What is Traceability

1
What is Traceability

• Des Bowler
• Management for Technology Pty Ltd30th June 2006

2
Traceability Means?

• Proof of Origin What am I made from?
• Trace Forward Where have I gone?
• Track Back Where did I come from?
• Market Requirement EU, Japan, US
• Product Recall AFANZ Chapter 3 Food Standards
  Code
• Traceability - National Performance Standards
  (NPS) for Traceability
• Biosecurity - DAFF, AQIS, State Depts
• EU Requirement - 1 Up/ 1 Down Rule
• US 2002 Bioterrorism Act

3
What Causes a Traceability Event

• Product contamination detected by export customer
  during routine testing
• Domestic consumer complaints creating a product
  recall.
• Auditing of system by Company for QA purpose.
• Animal/ Product issues detected during product
  processing (e.g. sick animals found on arrival at
  slaughter)

4
What Causes a Traceability Event

• Product contamination detected by export customer
  during routine testing 70
• Domestic consumer complaints creating a product
  recall 25
• Auditing of system by Company for QA purpose 4
• Animal/ Product issues detected during product
  processing (e.g. sick animals found on arrival at
  slaughter) 1

5
However!!!!!

• Export or Domestic instigated recall mostly
  only effects a batch or group of product.
• Large likelihood but isolated impact!
• Disease incident may effect whole market
• Very small likelihood but large impact!

6
Product Recall Store Level
Pork mince Date 29/05/2006 Supplier
Name Woolworths Supermarkets Product Info Use
by date 27/05/06 Black tray with clear plastic
overwrap. Random weights between 494 gm and 520gm
Product manufactured on site. 10 packets
manufactured and 6 have been retrieved. Defect
Details  Metal and plastic fragment
contamination Consumer action Return to place of
purchase for a full refund Market
Coverage Woolworths Shellharbour NSW
store Recall Coverage Woolworths Shellharbour
NSW store The following link will open in a new
window and take you out of the Product Recalls
Australia site. The Food Standards Australia New
Zealand (FSANZ) has overall policy responsibility
for monitoring the conduct and outcomes of food
safety recalls in Australia. http//www.recalls.go
v.au
7
Normal level of Consumer Complaints
8
Product Problem - Customer Complaints
9
Process Problem - Customer Complaints
10
Traceability, a Moment in Time.

• Products 1 to 4 are feed, grass from properties,
  veterinary drugs, exposure to agrichemicals.
• Products 5 and 6 are livestock from different
  sources.
• Product 7 is the processing plant where the
  cattle/sheep/pigs are slaughtered and broken down
  in to products.
• Products 8 to 11 are various possible products
  such as
• Primal cuts 16, Offal 6, Hide 10, Rendered
  meat/ bone meal 10, Tallow 7.5, Bones 10, Trim
  25, Waste (water loss, blood, etc) 10, Foetal
  blood 0.5, Pet food 5
• Products 12 to n are the further processed
  products such as
• Retail steaks on a tray pack, Sausage casing
  created from the collagen scraped from the
  underside of the hides, Growth medium for
  vaccines made from the foetal blood, 80 cl
  cartons of trim sent to the US for grinding,
  Leather shoes made in Italy from the hides, Bone
  meal used as commercial fish food base.

11
Movements of Animals
1 days before discovery
Disease discovery
Notification to CVO
4 days before discovery
2 days before discovery
Plus 2 days
Plus 3 days
3 days before discovery
Plus 1 day
12
Disease Verses Contamination?

• Prevalence of Food poisoning Although most food
  borne infections are undiagnosed and unreported,
  the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention
  estimates that every year about 76 million people
  in the United States become ill from pathogens in
  food. Of these, up to 5,000 die. ... An estimated
  76 million cases of food borne disease occur each
  year in the United States. ... Estimated to cause
  76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations,
  and 5,200 deaths in the United States each year.
• A new report has revealed 11,500 Australians
  become ill each day from food poisoning.
• The Australia New Zealand Food Authority
  researched the extent of food poisoning, as part
  of its review of food safety standards.

13
Cost for Traceability

• Complex System
• Single Body Boning
• Primal Labels/ Single Body batch size
• Live ID to Primal
• High capital and operating costs
• Low cost for DNA analysis
• Pay now save later

• Simple System
• Single Day Batch
• Lot Based Live ID
• Production Date Batch size
• Low capital and operating costs
• High cost For DNA analysis
• Save now pay later

14
Hypothetical Example

• A US Customer discovers unacceptable levels of a
  banned chemical in the random testing of the 80CL
  trim carton.
• What would happen?

15
The First Step

• All product from the same shipment to be tested.
• Product from many production dates and plants.
• The shipper and plant notified and told of the
  problem
• Which carton(s) is it that has the problem?
• Product from the same plant and same day?
• How do the US testing people tell the cartons
  apart, how do they know which are different
  plants, different dates, etc?
• Are there serial numbers or just batch codes

16
After Review

• Review found that the problem was with several
  cartons in the shipment but not all the cartons.
• Identified as coming from one plant across a few
  production days.
• The trim was frozen and over 6 months old.
• The chilled meat that was produced all sold.

17
What does the company do?

• What production batches are effected?
• What recall protocol should be implemented?
• Where have all the other cartons from the
  production dates gone?
• Distribution companies used to pick and send
  products around the world.
• Do each of the cartons have serial numbers?
• Does the distribution company track the serial
  numbers or just the product types?
• Does the company recall the tallow, meat meal,
  pet food, foetal blood?

18
Company Placed into Receivership

• Once made public liability and recall costs were
  so high company was no longer solvent.
• Problem was over 3 consecutive days production
  days from 1000 head per day.
• Trim was frozen and over six months old.
• Had the NLIS tag records as well as the NVDs.
• Cattle came from saleyards, feedlot and direct
  consignment from 120 properties.
• Not all trim product effected, only some.
• Company thought that the problem was from a few
  contaminated cattle out of the 3000 possible, but
  which cattle?

19
Few weeks later .

• Same chemical found in shipment to the US of
  frozen trim from a different plant.
• The production dates different to first company
  but also over 6 months old.
• This company has the systems in place to identify
  and track each carton through supply chain.
• Distribution was done by scanning each carton.
• The product identified and the specific
  production dates and time determined.
• Effected product all came from one specific
  production line even though different lines
  processed the same batch of cattle.

20
After Review

• Chemical was not found in any product from the
  other production lines.
• Reviewed the maintenance records for production
  equipment and found a service had been done on
  the one plastic bulk liner packaging machine for
  that line.
• The records identified the batch codes of the
  materials used for the maintenance.
• A specific lubricant was used on the machine for
  producing the plastic carton liners. That
  lubricant batch was not used on any other
  machine.

21
Tracked and Traced Product

• The companys production records identified and
  traced forward specific cartons of trim produced
  before the service and after the service.
• Some carton serial numbers were traced to
  specific cold storage facilities and tests
  conducted.
• The product produced before the maintenance
  showed no contamination, the product produced
  after the maintenance showed the contamination.
• The amount of contamination decreased over two
  days of production. No contamination was found by
  the middle of the second day.

22
Who was Liable?

• The brand, type and batch code for the lubricate
  were referred to the manufacturer.
• Manufacturer identified the chemical as being
  used in very small quantities in the lubricant.
• Specific batch was an old batch and had been
  withdrawn.
• Maintenance company that did the service had used
  the old lubricant without knowing the recall.
• Companys insurance company started legal action
  against the maintenance company and lubricate
  manufacturer for damages.

23
What did we Learn?

• Company One
• Thought problem was contaminated cattle.
• Could not track and trace even with individual
  animal ID.
• Recalled large volumes and went broke.
• Company Two
• Good track and trace along whole supply chain.
• Correctly identified source of contamination.
• Contained size of recall.
• Started legal action to recover losses.

24
Was this a Theoretical Example?

• Most widely sold mineral water is Perrier.
• In 1990 minute traces of benzene were found in
  samples of Perrier.
• 280-million bottles of Perrier recalled from
  store shelves.
• Because traces of benzene got into one batch from
  a faulty filter.
• Crisis cost one billion francs (152.5-million,
  US186.6-million).

25
Where to from here?

• Traceability Systems must integrate along the
  whole supply chain.
• Each input to the process must be recorded, not
  just the major items.
• Track and trace must be transparent along the
  supply chain. Where did I come from and where are
  all the companions?
• Systems must be standards based to work across
  multiple industry sections. Retail, grocery,
  transport, manufacturing, feed production, etc.

26
Thank You!

• Des Bowler