Food traceability as an integral part of logistics management in food and agricultural supply chain

Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Food Control journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodcont

Review

Food traceability as an integral part of logistics management in food and agricultural supply chain Techane Bosona*, Girma Gebresenbet Department of Energy and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Lennart Hjelms väg 9, Uppsala, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 5 November 2012 Received in revised form 28 January 2013 Accepted 2 February 2013

The contemporary food supply chain (FSC) should adequately provide information that consumers and other concerned bodies need to know such as variety of the food attributes, country of origin, animal welfare, and genetic engineering related issues. For this, effective food traceability system (FTS) is important. The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive literature review on food traceability issues. About 74 studies, mainly focusing on food traceability issues and published during 2000e2013, were reviewed. Based on the review results, the definition, driving forces, barriers in developing and implementing FTSs, benefits, traceability technologies, improvements, and performances of FTSs have been identified and discussed. Considering FTS as an integral part of logistics management, new conceptual definition of FTS has been provided. This review has pointed out that the issue of developing effective and full chain FTS is quite complex in nature as it requires a deeper understanding of real processes from different perspectives such as economic, legal, technological, and social issues. Therefore, future researches (recommended here) on traceability should focus on: integration of traceability activities with food logistics activities; technological aspects of FTSs; the linkage between traceability system and food production units; standardization of data capturing and information exchange; awareness creation strategies; continuity of information flow and effective communication of traceability information to consumers and other stakeholders; the linkage between different drivers of FTS; improvement strategies of FTS; and development of performance evaluation frameworks for FTSs. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Food traceability Food traceability information Food traceability technology Food recall Food traceability performance

Contents 1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Scope and approach of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2.1. Scope of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.2. The methodological approach of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Food traceability as integral part of food logistics management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 3.1. Defining food traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Interpreting food traceability definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.3. Redefining food traceability as integral part of logistics management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.4. Relevance of the proposed definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Driving forces for food traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 4.1. Regulatory concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Safety and quality concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3. Social concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.4. Economic concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.5. Technological concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Benefits of food traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 5.1. Increase in customer satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ46 762481459. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Bosona). 0956-7135/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.02.004

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

6.

7.

8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13.

33

5.2. Improvement in food crises management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.3. Improvement in FSCM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.4. Competence development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.5. Technological and scientific contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.6. Contribution to agricultural sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Barriers in implementing effective food traceability system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 6.1. Resource limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Information limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.3. Standard limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.4. Capacity limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.5. Awareness limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Technological advancement in relation to product traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 7.1. Technologies for managing traceability data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.2. Continuity of traceability information flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Perceptions toward food traceability technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Traceability characteristics in agriculture and food supply chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 9.1. Elements of food traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.2. Traceability in the case of local food supply chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Improving food traceability systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Assessing the performance of food traceability systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Limitation and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1. Introduction Historically, food scares have been with human beings for many years. Atkins (2008) has discussed that, in Europe, food scares (especially zonotic hazards) have been with the society of UK for at least 150 years. Saltini and Akkerman (2012) mentioned that only in Europe food borne illness affects about 1% of population (approximately seven million people) each year. Only in 2011, approximately 16.7% of population (47.8 million people) got sick in America in relation to food related illness (Resende-Filho and Hurley, 2012). In the modern livestock production sector, long distance animal transport is increasing. This in turn not only has increased the potential of infection and spread of diseases related to livestock, but also has exposed the sector for bioterrorism attacks. For example, in the USA cattle production sector, a terrorist attack (infection) at a single point could result in a loss of around 23 million cattle within 8 days (Greger, 2007). These challenges have triggered the importance of animal identification and certification processes. Historically, issue of animal identification (e.g. by marking their bodies) may be traced back to 3800 years (Smith, Pendell, Tatum, Belk, & Sofos, 2008). However, still it is an important issue within agriculture and food supply chain (FSC). Other risk of food such as contamination with radioactive materials disturbs the FSC. After release of radioactive from damaged nuclear plants due to earthquake in Japan in 2011 (WHO, 2011), many countries have implemented intensive food control measures concerning their food trade relationship with Japan while some countries suspended transporting food from Japan. A study in Finland (Orre, 2005) has indicated that, as proactive strategy, effective training on food logistics is important. Such training should include cleaning warehouses and retails, controlling and transporting non-contaminated food items to retail storage facilities after the radioactive materials have passed over a region. In addition to risk to public health, food crises lead to economic crises due to direct and indirect (damage to reputation and brand name) costs of product recall. The indirect cost dominates the recall cost as the loss of market value and reputation could lead to total bankruptcy of the brand name (Saltini & Akkerman, 2012). Therefore, traceability is an important component of contemporary supply chains in the production industry in general and in food

sector in particular as the food sector is sensitive from human and animal health point of view (Olsen & Aschan, 2010). Before 2005, the food traceability systems (FTSs) to be fulfilled by food and feed business firms in Europe were based on the need of customers. Since January 1, 2005, these firms are legally bound (by the new EU regulations) to have FTSs independent of customers’ requirements (Azuara, Tornos, & Salazar, 2012; Schwägele, 2005). Based on the review results, this paper has discussed the attention traceability has received in recent decade in relation to its capacity to boost information connectivity in supply chain and reinforce logistics process as well as food supply chain management (FSCM) as a whole. The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive literature review on FTSs. It was intended to shed light on issues that need further research works in order to promote the integration of traceability systems with logistics processes to enhance the FSC performance. Some questions were raised at the beginning of this review: What does food traceability really mean? What are the driving forces and challenges behind the implementation of FTSs? What are the technological advancement enhancing food traceability issues? What are the benefits of FTSs? How does FTS work in the case of local FSC? How better FTSs could be enhanced? How the performance of FTSs can be assessed? 2. Scope and approach of this study 2.1. Scope of this study This study focused on traceability system in the FSC. Fig.1 illustrates the scope of this study and the investigated major issues related to the development of FTSs. The definition of food traceability, forces that drive the implementation of food traceability, technological innovations, benefits of food traceability, and barriers to the implementation of food traceability were investigated. The issues of enhancing better FTS and assessing its performance were also discussed. 2.2. The methodological approach of this study Searching for appropriate literature from different databases, identifying key issues to be analyzed, discussing the review results

34

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

and downstream direction respectively. Karlson et al. (2013) mentioned how these two terms were defined in many studies. According to Schwägele (2005) traceability refers to both tracing and tracking i.e. traceability is not only unidirectional activity in the supply chain (see Fig. 2). 3.2. Interpreting food traceability definitions

Fig. 1. Analytic framework illustrating the scope of this literature review on food traceability.

and providing recommendations are important procedures in literature review (Karlsen, Dreyer, Olsen, & Elvevoll, 2013; Li, Visich, Khumawala, & Zhang, 2006). Using similar method, studies published during 2000e2013 and focused on food traceability issues were reviewed in this study. First, the objective and scope of this study were set. Then, relevant studies were searched from different sources mainly from scientific journals published by ELSEVIER and EMERALD publishers of scholarly papers. Key words such as Food Traceability, Tracing Livestock, Food Recall, Food Traceability Information, Food Traceability Technology, and Food Traceability Performance were used to search for relevant studies. Then, the more relevant papers were screened based on their titles and abstracts. The reviewed papers covered the food traceability issues in cases of livestock and meat products, fish and seafood products, fruit and vegetables and other food products. Although some studies discussed food traceability issues from global prospective, about 62% of the papers (reviewed in this study) focused on Europe, 20% on North America (USA and Canada), 14% on Asia and South America, and 4% on Australia and New Zealand. Unfortunately, there was no paper specifically focusing on Africa (see Table 1). 3. Food traceability as integral part of food logistics management 3.1. Defining food traceability In literatures, there exist different definitions of FTSs. Table 2 presents many examples of definitions categorized based on the key terms used. In traceability literatures tracing and tracking have been used often as key terms. In best cases, tracing and tracking have been interpreted as exploration of an entity (e.g. food product) under consideration (in the supply chain) in the upstream direction

Table 1 Summary of reviewed papers.

Most of these definitions (see Table 2) attempted to address traceability as the ability to follow the movement of food products throughout the supply chain. There are three key components reflected in these definitions: backward follow-up of products (tracing), forward follow-up of product (tracking), and the product history information associated with the product movement in the supply chain. From this perspective, there are limitations in addressing complete concept of contemporary traceability. For example, only about 30% of the definitions (see Table 2) have clearly reflected these three components while the remaining definitions have incorporated only one or two of the key components. Specifically, in many cases, the important component (product history information) is either missing or not presented clearly. It is also noticed that the lack of consistency in using key words (‘tracing’, ‘tracking’, and ‘tracing and tracking’) is also a source of confusion as these words have been used interchangeably. For example, according to International Standard Organisation, ISO 8402, the general definition of traceability is “the ability to trace the history, application or location of an entity by means of recorded identifications” (Bertolini, Bevilacqua, & Massini, 2006; Canavari, Centonze, Hingley, & Spadoni, 2010; Karlson et al., 2013; Kelepouris, Pramatari, & Doukidis, 2007; Olsen & Aschan, 2010). In this definition the importance of product history information is clearly reflected, but it is not clear whether the key term, ‘trace’, indicates both forward and backward followup and whether it covers the whole supply chain or not. These limitations necessitate the introduction of new comprehensive definition of traceability. Moreover, some researchers (Folinas, Manikas, & Manos, 2006; Salampasis, Tektonidis, & Kalogianni, 2012) tried to differentiate traceability as logistics traceability (following physical movement) and qualitative traceability (following product quality and consumers’ safety). We (authors of this paper) argue that distinguishing traceability into two types (logistics traceability and qualitative traceability) could lead to misunderstandings. Because, in a supply chain, any information flow along the physical movement of products should be addressed within logistics management. The definition of logistics management confirms this argument. Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) defines logistics management as “Logistics management is part of supply chain management that plans, implements, and controls the efficient, effective forward and reverses flow and storage of goods, services and related information between the point of origin and the point of consumption in order to meet customers’ requirements” (http:// cscmp.org/aboutcscmp/definitions.asp). 3.3. Redefining food traceability as integral part of logistics management

Geographical focus area or source of publication

Number of reviewed papers 1991e2000

2001e2010

After 2010

Total

Europe North America South America, and Asia Australia and New Zealand Total

1 0 0 1 2

33 12 5 3 53

11 3 5 0 18

45 15 10 4 74

Complete traceability system should address the tracing and tracking of products and the associated complete product history information throughout the FSC. To address this contemporary concept of traceability and reduce the limitations in defining food traceability and limitations in understanding the linkage between food traceability and logistics activities (see section

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

35

Table 2 Definitions of food traceability in food supply chain given (cited) by different authors. Key terms

Examples of definitions

Source

Tracing

C “Capacity to trace goods along the distribution chain on a batch number or series number basis” C “The ability to trace food products up and down the production chain through all stages of production” C “The probability of finding the source of a problem” C “The ability to trace the history of product through the supply chain to or from the place and time of production, including the identification of the inputs used and production operations undertaken” C “The ability to trace the history, application or location of an entity by means of recorded identifications” C “Tracking the source and destination of food products and components” C “The ability to identify the farm where it was grown and sources of input materials, as well as the ability to conduct full backward and forward tracking to determine the specific location and life history in the supply chain by means of records” C “The registering and tracking of parts, processes, and materials used in production” C “The ability to follow the movement of food through specified stages of production, processing, and distribution” C “The ability to track any food, feed, food-producing animal or substance that will be used for consumption, through all the stages of production, processing and distribution” C “The ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food-producing animal or substance through all stages of production and distribution” C “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” C “The history of a product in terms of the direct properties of that product and/or properties that are associated with that product once these products have been subject to particular value-adding processes using associated production means and in associated environmental conditions” C “The ability to trace and track food, and food ingredients through the supply chain; thus traceability can be applied through all stages of production, processing and distribution”

Tamayo et al. (2009)

Tracking

Tracing and Tracking

3.2), we have proposed a new comprehensive definition of food traceability: Food traceability is part of logistics management that capture, store, and transmit adequate information about a food, feed, food-producing is correct animal or substance at all stages in the food supply chain so that the product can be checked for safety and quality control, traced upward, and tracked downward at any time required. Fig. 2 presents schematic representation of this concept.

Schwägele (2005) Resende-Filho and Hurley (2012) Manos and Manikas (2010)

Bertolini et al. (2006), Olsen and Aschan (2010); Karlson et al. (2013); Kelepouris et al. (2007) Kher et al. (2010) Opara (2003)

Rábade and Alfaro (2006) Hall (2010), Hobbs et al. (2005), Levinson (2009) Thakur and Donnelly (2010) Folinas et al. (2006), Engelseth (2009), Canavari et al. (2010), Salampasis et al. (2012) Regattieri et al. (2007)

Van Rijswijk et al. (2008)

3.4. Relevance of the proposed definition Some researchers (Manos & Manikas, 2010; Rábade & Alfaro, 2006) have cited that the initiative of food traceability is mainly connected with food quality and safety assurance but rarely with business development and logistics improvement issues. However, the linkage between qualitative information and physical flow is key factor in developing effective and efficient traceability and this

Fig. 2. Conceptual representation of material and traceability information flow that best reflects the case of food supply chain.

36

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

issue should be considered from logistics management point of view. For example, packaging is part of logistics operations in supply chain and the use of primary-consumer-packing and appropriate labeling techniques should get attention in logistics management. Yam, Takhistov, and Miltz (2005) pointed out that application of intelligent food packaging technologies is a useful tool for facilitating food traceability and monitoring food conditions. Designing such food packages and integrating with data capturing and transmitting devices is logistics activities. Integrated logistics information systems, into which traceability devices (see section 7) and IT applications were integrated, was developed by Chow, Choy, Lee, and Chan (2007) in order to establish a collaborative environment where supply chain partners can exchange real-time logistics information via web-based visualization of logistics process. Their result indicated that small and medium logistics providing firms (considered in their case study) could significantly improve their business performances in terms of cost saving, revenue generation and customer satisfaction. Food recalls are associated not only with information problems but also with logistics problems (McCallum, 2012). The lack of coordinated logistics operations definitely affects the product flow from farm to fork and consequently the efficiency of food traceability efforts. In other way, the development and implementation of IT-supported FTS could improve operational planning and increase efficiency of food logistics processes (Bourlakis & Bourlakis, 2006; Heyder, Theuvsen, & Hollmann-Hespos, 2012; Liao, Chang, & Chang, 2011; Manos & Manikas, 2010; Saltini & Akkerman, 2012; Van Dorp, 2003). Bourlakis and Bourlakis (2006) strongly argued that IT operations should be formulated alongside logistics operation of food retailers and if continuous maintenance service is in place, these IT operations could increase operational efficiency of the retailers. Rábade and Alfaro (2006) stated that “the traceability mechanisms and buyeresupplier coordination are mutually reinforcing”, the idea reflected in their companion paper (Alfaro & Rábade, 2009). Such important facts described in the above paragraphs indicate that food traceability activities are basically embedded in logistics systems. This pinpoints the appropriateness of the newly proposed definition of food traceability. Furthermore, conceptualizing (starting from definition level) and implementing FTSs as integral part of logistics management could be very useful to: ➢ identify the appropriate FTS for each food company and incorporate it at early stage of design of logistics system of the company ➢ reduce vagueness in defining food traceability ➢ facilitate the implementation of FTSs ➢ train employees (more easily) how to handle food items ➢ simplify the maintenance service (in case traceability system breaks) ➢ apply easily communicable traceability devices for partners and strengthen the information connectivity along the FSC. ➢ increase the communication and knowledge exchange between logistics experts and IT experts ➢ utilize the integrated database for evaluating the performances of FTS, logistics management, and FSCM

4.1. Regulatory concern New legislations (introduced to address the safety and quality concerns and resolve ownership disputes) are identified as important driving forces. Many food companies implement FTSs mainly to fulfill these regulatory issues and stay in market. Recent developments indicate that maintaining market power (and protection against loss of consumer confidence) and political pressure to protect consumer welfare are emerging as major drivers that push large retailers to invest in food traceability projects (Bertolini et al., 2006; Heyder et al., 2012; Liao et al., 2011; Resende-Filho & Hurley, 2012). Nowadays, mandatory food traceability laws are being enforced and EU has realized this by introducing General Food Law (GFL) (Kher et al., 2010; Schwägele, 2005). Accordingly traceability data can be mandatory or optional (Folinas et al., 2006). Mandatory data include lot number, product ID, product description, supplier ID, quantity, unit of measure, buyer ID. Optional data include supplier’s name, contact information, receipt date, country of origin, date of pack, trade unit, transportation vehicle ID, logistics service provider ID, buyer’s name, and dispatching date. In Asia, China and Japan are introducing FTSs mainly as voluntary basis. Smith et al. (2008) discussed that in the EU and Japan, introducing retail traceability program was mandatory while it was voluntary in United States as of 2008. Due to this reason, United States lags behind many countries in development and implementation of cattle identification and traceability systems (Schroeder & Tonsor, 2012; Smith et al., 2008). A study conducted by Department of Health and Human Services of USA (Levinson, 2009) indicated that only around 12.5% of the investigated food products were handled by facilities that could provide lot-specific information of the products and could be traced through each stage of the supply chain. This indicates that United States is at risk of losing its global market share. 4.2. Safety and quality concern In the recent two decades food traceability has become important issue due to food crises such as foot-and-mouth disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the dioxin crisis, the avian flu, the melamine contamination of milk, and other food safety incidents involving aquatic products as well as food counterfeiting and issue of sustainable production including labor issues (Bertolini et al., 2006; Engelseth, 2009; Hobbs, Bailey, Dickinson, & Haghiri, 2005; Hong et al., 2011; Kelepouris et al., 2007; Liao et al., 2011; Liu, Kerr, & Hobbs, 2012; Salampasis et al., 2012; Van Dorp, 2003; Van Rijswijk, Frewer, Menozzi, & Faioli, 2008; Wognum, Bremmers, Trienekens, Van der Vorst, & Bloemhof, 2011). Food quality and safety crises in turn cause significant crises in economic and marketing relationship at national and international levels. Liu et al. (2012) reported that in 2002, EU banned import of aquatic products from China claiming that residues from veterinary medicines, pesticides and heavy metals detected in the aquatic food products exceeded EU standards. This could affect the trade of China, a country that exports about 3.06 million tons of aquatic products per year with the value of US$ 9.74 billion.

4. Driving forces for food traceability

4.3. Social concern

Often, a combination of two or more factories influences the development and implementation of FTSs. Many driving forces behind the development and implementation of FTSs have been identified as indicated in Table 3. These drivers have been categorized into five: food safety and quality, regulatory, social, economic, and technological concerns.

Increasing the confidence of consumers in their food, the changing lifestyles and increasing income of consumers, the increasing awareness of society about their health are some of social issues that motivate food companies to implement traceability systems. The improvement in food crises management enables the concerned agencies to build capacity to safeguard the food safety

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

37

Table 3 Driving forces for food traceability. Major concerns

Driving forces

Sources

Regulatory concern

C Introduction of new food safety legislations and efforts to maintain market power and stay in the business i.e. partners of food supply network have to have FTS to stay in business C Ownership disputes (e.g. protecting animals from theft in the case of animal production) C Limiting the potential causes and spread of diseases related to food and food producing animals, food contamination by radioactive materials and/or bioterrorism and food counterfeiting C Tackling food safety crises i.e. increasing incidence of food-related safety hazards (foot-and-mouth disease, mad cow disease, dioxin in poultry, microbial contamination of fresh produce) C Value preservation and value addition in the FSC (e.g. up-to-date vaccination and animal welfare in animal production) C Addressing declining consumer confidence in food in the market and public concern about rising incidence of food-related illnesses and deaths C The gradual shift from quantity-oriented to quality/safety-oriented agriculture due to changing lifestyles and rising income of consumers demanding fresh, palatable, nutritious and safe food C The need to identify genetically modified organisms (GMO) and non-GMO agricultural chains (to address the concern of consumers) C The increase in awareness of consumers about their health and weight control, e.g. quality and nutritional values of food C Better market access and better food price for the owner, and better food quality for consumer C Governmental funding promoting FTSs (economic benefit for food companies) C Advancement in technology (encouraging traceability)

Bertolini et al. (2006), Hong et al. (2011), Liao et al. (2011), Mai, Bogason, Arason, Árnason, and Matthiasson (2010), Olsen and Aschan (2010), Rábade and Alfaro (2006), Van Dorp (2003), Verbeke and Ward (2006), Xiao-hui et al. (2007), Xiaoshuan et al. (2010) Golan et al. (2004)

Safety and quality concern

Social concern

Economic concern

Technological concern

and security which in turn strengthens the social and political security of a nation. The contemporary FTSs, companies should not attempt only to comply with the government rules, but they should adequately provide information that consumers need to know such as variety of the food attributes, country of origin, animal welfare, and genetic engineering related issues (Golan et al., 2004). 4.4. Economic concern Economic benefit of traceability systems is relatively considered as less strong driver as efficient full chain traceability system is capital and resource intensive and require significant initial investment. However, better market access, better product prices, potential governmental funding were identified as driving forces. For example, in the United States, in addition to controlling the spread of animal diseases, economical motives have influenced the development of traceability systems in the livestock sector (Golan et al., 2004). These are: protecting property (animals) from theft; proving (through traceability documentation) that animals possess valuable attributes such as up-to-date vaccinations, proving that animal welfare provisions are in place so that the animals deserve higher prices. 4.5. Technological concern Effective traceability systems require more complex devices and systems which do not attract the attention of food companies due

Azuara et al. (2012), Greger (2007), Liao et al. (2011), Mai et al. (2010), Mousavi et al. (2002), Orre (2005), Schroeder and Tonsor (2012)

Folinas et al. (2006), Liu et al. (2012), Resende-Filho and Hurley (2012)

Engelseth (2009), Smith et al. (2005)

Donnelly et al. (2012), Food Standards Agency (2002), Heyder et al. (2012), Hu et al. (2012), Kher et al. (2010)

Salampasis et al. (2012)

Opara (2003)

Kimura et al. (2008)

Donnelly and Olsen (2012) Manos and Manikas (2010) Salampasis et al. (2012)

to the complexity of the devices and the systems as well as the high costs associated with them. However, the emerging new and cheaper technologies (see section 7) are motivating companies to develop full chain traceability systems integrating information at all stages of the supply chain. Specially, the decreasing cost and increasing effectiveness of new traceability systems enhanced with the development of nanotechnology based traceability devices (Chrysochou, Chryssochoids, & Kehagia, 2009; Karippacheril, Rios, & Srivastava, 2011, pp. 285e310) is expected to highly motivate food companies to actively participate in the development and implementation of FTSs. 5. Benefits of food traceability Kher et al. (2010) studied the views of food risk management professionals (in which 38 experts participated) in Europe and pointed out that all experts participated in answering the questionnaire agreed that the advantages of implementing FTSs outweighed the disadvantages (e.g. initial investment cost and extra work load) it has. The benefits of effective FTS can be categorized broadly as: Social benefits (Schwägele, 2005; Wilson & Clarke, 1998); Authorities’ benefits (Donnelly & Olsen, 2012; McMeekin et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2005); and Food companies’ benefits (Golan et al., 2004; Kher et al., 2010; Wognum et al., 2011). However, for better explanations, the benefits identified in this review have been categorized as: increase in customer satisfaction, improvement in food crises management, improvement in FSCM,

38

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

competence development (for companies), technological and scientific contribution and contribution to agricultural sustainability. Table 4 presents examples of major advantages of food traceability under each category. 5.1. Increase in customer satisfaction The consumers’ satisfaction is reflected by the increase in consumer confidence in food available in market and the availability of adequate information to make food choice. Such information can be organized, analyzed using FTSs and communicated to customers and other stakeholders. The occurrence of food safety incidents which attracted media attention globally could erode consumers’ confidence. Such reduced consumers trust in food in the market should be improved and for this FTS is an important tool. 5.2. Improvement in food crises management Regarding food safety and quality issue, traceability in the FSC helps to: minimize the production and distribution of unsafe or poor quality products; limit the extent of damage by facilitating product recall activities; establish the extent of their liability in cases of food safety failure by identifying the evidence (based on documented information) of negligence or improper production practices; and identify the existence and quantity of genetically

modified organisms (GMO) components in the food product. Traceability helps also to verify the existence of credence attributes through bookkeeping record that establishes their creation and preservation (Golan et al., 2004). The credence attributes can be content attributes (e.g. calcium content in a glass of enriched orange juice can not be determined by consumer just by drinking it) or process attributes (e.g. earth friendly and fair trade can not be detected by consumers or by testing equipment). The improvement in performance of food recall activities enhances the level of security as well as reduces food recall costs. Some researchers (Thakur, Sørensen, Bjørnson, Forås, & Hurburgh, 2011) argued that ensuring food safety and quality is one of important objectives of any FTS. However, we and some researchers (Resende-Filho et al., 2012) consider food traceability as an important tool to reduce such a consequence of food related (health and economic) crises as it ensures the effective management of food crises, but it does not avoid the probability that food safety and quality crises occur. FTS is an information-based proactive strategy to food quality and safety management and it facilitates the identification of products affected; specifies what type of incident occurred and when and where (in the supply chain) it occurred; and identifies who is responsible (Opara, 2003). The traceability systems enable the accessibility of integrated data throughout production, storage, distribution, quality control, and selling processes (Schwägele, 2005). As food traceability is

Table 4 Benefits of traceability systems. Main category

Example of benefits

Source

Increase in consumers’ satisfaction

C Increasing consumers’ confidence in food and reducing customers complaints (increased food quality and safety) C Promote food choice e.g. for consumers with food allergies C Reduction of social cost (e.g. medical cost) C Improving crises management in event of hazard incidence; Enabling authorities to identify hazardous foodstuffs (and withdraw from market) and detect fraud C Tracing the origin of foodstuffs and ingredients C Controlling animal and food related diseases C Reducing counterfeiting, liability claim, and lawsuits C Reduction of out of date/spoilage cost C Reduction in the volume, cost, frequency, and severity of product recalls as a result of increased capacity of detecting the vulnerability at early stage C Reduction of media impact on the food companies by facilitating food recall action C Improving FSCM (increases transparency and adds value to the quality of FSCM by reducing information asymmetries and logistics costs: costs of procurement, inventory, transport, information and data management, warehouse) C Reinforcing the level of coordination between partners of food supply network C Improved feedback to the food producers C Improving competitiveness of the members of FSC (traceability has promotional capacity) C Increase access to contracts and markets C Protecting brand name and reputation of firms C Increasing labor productivity C It enables availability of scientific data for effective research to identify the cause of food hazard incidences C Promotion of new technology such as IT advancement C It strengthens the implementation of sustainability initiatives in food production, handling and distribution as the traceability data could be used for assuring ensuring that food is sourced from appropriate sources or farms

Arana, Soret, Lasa, and Alfonso (2002), Liao et al. (2011), Mousavi et al. (2002), Shanahan et al. (2009)

Improvement in food crises management

Improvement in FSCM

Competence development

Technological and Scientific contribution Contribution to agricultural sustainability

Chrysochou et al. (2009) Canavari et al. (2010), Kher et al. (2010) Azuara et al. (2012), Hall (2010), McMeekin et al., 2006, Opara (2003), Thakur and Donnelly (2010)

Golan et al. (2004), Hayes et al. (2005), Schwägele (2005), Van Rijswijk et al. (2008) Atkins (2008), Negrini et al. (2008), Smith et al. (2005) Hobbs et al. (2005) Mai et al. (2010) Donnelly et al. (2012), Randrup et al. (2012), Saltini and Akkerman (2012), Tamayo et al. (2009)

Dabbene and Gay (2011) Bollen et al. (2007), Engelseth (2009), Hong et al. (2011), Li et al. (2006); Karlson et al. (2013), Regattieri et al. (2007)

Dabbene and Gay (2011), Rábade and Alfaro (2006) Riden and Bollen (2007) Bourlakis and Bourlakis (2006), Van Dorp (2003) Heyder et al. (2012), Schroeder and Tonsor (2012) McEntire et al. (2010) Mai et al. (2010) Regattieri et al. (2007) Mangina and Vlachos (2005) Donnelly and Olsen (2012), Wognum et al. (2011)

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

mainly to provide safe and quality food product to the consumers, the traceability data shall include all relevant data concerning: (a) the origin and types of food/feed, ingredients, meat animals (species, authenticity, age); (b) processes at all stages in the FSC (primary production, further processing, testing, storage, distribution, retailing, consumption); and (c) resources used (people, machines, transport equipment). These integrated data and information are very important in food crises management.

39

chemical marking (e.g. tattooing, chemical branding with inorganic substances like silver nitrate or potassium nitrate), physical marking (e.g. fin clipping) and using DNA markers (Hayes, Sonesson, & Gjerde, 2005) and other more advanced technologies (see section 7). FTS could also reduce food product losses in FSC as traceability activities promote effective packaging technologies. For example, Sonneveld (2000) has pointed out that, due to effective packaging, food losses during distribution have been reduced to levels less than 1%.

5.3. Improvement in FSCM 6. Barriers in implementing effective food traceability system One of the major benefits of FTSs is its importance for FSCM. Traceability helps to increase the efficiency of FSCM by (Golan et al., 2004) reducing costs of supply-related activities mainly logistics costs; providing information trail (regarding each product type) starting from raw agricultural inputs to products in the retailer; differentiating foods with undetectable attributes; and enabling firms to manage their resources efficiently using new traceability information systems. The improvement in FSCM enables FSC partners to increase cooperation among them and develop their technical and economic competence. 5.4. Competence development Effective FTS can be a source of competitive advantages for partners of FSC (Alfaro & Rábade, 2009; Xiaoshuan, Jian, Feng, Zetian, & Weisong, 2010) because it: i) enables to solve food safety problems; ii) provides a good-faith legal defense in product liability cases; iii) enables a company to understand well its logistics system; iv) provides promotional advantages by connecting manufacturer with consumers (Hall, 2010); and v) enables to develop products of better quality in long run using the laboratory based test results and availability of traceability information. In general, food producers who have efficient production systems and distribution channels are competent in the market. 5.5. Technological and scientific contribution The increasing implementation of FTSs promotes researches in FSC. Because, designing effective FTS requires adequate knowledge about the productionesupply channel and addressing four pillars of food traceability (Regattieri, Gamberi, & Manzini, 2007). These pillars are: Product Identification (volume, weight, perishability); Data to Trace (degree of detail, dynamism, data storage); Product Routing (production activities, equipment, storage systems); and Traceability Tools (accuracy and reliability of captured data). The new traceability devices used to capture, store, and transmit data significantly encourage the efforts to develop more advanced technologies and promote the future research regarding food traceability and FSCM. 5.6. Contribution to agricultural sustainability Traceability system increases the quality of food and food production system as it increases the awareness of workers through the focus on data capturing and documentation processes (Donnelly & Olsen, 2012). Traceability data is very instrumental for transparency of food production and sourcing that in turn helps the implementation of sustainability initiatives especially at the farm level. For example, avoiding the depletion of fish stocks is environmental concern and EU has regulations for ensuring that fish are sourced from a legal catch or farm (Donnelly & Olsen, 2012). Across Europe and America, about 50% of seafood could not be traced back to origin (Donnelly & Olsen, 2012). Fish products can be traced through labeling of product, external tags,

In developing and implementing FTSs, food companies face many barriers (see Table 5). The problems identified during this review have been categorized as resource limitation, information limitation, standard limitation, capacity limitation and awareness limitation. 6.1. Resource limitation Developing and implementing traceability systems is expensive and complicated task that could lead to financial problem. Moreover, allocating the cost and benefits among the partners of FSC needs extra effort and cost. This even could lead to initial resistance (against implementation of FTSS) by some partners. It also requires much administration and paper works, especially for companies implementing the traceability system for the first time (Kher et al., 2010). Food recall costs may be influenced by factors such as time taken to discover the fault, ability to identify and locate affected product batch, and value of the product (Randrup, Wu, & Jørgen, 2012). Traceability is a complex task as its application is associated with some key requirements (Salampasis et al., 2012): (I) traceability should be able to address both internal and chain traceability with information for product’s total lifecycle; (II) the traceability has to be complete addressing both backward traceability and forward traceability of the product with adequate related information; (III) the traceability has to be cost effective and user friendly to implement and operate; and (IV) the traceability system has to be extensible to easily accommodate new traceability data.

6.2. Information limitation Traceability in the agriculture is associated with inherent uncertainty that makes it difficult to acquire certain and timely data at all stages in the FSC. According to European legislation on food traceability EC 178(2002), article 18, it is required to establish traceability system at all stages of food production, processing, storage, and distribution; implement (apply) one-step-backward and one-step-forward approaches; and label adequately the food/ feed before placing on market. However EU regulation (EC 178(2002)) lacks detailed internal traceability requirements. Bertolini et al. (2006), Donnelly, Karlsen, and Dreyer (2012) and Hu, Zhang, Moga, and Neculita (2012) argued that addressing both internal traceability (within a company) and chain traceability (between companies in the supply chain) with clear connections between internal and chain traceability data enable to achieve fastest and precise tracing activities. According to Canavari et al. (2010), the traceability information can be classified as “strategic” information (information on product quality, social and environmental ethics, service level) and “operational” information (information on legal requirement, hygienic-sanitary safety). It is also necessary to have information showing whether the food product

40

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

Table 5 Barriers in developing and implementing effective food traceability systems. Category

Example of existing problems

References

Resource limitation

C It is expensive and complicated task (i.e. there are economic, technological and legislation constraints) especially for SMEs C Difficulties in coordinating and allocating cost and benefits of traceability system among the actors of the FSC under consideration C Lack of complete, accurate, timely, and easily accessible information (e.g. available information usually focus only on origin not quality and safety issues) C Difficulty in identifying the production and harvest conditions when the products are not packed at early stage of supply chain (especially in fresh produce) C Traceability in agricultural sector is associated with inherent uncertainty C Lack of uniformity in implementing the traceability systems i.e. different companies use different standards information exchange C Different links in the chain have different level of accuracy of traceability C Lack of integration and transparency in retrieving traceability information along the whole FSC C Data related issues such as data protection, trust, privacy/security, and reliability C Problem of information asymmetry along supply chain C It is resource-intensive requiring much administration and paper works which place burden on small producers of food (i.e. due to capacity limitation of smaller companies) C Lack of trained staff for technical and management aspects of traceability system C Initial resistance, e.g. considering traceability as a huge bureaucratic load and reluctance in investing in IT-supported traceability systems and less attention given to link the quality and safety information with product flow C Less willingness by some FSC partners to participate in the implementation of traceability systems C Less clarity concerning the incentives and benefits to be gained from implementing traceability system and its investment cost

Li et al. (2006), Negrini et al. (2008), Riden and Bollen (2007)

Information limitation

Standard limitation

Capacity limitation

Awareness limitation

contains GMO components, because the consumers require such information; there is inadequate knowledge about long term effects GMO on health and environment; and there are no real international agreement on principles, testing methods and safety evaluation (Regattieri et al., 2007). Food packing and labeling are main requirements for implementing (paper or electronic based) effective FTS as these activities links material flow with information flow (Manos & Manikas, 2010). However, in some cases customers desire to buy loose produce (unpacked) especially in case of fresh produce. Such cases could be considered as extra challenge in realizing traceability information flow. 6.3. Standard limitation Lack of adequate and standardized data and means of data exchange are area that needs more efforts and research works to improve FTSs. FTS is usually complicated due to variations in data capturing, inconsistency in types of captured data, variations in sharing data within a facility and among FSC partners, and lack of definitions of key terms such as “lot” or “batch” (McEntire et al., 2010). The major problem which is common for traceability techniques such as numerical code, bar code, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags is lack of standardization which creates compatibility problems among different solutions introduced by different actors in a supply chain (Regattieri et al., 2007; Salampasis et al., 2012).

Canavari et al. (2010)

Ackerley et al. (2010), Wilson and Clarke (1998)

Manos and Manikas (2010)

Bollen et al. (2007) Thakur and Donnelly (2010), Thakur et al. (2011) Kher et al. (2010) Salampasis et al. (2012) Chrysochou et al. (2009), Donnelly and Olsen (2012), Mangina and Vlachos (2005) Xiaoshuan et al. (2010) Engelseth (2009), Schwägele (2005)

Xiaoshuan et al. (2010) Alfaro and Rábade (2009), Heyder et al. (2012), Saltini and Akkerman (2012)

Liao et al. (2011) Van der Vorst (2004)

Canavari et al. (2010) argued that every company or supply network must find its own model fitting its purposes and activities. In developed countries, automated data capturing and electronic data coding showed well progress at food company levels but, due to lack of standardization, data transmission from one actor to another is difficult and introducing sector-specific data terminology is recommended as effective way to tackle the problem (Thakur & Donnelly, 2010). Structured data lists, vocabularies and ontology can be considered as appropriate tools to achieve universal data exchange (Thakur et al., 2011). However, the code standardization exercise is costly (Van Dorp, 2003). Kher et al. (2010) has pointed out that, in GFL, the existing traceability systems are efficient but stricter enforcement and uniform standards within FSC are required to make the systems more effective. Under GFL, regulation No.178/2002, new standards have been set for implementation of food and ingredient traceability systems as of 1, January 2005. According to this regulation, each of food and feed business operators must answer two questions: from whom were the ingredients and food/feed obtained (one-step-backward)? To whom the products were sold (onestep-forward)? (see Fig. 3). But the information (questions) should include how food was transported (including the distribution route) to get complete information in case a damage or contamination happened during transport from shipper to receiver (Hall, 2010). Even in developed countries, there is gap of information for tracing food damages/contamination during transportation (Ackerley, Sertkaya, & Lange, 2010).

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

Fig. 3. Conceptual illustration of one-step-backward and one-step-forward approach: who is the supplier/s of ingredients and/or partially processed food? Who is/are the receiver/s of food items?

6.4. Capacity limitation

41

that introducing FTS in developing countries is not easy task due to technical limitation and lack of awareness. These authors identified that the Taiwan Agriculture and Food Traceability program, initiated in 2004 by Taiwan government, failed mainly due to lack of farmers’ awareness of the traceability program. This indicates that effective training and education programs are required to increase the technical capacity and the awareness level of participants. 7. Technological advancement in relation to product traceability

The complex nature of FTS requires skilled staff for its development, implementation, and management. Moreover, different partners in the FSC have different objectives of FTS making full chain traceability more complex. The FSC partners may not have adequate skill and number of employees to effectively implement and manage the FTS (Xiaoshuan et al., 2010). Even in the case of small food producers, FTS could place more work load as they have experienced capacity limitation (Engelseth, 2009; Schwägele, 2005). 6.5. Awareness limitation Considering traceability as extra burden, lack of clear information concerning the benefits of traceability and absence of uniform willingness among FSC partners to participate in the implementation of traceability systems are problems related to lack of awareness (see Table 5). For example, the study by Liao et al. (2011) indicated

7.1. Technologies for managing traceability data Table 6 presents lists of most technological innovations applied in FTSs. These technological innovations are mainly applied for Product Identification, Quality and Safety Measurement, Genetic Analysis, Environmental Monitoring, Geospatial Data Capturing, Data exchange, and Software development for integrated traceability analysis (Opara, 2003). In the product identification process, the most common types of capturing data in the FSC are paper record, bar code, RFID and electronic systems (Azuara et al., 2012; Manos & Manikas, 2010; McEntire et al., 2010). Some of technologies introduced to meat industry include bar codes, microcircuit cards, radio frequency tags and transponders, voice recognition systems, biocoding, and chemical markers (Mousavi, 2002).

Table 6 Technological innovations applied for product traceability purposes. Description

Examples

Example of information to be captured

Remark

Product identification

C Bar codes

Manufacturer identification number, item number, packed date, batch number

C Tag (e.g. RFID tags)

Breed, date of birth, farm, vaccinations of Livestock

Widely used for inventory control, stock recording, and checkouts Tags should withstand tear, wear, and harsh environmental conditions. Can also be used as time-temperature indicators

C EID (e.g. electronic tag)

Product name, batch/lot number, price, origin, and conditions of handling and storage Firmness of fleshy products

Quality and safety measurement

Genetic analysis Environmental monitoring

Geospatial data capturing

C Penetrometer, firmometer, twist tester, Instro machine, Kiwifirm C Infrared & magnetic resonance imaging C Equipment for chemical analysis C Smart packaging devices (e.g. pH indicators, chemical bar codes) C Nanotechnology based devices (Nano sensors) C DNA tests C Intelligent packaging (temperature-indicator, freshness-indicator, Gas-indicator, biosensors) C GIS, RS, GPS

To measure quality and safety status

Firmness of product, presence of hazardous physical objects inside food products Presence of hazardous microbial contaminants Growth of bacteria (e.g. for real-time monitoring of fish spoilage) Presence of pathogens, gases, spoilage, changing temperature and moisture, chemicals, and toxins Quantity of GMOs and other transgenic materials Temperature, relative humidity, atmospheric composition of the air (including pollutant)

C Nuclear techniques

Site specific data on animals and their movement, plants on the farm Isotopic and elemental fingerprints

Data exchange

C EDI, EXL

Exchange of standardized and structured data

Software

C QualTrace, EQM, Food Trak

Integration of technologies for full traceability system

Can be applied as Nano sensors in smart packaging and as portable Nano sensors To analyze impact of external environment on quality and safety of food

To remotely collect and integrate data, and map geospatial variability To determine the provenance of food; to identify the geographical origin and source of contamination To facilitate information sharing particularly via internet Example of commercial software

EID-electronic identification, GIS-geographic information system, RS-remote sensing, GPS-global positing system, EQM-enterprise quality management, EDI-electronic data interchange, EXL-extensible markup language, DNA-deoxyribonucleic acid. Sources: Karippacheril et al. (2011); Mousavi et al. (2002); Pacquit et al. (2007, 2006); Thakur and Donnelly (2010); Yam et al. (2005).

42

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

RFID tag consists of an integrated circuit (that stores the unique identification number), an antenna (to which a microchip is attached) and a memory and it interacts with a reader that is connected to a computer system. The radio waves reflected back from the RFID tag is converted by the reader into digital information that will be added to the information system of the company (Azuara et al., 2012; Kelepouris et al., 2007). The integrated circuit is protected and covered by encapsulation which protects against dust, extreme temperatures, moisture, heat and salt (Azuara et al., 2012). The distance at which the reader can work depends on the frequency band. Azuara et al. (2012) mentioned the following typical frequency bands: low frequency e LF (125e134.2 kHz); high frequency e HF (13.56 MHz); ultra high frequency e UHF (865.5e 867.6 MHz in Europe, 915 MHz in USA, and 950e956 MHz in Japan) and industrial, scientific and medical e ISM (2.4 GHz). LF and HF bands are used for animal identification while UHF and ISM bands are used for object identification. Although alphanumerical code, bar code, and RFID are fundamental techniques available for traceability (data capturing), nowadays, alphanumerical codes are not frequently used because they require significant human resources and costs, they are not automatic in code reading, and they are associated with high data integrity corruption. Bar codes are also less attractive to food sector, because positioning the code labels and scanning process requires considerable human intervention and so there is room for error and inefficiency (Regattieri et al., 2007). Bar codes use standards such as European Article Numbering (EAN) and Uniform Code Council (UCC) and GS1. GS1 is a common global standard came into existence by the affiliation of EAN and UCC (Chrysochou et al., 2009). RFID tags are very effective tools for food traceability because the tags are very small with no compatibility problem with foods and they have no communication problem between tags and traceability database (Azuara et al., 2012; Regattieri et al., 2007; Salampasis et al., 2012). They can carry a wide range of unique food product information that can be updated; can provide additional information such as temperature; can be read from a long distance; and the automaticity of RFID saves time of traceability exercise (Chrysochou et al., 2009). The main limitation of RFID tags is their high costs (a threshold value is upto 8 Euro per tag) (Chrysochou et al., 2009; Regattieri et al., 2007). Specific environmental conditions (wet, cold, etc.) and metal objects may sometimes disturb the information communication by RFID tags (Chrysochou et al., 2009). There are quality and safety measurement techniques that are very important to control the safety status of food products. Peres, Barlet, Loiseau, and Montet (2007) discussed the physicochemical techniques (e.g. analysis of variation of the radioactive isotope content of the product) and biological techniques (e.g. analysis of total bacterial flora using different techniques such as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) chips). Other technologies such as timee temperature indicators (indicate the temperature history during distribution and storage), freshness indicators (estimate the remaining shelf life), gas indicators (monitor changes in the gas composition inside the package), and biosensors (detect, record, and transmit information pertaining to biochemical reactions) are emerging technologies under intelligent packaging technologies (Yam et al., 2005). Yam et al. (2005) classified these smart package devices into two types: Data Carriers (e.g. bar code labels and RFID tags) which store and transmit data, and Package Indicators (timee temperature indicators, gas-indicators, biosensors) which can monitor the external environment and issue warnings for appropriate measures to be taken when the food in the package is exposed to damage or contamination. The potential future innovations for improved speed and precision of food traceability lie in integration of emerging technologies (DNA fingerprinting, nanotechnology, retina imaging) into

crop and foodeanimal production industries (Opara, 2003). DNA based technologies, edible tags, and e-paper tags (electronic paper that displays the appearance of regular ink on paper) are emerging technologies being introduced in FTSs (Chrysochou et al., 2009). Although, they are expensive, DNA-based traceability techniques are very effective and have further advantages over paper based audits because: i) these techniques can be used to verify the accuracy of other methods like ear tagging; ii) DNA is more stable molecule at environment up to 120  C; and iii) the results can be repeated, standardized and automated (Negrini et al., 2008). A fully operational electronic-based traceability system requires hardware (such as physical auxiliary devices, material handling equipment and plant layout design) and software (such as algorithms, labeling and coding techniques, read/write capabilities, software hardware interface, and system integration) (Mousavi, Sarhadi, Lenk, & Fawcett, 2002). QualTrace, EQM, and FoodTrack are examples of commercial software applicable for FTSs (see Table 6). 7.2. Continuity of traceability information flow Application of advanced IT in connection to internet has become important information sharing among the members of FSC (Bourlakis & Bourlakis, 2006). Salampasis et al. (2012) used TraceALL as an application framework for FTS. TraceAll is an innovative framework completely based on standards of Semantic Web initiatives and enables food industry to implement effective traceability system. Thakur and Donnelly (2010) has discussed some technologies for traceability information exchange such as EDI (Electronic Data Interchange which enables firms with mature IT capabilities to efficiently exchange standardized and structured data), XML (Extensible Markup Language which facilitates the sharing of structured data particularly via internet) are being tested in food industry (see Table 6). Once captured, the traceability information must be linked to traceable resource unit (TRU) such as a truckload of raw material (unprocessed food) or a production batch. Traceability information flow could be realized through integrating static (retirement/catch date, country of origin, expiry date, size, etc.) and dynamic (lot/batch number, order ID, despatch date, taste, etc.) traceability data (Folinas et al., 2006; Olsen & Aschan, 2010). Folinas et al. (2006) argued that there are two types of traceability information flow models: I. One step upeOne step down flow model: In this case there is information filtering i.e. keeping some information at each stage while allowing other to follow the product as it moves to the next stage of the supply chain. This model is more flexible and easy to use and is suggested for food traceability e.g. by EC Regulation 178/2002. II. Aggregated information flow model: In this case there is no information filtering. Aggregated information follows the product all the way in the supply chain to the point of sale. This model is widely used for traceability of organic products, fresh fish and meat, and identifying GMO-free products. Chain traceability requires effective information connectivity between the information systems of partners in the supply chain. In order to address this, contemporary researches focus on developing effective information connectivity with aid of advanced information technology (Azuara et al., 2012; Bertolini et al., 2006; Engelseth 2009; Salampasis et al., 2012; Shanahan et al., 2009). In order to briefly describe the concept of Product Transformation (also called batch-dispersion) in a supply chain, an explanation based on a simplified diagram and similar to what was discussed by Olsen

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

and Aschan (2010) has been used here (see Fig. 4). Olsen and Aschan (2010) applied the process mapping method, an approach widely used in process re-engineering. It enables to get a picture of information flow in the existing system of a supply chain under consideration, identify point of information discontinuity, and redesign the system. The trade units (TUs), logistic units (LUs), vehicles, trips etc. should be uniquely identified and recorded along with the information about the mixing, grouping or ungrouping, joining or splitting, and information about links between TU and LU as well as inputs and outputs (see Fig. 4). The availability of such well-connected information flow can boost the development of an effective FTS (Olsen & Aschan, 2010; Regattieri et al., 2007). In different FSCs, there are important stages which greatly influence the quality and availability of clear information. For example, in food industry where raw materials are sourced from different suppliers, batch mixing stage is important stage as food recall size depends on batch size, batch mixing and clear information (lot-specific information) recorded at the mixing stage, and the available skill (at firm level) to manage the food recall action. Reductions in batch size and batch mixing improve the precision of traceability, however, they affect the production operations (Riden & Bollen, 2007; Saltini & Akkerman, 2012; Tamayo, Monterio, & Sauer, 2009). In case of fresh produce supply chain, the level of supply chain at which the produce is packed and labeled determines the availability and quality of information required for traceability system (Liao et al., 2011; Manos & Manikas, 2010). For instance, packhouses are the source of major uncertainty and disjointed information systems in fruit supply chain (Bollen, Riden, & Cox, 2007). In the meat industry, capturing and storing information at the stage of cutting and boning processes (after slaughter) is more difficult and the captured data needs to be linked to animal supply chain and meat retail supply chain which in turn needs development of effective information connectivity (Mousavi et al., 2002). Van Dorp (2003) has discussed that European Commission (EC) adopted rules in Brussels, on 17 July 2000, concerning

43

compulsory beef labeling systems. As compulsory information, a beef label must include a traceability reference number (relating beef with animal) such as batch number (to be assigned at cutting and deboning level), and license number of slaughterhouse and cutting or deboning plant. 8. Perceptions toward food traceability technologies The perceptions of experts toward traceability are not necessarily in line with those of consumers. Unlike experts, consumers are not much interested in traceability (especially the technical aspect of traceability issues). Consumers need often labels that are understandable and it is not advisable to overload the consumers with information, especially on the package front label (Kimura et al., 2008; Van Dorp, 2003; Van Rijswijk et al., 2008; Verbeke & Ward, 2006). A study by Kimura et al. (2008) has pointed out that providing too little information to consumers is also not advisable. Non electronic label is usually considered less credible and reliable by consumers. On the other hand, label is perceived more convenient (by consumers) than RFID or bar codes which require a device to retrieve product information (Chrysochou et al., 2009). Usually, consumers consider that quality and safety assurance supported by traceability system are important and they are willing to pay a higher price for such quality and safe food product. However, they consider that traceability alone is of less importance (Hobbs et al., 2005; Van Rijswijk et al., 2008; Verbeke & Ward, 2006). A case study by Hobbs et al. (2005) using 104 Canadian consumers of beef sandwich, indicated that consumers were willing to pay only about 7% of the base value of product as additional price for traceability system without additional quality and safety assurances (i.e. only traceability to the farm) while they were willing to pay up to 40% when the introduced traceability system was associated with more quality and safety controlling efforts. Even, there are different consumers’ perceptions concerning food quality and safety issues in different countries due to cultural

Fig. 4. A typical material flow in a supply chain illustrating the linkage between trade units, logistics units, transformations, and duration between transformations. It indicates stages where information should be captured, stored and transmitted as required. TU ¼ trade unit; LU ¼ logistic unit; RM ¼ raw material; Ing ¼ ingredient; T ¼ transformation stage.

44

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

differences. For example, Van Rijswijk et al. (2008) cited that in northern and central parts of Europe (e.g. UK, Scandinavia and Germany), food safety and ethical issues have priorities while food quality has more priority in southern countries (e.g. France, Spain, Italy, and Greece). However such perceptions are subjected for changes due to potential influences of increasing consumers’ awareness and incidences of food crisis. In addition to food quality and safety, consumers give more attention to sustainability issues within agri-food system (Hu et al., 2012). There exist also societal concerns regarding impact of technologies. For example, reported drawbacks of RFID technology such as the uncertainty in ethical and privacy issues (e.g. should personal data be used for tracking consumers’ purchases?) as well as the uncertainty regarding the impact on consumers’ health (e.g. what is the impact of electromagnetic radiation on health?) have attracted attention. In US, the issue of privacy (RFID related) has sparked a debate between government agencies and privacy groups (Chrysochou et al., 2009). In general, these concerns indicate that developing food traceability should take into consideration the effective way of communicating traceability information to the consumers and other stakeholders. 9. Traceability characteristics in agriculture and food supply chain 9.1. Elements of food traceability Well-designed traceability systems are required for food processors. According to Opara (2003), six elements of traceability exist in agricultural and FSC: Product Traceability (focuses on physical location of products at any stage in the FSC), Process Traceability (focuses on type and sequences of activities that have affected the product), Genetic Traceability (focuses on the genetic constitution of the product), Input traceability (focuses on type and origin of inputs such as fertilizer, chemical sprays, feed, additives used for food preservation), Disease and Pest Traceability (traces the epidemiology of pests and emerging pathogens that may contaminate food), and Measurement Traceability (focuses on quality of measurement relating individual measurement results to accepted reference standards). The choice of suitable and efficient traceability depends on structure of FSC under consideration; relationship between partners; capacity (human or technological) of managing transactions, quality and production processes; and packaging materials and methods (Manos & Manikas, 2010). In long FSC, implementation of effective traceability system needs integration of different parts of supply chains. For example in meat industry full traceability can be achieved by integrating the livestock supply chain, abattoir and boning hall activity chain, and meat retail supply chain (Mousavi et al., 2002; Wognum et al., 2011). The recent study by Saltini and Akkerman (2012) has indicated that implementing traceability system that fully cover the entire supply chain could lead to highest benefit than improving traceability partially (on a single production system). 9.2. Traceability in the case of local food supply chain Local food supply chain refers to short food chains which mostly provide food products that are produced and consumed within the same area (e.g. within a radius of about 250 km in case of Sweden). Developing well detailed traceability systems is not easy for small food producing and processing companies. For example Chrysochou et al. (2009) have reported that it is difficult to implement the bar code on fruits that are to be sold on street markets and small grocery stores which are important means of

marketing for small food producers, although these bar code on fruits are advantageous from environmental point of view (i.e. they can substitute for plastic packaging). These small companies may experience cost disadvantages when compared with medium and large sized companies (Kelepouris et al., 2007; Kher et al., 2010). The limitations include lack of information about the traceability systems and lack of enough knowledge to implement it (Kher et al., 2010; Manos & Manikas, 2010). In order to overcome these problems, activities related to informational flow should be coordinated to facilitate the development of effective and efficient FTSs in the case of small scale FSC. Referring to previous studies, Manos and Manikas (2010) suggested that a central database can be established for small food producers so that they can easily access and share information via a personal computer and Internet connection. The central database may be coordinated by farmers’ cooperatives and it can serve as a milestone for the integrated FSCM. In the case of small enterprises with simpler and shorter FSC, such as the case of local FSC, the recall process is less costly and more effective (Donnelly et al., 2012). This simplifies the development of food traceability in case of small scale FSCs. The result of case study by Manos and Manikas (2010) indicated that, in the case of small farmers, an efficient paper-based traceability system (simplest form of traceability) could enable to effectively trace the product. This indicates that there is no need of introducing expensive and complicated traceability systems (for small producers) at farm level. It should be noticed that developing costeffective traceability technologies for both large and small scale producers and enterprises as well as providing training (for these technology users) on the principles and procedures of traceability are essential (Opara, 2003).

10. Improving food traceability systems Traceability in agriculture and FSC is a field under development where more innovations are required. Especially, full chain FTSs are more complex and require the development of better traceability devices (see Table 6), as well as innovations in FSCM (Thakur & Donnelly, 2010; Xiaoshuan et al., 2010). The traceability information should be analyzed using new technological innovations and electronic-based (and exponentially developing) data analysis techniques. Once technological capacity is in place, other important factors such as employee’s skill, awareness, and motivation (as well as the commitment) of leadership are necessary for effective traceability (Donnelly et al., 2012). Therefore, appropriate training on concept and importance of food traceability is essential, because some partners of FSC consider traceability activities not only as costly process but also as extra burden. This type of training enables to solve problems identified as capacity and awareness limitations (see Table 5). Furthermore, researches on integrated traceability systems and further development of user-friendly traceability tools and data processing software should be promoted by all stakeholders. These scientific researches should be planned to effectively tackle the challenges (see Table 5) in FTSs. Integrating traceability activities and food logistics activities is the effective means of improving the supply chain management. Specifically, it could strengthen the information connectivity and communication among partners and this strong information connectivity could enhance the traceability systems. Moreover, considering traceability issues at early stage of designing the food logistics network is important. Because, food traceability is related to some important logistics elements such as packaging, labeling as well as application of data capturing and transferring techniques.

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

There are increasing interests from society, government agencies, and researchers in the security of FSC. These interests can be organized and used to attract financial funding and promote the development and implementation of effective and efficient FTSs that intern enhance the management of food safety risks. It is also important to prepare traceability guidelines. Food companies need more clear guidelines and regulations for implementing FTSs (Van der Vorst, 2004). It should also be noticed that traceability alone is not a sufficient condition to satisfy the food safety requirements in the FSC and it should be considered as a complimentary tool to other quality and safety management programs such as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems. Effective traceability system reinforces a maximum level of coordination between different partners of FSC (Rábade & Alfaro, 2006). On the contrary, lack of coordination and inaccuracy of shared information cause inefficiency, not only in FTSs but also in FSCM. Information delay, divergent interests and opportunistic behavior of some actors, and information asymmetry across the supply chain affect the quality of shared information (Canavari et al., 2010; Mohtadi, 2008). Therefore, controlling the quality of the information shared between actors of supply chain needs more attention. This enables to tackle the traceability challenges identified as information and standard limitations. The decreasing cost of new traceability tools such as improved bar codes and RFID tags enable to promote better FTSs. For example cheaper and more efficient nanoscale RFIDs are emerging due to the development of nanotechnologies (Karippacheril et al., 2011, pp. 285e310). These authors also have pointed out that, integration of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science is an emerging trend in agriculture and food security. In the next decade, the dramatic increase in the application of RFID technology is expected in food industry (Chrysochou et al., 2009) due to its decreasing cost and increasing performance (Azuara et al., 2012; Salampasis et al., 2012). This in turn could reduce the overall traceability cost such as cost of tracking shipments e.g. by reducing time of dealing with various shelf-life issues and simplifying communication among partners (McCallum, 2012). This declining cost of RFID technology and the development in other digital tools such as GIS (see Table 6) encouraged countries like China to introduce FTSs and improve their competitiveness in the global food market (Smith et al., 2008; Xiao-hui, Da-fang, & Dong-sheng, 2007; Xiaoshan et al., 2010). 11. Assessing the performance of food traceability systems In assessing the success of an agri-food supply chain, a performance measurement system can be defined as “a system that enables a firm to monitor the relevant performance indicators of products, services and production processes in appropriate time frame” (Aramyan, Lansink, Van der Vorst, & van Kooten, 2007). These performance indicators (criteria for evaluating products, services, and production processes) enable to evaluate the effectiveness (achieving the highest percentage of expected output), the efficiency (achieving the expected output with minimum resource), and the competency (gaining the best comparative net value). The evaluation can be performed by comparing against the appropriate norms and/or goals of the systems under consideration (Aramyan et al., 2007; Fugate, Mentzer, & Stank, 2010). Examples of performance indicators identified by Aramyan et al. (2007) for the evaluation of agri-food supply chain performance are: profit; lead-time; delivery promptness, waste elimination; reliability; cost; responsiveness (e.g. order fulfillment lead-time); asset; service effectiveness and efficiency; operational effectiveness and efficiency; and flexibility. The authors grouped these indicators into four categories: efficiency, flexibility, responsibility, and food quality.

45

In case of food traceability, we argue that the performance of full chain traceability should be evaluated against its overall goal. This overall goal should incorporate important specific goals: Compliance with rules and legislation; food safety and quality; social and stakeholders’ satisfactions; economic benefits; and technological and scientific benefits. The efficiency and effectiveness of FTS in achieving these specific goals could pinpoint the performance level of the system. Many factors impact the performance of FTSs. Goal of each company, tradeoff between costs and benefits, and the level (high or low) of implemented traceability system can be mentioned as examples (Van der Vorst, 2004). The fact that partners in the FSC have usually conflicting goals makes the performance evaluation more complex. The ability to limit the volume of recalled products and the cost related to recall activities have been often used as measure of the performance of traceability systems (Dabbene & Gay, 2011). Van der Vorst (2004) conducted a study on performance levels of FTSs and deduced three strategic levels of traceability performance which can be expressed as: (I) Compliance-oriented performance level e In this case, each company complies to regulatory (government) issues individually, and focuses on registration of incoming and outgoing materials. This makes the food chain to act as a fragmented organization and the chain performance can be assessed by compiling individual performances. (II) Process-oriented performance level e In this case, the focus is on controlling the production process using local ICTsystems while complying with regulatory issues and aiming to gain a better return from the traceability system. (III) Market-oriented performance level e In this case, achieving higher competitive advantage is the main target, focusing on processes redesign (value addition) and establishment of full traceability system within supply chain. The traceability performance is based on the joint effort of partners to design and provide a product. Information is the heart of the performance measurement process. However, it is probably difficult to develop a common traceability information flow model fitting all circumstances in the supply chain. However, the better performance of a FTS can be explained in terms of its breadth, depth, precision, and access to (the captured, stored, and transmitted) data and information. McEntire et al. (2010) defined these important terms as: ➢ Breadth: The amount of information the traceability system records. ➢ Depth: How far upstream or downstream in supply chain the system traces and tracks ➢ Precision: The degree of assurance with which the system can pinpoint a particular product’s movement or characteristics ➢ Access: The speed with which tracking and tracing information can be communicated to supply chain members and the speed with which the requested information can be disseminated to public health officials during food-related emergencies Continuous flow of reliable traceability information could in turn enhance the integration of logistics activities and improve the FSCM as whole (McEntire et al., 2010; Tamayo et al., 2009). Effective traceability system reinforces a maximum level of coordination between different partners of FSC (Rábade & Alfaro, 2006). Although improving efficiency of logistics processes and introducing IT systems are getting more attention by food industries, efforts to integrate IT operations with logistics operations are rare

46

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

(Bourlakis & Bourlakis, 2006). Moreover, this review has pointed out that the issue of developing complete and effective FTS that fully integrated into food logistics management is quite complex in nature as it requires a deeper understanding of real processes from different perspectives such as economic (market power, financial benefits and costs), legal (governmental legislations, political pressure), technological (availability and affordability, capacity to develop new techniques), and social (public health, sustainability) issues. Therefore, it is not only the food traceability performance but also the methods of assessing the performance should be studied and developed. 12. Conclusion The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive literature review on FTSs within limited scope which embraces the definitions, drivers, benefits, barriers, technologies, improvement, and performance of FTSs. About 62% of randomly selected studies focused on Europe augmenting the claim (by other studies) that Europe is leading in developing and implementing FTSs. Three key components of traceability definitions were noticed: backward follow-up (tracing), forward follow-up (tracking), and product history information associated with product movement in the supply chain. Key terms such as tracing, tracking, tracing and tracking have been used (in defining food traceability) often inconsistently and interchangeably which created confusions. In general, there are limitations in addressing complete concept of contemporary FTSs. Therefore, new definition has been proposed in this study: Food traceability is part of logistics management which capture, store, and transmit adequate information about a food, feed, food-producing animal or substance at all stages in the food supply chain so that the product can be checked for safety and quality control, traced upward, and tracked downward at any time required. This definition suggests that, conceptually, food traceability should be considered as an important and integral part of logistics management in contemporary food and agricultural supply chains. Major driving forces behind the development and implementation of FTSs have been identified and presented in five categories: food safety and quality, regulatory, social, economic, and technological concerns. Similarly, the major benefits of FTSs have been identified and categorized as: increase in customer satisfaction, improvement in food crises management, improvement in FSCM, enhanced company competence, enriched technological and scientific contribution and contribution to agricultural sustainability. The identified barriers to implementation FTSs also have been presented as limitations in: resource, information, standard, capacity, and awareness. The technological innovations that are mainly applied for Product Identification, Quality and Safety Measurement, Genetic Analysis, Environmental Monitoring, Geospatial Data Capturing, Data exchange, and data/information integration have been identified. This study has pointed out that more effective and cheaper food traceability technologies are emerging which in turn facilitating the integration of static and dynamic traceability data and ensuring the continuity of information flow within the supply chain. Experts are often inclined toward technical aspect of food traceability while consumers consider that traceability alone is less important unless it address well issues of food quality and safety as well as sustainability of food production. Some actors of food supply chain (FSC) consider traceability as bureaucratic burden and are less willing to implement it. There exist also societal concerns about the potential impacts of traceability technologies (e.g. RFID) on consumers’ health and on data privacy. In general, the implementation of food traceability should be associated with effective way of communicating traceability information to the consumers and other stakeholders.

The choice of suitable and efficient traceability depends on structure of FSC under consideration; relationship between partners; capacity (human or technological) to manage transactions, quality and production processes; and packaging materials and methods. In long FSC, implementation of effective traceability system needs integration of different parts of supply chains. Implementing traceability system that fully cover the entire supply chain leads to highest benefit than focusing on partial improvement of traceability. Developing well detailed traceability systems is not easy for small food producing and processing companies as they lack financial capacity, adequate traceability information and enough knowledge to implement it. In the case of small farmers, an efficient paper-based traceability system (simplest form of traceability) enables to effectively trace the product indicating that there is no need of introducing expensive and complicated traceability systems at farm level. However, coordinated information connectivity, by establishing a central database, is essential so that the small food producers can easily access and share information via a personal computer and Internet connection. This also serves as a milestone for the integrated supply chain management for local FSC and most probably, such database may be coordinated by farmers’ cooperatives. Developing and implementing a full chain FTS is a complex task that requires more innovations. It can be enhanced by: developing effective and efficient traceability technologies and innovative FSCM; providing trainings to improve employee’s skill, awareness, and motivation (as well as the commitment) of leadership; encouraging more researches on integrated traceability systems and further development of user-friendly traceability tools and data processing software; integrating traceability activities and food logistics activities; strengthening the information connectivity and communication among partners; considering traceability issues at early stage of designing food logistics network is important; organizing the increasing interests from society, government agencies, and researchers in the security of FSC and using it to attract financial funding and promote; preparing more clear traceability guidelines; and ensuring the quality of the information shared between actors of supply chain. The performance of full chain food traceability should be evaluated against its overall goal which should incorporate important specific goals such as: compliance with rules and legislation; food safety and quality; social and stakeholders’ satisfactions; economic benefits; and technological and scientific benefits. The efficiency and effectiveness of the introduced FTS in achieving these specific goals could pinpoint the performance level of the system. The performance of FTS could also be evaluated by its ability to improve the breadth, depth, precision and access of information. Such an improved information flow will in turn enhance the integration of logistics activities and improve the FSCM as whole. 13. Limitation and recommendations This review was based on limited number of studies mainly sourced from scientific electronic databases that could be accessed by the authors of this study. There might be other relevant studies on food traceability issues but not enclosed in this. However, the review result has pointed out important issues regarding FTSs as discussed in previous sections. Based on these review results, important recommendations have been provided. Developing better and full chain FTS is reasonably complex in nature as it requires a deeper understanding of real processes from different perspectives such as legal, economic, technological, and social issues. This makes FTS a potential area of research in agrifood supply chain. Therefore:

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

➢ Further researches on traceability should focus on issues such as: improving technological aspects of traceability systems; the link between traceability system and food production units; standardization of information exchange; integration of traceability into logistics management; awareness creation strategies, and the efficiency of communicating traceability information to consumers and other stakeholders. ➢ The linkage between different drivers of food traceability could positively influence the implementation of the traceability system. For example it can facilitate the strategic planning for developing and implementing affordable and user friendly FTSs. This should be further investigated using case studies. ➢ Studies on assessment of food traceability performance are rare in comparison to the increasing interest in FTSs. Therefore, detailed studies should be conducted to develop effective frameworks for performance evaluation of FTSs. References Ackerley, N., Sertkaya, A., & Lange, R. (2010). Food transportation safety: characterizing risks and controls by use of expert opinion. Food Protection Trends, 30(4), 212e222. Alfaro, J. A., & Rábade, L. A. (2009). Traceability as a strategic tool to improve inventory management: a case study in the food industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 118, 104e110. Aramyan, L. H., Lansink, A. G. J. M., Van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., & van Kooten, O. (2007). Performance measurement in agri-food supply chains: a case study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(4), 304e315. Arana, A., Soret, B., Lasa, I., & Alfonso, L. (2002). Meat traceability using DNA markers: application to the beef industry. Meat Science, 61, 367e373. Atkins, P. (2008). Fear of animal foods: a century of zoonotics. Appetite, 51, 18e21. Azuara, G., Tornos, J. L., & Salazar, J. L. (2012). Improving RFID traceability systems with verifiable quality. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 112(3), 340e359. Bertolini, M., Bevilacqua, M., & Massini, R. (2006). FMECA approach to product traceability in food industry. Food Control, 17, 137e145. Bollen, A. F., Riden, C. P., & Cox, N. R. (2007). Agricultural supply system traceability, part I: role of packing procedures and effects of fruit mixing. Biosystems Engineering, 98, 391e400. Bourlakis, M., & Bourlakis, C. (2006). Integrating logistics and information technology strategies for sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 19(4), 389e402. Canavari, M., Centonze, R., Hingley, M., & Spadoni, R. (2010). Traceability as part of competitive strategy in the fruit supply chain. British Food Journal, 112(2), 171e186. Chow, H. K. H., Choy, K. L., Lee, W. B., & Chan, F. T. S. (2007). Integration of webbased and RFID technology in visualizing logistics operations e a case study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 221e234. Chrysochou, P., Chryssochoids, G., & Kehagia, O. (2009). Traceability information carriers. The technology backgrounds and consumers’ perceptions of the technological solutions. Appetite, 53, 322e331. Dabbene, F., & Gay, P. (2011). Food traceability systems: performance evaluation and optimization. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 75, 139e146. Donnelly, K. A.-M., Karlsen, K. M., & Dreyer, B. (2012). A simulated recall study in five major food sectors. British Food Journal, 114(7), 1016e1031. Donnelly, K. A.-M., & Olsen, P. (2012). Catch to landing traceability and the effects of implementation e a case study from the Norwegian white fish sector. Food Control, 27, 228e233. Engelseth, P. (2009). Food product traceability and supply network integration. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 24(5), 421e430. Folinas, D., Manikas, I., & Manos, B. (2006). Traceability data management for food chains. British Food Journal, 108(8), 622e633. Food Standards Agency. (2002). Traceability in the food chain e A preliminary study. Available at http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/traceabilityinthefoodchain. pdf Accessed 25.06.12. Fugate, B. S., Mentzer, J. T., & Stank, T. P. (2010). Logistics performance: efficiency, effectiveness, and differentiation. The Journal of Business Logistics, 31(1), 43e61. Golan, E., Krissoff, B., Kuchler, F., Calvin, L., Nelson, K., & Price, G. (2004). Traceability in U.S. food supply: Economic theory and industry studies. Agricultural Economic Report [830]. USDA/Economic Research Service, Available at www.ers.usda.gov Accessed 25.06.12. Greger, M. (2007). The long haul: risks associated with livestock transport. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 5(4), 301e311. Hall, D. (2010). Food with a visible face: traceability and the public promotion of private governance in the food system. Geoforum, 41, 826e835. Hayes, B., Sonesson, A. K., & Gjerde, B. (2005). Evaluation of three strategies using DNA markers for traceability in aquaculture species. Aquaculture, 250, 70e81.

47

Heyder, M., Theuvsen, L., & Hollmann-Hespos, T. (2012). Investments in tracking and tracing systems in the food industry: a PLS analysis. Food Policy, 37, 102e113. Hobbs, J. E., Bailey, D. V., Dickinson, D. L., & Haghiri, M. (2005). Traceability in the Canadian red meat sector: do consumers care? Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53, 47e65. Hong, I.-H., Dang, Jr-F., Tsai, Y.-H., Liu, C.-S., Lee, W.-T., Wang, M.-L., et al. (2011). An RFID application in the food supply chain: a case study of convenience stores in Taiwan. Journal of Food Engineering, 106, 119e126. Hu, J., Zhang, X., Moga, L. M., & Neculita, M. (2012). Modeling and implementation of the vegetable supply chain traceability system. Food Control. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.06.037. Karippacheril, T. G., Rios, D. L., & Srivastava, L. (2011). Global markets, global challenges: Improving food safety and traceability while empowering smallholders through ICT. ICT in Agriculture, Module 12. Available at http://www. ictinagriculture.org/sites/ictinagriculture.org/files/ICT%20in%20Agriculture% 20e-Sourcebook_0.pdf Accessed 19.01.13. Karlson, K. M., Dreyer, B., Olsen, P., & Elvevoll, E. O. (2013). Literature review: does a common theoretical framework to implement food traceability exist? Food Control. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.12.011. Kelepouris, T., Pramatari, K., & Doukidis, G. (2007). RFID-enabled traceability in the food supply chain. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 107(2), 183e200. Kher, S. V., Frewer, L. J., De Jonge, J., Wertholt, M., Davies, O. H., Luijckx, N. B. L., et al. (2010). Experts’ perspectives on the implementation of traceability in Europe. British Food Journal, 112(2), 261e274. Kimura, A., Wada, Y., Tsuzuki, D., Goto, S.-i., Cai, D., & Dan, I. (2008). Consumer valuation of packed foods. Interactive effects of amount and accessibility of information. Appetite, 51, 628e634. Levinson, D. R. (2009). Traceability in the food supply chain. Research report [OEI-0206-00210]. Department of Health and Human Services of USA. Liao, P.-A., Chang, H.-H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2011). Why is the food traceability system unsuccessful in Taiwan? Emprical evidence from a national survey of fruit and vegetable farmers. Food Policy, 36, 686e693. Liu, H., Kerr, W. A., & Hobbs, J. E. (2012). A review of Chinese food safety strategies implemented after several food safety incidents involving export of Chinese aquatic products. British Food Journal, 114(3), 372e386. Li, S., Visich, J. K., Khumawala, B. M., & Zhang, C. (2006). Radio frequency identification technology: applications, technical challenges and strategies. Sensor Review, 26(3), 193e202. Mai, N., Bogason, S. G., Arason, S., Árnason, S. V., & Matthiasson, T. G. (2010). Benefits of traceability in fish supply chain e case studies. British Food Journal, 112(9), 976e1002. Mangina, E., & Vlachos, I. P. (2005). The changing role of information technology in food and beverage logistics management: beverage network optimization using intelligent agent technology. Journal of Food Engineering, 70, 403e420. Manos, B., & Manikas, I. (2010). Traceability in the Greek fresh produce sector: drivers and constraints. British Food Journal, 112(6), 640e652. McCallum, S. (2012). Protecting the food supply: hi-tech food banks and the safety of food supply chains. DomPrep Journal, 8(4), 5e6. McEntire, J. C., Arens, S., Bernstein, M., Bugusu, B., Busta, F. F., Cole, M., et al. (2010). Traceability (product tracing) in food systems: an IFT (Institute of Food Technology) report submitted to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), volume 1: technical aspects and recommendations. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 9, 92e158. McMeekin, T. A., Baranyi, J., Bowman, J., Dalgaard, P., Kirk, M., Ross, T., et al. (2006). Information systems in food safety management. International Journal of Food Microbiology., 112, 181e194. Mohtadi, H. (2008). Information sharing in food supply chains. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56, 163e178. Mousavi, A., Sarhadi, M., Lenk, A., & Fawcett, S. (2002). Tracking and traceability in the meat processing industry: a solution. British Food Journal, 104(1), 7e19. Negrini, R., Nicoloso, L., Crepaldi, P., Milanesi, E., Marino, R., Perini, D., et al. (2008). Traceability of four European protected geographic indication (PGI) beef products using single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and Bayesian statistics. Meat Science, 80, 1212e1217. Olsen, P., & Aschan, M. (2010). Reference method for analyzing material flow, information flow and information loss in food supply chains. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 21, 313e320. Opara, L. U. (2003). Traceability in agriculture and food supply chain: a review of basic concepts, technological implications, and future prospects. Food, Agriculture and Environment, 1(1), 101e106. Orre, K. (2005). The logistics of food supply following radioactive fallout. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 83, 429e432. Pacquit, A., Frisby, J., Diamond, D., Lau, K. T., Farrell, A., Quilty, B., et al. (2007). Development of a smart packaging for the monitoring of fish spoilage. Food Chemistry, 102, 466e470. Pacquit, A., Lau, K. T., McLaughlin, H., Frisby, J., Brid, Q., & Diamond, D. (2006). Development of a volatile amine sensor for the monitoring of fish spoilage. Talanta, 69, 515e520. Peres, B., Barlet, N., Loiseau, G., & Montet, D. (2007). Review of the current methods of analytical traceability allowing determination of the origin of foodstuffs. Food Control, 18, 228e235. Rábade, L. A., & Alfaro, J. A. (2006). Buyer-supplier relationship’s influence on traceability implementation in the vegetable industry. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 12, 39e50.

48

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

Randrup, M., Wu, H., & Jørgen, B. M. (2012). On the track of fish batches in three distribution networks. Food Control, 26, 439e445. Regattieri, A., Gamberi, M., & Manzini, R. (2007). Traceability of food products: general framework and experimental evidence. Journal of Food Engineering, 81, 347e356. Resende-Filho, M. A., & Hurley, T. M. (2012). Information asymmetry and traceability incentives for food safety. International Journal of Production Economics, 139, 596e603. Riden, C. P., & Bollen, A. F. (2007). Agricultural supply system traceability, part II: implications of packhouse processing transformations. Biosystems Engineering, 98, 401e410. Salampasis, M., Tektonidis, D., & Kalogianni, E. (2012). TraceALL: a semantic web framework for food traceability systems. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 14(4), EarlyCite pre-publication article. Saltini, R., & Akkerman, R. (2012). Testing improvements in the chocolate traceability system. Impact on Product Recalls and Production Efficiency, 23, 221e226. Schroeder, T., & Tonsor, G. T. (2012). International cattle ID and traceability: competitive implications for the US. Food Policy, 37, 31e40. Schwägele, F. (2005). Traceability from a European perspective. Meat Science, 71, 164e173. Shanahan, C., Kernan, B., Ayalew, G., McDonnell, K., Butler, F., & Ward, S. (2009). A framework for beef traceability from farm to slaughter using global standards: an Irish perspective. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 66, 62e69. Smith, G. C., Pendell, D. L., Tatum, J. D., Belk, K. E., & Sofos, J. N. (2008). Postslaughter traceability. Meat Science, 80, 66e74. Smith, G. C., Tatum, J. D., Belk, K. E., Scanga, J. A., Grandin, T., & Sofos, J. N. (2005). Traceability from a US perspective. Meat Science, 71, 174e193. Sonneveld, K. (2000). What drives (food) packaging innovation? Packaging Technology and Science, 13, 29e35. Tamayo, S., Monterio, T., & Sauer, N. (2009). Deliveries optimization by exploiting production traceability information. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 22, 557e568. Thakur, M., & Donnelly, K. A.-M. (2010). Modeling traceability information in soybean value chains. Journal of Food Engineering, 99, 98e105.

Thakur, M., Sørensen, C.-F., Bjørnson, F. O., Forås, E., & Hurburgh, C. R. (2011). Managing food traceability information using EPCIS framework. Journal of Food Engineering, 103, 417e433. Van der Vorst, J. G. A. J. (2004). Performance levels in food traceability and the impact on chain design: results of an international benchmark study. In H. J. Bremmers (Ed.), Dynamics in chains and networks (pp. 175e183). The Netherlands: Wageningen academic publishers http://dx.doi.org/10.3920/97890-8686-526-0. Van Dorp, K.-J. (2003). Beef labeling: the emergence of transparency. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 8(1), 32e40. Van Rijswijk, W., Frewer, L. J., Menozzi, D., & Faioli, G. (2008). Consumer perceptions of traceability: a cross-national comparison of the associated benefits. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 452e464. Verbeke, W., & Ward, R. W. (2006). Consumer interest in information cues denoting quality, traceability and origin: an application of ordered probit models to beef labels. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 453e467. WHO. (2011). FAQs: Japan nuclear concerns e Food safety. World health organization, Available at http://www.who.int/hac/crises/jpn/faqs/en/index7.html Accessed 14.0712. Wilson, T. P., & Clarke, W. R. (1998). Food safety and traceability in the agricultural supply chain: using the internet to deliver traceability. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 3(3), 127e133. Wognum, P. M., Bremmers, H., Trienekens, J. H., Van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., & Bloemhof, J. M. (2011). Systems for sustainability and transparency of food supply chains e current status and challenges. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25, 65e76. Xiao-hui, Q., Da-fang, Z., & Dong-sheng, Q. (2007). Studies on GIS based tracing and traceability of safe crop product in China. Agricultural Sciences in China, 6(6), 724e731. Xiaoshuan, Z., Jian, Z., Feng, L., Zetian, F., & Weisong, M. (2010). Strengths and limitations on the operating mechanisms of traceability system in agro food, China. Food Control, 21, 825e829. Yam, K. L., Takhistov, P. T., & Miltz, J. (2005). Intelligent packaging: concepts and applications. Journal of Food Science, 70(1), 1e10.