ISO 22000: Traceability in Food Supply Chains /Critical Tracking Events - V

ISO 22000 & Food Traceability

Part V

Critical Tracking Events – An Emerging Traceability Model

The identification of the origin of food and feed ingredients and food sources is of prime importance for the protection of consumers, particularly when products are found to be faulty. Traceability facilitates and precisely targets the recall or withdrawal of foods when necessary; enables consumers to be provided with targeted and accurate information concerning implicated products; and is crucial to the investigation of the causes of food poisoning and other contamination outbreaks. Thus traceability is an indispensible feature of food safety. Long before there was any attempt to legislate for traceability, responsible food manufacturers, in their own enlightened self-interest, operated their own traceability schemes. These were usually based on the concept widely known as “one-up, one-down,” (OUOD). The impetus to develop legislation was public and governmental concern in many countries over food poisoning and other contamination outbreaks (including potential bio-terrorism), despite all the food safety legislation that existed. Traceability necessitates that each lot of each food material is given a unique identifier which accompanies it and is recorded at all stages of its progress through its food chain.

Issues Prevailing in Product Traceability

Multi-ingredient foods may include materials from a variety of food chains and countries, importers may have to rely on the traceability systems (if any) of other countries up to the point of import. This may be particularly difficult in the case of developing countries. Obvious areas of difficulty are where a received or sold bulk supply is a (sometimes heterogeneous) mixture of lots, or where a bulk supply (such as of grain, coffee, olive oil, rice, and milk from multiple farms) is delivered into bulk containers or silos, or where a received or sold pallet load of containers includes a mixture of lots. However, the major problem areas are reliance on all business operators to maintain adequate records and internal traceability; and the frustrating slowness when utilizing traceability for outbreak investigations. This has given rise to the search for a new food traceability concept that emerged around 2008 and that has potential to revolutionize global food traceability.

One-Up, One-Down Approach

The OUOD approach requires food supply chain participants to be capable of identifying, through records maintained by the company, the immediate supplier and customer of an identified food material. Although even the smallest of food businesses (at least in developed countries) typically use some form of accounting system, the normal processes and records related to purchasing, receiving and shipping products are sometimes insufficient to fulfill the OUOD requirement or may be unaccompanied by effective internal traceability or maintenance of the onward integrity of the material identifier.

When investigating suspected food poisoning or other contamination, investigations using the OUOD approach are tedious and time consuming. Naturally, the process is serial, in such situations; investigators must first review documents at the last known supply chain node in order to identify the next node up the chain. Although regulations vary from country to country, these usually permit investigators immediate access to records when on site. Since legal consequences may ensue from any investigation, supply chain participants are typically permitted 24 hours to respond to specific requests for information. Assuming each supply chain participant uses the full 24 hours, it may take days or weeks for investigators to work their way back through the chain(s) to identify the source of contamination. Keeping in mind that investigators are often unsure as to the source of contamination, and as multi-ingredient food products contain materials received from several separate food chains many such investigations must be done simultaneously. When the source of contamination is identified, the process is then used in reverse to identify product for recall. In addition to being tedious and time consuming for investigators, investigations are often unnecessarily disruptive to many businesses along each supply chain investigated and more consumers may be adversely affected in the meantime.

 

Even if it is assumed that all necessary data are present and error free, it is clear that this OUOD system is not designed to point investigators quickly to likely sources of contamination. Adding real-life complexities related to incomplete, missing or erroneous data simply adds to the time and tediousness of food recall investigations.

Global Legislation, Impending Legislation and Voluntary Schemes

A Codex document elaborates a set of principles to assist competent authorities in utilizing traceability/product tracing as a tool within their food inspection and certification system. This document should be read in conjunction with all relevant Codex texts as well as those adopted by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) where appropriate. Recognizing the dual mandate of the Codex Alimentarius, traceability/product tracing is a tool that may be applied, when and as appropriate, within a food inspection and certification system in order to contribute to the protection of consumers against food-borne hazards and deceptive marketing practices and the facilitation of trade on the basis of accurate product description (Codex Alimentarius, 2006).

ISO 22005:2007 provides a standard for traceability in the feed and food chain – General principles and basic requirements for system design and implementation (ISO 22005:2007). The Agriculture and Rural Development Department (ARD) of the World Bank in collaboration with infoDev (a global grant program managed by the World Bank to promote innovative projects on the use of information and communication technologies) embarked in an effort to explore and capture the expanding knowledge and use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) tools in agrarian livelihoods. In November 2011, the World Bank released an electronic Sourcebook (e-Sourcebook) to initiate further investment in this sector. Called “ICT in Agriculture”, the e-Sourcebook provides practitioners within and outside of the World Bank Group with lessons learned, guiding principles, and hundreds of examples and case studies on applying information and communication technologies in poor agriculture. It consists of standalone modules. Module 12 is “Improving Food Safety and Traceability” (ICT in Agriculture, 2011).

The Produce Traceability Initiative (PTI), sponsored by Canadian Produce Marketing Association, GS1 US, Produce Marketing Association and United Fresh Produce Association, is designed to help the produce industry maximize the effectiveness of current trace-back procedures, while developing a standardized industry approach to enhance the speed and efficiency of traceability systems for the future (Porter et al., 2011). The PTI has a bold vision which outlines a course of action to achieve supply chain-wide adoption of electronic traceability of every case of produce by the year 2012. The main thrust of PTI has been standardization of data structures and presentation of data on cases and pallets of produce. PTI is described by the produce industry as, “ … designed to help the industry maximize the effectiveness of current trace back procedures, while developing a standardized industry approach to enhance the speed and efficiency of traceability systems for the future” (PTI, 2011).

PTI has made great strides in developing data structure and presentation standards for the produce industry; however, PTI remains rooted in the OUOD approach. Therefore, benefits from PTI are more likely to be reduction in data errors and perhaps greater efficiency by supply chain participants in collection and dissemination of traceability data. However, since legal consequences of such investigations remain, it is possible that the time saved may ultimately be consumed internally by company management and/or legal counsel rather than contributing to any acceleration of investigations and recalls. Additionally, it is questionable whether PTI can or will be more widely adopted by other segments of the food industry.

The Global Traceability Standard (GTS) is promulgated by GS1, an international not-for-profit association with member organizations in over 100 countries. GTS makes traceability systems possible on a global scale, all along the supply chain, no matter how many companies are involved or how many borders are crossed, no matter what technologies are used.

Future of Food Traceability – Critical Tracking Events

Efforts to improve food traceability typically identify two major goals, namely speed and accuracy. Standardization will likely improve accuracy, but will not do much to improve speed. Speed and accuracy are both necessary to realize benefits from any food traceability system in terms of illness, lives, waste and inventory control. The OUOD approach, regardless of data standardization is simply not capable of providing the speed that will be required by the industry or regulators.

The Critical Tracking Event (CTE) concept is becoming widely accepted as the path to a next generation fast and effective food traceability system (McEntire et al., 2010). The CTE approach is a bottom-up approach that is inherently secure in terms of data ownership, data access and proprietary information protection. The CTE approach recognizes that each operator knows their own operations best and provides complete latitude as to how to collect CTE traceability data. The CTE approach shifts focus from the food product itself to the events that manipulate the product in the supply chain. As each operator handles a food product (harvests, creates, receives, mingles, aggregates, palletizes, depalletizes, relocates, ships, etc.) its actions are viewed as events that occur at specific locations, dates and times. Some of these events are critical to the ultimate traceability of the product. Therefore, those events are deemed to be “critical tracking events.” Since a CTE is essential to ultimately tracking the item in the supply chain, CTE traceability requires a commitment from operators to collect, store and make retrievable, CTE data from every CTE within their operation. The modern concepts and technologies associated with relational distributed data provide confidence that the CTE model will be much more effective in terms of speed and accuracy. Unlike other approaches that are mired in exhaustive data field identification and standardization, the CTE approach requires very little data, none of which need be descriptive in any way of the product.

Since the goal of the food traceability system is to connect investigators with the source of contamination as quickly as possible, there is little value in collecting large amounts of even standardized data from every node in the supply chain when only a few or even none of the nodes may be of actual interest to the investigation. Rather, it would be preferable to skip nodes that are not interesting to the investigation, saving precious time for investigators as well as time and angst for many food businesses. This ability of the CTE approach to quickly and effortlessly elucidate the actual supply chain through CTEs is the major benefit over OUOD based approaches regardless of data standardization. Additionally, once the source of contamination is identified, the CTE based food traceability system is just as capable of trace forward as trace back, which means that rapid, targeted and accurate food product recalls will be possible. The IFT’s current working definition of a critical tracking event is A CTE is any occurrence involving an item at a specific location and time associated with collection and storage of data useful for associating the item (or related items) to the specific occurrence at a later time and is determined to be necessary for identifying the actual path of an item through the supply chain.

When applying this definition, it is easy to see that the many important and often proprietary business process data are not necessary to achieve traceability with CTEs. Basic handling/transfer CTEs requires the minimum amount of data, which includes a code to identify the item, a code to identify the particular CTE (e.g. “received at ABC Co. at door #2”) and a date and time stamp. Transformative CTEs (mixing, repacking, etc.) require additional information to link the inbound and outbound product-codes.

Under the CTE approach, each operator would determine how best to collect and store data. Some might be able to maintain a CTE Server on-site. Smaller businesses might choose to house CTE data at a third-party (cloud) based service provider. Regardless, CTE data remain the property of and under the direct control of the business generating CTE data.

When an outbreak occurs, investigators would be able to query the CTE traceability system by asking, “who has seen item code XYZ?” CTE servers might first alert a company that an appropriate authority has made a formal request. The company could then review the request and authorize a response. The initial response could be minimal in terms of “no” (the item was never seen by our CTEs), or “yes” (the item was seen at these locations at these dates and times). Transformative CTEs would provide the link between products and ingredients. At this point, investigators would be able to clearly visualize the supply chain for the item in terms of locations, dates and times. Assuming other investigations are on-going, there may be nodes that are common to separate investigations (e.g., sprouts from a deli sandwich and sprouts from a restaurant salad bar). In such cases, investigators would be drawn directly to the point of convergence rather than working their way backwards through a cumbersome OUOD system.

Companies may choose to use or not use existing product codes or coding schemes. The CTE traceability approach simply requires product codes that are globally unique (Welt, 2008). Since many current industries coding schemes use qualitative information as part of the code (e.g., PTI combines UPC/GTIN with lot numbers) and since proprietary information may be gleaned from codes with meaningful business data, it is recommended that codes expose no valuable information themselves, but rather point to relevant data for retrieval by properly authorized personnel. For the case of PTI codes with exposed lot number information, someone might be able to glean competitor production rate and/or volume by analyzing rates of changes of lot numbers in product codes. This can be avoided by associating the CTE traceability code to appropriate lot numbers within the enterprise database. Identifying the lot associated with a particular item would be a matter of a simple database query and can be done by appropriately authorized personnel.

Implementation of CTE traceability does not interfere with any existing business processes. However, CTEs require a commitment by operators to collect, store and make available for retrieval a minimal set of data that is inherently secure through abstraction, separation and restricted accessibility. Operators can choose the most appropriate manner to collect data from manual entry to sophisticated automated scanners. Once CTE data are captured and available for query, investigators will no longer need to stop at each node in the supply chain in order to learn where to go next. CTE based traceability promises to greatly accelerate the rate of trace back investigations as well as the precision and speed of recalls.

Document Courtesy: IUFoST Scientific Information Bulletin (SIB), March 2012, Food Traceability

http://www.iufost.org/iufost-scientific-information-bulletins-sib

ISO 22000: Traceability in Food Supply Chains /Molecular Based Traceability Techniques - IV

ISO 22000 & Food Traceability

Part IV

Molecular Based Traceability Techniques 

Food traceability is an emerging topic that is becoming increasingly relevant especially in terms of international trade. For the export and import of food, the development of traceability systems has been identified as a priority, especially in connection with food safety. Therefore, the implementation of food traceability mechanisms, including analytical methodologies for verification, is particularly relevant for developing countries who wish to increase extending their share in international food trade. International organizations, such as the IAEA, can play a role towards providing equal access to such technologies in the future as well as assisting developing countries to build the necessary capacities to use them.

A deeper understanding of how meteorological and geochemical signatures are transferred into food systems would allow the generation of isotopic and multi-element maps for foods from different geographical locations, which could be incorporated into traceability systems. Comparative databases constructed from these data can then be used as benchmarks in ongoing scientific developments of the future.

Advanced Technologies Used in Food Traceability Systems

Producing safe and high quality food is a prerequisite of every food manufacturer to ensure consumer health and successful domestic and international trade which is critical to the sustainable development of national agricultural resources. Systems to trace food or feed products through specified stages of production, processing and distribution play a key role in assuring food safety. Such traceability systems are typically based on a continuous “paper-trail” and effective labeling. However, analytical techniques that enable the provenance of food to be determined which can provide an independent means of verifying “paper” traceability systems. It also helps to prove product authenticity, to combat fraudulent practices and to control adulteration, which are important issues for economic, religious or cultural reasons.

Food traceability primarily focuses on food safety and quality, which also have positive impacts on food security - the quantity and overall availability of food. Applying food traceability techniques can reduce food losses by minimizing recalls of food consignments if the production region can be determined scientifically.

Proof of provenance has become an important topic in the context of food safety, food quality and consumer protection in accordance with national legislation and international standards (ISO 22000, HACCP, etc) and guidelines. Provenance means to identify and ensure the origin of a commodity and thereby the region where it was produced. Earlier incidents, such as the outbreak of food poisoning from Salmonella in contaminated peppers from Mexico, which occurred in the USA in 2008, have demonstrated the need for effective traceability systems and the deficiencies in current paper-based systems. The failure to trace the contaminated batch of peppers to their origin resulted in a wide-scale, costly and lengthy recall procedure involving many producers in Mexico and retail outlets in the USA.

Therefore, an independent and universally applicable analytical strategy to verify the declared country of origin of food can be an invaluable tool to enable regulatory authorities to trace contaminated foods back to their source. Isotopic and elemental fingerprinting provides a robust analytical tool to determine the origin of food. These techniques, when used in conjunction with food safety surveillance programmes, provide independent verification of food traceability systems, thereby helping to protect human health and facilitate international trade worldwide. The availability of verified traceability systems can also facilitate the targeted withdrawal and/or recall of contaminated products from the market if necessary. Such action can reduce the enormous economic impact of a ‘blanket withdrawal/recall’ and the subsequent damage to industry and consumer confidence. Furthermore, public awareness of the existence of tools and protocols to determine product origin, in a food safety context, can act as a deterrent to traders who knowingly re-route contaminated products to mislead importers, thus preventing the occurrence of incidents related to “third country” dumping of unsafe commodities.

The capability to certify food origin or authenticity is of significant economic importance to many stakeholders in developing countries. For example, some food products can be marketed using labels, e.g. Geographic Indication (GI) or organic produce, that are based on standards of identity or composition related to a very specific production area or production practices. This adds value to such products in terms of marketability and increased export value. Basmati rice from India and Pakistan, for example, is defined by its cultivar and also by its area of production. Genomic techniques can easily confirm the cultivar of Basmati rice, while isotopic and elemental fingerprinting is essential to determine its geographical origin. Isotopic parameters have also recently been added to the Protected Denomination of Origin (PDO) technical specification of Grana Padano Cheese (Italy) and other food commodities are undergoing similar characterizations.

In addition to their application to enhance food safety, these techniques can be applied to address religious or cultural issues. For example, whilst safe for human consumption, the animal or botanical source of a food may render it unfit for some consumers. For instance, gelatin derived from porcine sources and ethanol derived from wines or spirits are not compliant with Halal guidelines, nor are they in accordance with definitions given by Codex Alimentarius (1997).

Nuclear and Nuclear-related Techniques for Food Traceability

Nuclear techniques are uniquely tailored for the determination of food provenance. These methodologies, such as those listed in Table 1, may be used for traceability and authentication of food and have the potential to be applied in many developing countries, thereby enhancing their capacities to improve food safety and quality. Where appropriate, these techniques can also be complemented by conventional, non-nuclear approaches.

The following nuclear techniques can be used to measure the isotopic (e.g. hydrogen-3/ hydrogen-2/ hydrogen-1, carbon-13/ carbon-12, nitrogen-15/ nitrogen14, oxygen-18/ oxygen-16, sulphur-34/ sulphur-32, strontium-87/ strontium-86, lead-208/ lead-207/ lead-206) and elemental (e.g. macro, micro, and trace) composition of food:

Glossary of Terms for Analytical Methods Used for Food Traceability and Their Fingerprinting Characteristics

Method	Abbreviation	Fingerprint
Neutron activation	NAA	Isotopic and elemental
Multicollector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry	MC-ICP-MS	Isotopic and elemental
Nuclear magnetic resonance	NMR	Isotopic
Thermal ionization mass spectrometry	TIMS	Isotopic
Isotope ratio mass spectrometry	IRMS	Isotopic
Cavity-ring-down spectroscopy	CRDS	Isotopic
Atomic absorption spectrometry	AAS	Elemental
Atomic emission spectrometry	AES	Elemental

In order to determine an isotopic fingerprint of a specific product, an extensive quality assured database of authentic food samples is required. Appropriate modeling of the isotopic and elemental data, using multivariate statistics, is a prerequisite for identifying isotopic and elemental fingerprints. Only a few databases covering wide regional distribution exist so far. A considerable amount of additional data needs to be collected to provide universally applicable information that could make data comparable from diverse regions worldwide.

The application of the cavity-ring-down spectroscopy (CRDS) technology to distinguish between C3 (sesame, soybean) and C4 (corn) plants through isotopic techniques is an example. Photosynthetic carbon isotope fractionation is related to carbon dioxide uptake and enzymatic processes. The C3 plants, named due to the number of carbons in an intermediate molecule in the relevant biochemical pathway, discriminate more heavily against carbon-13 than the C4 plants and therefore have more negative δ13C values (calculated from the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the plant). Plotting the data from δ13C measurements therefore shows a dramatic difference between the oils from C3 plants (sesame, soybean) and that from corn, which is a C4 type plant. From the plot, it can be observed that even the two oils from C3 plants are clearly distinct. Accordingly, the adulteration of respective plant oils with materials of lesser quality and value can be determined.

Supplementary and Combined Analytical Techniques Supporting Food Traceability

In addition to nuclear and nuclear-related approaches, various non-nuclear techniques can provide complimentary data to complete or confirm results obtained by isotopic and elemental fingerprinting. For instance, seafood is a highly perishable food item which is increasingly traded globally. Particular conditions and difficulties have to be taken into account compared to other food products and different analytical techniques are applicable for characterizing seafood. More than 500 species are traded in the European market alone. A large number of processed fish products have lost their morphological characteristics and for instance fraud, where low grade fillets are substituted for high-value fillets, can only be discovered by means of a combination of reliable analytical methods to determine the species and geographical origin.

The most appropriate technique is related to the specific condition of the seafood product, e.g. processed vs. unprocessed, or whether or not it is a closely related or a different species. Separation and characterization of specific proteins through isoelectric focusing (IEF) of sarcoplasmic proteins (water soluble proteins) is the method of choice for the identification of fish species. DNA based methods using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for nucleic acid amplification is the key technology for species identification, as there is no limitation when different processing treatments of fish and seafood are used.

The most important techniques for the determination of geographical origin are the methods using the variability of stable isotopes (hydrogen-2/ hydrogen-1, nitrogen-15/ nitrogen-14, carbon-13/ carbon-12, oxygen-18/ oxygen-16) in different biological tissues. It is well known that freshwater ecosystems are generally carbon-13 and nitrogen-15 depleted in comparison to marine ecosystems. Consequently, the analysis of these stable isotopes ratios can be used for distinguishing between freshwater and marine fish. Furthermore, different feedings often lead to significant fingerprints in terms of stable isotope ratios in the body so that stable isotope analysis can be also used to distinguish between different environments. Nuclear magnetic resonance, coupled with isotopic ratio mass spectrometry (NMR/IRMS) and site-specific natural isotope fractionation by nuclear resonance (SNIF-NMR), are the two main methods to determine the ratios of stable isotopes.

Isotopic Traceability Techniques for Rapid Response to Emerging Food Safety Risks

The food supply is vulnerable to a range of food hazards (microbiological, chemical, physical) that may arise at any stage of the food supply chain. In addition to well publicized food safety incidents such as aflatoxins in maize, dioxins in pork, melamine in dairy products, and Salmonella in peanuts, new hazards and risks are continually emerging. These may be related to unintentional contamination with, e.g. agrochemicals or bacteria, or intentional contamination (adulteration for economic fraud or with the intent to harm consumers). Other issues may also pose threats to food safety which are not yet well understood or characterized, for example the effects of climate change on food production, or emerging technologies such as the use of nanoparticles in food.

Isotopic measurement techniques can provide an effective means for the identification and tracking of food products, allowing a rapid first response to counter any threat by efficiently tracing and removing affected products from the market. Stable isotope and radio-labeling techniques can also provide a second-tier analytical portfolio to help to detect, identify and characterize the hazard. For example, radio-labeling offers a uniquely sensitive traceability method to investigate the fate of nanoparticles in foods. Nanoparticles are increasingly applied on a broad range of applications and may also play a vital role as food additives. However, the respective risk assessment and evaluation are just in their infancy. The development and application of these techniques would address vulnerabilities in the food supply chain due to emerging threats and help establish effective preventative systems and incident response strategies.

Specific future tasks would be to develop isotopic traceability methodologies and systems to facilitate the rapid tracking of contaminated products and their removal from the market. The development of related stable and radio-isotope techniques that can be applied to detect and characterize emerging food safety hazards and assess and control the risks associated with those hazards is also envisioned.

DNA Barcoding Methods

In general, DNA-based methods use specific DNA sequences as markers, and can be divided as:

1.      Hybridization-based markers

2.    Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-based markers

In hybridization based methods, species-specific DNA profiles are discovered by hybridizing DNA digested by restriction enzymes and comparing it with labeled probes (DNA fragments of known origin or sequence). PCR-based methods involve the amplification of target loci by using specific or arbitrary primers, and a DNA polymerase enzyme. Fragments are then separated electrophoretically and banding patterns are detected by different staining methods such as autoradiography.

PCR-based methods are extremely sensitive, often faster than other technologies and are widely used in agriculture and zootechny (Doulaty Baneh et al., 2007; Grassi, Labra, & Minuto, 2006; Labra et al., 2004; Mane, Tanwar, Girish, & Dixit, 2006; Teletchea, Maudet, & Hänni, 2005). Discontinuous molecular markers such as RAPDs, AFLPs, as well as their variants (i.e. ISSR, SSAP, SAMPL) have been successfully used in the characterization of different kinds of raw material (Chuang, Lur, Hwu, & Chang, 2011; Fajardo et al., 2010;Mafra et al., 2008; Nijman et al., 2003). In recent years, the PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE) has been largely used in the field of food traceability and safety in order to characterize bacteria and yeasts in fermented products (Dalmacio, Angeles, Larcia, Balolong, & Estacio, 2011; Muyzer, De Waal, & Uitterlinden, 1993; Peres, Barlet, Loiseau, & Montet, 2007; Zheng et al., 2012). By using this technique, microorganism composition is defined on the basis of the migration pattern of PCR-fragments belonging to specific genomic regions such as 16S and 26S rDNA (El Sheikha et al., 2009). PCR-DGGE was also used to monitor bacterial contamination in food products such as fermented drinks (Hosseini, Hippe, Denner, Kollegger, & Haslberger, 2012) and define the origin of raw material starting from the characteristics of its yeast or bacterial communities as in the case of fruit (El Sheikha, Bouvet, & Montet, 2011; El Sheikha, Durand, Sarter, Okullo, & Montet, 2012; El Sheikha, Métayer, & Montet, 2011) and fish (Le Nguyen, Ha, Dijoux, Loiseauet, & Montet, 2008; Montet, Le Nguyen, & El Sheikha, 2008).

The selection of the most suitable molecular approach depends on different aspects, including the amount of genetic variation of the analyzed species, the time needed for the analysis, the cost/effectiveness ratio and the expertise of laboratories. Furthermore, genomic techniques require high-quality DNA to work successfully because their effectiveness can be negatively influenced by altered or fragmented DNA (Hellberg & Morrisey, 2011; Meusnier et al., 2008; Pafundo, Agrimonti, Maestri, & Marmiroli, 2007).

Regarding sequencing-based systems, Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) and Simple Sequence Repeats (SSRs), are largely used nowadays because of their high level of polymorphism and high reproducibility (Kumar et al., 2009). These approaches are used both in the identification of plant cultivars (Labra et al., 2003; Pasqualone, Lotti, & Blanco, 1999) and animal breeds (Nijman et al., 2003) and to prevent fraudulent commercial activities (Chuang et al., 2011). However, being highly species-specific, these approaches require access to the correct DNA sequence of the organisms (e.g. strains/varieties or ecotypes) and their application is often limited to a single taxon, or to closely related taxa.

Lack of both standardization and universality is the most relevant problem of DNA-based approaches. In 2003, a new identification system, DNA barcoding was developed by researchers at the University of Guelph (Canada). This approach is based on the analysis of the variability within a standard region of the genome called “DNA barcode” (Hebert, Ratnasingham, & deWaard, 2003). This approach proved useful in solving taxonomic problems in several theoretical and practical applications (Hollingsworth, Graham, & Little, 2011; Rasmussen, Morrissey, & Hebert, 2009; Valentini, Pompanon, & Taberlet, 2009). In a strict sense, DNA barcoding is not completely innovative, because molecular identification approaches were already in use. However, it has the advantage of combining three important innovations: molecularization of identification processes (i.e. the investigation of DNA variability to discriminate among taxa), standardization of the procedure (from sample collection to the analysis ofmolecular outputs), and computerization (i.e. the not redundant transposition of the data using informatics) (Casiraghi, Labra, Ferri, Galimberti, & De Mattia, 2010).

The name DNA barcoding figuratively refers to the way an infrared scanner univocally identifies a product by using the black stripes of the Universal Product Code (UPC). An ideal DNA barcode requires two fundamental characteristics: high taxonomic coverage, and high resolution (Hebert et al., 2003). High taxonomic coverage (also called ‘universality’) refers to the correct amplification of the genomic region chosen as DNA barcode in the widest panel of taxa. On the other hand, a high resolution ensures the identification of different taxa, based on interspecific differences in DNA barcode sequences. As a general principle, DNA barcode regions should have a high interspecific, and low intraspecific variability.

The 5′-end portion of mitochondrial cox1 gene was suggested by Hebert et al. (2003) as standard DNA barcode region for metazoans. This region does not assure a complete taxonomic resolution, but it does promise proximity (Hebert & Gregory, 2005). Based on preliminary results on cox1 discriminatory power, specimens have been correctly identified at the species level with a success rate ranging from 98 to 100% in birds (Hebert, Stoeckle, Zemlak, & Francis, 2004), fish (Ward, Zemlak, Innes, Last, & Hebert, 2005), and in several other animal groups (Ferri et al., 2009; Galimberti, Martinoli, Russo, Mucedda, & Casiraghi, 2010; Galimberti et al., 2012; Hajibabaei et al., 2006). Nowadays, this region is considered the universal DNA barcode for metazoans, and is used to better distinguish even closely related taxa (see Uthicke, Byrne, & Conand, 2010; Wong et al., 2011), or to identify organisms from their parts, and also from traces of biological material (Dawnay, Ogden, McEwing, Carvalho, & Thorpe, 2007; Shokralla, Singer, & Hajibabaei, 2010; Vargas et al., 2009). In terrestrial plants, mitochondrial DNA has slower substitution rates than in metazoans, and shows intra-molecular recombination (Mower, Touzet, Gummow, Delph, & Palmer, 2007), therefore limiting its resolution in identification. The research for an analogous of cox1 in terrestrial plants has focused on the plastid genome. Several plastidial genes, such as the most conserved rpoB, rpoC1 and rbcL or a section of matK, which shows a fast evolution rate, have been proposed as barcode regions (Shaw, Lickey, Schilling, & Small, 2007). Intergenic spacers such as trnH-psbA, atpF-atpH and psbK-psbI were also tested, because of their fast evolution rate (Fazekas et al., 2008, 2009). In 2009, the CBoL (Consortium for the Barcode of Life) Plant Working Group (Hollingsworth et al., 2009), suggested the use of 2-locus combination of rbcL and matK as core-barcode regions, because of the straightforward recovery rate of rbcL, and the high resolution of matK. Unfortunately, matK is difficult to amplify by using a single primer pair (Dunning & Savolainen, 2010). On the contrary, despite its limited resolution, rbcL is less problematic in terms of amplification, sequencing and alignment, and provides a useful backbone in the creation of plant DNA barcode datasets (De Mattia et al., 2012). Among other sequences, the trnH-psbA intergenic spacer is straightforward to amplify, and has a high genetic variability among closely related taxa (Bruni et al., 2010; Kress et al., 2010; Shaw et al., 2007). The nuclear ITS region was also indicated as supplementary DNA barcode region (Li et al., 2011). Although there is still debate on the effectiveness of these markers especially when users are dealingwith closely related taxa, DNA barcoding showed consistent results when used to identify unknown specimens based on the comparison with reference sequences (Burgess et al., 2011; De Mattia et al., 2012).

Although themolecular approach at the basis of DNA barcoding is not newto science, the strength of thismethod relies on the availability of an international platform. BOLD (Barcode of life database), coordinated by the International Barcode of Life Project (iBOL), is a repository, which supports the collection of DNA barcodes, with the aimof creating a reference library for all living species (Ratnasingham & Hebert, 2007). BOLD is used to relate a given DNA barcode to both a vouchered specimen and other DNA barcode sequences belonging to the same or different taxa. This platform consists of several components, among which the Identification Engine tool (BOLD-IDS) is one of the most useful. BOLD-IDS provide a species identification tool that accepts DNA barcode sequences and returns a taxonomic assignment to the species levelwhenever possible. This engine assumes correct species identification for genetic distances up to 99%. Any researcher can use BOLD-IDS, and, if a reference record belonging to an unknown specimen is available in the database, the system provides identification at the species rank, or a list of the taxa related to that specimen. BOLD is a reliable resource both for research purposes and for practical applications, such as the traceability of food commodities.

Analytical and Managerial Challenges for Food Traceability

Multi-element and isotopic analyses have previously been applied to a range of foodstuffs to develop methods that will permit their geographical origin to be determined with varying degrees of certainty. A vast array of analytical techniques and parameters have been studied to verify the provenance of regional foods, such as aroma, sugar, phenolic and flavour compound profiling, by gas and liquid chromatography and ‘fingerprinting’ or chemical profiling by 1H NMR (using hydrogen-1 as target atom), near Infra-Red and Fluorescence spectroscopy. These techniques can be extremely powerful tools for food origin determination in their own right and NMR profiling is often reported to be used in conjunction with multielement isotopic and trace element analysis.

Food authentication requires a database of genuine samples to which the ‘suspect’ test sample can be compared to establish its authenticity. In order to characterize markers for an authenticity parameter, such as geographical origin, there is a requirement for a large number of independent variables to be measured and statistically ‘screened’ in order to identify key tracers that differentiate the regions or countries of interest. Measuring elemental concentrations and isotopic variation in regional products is arguably the best analytical strategy for accurately verifying geographical origin.

Meat (beef and lamb), dairy products (milk, butter, cheese), beverages (tea, coffee, juice), cereal crops (rice, wheat) and wine have, to date, been the main commodities of interest investigated using the techniques mentioned above. Other commodities such as olive oils have been analyzed for geographical classification using multi-element data together with sensory parameters, combined with multivariate statistics.

Further research activities have also been undertaken to identify the regional provenance of asparagus using strontium isotope ratio measurement by multicollector - inductively coupled plasma - mass spectrometry (MC-ICP-MS). Tracing to origin is also an important issue for protection of the market and trading interests for other commodities such as saffron.

The relative abundance of natural strontium (Sr) isotopes is related to local geological conditions and may therefore provide information on the origin of raw cheese products. Values of Sr isotope abundance ratios in terrestrial vegetation are linked with the Sr isotopic composition of the soil, which is influenced by bedrock, soil/water properties and atmospheric inputs. The typical strontium mass content of mobile strontium in soil and in solution ranges from 0.2 to 20 mg kg-1 (μg Sr leached per g of soil). For different types of geological samples the overall mass contents of Sr range from 1 up to 2000 mg kg-1 and from 0.01 to 7620 mg L-1 for hydrological samples (seawater, rivers, rain) and from 8 to 2500 mg kg-1 for biological samples (wood, roots). Biological processes, whether involved in plant or animal metabolism, do not significantly fractionate strontium isotopes. It has been found that geological properties (e.g. Sr isotope abundance ratios) are reflected directly in the cheeses when the cows are kept under a controlled dietary regime and are not fed with industrially produced feeds or feeds from geographically distant sources.

There is still considerable room for improvement in both sampling and analytical methodology. In particular, there is a need to ensure that:

1. Procedures used by exporting countries are in harmony with those used by the competent authorities in importing countries as provided under applicable legal norms. For example at the European level under the Regulation (EC) 882/2004, on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules;
2. Attributes of food authenticity are clearly identifiable, documented and/or measurable by all involved parties;
3. The limitations inherent in analytical data, in particular concepts such as uncertainty and limits of quantification, are understood by all concerned, and;
4. Mechanisms are developed to assist in the preparation of appropriate commercial specifications as well as making certain that sampling and analytical methods used ‘in house’ (usually rapid methods) are fit for purpose. This involves taking into account not only the analyte but also the food matrix in which it is analyzed.

Also in the field of food authenticity, besides reliable but time consuming analytical methods, there is a need for the development of fast, simple, robust methods of proven efficacy and reliability.

ISO 22000: Traceability in Food Supply Chains /Theoretical Reviews of Traceability - III

Part III

ISO 22000 & Food Traceability

Theoretical Reviews of Traceability

Traceability in food manufacturing can range from in-house traceability in production plants to traceability in whole or part of the production chain from raw material to consumer, and descriptors of the product and its history can be few or many as decided. Well thought-out traceability systems are fundamental to achieving optimal benefits from quality control, production control and for fulfilling consumer demands as well as voluntary regulatory requirements such as ISO 22000, FSSC 22000, HACCP, etc. In order to facilitate the discussion of a traceability strategy in food industries these viewpoints outline the fundamental theoretical issues of traceability systems and present a more practical discussion of its extent. This will give you more to think before you start your traceability system to achieve ISO 22000 certification.

Traceability in Food Industry

In a literature review on traceability and supply chain, 70% of the literature found is related to the food industry. The research field of traceability in the food industry is relatively young and most authors of the literature found agree that food-related scandals and incidents during recent years have increasingly driven authorities, consumers and other stakeholders’ interest towards food safety. Full traceability or traceability throughout the entire supply chain is seen by many of the authors, e.g. Kelepouris et al. (2007), Morrison (2003), Van Dorp (2003) Viaene & Verbeke (1998) as essential for ensuring food safety and quality, and thus a way to regain or maintain consumer confidence. Although traceability itself cannot improve food safety or quality it can provide necessary information and keep track of products (Wang & Li, 2006). Consumers’ increased concerns have, according to Beulens et al. (2005), Lareke (2007), and Wang and Li (2006), led to an increased demand for information about food safety and other properties of the food they consume.

Different Perspectives of Traceability

Several different definitions of traceability are found in the literature studied. In a review of definitions Van Dorp (2002) confirms that there is no uniform understanding of the concept. According to the European Union regulation which concerns food safety explained as; “traceability means 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 distribution” (REGULATION (EC) No 178/2002 Article 3 §15). Two kinds of traceability are referred to in literature; local and chain (or internal and external). Chain traceability refers to the ability to trace a product/batch and its history throughout an entire supply chain. Local traceability refers to the ability to trace ingredients and raw material within one of the actors in a supply chain (Alklint & Göransson, 2004; Moe, 1998; Stadig et al., 2002). Van Dorp (2002) proposes four perspectives on traceability:

1. The enterprise perspective: Traceability viewed from within a manufacturing company.
2. The multi-site perspective: Views traceability issues related to the additional aspects emerging in companies with several manufacturing plants.
3. The supply chain perspective: Includes the entire supply chain with an integrative approach encompassing planning and control of material flow, and efficient and effective information management throughout the supply chain.
4. The external environment perspective: Refers to external requirements which affect traceability, from authorities, branch organizations and external stakeholders.

The supply chain and the external environment perspectives presented by Van Dorp (2002) will be in focus in this paper. The traceability definition selected indirectly demands a supply chain perspective since it requires all the actors in the food supply chains to be able to trace ingredients and products one step up and one step down in the supply chain. The supply chain perspective presented by Van Dorp (2002) is wider than the demands in the EC regulation since it also encompasses information management aspects, as previous studies confirm (Eken & Karlsson, 2006).

The Challenges of Supply Chain Traceability

Full traceability, end-to-end traceability, chain traceability and supply chain traceability are frequently used by authors in the field. However few authors define what they include in these concepts. Nevertheless, all these expressions can be regarded as traceability throughout an entire supply chain. Consequently, Kelepouris et al., (2007) state that: “achieving end-to-end traceability across the supply chain is currently quite a challenge

from a technical, a co-ordination and a cost perspective.” Co-operation throughout the supply chain is stated as being a main success factor for achieving supply chain traceability by Viaene and Verbeke, (1998). Wang and Li (2006) concur that collaboration is needed between supply chain actors and Kelepouris et al. (2007) state that, participation of all actors in the supply chain is needed. To reach supply chain traceability Viaene and Verbeke (1998) state that managing product and information flows effectively throughout the chain is a challenge. Lo Bello et al. (2005) state that: “For complete product traceability it is necessary to record not only all incoming and outgoing movements of the production lots, but also all the procedures and processing operations applied to them”. Companies need to exchange traceability data with other actors in the supply chain (lo Bello et al., 2005). Wang and Li (2006) highlight sharing of information along the supply chain and good communication between the different actors as important aspects for successfully achieving supply chain traceability. Kelepouris et al. (2007) agree that information on the total product’s lifecycle is needed in order to achieve supply chain traceability.

Wang and Li (2006) state that a properly designed traceability system is crucial to assure that data collection is managed effectively and that the right data are collected. They also state that integration of traceability systems with other enterprise systems is crucial in order to gain the most beneficial outputs from supply chain traceability. Lo Bello et al. (2005) feel that security and authentication in the communication between the actors through the systems is a problem to be tackled while Moe (1998) points out that limitations or particular aims of one actor in the supply chain set the demands or limits the traceability for the entire supply chain.

Different approaches and systems designed to achieve supply chain traceability appear in literature: they range from paper-based records to sophisticated computer-based information technology including biological technologies (Folinas et al., 2006; Wang & Li, 2006). Despite the different computer-based traceability systems proposed by researchers, most companies have adopted paper based traceability systems (lo Bello et al., 2005). Sioen et al. (2007) state that studies within seafood industry show a gradual change from paper-based traceability systems to computer based technology, however Roth et al. (2008) state that adoption is slow. Although technological solutions seem available there is a major challenge in economical feasibility for SMEs according to Sioen et al., (2007). Kelepouris et al. (2007) agreed that costs are especially critical for SME’s but state that labour cost for the required work effort to collect the information to support the traceability system is the critical cost, while, RFID technology and proper information infrastructure are affordable solutions for SMEs. Independent of how challenging the task is most authors agree that traceability must high on the agenda for companies within the food industry. In the process towards supply chain traceability there are also important actual and expected benefits (Kelepouris et al., 2007; Wang & Li, 2006).

Added Value through Supply Chain Traceability

In order to achieve more beneficial outputs and added value an integration of traceability systems with the supply chain management processes is suggested by Wang and Li (2006). “If the objective is only to meet regulatory requirements, these costs can be a significant burden with little perceived payback. In fact, traceability can provide substantial benefits beyond the traditional understanding of its value.” However not all beneficial outputs add value: improved core value of a product or service rate as value adding. It can be regarded as exceeding of customer expectations (Näslund et al., 2006). Besides, added value will be viewed in a supply chain perspective.

Efficient consumer response in Europe confirms that the best way to ensure food safety and supply chain traceability is through close collaboration between actors in the supply chain. It is through this collaboration that supply chain actors can find ways to “improve the efficiency of business processes and procedures, reduce waste and to do things in new ways in the supply chain” so that benefits can be shared (ECR 2004). Wang and Li (2006) agreed that waste can be reduced through traceability and stated that it can be done by an optimized use of raw material. They further stated that supply chain traceability enables high inventory visibility and optimized production planning which in turn can facilitate decreased inventory levels. Moe (1998) and Morrison (2003) stated that supply chain traceability can be used to improve process control. All of these add value in terms of increased efficiency.

Roth et al (2008) state that there are economic incentives for companies to invest in traceability and that it can “improve supply management, increase safety and quality control”. Providing safe food to customers and consumers is hardly considered a competitive advantage, rather a basic requirement according to Mentzer et al. (2001), however, the ability to accurately target the product lots in case of a recall can generate added value to the actors in the supply chain through cost savings. These are regarding lost sales, product disposal and damage to the company’s marketing profile (Kelepouris et al., 2007). Roth et al (2008) also stated that supply chain traceability can “reduce the likelihood of expensive and embarrassing recalls“. Wang and Li (2006) agreed that accurate traceability effectively reduces risk exposure by enabling supply chain actors to identify, isolate and correct the problem quickly and efficiently through the facilitation of follow-ups after disruptions.

It is expected that all supply chain actors will benefit from the information transparency (Van Dorp., 2003). A shared and holistic overview of the supply chain can be created through the efforts towards supply chain traceability (Lindh et al., 2008). According to Kelepouris et al. (2007), and Viaene and Verbeke (1998) advertised traceability can raise customer confidence in and loyalty to a company or brand and is thus a competitive advantage. Traceability beyond the legal requirements can generate benefits in meeting new and higher consumer expectations regarding quality and safety and increased value to the consumer while increasing efficiency and effectiveness in the supply chain (ECR 2004). Traceability also enables selling high margin products through product differentiation by providing special raw material or product properties (Moe, 1998; Roth et al., 2008; Wang & Li, 2006).

Document Courtesy:

TRACEABILITY IN FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS: TOWARDS THE SYNCHRONISED SUPPLY CHAIN

Helena Lindh, Christina Skjöldebrand* and Annika Olsson**

Department of Design Sciences, Division of Packaging Logistics, Lund University

References

1. Alklint, C. & Göransson, A. (2004), Spårbarhet en väg mot transparens: Fallstudier ilivsmedelskedjan, Lund University.
2. Beulens,6 A. J. M., Broens, D. F., Folstar, P., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005), "Food safety and transparency in food chains and networks Relationships and challenges", Food Control, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 481-486.
3. Eken, C. & Karlsson, J. (2006), Livsmedelssäkerhet ur ett försörjningskedjeperspektiv, Master thesis, Department of Design Sciences, Lund University, Sweden.
4. Folinas, D., Manikas, I., & Manos, B. (2006), "Traceability data management for food chains", British Food Journal, vol. 108, no. 8, pp. 622-633.
5. Kelepouris, T., Pramatari, K., & Doukidis, G. (2007), "RFID-enabled traceability in the food supply chain", Industrial Management + Data Systems, vol. 107, no. 2, p. 183.
6. Lareke, A. (2007), Tyrannical consumers - initiate value creation in the food value chain, Department of Design Sciences Division of Packaging Logistics, Lund Univeristy, Lund.
7. Lindh, H., Skjöldebrand, C., & Olsson Annika "Brownboard: A tool to facilitate improved supply chain traceability", The 20th annual NOFOMA conference proceedings edn, V. Autere et al., eds., Helsinki, pp. 393-408.
8. lo Bello, L., Mirabella, O., & Torrisi, N. (2005), "A General Approach to model traceability systems in food manufacturing chaiins", Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, 2005.ETFA 2005.10th IEEE Conference on, vol. 2, pp. 207-214.
9. Mentzer, J. T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J. S., Min, S., Nix, N. W., Smith, C. D., & Zacharia, Z. G. (2001), "Defining supply chain Management", Journal of Business Logistics, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 1-25.
10. Moe, T. (1998), "Perspectives on traceability in food manufacture", Trends in Food Science and Technology, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 211-214.
11. Morrison, C. (2003), "Traceability in food processing: an introduction," in Food authenticity and traceability, M. Lees, ed., Woodhead publishing limited, Cambridge, pp. 459-471.
12. Näslund, D., Olsson, A., & Karlsson, S. (2006), "Operationalizing the concept of value - an action research based model", The Learning Organization, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 300-332.
13. Roth, A. V., TSAY, A. A., Pullman, M. E., & Gray, J., V (2008), "Unraveling the food supply chain: Strategic insights from china and the 2007 recalls*", Journal of Supply Chain Management, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 22-39.
14. Sioen, I., Verbeke, W., De Henauw, S., Parmentier, K., Raemaekers, M., Willems, J., & Van Camp, J. (2007), "Determining the Origin of seafood Products on the Belgian Market: Challenges to Traceability and Database Management", The Open Food Science Journal, vol. 1, pp. 33-42.
15. Stadig, M., Breg, B., Bergström, B., Janson, C.-G., Karlsson, R., Wiik, L., & Johnsson, M. (2002), Spårbarhet i Livsmedelskedjan, SIK, SIK-Dokument 161.
16. Van Dorp, K.-J. (2003), "Beef labelling: The emergence of transparency", Supply Chain Management, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 32-40.
17. Van Dorp, K.-J. (2002), "Tracking and tracing: a structure for development and contemporary practices", Logistics Information Management, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 24-33.
18. Viaene, J. & Verbeke, W. (1998), "Traceability as a key instrument towards supply chain and quality management in the Belgian poultry meat chain", Supply Chain Management, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 139.
19. Wang, X. & Li, D. (2006), "Value Added on Food Traceability: a Supply Chain Management Approach", 2006 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics pp. 493-498.
20. ECR (2004), ECR – “Using traceability in the supply chain to meet consumer safety expectations”, ECR Europe
21. REGULATION (EC) No 178/2002 of the European parliament and of the council, of 28 January 2002, laying down the general principles and requirements of food law.