GIFSQ Tools · Module 13 — HACCP, Food Safety & Regulatory Compliance · Tool 256 of 500
Score a raw material for food fraud vulnerability: opportunity and motivation (1–5) against the strength of the controls (1–5), on the SSAFE-style 2–50 scale.
Try sample values — fills the form with the worked example below.
–
Vulnerability score (2–50)
–
Vulnerability (%)
–
Vulnerability level
Equation: Vulnerability score = (opportunity + motivation) × (6 − control strength), giving a 2–50 scale. Vulnerability (%) = score ÷ 50 × 100. Level: below 30% Low, 30–59% Medium, 60% and above High.
Method: Food fraud vulnerability assessment following the SSAFE Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment (FFVA) tool approach and the vulnerability assessment required by GFSI-benchmarked schemes (FSSC 22000, BRCGS Food Safety). Food fraud is distinct from food defence: FDA FSMA Intentional Adulteration rule (21 CFR 121) covers defence against intentional harm, while fraud is economically motivated adulteration.
Assumptions: the three scores are the team’s judged ratings for this material from this supplier; a strong control lowers the score but never removes the motivation.
Limitations: the score ranks materials for mitigation — it is not a probability of fraud, and a low score never excuses skipping authenticity testing for a high-value material.
Rounding: the score is a whole number; the percentage to 2 decimal places; intermediates unrounded.
This is a calculation aid, not a laboratory report — confirm against your accredited method before citing a value.
Method: Food fraud vulnerability assessment following the SSAFE Food Fraud Vulnerability Assessment (FFVA) tool approach and the vulnerability assessment required by GFSI-benchmarked schemes (FSSC 22000, BRCGS Food Safety). Food fraud is distinct from food defence: FDA FSMA Intentional Adulteration rule (21 CFR 121) covers defence against intentional harm, while fraud is economically motivated adulteration.
Assumptions: the three scores are the team’s judged ratings for this material from this supplier; a strong control lowers the score but never removes the motivation.
Limitations: the score ranks materials for mitigation — it is not a probability of fraud, and a low score never excuses skipping authenticity testing for a high-value material.
Rounding: the score is a whole number; the percentage to 2 decimal places; intermediates unrounded.
This is a calculation aid, not a laboratory report — confirm against your accredited method before citing a value.
Worked example: Opportunity 4, motivation 3, controls 2: score (4 + 3) × (6 − 2) = 28 (56.00% — Medium).
Enter values above to see results.
Re-score a material when its price spikes, its origin changes or a fraud incident is reported for it — all three raise opportunity or motivation. Tool 256 of 500 — GIFSQ
