U.S. Food Safety: Will Food Track-and-Trace Finally Take Off?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - AIM Connections

Bert Moore

Editor

 

When U.S. President Obama announced Dr. Margaret "Peggy" Hamburg as his choice to head the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he cited the growing number of food recalls that have risen to "nearly 350 a year – up from 100 a year in the early 1990s" and called the current state of affairs, "...a hazard to public health. It is unacceptable."

 

While much of the focus of news reports is on increasing the budget for the FDA to allow inspection of more than the 5% of food processing facilities it currently inspects, it is important to note that Dr. Hamburg is not only acknowledged as an experienced health professional but, according to The Huffington Post also, "a bioterrorism expert." According to that report, "She was an assistant health secretary under President Bill Clinton and helped lay the groundwork for the government's bioterrorism and flu pandemic preparations."

 

While there is debate over whether the FDA should be restructured to provide a separate agency to deal specifically with food safety, it is clear that Hamburg has the credentials to provide a positive impetus for field-to-fork traceability.

 

The Bad News

 

Her job will not necessarily be easy. There are a number of issues with which she will have to wrestle.

 

Ideally, standards for identifying primary sources (farm or ranch), processors, and distributors will have to be developed or adopted (where existing).  The same is true for the different types (species) of food animals (including fish, fowl, and exotics) and for every type of non-animal food sources.

 

However, with much of the fresh produce coming into this country from South America and Australia during the winter months and from Mexico and Central America at other times, coordinating with producers, distributors and shippers in these other countries -- and working with these countries' respective regulatory bodies -- will be challenging.

 

The U.S. and Canada have already agreed to work together, with Canada taking the lead, on cattle identification.

 

Some countries will be more problematic than others, whether because of their political climate or their own inability to ensure food safety.

 

There is also resistance, in the U.S., on the part of small farmers and ranchers to government-mandated identification systems. Small producers, whether farmers or ranchers, are inherently independent and resist any government intrusion into their operations and, because of their size, must also be much more cost-conscious and can't afford to invest in anything that is not going to help them survive financially. In a recent news release issued by The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, Pete Kennedy, acting president of the Fund, criticized a U.S. House subcommittee's hearings on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), saying, “There was virtually no representation for organic and local producers or consumers, the very groups that are most negatively affected by NAIS.” While the NAIS is currently voluntary, there are indications that it may become mandatory.

 

The Good News

 

It may seem as if, with all the "bad news" above, there would hardly be any "good news." But there is. And it outweighs the bad by a considerable amount.

 

While it is highly desirable to have a single standard for identifying animals and food products, it is not entirely necessary as long as the standard or convention being followed is understood. A company's own internal track-and-trace system, say, for fresh produce, could be used up to the point where a processor or distributor applies its own system. As long as there is a link to the producer's system, there can be an electronic ID trail back to the source.

 

Many food animal producers have been using bar code or RFID ear, collar or leg tags for years for internal processes. Extending the use of the IDs on these tags throughout the food animal production system (ranch, transport, feed lot, auction house, processor) would not be as monumental or costly as might initially be assumed.

 

Some large agricultural companies have already embraced the idea of field-to-fork (or at least field-to-processing plant) traceability to limit the size of product recalls, protect brand image and, incidentally, safeguard the public.  Many of these companies own or control the production or output in other countries and could, therefore, adopt a track-and-trace methodology for their local businesses without the need for local government regulation or cooperation.

 

The other good news, potentially, is that a track-and-trace system does not have to be a massive, government-run operation.  As noted in the June 18, 2008 issue of AIM Connections, specific producer and field or animal ID "information does not necessarily have to be read as pallets are assembled nor communicated to the distribution network.  It could simply reside in the grower's [producer's] own database.  In fact, in the vast majority of cases, this information would never be required and would generally "expire" in 90 or 120 days, depending on the product's [item's] shelf life or use.  (Data on produce that goes into canned or processed foods might need to be retained for longer periods of time.)"

 

Of course, applying track-and-trace to the containers in which food is shipped is also important -- and standards and products exist to provide both GPS and RFID tracking and identification of containers. RFID seals conforming to international standards also exist.

 

 The Way Forward

 

What is critical for the FDA to understand is that any track-and-trace system for food products must be relatively easy for the producer to implement, be as inexpensive as possible, provide the producer with possible benefits for internal use, and not require a bureaucracy that will demand resources that could be better devoted to inspection of processing facilities or that will entail a long delay prior to implementing simple, immediate steps to help protect the food supply.

 

A number of standards already exist -- whether ISO/IEC for RFID ear tags or GS1 and FMA (Food Marketers Association) for identifying food items and produce.

 

In other words, many of the necessary components already exist and simply need to be put into a cohesive system that will ultimately benefit everyone from the small farmer and rancher to the consumer.

 

What has been lacking to date has been clear leadership and direction from the FDA.  Hopefully, Hamburg will provide that.

 

-----

 

Source articles:

 

Drugs.com: WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Barack Obama Announces Key FDA Appointments and Tougher Food Safety Measures

 

The Huffington Post: Obama Announces FDA Chief Pick, Outlines Food Safety Measures

 

MedPage Today: Obama's Pick for FDA Viewed as Seasoned Pro

 

 

Related articles:

 

RFID: Product Recalls and "The Last Inch"

Wednesday, June 04, 2008 - RFID Connections

 

Supply Chain Track-and-Trace: What Will It Take?

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 - AIM Connections

 

-----

 

Comments on this column? E-mail me: Bert Moore, Editor.

 

 

 

Share this Story
Digg   del.icio.us   Yahoo   Reddit   Facebook   Google

Related Articles :
No Related Content Found

Search Articles :