iComplai’s TACCP monitoring watches for deliberate attacks on food worldwide, works out which of them bear on your products, your suppliers and your markets, and puts that in front of you three ways — a dashboard, a weekly report and a chat agent that carries your playbook.
A TACCP assessment is judged on whether it is current. Most sites can produce the document; far fewer can show what informed it since the last review. TACCP monitoring closes that gap by keeping a dated record of what has actually happened — to your categories, in your markets, and to the sector around you.
TACCP monitoring is the continuous worldwide screening of deliberate attacks on food — contamination, tampering, extortion and sabotage — and the judgement of which of them bear on your operation. It is the evidence layer underneath a TACCP threat assessment, not a replacement for it.
Cases are read in the language they were published in and judged against your operation rather than against the general flow of signals. What reaches you is what could plausibly touch your products, your sites or the people who supply you, with the reasoning attached — so you can see why it was sent, and decide what it changes.
A contamination case in your category gets national coverage, and imitation becomes more likely for weeks afterwards. A redundancy programme starts at a co-manufacturer. Product recalled in one market turns up back on a shelf in another. None of these appears in an official record, and each one changes what your assessment ought to say.
Three deliverables, all drawn from the same worldwide screening by the AI analyst.
Where your picture lives: what is happening, how exposed you are, and what to look at first.
What changed in the week, in your branding, short enough to be read by people who did not ask for it.
The playbook, answering in plain language. Ask what an event means for your sites and get the reasoning, not a rule trace.
Judgement is most of the work. Far more is read than is ever sent, and the record of what was set aside is as much a part of the evidence trail as what was escalated. These are four cases from late August to mid-October 2026.
| Date | What came up | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| 12 Oct | Refrigeration at hundreds of supermarkets remotely turned up to 50 °C overnight; chilled and frozen food thrown away — France | Sent — the attack reached the food, not just the systems |
| 2 Sep | Convenience store pursues legal action over intentional food tampering filmed in a viral video — Philippines | Sent — imitation risk for the market |
| 1 Sep | Gift-card tampering scam at a grocery retailer — Australia | Set aside — tampering, but not food |
| 26 Aug | 82 tonnes of sesame seed intercepted, adulterated with dust, mould and inferior grains — Nigeria | Fraud, not defence — the motive is money |
Two of the four reached the customer. One was tampering but not food. One had an economic motive, which makes it a food fraud question rather than a food defence one. Cases are also followed over time — a contamination case that reaches court three years later is still the same case, and the outcome is worth knowing.
Official records tell you what has been found in product. They do not tell you that a contamination case in your category was publicised last Tuesday, or that the accused was an employee working a notice period. TACCP monitoring is additive: it covers the deliberate-attack signal that official records are not designed to carry, and leaves your existing feeds alone.
No. The assessment, the scoring and the plan stay with your team, where the standards require them to be. What changes is the evidence underneath: instead of reconstructing the threat picture from memory at review time, you have a dated record of what was screened, what was escalated and what each decision was based on.
Because motive is what makes an attack foreseeable, and different motives reach the product by different routes. An extortionist needs the contamination to be found and publicised. Someone acting on a grievance needs no reach at all beyond the access the job already grants. Controls that stop one do very little about the other, so the motive decides which control is actually being tested.
Screening is worldwide and multilingual. What you see is scoped to your products, the markets you sell in and your supplier base, all agreed at the start, so the picture stays about your operation rather than about signals in general.
We will walk through a live pull for your categories and markets, and you will see what would have reached you and what would not.
Request a walkthrough All risk modules