Communicating Food Safety, Authenticity and Consumer Choice. Field Experiences

16 Pages·2013·1.32 MB·English

Send Orders of Reprints at [email protected]
Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculture, 2013, 5, 19-34 19
Communicating Food Safety, Authenticity and Consumer Choice. Field
Experiences
Heiner Lehr, Syntesa*
Rambla Exposició 89 1r 1a, E-08800 Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain
Received: May 28, 2012; Revised: June 05, 2012; Accepted: July 04, 2012
Abstract: The paper reviews patented and non-patented technologies, methods and solutions in the area of food traceabil-
ity. It pays special attention to the communication of food safety, authenticity and consumer choice. Twenty eight recent
patents are reviewed in the areas of (secure) identification, product freshness indicators, meat traceability, (secure) trans-
port of information along the supply chain, country/region/place of origin, automated authentication, supply chain man-
agement systems, consumer interaction systems. In addition, solutions and pilot projects are described in the areas of Ha-
lal traceability, traceability of bird’s nests, cold chain management, general food traceability and other areas.
Keywords: Consumer information, food traceability, food information management, fraud protection, meat traceability
1. INTRODUCTION • Consumer information
Food traceability has over the last decade become a well- This paper provides a review of first key concepts in sec-
understood topic, both in research and in practice. In Europe tion 1.1. Attention will then be directed at key obstacles to
food chain traceability was given a special emphasis in Pri- the implementation of traceability in Section 1.2. before
ority 5 of the sixth framework programme (2002-2006) re- dealing with the question how knowledge rights are managed
sulting in over 14 different research projects, and a total re- in this field. Section 2 covers the basis for communication
search budget of over 140 Million (cid:2) over four years, and concerning food traceability. In the subsequent sections 3,4
involving up to 400 different participants across 30 coun- and 5 relevant patents and non-patented technologies related
tries. These projects include Food Trace [1], which set the to food traceability are reviewed. Section 6 summarises the
ground work for electronic traceability, TRACE IP [2], contribution and point to a few key developments for the
which worked on origin determination and traceability, near and mid-term future.
CHILL-ON [3] which used traceability for communication
in the cold chain and finally Bright Animal [4, 5] which 1.1. Key Ingredients to Food Traceability
identified new ways of optimisation in the feed-animal-food
Traceability is generally not a complicated thing. Trace-
chain.
ability is about history and claims, about practices and per-
A good guide to global efforts on larger scale traceability formance. ISO8402 “Quality management and quality assur-
is given in the book “Food traceability around the world” ance” defines it as follows:
[6]. In many areas, food traceability has become a main
Traceability is the ability to verify the history, loca-
stream activity. Large software providers such as IBM and
tion, or application of an item by means of documented
SAP offer food traceability solutions as do specialised pro-
recorded identification.
viders, such as FoodReg.
This differs somewhat from other, newer definitions of
In the particular case of meat production and related
traceability – such as the Codex Alimentarius definition [11]
fields, such as animal husbandry and precision livestock
in that it makes explicit reference to records. Traceability is
farming, a number of efforts have been undertaken (see [7-
about records and record keeping.
10] and references therein) to use traceability in
• Animal tracking Record keeping for the purpose of food traceability (in
the following abbreviated as “traceability”) is usually sepa-
• Feed optimisation rated into two areas: internal traceability and external trace-
• Managing slaughter ability; see Fig. (1). External traceability has also been called
“chain traceability” on many occasions. Both areas have seen
• Managing the butchering process great activity in patents, trademarks, standards and other
• Origin determination inventions; see below. Most commercial providers of soft-
ware provide internal traceability solutions, while only a few
*Address correspondence to this author at the Rambla Exposició 89 1r 1a, have ventured into providing external traceability and de-
E-08800 Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain; Tel: [phone];
rived purposes.
Cell: [phone]; E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:28)/13 $100.00+.00 © 2013 Bentham Science Publishers
20 Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculture, 2013, Vol. 5, No. 1 Heiner Lehr Syntesa
Fig. (1). Definition of internal and external traceability within and between food business operators (FBOs).
The additional challenge in the case of external traceabil- • OASIS based work in conjunction with UN/CEFACT,
ity is that the exchange of data has to work across company ISO and GS1 as exemplified in the standardisation effort
borders. This leads to legal, commercial and psychological FishBizz [13].
challenges which have yet to be overcome. However, it is • EPCIS [14], the Electronic Product Code Information
this separation of the physical product flow from the infor-
System. Created as an infrastructure for communicating
mation flow that provides the most interesting applications
RFID2-related information, EPCIS is used more and
for the communication of safety, authenticity and consumer
more for food traceability. The Norwegian National Pro-
choice.
ject eSporing [15] uses EPCIS as a backbone to trans-
In order to work cross-boundary, food traceability needs port data enabling traceability for different food com-
to rely on unequivocal information that is available about a modities.
specific food item at least during its useful lifetime (i.e.
ISO12875 and 12877 mostly work on the semantics or
shelf-life). Two principles need to be followed:
the “vocabulary”, while FishBizz and EPCIS mostly work on
1. The principle of unique identification which requires the syntax, i.e. how to get the message across. None of the
FBOs to identify uniquely all items that at least are sub- above approaches has yet turned into a de-facto standard.
ject to different treatment within the own company
The third key ingredient in food traceability is the legal
2. The principle of documenting of transformations which administrative framework. In Europe, the General Food Law
requires FBOs to document any transformation that ei- [16] governs the general case. Specific regulations for animal
ther removes identifiers or creates new identifiers identification, food labelling, illegal, unreported and unregis-
tered fishing exist. The United States signed the Food Safety
Identifications systems are abundant; many are not glob-
Modernisation Act into law in early 2011. Other countries
ally unique and therefore violate the first principle. We note
like Vietnam have sector specific regulations and laws. None
that the international standard ISO 15459 “Information tech-
of the regulatory systems have so far produced the emer-
nology -- Unique identifiers” operates a register of globally
gence of standardised systems for external traceability.
unique identifiers.
After identification, the next key ingredient in traceabil- 1.2. Key Obstacles to Global Traceability
ity is the possibility of exchanging information, preferably in
Although many efforts are being made particularly in
an electronic format. Some closed systems have been devel-
oped and patented (see Section 4.2), but currently the most South East Asia to accommodate European requirements on
promising developments are food traceability, the world of food is hardly traceable yet.
• ISO 12875:2011 “Traceability of finfish products -- The milestones for the establishment of a national or
global traceability system are quite easy to enumerate; see
Specification on the information to be recorded in cap-
Table 1 [17]. However, there remain three key challenges:
tured finfish distribution chains” and ISO 12877:2011
“Traceability of finfish products -- Specification on the • Standardisation
information to be recorded in farmed finfish distribution
• Corporate Privacy
chains “. These standards are based on Trace Fish [12], a
widely accepted and used standard in fish. ISO has until • Smallholder integration
recently stayed out of standardising food traceability; its
latest efforts in the area of fish may very well lead to Standardisation
other (semantic1) standards in the area of food traceabil-
ity. Food production is a truly global business. The 27 coun-
tries considered to constitute the European Union, exported
food, beverages and tobacco for the value of 76bEUR and
imported the same goods for the value of 80bEUR in 2010
[18]. With such volume of business, in order to enable the

1 Semantic here refers to defining the vocabulary and its meaning. This is opposed to
syntactic standards that define the way “words” from the vocabulary can be combined. 2 Radio-frequency identifier
Traceability and Communication Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculture, 2013, Vol. 5, No. 1 21
Table 1. Milestones for the Establishment of a Global Traceability System; Adapted from [17]
M1(cid:2) Database of food production locations(cid:2) Draws on existing schemes for farms and food premises (cid:2)
Integrated with existing geospatial information(cid:2)
M2(cid:2) Product type database(cid:2) Based on UN Central Product Classification (CPC)(cid:2)
Introduction in all relevant government processes(cid:2)
M3(cid:2) Land use database(cid:2) The link between premises and product types, supporting geo-traceability(cid:2)
M4(cid:2) A world-wide unique numbering system(cid:2) Apt for identifying: Product types, Batches, Trade units, Logistic units, Business
partners, Business locations(cid:2)
M5(cid:2) A traceability framework (cid:2) Names uniquely all relevant parameters for a food stuff(cid:2)
Decides on what data to store at what point (cid:2)
Defines an exchange protocol (cid:2)
M6(cid:2) Law on data ownership and confidentiality(cid:2) Protect individuals and business(cid:2)
Rules of access by governments(cid:2)
M7(cid:2) Regulation to define ‘obligatory data’(cid:2) Data to be supplied to government via food information system(cid:2)
M8(cid:2) Regulation on mandatory traceability(cid:2) Transition timescale(cid:2)
Small producers exempt if trading partners enter data(cid:2)
M9(cid:2) Establish single, independent agency for food standards To govern the traceability scheme and ensure its use(cid:2)
and safety(cid:2)
M10(cid:2) Integrate information for all official sanitary and phyto- To reduce unnecessary burden on FBOs and increase efficiency of the verification
sanitary inspections(cid:2) process(cid:2)
M11(cid:2) Food information system deployed in modular architecture(cid:2) Allow interconnectivity with variety of information systems(cid:2)
M12(cid:2) Food information system connected to food businesses via Allow for privately run traceability systems that are capable of interacting with the
non-government food information & traceability systems(cid:2) system holding normative (and reduced) data(cid:2)
M13(cid:2) Use of international standards for information interchange(cid:2) Interconnect national and international systems(cid:2)
M14(cid:2) Food information system with key capabilities(cid:2) Store traceability data and referential databases
Manage good practice compliance in addition to traceability(cid:2)
M15(cid:2) Governments should directly fund only the core compo- Governments can provide financial support to the adoption and use of systems used
nents of the traceability system roll-out(cid:2) by food business operators, but the bulk of the cost should be borne by private indus-
try(cid:2)
M16(cid:2) Special support plan for micro-enterprises(cid:2) Governments should recognise the special situation of microenterprises in the food
chain and help them with the introduction of traceability(cid:2)
traceability of food items, standards are required for identifi- reservations when it comes to revealing any data that is not
cation, product ontologies, exchange protocols and data cap- required by a law or a regulation.
ture/data query.
A few producers have discovered that information can be
None of the aforementioned standards have found im- sold as an additional commodity. In a recent traceability
plementation in a satisfactory way. Table 2 summarises implementation for a leading palm oil producer, the author
some relevant areas where standardisation is important and was able to convince the company to reveal details of their
cites good candidates for world-wide standards. sustainable production to final clients. The auditability of the
information provided convinced sensitive clients to contract
As it stands, a food business operator wishing to establish
the producer as a bio-diesel supplier at an excellent price.
a chain traceability system does not have a standard toolbox
However, such examples are yet scarce.
to choose from that would satisfy his providers’, his clients’
and the food safety authorities’ requirements. The fear of revealing data is not linked to large scale pro-
ducers using “scary” ingredients like palm oil. When the
Corporate Privacy author implemented a pomelo traceability system in Thai-
land, a small-scale fruit picker owning a single truck was
In addition, the food industry is a very secretive industry.
very reluctant to join the pilot. As a reason she cited that she

Open information access is not the rule, but rather the excep-
only declares half of her pickings to the tax authority. She
tion. Small margins, high volatility of demand and supply,
was afraid that recording all her picking in a traceability sys-
vulnerability to government action all lead to the industry’s
22 Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculture, 2013, Vol. 5, No. 1 Heiner Lehr Syntesa
Table 2. Standardisation in relevant areas of Traceability
Area of Standardisation(cid:2) Standards(cid:2) Main Challenges(cid:2)
Identification(cid:2) (cid:2)
(cid:2) GS1 set of identifiers(cid:2) Heavily used in distribution and retail, but not very extended in primary production
Membership organisation that requires individual operators to sign up
National identification schemes usually not based on GS1 identifiers(cid:2)
Product ontologies(cid:2) (cid:2)
(cid:2) ISO 12875 and 12877(cid:2) Only on fish; no similar ontologies available for other foods(cid:2)
Exchange protocols(cid:2) (cid:2)
(cid:2) EPCIS(cid:2) Not apt for food traceability without modifications
Adoption by large players mostly/only(cid:2)
Data capture(cid:2) (cid:2)
(cid:2) Code 128 encoded SSCC or Excellent adoption, but limited information transport(cid:2)
GTIN+(cid:2)
(cid:2) RFID(cid:2) Different frequencies in different countries; still very high costs that prohibit item identifica-
tion(cid:2)
tem would enable the Ministry of Finance to tax her for the tion. The system has been piloted successfully in Indonesia
full amount. in 2011 [21].
This exemplifies that an acceptable traceability system
2. THE BASIS FOR COMMUNICATION
needs to make arrangements both on the data collected as
well as to rights to access such data. Products that are produced under certain conditions or
following certain processes, but that are physically no differ-
ent from other products (such as sustainably produced fruit
Smallholders
vs. non-sustainably produced) acquire their product differen-
The vast majority of FBOs are small to smallest scale tiation mainly in the information space, i.e. when informa-
operations. Many of those in agriculture are only semi- tion is made available in addition to the product. New prod-
professional, i.e. farming only constitutes part of their in- ucts emerge such as products with attached sustainability
come. In Palestine, olive oil production is almost entirely in information or products without any guarantees.
the hand of smallholder producers [19]. In Vietnam, 90% of
Traceability and especially chain traceability can achieve
all shrimp and aquaculture fish production is in the hands of
that goal in different ways, but it requires a consistent data
smallholders [20]. Even in Europe, according to EURO-
interchange model from which to start.
STAT on average 95% of all broiler holdings in Denmark,
Germany, Greece, Italy, Austria, Portugal and the United • A protocol as the foundation of a data interchange
Kingdom hold less than 100 broilers. model needs to describe
Smallholders are characterised by lack of time and re- • A traceability unit description (i.e. what information is
sources to implement complicated systems. In some areas, stored in what format)
record keeping is not yet part of the general training and • A format for lookup and querying
business culture. Automated identification and data capture
often requires electricity which may not be readily available. Typically the description of a traceability unit is divided
into master or static data, which describes such data that
Smallholders have particular requirements that not usu-
supposedly is “inherent” in the element and “usage” data
ally covered by advanced electronic systems or standards.
which describes actions performed on or with the element.
Membership requirements e.g. for identification schemes are
a serious obstacle to their adoption by smallholders. Most of One of the hugely discussed items in the traceability
such association would probably not even be capable of world is how to setup a global traceability system. There are
managing the vast number of small-scale FBOs. two basic models, the “hub” model and the “chain” model;
see Figs. (2 & 3) [22].
FoodReg, a specialist provider of food traceability solu-
tions, has designed a mixed paper-electronic traceability sys- In the hub model, data is copied to a “hub” and queries
tem that relies on pre-printed labels and forms. Processors are then resolved solely on the hub. This model is similar to
then convert the paper information into electronic informa- that of a centralised database.
Traceability and Communication Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculture, 2013, Vol. 5, No. 1 23
Fig. (2). The "hub" model of traceability [22].
In the “chain” model, data is left at its origin and queries remains: who operates the traceability system? Internation-
are resolved by hopping from one node to another (a bit like ally, five approaches have been observed:
DNS, the service that translates “web addresses”, i.e. URLs,
1) The top down model, as seen in efforts in Malaysia,
into IPs, i.e. numbers required for the data transport).
Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, China and other coun-
Mixed models are also under discussion, such as the tries, where the government basically provides a sys-
“data specific” model, where some data is kept at the hub tem and expects FBOs to use it
and some data is kept at its origin. This allows for a resilient
2) The bottom up approach, followed by Norway where
resolution of some queries, while other queries will have to
industry associations run a traceability system and ask
gather information directly from the data origins.
their members to use them.
The last model effectively addresses the rather compli-
3) Partial models like the US, where data is requested and
cated question of privacy in food traceability by splitting
then stored on a per-case basis. This does not allow for
information into two or three areas:
general chain traceability, but chain-connects particu-
(a) company restricted information that is shared only lar batches in case of incidences.
based on private contracts between the FBO and its
4) Standard operators like RSPO or ACC have mandated
supply chain partners.
the use of a chain traceability system (UTZ Certified
(b) regulatory information that is provided to food authori- and TraceRegister, respectively).
ties in order to enable them to deal effectively with in-
5) Private companies, offering their services based on a
cidences, statistics requirements and other issues. The
legally enforceable contract with privacy guarantees.
information required by the authority is legally re-
quired. It may be company specific, but can also be None of the above approaches have really convinced the
aggregated data only. general food industry world-wide. In addition, the absence of
an accepted data exchange format isolates the different sys-
(c) compliance related information that operators of a
tems making a world-wide approach additionally compli-
standard compliance scheme might require to have ac-
cated.
cess to. This is data that is required by standard
scheme operators and governed by a private contract The general loser is of course the consumer. Less infor-
between the standard operator and the FBO. mation available means less (informed) choice, more insecu-
rity (e.g. in the case of allergies) and more fraud. But it also
Although this model clearly restricts the access to data
means great inefficiencies (data retyping with consequent
and removes the fear of a privacy breach, the question still
errors), errors in sourcing, more stock and less shelf life and
a general loss of market access.
24 Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculture, 2013, Vol. 5, No. 1 Heiner Lehr Syntesa
Fig. (3). The "chain" or "decentralised" model.
Fig. (4). The "data specific" model of food traceability [22].
Patent WO/1999/039197 “SUBSTRATE FOR
3. COMMUNICATING SAFETY
PACKAGING PERISHABLE GOODS OR FOR
While food traceability was around the implementation APPLICATION ONTO SAME AND METHOD FOR
of the European General Food Law trumpeted mainly as a DETERMINING THE QUALITY OF SAID GOODS” [25]
tool for food safety and risk management, the food industry that gave rise to the product OnVu [26] commercialised now
took scarce notice. This can perhaps subsumed under what by Bayer provides the basis for an easy to use time tempera-
the English author Douglas Adams called “Somebody Else’s ture indicator (TTI). TTIs like OnVu record the time-
Problem” [23] – a largely invisible thing. temperature curve in a way that results in colouration or dis-
colouration of the label. By comparing the colour of the label
But not only the food industry has not taken the subject
or parts of the label to a reference colour, usually printed on
quite seriously. This author has for example criticised the
the same label, not only consumers but also supply chain
European cattle passport [24] for its lack of standardisation
partners can discard products that have been exposed to too
that would allow traceability across borders. Given that the
high temperatures.
cattle passport was one of the main tools to prevent the
spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), a sur- Patent WO/1999/039197 was special insofar as it included
prising fact. a photochemical activation process before which the label was
inert and did not have to be stored in very cold environments.
Fortunately, a more positive approach was found starting
One of the main disadvantages of this and other TTIs is that
with the advent of easy to use time temperature indicators.
they need to be calibrated against the food type.
Similar efforts have been reported using traffic light
3.1. Product Freshness and the Cold Chain
schemes [27] or integration into barcodes to automatically
One of the very interesting applications of food traceabil- prevent sales when a product has expired (see e.g. [28] or
ity is the cold chain. Products requiring refrigeration are sus- [29]).
ceptible to temperatures above certain limits and their fresh-
ness and effective shelf life depend greatly on the tempera-
3.2. Specifics of Meat Traceability
tures they have been subjected during their lifetime. In order
to model shelf-life, the EU project CHILL-ON [3] employed Figure 5 shows a typical meat production chain with the
chain traceability to record the time-temperature curve of three main steps of primary production (breeding, nursing
different food stuffs. While the detailed recording of such and growing), processing (slaughtering and butchering) and
data is important for research, picking based on estimated finally distribution and retail.
remaining shelf-life and perhaps stocking, consumers require Meat being the sensitive material that it is, especially in
a simpler interface. its raw form, meat traceability has received quite a bit of
attention from inventors.
Traceability and Communication Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculture, 2013, Vol. 5, No. 1 25
Fig. (5). A typcial meat chain with key ingredients.
In early stages, animal tracking is of great importance. [34] covers livestock management from conception to con-
US patent 7965188 “Radio Frequency Animal Tracking Sys- sumption through the use of an Internet platform. This patent
tem” [30] describes a radio-frequency identification (RFID) describes a system and method to collect all relevant data
system for animal tracking. This patent describes an im- throughout the lifecycle of cattle (and potentially other live-
proved RFID system, methods of using the system and of stock). It includes provisions for marketing related informa-
making the system. The patent addresses important issues, tion such as certification (e.g. for beef marketing programs),
such as interference between tags. Such animal tracking sys- but also for breeding, such as genetics improvement pro-
tems, or electronic identification (EID) systems are key for a grams, environmental monitoring, risk management, e-
variety of purposes: commerce and a consumer value system.
• Unique identification of individual animals for the A different area is addressed by patent EP1939811A1
purpose of animal health and food safety as part of le- “Method and system for associating source information for a
gal requirements (especially larger animals, such as source unit with a product unit converted therefrom “ [35]
cattle, but increasingly also smaller animals like sheep which describes a computer system and imaging sensors that
and goats) can be used to relate a carcass to meat cuts. Automation of
• Unique identification of individual animals for the this process is very important, since modern slaughterhouses
have very high throughput. Whereas some slaughterhouses
purpose of demonstrating ownership (e.g. dogs or rac-
use RFIDs on carcass hooks and innards trays in conjunction
ing horses)
with RFID-enabled “Christmas trees” for keeping the meat
• Unique identification of carcases at the beginning of cuts together, this invention uses information inherent in the
the slaughterhouse process object (e.g. visual information). It relates this information to
• Import/export or inter-state movements of animals newly created parts of the same object by analysing image
information and detecting equipment such as knifes. It then
• Recording of health inspections identifies all resulting objects (e.g. meat cuts) and relates
them back to the original object (e.g. the carcass). The patent
Such uses of data are also addressed partially in US pat-
applicant is a Cryovac, but commercialisation has not been
ents 8037846 “Method and system for tracking and manag-
observed yet.
ing animals and/or food products“[31] and [32]. This patent
uses the above mentioned “data specific” model (see Fig. A similar question is addressed by patent
(4)) and the figure of a data trustee to store and distribute WO2005052704 [36]. This patent describes a combined food
data. The patent covers a full animal identification system processing and information handling system that traces the
with relevant data and their collection and management origin of a food items and links them to subitems in a way
method, as a potential replacement for the National Animal that the link to the original item is always preserved. Data
Identification System (NAIS), the US equivalent of the collected on the originating items may include the original
European TRACES system or the Australian NLIS. Some animal, farm or country of origin. Subitems are identified via
countries like Malaysia require electronic ear tags for inter- tags and information about them (size, weight, shape, colour,
state movements. water content etc) is linked to that identifier. This can be
done either automatically or manually. The assignee of the
US patent 8019662 “Livestock Inventory Tracking Sys-
patent is the large Icelandic firm Marel hf.
tem and Methods “[33] addresses a similar area, but puts
more emphasis on the inventory management and auditing. A slightly different area is addressed by very recent US
Counting animals is a very labour-intensive area and the patent 8079897 [37] assigned to Cargill. This patent de-
patent publicises a system a method to automate this. The scribes a system and methods to track “interventions” made
patent actually covers inventory management up to the final on carcasses with the purpose of microbial reduction. This
sale by using unique animal identification via RFID and can be e.g. washing of the carcass or steam pasteurisation
tracking that through the supply chain. Similarly, US patent prior to chilling. The system described in the patent records
8019633 “Livestock Management Systems and Methods “ certain parameters of operating equipment and relates them
26 Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculture, 2013, Vol. 5, No. 1 Heiner Lehr Syntesa
to the carcass. If a particular carcass is later on rejected, a The system consists first of all of a two-part identification
control system can detect whether a particular intervention code, where the parts are called the egg collection data code
was operating within a pre-determined range of processing and the egg search code. Both are printed directly on the egg
parameters. to allow identification of small batches or individual eggs.
The search code can be related to a particular set of history
This is a clear example of merging food safety measure-
information. Absence of such information would allow for
ments with the product flow. By electronically recording
doubts in the authenticity of the eggs.
such information in relation to particular product
(sub)batches or individual units, not only the potential size of However, the management of such detailed coding sys-
a recall/withdrawal (or a hold, if lucky) can be reduced sub- tems is not always easy when items cannot be identified eas-
stantially, but also the malfunctioning of equipment can be ily.
detected in an automated fashion and whenever that affects
US patent 8090631 “Managing a material batch” [41]
the product in any way.
tries to address the problems related with batch identifica-
tion. This is related to the complications that the food indus-
4. COMMUNICATING AUTHENTICITY
try experiences with managing inventory based on batches.
One of the services built on top of traceability is to en- Failure to do so, however, opens the doors for the insertion
sure – or at least provide evidence for – the authenticity of a of fraudulent material from other sources, since control is
food item. In many cases, consumers or even supply chain lost about the existing quantities in the supply chain. The
partners know little about the authenticity of a food they pur- patent tries to keep a balance between the cost of operation
chase. In some cases, holograms have been used to indicate and the need for traceability by assigning “documentary”
authenticity – this obviates the fact that holograms are easily batch numbers, i.e. numbers which point to additional infor-
falsified. mation without the warehouses having to be organised in
batches.
In other cases sample-based verification methods have
been used, such as chemical markers in alcoholic beverages Patent WO2011095562A2 “Package provided with a
[38]. Although such methods can be superior in the certainty traceability and originality verification code, its production
of the results, they usually are too complicated to be applied method and method for tracing it” describes a traceability
other than on a sample basis. and originality verification code printed on packaging mate-
rial [42] which is “tamper-proof”. This invention tries to deal
Electronic traceability on the other hand has the potential
with the fact that packaging material can be fraudulently re-
to check the product flow on a continuous basis and detect
used. This and other similar methods require printing on the
anomalies that point to possible fraud.
production line which makes it suitable only for high value
In some cases, electronic traceability is the only way of consumer goods. Most foods would not qualify.
determining whether authentic or fraudulent product is being
An interesting technology that has been used in this con-
circulated: for products such as sustainable palm oil there is
text is laser surface authentication as defined in
no physical difference between the product produced accord-
WO2006016114 “AUTHENTICITY VERIFICATION OF
ing to sustainable standards such as the Round Table for Sus-
ARTICLES USING A DATABASES” [43]. LSA™ analyses
tainable Palm Oil (RSPO [39]) and non-sustainably pro-
the microstructure of a surface and calculates an identifier
duced oil. The same is true for Illegal, Unreported and Un-
from it. This method provides unique identifiers that are in-
registered (IUU) fishing. The product is not different be-
trinsically linked to the analysed surface. If that surface e.g.
tween legally and illegally landed fish and only (electronic)
belongs to packaging material, LSA™ provides individual
traceability can provide assurance that a particular boat has
package identification without the need for an identifier. The
the right to land the fish.
general idea of optically identifying materials was further
developed in US patent 2011/0135160A1 “Method and de-
4.1. Identification vice for reading a physical characteristic on an object “[44].
Such methods could potentially when applied directly to the
One of the critical elements in fraud prevention is of
food item eliminate the need for external ids that need to be
course secure identification. In order to access information
attached to the product. This generally used method in the
about a food product and judge its authenticity, some form of
identification is usually required. stricter sense only provides “packaging material traceability”
because the identifier is not attached to the item, but rather to
One can differentiate the following types of identification
the material wrapped around it.
1) One that uses inherent product features for identification In animal or animal-based products DNA can be used as
(such as surface structure, DNA or other features) an inherent and unalterable “natural” identifier. Patent WO
2) One that employs codes to be looked up elsewhere 03/087765 “SYSTEM FOR TRACING ANIMAL PROD-
UCTS“[45] describes a system to uniquely and cost-
3) One that codes information into an identifier to be used effectively identify animals based on their DNA. The use of
ad-hoc or used in a combination of look-up codes and
an inherent identifier resolves the issues of relating carcasses
locally stored information
to animals and meat cuts to carcasses. The patent is based on
A simple example for a mixed identification/information parentage and therefore does not require samples from all
encoding system is US patent 8082191 “Egg code manage- animals to be taken or kept, but rather only of the breeders.
ment method and egg search code management system” [40]. A similar system is used for tilapia production in Malaysia
Traceability and Communication Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculture, 2013, Vol. 5, No. 1 27
by the company Trapia with the Genopass™ system [46]. magnetically on the packaging material. Such information
The system has been reviewed by the author [47]. Both sys- can only be an identifier, but can also contain supply chain
tems are similar in that they use parentage as a basis for information. The patent actually describes a device to visual-
identification. In some circumstances this works fine (such ise such information. Storing information in a non-visible
as meat cuts or whole fish), but these methods still fail when form obviously increases the barrier for fraud. This is proba-
mixing occurs, e.g. as in (fish) burgers. Another issue is that bly not enough for high value items, but surely enough for
such systems require a central location for the storage of simpler products.
genetic samples, usually a laboratory. Genetic checking is
The international patent WO2011092727A1 “Traceabil-
neither quick nor cheap.
ity system for buffalo mozzarella, from source to consump-
US patent US20110092379A1 “Genotyping method and tion” [54] describes a sector-specific chain traceability sys-
means thereof for use in traceability schemes” tries to ad- tem for buffalo mozzarella from source to consumption (as
dress the issue of having to store samples centrally [48]. It one embodiment). The system employs RFID and near field
describes methods to obtain samples, genotype them, prepare communication (NFC). Consumers can access the system to
them and compare them to single nucleotide polymorphism verify claims. Active RFID enabled data loggers record milk
(SNP) profiles. The profiling removes the need to store sam- temperatures, milking times and milk tank movement (when
ples and the need to extract DNA from all animals. removed from the farm). The milk is followed through trans-
port to the cheese processor where again active RFID tags
4.2. Acquisition and Transport of Information and Ac- are used for data capture. The final product is then carried by
cess to it a mozzarella “carrier” using active tags to the point of sale
which can access an internet service to verify the cheese. The
Oftentimes it is not only the food item itself that is of
system is largely automated and uses MAC addresses to
interest, but the conditions it has experienced, the processes
route information to the proper dairy web server. In this way
it has been subjected to and the requirements to be ad-
the feedback loop between producer and point of sales is
dressed. This is the case for religious slaughter like Halal or
created.
Kosher [49], but also for the aforementioned sustainable
production of palm oil. Consumers can connect via different means and retrieve
information items like quality reports etc.
For these items the transport of information is essential.
Muslim consumers for example need to know for certain that The patent forms the basis of Value Go® [55] a trade-
a prepared meal does not violate their dietary laws. Certifica- mark by the Italian IT firm Penelope SpA. However, this is
tion is only a partial solution, since it usually is very easy to another example for a closed system like many others. No
falsify. In the particular case of Halal, the existence of a attempt is made at generating or using internationally ac-
large number of dubious certification schemes makes that cepted standards for interoperability in food traceability.
particularly difficult. Traceability can again supply very Mobile devices are increasingly important in the supervi-
valuable assurance in these matters; see e.g. [50] or [51]. sion of the food chain. The Chinese patent CN201867837
Some of the issues related to the transport of information “Mobile internet supervision device for source tracing of
have been highlighted above. Here the author would like to food“ [56] assigned to the Shenzhen Academy of Inspection
concentrate on (a) the authenticity of codes and (b) the vul- and Quarantine describes a chain traceability system together
nerability of traceability systems with respect to “lost” steps. with a mobile access device based again on RFID.
US patent US8060758B2 “Item tracing with supply chain However, a new system has recently emerged that may
secrecy using RFID tags and an identity-based encryption prove a more interesting answer to the question of secure
scheme “ [52] assigned to SAP AG describes a method to transport of information. The author has long argued that the
use an RFID with encrypted information where the encryp- best way is to separate the information stream from the
tion key is the batch number. (The patent describes addi- product stream. However, it has to be acknowledged that this
tional methods.) The RFID chip can then contain more in- approach has its own shortcomings:
formation than just an ID; it can for example contain recall (a) an attack on the database may compromise the infor-
information. Batch numbers can be stored at trusted third
mation flow. Although for standard food items this
parties to enable the extraction of information when re-
may not be economically feasible, for high value items
quired. At each step of the supply chain, each supply chain
it certainly is
partner can add information and re-encrypt the encrypted
item. For full disclosure of the information therefore, all pri- (b) the separation of the information flow from the product
flow requires access to the original data recording
vate encryption keys (batch numbers or other keys) will be
needed. Recall information can be decrypted with just the whenever the product is subjected to a check. This re-
knowledge of one key. Therefore a producer does not require quires that the information resource is available to
the assistance of supply chain partners downstream. anyone with a justified interest in the item. Providing
such access is not an easy task.
Patent US20110204137A1 “Method and device for
The companies Crypto Codex [57] and 6DCP [58]
traceability marking and packaging line provided with trace-
ability marking device” [53] describes a somewhat different address this problem [59]. Their patent-pending technology
approach to the same problem by using non-visible informa- uses non-mathematical encryption which is claimed to be
tion on packaging material. The patent is assigned to Tetra unbreakable. The encryption and compression technology
can be used to transport about 50-200 non-encrypted charac-
Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. Here information is stored
28 Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculture, 2013, Vol. 5, No. 1 Heiner Lehr Syntesa
Fig. (6). Safe, databaseless information: users scan e.g. a datamatrix code placed on a food item. The code has encrypted information which
is then sent to an internet server to decrypt. If no internet is available, the information can be requested via MMS. Reproduced with permis-
sion from CryptoCodex [57] and 6DCP [58].
ters in a data carrier, such as a barcode symbol barcode (or cheap and ubiquitous mobile phones could enable border
any other data carrier, such as a matrix code symbol) that is control personnel to check for anomalies.
readable by mobile phones. In areas where Internet connec-
In order to address the possibility of copying the identi-
tion is not available to phone users, a two-dimensional bar-
fier, the companies are developing a non-reproducable label
code reader application can be installed on the phone that
as shown in Fig. (7). The upper layer is a standard QR code
then uses a secure SMS gateway to communicate with the
used for traceability purposes. The barcode can contain con-
server. This “Micro Database Less Encapsulation” allows for
sumer incentives, such as coupons, to promote the scanning
the secure transport of information along the supply chain.
of the codes and thereby increasing the strength of the sys-
Traceability through the supply chain is made possible by
tem. When the consumer peels off layer 1, a photosensitive
tagging each individual, box and/or pallet with a unique en-
layer 2 appears with a data matrix barcode. This barcode is
crypted identifier. With each change of ownership, supply
used for authentication (and can again include consumer
chain partners accept the packages by scanning the uniquely
incentives). Layer 2 is in addition photosensitive, changing
encrypted barcodes with their existing 2D barcode scanners
rapidly its colour to demonstrate authenticity. Layer 2 can
or a camera phone (with any free 2D barcode application).
also be used as a time temperature indicator.
Each scanning event captures the exact time, date, and geo-
location of the pallet/box/unit when it is scanned. Other criti- The combination of a digital code with the analogue col-
cal information can be captured, depending on the needs of ouring yields a strong claim. The label is targeted to cost
the client. Track and trace to the end user is achieved when little more than a standard label, therefore it should be appli-
consumers verify the authenticity of the item with their cam- cable to standard food items, especially those with high fraud
era phone. The data captured from each scanning event is rates.
stored in a unique format referred to as a Cryptographic Key
Log File; see Fig. (6). These log files are exportable to any 4.3. Place of Origin
format (i.e. XML) and compatible with database or reporting
In some cases, full chain traceability is not required, be-
systems.
cause the only required data element is the country or region
One of the other interesting applications of this technol- of origin. This is necessary e.g. for regionally restricted
ogy that the author sees is securing logistics. A single 2D products (like Champagne, Parma ham etc), but is also re-
barcode can potentially contain the full content list of a pallet quired often in international trade (“Made in…”).
or of a container when the barcode is somewhat larger. Since
For such purposes, a detailed chain traceability system
the list of items is encrypted, the contents of the logistics unit
may prove to be too expensive. The EU project TRACE IP
can easily be checked against replacement even without ac-
[2] was dedicated to finding analytic methods – in addition
cess to the server of the originator of the shipment. Using
to product flow traceability – that could pinpoint different