Traceability in food chains badly needs a ‘common’ digital platform

Following the “horse-gate” scandal that rocked Europe in 2013, we have just seen another “radiation-gate” incident emerging in Japan and Taiwan last week. Taiwan seized 283 Japanese food products with counterfeit Chinese-language labels, possibly altered in Japan, originally from radiation-stricken Fukushima areas, and ordered them taken off the shelves in local supermarkets. This kind of food fraud incidents on both hemispheres suggests that existing regulations governing food labelling and routine inspection to ensure provenance and traceability, no matter how strict they are, have their own limitations. To avoid food fraudsters turning multi-country food chains into a massive scam that severely undermines consumers’ trust, a preventive measure to consider is the roll-out of a ‘common’ digital platform monitoring all stages of food production and supply chain visibility. 

In this case, according to its new food safety law, amended twice in 2013-14,  Taiwanese authorities should have inspected randomly-selected batches of Japanese food products, and even the food safety management system adopted by the exporting country. Another option for the western-styled food regulation in Taiwan is to model after the new US Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). This includes a foreign supplier verification process (FSVP) and mandates that every supplier facility be inspected and certified to export to the United States. 

But why could these fake food labels slip through the net? Was it because today’s food chains are simply getting too complex to be monitored with the traditional gatekeeping model?

A long-awaited book will be published in June by John Keogh of Shantalla Inc. called, “Transparency in the food value chain, what executives need to know?” This book will attempt to answer how food chain transparency can be improved and lays out some practical steps as well as best practices. As the former Tesco CEO Philip Clark conceded, winning trust from consumers who have become more informed and demanding after the digital revolution requires both honesty and transparency in the food chains. This book will sketch the big picture of food supply chain challenges, from an industry perspective, and explore the capacity of digital technologies like 2D bar codes to boost food product traceability as a key tool to achieve food supply chain transparency. Here is why I believe a ‘common’ digital platform would do the job with a preview of some of the book’s most stimulating contents. 

Digital technologies have flattened the globe and helped break open the fortresses of “Big Data”, without which would remain locked up.  Big data needs to be transformed in “smart data” to better inform food companies about their external suppliers and associated risks. This time, radiation-contaminated products include instant noodles, black tea, coffee and sweets – processed food involving various manufacturing processes, and high-mix, low-volume production. To prevent raw material combination errors, the global not- for-profit supply chain standards organisation GS1 Japan has published traceability guidelines for material and processed food manufacturers which can be adopted in the supply chain upstream. When manufacturers receive and stock materials, they capture and record such information as material identification number, manufactured date, expiry data, lot number, and so on. 

Given that technology can enhance supply chain transparency through cross-supply chain assessment tools, individual product tracing and point-of-origin tracking, the book will introduce three principal types of data combined that can ensure visibility or traceability: master data, transactional data and event data. 

• Master Data is static data that typically does not change over time and describes locations, assets, products, and parties. It includes, for example, company, brand and product information as well as manufacturing plant details.

• Transactional Data represents business process activities – either amongst trading partners or within an operation such as a batch or lot number.

• Event Data are immutable observations made in the physical world of products or other assets. A shipment from a supplier to a trading partner creates an electronic “event” that can be used as part of a supply chain visibility solution. 

If we had a ‘common’ digital platform where each manufacturer is responsible for its own data, these “interconnected and interoperable” systems would guarantee better traceability and even authenticity as  “data analytics or smart data” processors can identify any data inconsistency (on labels) and alarm the brand owner or authorities in real time to prevent many food incidents from developing. 

Along this line of thought, GS1 has recently ratified the latest version of its supply chain visibility standards called EPCIS or Electronic Product Code Information Services.  EPCIS is a standard and defines a common model for capturing and sharing the data within an enterprise and across an open supply chain. Ultimately, EPCIS aims at enabling users to gain a shared view of physical or digital objects within a relevant business context, which is vital for supply chain interoperability.

However, this digital tracking model has yet to be institutionalised in many countries or regions, although a joint China-Korea-Japan project called Northeast Asia Logistics Information Service Network (NEAL-NET) was launched in 2010.  Today, NEAL-NET controls 30% of all shipping containers in the world, and has implemented EPCIS to break down information silos and streamline data sharing among the three nations. In Europe, is the unwillingness of supermarket retailers or food manufacturers to move away from their own systems a possible major barrier to achieve this? Can the UK who is proud of its digital economy play a leadership role in this area?

This article is also cross-posted on Shantalla Opinions.

Photo credit: infowars.com

Email me at alastair@shantalla.org.