1 CITATION: Lord, N., Spencer, J., Albanese, J. and Flores Elizondo, C. (2017) ‘In Pursuit of Food System Integrity: The Situational Prevention of Food Fraud Enterprise’, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, Online First, DOI 10.1007/s10610-017-9352-3, available at: https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10610-017-9352- 3?author_access_token=xlMOEgaELXXcchXRG447Zve4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY5SOwF2ye1MdnU7rp8 PePkBlddcz6K7949ulrNAX2UWNF29fPC2qVJW2Mw382kbDEFzoUkv4MPDLe6ipUhZARk98W9_zl60yv2 OEnlck8jglQ%3D%3D In Pursuit of Food System Integrity: The Situational Prevention of Food Fraud 10 Enterprise Nicholas Lord, University of Manchester Jon Spencer, University of Manchester Jay Albanese, Virginia Commonwealth University Cecilia Flores Elizondo, University of Manchester Introduction There is considerable talk surrounding food fraud policy with a convergence around the need to ‘do something about it’ and a divergence around how this should be done as seen in the decisions and actions of concerned stakeholders. Food fraud is associated with varying policy responses - ‘food safety’, ‘food crime’, ‘food standards’, ‘food integrity’, ‘food authenticity’, ‘food security’, ‘food 20 defence’ – each imply different forms of regulatory action. These range from regulatory measures to persuade business to comply with prescriptive standards including self-regulation through the criminal sanctioning of individual offenders to the development of DNA testing of food products, each having a place within a broader regulatory framework. Underpinning each of these policy agendas is a need to prevent food fraud, food crime and food harms, and to improve the integrity of the food system. This was central to the Elliot Review into the integrity and assurance of food supply networks (Elliot, 2014). We argue in favour of a mode of analysis that foregrounds food fraud as ‘situated action’ and pursues proactive and preventive ‘before the fact’ policies and interventions, rather than more repressive and reactive ‘after the fact’ 30