Chapter 2

Food Safety: Food Crisis Management

Caspar Diederich von der Crone

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73687

Abstract
Food safety is a complex topic, and the various market participants are involved, such as
authorities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), consumer protection bodies and the
media, have a very different, often emotionally charged perspective. This poses a particu-
lar challenge to producers and distributors when deciding on a method to deal with
media attention on unhealthy food, with contaminations and residuals. There are numer-
ous examples of crises caused by impermissible residuals. This shall be illustrated using
concrete examples from the egg, game and poultry industries.

Keywords: basics food law, health risks, microbiological dangers, residuals, HACCP
concept, standards, crisis management, preventions

1. Introduction

Food safety is paramount in the food chains with raw materials contaminations, improper
treatment or storage and incorrect declarations or expiration dates having become a daily
occurrence. Almost every German food company, as well as food companies in other countries,
experiences at least one so-called food crisis over the course of its activities. These are often
triggered by inconspicuous events that are not indicative of a threat initially. However, experi-
ence has shown that what seems like harmless negative customer feedback or complaints can
give rise to a full-blown crisis. The consequences are often initiated by media warnings, which
might in turn lead to product recalls. These are subsequently published by the supervisory
authorities in the European Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed—RASFF [1]. This is associ-
ated with high costs and time expenditures for those parties involved. As a result, recalls can
even threaten the very existence of the distributing company responsible. Moreover, the distri-
bution of unsafe food is usually associated with significant image loss. At the same time, the
question arises when food should be considered hazardous to health following the legal

© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
6 Food Safety - Some Global Trends

intention of the general administrative regulations of the EU Rapid Alert System. The Article
Food Safety and Crisis Management illustrates this using several real practical examples,
which the author Caspar von der Crone has overseen as responsible manager [2] over the
last years.

2. Basics of food safety

The general rule is: Food that is not safe may not be distributed. This is regulated by EU
Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 (Basic Regulation) [3]. In addition, national regulations apply
as for example the German Food and Commodities Act (LFGB) [4]. In a European Law
framework, food is only considered unsafe if it can be assumed that it is harmful to health. In
addition, food is also considered unsafe if it can be assumed that it is not suitable for human
consumption. A differentiation is in order here, as the first description is concerned with
defending against health risks, while the second description only serves to secure commercial
consumer interests. Put differently, consumers’ commercial interests—and not their physical
integrity—should be protected from bad buys and unpleasant surprises to the greatest possi-
ble extent.
The objective is a sustainable business condition along the entire process chain, as shown in
Figure 1 (overview), under the inclusion of ecological, economical and social aspects. This
applies in equal measure to the entire value-added chain, under the consideration of the
respective process steps, starting at the producer and ending at the consumer. The legal
requirements must be included, as well as the interests and requirements of NGOs, paying
particular attention to consumer’s expectations, who make the decision in the end and are an
important part of the process chain.

Figure 1. Food safety and dialogue between relevant groups.

 Food Safety: Food Crisis Management 7
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73687

3. Control scenarios

Modern food control, in other words, is the control for ‘means of live’ [5]. Figure 2 is still at a
nascent stage; however, its roots date back far into the past. Controls to ensure that consumer
demands for healthy food were met have been in place for ages. German Food Law’s history
can be traced to the Middle Ages. Here, the objectives were to fight wine adulterating or
counteract the growing public health risk posed by raw materials that are hazardous for
health, among others. Regulations for meat production were introduced at a very early stage,
with relevant hygiene directives. Regulations concerning the restructuring of food contact
materials (LMBG) were introduced in the 1970s, which allowed the state to act to protect
consumers against damage to health.

Figure 2. Transparency, sustainability and responsibility along the process chain.

The survey conducted by the European Commission in their White Paper on Food Safety from
2000 is additionally worth mentioning. In it, the Commission worked out a division of food
safety responsibilities between the involved actors, with the main responsibility for food safety
lying with the feed producers, the farmers and the food producing companies. In this context,
the HACCP concept (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) was introduced, which
obligates the food company operators to danger analyses and conceptual assessments. The
FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius offers an internationally binding version, which in turn is part
of the ‘General Principles of Food Hygiene’. With the HACCP concept, health risks posed by
food should be identified, evaluated and managed.

The HACCP consists of seven principles:

1. Conduct a hazard analysis.
2. Identify the critical control points (CCPs).
3. Establish critical limits.

4. Monitor CCPs.
8 Food Safety - Some Global Trends

5. Establish corrective action. These shall be implemented if monitoring shows that a certain
CCP is no longer under control.

6. Preparing procedures to verify and confirm the successful operation of the HACCP system.
7. Recordkeeping that considers all processes and records concerning the principles and their
application.
With the EU Basic Food Regulation, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was
established. The EFSA assumes tasks that relate to the scientific evaluation of relevant food
topics at the EU level. The EFSA is also the point of contact for the scientific evaluations related
to certain approval procedures, for example during the approval of food additives.
Every food producer is subject to controls along the entire process chain, starting at the farmer/
producer up to the food retailer, to inspect the adherence to relevant production standards.
Over the last years, many standard-setting bodies have established themselves on the market.
In the area of egg production, this is the KAT System (Association for Controlled Alternative
Animal Husbandry) [6]; for meat production, the QS GmbH (Quality scheme for food) [7].
Both systems cover the entire process chain with specific standards and criteria, and they are
ultimately demanded by retailers for animal product distribution. The International Featured
Standard (IFS) [8] is another controlling body, a standard developed by the food retailers that
places very stringent process quality and traceability demands on processing companies. The
IFS Standard offers additional safety guarantees. The controls take place annually, with the so-
called integrity audits (unannounced inspections) offering further security. By now, producers
and distributors from across the globe operate by the IFS Standard to meet globalised quality,
transparency and efficiency demands. It ensures that the certified companies attain a high
quality and product safety standard.

Figure 1 represents the dialogue between scientific and regulatory actors within the process chain.
Biological, chemical and physical agents, as well as insufficient allergenic property informa-
tion, can all pose health hazards. Additionally, the German General Administrative Regulation
for the implementation of the Rapid Alert System for Food, Food Contact Material and Feed
(AVV Schnellwarnsystem) [9] offers a guideline for the evaluation of a food that poses a poten-
tial health hazard. However, it should be noted that the General Administrative Regulation
has no legally binding qualities and solely serves to harmonise the implementation of Food
Law. Put differently, the General Administrative Regulation has an internally binding effect for
the Food Enforcement Authority at most.
The normal consumer usage conditions should first be considered when deciding whether a
food product is safe or not. For example, this relates to improper handling, which runs counter
to the principle of proper kitchen hygiene in a private residence such as improper storage of
products that should be refrigerated.
The result is that hazardous food products purchased by consumers should be recalled pub-
licly via the media, while the product that is ‘only’ unsuitable for human consumption will be
recalled ‘quietly’ through the commercial buyers.
 Food Safety: Food Crisis Management 9
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73687

Biological, chemical and physical agents, as well as insufficient information about allergenic
properties, can pose particularly significant consumer health hazards. The normal consumer usage
conditions should first be considered at all levels when deciding whether a food product is safe or
not. This means that those types of usage which are not normal but at the same time imaginable
should also not lead to situations that might be hazardous. However, improper handling after
purchasing, insufficient adherence to hygienic principles in private residences, incorrect storage of
products that should be stored under refrigerated conditions, or also the consumption of raw
poultry might have negative health effects and lead to illness. Even if this lies outside the distrib-
utor’s scope of responsibilities, it might be hard to interpret evidence pertaining hereto.

The high incidence of salmonella in the beginning of the 1990s is a good example of this. The
illness was primarily caused by the consumption of eggs or egg products (tiramisu and other
dishes containing raw eggs). Even though the root cause was improper handling and failure to
adhere to refrigeration guidelines, eggs were still suspected to be highly pathogenic, which
subsequently led to a significant consumption reduction. German legislators reacted with
national cooling regulations from the 18th day onwards. This regulation was only lifted a few
years ago, when it is known that cause and effect had been mixed up. There are still salmonellae;
however, consumer education through advice on egg storage after purchase, as well as consis-
tent salmonellae monitoring at the production level, led to a greater degree of food safety. The
same problems have not occurred, even though the regulation prescribing cooling from the 18th
day onwards has been lifted.

This serves to illustrate that a decision on a food product’s safety should also consider that
information communicated to the consumer—including label information and cooking recom-
mendations—contributes to safety. The packaging advice ‘heat before consumption’ is another
classic example that helps avoid health hazards; this instruction points out to the consumer
that the food should be treated accordingly, that is to say, not consumed raw.
This particularly applies to raw poultry meat, for the lion’s share of relevant germs is killed if
these products are heated at 70 C for at least 10 min. This also includes good kitchen hygiene
and know-how on handling and processing food intended for immediate consumption.

4. Hazard to human health

The exact definition of a hazard to human health as it relates to regulations is not concretised
or clarified further legally. However, as it concerns a hazard that is triggered by the consump-
tion of affected food, the basics of Food Law apply at the least. Following Article 3 (14) of the
Basic Regulation, a hazard is a biological, chemical or physical agent in a foodstuff, or condi-
tion of a foodstuff, that might negatively influence health.
In principle, physical, biological and chemical hazards to human health are imaginable. How-
ever, in the production of food commodities, focus is clearly placed on ‘chemical components’
due to the complex structures [10].
10 Food Safety - Some Global Trends

Biological dangers that originate from the commodity itself are not plausible. If finished
products, such as kitchen utensils, are passed onto the consumer, there is only limited neces-
sity due to the common household cleaning before use.
The circumstances are different for convenience food. A possible, if still unlikely, practical
scenario might be the contamination of food commodities during production, for example
due to an ill employee. Today, legal requirements (instruction obligations) make the risk of
transmitting certain legally relevant illnesses significantly less likely and rather negligible.
Food commodities can also pose a threat through physical contamination. Foreign bodies, as well,
are not that uncommon. Material fatigue and damages might lead to foreign bodies entering a
food product such as metal residues because of a malfunctioning or broken metal detector.
Another example comes from game: metal residues from pellets have led to a (in part com-
plete) ban on wild hare meat. However, this was not due to the metal residues themselves, but
rather due to the fact that the pellets contained lead. Lead residues in game can pose a risk to
human health from a food inspection perspective. Pellets containing lead were the standard
hunting shot until recently. The German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL)
[11], German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) [12] and the European Poultry, Egg
and Game Association (EPEGA) [13] have assumed responsibility and performed large-scale
lead-residual monitoring in killed game. The research project ‘Food Safety of Killed Game’ can
be accessed publicly on the BMEL website.
The results did not indicate a direct health hazard with proper hunting. However, the indi-
cated consumption was rather negligible at 0.5 kg per inhabitant. All the same, heavy game
consumers (hunters), children and pregnant women were deemed at risk. The situation has led
to changes as lead-containing shot is increasingly replaced by lead-free ammunition since then.
This makes game a safe product again. This example shows that small effects can lead to
serious issues that cast shadows over entire industries.

5. Microbiological hazards

Food hazards are most commonly caused by microbiological organisms. Generally speaking,
bacteria play a vital role in food production. Useful bacteria influence food properties posi-
tively, think of aromas. Unwanted bacteria in and on food can negatively influence product
quality as spoilage agents or even pose a food safety risk as pathogenic agents.

Many food products—of animal origin in particular—present an ideal culture medium for
bacteria, offering optimal living and multiplication conditions. A classic example is the salmo-
nellae in the products containing raw egg or raw poultry mentioned before. Good hygiene is
essential in impeding the multiplication and spread of microorganisms. This also includes the
systematic cooling of food products of animal origin, which additionally stops the spreading of
germs. This makes compliance with the cooling chain another important preventative mea-
sure, just like proper heating.
The Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 [14] on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs
offers a legal foundation. This regulation contains the so-called hygiene package from 2004,
 Food Safety: Food Crisis Management 11
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73687

with it, the European Union renewed its food hygiene regulations. Since 2004, there has been
another paradigm shift in the distribution of food product of animal origin. Another example
from the commercial exploitation of game: This industry was also plagued by complaints and
scandals that cast a shadow on the commercial viability of game distribution, as old traditions
were followed, and the cooling chain was not immediately adhered to, or adhered to at all,
after the kill. This led to microbiological values that in part far exceeded the regulated maxi-
mum values and in turn led to recalls and closures of game-processing companies. In his
function as the General Manager of European Poultry, Egg and Game Association, the author
of this article initiated regulations for good game hygiene, connected to a microbiological
assessment. This was in the interest of the associations’ member companies and served as a
foundation for consumer health protection. Extensive studies of killed game under various
cooling requirements and game carcase treatment after killing showed that it is well possible to
adhere to the microbiological regulations. The so-called game guidelines [15], with specific
provision for the handling of killed game and distribution regulations, as well as the associated
consequences, have established standards that ultimately contributed to restoring consumer
trust, making properly treated game considered a safe food product again.

The illustrations and explanations on food safety mentioned above merely represent a foray
into Food Law. The regulations are very complex at a national and EU level and cannot be
treated more comprehensively in this article. In the following discussion of food safety, further
practical examples serve to illustrate the influence of crisis management and food safety.

6. Levels of responsibilities and competences

All parties involved in refining food products, at all levels, are responsible for their safety, with
the primary responsibility placed on the producer. The responsibilities of producers and
distributors are orientated following the principle of concrete influences within the scope of

Figure 3. The process chain: Levels and participants.

12 Food Safety - Some Global Trends

activities. Additionally, the producers should, in the context of their business activities, take all
measures appropriate to recognise potential hazards, befitting the properties of the products
they deliver, and to take precautions against potential consumer hazards.
Figure 3 illustrates the various process levels. Here, each participant bears equal responsibility
for the safety of a certain product, from production to the final customer purchase. The parties
involved should assure that the condition and labelling of the product adhere to all legal
requirements along the entire chain. The requirements that apply at the various process levels
are provided by the government, while nongovernmental organisations significantly influence
the public opinion formation process during crises. A constructive dialogue with the supply
chain should take place with the relevant stakeholders.

7. Crisis management

Crisis management above all entails crisis management in collaboration with the responsible
authorities. Attempts by a company to cover up or ignore an issue are particularly problematic.
The author of this article has faced numerous crises up front, providing the practical experience
to manage these. In the following, practical crisis examples are used to illustrate and elucidate
what measures can be used in what ways to guarantee a future-proof presentation of prevention.
Some essential perspectives on crisis management:
Customer, authority, or consumer complaints cannot be left unanswered. They are a vital
source of information about the safety of a company’s products. In principle, it does not matter
whether a customer complains that a product expired before the indicated expiry date, or that
this is documented in an officially logged complaint. In all cases, the same concrete circum-
stance applies, namely, that the products expired before the expiry date. This might have
various causes, some of which might not be attributable to the producer (for example, an
interruption of the cooling chain at the retailer).

If the food business operator fails to follow up on this complaint and fails to process this
complaint in an appropriate manner, the situation might develop into an actual crisis. This
rings true particularly considering the fact that authorities, after repeat comparable violations,
no longer assume negligence but rather accuse the food business operator of intent.

Within a crisis management context, all procedures and work instructions relating to the
handling process of complaints should be defined. An example of this is the development of
forms for consumer complaints to help employees summarise complaints by phone or in
writing, with an accompanying work instruction. Here, the development of a crisis plan is of
the utmost importance, and this is a type of work instruction that prescribes how to act in crisis
situations. This not only applies to the company itself; authorities are also obligated to develop
crisis plans. This is fundamentally regulated by the Basic Regulation of the European Com-
mission, which drafts a general crisis management strategy together with the European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA) and the member states. This strategy is used if the preventive, curative,
and reductive risk measures defined in the Basic Regulation do not suffice.
 Food Safety: Food Crisis Management 13
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73687

Another method to improve food safety lies in informing consumers, by increasing their
knowledge of food and certain potential hazards related to food. Poultry offers another exam-
ple. If it is cleaned in water that is subsequently used to wash lettuce leaves, this might lead to
salmonellae finding their way into the food. This is why good kitchen hygiene practices are of
cardinal importance. Gaps in consumer knowledge can be filled by relevant product informa-
tion or by informational campaigns. This information should be written in simple language.

This goes to show that ‘risk minimisation’ is a very diverse topic, some practical examples are
explored in the following.

8. Residues and dioxins

The so-called dioxin crisis at the end of 2011 led to an official warning about foodstuff that was
not suitable for distribution. This crisis primarily affected eggs and poultry. Noteworthy about
this crisis is not the circumstance that fatty acids in milk which might contain dioxins—
primarily intended for technical purposes—were potentially mixed in with compound feed
for animal rearing in a feed plant. The actual cause was dioxins in this feed that stored
themselves in the fatty acid, leading to egg and poultry meat contamination, among other
animal product contaminations, later.
Dioxins have led to significant problems in the past. The first of these was a chemical accident
in Seveso, Italy, in the middle of the 1970s, with approx. 2 kg of dioxins released into the
environment, leading to serious diseases. Dioxin is considered a carcinogen with significant
adverse health effects, which in turn explains the fears of consumers, as well as the potential
effects of dioxin residues.
The Belgian dioxin crisis took place in 1999. The improper use of frying oils in animal feed led
to dioxin findings in eggs. At the time, this had catastrophic effects on egg consumption, which
was virtually reduced to zero out of fear for diseases. The emotional perception played an
enormous role in this, even though only relatively minor dioxin traces were found. However,
the actual problem was that the egg origins could not be traced, which led to all eggs being
taken off of retailers’ shelves.
As a consequence, the Association for Controlled Alternative Animal Husbandry (KAT), at the
time headed by Caspar von der Crone, advocated a general ban on feed with animal protein.
While this might increase production costs, it would allow the industry to regain consumer
trust, capable of contributing significantly to food safety.
Another case occurred in 2002, the so-called Nitrofen scandal. Nitrofen is an herbicide that had
been used in the agricultural industry. It turned out later that Nitrofen is a carcinogen that is
not broken down by the body but rather stored in animal fatty tissue, which can in turn be
found in the eggs of laying hens. These residuals were found in the summer of 2002. Nitrofen
was one of many pesticides already forbidden in the EG but still allowed in the DDR up to
1999. This led to remaining stock with contaminated feed in a storage after the German
reunification, which was in turn inspected and cleaned insufficiently before being fed to laying
hens as organic feed, among others.
14 Food Safety - Some Global Trends

This gave rise to another scandal, in the area of organic production, with extensive recall
actions as a result. The affected companies could be identified exactly in the beginning. The
database system developed by KAT at the time, striving to safeguard traceability, as well as the
newly introduced identification measures for individual eggs with origin labelling, proved to
be an effective preventative measure. For the first time, it was possible to recall contaminated
eggs in a targeted manner, avoiding any negative effects or harm to consumers.

The affected companies suffered significant losses, even threatening their very existence, but
managed to rebuild trust through consistent action-taking. There was an awareness that
product traceability is one of the most important food safety criteria in crisis situations. This
led to the EC decision to adopt individual egg labelling as a binding requirement for egg
distributors across the EU.

The dioxin crisis of 2011 took place under similar circumstances. Affected companies were
closed, and recall actions were initiated. Media pressure was enormous, and consumers were
requested to either return or destroy food, primarily eggs and poultry. Thanks to KAT and
the mandatory producer code printed on each egg [16], the eggs origins could be traced. The
names of the affected companies—publicly traceable through the code—were disclosed by
authorities with an accompanying warning. However, the eggs already reached consumers’
refrigerators, as the dioxin was discovered in November, but the authorities did not inform
consumers of dioxin residue hazards until January 2012. At this point, most eggs were
already consumed. Similar recall actions were initiated for poultry; however, this proved to
be significantly more difficult as poultry was not distributed using the same traceability
system as the KAT individual egg labelling system. This led to immense reputation damage,
as well as more critical consumer attitudes, and in turn reduced egg consumption. Interest-
ingly, the organic food industry benefited from this, as consumers expected that the organic
industry adhered to stronger regulations and was subject to more stringent controls, improv-
ing safety.

At the end of 2014, the organic food industry was rattled by several events. Residues of a
corrosive agent and a fungal toxin were discovered, and the products of numerous companies
were stripped of the right to be sold with an organic seal as a result. The contaminated feed,
still labelled as ‘organic’ by a Dutch distributor, had been distributed to organic farmers in
Germany.

A total of 2000 tonnes of affected feed, sunflower cake, was distributed by a Dutch distributor
as organic feed. Organically producing laying hen companies, as well as pig, cattle and sheep
farmers, were affected.
There are no special restrictions for pesticide in place in conventional farming, quite different
from organic production, which uses stricter standards. The affected companies faced grave
consequences. Goods that had already been delivered were recalled by regional authorities,
and goods that were being produced currently could not be distributed for a certain period. It
is interesting to note that these regulations were only implemented in individual German
states, while the remaining lion’s share of cakes contaminated with pesticides could still be
processed for organic production in other EU countries. There was no health hazard, but rather
a component in the feed that is not permitted in organic production.
 Food Safety: Food Crisis Management 15
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73687

Regional German authorities, in the meantime, considered this circumstance consumer decep-
tion following the EU Regulation on Organic Farming [17], as this stipulates that only
uncontaminated organic feed can be used.
The most recent incident took place in the Netherlands in 2017, where the banned insecticide
(against mites) Fipronil was used. Again, contaminated eggs reached the market—almost
exclusively eggs produced in the Netherlands—which resulted in a recall for eggs with the
NL (the Netherlands) identification. Egg products were also affected, as were processed prod-
ucts such as cakes, noodles and other products containing egg. Here too, the individual egg
identification system proved very effective, with targeted recall measures, allowing for the
continued distribution of uncontaminated goods. However, processed products remained in a
grey area.

9. Preventative measures

Crisis situations can occur suddenly and unexpectedly, even in a carefully managed company.
Internal business process problems as well as external, unforeseen difficulties might be the
cause. Therefore, a preventative strategy should consider all potential measures that might
equip a company to deal with such situations.
This includes general preventative measures (quality measures, self-controlling systems fol-
lowing the HACCP concept principles, traceability, claims and complaints, false management,
and the like). Additionally, specific measures should be considered such as the development of
a crisis plan and special measures for at-risk products.
Therefore, any properly managed company requires a quality management book, in which the
procedural instructions regarding quality politics, as well as the principles of quality assur-
ance, are defined. By now, also in the light of increasing pressure of retailers, systems following
the International Feature Standard (IFS) have established themselves. This includes the British
Retail Consortium (BRC) [18] and Global Standard for Food Safety, with similar regulations.
A vital component of a quality management system is the aforementioned HACCP concept,
which is required following Art. 5 of the Regulation 852/2002 (EC) No. 852/2004 on Food
Hygiene. This regulation prescribes that food business operators must develop, implement
and maintain one or more procedures based on the HACCP principles.

10. Summary

Food safety is a very complex topic. Crises have repeatedly led to product recalls in the past
and significantly contributed to consumer unrest. This not only influenced consumption,
which collapsed in part, but also resulted in significant damage to the reputation of the
product itself. The examples mentioned from the egg, poultry and game industries illustrate
this very clearly. Minor triggers have shown time, and again that a critical light was cast on
many food products, also clean food products. Dioxins on forbidden ingredients can be
16 Food Safety - Some Global Trends

considered criminal. Environmental residues or soil contaminations, on the other hand, are
difficult to assess for producers and pose a risk that is hard to perceive. Oftentimes, these
findings are caused by so-called inherited contaminations, as can be seen in the organic egg
industry during the Nitrofuran crisis. Producers cannot be held accountable for this; however,
they do bear the full risk and consequences associated with this. Unfortunately, it has shown
repeatedly in the past that economic factors alone led to crises. The initial use of cheap
additives and other ingredients, which did not appear to contain contaminations but did in
the end, have contributed to this. Therefore, the food producer should be aware of the respon-
sibilities associated to these activities. However, it can certainly be recommended to inspect
purchased feed and similar products before use. Suppliers should have a certain certification.
Product recalls by authorities and public disclosure, as well as rapid alert systems (EC), are
further sensible measures. However, prevention is better than cure, and high-quality produc-
tion, as well as adherence to stringent standards, is paramount.

Acknowledgements

The author likes to thank Dr. Markus Grube, RA KWG, Gummersbach for his support and
critical reading of the manuscript.

Author details

Caspar Diederich von der Crone

Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

Doctoral School of Alexandre Lamfalussy, Faculty of Economics, University of Sopron,

Sopron, Hungary

References

[1] RAPEX, website: https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/rasff_en

[2] von der Crone, Managing Director KAT. Verein für kontrollierte alternative. Germany:
Tierhaltungsformen e.V. http://www.kat.ec
[3] EUR-LEX, website: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/?uri=celex:32002R0178
[4] JURIS, website: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/lfgb/BJNR261810005.html

[5] Quote from the Food Law Risk Assessment Manual

[6] KAT egg production requirements, website: http://KAT.ec
[7] Standards QS GmbH, website: https://www.q-s.de
 Food Safety: Food Crisis Management 17
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73687

[8] IFS certification, website: https://www.ifs-certification.com/index.php/de/

[9] Administration regulations, website: http://www.verwaltungsvorschriften-im-internet.
de/bsvwvbund_09112009_329225270006.htm
[10] Food Commodities, excerpt “Handbuch der Risikobewertung” KWG Rechtsanwälte,
Alexander Pitzer, website: http://kwg.eu
[11] Bleifreie Geschosse website: https://www.bmel.de/DE/Wald-Fischerei/04_Jagd/_texte/
BleifreieJagdgeschosse.html

[12] Research project lead website: http://www.bfr.bund.de/de/forschungsprojekt_lebensmit-

telsicherheit_von_jagdlich_gewonnenem_wildbret-129597.html
[13] Lead residuals in venison, website EPEGA, http://www.epega.org, internal members area
[14] EUR-LEX, website http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:338:
0001:0026:DE:PDF
[15] Venison guidelines EPEGA, website http://www.epega.org, internal members area

[16] Egg identification, website http://www.was-steht-auf-dem-Ei.de

[17] EUO-LEX, websitehttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:189:
0001:0023:DE
[18] BRC Standard, website, https://www.brcglobalstandards.com/brc-global-standards/food-
safety/