International Survey of Food Fraud and Related Terminology: Preliminary Results and Discussion.

The food industry is advancing at a rapid pace and consumer sensitivity to food safety scares and food fraud scandals is further amplified by rapid communication such as by social media. Academia, regulators, and industry practitioners alike struggle with an evolving issue regarding new terms and definitions including food fraud, food authenticity, food integrity, food protection, economically motivated adulteration, food crime, food security, contaminant, adulterant, and others. This research addressed some of the global need for clarification and harmonization of commonly used terminology. The 150 survey responses were received from various food-related workgroups or committee members, communication with recognized experts, and announcements to the food industry in general. Overall food fraud was identified as a "food safety" issue (86%). The food quality and manufacturing respondents focused mainly on incoming goods and adulterant-substances (<50%) rather than the other illegal activities such as counterfeiting, theft, gray market/diversion, and smuggling. Of the terms included to represent "intentional deception for economic gain" the respondents generally agreed with food fraud as the preferred term. Overall, the preference was 50% "food fraud," 15% "economically motivated adulteration" EMA, 9% "food protection," 7% "food integrity," 5% "food authenticity," and 2% "food crime." It appears that "food protection" and "food integrity" are terms that cover broader concepts such as all types of intentional acts and even possibly food safety or food quality. "Food authenticity" was defined with the phrase "to ensure" so seemed to be identified as an "attribute" that helped define fraudulent acts. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Food Fraud-illegal deception for economic gain using food-is a rapidly evolving research topic and is facing confusion due to the use of different terms and definitions. This research survey presented common definitions and publication details to gain insight that could help provide clarity. The insight from this report provides guidance for others who are harmonizing terminology and setting the overall strategic direction.

Expressive writing disorders: an analysis of theoretical views.

Three prominent theories of writing were found in a literature review of Psychlit, educational journals and Medline, and a fourth global theory relating writing to intact cerebral integrity was also hypothesized. These theories were then tested by attempting to predict writing scores among a sample of 44 individuals with academic difficulties. Significant support was found for a memory and attention model, the dysgraphia model, and an abstract sequential analysis model. Surprisingly, measures of the overall cortical integrity were not significantly related to writing behavior in this sample, but this finding may reflect excluding brain damaged subjects in this study. Also, the abstract sequential analysis model appeared to function differently than expected. The results indicate it is important to assess the cognitive contributions of writing difficulties to guide remediation. Larger scale research on the sources of writing disorders is also recommended.