to fork’ including, for 13) identify, record confidentially, agree and
example, domestic preparation. The whole flow implement proportionate preventative action
chart should be visible at one time. Particular (critical controls). The TACCP team should have a
attention should be paid to less transparent parts confidential reporting and recording procedure
of the supply chain which might merit a subsidiary that allows management action on decisions but
chart; does not expose weaknesses to those without a
7) identify both the vulnerable points where an need to know (see case studies in Annex A);
attacker might hope for success and the people 14) determine the review and revise arrangements for
who would have access from an examination of the TACCP evaluation; and
each step of the process;
NOTE 9 Review of the TACCP evaluation should
8) identify possible threats appropriate to the product take place after any alert or annually, and at points
at each step and assess the impact that the process where new threats emerge or when there are
may have in mitigating the threats; changes in good practice.
NOTE 5 Model adulterants include low-cost 15) maintain a routine watch of official and industry
alternative ingredients to premium components; publications which give an early warning of
model contaminants could include highly toxic changes that may become new threats or change
agents, toxic industrial chemicals, readily available the priority of existing threats, including more local
noxious materials and inappropriate substances like issues as they develop.
allergens or ethnically unwholesome foodstuffs.
NOTE 10 An outline of some information and
NOTE 6 For example, cleaning may remove the intelligence systems is given in Annex B.
contaminant, heat treatment may destroy it, and
other food components may neutralize it.
9) select the points in the process where the threat
would have the most effect, and where they might
best be detected;

PAS 96:2017
6 Assessment
NOTE The following lists are not intended to be • Are hazardous materials, which could be valuable to
exhaustive of all questions that may be asked to assess hostile groups, stored on site?
a threat. • Are large numbers of people (including the general
public) using the location?
• Do any employees have reason to feel disgruntled or
6.1 Evaluating threats show signs of dissatisfaction?

The product, the premises and the organization and • Are internal audit arrangements independent?
its information systems can be the target of an attack
• Have key roles been occupied by staff for many years
from a range of groups and individuals (see Clause 4),
with little supervision?
and each element should be assessed separately. The
TACCP team should consider suppliers under financial For the organization:
stress, alienated employees and former employees,
• Are we under foreign ownership by nations involved
single issue groups, commercial competitors, media
in international conflict?
organizations, terrorist organizations, criminals and
local pressure groups. • Do we have a celebrity or high profile chief executive
or proprietor?
Commonly, a short supply chain involving fewer people • Do we have a reputation for having significant links,
may be less risky than a longer supply chain. customers, suppliers, etc. with unstable regions of the
world?
The TACCP team could ask the following questions to
• Are our brands regarded as controversial by some?
evaluate a threat:
• Do we or our customers supply high profile customers
For the product:
or events?
• Have there been significant cost increases which have
• Is the organization involved with controversial trade?
affected this product?
• Have business competitors been accused of espionage
• Does this product have particular religious, ethical or
or sabotage?
moral significance for some people?
• Could this product be used as an ingredient in a wide For the information systems:
range of popular foods? • Does social media chatter suggest that we might be
• Does the product contain ingredients or other the target of digital intrusion?
material sourced from overseas? • Are our Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
• Are major materials becoming less available (e.g. (SCADA) and other control systems also used by other
from crop failure) or alternatives plentiful (e.g. from organizations which could be prime targets?
overproduction)?
• Have there been unexpected increases or decreases in Consideration of responses to these questions can give
demand? an understanding of the impact of a successful attack
and the likelihood of it taking place. This informs a
• Are low cost substitute materials available?
judgement on the proportionate level of protection
• Has pressure increased on suppliers’ trading margins? required.
For the premises:

• Are the premises located in a politically or socially 6.2 Identifying vulnerabilities
sensitive area?
NOTE In this section EMA, malicious contamination and
• Do the premises share access or key services with
cyber attack are used as examples of approaches to
controversial neighbours?
vulnerability assessment.
• Are new recruits, especially agency and seasonal staff,
appropriately screened?
6.2.1 General
• Are services to the premises adequately protected?
Individual organizations have different business needs
• Are external utilities adequately protected? and operate in different contexts. The TACCP team can
judge which approach and questions are appropriate
and proportionate to the threats they identify.

PAS 96:2017
6.2.2 Economically motivated adulteration (EMA) • Do any employees bear a grudge against the
A typical feature of EMA (see 3.2) is the substitution organization?
of a low cost item in place of a relatively high cost • Is staff boredom, discipline, recruitment a problem?
component/ingredient. The TACCP team needs to be
alert to the availability of such alternatives. An example 6.2.4 Cyber attack
where this may happen is when added value is claimed,
Questions which the TACCP team may ask include:
e.g. organic, non-GM, locally grown, free range or with
protected designations of origin. The attacker is likely • Has the Board adopted the NCSC’s 10 Steps to cyber
to have ready access to lower value equivalents, which security [27] and established appropriate procedures?
are almost indistinguishable. (See Annex D)
NOTE Further guidance on sources of information and • Are all IT/IS projects subject to an assessment of the
intelligence on the likelihood of food fraud is provided risk of electronic intrusion?

in Annex B. • Are colleagues likely to be aware of and to report
suspicious electronic communications (e.g. emails,
The TACCP team needs to be confident that its own SMS)?
operations and those of its suppliers are in trustworthy • Is highly sensitive material held on separate, stand
hands. This can be achieved using official advice on alone computer systems?
personnel security.26)
• Are passwords used securely, and in compliance with
NCSC guidance?27)
Questions which the TACCP team could ask include:
• Are policies relating to the handling of electronic
• Do you trust your suppliers’ managers, and their
accounts when a member of staff joins, moves or
suppliers’ managers?
leaves employment effective?
• Do key suppliers use personnel security practices?
• Are any locality Wi-Fi links unencrypted or accessible
• Do suppliers think that we monitor their operation by external users?
and analyse their products?
• Are manufacturing or other operational systems
• Which suppliers are not routinely audited? interconnected with information technology systems?
• Are we supplied through remote, obscure chains? • Are internet enabled processes secure? For example,
• How do suppliers dispose of excessive amounts of could process parameters be changed without proper
waste materials? authority? Could cloud based records be corrupted?
• Are we aware of shortcuts to the process which could • Are data backup procedures effective?
affect us? • Are operators notified and aware of changes to
• Are our staff and those of suppliers encouraged to production or other operational configuration, for
report concerns (whistleblowing)? example, to product formulations?
• Are accreditation records, certificates of conformance • Can production systems be remotely accessed?
and analyses reports independent? • Are essential operations systems segregated from the
company’s corporate network and from the internet?
6.2.3 Malicious contamination • Is externally sourced data (from email, internet or
Questions which the TACCP team could ask of both its removable media) checked for malware before being
own operations and that of its suppliers include: imported?
• Are food safety audits rigorous and up-to-date? • Does remote access to company systems require
• Are personnel security procedures in use? multi-factor authentication and is the extent of access
limited?
• Is access to product restricted to those with a business
need? • Do essential computerised systems have tested, offline
backups?
• Do storage containers have tamper-evident seals?
• Are business continuity and disaster recovery plans for
• Is there opportunity for access by sympathizers of
IT and production systems in place and effective?
single issue groups?
26)
Further information on personnel security can be found on
27)
CPNI’s website at http://www.cpni.gov.uk/advice/Personnel- NCSC guidance is available from: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/
security1/ [26]. guidance/password-guidance-simplifying-your-approach [28].

PAS 96:2017
6.3 Assessment of risk The likelihood of a threat happening can be judged by

considering:
Organizations need to understand the threats that they
• whether an attacker would achieve their aims if
face, but should focus attention on the priority ones.
successful;
For each identified threat the TACCP team considers
and gives a score for the likelihood of each threat • whether an attacker could have access to the product
happening and for its impact (see Table 1). or process;
• whether an attacker would be deterred by protective
Table 1 – Risk assessment scoring measures;
• whether an attacker would prefer other targets; and
Likelihood of threat Score Impact
• whether an attack would be detected before it had
happening
any impact.
Very high chance 5 Catastrophic
The impact might be assessed in financial terms or in
High chance 4 Major terms of the seniority of staff needed to deal with it.
Some chance 3 Significant The risk score presented by each threat can be shown
on a simple chart. An example risk scoring matrix is
May happen 2 Some presented in Figure 3.
Unlikely to happen 1 Minor
NOTE 1 This is an example scoring matrix, 6.4 TACCP reporting

organizations may choose their own ranking scheme. Four fictional case studies showing how the TACCP
NOTE 2 Likelihood of a threat happening could be process may be applied and adapted to best meet
judged, for example, over a period of 5 years. an individual company’s needs are given in Annex A.
NOTE 3 Impact could consider death or injury, cost, They are presented as formal records of the TACCP
damage to reputation and/or public and media investigation and may be used to demonstrate that the
perceptions of these consequences. business has taken all reasonable precautions should
they be victims of an attack.
Figure 3 – Risk scoring matrix
5 Threat A
4 Threat C
Impact
3 Threat B
2 Threat E
1 Threat D
1 2 3 4 5
Likelihood
Very high risk Threat A
High risk Threat B
Moderate risk Threat C
Low risk Threat D
Negligible risk Threat E
NOTE This is an example risk scoring matrix, organizations may choose different criteria for the different risk
categories.

PAS 96:2017
7 Critical controls
NOTE Tables 2, 3 and 4 are not intended to be Access to people Relevant?

exhaustive of all controls that may be considered Proportionate?
relevant or proportionate to reduce a risk.
12 Chip & PIN access control
13 Changing facilities, separate

7.1 Controlling access

personal clothing from work
If a prospective attacker has no access to their target, wear
then that attack cannot take place. It is not possible or
desirable to prevent all access, but physical measures Access to electronic systems Relevant?
may limit access to certain individuals and those with Proportionate?
a legitimate need. Some approaches to risk reduction
14 Routine monitoring and
that the TACCP team may feel are proportionate and
implementation of NCSC
relevant to their business are listed in Table 2.
guidance [28]
15 Penetration testing by
Table 2 – Approaches to risk reduction external professionals
Access to premises Relevant? 16 Routine training in cyber

Proportionate? security principles (e.g. Cyber
Essentials [29] or BS ISO
1 Access to people on business 27000 series)
only
Screening of visitors Relevant?
2 Vehicle parking outside Proportionate?
perimeter
17 By appointment only
3 Premises zoned to restrict
access to those with a 18 Proof of identity required
business need
19 Accompanied throughout
4 Visible and comprehensive
perimeter fencing 20 Positive identification of staff
and visitors
5 Perimeter alarm system
21 CCTV monitoring/recording
6 CCTV monitoring/recording of sensitive areas
of perimeter vulnerabilities
Other aspects Relevant?
Access to vehicles Relevant? Proportionate?
Proportionate?
22 Secure handling of mail
7 Monitored access points
23 Restrictions on portable
8 Approach roads traffic- electronic and camera
calmed equipment
9 Scheduled deliveries 24 Limitations on access to

mains services
10 Documentation checked
before admittance
11 Missed deliveries investigated

PAS 96:2017
7.2 Tamper detection NOTE Further guidance on personnel and people

security is available from: http://www.cpni.gov.uk/
Much raw material storage, some product storage, advice/Personnel-security1/ [26]. In particular, food
most distribution vehicles and all packaged foods can businesses may make use of CPNI’s publication, Holistic
be tamper evident. Should an attacker gain access, Management of Employee Risk (HoMER) [30].
tamper evidence gives some chance that the attack may
be detected in time to avoid the impact.
Table 4 – Personnel security
Some approaches to aspects of tamper evidence that
the TACCP team may feel are proportionate and Pre-employment checks Relevant?
relevant to their business are listed in Table 3. Proportionate?
1 Proof of identity
Table 3 – Tamper evidence
2 Proof of qualifications
Detecting tampering Relevant?
Proportionate? 3 Verification of contractors
1 Numbered seals on bulk 4 More sensitive roles

storage silos identified with appropriate
recruitment
2 Numbered seals on stores of
labels and labelled packs On-going personnel security Relevant?
Proportionate?
3 Effective seals on retail packs
5 Staff in critical roles
4 Numbered seals on motivated and monitored
hazardous materials
6 Whistleblowing
5 Close stock control of key arrangements
materials
7 Temporary staff supervised
6 Recording of seal numbers
on delivery vehicles 8 Individuals able to work
alone
7 Secure usernames and
passwords for electronic 9 Favourable security culture28)
access
End of contract arrangements Relevant?
8 Reporting of unauthorized Proportionate?
access by cyber systems
10 Access and ID cards and keys
recovered
7.3 Assuring personnel security 11 Computer accounts closed or

suspended
Personnel security guidance is used to mitigate the
insider threat to the organization. Its principles can 12 Termination interview
also be used by food businesses to judge whether key assesses security implications
staff within the organizations that supply goods and
services can be trusted to comply with specifications
and procedures, and to work in the best interest of
both the supplier and customer. Some approaches to
assuring personnel security that the TACCP team may
feel are proportionate and relevant to their business
are listed in Table 4.
28)
Further information on security culture is available from:
CPNI at https://www.cpni.gov.uk/developing-security-culture
[31].

PAS 96:2017
8 Response to an incident
8.1 Management of a food protection Generally, the best time to learn how to manage a crisis
crisis is not in the crisis, so advanced planning and rehearsal
of procedures is essential.
Food protection and defence procedures aim to
reduce the risk of an attack but cannot eliminate it, so
emergency response and business continuity protocols 8.2 Management of a cyber-attack

are essential.
Speed of response can greatly influence the damage
Food protection may sit within a business’ crisis caused by a cyber-attack so the maintenance of
management system (see BS 11200), and is likely to colleague awareness can be crucial. The complexity
share its general objectives: and variety of attacks can be so great that selection of
a specialist contractor (in advance of the incident) may
• to minimize physical and financial harm to consumers,
benefit many organizations.
customers, employees and others;
• to collaborate with investigatory and enforcement Thoughts about cyber incident response are available
authorities (e.g. National Food Crime Unit in the UK); from CREST (Council of Registered Ethical Security
• to gain public support for the organization; Testers) [32]. Support may also be available from
• to minimize the cost – financial, reputational and membership of Cyber Security Information Sharing
personal – of the incident; Partnership (CiSP) [33].
• to prevent re-occurrence; and
• to identify offenders. 8.3 Contingency planning for recovery
Where contamination is implicit, quarantine and maybe
from attack
withdrawal and recall of product might be expected. Business continuity management principles give good
resilience to react to and recover from an attack.
In cases involving criminal action, police officers from Advice on how best to develop and implement your
serious crime units should be involved at the earliest organization’s recovery in response to a disruptive
opportunity to avoid any loss of evidence. incident is provided in BS ISO 22313.
NOTE Some examples of police contacts are the
National Crime Agency and the Anti-Kidnap and
Extortion unit; others are also provided in Annex B.

PAS 96:2017
9 Review of food protection arrangements
Any changes which could affect the TACCP assessment, A concise report of the review should have only limited
such as breaches and suspected breaches of security circulation.
or authenticity, should immediately be reported to
the TACCP team leader who decides if a full review is The TACCP team should regularly review food
needed. protection arrangements in line with other corporate
policies.
The TACCP team should monitor official websites NOTE The TACCP report and any review documents are
for updates in national threat assessments and for commercially sensitive and confidential. Trusted senior
information on emerging risks (see Annex B). The managers with a ‘need to know’ and enforcement
local situation may be reviewed frequently and briefly officials require access. Organizations may consider
against changes to conditions pertaining at the publication of a generic overview for internal use and/
premises. or to present to external auditors. Such an overview
avoids detail which could be of value to an attacker.
External auditors are to respect the sensitive nature of
the TACCP process.

PAS 96:2017
Annex A (informative)
TACCP case studies
NOTE These case studies are entirely fictitious and any • the Head of Internal Audit holds delegated
resemblance to real organizations is coincidental. responsibility for security and fraud prevention;
• the TACCP team also received contributions from
other managers on specialist topics; and
A.1 General • this case study makes use of information in the expert
This annex presents four case studies to illustrate how advisory group report: The lessons to be learned from
the TACCP process may be adapted, operated and the 2013 horsemeat incident [34].
reported by different organizations to reflect their
business situation. They are written as formal records
of the risk assessment exercise and do not attempt any
background company context.
Case study A is a national fast food chain, and case

study B is a small enterprise with an owner/manager
who handles all strategic and operational matters
personally.
Case study C and case study D are intended to

highlight cyber security issues faced by innovative
food businesses. Case study C is a food initiative by
an established internet, but not food, operator. Case
study D is a professional food business aiming to exploit
digital opportunities.
In all cases the TACCP process has been deliberately

changed from that described in Clause 5 to encourage
users of this PAS to take an open-minded approach.
A.2 Case study A

Case study A presents an example report following the
investigative work of the TACCP team at Burgers4U, a
national fast food chain. The assumptions made are as
follows:
• Burgers4U is a fictitious fast food chain with the
unique selling proposition (USP) that it makes its own
burgers. Nationally it is a major operator but it has no
international business;
• the standard burger is considered to be typical of the
range: standard, jumbo, veggie, cheese, and chilli;
• the Operations Director of Burgers4U leads the
company’s Emergency Planning and Business
Continuity Committee;

PAS 96:2017
TACCP case study A

Company: BURGERS4U
Location: All high street retail outlets
Product: Standard takeaway burger
TACCP team: Operations Director (Chairman)
Human Resources Manager
Procurement Manager
Technical Manager
Head of Internal Audit
Table A.1 – Threat information
No Threats to company and info- Possible method of operation Comments

systems from:
A Animal rights activists Vandalism or sabotage Little evidence of current

activity
B Hacktivists Distributed denial of service (DDOS) Developing company profile

attack on website may provoke attack
C Company buyers Fraud; collusion with suppliers Established team working

autonomously
D Criminals Counterfeiting; misappropriation Increasing risk as brand

of packaging strengthens
No Threats to locations from: Possible method of operation Comments
E Supporters of local businesses Adverse publicity; ‘Guilt by Some locations report high
association’ with fast food levels of press interest
F Overworked company staff, Petty contamination; possible Some staff shortage where
disenchantment could lead to serious malicious contamination there is little post-18
alliance with extremists (e.g. education;
terrorists) and in locations with an
extremist reputation
G Single issue groups Deliberate infestation of premises Some recent precedent
H Front line staff Theft; collusion with customers Rigorous audit in place;
Outlet managers trustworthy
(personnel security checks)
No Threats to product from: Possible method of operation Comments
I Suppliers of meat EMA – non-animal protein, or non- Beef is specified and

beef meats, replacing meat expected, even though not
claimed in publicity
J Front line staff Deliberate undercooking of patty Rotas minimize chance of

collusion
K Front line staff Selling burger too long after
wrapping
L Ideologically motivated group Malicious contamination of Official threat level

component unchanged
NOTE Press reports of concerns about food authenticity are pertinent.

Figure A.1 – Threat identification
22
24 Source
Start
consumables
23 Source
packaging
PAS 96:2017
01 Select 25 Source pickle 26 Deliver to 27 Ambient

bakery & garnish Burgers4U storage
10 Select
04 Source flour 11 Source
abbatoir/
& minor meat
cutting plant
ingredients
27 Ambient 28 Deliver to 29 Pick
storage restaurant orders
02 Mains 13 Deliver to
12 Butchery
water Burgers4U
03 Store water, 15 Weigh 32 Move to 33 Prepare 34 Wrap

14 Chill storage
adjust seasonings etc. kitchen burger burger
temperature
05 Mix, divide,
prove, 17 Mince patty 16 Weigh meat 36 Receive 35 Hot
bake buns batches for mince order storage
06 Cool, freeze, 18 Form 19 Freeze 37 Supply 38 Receive

pack buns pattys pattys order cash
31 Cold
storage
08 Cold 20 Pack 39 Dispose
07 Palletize 21 Palletize
storage to cases of waste
09 Deliver to 22 Cold 29 Pick 30 Deliver to

End
Burgers4U storage orders restaurant
© The British Standards Institution 2017

Table A.2 – Threat identification
Step Process step Threat Vulnerability Access Mitigation Adulterant; Impact of QA/QC Likelihood Impact
no Contamination process
01A Select bakery Various Casual staff Production Contracts — — — — —

staff require
personnel
security
protocols

01B Select bakery Fraud Collusion Buyers Little — — — 2 3
02 Mains water Malicious Bulk storage Services Effective Soluble toxins May inhibit May fail 1 1
contamination reservoirs engineers control of yeast; may sensory
access affect tests
dough
handling
03 Store water; As above Batch storage As above As above As above As above As above 1 1
adjust reservoirs
temperature
04 Source flour Fraudulent Little cost — — — — — — —

+ minor substitution advantage to
ingredients fraudster
05 Mix, divide, Malicious Batch mixing Skilled mixer Trained Powdered May inhibit May fail 1 1
prove, bake contamination operation operative experienced toxin yeast; may sensory
buns staff affect tests
dough
handling
06 Cool, freeze, — — — — — — — — —
pack buns
07 Palletize — — — — — — — — —
08 Cold storage — — — — — — — — —
09 Deliver to — — — — — — — — —
Burgers4U
23
PAS 96:2017
Table A.2 – Threat identification (continued)
24
10A Select abattoir / Fraud Collusion Buyers Little — — — 3 5

PAS 96:2017
cutting plant
10B Select abattoir / Fraudulent Poor Delivery Unique animal Meat from Negligible Random 2 3
cutting plant substitution segregation drivers; identification cheaper tests may
of species process staff recorded sources detect
unless
collusion
11 Source meat Fraudulent Poor Process Meat from Negligible Random 4 3

substitution segregation management cheaper tests may
of species and staff sources detect
unless
collusion
12 Butchery Fraudulent Poor Process Meat from Negligible Random 2 3

substitution segregation management cheaper tests may
of species & staff sources detect
unless
collusion
13 Deliver to Hijacking of Supplier — — — — — — —

Burgers4U consignment responsibility
14 Chill storage — — — — — — — — —
15 Weigh Malicious Manual Process Rigorous Powdered Negligible May fail 1 3

seasonings etc contamination operation management hygiene toxins sensory
& staff standards tests
16 Weigh meat for As above As above As above As above As above As above As above As above As
mince above
17 Mince patty As above As above As above As above As above As above As above As above As
batches above

18 Form pattys As above As above As above As above As above As above As above As above As
above
19 Freeze pattys — — — — — — — — —

20 Pack to cases — — — — — — — — —
21 Palletize — — — — — — — — —
22 Cold storage — — — — — — — — —
23 Source Misappropriation; Supplier Agency Little — — — 2 4

packaging Counterfeiting warehouse delivery
security drivers
24 Source — — — — — — — — —
consumables
25 Source pickle + Ingredient — — Established — — — — —

garnish substitution brands;
reliable
contracts
26 Deliver to — — — — — — — — —
Burgers4U
27 Ambient storage — — — — — — — — —
28 Deliver to — — — — — — — — —
restaurant
29 Pick orders — — — — — — — — —
30 Deliver to — — — — — — — — —
restaurant
31 Cold storage — — — — — — — — —
25
PAS 96:2017
32 Move to kitchen Malicious Out of hours; Night store- Tamper ‘Spiked’ pattys Little None 1 3
substitution unsupervised staff evident cases
26
33 Prepare burger Deliberate Lone worker Restaurant Rigorous — — None 1 2

PAS 96:2017
undercooking staff food safety

manufacture
34 Wrap burger — — — — — — — — —
35 Hot storage — — — — — — — — —
36 Receive order — — — — — — — — —
37 Supply order Selling too long Restaurant — Personnel — — — 2 2

after wrapping manager security
under procedures
wastage
pressure
38 Receive cash Theft Restaurant Counter staff Automated — — — 4 1

staff cash tills;
rigorous audit
39 Dispose of waste Misappropriation; Unlocked Public Daily removal — — — 1 2

Counterfeiting external bins
NOTE The symbol ‘—‘ indicates ‘not applicable’ or ‘not significant’.
Table A.3 – Threat assessment
Threat Description Vulnerable step Likelihood Impact Protective action
A Vandalism or sabotage All locations 1 2 Maintain vigilance
B DDOS attack on website Marketing 3 3 Ensure cyber security good practice
C:01B Fraud; collusion with suppliers Select bakery 2 3 Job rotation <5 years
C:10A Select abattoir/cutting plant 3 5 Internal audit

Table A.3 – Threat assessment (continued)
Threat Description Vulnerable step Likelihood Impact Protective action
D:23 Counterfeiting; misappropriation of Source packaging 2 4 Formal notice to supplier; new supplier if no
packaging improvement in security after 6 months
D:39 Dispose of waste 1 2 No further action
E Adverse publicity: ‘Guilt by Corporate 2 1 Review PR strategy

association’ with ‘fast food’
F:32 Petty contamination; Move to kitchen 1 3 Part used cases to be security sealed by
manager
Possible serious malicious
contamination
G Deliberate infestation of premises Restaurants 1 2 Maintain vigilance
H:38 Theft: collusion with customers Receive cash 4 1 No further action
I:10B EMA – non-animal protein, or non- Select abattoir/cutting plant 2 3 Stronger management of vendor: technical
beef meats, replacing meat audit, regular sampling/ad hoc testing,
I:11 Source meat 4 3 facilitate whistleblowing
I:12 Butchery 2 3
J:33 Deliberate undercooking of patty Prepare burger 1 2 No further action
K:37 Selling burgers too long after Supply order 2 2 No further action
wrapping
L:02 Malicious contamination of Mains water 1 1 No further action

component
L:03 Store water; adjust temperature 1 1
L:05 Mix, divide, prove, bake buns 1 1
L:15 Weigh seasonings etc. 1 3 Key staff to meet personnel security

standards
27
PAS 96:2017
PAS 96:2017
Figure A.2 – Threat prioritization
C:10A
5
D:23
4 C:01B
Impact
F:32
I:10B B I:11
3
L:15
I:12
A
D:39
K:37
2
G
J:33
E H:38
1
1 2 3 4 5
Excludes (1,1) threats
Likelihood
A.3 Conclusions The Burgers4U website is not a primary selling

instrument but does play a significant marketing role.
TACCP gave a threat register of 19 threats, of which 9 The Head of Internal Audit is assigned to liaise with
are under satisfactory control. the Business Systems Department to ensure proper
resourcing of cyber security procedures generally and
Fraud in the selection of abattoir/cutting plant is the
against denial of service attacks in particular. Advice
greatest threat to Burgers4U. On-going cost penalties
and tenders for cyber response services may be sought
and significant reputational damage could result.
(e.g. from CREST approved suppliers). No reduction in
Closely linked are the threats of species or non-meat
the assessment (3,3) is anticipated.
protein substitution. Within the TACCP team, the
Technical Manager is charged with the implementation The Technical Manager is to monitor official and
of protective action with the objective of reducing the industry sources of information and intelligence
threat to (2,3) within 12 months. This action is likely to on emerging risks and decide with the TACCP team
also mitigate other sourcing threats. chairman whether to reconvene the group in advance
of its scheduled 6 monthly routine meeting.
As a brand with an increasing reputation for quality
and integrity, the threat of counterfeited goods
increases. The traditional supplier of printed packaging
A.4 Case study B
material does not recognize this and has inadequate
physical security procedures in place. As an otherwise Case study B presents an example threat assessment
reliable partner, the Procurement Manager is tasked report of Bridgeshire Cheese Company. It was prepared,
with challenging the supplier to remedy the situation alone in the absence of other executive colleagues, by
or to find an alternative. This threat should be assessed A. Bridgeshire the Managing Partner, and summarizes
as (1,3) or better within 6 months. their individual assessment of the threats it faces.
Bridgeshire Cheese Company is a fictitious small family-
farm owned and operated organic cheese producer
selling to speciality retailers and food service businesses.
Table A.4 represents an example threat assessment

report. Figure A.3 represents a vulnerability assessment
flowchart.

Table A.4 – Threat assessment report 20170602
Threat From Threat Vulnerability A) Mitigation Consequence Impact Likelihood Protective action
no
1 Suppliers Non-organic ‘Top-up’ milk; All goods from Loss of organic 5 2 Require certificate of
supply Bought-in calves; accredited status conformance for all ad hoc
suppliers purchases
semen B)
2 Neighbours Widespread Rights of way Biosecurity Loss of herd and/ 3 2 Install reservoir to avoid

over-reacting livestock disease through farm meets best or insurance effluent discharge when
to ‘effluent practice cover wind from the SW
nuisance’
3 BCC staff Malicious Manual operations, All staff Localized illness 2 1 No further action
contamination unsupervised are family possible
(process largely self- members or
controlling) long term
trusted
partners;
All batches are
taste tested
4 Adjacent farms Trials of GM Perimeter pasture Accreditation Loss of organic 4 3 Cooperative action with
crops land organization status trade association to lobby
campaign elected officials
5 Opportunist Theft of product Distribution, vehicle Little Value of goods; 2 3 Replace with more
criminals often unmanned and Loss of modern vehicle at earliest
unlocked reputation for opportunity
reliability
6 Cyber criminals Remote attack Tampering with the Supplier is re- Hazardous 5 1 Maintain separate QC
on Cloud ‘Off the Peg’ SCADA assuring product from analysis
controlled system to reduce under-processing Take NCSC advice
production pasteurization time/
process temperature
A)
See Figure A.3 for the full vulnerability process assessment.
B)
Other goods are routinely sourced from long-standing accredited companies.
29
PAS 96:2017
Figure A.3 – Vulnerability assessment
30
Source
Start
fertilizer Cattle Cleaning
husbandry operations
Source cattle
PAS 96:2017
feed
Source soil Milking parlour
enhancer operations
Source grass
seed
Store milk
Source other
farm materials
including semen
Pasteurise milk
Chill milk
Store milk whey
Batch, temper, Separate

inoculate, whey
Source incubate
rennet
curd
Source ‘top-up’
milk
Source Form cheeses Store, invert Sample for
cultures and inoculate until manure flavour
Source cleaning
materials
Source Wrap, label,
Portion
packaging pack
Warehouse Distribute Sale End

PAS 96:2017
A.5 Case study C FryByNite aims to deliver freshly cooked hot food to
customers’ doorsteps within 30 minutes of receiving
FryByNite is a new venture, the national hot food a web or telephone order. The standard product is
delivery service of a major internet-based general fish and chips, with each delivery vehicle carrying
trading company. The company is a world leader in programmable deep fat fryers. Raw product is ordered
its software and logistics management field, but is over the internet from a network of contracted fast
new into food business operations. It recognizes its food outlets. These prepare the food and load it
weakness in food and has a consultant food specialist into the frying baskets used by the delivery vehicle. A
on contract for the duration of the launch and global positioning system (GPS) estimates the time to
consolidation phases of FryByNite. customers’ premises and initiates the frying process.
When ready, the frying baskets withdraw automatically
and the food is packaged and kept hot so that the

customer receives hot freshly cooked food in better
condition than if they had visited the outlet themselves.
(See Figure A.4)
Example product: Fried fish and chips for home delivery

(as typical of the menu)
Figure A.4 – FryByNite workflow
Start: A. Receive order on

website or by phone
B. Confirm account details C. Pinpoint nearest supplier D. Contact best placed

and receive payment and place order FbN Van
E. FbN Van to supplier F. Remote programming of

and collect order FbN Van fryers
H. Travel to customer G. Load raw materials

and deliver to fryer
I. FbN driver J. Weekly, drain fryers

End
confirms delivery and replace oil

PAS 96:2017
TACCP Team: Director of Human Resources

(Chairman)
Director of Information Systems
Consultant food technologist
Head of security
Threat information
NOTE As a new ‘brand’ FryByNite is covered by holding
company risk management and contingency planning
procedures. The TACCP therefore addresses operational
aspects of the new venture.
Table A.5 – Threat information
No Threat actors Threats to company from: Possible method of Comments

operation
1 Hacktivists Failure of web based DDOS attack Protected by company-

ordering system wide systems and expertise
2 Nation states Loss of GPS-based Over-commitment and/or No control over threat

navigation inadequate maintenance by actors but strong
satellite operators. contractual protection
with operators
3 Extortionists Exfiltration of sensitive Phishing emails to staff Ransomware readily

data available
4 Insiders Theft of IP Unauthorised access to

administrative privileges
Threats to product:
5 Aggrieved Food poisoning Inadequate handling of

suppliers product
6 Competitors Food poisoning Failure of van cooking From power failure, or

regime subversion of process
controls
7 Aggrieved Food poisoning Malicious contamination Personnel security

staff screening in place
Threats to operations:
8 Criminals Attack on vehicle/driver Mugging for cash Signs: “No cash held in this
vehicle” in place
9 Vandals Petty damage to vehicle Random unplanned Riskier areas noted on

opportunism satnav system
10 Fraudsters Loss of income Use of stolen personal data

to create false account

Step Threat Threat Vulnerability Mitigation Adulterant/ Comment Likelihood Impact

No. Contaminant
A DDOS (1) A1 High – public site Corporate — Nuisance; loss of 4 2

systems give early sales; annoyed
warning customers
A Inter-bank failure A2 Electronic funds Maintaining close — Small chance of major 2 4

(2) transfer system is a links with system loss
prime cyber target, operators
but well protected
B Fraudulent B1 Fictitious delivery Check new — Time waster 1 1

account (10) point accounts on set-
up
C Supplier not C1 Databases out of Close partnership — 1 1

available date with suppliers
C Product C2 Batter may be Suppliers vetted Toxic chemicals; spore- Supplier does not 1 4
contamination (5) target for HACCP forming bacteria know customer
(6) (7) operation identity, unless
collaboration
C Product C3 Opportunistic food As C2 Exchange of species Reputation and 3 2

substitution (5) fraud regulation
D GPS failure D1 Poor signal Liaison with — Contingency plans in 1 1

telecoms place
providers
F Corruption of F1 New technology: Trials show — Fire or undercooked 3 5

control system snags likely resilience food possible
with malware (1)
(4)
G Undercooking G1 Oversized fillets Size limits — Product inedible 1 1
33
PAS 96:2017
Table A.6 – Threat assessment (continued)
34
Step Threat Threat Vulnerability Mitigation Adulterant/ Comment Likelihood Impact
No. Contaminant
G Product G2 Unsupervised Personnel Toxic chemicals; spore- 2 4

PAS 96:2017
contamination (4) manual operation screening forming bacteria
H Delays on route H1 Unexpected traffic Automatic — Compensation if food 3 1

or roadworks updates of satnav inedible
H Assault on staff (8) H2 Some difficult Staff training in — A key concern in 2 5

customers and conflict avoidance some areas
areas.
H Damage to vehicle H3 Vehicle Riskier areas — Largely nuisance 1 2

(9) unsupervised noted on satnav
during delivery system
J Inappropriate J1 Staff under Replacement ‘new — Reputation damage 1 2

disposal of waste pressure seeking for old’
oil (7) shortcuts
J Use of wrong oil J2 Staff under Replacement ‘new Other edible oils Issues: labelling; 1 4
pressure seeking for old’ Mineral oils allergy; integrity;
shortcuts or toxicity; fire safety
Toxic organic chemicals
covering mistakes

PAS 96:2017
4 A1
Likelihood
3 H1 C3 F1
2 A2 G2 H2
B1 C1
1 J1 H3 C2 J2
D1 G1
1 2 3 4 5
Impact

PAS 96:2017
Table A.7 – Threat register
Threat Rating Description Further Responsibility Comment

(L,I) defensive
action
F1 (3,5) Corruption of Daily review Director of Target (2,3) within one

process control through InfoTech year.
system for fryers roll-out and
consolidation
phases.
Build contact
with software
provider.
A1 (4,2) DDOS - website Build NCSC Director of On-going.

contact. InfoTech Threat rating unlikely to
Track social change.
media chatter.
H2 (2,5) Assault on staff Evaluate Director of With Director of Human

use of body InfoTech Resources
cameras
C3 (3,2) Fraudulent product Introduce Consultant food Target (1,2)

substitution low level technologist
overt product
sampling
A2 (2,4) Inter-bank funds Continue Director of Insurance cover adequate.

transfer failure current InfoTech
protocols.
G2 (2,4) Malicious product Introduce Director of Human Target (1,4)

contamination ongoing Resources
personnel
security
routines.
H1 (3,1) Delays on route Continue Under proportionate

current control.
protocols.
J1 (1,2) Inappropriate Review and Director of Human Target (1,1) within one
disposal of waste oil promote ‘new Resources year.
for old’ model.
H3 (1,2) Damage to vehicle Continue Under proportionate

current control.
protocols.

Table A.7 – Threat register (continued)
Threat Rating Description Further Responsibility Comment

(L,I) defensive
action
C2 (1,4) Malicious product Include Consultant food Threat rating unlikely to

contamination handling of technologist change.
non-food
chemicals
in supplier
accreditation.
J2 (1,4) Use of wrong oil Build Director of Human Threat rating unlikely to
technology Resources change.
into induction
training.
B1 (1,1) Fraudulent customer No further - Under proportionate

account action control.
required.
C1 (1,1) Supplier not Review Director of Human -

available training of Resources
database
admin.
D1 (1,1) GPS failure No further - Under proportionate

action control.
required.
G1 (1,1) Undercooked No further - Under proportionate

product action control.
required.
Commentary
1. As a new development the TACCP Team plans to
meet monthly to review developments.
2. In all the Team has identified 15 threats of which
seven require substantive protective action.
3. Remote control of the frying operation creates the
opportunity for new threats (F1) which would receive
senior attention and organizational priority.
4. Precautions, i.e. appropriate training, from launch of
the initiative have kept the likelihood of assault on
staff low, but further work is needed.
5. The parent company’s senior managers continue its
policy of avoiding a high profile public image which
helps reduce the chance of FbN being a target.
PAS 96:2017
A.6 Case study D The company has now undertaken a massive move into
automation and remote control of both farming and
F. Armer & Daughters Ltd is an established agricultural pack-house operations. It is committed to the use of
company with an enviable reputation for ‘good unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) surveillance of crops
practice’. The business has evolved and grown from to better manage irrigation, application of pesticides,
its origins as a mixed family farm supplying its local fertilizers and other treatments, and harvesting. It
population with seasonal produce through to its intends to fully integrate chilling, cleaning, trimming
present broad horticultural tariff. The core business is and packing of produce. It aims to significantly reduce
‘fresh as fresh can be’ supply of vegetables for retail further the time from field to despatch.
sale. Some fruit and specialist cereals complement
vegetable production. There is increasing interest in As part of this initiative and as it rolls out, the
supply to food service operations. Directors have contracted a consulting information

security specialist to conduct a TACCP exercise
The business is managed on a day-to-day basis by the related specifically to the new information systems.
granddaughters of the farm’s founder, the father of Risk management of the conventional business is
the F. Armer who named the company and remains well established. The intention is that they have
its Chairman. It employs a small team to run the proportionate controls in place.
highly mechanised cleaning and packing factory but
relies heavily on agricultural contractors for farming
work, using temporary staff to cover peak periods. It
is committed to external verification of its processes
and procedures and receives exemplary reports from
accreditation bodies and multiple customers alike.
These procedures include an effective approach to risk
management.
Table A.8 – Possible sources of malicious activity affecting F. Armer & Daughters Ltd
Greatest threat from: Moderate threat from: Lowest threat from:
Hacktivists Alienated former employees Competitors

seeking vengeance
Sabotage of IT support Terrorists seeking publicity Environmental campaigners

infrastructure
Extortionists Contractors
Criminals stealing innovative IP

Threat System Threat Vulnerability Mitigation Comment Likelihood Impact

No.
TN1 Electronic Failure of telephone Operation can be slow but Strong personal 2 3
ordering from lines (weather, has not failed in 5 years arrangements with
customers accident, sabotage, buyers so mobile call
incompetence) is an expedient

TN2 Electronic Data corruption Intervention by Big variances from 2 2
ordering from during transfer unauthorised parties planned volumes will
customers prompt confirmation
TN3 Raising Malfunction of data Disruption to the cleaning/ Secure, tamper- Manual entry will 4 4
processing transfer packing operation leading evident housing for delay the packing
orders for to major waste, product equipment operation to an
pack-house shortages and downtime unacceptable
degree
TN4 Raising vehicle Data corruption Major cost penalties from Contracted 2 3
loading and rejected consignments hauliers
delivery unlikely to note
papers discrepancies
TN5 UAV Cameras and Remote control of device Routine software Both harm caused 3 2
monitoring of sensors fail to spot can be taken over by updates installed and theft of the
crops emerging problems malicious actors device could be
incentives for
malpractice
TN6 Computer Takeover for ransom Remote access by Directors Independent back-up Key to 2 2
farm record by criminals over the Internet provides daily would reduce operational
system opportunity for criminals losses practice and
external
accreditation
TN7 Industrial Sabotage of High cost highly Updating and Contracted 1 5

control electronic controls sophisticated instruments maintenance is service engineer
systems cannot be duplicated, rigorous on call 24/7
so non-operation = non-
39
PAS 96:2017
production
PAS 96:2017

5
TN3
4
Likelihood
TN5 TN4 F1
3
TN6 TN1 A2 G2 H2
2
TN2 TN7
1
1 2 3 4 5
Impact
Commentary
1. The company has fully embraced ‘totally integrated
manufacture’ as its path to efficiency and customer
service but is not yet fully aware of the vulnerabilities
which are implied. The consulting information security
specialist has been further contracted to complete
the threat assessment and recommend proportionate
controls.
2. So far as is practicable, duplicate systems are to be
operated until completion of the assessment.
3. Support and advice from ncsc.gov.uk is used to raise
awareness among key contractors and trusted staff.
4. Review to take place in one month.

PAS 96:2017
Annex B (informative)
Sources of information and intelligence about emerging
risks to food supply
B.1 General B.2 Information and intelligence levels
The World Health Organisation (through INFOSAN) Figure B.1 illustrates the global dissemination and
and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (through exchange of information and intelligence about
EMPRES and GIEWS) of the United Nations coordinate emerging risks to food which may be used to update
global efforts to identify new risks and enact control TACCP assessments. Five levels may be used to describe
measures to minimize their impact. different levels of information sharing, 1 being the
lowest and 5 being the highest:
They disseminate information to national food Level 1 — Food organization;
organizations like the Food Standards Agency in the
Level 2 — Local;
United Kingdom. These national food organizations
can then make it available to food businesses, typically Level 3 — National;
through trade associations, but it really is a 2-way Level 4 — European;
process. Level 5 — International.
NOTE Subscription services which provide helpful
information also include:
• HorizonScan which monitors global food integrity
issues, see: https://horizon-scan.fera.co.uk/ ;
• Food Fraud Database from the US Pharmacopeial
Convention, see: https://www.foodfraud.org/;
• US-CERT - United States Computer Readiness Team see
https://www.us-cert.gov/.

PAS 96:2017
Figure B.1 – Global dissemination of information and intelligence about emerging risks to
food which may be used to update TACCP assessments
INTERNATIONAL
EMPRES: Emergency Prevention System

for Food Safety (Food & Agriculture Organisation)
INFOSAN: International Food Safety

Authorities Network (Food & Agriculture Organisation /

World Health Organisation)
GIEWS: Global Information & Early Warning System
EUROPEAN
RASFF: Rapid Alert System for Food & Feed

(European Commission)/
EFSA: European Food Safety Authority
Europol: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Coopoeration
NATIONAL
Trade Associations / Professional bodies /

Research Associations / National government
LOCAL
Local authority / Police /

Local media / Other food businesses
Food organisation
NOTE Further information on these international sources can be found at the following: INFOSAN http://www.
who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/infosan/en/ [35], EMPRES http://www.fao.org/foodchain/empres-prevention-and-
early-warning/en/ [36] and GIEWS http://www.fao.org/giews/english/index.htm [37].

PAS 96:2017
Annex C (informative)
Complementary approaches to food and drink
protection
C.1 CARVER+Shock C.2 EU 5-point action plan
CARVER+Shock is an offensive prioritization tool that In response to the horse meat fraud in 2013, the
has been adapted for use in the American food sector. European Commission set in place the following 5 point
Like TACCP, CARVER+Shock involves an organization plan [39].
playing ‘Red Team’, where the team members put 1) Develop synergies between enforcement
themselves in the place of the prospective attacker and authorities, ensure rapid exchange of information
ask: on intentional violations of food chain rules,
promote the involvement of Europol in
If I wanted to cause harm, or make more money, or investigations.
gain publicity, or take advantage of the situation in
2) Ensure that rules on horse passports are enforced
some other way:
correctly, that passports are delivered only by
• What would I do? competent authorities and that national databases
• Where would I do it? are created.
• When would I do it? 3) Require that financial penalties for intentional
violations of food chain rules be established at
In effect they use the military targeting tool to judge sufficiently dissuasive levels, and that control
weaknesses by assessing their: plans in the Member States include unannounced
Criticality controls.
Accessibility 4) Adopt rules on mandatory origin labelling of meat
Recognizability (sheep, goat, pig, poultry, horse, rabbit, etc.) and
deliver a report in autumn 2013 on the possible
Vulnerability
extension of mandatory origin labelling to all types
Effect of meat used as ingredient in foods.
Recoverability 5) Present and assess the results of the controls
currently carried out in the EU countries.
More information on CARVER + Shock is available from
Carver + Shock Primer [38].
C.3 UK Food and Drink Federation
The UK Food and Drink Federation’s (FDF) Guide on
‘Food authenticity: Five steps to help protect your
business from food fraud [40], follows on from FDF’s
guide ‘Sustainable Sourcing: Five steps towards
managing supply chain risk’ [32] and provides
information on:
1) mapping your supply chain;
2) identifying impacts, risks and opportunities;
3) assessing and prioritizing your findings;
4) creating a plan of action; and
5) implementing, tracking, reviewing and
communicating.

PAS 96:2017
Annex D (informative)
10 Steps to cyber security: A board level responsibility29)
NOTE This annex was developed from source material D.1.3 Pro-active management of the cyber risk at Board
provided by the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC). level is critical
1) The cyber security risk impacts share value,
mergers, pricing, reputation, culture, staff,
D.1 Key questions for CEOs and boards information, process control, brand, technology,
and finance. Are we confident that:

D.1.1 Protection of key information assets is critical
• we have identified our key information assets
1) How confident are we that our company’s most
and thoroughly assessed their vulnerability to
important information is being properly managed
attack?
and is safe from cyber threats?
• responsibility for the cyber risk has been allocated
2) Are we clear that the Board are likely to be key
appropriately? Is it on the risk register?
targets?
• we have a written information security policy in
3) Do we have a full and accurate picture of:
place, which is championed by us and supported
• the impact on our company’s reputation, share through regular staff training? Are we confident
price or existence if sensitive internal or customer the entire workforce understands and follows it?
information held by the company were to be lost
or stolen?
• the impact on the business if our online services
were disrupted for a short or sustained period?
D.1.2 Exploring who might compromise our

information and why
1) Do we receive regular intelligence from the Chief
Information Officer/Head of Security on who may
be targeting our company, their methods and their
motivations?
2) Do we encourage our technical staff to enter
into information-sharing exchanges with other
companies in our sector and/or across the economy
in order to benchmark, learn from others and help
identify emerging threats?
29)
For further information on cyber security see: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/10-steps-board-level-responsibility [42].

PAS 96:2017
Bibliography
Standards publications BS ISO/IEC 27001, Information technology - Security

techniques - Information security management systems
For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For - Requirements
undated references, the latest edition of the referenced
document (including any amendments) applies.
Other Standards
BS 10501, Guide to implementing procurement fraud

Risk Management
controls
BIP 2153, Managing risk the ISO 31000 way
BS EN ISO 22000, Food safety management systems –
BS 31100, Risk management - Code of practice and Requirements for any organization in the food chain
guidance for the implementation of BS ISO 31000
BS EN 31010, Risk management - Risk assessment

Other publications and websites
techniques
[1] CODEX ALIMENTARIUS. CODEX CAC/RCP 1-1969:
BS ISO 31000, Risk management - Principles and General principles of food
guidelines hygiene. Rome: CODEX Alimentarius, 2003.
PD ISO/TR 31004, Risk management – Guidance for the [2] NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY CENTRE. Glossary.
implementation of ISO 31000 Available from: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/glossary
[viewed July 2017].
Crisis Management
[3] FOOD STANDARDS AGENCY. Available from: https://
BS 11200, Crisis management – Guidance and good
www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/the-national-food-
practice
crime-unit/what-is-food-crime-and-food-fraud [viewed
July 2017].
Business Continuity Management
BS ISO 22301, Business continuity management systems [4] US Pharmacopeial Convention’s Food Fraud
– Requirements and guidance Database. Available from: http://www.foodfraud.org/
[viewed July 2017].
BS ISO 22313, Societal security - Business continuity
management systems – Guidance [5] BBC. ‘Plastic rice’ seized in Nigeria. BBC, 2016.
Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-
Supply Chain Security africa-38391998 [viewed July 2017].
BS ISO 28000, Specification for security management
[6] OLIVE OIL TIMES. Italy arrests 33 accused of olive
systems for the supply chain
oil fraud. Olive Oil Times, 2017. Available from: https://
BS ISO 28002, Security management systems for the www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-business/italy-arrests-
supply chain - Development of resilience in the supply 33-accused-olive-oil-fraud/55364 [viewed July 2017].
chain - Requirements with guidance for use
[7] OLIVE OIL TIMES. Brazil reveals widespread olive
PD CEN/TR 16412, Supply chain security (SCS) - Good oil fraud. Olive Oil Times, 2017. Available from: https://
practice guide for small and medium sized operators www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-business/brazil-reveals-
widespread-olive-oil-fraud/56395 [viewed July 2017].
Information Security
[8] EURO WEEKLY NEWS. Police uncover major beef
BS ISO/IEC 27000, Information technology – Security food fraud in Spain. Euro Weekly News, 2017. Available
techniques – Information security management systems from: https://www.euroweeklynews.com/3.0.15/news/
– Overview and vocabulary on-euro-weekly-news/spain-news-in-english/144405-

PAS 96:2017
police-uncover-major-beef-food-fraud-in-spain [viewed [17] GILLAM, CAREY. Chinese woman arrested in plot

July 2017]. to steal U.S corn technology. Kansas City: Grainews.
Available from: http://www.grainews.ca/daily/chinese-
[9] ANTONY GITONGA. Naivasha Hawkers using woman-arrested-in-plot-to-steal-u-s-corn-technology
formalin to preserve milk. Standard Media. [viewed July 2017].
Available from: http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/
article/2000107380/naivasha-hawkers-using-formalin-to- [18] THE COUNTERFEIT REPORT. How to identify
preserve-milk [viewed July 2017]. counterfeit Glen’s vodkas. Alexandria, 2014. Available
from: http://thecounterfeitreport.com/product/322/
[10] WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION and FOOD [viewed July 2017].
AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED
NATIONS. Toxicological aspects of melamine and [19] NEWSCORE. Offshore raids turn up fake Aussie
cyanuric acid: Report of a WHO expert meeting in Jacob’s Creek wines. Australia, 2011. Available
collaboration with FAO. WHO and FAO, 2009. Available from: http://www.news.com.au/finance/offshore-
from: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/fs_management/ raids-turn-up-fake-aussie-jacobs-creek-wines/story-
Exec_Summary_melamine.pdf, [viewed July 2017]. e6frfm1i-1226029399148 [viewed July 2017].
[11] U.S. PHARMACOPEIAL CONVENTION. Food fraud [20] FINANCIAL FRAUD ACTION UK. Restaurants and
database version 2.0. Available by subscription from: diners targeted in new scam. London. Available from:
http://www.foodfraud.org/#/food-fraud-database- http://www.financialfraudaction.org.uk/cms/assets/1/
version-20 , [viewed July 2017]. scam%20alert%20-%20restaurants%20web%20
link%20doc.pdf [viewed July 2017].
[12] FOOD STANDARDS AGENCY. Update on malicious
tampering with Kingsmill bread. Food Standards [21] NATIONAL FRAUD AUTHORITY. Annual fraud
Agency, 2006. Available from: http://webarchive. indicator. National Fraud Authority, 2013. Available
nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120206100416/http://food. from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2006/dec/kingsmill [viewed uploads/attachment_data/file/206552/nfa-annual-fraud-
July 2017]. indicator-2013.pdf [viewed July 2017].
[13] TOROK, THOMAS J. MD, TAUXE, ROBERT V. MD, [22] SMITH, MATT. Cyber criminals use hacked Deliveroo
MPH, WISE, ROBERT P. MD, MPH; LIVENGOOD, JOHN R accounts to order food on victims’ cards. DAILY
MD, SOKOLOW, ROBERT, MAUVAIS, STEVEN, BIRKNESS, TELEGRAPH, 2016. Available from: https://business-
KRISTEN A,SKEELS, MICHAEL R PhD, MPH, HORAN, reporter.co.uk/2016/11/23/cyber-criminals-use-hacked-
JOHN M MD MPH, FOSTER, LAURENCE R, MD, MPH. deliveroo-accounts-order-food-victims-cards/ [July
A large community outbreak of Salmonellosis caused 2017].
by intentional contamination of restaurant salad bars.
American Medical Association, 1997. Available from: [23] ASSOCIATED PRESS. Michigan-based Biggby Coffee
http://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/forensic_epidemiology/ reports database breach, possible theft of customer
Additional%20Materials/Articles/Torok%20et%20al.pdf information. CANADIAN BUSINESS, 2015. Available
[viewed July 2017]. from: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/business-news/
michigan-based-biggby-coffee-reports-database-
[14] Q FOOD. Food Tampering: [1989] Glass in baby breach-possible-theft-of-customer-information [viewed
food. Germany. Available from: http://www.qfood. July 2017].
eu/2014/03/1989-glass-in-baby-food/ [viewed July 2017].
[24] FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CYBER
[15] ORR, JAMES. Blackmailer jailed over Tesco bomb DIVISION. PIN Number 160331-001 Smart Farming
threats. The Guardian, 2008. Available from: http:// May Increase Cyber Targeting Against US Food
www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jan/28/ukcrime [viewed and Agriculture Sector 31. March 2016. Available
July 2017]. from: https://info.publicintelligence.net/FBI-
SmartFarmHacking.pdf [viewed July 2017].
[16] MURRAY, KEVIN D. Electronic eavesdropping &
Industrial espionage. New York: Murray Associates. [25] NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY CENTRE and
Available from: https://counterespionage. NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY. The Cyber Threat to UK
worldsecuresystems.com/tscm-the-missing-business- Business. Available from: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/news/
school-course.html [viewed July 2017]. ncsc-and-nca-threat-report-provides-depth-analysis-
evolving-threat [viewed July 2017].

PAS 96:2017
[26] CENTRE FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL [37] GLOBAL INFORMATION AND EARLY WARNING
INFRASTRUCTURE. Personnel security. London: CPNI. SYSTEM (GIEWS). Available from: http://www.fao.org/
Available from: http://www.cpni.gov.uk/advice/ giews/english/index.htm [viewed July 2017].
Personnel-security1/ [viewed July 2017].
[38] FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. Carver +
[27] NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY CENTRE. 10 Steps to Shock Primer – An overview of the Carver plus Shock
Cyber Security. NCSC, 2016. Available from: https:// method for food sector vulnerability assessments. FDA,
www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/10-steps-cyber-security 2009. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/
[viewed July 2017]. Food/FoodDefense/FoodDefensePrograms/UCM376929.
pdf [viewed July 2017].
[28] NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY CENTRE. Password
Guidance: Simplifying your approach. Available from: [39] FOOD AND DRINK FEDERATION. Food authenticity:
https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/password-guidance- Five steps to help protect your business from food
simplifying-your-approach [viewed July 2017]. fraud. London: FDF, 2013. Available from: https://www.
fdf.org.uk/food-authenticity.aspx [viewed July 2017].
[29] HM GOVERNMENT. Cyber Essentials – Protect your
business against cyber threats. Available from: https:// [40] FOOD AND DRINK FEDERATION. Sustainable
www.cyberaware.gov.uk/cyberessentials/ [viewed July sourcing: Five steps towards managing supply chain
2017]. risk. London: London: FDF, 2014. Available from: http://
www.fdf.org.uk/sustainable-sourcing.aspx [viewed July
[30] CENTRE FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL 2017].
INFRASTRUCTURE. Holistic management of employment
risk (HoMER). London: CPNI, 2012. Available from: [41] NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY CENTRE.10 Steps: A
http://www.cpni.gov.uk/advice/Personnel-security1/ board level responsibility. Available from: https://www.
homer/ [viewed July 2017]. ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/10-steps-board-level-responsibility
[viewed July 2017].
[31] CENTRE FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL
INFRASTRUCTURE. Developing a Security Culture [42] NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY CENTRE. 10 Steps: A
London: CPNI https://www.cpni.gov.uk/developing- Board Level Responsibility. NCSC, 2016. Available from:
security-culture [viewed July 2017]. https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/10-steps-board-level-
responsibility [viewed July 2017].
[32] CREST. Available from: http://www.crest-approved.
org/ [viewed July 2017].
Further reading
[33] Cyber Security Information Sharing Partnership
(CiSP) Available from https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/cisp BRC Global Standard for Food Safety. British Retail
[viewed August 2017]. Consortium.
[34] SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT and FOOD STANDARDS BRITISH RETAIL CONSORTIUM (BRC). Cyber Security
AGENCY. Expert advisory group report the lessons Toolkit: A Guide for Retailers. Available from: https://
to be learned from the 2013 horsemeat incident. brc.org.uk/media/120731/brc-cyber-security-toolkit_
2013. Available from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ final.pdf [viewed July 2017].
Resource/0043/00437268.pdf [viewed July 2017].
CENTRE FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL
[35] WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. International INFRASTRUCTURE. Products and services. Available
Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN). Available from: http://www.cpni.gov.uk/advice/ [viewed July
from: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/ 2017].
infosan/en/ [viewed July 2017].
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. http://ec.europa.eu/
[36] FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF dgs/health_consumer/dyna/consumervoice/create_
THE UNITED NATIONS. Emergency prevention system cv.cfm?cv_id=891
(EMPRES). Available from: http://www.fao.org/
FOOD STANDARDS AGENCY. Principles for preventing
foodchain/empres-prevention-and-early-warning/en/
and responding to food incident. FSA, 2007. Available
[viewed July 2017].
from: http://multimedia.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/
taskforcefactsheet23mar07.pdf [viewed July 2017].

PAS 96:2017
INSTITUTE OF FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. Good

manufacturing practice: A guide to its responsible
management. Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.
MI5 THE SECURITY SERVICE. Current threat level in

the UK. Available from: www.mi5.gov.uk [viewed July
2017].
NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY CENTRE. Guidance.

Available from: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance
[viewed July 2017].
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. Terrorist threats to

food. Guidelines for establishing and strengthening
prevention and response systems. Food Safety Issues
(WHO), 2008.
INTERPOL. Operation Opson. Available from: http://

www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Trafficking-in-illicit-
goods-and-counterfeiting/Operations/Operations/
Operation-Opson [viewed July 2017].
EUROPAL and INTERPOL. Operation Opson III 2013:

Targeting counterfeit and substandard foodstuff.
Available from: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipenforce-opson.
pdf [viewed July 2017].
CIO from IDG (International Data Group - Global) 5

steps to respond to a security breach. Available from:
https://www.cio.com.au/article/580908/5-steps-respond-
security-breach/ [viewed August 2017].
CampdenBRI Guideline 72 TACCP (Threat Assessment

and Critical Control Point) - A practical guide.

British Standards Institution (BSI)
BSI is the independent national body responsible for preparing British Standards and other
standards-related publications, information and services. It presents the UK view on standards
in Europe and at the international level.
BSI is incorporated by Royal Charter. British Standards and other standardization products are
published by BSI Standards Limited.
Revisions Information on standards

British Standards and PASs are periodically updated BSI provides a wide range of information on national,
by amendment or revision. Users of British Standards European and international standards through its
and PASs should make sure that they possess the latest Knowledge Centre.
amendments or editions.
Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 7004
It is the constant aim of BSI to improve the quality of Email: knowledgecentre@bsigroup.com
our products and services. We would be grateful if
BSI Subscribing Members are kept up to date with
anyone finding an inaccuracy or ambiguity while using
standards developments and receive substantial discounts
British Standards would inform the Secretary of the
on the purchase price of standards. For details of these
technical committee responsible, the identity of which
and other benefits contact Membership Administration.
can be found on the inside front cover. Similarly for
PASs, please notify BSI Customer Services. Tel: +44 (0)845 086 9001
Email: membership@bsigroup.com
Tel: +44 (0)845 086 9001
Information regarding online access to British Standards
BSI offers BSI Subscribing Members an individual and PASs via British Standards Online can be found at
updating service called PLUS which ensures that http://shop.bsigroup.com/bsol
subscribers automatically receive the latest editions of
Further information about British Standards is available
British Standards and PASs.
on the BSI website at www.bsigroup.com/standards
Tel: +44 (0)845 086 9001
Email: plus@bsigroup.com
Copyright
All the data, software and documentation set out in
Buying standards all British Standards and other BSI publications are the
property of and copyrighted by BSI, or some person
You may buy PDF and hard copy versions of standards
or entity that owns copyright in the information used
directly using a credit card from the BSI Shop on the
(such as the international standardization bodies) has
website www.bsigroup.com/shop. In addition all
formally licensed such information to BSI for commercial
orders for BSI, international and foreign standards
publication and use. Except as permitted under the
publications can be addressed to BSI Customer Services.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 no extract may
Tel: +44 (0)845 086 9001 be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted
Email: orders@bsigroup.com in any form or by any means – electronic, photocopying,
recording or otherwise – without prior written permission
In response to orders for international standards, BSI
from BSI. This does not preclude the free use, in the
will supply the British Standard implementation of
course of implementing the standard, of necessary details
the relevant international standard, unless otherwise
such as symbols, and size, type or grade designations. If
requested.
these details are to be used for any other purpose than
implementation then the prior written permission of BSI
must be obtained. Details and advice can be obtained
from the Copyright & Licensing Department.
Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 7070
Email: copyright@bsigroup.com
London W4 4AL
United Kingdom
www.bsigroup.com
BSI, 389 Chiswick High Road

Pas96 2017 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pas96 2017 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Licensed copy: BSI Standards, version correct as of 16/11/2017 © British Standards Institution

and drink from deliberate attack

Publishing and copyright information

3 Types of threat ......................................................................................... 4

© The British Standards Institution 2017 i

The British Standards Institution. It came into effect on 16 November 2017.

ii © The British Standards Institution 2017

Use of this document

in sentences in which the principal auxiliary verb is

Commentary, explanation and general informative

Contractual and legal considerations

Compliance with a PAS cannot confer immunity from

© The British Standards Institution 2017 iii

PAS 96 describes Threat Assessment Critical Control

iv © The British Standards Institution 2017

1 Scope 2 Terms and definitions

points in food supply chains. While concerns for the

It is intended to be of use to all organizations, but is of

2.3 food fraud

© The British Standards Institution 2017 1

2) the deliberate misdescription of food, such as: 2.6 hazard

may have been poached.

{SOURCE: CODEX Alimentarius. General Principles of

Figure 1 – A food supply chain

Water Product Distribution

2.9 personnel security 2.11 Threat Assessment Critical Control

© The British Standards Institution 2017 3

3.2 Economically motivated adulteration Case 5

4 © The British Standards Institution 2017

adulteration (from the point of view of the attacker)

© The British Standards Institution 2017 5

The motivation for extortion by either an individual 3.6 Counterfeiting

The motivation for counterfeiting is financial gain, by

course.html [16]. see: http://thecounterfeitreport.com/product/322/ [18].

6 © The British Standards Institution 2017

3.7 Cyber crime Case 19

Modern information and communication technologies

Case 17 Identity theft is perhaps more familiar to the public,

The fraud in both cases 17 and 18 could be carried

© The British Standards Institution 2017 7

4 Understanding the attacker

4.1 General customers or auditors, or ad hoc sampling for analysis

8 © The British Standards Institution 2017

financial loss than harm to the public. If not an insider,

© The British Standards Institution 2017 9

5 Threat Assessment Critical Control Point (TACCP)

5.1 Broad themes 5.2 TACCP process

Food sector professionals want to minimize the chances

TACCP cannot stop individuals or organizations

10 © The British Standards Institution 2017

Figure 2 – Outline TACCP process

Form 15 Monitor horizon 14 Review and 13 Decide &

1 Assess new 11 Likelihood v 12 Identify

2 Identify and 10 Determine if 9 Identify which

5 Identify and 6 Devise flow chart 7 Identify key staff

NOTE 1 An alternative risk approach is CARVER + Shock which is outlined in Annex C.

A standing TACCP team should be formed, which could • communications; and

© The British Standards Institution 2017 11

NOTE 8 Some lateral thinking may be needed.

12 © The British Standards Institution 2017

6.1 Evaluating threats show signs of dissatisfaction?

For the premises:

© The British Standards Institution 2017 13