Author: Paul Curwell

Sabotage, as it is in general use today, means “to damage or destroy equipment, weapons, or buildings in order to prevent the success of an enemy or competitor” (Cambridge Dictionary) and is commonly associated with war or nation state espionage. However, the origin of the word reportedly comes from the industrial revolution, where exploitation of workers was rife with underpayment (or non-payment) of wages and poor industrial safety conditions. French shoemakers wearing sabots reportedly rebelled, damaging and / or destroying their employer’s manufacturing equipment it in the process, becoming ‘saboteurs’.

Since this time, there have been countless instances of sabotage outside of war, particularly relating to either industrial or environmental action. Some acts of industrial sabotage are caused by employees, contractors or suppliers (trusted insiders), whilst others have been perpetrated by customers or unrelated parties as outlined in an interesting article from CNBC in Canada.

So what is product tampering anyway?

‘Product Tampering’ is a form of sabotage, and refers to actions taken to interfere with a product designed for use, or consumption, by the general public. Many industrial cases of product tampering involve food, pharmaceutical or medical products. Product Tampering can occur during or after manufacture (i.e. at any point in the supply chain until it reaches the End User), and is addressed under at least two pieces of Australian Legislation:

• The Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) defines both to ‘tamper’ and ‘product tampering’ in the context of manufacturers failing to report and / or recall. In Australia, the definition of ‘therapeutic goods’ includes medicines, medical devices, disinfectants and other goods such as blood products.

• Meaning of actual or potential tampering  – in relation to therapeutic goods, means: (a)  tampering with the therapeutic goods; or (b)  causing the therapeutic goods to be tampered with; or (c)  proposing to tamper with the therapeutic goods; or (d)  proposing to cause the therapeutic goods to be tampered with.
• The offence of contaminating goods (actual or threatened) with the intent to cause public alarm or anxiety is captured under Part 9.6 – Contamination of Goods of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which creates three categories of offence, each of which can potentially result in up to 15 years imprisonment:
  • Contaminating Goods (Section 380.2)
  • Threatening to Contaminate Goods (Section 380.3)
  • Making false statements about Contaminated Goods (Section 380.4)
• Australia’s food system is defined as part of our ‘Public Infrastructure‘ under Division 82 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which pertains to Sabotage offences primarily in relation to National Security.

2018: the year Australian’s found sewing needles in their strawberries

On 9th September 2018, media reports started to emerge with stories claiming punnets of Australian strawberries were found on the shelves of Australian supermarkets with metal sewing needles stuck in the fruit. If consumed by an unsuspecting customer, the sewing needles could cause severe injury, potentially worse.

Initial reports of the contaminated berries came from a small number of shops, suggesting the tampering could have happened locally (i.e. by a person walking into a number of stores and inserting the needles without being detected). However, as the incident evolved, consumers and stores across multiple states started reporting tampered products, indicating contamination occurred much earlier in the supply chain either at the point of manufacture and packaging (i.e. the strawberry farm) or at some distribution point.

Media reports quote Police as having identified somewhere between 186 and 230 instances of contaminated strawberries. On 11 November 2018, a 51-year old female supervisor at a Queensland strawberry farm was arrested, and subsequently charged with 7 counts of Contaminating Goods under the Crimes Act 1995 (Cth). At a bail hearing, the Magistrate was quoted by the media as stating the Crown alleged the perpetrator was “motivated by spite or revenge” over a “workplace grievance”. Whilst I couldn’t find any court documents indicating the case had proceeded to trial at the time of this article, readers who are interested in learning more about the case can find a collection of related articles here.

So what can (should) businesses do to manage the threat of product tampering by trusted insiders?

Australia’s 2018 Strawberry Tampering incident was described by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand as a “best case scenario as the tampering was evident and the product packaged” (p. 8). Much of this ‘follow-up report to Government‘ focused on vulnerabilities in the Supply Chain, and the need for improved Supply Chain Security in the Food Sector. However, the report is silent on this incident being caused by an allegedly disgruntled employee, and is silent on this incident being effectively an insider threat.

For companies that make products, implementing a Supply Chain Security Program, such as that outlined in ISO 28000:2007, is critical to helping manage risks from the stage of ‘raw material / ingredient’ inputs through to manufacturing, distribution, transportation, retailing, and ultimately the End User. Additional guidance can also be sought from Product Liability Insurers: Liberty Specialty Markets is a leader in Australian product contamination insurance through their Crisis Management cover. However, I am yet to encounter a Supply Chain Security Program which incorporates prevention and detection aspects such as ‘behavioural indicators’ found in an Insider Threat Program when considering security risks arising from employees and contractors.

For example, could greater awareness of the behavioural indicators associated with disaffected or aggrieved employees have enabled line managers in Australia’s strawberry tampering to spot the employee’s changing behaviour? Based on the outcomes of research into many other types of insider threat, I suspect the answer would be yes. To effectively manage the risk of workplace sabotage in the form of product tampering, organisations which create or deal in things (‘products’) as opposed to services need to combine elements of a traditional Supply Chain Security Program with the missing elements of an Insider Threat Program. Unfortunately, all to often product tampering issues are viewed from a purely supply chain lens which overlooks the involvement by a trusted insider.

Further Reading

• 9 News (n.d.). Strawberry Needles: Food Recall, Collections Page, 9news.com.au
• Australian Associated Press (2018). Women charged with strawberry needle contamination sought revenge, court told. Published 12 November 2018, The Guardian
• BBC News (2018). Australia strawberry scare: Accused saboteur ‘motivated by spite’, 12 November 2018. BBC News
• Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), Federal Register of Legislation.
• Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (2019). Strawberry tampering incident Debrief 1 May 2019: Follow-up report to Government, www.foodstandards.gov.au
• International Standards Organisation (2007). ISO 28000:2007 Specification for security management systems for the supply chain, www.iso.org.
• Liberty Specialty Markets Australia (2021). Crisis Management Insurance.
• Schwartz, D. (2012). 5 major product tampering cases. CBC News Canada
• Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth), Federal Register of Legislation

DISCLAIMER: All information presented on @ForewarnedBlog is intended for general information purposes only. The content of @ForewarnedBlog should not be considered legal or any other form of advice or opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Readers should consult their own advisers experts or lawyers on any specific questions they may have. Any reliance placed upon @ForewarnedBlog is strictly at the reader’s own risk. The views expressed by the authors are entirely their own and do not represent the views of, nor are they endorsed by, their respective employers. Refer here for full disclaimer.