Traceability in Food Supply Chain (PDF)

Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Food Control...

Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184 Review Traceability in a food supply chain: Safety and quality Myo Min Aung, Yoon Seok Chang* Ubiquitous Technology Application Research Centre (UTAC), Hanggongdae-Gil, Hwajeon-Dong, Deogyang-Gu, Goyang-City, a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 24 October 2012 Received in revised form 21 October 2013 Accepted 5 November 2013 Keywords: Traceability Safety Quality Food supply chain Identiﬁcation Food contamination Contents 1. Introduction.............................................. 2. The context of traceability............................... 2.1. Defining traceability.............................. 2.2. Principle of traceability.......................... 2.3. Traceability objectives............................ 3. Safety and quality, concerns for food industry............ 3.1. Social............................................. 3.2. Economic........................................... 3.3. Environmental...................................... 4. Requirements of traceability regarding safety and 4.1. Regulations and standards for traceability......... 4.2. Food safety versus food quality.................... 4.3. The link between traceability & quality 5. Food contamination and traceability....................... 6. The need for real time traceability....................... 7. Traceability in the food industry......................... 8. Technologies applied...................................... 9. Problems and implementation hurdles in food traceability.. 10. Conclusions............................................... Acknowledgements.......................................... References................................................ * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ82 23000150; fax: þ82 23000151. E-mail addresses: (M.M. Aung), [email protected], data-cfemail="6a1305050409020b040d2a010b1f440b09440118">[email protected] (Y.S. Chang). rights reserved. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184 173 under consideration”. ISO guidelines further specify that trace- ability may refer to the origin of materials and parts, the processing history, and the distribution and location of the product after delivery. The European Union (EU) regulation 178/2002 (EU, 2002) nar- rows the deﬁnition to the food industry by deﬁning traceability as the ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food-producing animal or substance intended to be, or expected to be incorporated into a food or feed, through all stages of production, processing and dis- tribution. The Codex Alimentarious Commission (CAC, 2005) de- ﬁnes a more concise deﬁnition of traceability as the ability to follow the movement of a food through speciﬁed stage(s) of production, processing and distribution. 'The deﬁnition of food traceability is found different depending on the sector of the food industry. For the agro-based food chain, Wilson and Clarke (1998) deﬁned food traceability as the information necessary to describe the production history of a food crop, and any subsequent transformations or processes that the crop might be subject to on its journey from the grower to the consumer’s plate. In contrast, traceability is deﬁned as a system able to maintain a credible custody of identiﬁcation for animals or animal products through various steps within the food chain, from the farm to the retailer (Dalvit, Marchi, & Cassandro, 2007; McKean, 2001). Olsen and Borit (2013) redeﬁned traceability based on the def- initions of ISO as the ability to access any or all information relating to that which is under consideration, throughout its entire life cy- cle, by means of recorded identiﬁcations. Karlsen, Olsen, and Donnnelly (2010) highlighted that traceability is not the product and process information itself, but a tool that makes it possible to ﬁnd this information again at a later date. However, these deﬁni- tions do not reﬂect the speciﬁc characteristics of food traceability. The revised deﬁnition of Bosona and Gebresenbet (2013) is very informative and comprehensive deﬁnition to food traceability. Food traceability is deﬁned as a part of logistics management that cap- ture, store, and transmit adequate information about a food, feed, food-producing animal or substance at all stages in the food supply chain so that the product can be checked for safety and quality control, traced upward, and tracked downward at any time. A chart that classiﬁes the short phrases of selected deﬁnitions on traceability is shown in Table 1 to compare the differences among the deﬁnitions. The deﬁnitions of ISO are found to deﬁne generic traceability and not speciﬁc to food commodity. But the rest of the deﬁnitions tried to deﬁne food traceability more speciﬁcally based on a product to trace. Traceability is found to be deﬁned as “a tool to trace and follow”, “a tool for information retrieval”, “a record keeping system” and “a part of logistics management”. Some def- initions failed to mention that traceability can work bi-directionally along supply chains. The phrase “By means of recorded identiﬁca- tion” is found to be appropriate to combine with other deﬁnitions as well since identiﬁcation is mandatory to traceability. 2.2. Principle of traceability An independent food safety watchdog, Food Standard Agency (FSA, 2002) identiﬁed three basic characteristics for traceability sys- tems: i) identiﬁcation of units/batches of all ingredients and products, ii) information on when and where they are moved and transformed, and iii) a system linking these data. To enable traceability, an entity to trace has to be a Traceable Resource Unit (TRU). There are three types of traceable units: batch, trade unit and logistic unit. A batch is deﬁned as a quantity going through the same processes. A trade unit is a unit which is sent from one company to the next company in a supply chain (e.g. a box, a bottle or pack of bottles). The logistic unit is a type of trade unit, and it designates the grouping that a business creates before transportation or storage (e.g. pallet, container, etc.) M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184 Trace what Trace how Trace where Trace why Trace when An entity By means of e e e (origin/history/location) recorded identiﬁcation An entity under consideration e e e e (origin/history/location) e All stages of supply chain e e (or ingredients of food) e All stages of supply chain e e A food crop e From the grower to the e e (i.e. Agri-food) consumer’s plate Animal or animal products e From farm to retailer e e By means of Entire life cycle of food e e recorded identiﬁcation A food, feed, food-producing e At all stages in the food For safety At any time animal or substance supply chain, traced upward, and quality required. and tracked downward control 2.3. Traceability objectives Firms have three primary objectives in using traceability sys- tems: improve supply management; facilitate traceback for food safety and quality; and differentiate and market foods with subtle or undetectable quality attributes. The beneﬁts associated with these objectives include lower cost distribution systems, reduced recall expenses, and expanded sales of products with attributes that are difﬁcult to discern (Golan et al., 2004). Not only just a way to improve food safety systems, traceability can also be seen as a strategic tool to improve the quality of raw materials (Galvão, Margeirsson, Garate, Viðarsson & Oetterer, 2010), to improve in- ventory management and as a source of competitive advantages (Alfaro & Rábade, 2009). From a consumer perspective, traceability helps to build trust, peace of mind, and increase conﬁdence in the food system. For the growers, traceability is part of an overall cost-effective quality management system that can also assist in continuous improve- ment and minimization of the impact of safety hazards. It also fa- cilitates in the rapid and effective recall of products, and the determination and settlement of liabilities (Opara, 2003). The control of food-related risks involves consideration of every step in the chain, from raw material to food consumption as haz- ards can enter to any point in the chain until the food reaches the consumer. Therefore, a good traceability management system al- lows for trace-back and trace-forward capabilities to any step in the supply chain, for the effective identiﬁcation of products and man- agement of recall when quality and safety standards are breached (Opara, 2003). This end to end supply chain approach has been deﬁned in many terms such as “Seed to Shelf (Morris & Young, 2000)”, “Field to Plate (Opara & Mazaud, 2001)”, “Farm to Plate (Mousavi, Sarhadi, Lenk, & Fawcett, 2002)”, “Farm to Fork (Opara, 2003; Ruiz-Garcia, Steinberger, & Rothmund, 2010)” and “Farm to Table (FAO, 2003; Raspor, 2008) ” etc. There is a number of motivating factors or drivers for trace- ability in the food supply chain. These drivers enforce traceability as a tool to answer the questions of “who (i.e., actor/product), what (i.e., actor/product’s information), when (i.e., time), where (i.e., location) and why (i.e. cause/reasons)” with regard to food safety, quality and visibility (Fig. 1). 3. Safety and quality, concerns for food industry Food quality, including safety, is a major concern facing the food industry today. The production and consumption of food is central M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184 175 from ﬁve major types of foodborne illnesses at $ 6.9 billion annually (Vogt, 2005). In the European Union, annual costs levelled on the health care system as a consequence of salmonella infections are estimated to be around 3 billion euros (Asian Productivity Organisation, 2009). The medical costs and the value of the lives lost during just ﬁve foodborne outbreaks in England and Wales in 1996 were estimated at UK£ 300e700 million. The cost of the estimated 11,500 daily cases of food poisoning in Australia was calculated at AU$ 2.6 billion annually. The increased incidence of foodborne disease due to microbiological hazards is the result of a multiplicity of factors, all associated with our fast-changing world (WHO, 2002). 3.3. Environmental With the growth of international food trade, the environmental impact of the food supply chain has become a growing concern. The distance that food travels from the farm where it is produced to the kitchen in which it is consumed is longer than ever before. Therefore, the use of energy, resources and the emission of Green House Gases (GHG) in the entire food cycle, including pro- chain. duction, consumption, and transportation is unavoidable. The ini- tiatives to use carbon labelling (i.e. carbon footprints of the products) and conception of food miles (the distance that food is transported as it travels from producer to consumer) indicate that the food chain needs more environmentally friendly solutions to reduce the environmental impacts such as pollution and global warming. In many countries, one of the problems concerning food safety and quality is food spoilage. Food spoilage is wasteful, costly and can adversely affect trade and consumer conﬁdence. Naturally, all foods have a limited life time and most foods are perishable. Safe and high quality chilled foods require minimal contamination during manufacture, rapid chilling and temperature control along the chain (Martin & Ronan, 2000, pp. 5e33). Temperature abuse in the food cold chain can make microbial growth and spoilage of food and are factors in causing foodborne illness. The International Institute of Refrigeration (IIR) indicates that about 300 million tonnes of produce are wasted annually through deﬁcient refriger- ation worldwide. In the US, the food industry annually discards USD 35 billion worth of spoiled goods. The wastage of food and re- sources used for growing unused products are also a big issue for the environment (Flores & Tanner, 2008). UK households waste 6.7 million tonnes of food every year. The Waste Resources and Action Programme (WRAP) estimates that a third of the food bought is thrown out. If that food waste was eradicated, it would be equivalent to taking one in ﬁve cars off the road. Every tonne of food waste is responsible for 4.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide. The food waste which are thrown as landﬁll where it is liable to create methane, a powerful greenhouse gas which is over 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide make a signiﬁcant environmental impact (WRAP, 2008). Research by the Australia Institute indicates that Australians throw away about $5.2 billion worth of food every year. Wasting food also wastes the water that went into its production (Baker, Fear, & Denniss, 2009). 4. Requirements of traceability regarding safety and quality Currently, to build customer conﬁdence and to achieve safety and quality, participants in food supply rely on two methodologies. One manages food supply chains via regulations/standards or cer- tiﬁcations. The second records logistics operations and production processes via a food traceability system that provides transparent trace back and track forward information (Hong et al., 2011). Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184 system. It can be applied by an organization operating at any step in the feed and food chain. The important approach, ‘‘one-step-up/one-step-down” trace- ability enables actors in the food chain to identify the immediate supplier of a product as well as immediate subsequent recipient. This approach is the basic requirements for the design and imple- mentation of a feed and food traceability system which is mentioned in EU regulation, ISO/DIS 22005 and the Bioterrorism Act 2002 of US (Ruiz-Garcia et al., 2010). Traceability can only be achieved successfully if it is built upon global standards that enable interoperability between traceability systems across the whole supply chain. The GS1 global traceability standard is a voluntary business process standard describing the traceability process independently from the choice of enabling technologies. It meets the core legislative and business need to cost-effectively trace back and track forward at any point along the whole length of the supply chain. Because of its ability to provide globally unique identiﬁcation of trade items, assets, logistic units, parties and locations, the GS1 system is particularly well suited to be used for traceability purposes (GS1, 2009). EPCglobal Inc., a subsidiary of GS1 supports the global adoption of Electronic Prod- uct Code (EPC) Information Services (EPCIS) which is a standard designed to enable EPC related data sharing within and across enterprises (EPCglobal, 2009). Moreover, there are other private food quality and safety stan- dards such as Eurep-GAP, International Standard for Auditing Food Suppliers (IFS), the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and Safe Quality Food (SQF) etc. Fig. 2 below shows the scope of vertical and horizontal private industry and trade standards in the food supply chain. FAO and 4.2. Food safety versus food quality Food safety and food quality are two important terms which describe aspects of food products and the reputations of the pro- cessors who produce food. The CAC (2003) deﬁnes food safety as an assurance that food will not cause harm to the consumer when it is prepared and/or eaten according to its intended use. Food safety refers to all hazards, whether chronic or acute, that may make food injurious to the health of the consumer. It is not negotiable and a global issue affecting billions of people who suffer from diseases caused by contaminated food. Both developed and developing countries share concerns over food safety as international food trade and cross-border movements of people and live animals in- crease (Asian Productivity Organisation, 2009). In industries such as telecommunications, software development and airlines, secu- rity is the principal driver for traceability in contrast to the food industry where the safety is a really important issue (Opara, 2003). Food safety hazards may occur at a variety of points in the food chain. Therefore, food safety is a responsibility that is shared by producers, processors, distributors, retailers, and consumers. An important preventative approach that may be applied at all stages in the food chain involves the HACCP system (FAO & WHO, 2003). The traceability of food products and the ability of food facilities to pro- vide information about their sources, recipients, and transporters are essential to ensure the safety of food supply (Levinson, 2009). Quality is deﬁned by ISO as “the totality of features and charac- teristics of a product that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs” (Van Reeuwijk, 1998). Also, quality can be deﬁned as “conformance to requirement”, “ﬁtness for use” or, more appropri- ately for foodstuffs, “ﬁtness for consumption”. Thus, quality can be described as the requirements necessary to satisfy the needs and expectations of the consumer (Ho, 1994; Peri, 2006). However, food quality is very general, implying many expectations which can be different from consumer to consumer. Quality includes attributes that inﬂuence a product’s value to the consumer. Quality does not Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184 177 private industry and trade standards (Will & Guenther, 2007). et al., 2005). Product-tracing systems are essential for food safety and quality control. Traceability systems help ﬁrms isolate the source and extent of safety or quality control problems. The more precise the tracing system, the faster a producer can identify and resolve food safety or quality problems (Golan et al., 2004). In themselves, traceability systems neither produce safer/high-quality products nor determine liability. But they act as an element of any supply-management or quality/safety control system so that they can provide information about whether control points in the pro- duction or supply chain are operating correctly or not. So early detection and faster response to these problems is possible. Quality and safety are both linked to traceability whereas safety is implicated by traceability more often. They are two very important elements of people’s conceptions of food and associated decision making (i.e. food choice). Traceability is primarily viewed as a tool for the food safety by providing a means for recall as well as proof for the authenticity of food, but it is also related to food quality. Since both quality and safety were shown to be related to conﬁdence, traceability may indeed boost consumer conﬁdence through quality and safety assessments (Rijswijk & Frewer, 2006). Moe (1998) mentioned that traceability is an essential subsystem of quality management. Thus, a well developed internal traceability system is necessary for quality management. It would efﬁciently improve data collection, produc- tion ﬂow control, and quality assurance. To foster continuous improvement in the quality of products and processes, ﬁrms use Total Quality Management (TQM) system. Ho (1994) stated that ISO 9000 can be seen as a route to implement- ing TQM. Fig. 3 below shows the relationship of food safety, quality and traceability systems from the management point of view. In addition, a brief summary of requirements to be managed in a food supply chain is shown in Table 3. information Table 2 Classes of food quality attributes (UN, 2007). increasing External Internal Hidden food Appearance (Sight) Odour Wholesomeness Feel (touch) Taste Nutritive Value Defects Texture Safety M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184 In the event of food outbreaks and incidents, a traceback investigation is the method used to determine and document the distribution and production chain, and the source(s) of a product that has been implicated in a foodborne illness investigation. Public health agencies conduct traceback activities to determine the source and distribution of the implicated product associated with the outbreak and to subsequently identify potential points where contamination could have occurred. This action helps prevent additional illnesses by providing a foundation for recalls of contaminated food remaining in the marketplace and identifying hazardous practices or violations. A traceback investigation may result in a recall of product (i.e. traceforward), other regulatory actions such as detention of an imported product, an injunction against a processor or grower, informing the public via press re- leases, closer monitoring of the product in general, domestic and foreign outreach, and “on-the-farm” investigations. Some of the challenges found in fresh produce tracebacks include the absence approach (Adapted from of labelling and distribution records, complex distribution systems, and multiple sources of product at the point of service. Another challenge is that traceback investigations are very resource- intensive and may implicate but not conﬁrm the cause of the contamination. These challenges include the fact that the epide- miology of foodborne disease is changing and new pathogens have emerged, some spreading worldwide (Guzewich & Salbury, 2001). The WHO is promoting the use of all food technologies which may contribute to public health, such as pasteurization, food irra- diation and fermentation (WHO, 2007b). Also, the implementation of HACCP system is recommended to prevent food contamination by identifying potentially unsafe links in the food processing chain. The system manages the risk associated with food safety aspects of production (Kumar & Budin, 2006). By having a crisis management program that deﬁnes the action to be taken in the event of recall, the impact can be reduced. For food companies, reducing pro- cessing batch size and batch mixing is an approach to reduce the cost of recalls, in term of product quantity and media impact. However, it was also found that reducing batch size leads to losses in production efﬁciency, due to increased production setup times, setup costs, cleaning efforts, etc (Depuy, Botta-Genoulaz, & Guinet, 2005; Saltini & Akkerman, 2012). Especially, monitoring and surveillance for high-value and high- risk food is important and inspection should be done at the port of entry, the best place to control food safety for imported foods. For preventative purposes, the analyses and interpretation of food- borne disease surveillance data requires an associated and similar over web etc.) approach for data from food monitoring. The most modern and RS, RTLS etc.) scientiﬁc way to perform that is to use the risk assessment process Nose etc.) that evaluates potential health risks to humans and animals. The integration of both foodborne disease surveillance and food monitoring could provide the data which are crucial for risk assessment (Schlundt, 2002). Actually, traceability’s strength lies in preventing the incidence of food safety hazards, and reducing the assurance schemes enormity and impact of such incidents by facilitating the identiﬁ- cation of product(s) and/or batches affected, specifying what Operating occurred, when and where it occurred in the supply chain, and identifying who is responsible (Opara, 2003). to keep and to share) 6. The need for real time traceability information The main fact that differentiates food supply chains from other processing chains is that there is a continuous change in the quality from the time the raw materials leave the grower to the time the product reaches the consumer (Apaiah, Hendrix, Meerdink, & Linnemann, 2005). Perishables such as produce, meat, ﬁsh, milk and more can change hands many times before reaching the consumer. Keeping food safe and in good quality is a signiﬁcant challenge as it moves through the Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184 179 a framework for the management of traceability data, in fresh, non- processed food products supply chains. The framework was based upon Physical Markup Language (PML), which is a standard tech- nology of eXtensible Markup Language (XML), a simple and ﬂexible information exchange format that is well suited to support web- enabled business applications. Furthermore, Thakur and Hurburgh (2009) suggested a framework which uses a relational database management system to record information (i.e. for in- ternal traceability) and XML for the exchange of information (i.e. for chain traceability) between different parties of the grain supply chain. All grain lot information should be recorded in a centralized database system and only relevant lot/batch information should be passed on to the next link in the supply chain. In the agro-based food chain, Ruiz-Garcia et al. (2010) proposed a model and prototype implementation for tracking and tracing agri- cultural batch products along the food chain. The proposed model suggests using web-based systems for data processing, storage and transfer which makes a ﬂexible way of information access, networking and usability to achieve full traceability. Alfaro and Rábade (2009) presented a case study of one ﬁrm in the Spanish vegetable industry and found that the ﬁrm has had signiﬁcant qual- itative and quantitative improvements in supply, warehousing, in- ventory and production after implementation of a computerized traceability system. For the wine logistics chain, Mattoli, Mazzolai, Mondini, Zampolli, and Dario (2010) developed a Flexible Tag Data- logger (FTD) which is attached to the bottles to collect environmental data (light, humidity and temperature) in order to trace the wine bottles that leave the producer cellar for transport to a shop. The history data stored in the FTD can be read by smart phone or Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) with integrated infrared port to evaluate the safety of wine bottles. Another PDA-based record-keeping and decision-support system is suggested for cucumber production traceability to achieve real-time and portable record-keeping in the ﬁeld for farmers (Li, Qian, Yang, Sun, & Ji, 2010). For the meat-processing industry, Mousavi et al. (2002) pro- posed a solution which integrates a material handling system and RFID to track meat products and provide information about them throughout the production process until they become retail packs. Hsu, Chen, and Wang (2008) proposed an RFID-enabled traceability system for the live ﬁsh supply chain. A chain consists of aquaculture farms, inspectors, logistic center, and the restaurants. The RFID tag is put on each live ﬁsh and it links to all stages of the live ﬁsh supply chain. To achieve the safety of live ﬁsh and customers’ conﬁdence, the traceability information is designed to be exchanged on a web- based system for farmers and consumers to use. One of the chal- lenges is how to attach the RFID to the live ﬁsh. Abad et al. (2009) tried to validate an RFID smart tag (with integrated temperature and relative humidity sensors) developed for real-time traceability and cold chain monitoring of food under the case study of an intercontinental fresh ﬁsh logistics chain. The aim is to build an automated system that integrates online traceability data and chill chain condition monitoring. Recent developments in technology make new features achiev- able. These include: advanced data handling systems based on RFID and a Wireless Sensor Network (WSN), a location tracking system like Global Positioning System (GPS) and decision support system using intelligent software agents etc. Jedermann, Behrens, Westphal, and Lang (2006) proposed an intelligent container system using a com- bination of RFID, sensor networks, and software agents to trace fruit transports, demonstrating an effective use of RFID technology in fruit logistics. Zhang, Liu, Mu, Moga, and Zhang (2009) developed a temperature-managed traceability system for frozen and chilled food during storage and transportation. The system integrated RFID with GPS, mobile communication with Time Temperature Tolerance (TTT) theory can automate the tasks, like daily work routines, and cross- Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184 and labels) and software (information systems). Advances in infor- mation and computer technology for information systems manage- ment; scanning and other digital technology for product identiﬁcation, image capture, storage and display; nondestructive testing and biosensors for quality and safety assessment; and geo- spatial technologies (Geographic Information System (GIS), Global Positioning System (GPS), Remote Sensing (RS)) for mobile assets tracking and site-speciﬁc operations, are technological innovations that can be applied in a traceability system. Basically, a product traceability system requires the identiﬁcation of all the physical en- tities (and locations) from which the product originates, that is to say, where it is processed, packaged, and stocked, including every agent in the supply chain (Regattieri et al., 2007). A summary of the funda- mental technical instruments available is shown in Table 4. Several technologies which complement identiﬁcation for veriﬁcation already exist, particularly in the livestock industry, for implementing traceable supply chains. Future innovations in DNA ﬁnger-printing, nanotechnology for miniature-machines, iris scanning, nose-print matching, facial recognition and retinal im- aging and their integration into plant and livestock industries have considerable potential for improving the speed and precision of traceability in the food industry (Opara, 2003; Smith, Pendell, Tatum, Belk, & Sofos, 2008). Aarnisalo, Heiskanen, Jaakkola, Landor, and Raaska (2007) mentioned that there is a growing need for the use of real-time sensors for quality and safety assur- ance in the food industry especially for perishable food products. In traceability, the traceback investigation for food is found necessary in order to verify counterfeit, authenticity and prove- nance of food in the event of fraud or commercial disputes. In Europe, food legislation is particularly strict and traceability sys- tems, based on product labelling, have become mandatory in all European countries. In the US, the US Congress mandated Country- of-Origin Labeling (COOL) for many food crops/products as a requirement (Smith et al., 2005). However, the implementation of these systems does not ensure consumers against fraud. Paper documents can be counterfeit so alternative methods for genetic traceability systems based on product identiﬁcation are needed (Dalvit et al., 2007). It is found that modern analytical techniques, in particular molecular biology techniques, can determine the plant or animal Conceptual framework of food traceability system. M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184 181 Strengths Weaknesses Simple to use and economic Code read/write not automatic Poor performance High data integrity corruption No standards deﬁned Lack of tie between different actors Cannot collect environmental information (no sensing capability) Simple, more economical and Reading need line of sight exact traceability Unreadable for damaged labels Can read one at a time by scanner Cannot collect environmental information (no sensing capability) No line of sight in reading, Rely on Reader for data collection, Can read and write tags A tag cannot initiate communication, Higher data rate and larger memory size No cooperation among the devices, Reversible tags, Can read data within one hop Can read many tags simultaneously Cost still a burden Limited capability for environmental sensing Multihop networking, In-network processing, Not suitable for identiﬁcation purpose, Can deploy different network topologies, Need energy saving techniques for continuous Secure communication among nodes, sensing Longer reading ranges Sensor-actuator networking the correlation between the tracers in food and the local environ- ment (i.e. geology and groundwater). TRACE also exploits geological and climatic maps that are available and maintained annually. Under the joint IAEA/FAO project, a database that enables linking with other databases is preferably hosted to facilitate its sustain- ability in the longer term for partners to use in provenance studies. 9. Problems and implementation hurdles in food traceability The growing importance of food safety and quality in the food industry enforces all actors in the supply chain to adopt trace- ability from farm to fork although there are some problems to handle regarding traceability. First, the costs associated with putting traceability systems into place are seen as barriers for supply chain actors especially for small-scale producers from less developed countries. However, the beneﬁts gained from trace- ability for high-risk and high-valued food far outweigh the cost of traceability. Many developing countries lag in developing and implementing food safety and traceability standards thus limit exports of food products from developing countries, where poor regulation of chemical use, pollutants, and a steep learning curve in traceability capacity restrict growers’ and processors’ participation. One of the biggest challenges with supply chain traceability is the exchange of information in a standardized format between various links in the chain. This information needs to be exchanged in a precise, effective and electronic manner (FSA, 2002; Moe, 1998). Traceability systems are critically reliant on the recording of information. Robust mechanisms are needed to facilitate the collection and authentication of any information, to enable it to be updated and shared through the chain. Paper is still used as a cheaper option for traceability, although it limits the ability to re- cord data accurately, store it, and query it to identify and trace products. Digital databases for traceability are seen as more expensive to implement, operate, and maintain, requiring in- vestments in hardware and software, skilled human resources, training, and certiﬁcation (Karippacheril, Rios, & Srivastava, 2011). Traceability concerns many products in the food industry. Bulk produce is found more challenging to trace than fresh produce. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184 main factors that hinder investments on sophisticated traceability schemes (Manos & Mnikas, 2010). proposed 10. Conclusions Moe (1998) estimated that demand for information along the food chain will increase and it will set higher requirements for well- structured traceability systems. Therefore, traceability will emerge as a new index of quality and a basis for trade in the future. Customer demand for real time information about the products they buy and eat will also grow and it will be one of the competitive advantages of food industry marketing. The use of mobile phones accelerates the age of ubiquity. The ability to check food safety in the hands of the consumer has become a reality by tagging products with RFID or bar codes that can be read with a mobile phone. Smart phones today could be the future handheld device for traceability because of its portability, mobility, accessibility to Internet and application software support. Consumers can scan the code in the store using a mobile phone camera or embedded mobile RFID reader so they can ﬁnd out the product history at their ﬁnger tips and make purchases for safe and quality foods. They can even offer feedback to the farmer. In the near future, RFID and sensor based systems will be widely used, not only for tracking the goods but also for monitoring the quality of the products and the supply chain itself. This will enable the detection of the spoilage of food products and enhance the continuity of the food supply chain. Biosensors will most probably be used for various uses such as detection of mycotoxins, bacter- iocides, allergens and contaminating microbes (Aarnisalo et al., 2007). The advanced techniques like gas chromatography and electronic noses (i.e., a machine which can detect and discriminate among complex odours using a sensor array) will be increasingly used in the ﬁeld of food quality management (Peris & Escuder- Gilabert, 2009). The Internet promises to be an important tool for food trace- ability. Web based traceability systems will enable traceability chains for products to personal computers and smart phones of consumers based on the access control level of the consumer ty identiﬁcation system. This will deliver real-time information to consumers on the quality and safety status of products and also such permit speedy recalls when quality and safety standards are and quality of breached. The larger trend in the future is the convergence of smart the indus- phones with the Internet of Things (i.e. Internet-connected real international world objects). Devices such as smart phones essentially become sensors and RFID readers, which allow consumers to interact with in food real world objects in a much more detailed manner. (i.e. heating, To minimize foodborne hazards and incidents, the sustainable agriculture which can produce good crop yields using natural alter DNA methods to feed the soil and reduce pests (e.g. organic farming) should be maintained in order to balance economic, environmental, trusted tool and quality of life beneﬁts not only for farmers but also for consumers as well. As a consequence of incidents that have happened in the livestock food industry (e.g. BSE, FMD, Bird ﬂu and Swine ﬂu etc.), monitoring and inspection of feeding diet and health of animals will become a mandatory task to do as human and animals share one health and the cost of impact on the food industry and consumer conﬁdence is intangible. As since the environmental concerns in the food supply chain grow, to design and implement an eco-friendly supply chain will be a new challenge. Most of the previous research is found to focus on traceability until the retail point of the food chain thereby missing to trace the consumer part of the food chain. In terms of food safety, the con- sumer segment is also important therefore traceability should be extended to consumers. It is clear that traceability comes at a cost. M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184 183 Folinas, D., Manikas, I., & Manos, B. (2006). Traceability data management for food chains. British Food Journal, 108(8), 622e633. FSA. (2002). Traceability in the food chain a preliminary study. UK: Food Standard Agency. Retrieved from www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/ traceabilityinthefoodchain.pdf (Accessed 15.07.12). Galimberti, A., Mattia, F. D., Losa, A., Bruni, I., Federici, S., Casiraghi, M., et al. (2013). DNA barcoding as a new tool for food traceability. Food Research International, 50(1), 55e63. Galvão, J. A., Margeirsson, S., Garate, C., Viðarsson, J. R., & Oetterer, M. (2010). Traceability system in cod ﬁshing. Food Control, 21, 1360e1366. Golan, E., Krissoff, B., Kuchler, F., Calvin, L., Nelson, K., & Price, G. (2004). Traceability in the U.S. food supply: Economic theory and industrial studies. Agricultural Economic Report Number 830. Grunert, K. G. (2005). Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 132(3), 369e391. GS1. (2009). Business process and system requirements for full chain traceability. GS1 Global Traceability Standard, Issue 1.1.0. Retrieved from http://www.gs1.org/docs/ gsmp/traceability/GS1_Global_Traceability_Standard_i1.pdf (Accessed 02.08.12). Guzewich, J. J., & Salbury, P. A. (2001). FDA’s role in traceback investigations for produce. Food safety magazine. Dec 2000/Jan 2001, Target group. Harun, K., Cheng, K., & Wibbelmann, M. (2008). RFID-enabled aerospace manufacturing: theoretical models, simulation and implementation issues. In IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering manage- ment, Singapore (pp. 1824e1829). Ho, S. K. M. (1994). Is the ISO 9000 series for Total Quality

Traceability in Food Supply Chain (PDF)

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue