Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Review

Traceability in a food supply chain: Safety and quality perspectives

Myo Min Aung, Yoon Seok Chang*
Ubiquitous Technology Application Research Centre (UTAC), School of Air Transport, Transportation & Logistics, Korea Aerospace University, 100
Hanggongdae-Gil, Hwajeon-Dong, Deogyang-Gu, Goyang-City, Gyeonggi-Do 412-791, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The food industry is becoming more customer-oriented and needs faster response times to deal with
Received 24 October 2012 food scandals and incidents. Good traceability systems help to minimize the production and distribution
Received in revised form of unsafe or poor quality products, thereby minimizing the potential for bad publicity, liability, and re-
21 October 2013
calls. The current food labelling system cannot guarantee that the food is authentic, good quality and
Accepted 5 November 2013
safe. Therefore, traceability is applied as a tool to assist in the assurance of food safety and quality as well
as to achieve consumer condence. This paper presents comprehensive information about traceability
Keywords:
with regards to safety and quality in the food supply chain.
Traceability
Safety
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Quality
Food supply chain
Identication
Food contamination

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
2. The context of traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
2.1. Defining traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
2.2. Principle of traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
2.3. Traceability objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
3. Safety and quality, concerns for food industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
3.1. Social . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
3.2. Economic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
3.3. Environmental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
4. Requirements of traceability regarding safety and quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175
4.1. Regulations and standards for traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
4.2. Food safety versus food quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
4.3. The link between traceability & quality and safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
5. Food contamination and traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178
6. The need for real time traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178
7. Traceability in the food industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179
8. Technologies applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180
9. Problems and implementation hurdles in food traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181
10. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 82 23000150; fax: 82 23000151.

E-mail addresses: mminaung@kau.ac.kr (M.M. Aung), yoonchang@gmail.com,
yoonchang@kau.ac.kr (Y.S. Chang).

0956-7135/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.11.007
 M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184
1. Introduction
Nowadays, the distance that food travels from producer to con-
sumer has increased as a result of globalization in food trade.
Therefore, keeping safety and quality along the food supply chain
has become a signicant challenge. During the last couple of de-
cades, the credibility of the food industry was heavily challenged
after a number of food crises, such as Bovine Spongiform Encepha-
lopathy (BSE) or mad cow disease, Dioxin in chicken feed, Food-and-
Mouth Disease (FMD) and issues such as the use of Genetically
Modied (GM) crops in foods. The outbreak of foodborne illnesses
such as salmonella, campylobacter and Escherichia coli O157:H7 also
further increase consumer concerns over the safety and quality of
food. As a consequence of food scandals and incidents, customers
call for high quality food with integrity, safety guarantees and
transparency (Bertolini, Bevilacqua, & Massini, 2006; Beulens,
Broens, Folstar, & Hofstede, 2005; Regattieri, Gamberi, & Manzini,
2007; Trienekens & Zuurbier, 2008). Traceability has gained
considerable importance with regard to food, particularly following
a number of food safety incidents during which traceability systems
have been shown to be weak or absent (FSA, 2002).
In response to growing food safety issues, the laws, policies and
standards regarding food safety and quality management have
been developed for the food industry. Quality assurance has
become a cornerstone of food safety policy in the food industry that
started to implement integrated quality and food safety manage-
ment systems (Pinto, Castro, & Vicente, 2006; Trienekens &
Zuurbier, 2008). Traceability is found as a tool to comply with
legislation and to meet the food safety and quality requirements. It
is considered to be an effective safety- and quality-monitoring
system with the potential to improve safety within food chains,
as well as to increase consumer condence (Kher et al., 2010) and to
connect producers and consumers (Regattieri et al., 2007).
Due to globalization in food trade, food chain integrity not only
includes safety concerns but also origin fraud and quality concern.
Consumers also demand veriable evidence of traceability as an
important criterion of food quality and safety. To tackle these re-
quirements, there is a need for a traceability system giving infor-
mation on origin, processing, retailing and nal destination of
foodstuffs (Bertolini et al., 2006; Peres, Barlet, Loiseau, & Montet,
2007). Methodologies for the analyses of the food and feed mate-
rials combined with information technology systems are also
essential to deliver a working traceability system (Schwgele, 2005;
Thakur & Hurburgh, 2009). To supply top quality, safe and nutri-
tious foods, as well as rebuild public condence in the food chain,
the design and implementation of whole chain traceability from
farm to end-user has become an important part of the overall food
quality assurance system (Opara, 2003). FAO (2003) stated man-
aging food safety and quality as a shared responsibility of all actors
in the food chain including governments, industry and consumers.
2. The context of traceability
2.1. Dening traceability
Golan et al. (2004) mentioned that the denition of traceability
is necessarily broad because traceability is a tool for achieving a
number of different objectives and food is a complex product.
Accordingly, several denitions of traceability and its classications
which come from organizations, legislations and research literature
can be found. According to ISO 8402 (1994) quality standards,
traceability is dened as: the ability to trace the history, applica-
tion or location of an entity by means of recorded identication. In
ISO 9000 (2005) standards, the denition is extended into the
ability to trace the history, application or location of that which is
173
under consideration. ISO guidelines further specify that trace-
ability may refer to the origin of materials and parts, the processing
history, and the distribution and location of the product after
delivery.
The European Union (EU) regulation 178/2002 (EU, 2002) nar-
rows the denition to the food industry by dening traceability as
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 dis-
tribution. The Codex Alimentarious Commission (CAC, 2005) de-
nes a more concise denition of traceability as the ability to follow
the movement of a food through specied stage(s) of production,
processing and distribution.
'The denition of food traceability is found different depending on
the sector of the food industry. For the agro-based food chain, Wilson
and Clarke (1998) dened food traceability as the information
necessary to describe the production history of a food crop, and any
subsequent transformations or processes that the crop might be
subject to on its journey from the grower to the consumers plate. In
contrast, traceability is dened as a system able to maintain a credible
custody of identication for animals or animal products through
various steps within the food chain, from the farm to the retailer
(Dalvit, Marchi, & Cassandro, 2007; McKean, 2001).
Olsen and Borit (2013) redened traceability based on the def-
initions of ISO as the ability to access any or all information relating
to that which is under consideration, throughout its entire life cy-
cle, by means of recorded identications. Karlsen, Olsen, and
Donnnelly (2010) highlighted that traceability is not the product
and process information itself, but a tool that makes it possible to
nd this information again at a later date. However, these deni-
tions do not reect the specic characteristics of food traceability.
The revised denition of Bosona and Gebresenbet (2013) is very
informative and comprehensive denition to food traceability. Food
traceability is dened as a part of logistics management that cap-
ture, 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.
A chart that classies the short phrases of selected denitions on
traceability is shown in Table 1 to compare the differences among
the denitions. The denitions of ISO are found to dene generic
traceability and not specic to food commodity. But the rest of the
denitions tried to dene food traceability more specically based
on a product to trace. Traceability is found to be dened as a tool to
trace and follow, a tool for information retrieval, a record
keeping system and a part of logistics management. Some def-
initions failed to mention that traceability can work bi-directionally
along supply chains. The phrase By means of recorded identica-
tion is found to be appropriate to combine with other denitions
as well since identication is mandatory to traceability.
2.2. Principle of traceability
An independent food safety watchdog, Food Standard Agency
(FSA, 2002) identied three basic characteristics for traceability sys-
tems: i) identication of units/batches of all ingredients and products,
ii) information on when and where they are moved and transformed,
and iii) a system linking these data. To enable traceability, an entity to
trace has to be a Traceable Resource Unit (TRU). There are three types
of traceable units: batch, trade unit and logistic unit. A batch is
dened as a quantity going through the same processes. A trade unit
is a unit which is sent from one company to the next company in a
supply chain (e.g. a box, a bottle or pack of bottles). The logistic unit is
a type of trade unit, and it designates the grouping that a business
creates before transportation or storage (e.g. pallet, container, etc.)
174 M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184

Table 1
Comparison chart for selected denitions of traceability.

Dene in Traceability? Trace what Trace how Trace where Trace why Trace when

ISO 8402 Ability to trace An entity By means of e e e

(origin/history/location) recorded
identication
ISO 9000 Ability to trace An entity under consideration e e e e
(origin/history/location)
EU Regulation The ability to trace A food e All stages of supply chain e e
(178/2002) and follow (or ingredients of food)
CAC The ability to follow A food e All stages of supply chain e e
Wilson and Information necessary A food crop e From the grower to the e e
Clarke (1998) about a product (i.e. Agri-food) consumers plate
Dalvit et al. (2007), A system able to maintain Animal or animal products e From farm to retailer e e
McKean (2001) records about products
Olsen and The ability to access any A food By means of Entire life cycle of food e e
Borit (2013) or all information recorded
identication
Bosona and Part of logistics management A food, feed, food-producing e At all stages in the food For safety At any time
Gebresenbet (2013) that capture, store, and transmit animal or substance supply chain, traced upward, and quality required.
adequate information and tracked downward control

(Karlsen et al., 2010). Golan et al. (2004) suggested that an efcient
traceability system should be characterized by breadth (i.e. the
amount of information collected), depth (i.e. how far back or forward
the system tracks the relevant information) and precision (i.e. degree
of assurance to pinpoint a particular movement of a food product) to
be able to balance cost and benets.
Traceability can be classied according to the activity or the
direction in which information is recalled in the food chain.
Depending on the activity in the food chain, three different types of
traceability can be distinguished. Those are: back traceability or
suppliers traceability; internal traceability or process traceability;
and forward traceability or client traceability (Perez-Aloe et al.,
2007). Moe (1998) explained that traceability can be seen in two
types: internal traceability that tracks internally in one of the steps
in the chain or chain traceability that tracks a product batch and its
history through the whole, or part, of a production chain from
harvest through transport, storage, processing, distribution and
sales. Opara (2003) classied traceability into six important ele-
ments: product traceability, process traceability, genetic trace-
ability, input traceability, disease and pest traceability, and
measurement traceability focusing on agricultural and the food
supply chain.
Depending on the direction in which information is recalled in
the chain, backward traceability or tracing is the ability, at every
point of the supply chain, to nd the origin and characteristics of a
product based on one or several given criteria. In contrast, forward
traceability, or tracking, is the ability, at every point of the supply
chain, to nd the locality of products from one or several given
criteria. It is important for an information system to support both
types of traceability, as the effectiveness for one type does not
necessarily imply the effectiveness for the other (Kelepouris,
Pramatari, & Doukidis, 2007). According to Jansen-Vullers, Van
Drop, and Beulens (2003), traceability can be viewed in a passive
and in an active sense based on its use. In the passive sense,
traceability provides the visibility to where items are at all times
and their disposition. But in an active sense, the on-line tracking
information is additionally used to optimize and control processes
in and between the different links of the supply chain in addition to
keeping historical records by means of recorded identication.
Golan et al. (2004) suggested that an efcient traceability sys-
tem should be characterized by breadth (i.e. the amount of infor-
mation collected), depth (i.e. how far back or forward the system
tracks the relevant information) and precision (i.e. degree of
assurance to pinpoint a particular movement of a food product) to
be able to balance cost and benets.
2.3. Traceability objectives
Firms have three primary objectives in using traceability sys-
tems: improve supply management; facilitate traceback for food
safety and quality; and differentiate and market foods with subtle
or undetectable quality attributes. The benets associated with
these objectives include lower cost distribution systems, reduced
recall expenses, and expanded sales of products with attributes that
are difcult to discern (Golan et al., 2004). Not only just a way to
improve food safety systems, traceability can also be seen as a
strategic tool to improve the quality of raw materials (Galvo,
Margeirsson, Garate, Viarsson & Oetterer, 2010), to improve in-
ventory management and as a source of competitive advantages
(Alfaro & Rbade, 2009).
From a consumer perspective, traceability helps to build trust,
peace of mind, and increase condence in the food system. For the
growers, traceability is part of an overall cost-effective quality
management system that can also assist in continuous improve-
ment and minimization of the impact of safety hazards. It also fa-
cilitates in the rapid and effective recall of products, and the
determination and settlement of liabilities (Opara, 2003).
The control of food-related risks involves consideration of every
step in the chain, from raw material to food consumption as haz-
ards can enter to any point in the chain until the food reaches the
consumer. Therefore, a good traceability management system al-
lows for trace-back and trace-forward capabilities to any step in the
supply chain, for the effective identication of products and man-
agement of recall when quality and safety standards are breached
(Opara, 2003). This end to end supply chain approach has been
dened in many terms such as Seed to Shelf (Morris & Young,
2000), Field to Plate (Opara & Mazaud, 2001), Farm to Plate
(Mousavi, Sarhadi, Lenk, & Fawcett, 2002), Farm to Fork (Opara,
2003; Ruiz-Garcia, Steinberger, & Rothmund, 2010) and Farm to
Table (FAO, 2003; Raspor, 2008) etc.
There is a number of motivating factors or drivers for trace-
ability in the food supply chain. These drivers enforce traceability as
a tool to answer the questions of who (i.e., actor/product), what
(i.e., actor/products information), when (i.e., time), where (i.e.,
location) and why (i.e. cause/reasons) with regard to food safety,
quality and visibility (Fig. 1).
3. Safety and quality, concerns for food industry
Food quality, including safety, is a major concern facing the food
industry today. The production and consumption of food is central
 M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184
Fig. 1. Drivers for traceability of food supply chain.
to any society and has a wide range of social, economic and in many
cases environmental consequences.
3.1. Social
Food safety is an increasingly important public health issue.
Outbreaks of foodborne illness can damage trade and tourism, and
lead to a loss of earnings, unemployment and litigation (CAC, 2003).
Globally, the incidence of foodborne diseases is increasing and in-
ternational food trade is disrupted by frequent disputes over food
safety and quality requirements (FAO, 2003). Unsafe food causes
many acute and life-long diseases, ranging from diarrhoeal diseases
to various forms of cancer.
The World Health Organization (WHO, 2002) estimated that
foodborne and waterborne diarrhoeal diseases taken together kill
about 2.2 million people annually, 1.9 million of them children. In
industrialized countries, the percentage of the population suffering
from foodborne diseases each year has been reported to be up to
30%. In the United States (US), for example, around 76 million cases
of foodborne diseases, resulting in 325,000 hospitalizations and
5000 deaths, are estimated to occur each year. The high prevalence
of diarrhoeal diseases in many developing countries highlights
major underlying food safety problems (WHO, 2007a).
3.2. Economic
The WHO (2002) stated that foodborne diseases not only
signicantly affect peoples health and well-being, but they also
have economic consequences for individuals, families, commu-
nities, businesses and countries. These diseases impose a substan-
tial burden on health-care systems and markedly reduce economic
productivity. There is only limited data on the economic conse-
quences of food contamination and foodborne disease. In 1995,
studies in the US reported that the annual cost of the 3.3e12 million
cases of foodborne illness caused by seven pathogens was
approximately US $6.5e35 billion. Recently, former U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) economist Robert L. Scharff estimated
the total economic impact of foodborne illness across the nation to
be a combined $152 billion annually (Scharff, 2010, pp. 1e28).
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates the cost of
illness associated with medical expenses and losses in productivity
175
from ve major types of foodborne illnesses at $ 6.9 billion annually
(Vogt, 2005). In the European Union, annual costs levelled on the
health care system as a consequence of salmonella infections are
estimated to be around 3 billion euros (Asian Productivity
Organisation, 2009). The medical costs and the value of the lives
lost during just ve foodborne outbreaks in England and Wales in
1996 were estimated at UK 300e700 million. The cost of the
estimated 11,500 daily cases of food poisoning in Australia was
calculated at AU$ 2.6 billion annually. The increased incidence of
foodborne disease due to microbiological hazards is the result of a
multiplicity of factors, all associated with our fast-changing world
(WHO, 2002).
3.3. Environmental
With the growth of international food trade, the environmental
impact of the food supply chain has become a growing concern.
The distance that food travels from the farm where it is produced
to the kitchen in which it is consumed is longer than ever
before. Therefore, the use of energy, resources and the emission of
Green House Gases (GHG) in the entire food cycle, including pro-
duction, consumption, and transportation is unavoidable. The ini-
tiatives to use carbon labelling (i.e. carbon footprints of the
products) and conception of food miles (the distance that food is
transported as it travels from producer to consumer) indicate that
the food chain needs more environmentally friendly solutions to
reduce the environmental impacts such as pollution and global
warming.
In many countries, one of the problems concerning food safety
and quality is food spoilage. Food spoilage is wasteful, costly and
can adversely affect trade and consumer condence. Naturally, all
foods have a limited life time and most foods are perishable. Safe
and high quality chilled foods require minimal contamination
during manufacture, rapid chilling and temperature control along
the chain (Martin & Ronan, 2000, pp. 5e33). Temperature abuse in
the food cold chain can make microbial growth and spoilage of food
and are factors in causing foodborne illness. The International
Institute of Refrigeration (IIR) indicates that about 300 million
tonnes of produce are wasted annually through decient refriger-
ation worldwide. In the US, the food industry annually discards USD
35 billion worth of spoiled goods. The wastage of food and re-
sources used for growing unused products are also a big issue for
the environment (Flores & Tanner, 2008).
UK households waste 6.7 million tonnes of food every year.
The Waste Resources and Action Programme (WRAP) estimates
that a third of the food bought is thrown out. If that food waste
was eradicated, it would be equivalent to taking one in ve cars
off the road. Every tonne of food waste is responsible for 4.5 tonnes
of carbon dioxide. The food waste which are thrown as landll
where it is liable to create methane, a powerful greenhouse gas
which is over 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide make a
signicant environmental impact (WRAP, 2008). Research by
the Australia Institute indicates that Australians throw away about
$5.2 billion worth of food every year. Wasting food also wastes
the water that went into its production (Baker, Fear, & Denniss,
2009).
4. Requirements of traceability regarding safety and quality
Currently, to build customer condence and to achieve safety
and quality, participants in food supply rely on two methodologies.
One manages food supply chains via regulations/standards or cer-
tications. The second records logistics operations and production
processes via a food traceability system that provides transparent
trace back and track forward information (Hong et al., 2011).
176 M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184
4.1. Regulations and standards for traceability
Because of globalization in food trade, effective food control sys-
tems are essential to protect the health and safety of consumers. The
foremost responsibility of food control is to enforce the food law(s)
protecting the consumer against unsafe, impure and fraudulently
presented food (FAO & WHO, 2003). The global concern for food
safety and quality; and the need for traceability are being addressed
by the development of legislation, new international standards and
industry guidelines (Petersen, 2004). Two principal players leading
legislative efforts to require traceability of foods are the EU and US.
In Europe, EU directive 178/2002 went into effect on 1 January
2005 and requires mandatory traceability for all food and feed
products sold within European Union countries (Folinas, Manikas,
& Manos, 2006). The directive enforces strict legislation on label-
ling systems for food products. In the US, the Bioterrorism Act of
2002 mentioned that the person who manufactures, processes,
packs, transports, distributes, receives, holds, or imports food has
the responsibility to establish and maintain records. It also allows
the FDA to inspect those records if there is a reasonable belief that
an article of food presents a serious health threat (Levinson, 2009).
The FDAs Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which became
law on 4 January 2011, requires registered food and feed facilities to
evaluate the food safety hazards that could affect the food and feed
they manufacture, process, pack, or hold and to identify and
implement preventive controls to address those hazards. This is to
ensure the safety of both imported and domestic food supply by
focusing on preventing contamination rather than responding to
contamination (FDA, 2011).
Other organizations such as the CAC established by the FAO and
WHO; and the International Standardization Organization (ISO)
play an important role in the development of international stan-
dards and industry guidelines for food traceability (Petersen, 2004).
In 1993, The CAC recommended Hazard Analysis Critical Control
Point (HACCP) as the most effective system to maintain the assur-
ance of a safe food supply (Beulens et al., 2005). Traditional food
control procedures such as Good Hygiene Practices (GHP) and Good
Manufacturing Practices (GMP) are accepted as prerequisites or the
foundation for HACCP in an overall food safety management pro-
gramme (Huss, Ababouch, & Gram, 2004, pp. 10e11). In 2003, the
Codex Alimentarius standard was published to serve as a guideline
for food safety and to support balanced trade relationships in food.
Codex standard issues range from specic raw and processed ma-
terials characteristics; to food hygiene, pesticides residues, con-
taminants and labelling; to analysis and sampling methods
(Trienekens & Zuurbier, 2008).
ISO is the worlds largest developer and publisher of interna-
tional standards. ISO standards are used in order to achieve uni-
formity and to prevent technical barriers to trade throughout the
world. The most used of all ISO standards is the ISO 9000 series for
Quality Management Systems (QMS) in production environments
which are independent of any specic industry. The 2000 version
ISO 9001 (2000) addressed the standard model for quality man-
agement and quality assurance but did not address food safety. The
requirement for food safety and traceability is added in the new ISO
standards with more focus on traceability. ISO 22000 (2005)
specied requirements for a food safety management system
where an organization in the food chain needs to demonstrate its
ability to control food safety hazards in order to ensure that food is
safe at the time of human consumption. This standard includes
analysing methods of food hazards from HACCP and the approach
of the management system from ISO 9001 (FMRIC, 2008).
Furthermore, ISO 22005 (2007) dened the principles and objec-
tives of traceability and also specied the basic requirements for
the design and implementation of a feed and food traceability
system. It can be applied by an organization operating at any step in
the feed and food chain.
The important approach, one-step-up/one-step-down trace-
ability enables actors in the food chain to identify the immediate
supplier of a product as well as immediate subsequent recipient.
This approach is the basic requirements for the design and imple-
mentation of a feed and food traceability system which is
mentioned in EU regulation, ISO/DIS 22005 and the Bioterrorism
Act 2002 of US (Ruiz-Garcia et al., 2010).
Traceability can only be achieved successfully if it is built upon
global standards that enable interoperability between traceability
systems across the whole supply chain. The GS1 global traceability
standard is a voluntary business process standard describing the
traceability process independently from the choice of enabling
technologies. It meets the core legislative and business need to
cost-effectively trace back and track forward at any point along the
whole length of the supply chain. Because of its ability to provide
globally unique identication of trade items, assets, logistic units,
parties and locations, the GS1 system is particularly well suited to
be used for traceability purposes (GS1, 2009). EPCglobal Inc., a
subsidiary of GS1 supports the global adoption of Electronic Prod-
uct Code (EPC) Information Services (EPCIS) which is a standard
designed to enable EPC related data sharing within and across
enterprises (EPCglobal, 2009).
Moreover, there are other private food quality and safety stan-
dards such as Eurep-GAP, International Standard for Auditing Food
Suppliers (IFS), the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and Safe Quality
Food (SQF) etc. Fig. 2 below shows the scope of vertical and horizontal
private industry and trade standards in the food supply chain.
4.2. Food safety versus food quality
Food safety and food quality are two important terms which
describe aspects of food products and the reputations of the pro-
cessors who produce food. The CAC (2003) denes food safety as an
assurance that food will not cause harm to the consumer when it is
prepared and/or eaten according to its intended use. Food safety
refers to all hazards, whether chronic or acute, that may make food
injurious to the health of the consumer. It is not negotiable and a
global issue affecting billions of people who suffer from diseases
caused by contaminated food. Both developed and developing
countries share concerns over food safety as international food
trade and cross-border movements of people and live animals in-
crease (Asian Productivity Organisation, 2009). In industries such
as telecommunications, software development and airlines, secu-
rity is the principal driver for traceability in contrast to the food
industry where the safety is a really important issue (Opara, 2003).
Food safety hazards may occur at a variety of points in the food
chain. Therefore, food safety is a responsibility that is shared by
producers, processors, distributors, retailers, and consumers. An
important preventative approach that may be applied at all stages in
the food chain involves the HACCP system (FAO & WHO, 2003). The
traceability of food products and the ability of food facilities to pro-
vide information about their sources, recipients, and transporters are
essential to ensure the safety of food supply (Levinson, 2009).
Quality is dened by ISO as the totality of features and charac-
teristics of a product that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or
implied needs (Van Reeuwijk, 1998). Also, quality can be dened as
conformance to requirement, tness for use or, more appropri-
ately for foodstuffs, tness for consumption. Thus, quality can be
described as the requirements necessary to satisfy the needs and
expectations of the consumer (Ho, 1994; Peri, 2006). However, food
quality is very general, implying many expectations which can be
different from consumer to consumer. Quality includes attributes
that inuence a products value to the consumer. Quality does not
 M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184
Fig. 2. Scope of selected private industry and trade standards (Will & Guenther, 2007).
refer solely to the properties of the food itself, but also to the ways in
which those properties have been achieved (Morris & Young, 2000).
The classes of quality attributes are listed in Table 2.
Many experts have argued that safety is the most important
component of quality since a lack of safety can result in serious
injury and even death for the consumer. Safety differs from many
other quality attributes since it is a quality attribute that is difcult
to observe. A product can appear to be of high quality (i.e. well
coloured, appetizing and avourful, etc.), but it can be unsafe
because it might be contaminated with undetected pathogenic
organisms, toxic chemicals, or physical hazards (UN, 2007). Rohr,
Luddecke, Drusch, Muller, and Alvensleben (2005), Grunert
(2005) and Pinto et al. (2006) agreed that food safety has become
an important food quality attribute.
Defects and improper food quality may result in consumer
rejection and lower sales, while food safety hazards may be hidden
and go undetected until the product has been consumed. If detected,
serious food safety hazards may result in market access exclusion and
major economic loss and costs. Since food safety hazards directly
affect public health and economies, achieving proper food safety
must always take precedence over achieving high levels of other
quality attributes (UN, 2007). These two have obvious links, but food
quality is primarily an economical issue decided by the consumer,
while food safety is a governmental commitment to ensure that the
food supply is safe for consumers and meets regulatory requirements
(Sarig, 2003). Quality is seen to lead to taste, health, safety and
pleasure. Similarly, safety is seen to be the consequence of control,
origin, best before date and quality, while resulting in health and a
feeling of calm. Both quality and safety are interrelated and linked to
trust/condence (Rijswijk & Frewer, 2006).
4.3. The link between traceability & quality and safety
Consumer perceptions show an increasing concern about food
safety and properties of the food they buy and eat. The information
available from labelling conventions does not always translate into
more condence. It has been recognized that there is an increasing
need for transparent information on the quality of the entire food
chain, supported by modern tracking and tracing methods. Essen-
tially, food quality is associated with a proactive policy and the
creation of requirements to maintain a safe food supply (Beulens
177
et al., 2005). Product-tracing systems are essential for food safety
and quality control. Traceability systems help rms isolate the
source and extent of safety or quality control problems. The more
precise the tracing system, the faster a producer can identify and
resolve food safety or quality problems (Golan et al., 2004). In
themselves, traceability systems neither produce safer/high-quality
products nor determine liability. But they act as an element of any
supply-management or quality/safety control system so that they
can provide information about whether control points in the pro-
duction or supply chain are operating correctly or not. So early
detection and faster response to these problems is possible.
Quality and safety are both linked to traceability whereas safety is
implicated by traceability more often. They are two very important
elements of peoples conceptions of food and associated decision
making (i.e. food choice). Traceability is primarily viewed as a tool for
the food safety by providing a means for recall as well as proof for the
authenticity of food, but it is also related to food quality. Since both
quality and safety were shown to be related to condence, traceability
may indeed boost consumer condence through quality and safety
assessments (Rijswijk & Frewer, 2006). Moe (1998) mentioned that
traceability is an essential subsystem of quality management. Thus, a
well developed internal traceability system is necessary for quality
management. It would efciently improve data collection, produc-
tion ow control, and quality assurance.
To foster continuous improvement in the quality of products and
processes, rms use Total Quality Management (TQM) system. Ho
(1994) stated that ISO 9000 can be seen as a route to implement-
ing TQM. Fig. 3 below shows the relationship of food safety, quality
and traceability systems from the management point of view. In
addition, a brief summary of requirements to be managed in a food
supply chain is shown in Table 3.
Table 2
Classes of food quality attributes (UN, 2007).
External Internal Hidden
Appearance (Sight) Odour Wholesomeness
Feel (touch) Taste Nutritive Value
Defects Texture Safety
178 M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184
Fig. 3. Food safety, quality and traceability: an integrated approach (Adapted from
Huss et al. (2004)).
5. Food contamination and traceability
Foodborne disease outbreaks and incidents, including those
arising from natural, accidental, and deliberate contamination of
food, have been identied by the World Health Organization
(WHO) as major global public health threats of the 21st century
(WHO, 2007b). Many outbreaks are the consequence of a failed
process, or inappropriate storage conditions (usually temperature
abuse) during distribution, food service or by the consumer. The
vast majority of these problems have been caused by the unin-
tentional contamination of food but, there is growing concern for
the threat of intentional contamination such as bioterrorism. Food
contaminants are substances that may be present in certain food-
stuffs due to environmental contamination, cultivation practices or
production processes. Food may be accidentally or deliberately
contaminated by microbiological, chemical or physical hazards. In
addition, there are other hazards/factors which cause contamina-
tion to food such as Genetically Modied Organisms (GMOs) and
radioactive substances.
Table 3
Key issues to be managed for a food supply chain traceability.
Technical Internet & Web technologies (online tracking,
monitoring, information exchange and retrieval over web etc.)
Location based technologies (e.g., GPS, RS, RTLS etc.)
Sensing technologies (e.g., WSN, TTI, Electronic Nose etc.)
Identication technologies (e.g., Bar code, RFID etc.)
Information and Communication technologies (e.g. Information
systems, computers and mobile networks)
Managerial Product, time, location and quality traceability,
Monitoring, surveillance, recording and control, Inspections
Identify risks and apply safety & quality assurance schemes
(i.e., ISO, HACCP, TQM, etc.)
Follow regulations, Standards and Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs)
Routing decisions and recall strategies
Traceability data management (to collect, to keep and to share)
Implement coordination among supply chain actors
Transparency, authenticity and access of information
Environmental Evaluation on carbon footprint of food and labelling
Use of eco-friendly packaging materials and processing
methods
Waste and water management
Recycling food and food related materials
Protect odours, pollutants, contamination
To inspect the use of fertilizers, pesticides with regard to
chemical residue
In the event of food outbreaks and incidents, a traceback
investigation is the method used to determine and document the
distribution and production chain, and the source(s) of a product
that has been implicated in a foodborne illness investigation. Public
health agencies conduct traceback activities to determine the
source and distribution of the implicated product associated with
the outbreak and to subsequently identify potential points where
contamination could have occurred. This action helps prevent
additional illnesses by providing a foundation for recalls of
contaminated food remaining in the marketplace and identifying
hazardous practices or violations. A traceback investigation may
result in a recall of product (i.e. traceforward), other regulatory
actions such as detention of an imported product, an injunction
against a processor or grower, informing the public via press re-
leases, closer monitoring of the product in general, domestic and
foreign outreach, and on-the-farm investigations. Some of the
challenges found in fresh produce tracebacks include the absence
of labelling and distribution records, complex distribution systems,
and multiple sources of product at the point of service. Another
challenge is that traceback investigations are very resource-
intensive and may implicate but not conrm the cause of the
contamination. These challenges include the fact that the epide-
miology of foodborne disease is changing and new pathogens have
emerged, some spreading worldwide (Guzewich & Salbury, 2001).
The WHO is promoting the use of all food technologies which
may contribute to public health, such as pasteurization, food irra-
diation and fermentation (WHO, 2007b). Also, the implementation
of HACCP system is recommended to prevent food contamination
by identifying potentially unsafe links in the food processing chain.
The system manages the risk associated with food safety aspects of
production (Kumar & Budin, 2006). By having a crisis management
program that denes the action to be taken in the event of recall,
the impact can be reduced. For food companies, reducing pro-
cessing batch size and batch mixing is an approach to reduce the
cost of recalls, in term of product quantity and media impact.
However, it was also found that reducing batch size leads to losses
in production efciency, due to increased production setup times,
setup costs, cleaning efforts, etc (Depuy, Botta-Genoulaz, & Guinet,
2005; Saltini & Akkerman, 2012).
Especially, monitoring and surveillance for high-value and high-
risk food is important and inspection should be done at the port of
entry, the best place to control food safety for imported foods. For
preventative purposes, the analyses and interpretation of food-
borne disease surveillance data requires an associated and similar
approach for data from food monitoring. The most modern and
scientic way to perform that is to use the risk assessment process
that evaluates potential health risks to humans and animals. The
integration of both foodborne disease surveillance and food
monitoring could provide the data which are crucial for risk
assessment (Schlundt, 2002). Actually, traceabilitys strength lies in
preventing the incidence of food safety hazards, and reducing the
enormity and impact of such incidents by facilitating the identi-
cation of product(s) and/or batches affected, specifying what
occurred, when and where it occurred in the supply chain, and
identifying who is responsible (Opara, 2003).
6. The need for real time traceability
The main fact that differentiates food supply chains from other
chains is that there is a continuous change in the quality from the time
the raw materials leave the grower to the time the product reaches
the consumer (Apaiah, Hendrix, Meerdink, & Linnemann, 2005).
Perishables such as produce, meat, sh, milk and more can change
hands many times before reaching the consumer. Keeping food safe
and in good quality is a signicant challenge as it moves through the
 M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184
supply chain. The quality of food is dependent on how food products
are handled at every touch point throughout the food chain.
The efciency of a traceability system depends on the ability to
track and trace each individual product and distribution (logistics)
unit, in a way that enables continuous monitoring from primary
production (e.g. harvesting, catch, and retirement) until nal
disposal by the consumer. Traceability schemes can be separated
into two types: logistics traceability which follows only the physical
movement of the product and treats food as a commodity and
qualitative traceability that associates additional information
relating to product quality and consumer safety, such as pre-
harvest and post-harvest techniques, storage and distribution
conditions, etc. (Folinas et al., 2006).
The food chain which demands for both logistics and qualitative
traceability is found to be the cold supply chain in which foods are
perishable items and very sensitive to environmental conditions
such as temperature, humidity and light etc. The ability to collect
this information, and use it to ensure product quality in real time
provides tangible benets to the food industry. It provides a greater
assurance of product quality and enables quick identication of
problems; therefore, it can reduce food waste and spoilage. It also
provides the mechanism for communicating to the consumer the
diligence with which the business operates (Wilson & Clarke, 1998).
Transparency of a supply chain network is important as all the
stakeholders of the network have a shared understanding of access
to product and process related information they requested without
loss, noise, delay and distortion. Transparency enables them to
achieve efcient recalls on the chain level when necessary and
support early warnings in case of a possible emerging problem
through a pro-active quality monitoring system to optimize the
supply chain (Beulens et al., 2005).
7. Traceability in the food industry
The term traceability has become so widely used in recent
times in various industries not only in the food industry but also in
software (Lago, Muccini, & Vanvliet, 2009), automotive (Robson,
Watanabe, & Numao, 2007; Sohal, 1997) and aerospace industries
(Harun, Cheng, & Wibbelmann, 2008). Many researchers proposed
frameworks and models in order to deal with the increasing
complexity of food chain traceability.
Regattieri et al. (2007) analysed legal and regulatory aspects of
food traceability and proposed a general framework based on
product identication, data to trace, product routing, and trace-
ability tools for traceability of food products. They presented a
traceability system which uses an alphanumeric code and Radio
Frequency Identication (RFID) to trace cheese products and to
apply possible recall strategies very rapidly. The system also allows
customers to access product history of cheese they bought by
inputting a code via a web site. For traceability tools, two funda-
mental points are highlighted, the need for standardization and the
cost of the tag. Another RFID based framework is suggested by
Shanahan et al. (2009) for beef traceability from farm to slaughter
using global standards. The integrated system which applies RFID
for the identication of individual cattle, and biometric identiers
(e.g. Retinal Scan) for the verication of cattles identity is proposed
as a solution to the loss of ear tags, the inaccessibility of traceability
records and the fraudulent activities that have occurred in some
situations. The framework also mentioned the use of RFID in ISO
compliant format (ISO 11784, 2006) which can be converted into an
EPC data structure in order to facilitate the use of the EPCglobal
Network (EPCglobal, 2009) for the exchange of traceability data.
Obviously, exchange of traceability data is an important issue to
achieve transparency and the smooth transfer of information
among the food supply chain actors. Folinas et al. (2006) introduced
179
a framework for the management of traceability data, in fresh, non-
processed food products supply chains. The framework was based
upon Physical Markup Language (PML), which is a standard tech-
nology of eXtensible Markup Language (XML), a simple and exible
information exchange format that is well suited to support web-
enabled business applications. Furthermore, Thakur and
Hurburgh (2009) suggested a framework which uses a relational
database management system to record information (i.e. for in-
ternal traceability) and XML for the exchange of information (i.e. for
chain traceability) between different parties of the grain supply
chain. All grain lot information should be recorded in a centralized
database system and only relevant lot/batch information should be
passed on to the next link in the supply chain.
In the agro-based food chain, Ruiz-Garcia et al. (2010) proposed a
model and prototype implementation for tracking and tracing agri-
cultural batch products along the food chain. The proposed model
suggests using web-based systems for data processing, storage and
transfer which makes a exible way of information access,
networking and usability to achieve full traceability. Alfaro and
Rbade (2009) presented a case study of one rm in the Spanish
vegetable industry and found that the rm has had signicant qual-
itative and quantitative improvements in supply, warehousing, in-
ventory and production after implementation of a computerized
traceability system. For the wine logistics chain, Mattoli, Mazzolai,
Mondini, Zampolli, and Dario (2010) developed a Flexible Tag Data-
logger (FTD) which is attached to the bottles to collect environmental
data (light, humidity and temperature) in order to trace the wine
bottles that leave the producer cellar for transport to a shop. The
history data stored in the FTD can be read by smart phone or Personal
Digital Assistant (PDA) with integrated infrared port to evaluate the
safety of wine bottles. Another PDA-based record-keeping and
decision-support system is suggested for cucumber production
traceability to achieve real-time and portable record-keeping in the
eld for farmers (Li, Qian, Yang, Sun, & Ji, 2010).
For the meat-processing industry, Mousavi et al. (2002) pro-
posed a solution which integrates a material handling system and
RFID to track meat products and provide information about them
throughout the production process until they become retail packs.
Hsu, Chen, and Wang (2008) proposed an RFID-enabled traceability
system for the live sh supply chain. A chain consists of aquaculture
farms, inspectors, logistic center, and the restaurants. The RFID tag
is put on each live sh and it links to all stages of the live sh supply
chain. To achieve the safety of live sh and customers condence,
the traceability information is designed to be exchanged on a web-
based system for farmers and consumers to use. One of the chal-
lenges is how to attach the RFID to the live sh. Abad et al. (2009)
tried to validate an RFID smart tag (with integrated temperature
and relative humidity sensors) developed for real-time traceability
and cold chain monitoring of food under the case study of an
intercontinental fresh sh logistics chain. The aim is to build an
automated system that integrates online traceability data and chill
chain condition monitoring.
Recent developments in technology make new features achiev-
able. These include: advanced data handling systems based on RFID
and a Wireless Sensor Network (WSN), a location tracking system like
Global Positioning System (GPS) and decision support system using
intelligent software agents etc. Jedermann, Behrens, Westphal, and
Lang (2006) proposed an intelligent container system using a com-
bination of RFID, sensor networks, and software agents to trace fruit
transports, demonstrating an effective use of RFID technology in fruit
logistics. Zhang, Liu, Mu, Moga, and Zhang (2009) developed a
temperature-managed traceability system for frozen and chilled food
during storage and transportation. The system integrated RFID with
GPS, mobile communication with Time Temperature Tolerance (TTT)
theory can automate the tasks, like daily work routines, and cross-
180 M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184
communicate information ow between the manager, the driver, the
stakeholders and insecurities about arrival time. Wang, Kwok, and Ip
(2010) developed a real-time monitoring and decision support sys-
tem, with a combination of existing technologies such as RFID, WSN,
GPS and rule-based decisions to improve the delivery system for
perishable products. Based on the mathematical models, and data
from the RFID and sensor network, the quality of the goods can be
predicted by the forecast module.
The important area with regard to traceability is food product
recall, a growing concern for food companies. Kumar and Budin
(2006) presented the prevention and management of product re-
calls in the processed food industry. Findings from analysis sug-
gested potential reduction of product recalls through
recommended preventive measures including the use of the HACCP
and RFID systems. Doukidis (2009) reported a work that was un-
dertaken for a company that deals with frozen food regarding the
requirements analysis, development and pilot implementation of a
RFID-enabled traceability system within the central warehouse.
The cost reduction is achieved as a consequence of identifying the
number of possible locations that a defective product is located. In
summary, an effective traceability system can reduce recall cost
since it is possible to have a prospective product recall (for safety),
and to identify what caused the problems (Regattieri et al., 2007).
Based on the requirements of traceability in the food chain, a
conceptual framework is considered in this paper (Fig. 4). In this
framework, all supply chain actors are considered to have internal
and external traceability in order to achieve the whole supply chain
traceability. The safety and quality regulations enforce all actors to
apply safety and quality assurance systems that comply with regu-
lations and to manage all their operations in an efcient and standard
manner. For supply chain operation and performance, enabling
technologies can be seen as facilitators which serve as a medium for
all actors to enable access to food traceability information systems.
8. Technologies applied
Opara (2003) mentioned the need of technologies for product
identication, information capture, analysis, storage and trans-
mission, as well as overall system integration. These technologies
include hardware (such as measuring equipment, identication tags
Fig. 4. Conceptual framework of food traceability system.
and labels) and software (information systems). Advances in infor-
mation and computer technology for information systems manage-
ment; scanning and other digital technology for product
identication, image capture, storage and display; nondestructive
testing and biosensors for quality and safety assessment; and geo-
spatial technologies (Geographic Information System (GIS), Global
Positioning System (GPS), Remote Sensing (RS)) for mobile assets
tracking and site-specic operations, are technological innovations
that can be applied in a traceability system. Basically, a product
traceability system requires the identication of all the physical en-
tities (and locations) from which the product originates, that is to say,
where it is processed, packaged, and stocked, including every agent in
the supply chain (Regattieri et al., 2007). A summary of the funda-
mental technical instruments available is shown in Table 4.
Several technologies which complement identication for
verication already exist, particularly in the livestock industry, for
implementing traceable supply chains. Future innovations in DNA
nger-printing, nanotechnology for miniature-machines, iris
scanning, nose-print matching, facial recognition and retinal im-
aging and their integration into plant and livestock industries have
considerable potential for improving the speed and precision of
traceability in the food industry (Opara, 2003; Smith, Pendell,
Tatum, Belk, & Sofos, 2008). Aarnisalo, Heiskanen, Jaakkola,
Landor, and Raaska (2007) mentioned that there is a growing
need for the use of real-time sensors for quality and safety assur-
ance in the food industry especially for perishable food products.
In traceability, the traceback investigation for food is found
necessary in order to verify counterfeit, authenticity and prove-
nance of food in the event of fraud or commercial disputes. In
Europe, food legislation is particularly strict and traceability sys-
tems, based on product labelling, have become mandatory in all
European countries. In the US, the US Congress mandated Country-
of-Origin Labeling (COOL) for many food crops/products as a
requirement (Smith et al., 2005). However, the implementation of
these systems does not ensure consumers against fraud. Paper
documents can be counterfeit so alternative methods for genetic
traceability systems based on product identication are needed
(Dalvit et al., 2007).
It is found that modern analytical techniques, in particular
molecular biology techniques, can determine the plant or animal
 M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184 181

Table 4
Technical instrument for traceability.

Technology Description Strengths Weaknesses

Alphanumeric Label which includes a sequence of Simple to use and economic Code read/write not automatic
codes numbers and letters of various sizes, Poor performance
Replaced by bar code High data integrity corruption
No standards dened
Lack of tie between different actors
Cannot collect environmental
information (no sensing capability)

Bar codes Optical machine readable representation
of data,
Encodes alphanumeric characters and
consist of vertical bars, spaces, squares
and dots
Simple, more economical and Reading need line of sight
exact traceability Unreadable for damaged labels
Can read one at a time by scanner
Cannot collect environmental
information (no sensing capability)

Radio Frequency Detect presence of tagged objects, No line of sight in reading,
Identication (RFID) Identify or track using radio waves Can read and write tags
Higher data rate and larger memory size
Reversible tags,
Can read many tags simultaneously
Rely on Reader for data collection,
A tag cannot initiate communication,
No cooperation among the devices,
Can read data within one hop
Cost still a burden
Limited capability for environmental sensing

Wireless Sensor Collect sensing data from physical or
Network (WSN) environmental conditions,
Variety of sensors available for
sensing and monitoring
Multihop networking, In-network processing,
Can deploy different network topologies,
Secure communication among nodes,
Longer reading ranges
Sensor-actuator networking
Not suitable for identication purpose,
Need energy saving techniques for continuous
sensing

species present in a foodstuff. These techniques can be categorized
into two types: the physicochemical techniques, which use either
the variation of the radioactive isotope content of the product,
spectroscopy, pyrolysis or electronic nose, and the biological tech-
niques which use the analysis of total bacterial ora or DNA chips.
Using the above techniques will help in differentiating milk pro-
duced on a mountain from that produced on the plains, of deter-
mining the origin of various cheeses or various wines, or of
identifying the geographical origin of other foods like oysters,
meats, sh, olive oils, teas or fruit juices (Peres et al., 2007). Indi-
cation of origin may only become a signal of enhanced quality if the
source-of-origin is associated with higher food safety or quality
(Loureiro & Umberger, 2006).
The study on the application of these techniques to improve food
traceability can be seen in the TRACE project (2005e2009) which is
sponsored by the European Commission. In this project, cost effective
analytical methods integrated within sector-specic and -generic
traceability systems were developed to enable the determination and
the objective verication of the origin of food. Mineral water, meat,
honey and cereal samples were analysed in order to develop methods
for the determination of the origin of food labelled with Protected
Designation of Origin (PDO) or Protected Geographical Indication
(PGI). To verify the food origin, the applicability of using different
methods such as trace elements and isotopes methods, rapid and
proling methods, molecular biology methods and Chemometrics
are studied. The project also addressed the issues of European con-
sumer perceptions, attitudes, and expectations regarding food pro-
duction systems and their ability-to-trace food products, together
with consumer attitudes to designated origin products, food
authenticity and food fraud (Rijswijk, Frewer, Menozzi, & FAioli, 2008;
TRACE, 2009). Also, a joint IAEA/FAO programme proposed the
implementation of nuclear techniques such as isotope ratio analysis
along with multi-element analysis and other complementary
methods, for the verication of food traceability systems and claims
related to food origin, production, and authenticity (IAEA, 2011).
The main problem found with all of these techniques is the need
for the construction of data banks which are very necessary for
them. Therefore, the TRACE project explored a mapping process
that reduces the need for commodity specic databases by nding
the correlation between the tracers in food and the local environ-
ment (i.e. geology and groundwater). TRACE also exploits geological
and climatic maps that are available and maintained annually.
Under the joint IAEA/FAO project, a database that enables linking
with other databases is preferably hosted to facilitate its sustain-
ability in the longer term for partners to use in provenance studies.
9. Problems and implementation hurdles in food traceability
The growing importance of food safety and quality in the food
industry enforces all actors in the supply chain to adopt trace-
ability from farm to fork although there are some problems to
handle regarding traceability. First, the costs associated with
putting traceability systems into place are seen as barriers for
supply chain actors especially for small-scale producers from less
developed countries. However, the benets gained from trace-
ability for high-risk and high-valued food far outweigh the cost of
traceability.
Many developing countries lag in developing and implementing
food safety and traceability standards thus limit exports of food
products from developing countries, where poor regulation of
chemical use, pollutants, and a steep learning curve in traceability
capacity restrict growers and processors participation. One of the
biggest challenges with supply chain traceability is the exchange of
information in a standardized format between various links in the
chain. This information needs to be exchanged in a precise, effective
and electronic manner (FSA, 2002; Moe, 1998).
Traceability systems are critically reliant on the recording of
information. Robust mechanisms are needed to facilitate the
collection and authentication of any information, to enable it to be
updated and shared through the chain. Paper is still used as a
cheaper option for traceability, although it limits the ability to re-
cord data accurately, store it, and query it to identify and trace
products. Digital databases for traceability are seen as more
expensive to implement, operate, and maintain, requiring in-
vestments in hardware and software, skilled human resources,
training, and certication (Karippacheril, Rios, & Srivastava, 2011).
Traceability concerns many products in the food industry. Bulk
produce is found more challenging to trace than fresh produce.
182 M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184
Products such as grain, coffee, olive oil, rice, and milk from multiple
farms are combined in silos and storage tanks, making it difcult to
trace them back to their sources (IFT, 2009). A number of proposed
frameworks and models for traceability are found in research
literature; however, there is no common theoretical framework
with respect to implementation of food traceability (Karlsen,
Dreyer, Olsen, & Elvevoll, 2013).
Also, there are hurdles to overcome in the implementation of
traceability. The hurdles can be in seen in two categories: organi-
zational and technological. In supply chain networks, transparency
among the supply chain actors is important to exchange data. Each
actor is responsible for maintaining and communicating their own
product, process and transformation information. There is an
ongoing concern to maintain a balance between useful trans-
parency and the condentiality of information of each entity in the
chain (Thakur & Donnelly, 2010). Furthermore, internal traceability
systems are a prerequisite to achieve full traceability (Senneset,
Foras, & Fremme, 2007).
One of the biggest challenges of food chain traceability is the
extensive use of the manual exchange of information between
companies. Bechiniet, Cimino, Lazzerini, Marcelloni, and Tomasi
(2005) reported that only a few links in a supply chain are using
software for internal traceability in existing traceability systems.
The diversity of the systems also makes the integration difcult.
Not only the smooth exchange and integration of information but
also the aspects of growers perception and customers willingness
in traceability should be better studied. In addition, company
motivation is an important factor in creating the conditions for a
successful tracing event (Donnelly, Karlsen, & Dreyer, 2011).
The adequate knowledge on diverse characteristics of food is
important in the food industry. For example, in the fresh produce
industry, the development of traceability systems has been greatly
inuenced by the characteristics of the product. Perishability and
quality variation in fresh fruits and vegetables necessitate proper
storage conditions and the identication of quality attributes
(Golan et al., 2004). But for the livestock industry, it has a long
history of implementing animal identication and traceability
systems to control disease and ensure the safety of meat and dairy
products. Mixing transformations create challenges for traceability
that are more severe than other types of transformations.
From a technological point of view, a DNA-based technique such
as DNA barcoding is effective in certifying both origin and quality of
raw materials, and to detect adulterations occurring in the indus-
trial food chain. But it relies on the availability of an international
platform repository BOLD (Barcode of life database). Also, seeds,
fruit, and different plant and animal parts are transformed in food
with a denite shape, taste and smell through physical (i.e. heating,
boiling, UV radiation) or chemical (i.e. addition of food pre-
servatives, articial sweeteners) treatments, which could alter DNA
structure (Galimberti et al., 2013). These techniques are too
expensive to apply in routine tests but they could be a trusted tool
for verication of suspected fraud (Dalvit et al., 2007).
Paper-based systems are still widely used for traceability sys-
tems in both large and small companies, and even within systems
operating across the whole food chain. Implementation of elec-
tronic chain traceability may involve changes both in work pro-
cesses and software systems. RFID is found as the most cutting edge
technology for supply chain integrity and traceability. But the
problem is still the high cost of tags used in these systems, even
though the prices have decreased signicantly in recent years
(Aarnisalo et al., 2007). Moreover, it is difcult to achieve 100%
readability of RFID tags through metal, glass and liquid (Petersen,
2004). Tight prot margins and inadequate knowledge on poten-
tial benets of traceability systems are reported as some of the
main factors that hinder investments on sophisticated traceability
schemes (Manos & Mnikas, 2010).
10. Conclusions
Moe (1998) estimated that demand for information along the
food chain will increase and it will set higher requirements for well-
structured traceability systems. Therefore, traceability will emerge
as a new index of quality and a basis for trade in the future.
Customer demand for real time information about the products
they buy and eat will also grow and it will be one of the competitive
advantages of food industry marketing.
The use of mobile phones accelerates the age of ubiquity. The
ability to check food safety in the hands of the consumer has
become a reality by tagging products with RFID or bar codes that
can be read with a mobile phone. Smart phones today could be the
future handheld device for traceability because of its portability,
mobility, accessibility to Internet and application software support.
Consumers can scan the code in the store using a mobile phone
camera or embedded mobile RFID reader so they can nd out the
product history at their nger tips and make purchases for safe and
quality foods. They can even offer feedback to the farmer.
In the near future, RFID and sensor based systems will be widely
used, not only for tracking the goods but also for monitoring the
quality of the products and the supply chain itself. This will enable
the detection of the spoilage of food products and enhance the
continuity of the food supply chain. Biosensors will most probably
be used for various uses such as detection of mycotoxins, bacter-
iocides, allergens and contaminating microbes (Aarnisalo et al.,
2007). The advanced techniques like gas chromatography and
electronic noses (i.e., a machine which can detect and discriminate
among complex odours using a sensor array) will be increasingly
used in the eld of food quality management (Peris & Escuder-
Gilabert, 2009).
The Internet promises to be an important tool for food trace-
ability. Web based traceability systems will enable traceability
chains for products to personal computers and smart phones of
consumers based on the access control level of the consumer
identication system. This will deliver real-time information to
consumers on the quality and safety status of products and also
permit speedy recalls when quality and safety standards are
breached. The larger trend in the future is the convergence of smart
phones with the Internet of Things (i.e. Internet-connected real
world objects). Devices such as smart phones essentially become
sensors and RFID readers, which allow consumers to interact with
real world objects in a much more detailed manner.
To minimize foodborne hazards and incidents, the sustainable
agriculture which can produce good crop yields using natural
methods to feed the soil and reduce pests (e.g. organic farming)
should be maintained in order to balance economic, environmental,
and quality of life benets not only for farmers but also for consumers
as well. As a consequence of incidents that have happened in the
livestock food industry (e.g. BSE, FMD, Bird u and Swine u etc.),
monitoring and inspection of feeding diet and health of animals will
become a mandatory task to do as human and animals share one
health and the cost of impact on the food industry and consumer
condence is intangible. As since the environmental concerns in the
food supply chain grow, to design and implement an eco-friendly
supply chain will be a new challenge.
Most of the previous research is found to focus on traceability
until the retail point of the food chain thereby missing to trace the
consumer part of the food chain. In terms of food safety, the con-
sumer segment is also important therefore traceability should be
extended to consumers. It is clear that traceability comes at a cost.
 M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184
But the costs of not having it or having inefcient systems in place
may be severe both for governments, consumers, individual com-
panies and the food industry as a whole. In conclusion, food
traceability from farm to fork is going to become a reality if
market forces, consumer demand and government regulations all
are converging to push a new level of supply chain visibility.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank to the anonymous reviewers and Mr. Kevin
Sliverson of Korea Aerospace University for valuable comments.
This work was supported in part by Korea Research Foundation
under Grant KRF-2006-211-D00304 and Smart Cold Chain Man-
agement Project SCCM 2008-215:56-3 of Ministry of Knowledge
Economy, Republic of Korea. The authors would like to acknowl-
edge these supports.
References
Aarnisalo, K., Heiskanen, S., Jaakkola, K., Landor, E., & Raaska, L. (2007). Traceability
of foods and foodborne hazards. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
Research Notes 2396.
Abad, E., Palacio, F., Nuin, M., Zrate, G. D., Juarros, A., Gmez, J. M., et al. (2009).
RFID smart tag for traceability and cold chain monitoring of foods: demon-
stration in an intercontinental fresh sh logistic chain. Journal of Food Engi-
neering, 93(4), 394e399.
Alfaro, J. A., & Rbade, L. A. (2009). Traceability as a strategic tool to improve in-
ventory management: a case study in the food industry. International Journal of
Production Economics, 118(1), 104e110.
Apaiah, R., Hendrix, E., Meerdink, G., & Linnemann, A. (2005). Qualitative meth-
odology for efcient food chain design. Trends in Food Science & Technology,
16(5), 204e214.
Asian Productivity Organisation. (2009). Food safety management manual. Tokyo,
Japan.
Baker, D., Fear, J., & Denniss, R. (2009). Analysis of household expenditure on food.
Policy brief No. 7. Retrieved from http://foodwise.com.au/media/72673/tai%
20what%20a%20waste.pdf (Accessed 15.06.12).
Bechini, A., Cimino, M. G. C. A., Lazzerini, B., Marcelloni, F., & Tomasi, A. (2005).
A general framework for food traceability. In Proceedings of the 2005 symposium
on applications and the Internet workshop, Trento.
Bertolini, M., Bevilacqua, M., & Massini, R. (2006). FMECA approach to product
traceability in the food industry. Food Control, 17, 137e145.
Beulens, A. J. M., Broens, D. F., Folstar, P., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Food safety and
transparency in food chains and networks. Food Control, 16(6), 481e486.
Bosona, T., & Gebresenbet, G. (2013). Food traceability as an integral part of logistics
management in food and agricultural supply chain. Food Control, 33, 32e48.
CAC. (2003). Basic texts on food hygiene (3rd ed.). Codex Alimentarious Comission.
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5307e/y5307e00.HTM
(Accessed 12.06.12).
CAC. (2005). Codex procedural manual (15th ed.) Retrieved from. In: ftp://ftp.fao.org/
codex/Publications/ProcManuals/Manual_15e. pdf (Accessed 12.07.12).
Dalvit, C., Marchi, M. D., & Cassandro, M. (2007). Genetic traceability of livestock
products: a review. Meat Science, 77, 437e449.
Depuy, C., Botta-Genoulaz, V., & Guinet, A. (2005). Batch dispersion model to
optimise traceability in food industry. Journal of Food Engineering, 70, 333e339.
Donnelly, K. A.-M., Karlsen, K. M., & Dreyer, B. (2011). A simulated recall study in ve
major food sectors. British Food Journal, 114(7), 1016e1031.
Doukidis, G. (2009). Leveraging RFID-enabled traceability for the food industry: a
case study. ELTRUN The HERMES Newsletter, (55).
EPCglobal. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.gs1.org/sites/default/les/docs/
architecture/architecture_1_3-framework-20090319.pdf (Accessed 02.04.12).
EU. (2002). Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European parliament and of the
council.
FAO. (2003). FAOs strategy for a food chain approach to food safety and quality: A
framework document for the development of future strategic direction. Retrieved
from http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/MEETING/006/y8350e.HTM (Accessed
28.08.12).
FAO, & WHO. (2003). Assuring food safety and quality: Guideline for strengthening
national food control system. Joint FAO/WHO Publication. Retrieved from www.
who.int/foodsafety/.../Englsih_Guidelines_Food_control.pdf (Accessed
03.08.12).
FDA. (2011). Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), 111th Congress Public Law 353.
U.S. Government Printing Ofce. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Food/
FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247548.htm (Accessed 02.05.12).
Flores, S. E., & Tanner, D. (2008). RFID technologies for cold chain applications. In-
ternational Institute of Refrigeration, Bulletin, 15(4), 4e9. Review article.
FMRIC. (2008). Handbook for introduction of food traceability systems (2nd ed.).
Tokyo, Japan: Food Marketing Research and Information Centre.
183
Folinas, D., Manikas, I., & Manos, B. (2006). Traceability data management for food
chains. British Food Journal, 108(8), 622e633.
FSA. (2002). Traceability in the food chain a preliminary study. UK: Food Standard
Agency. Retrieved from www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/
traceabilityinthefoodchain.pdf (Accessed 15.07.12).
Galimberti, A., Mattia, F. D., Losa, A., Bruni, I., Federici, S., Casiraghi, M., et al. (2013).
DNA barcoding as a new tool for food traceability. Food Research International,
50(1), 55e63.
Galvo, J. A., Margeirsson, S., Garate, C., Viarsson, J. R., & Oetterer, M. (2010).
Traceability system in cod shing. Food Control, 21, 1360e1366.
Golan, E., Krissoff, B., Kuchler, F., Calvin, L., Nelson, K., & Price, G. (2004). Traceability
in the U.S. food supply: Economic theory and industrial studies. Agricultural
Economic Report Number 830.
Grunert, K. G. (2005). Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand.
European Review of Agricultural Economics, 132(3), 369e391.
GS1. (2009). Business process and system requirements for full chain traceability. GS1
Global Traceability Standard, Issue 1.1.0. Retrieved from http://www.gs1.org/docs/
gsmp/traceability/GS1_Global_Traceability_Standard_i1.pdf (Accessed 02.08.12).
Guzewich, J. J., & Salbury, P. A. (2001). FDAs role in traceback investigations for
produce. Food safety magazine. Dec 2000/Jan 2001, Target group.
Harun, K., Cheng, K., & Wibbelmann, M. (2008). RFID-enabled aerospace
manufacturing: theoretical models, simulation and implementation issues. In
IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering manage-
ment, Singapore (pp. 1824e1829).
Ho, S. K. M. (1994). Is the ISO 9000 series for Total Quality Management ? Inter-
national Journal, 11(9), 74e89.
Hong, A. H., Dang, J. 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.
Hsu, Y.-C., Chen, A.-P., & Wang, C.-H. (2008). A RFID-enabled traceability system for
the supply chain of live sh. In IEEE international conference on automation and
logistics, Qingdao, China (pp. 81e86).
Huss, H. H., Ababouch, L., & Gram, L. (2004). Assessment and management of seafood
safety and quality. FAO Fisheries technical paper 444.
IAEA. (2011). Information document from 55th International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) general conference 2011. Sep 19e23. 2011. Vienna. Retrieved from http://
www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/fep/crp/fep-improve-traceability.html (Accessed
05.03.12).
IFT (Institute for Food Technologists). (2009). Traceability (product tracing) in food
systems: an IFT report submitted to the FDA, volume 1: technical aspects and
recommendations/Food and Drug Administration. Comprehensive Reviews in
Food Science and Food Safety, 9(1), 92e158.
ISO 8402. (1994). Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/40047151/ISO-8402-
1994-ISO-Denitions (Accessed 02.08.12).
ISO 9000. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.pqm-online.com/assets/les/
standards/iso_9000-2005.pdf (Accessed 02.08.12).
ISO 9001. (2000). ISO 9001 e What does it mean in the supply chain?. Retrieved from
http://www.iso.org/iso/9001supchain (Accessed 02.03.11).
ISO 11784. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?
csnumber25881 (Accessed 02.08.12).
ISO 22000. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?
csnumber35466 (Accessed 02.08.12).
ISO 22005. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?
csnumber36297 (Accessed 02.08.12).
Jansen-Vullers, M., Van Drop, C. A., & Beulens, A. J. M. (2003). Managing traceability
information in manufacture. International Journal of Information Management,
23(5), 395e413.
Jedermann, R., Behrens, C., Westphal, D., & Lang, W. (2006). Applying autonomous
sensor systems in logisticsdcombining sensor networks, RFIDs and software
agents. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, 132(1), 370e375.
Karippacheril, T. G., Rios, L. D., & Srivastava, L. (2011). Global markets, global chal-
lenges: improving food safety and traceability while empowering small holders
through ICT. In ICT in agriculture, The world banks e-sourcebook (pp. 285e310).
Report no. 64605.
Karlsen, K. M., Dreyer, B., Olsen, P., & Elvevoll, E. O. (2013). Literature review: does a
common theoretical framework to implement food traceability exist? Food
Control, 32, 409e417.
Karlsen, K. M., Olsen, P., & Donnnelly, K. A. (2010). Implementing traceability:
practical challenges at a mineral water bottling plant. British Food Journal,
112(2), 187e197.
Kelepouris, T., Pramatari, K., & Doukidis, G. (2007). RFID-enabled traceability in
the food supply chain. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(2), 183e
200.
Kher, S. V., Frewer, L. J., Jonge, J. D., Wentholt, M., Davies, O. H., Luijckx, N. B. L., et al.
(2010). Experts perspectives on the implementation of traceability in Europe.
British Food Journal, 112(3), 261e274.
Kumar, S., & Budin, E. M. (2006). Prevention and management of product recalls in
the processed food industry: a case study based on an exporters perspective.
Technovation, 26, 739e750.
Lago, P., Muccini, H., & Vanvliet, H. (2009). A scoped approach to traceability
management. Journal of Systems and Software, 82(1), 168e182.
Levinson, D. R. (2009). Traceability in the food supply chain. Retrieved from http://
oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-02-06-00210.pdf (Accessed 12.08.12).
184 M.M. Aung, Y.S. Chang / Food Control 39 (2014) 172e184
Li, M., Qian, J. P., Yang, X. T., Sun, C. H., & Ji, Z. T. (2010). A PDA-based record-keeping
and decision-support system for traceability in cucumber production. Com-
puters and Electronics in Agriculture, 70, 69e77.
Loureiro, M. L., & Umberger, W. J. (2006). A choice experiment model for beef: what
US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety,
country-of-origin labeling and traceability. Food Policy, 32, 496e514.
Martin, G., & Ronan, G. (2000). Managing the cold chain for quality and safety. Europe,
Retrieved from http://www.teagasc.ie/ashtown/research/preparedfoods/
managing_the_cold_chain.pdf (Accessed 11.08.12).
Manos, B., & Mnikas, I. (2010). Traceability in the Greek fresh produce sector:
drivers and constraints. British Food Journal, 112(6), 640e652.
Mattoli, V., Mazzolai, B., Mondini, A., Zampolli, S., & Dario, P. (2010). Flexible Tag
Datalogger for food logistics. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, 162(2), 316e323.
McKean, J. D. (2001). The importance of traceability for public health and consumer
protection. Scientic and Technical Review, 20(2), 363e371.
Moe, T. (1998). Perspectives on traceability in food manufacture. Trends in Food
Science & Technology, 9(5), 211e214.
Morris, C., & Young, C. (2000). Seed to shelf, teat to table, barley to beer and
womb to tomb: discourses of food quality and quality assurance schemes in
the UK. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(1), 103e115.
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.
Olsen, P., & Borit, M. (2013). How to dene traceability. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 29, 142e150.
Opara, L. U. (2003). Traceability in agriculture and food supply chain: a review of
basic concepts, technological implications, and future prospects. Food, Agricul-
ture & Environment, 1(1), 101e106.
Opara, L. U., & Mazaud, F. (2001). Food traceability from eld to plate. Outlook on
Agriculture, 30(4), 239e247. Turpin. Retrieved from http://cat.inist.fr/?
aModeleafcheN&cpsidt14120411 (Accessed 17.08.12).
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.
Perez-Aloe, R., Valverde, J. M., Lara, A., Carrillo, J. M., Roa, I., & Gonzalez, J. (2007).
Application of RFID tags for the overall traceability of products in cheese in-
dustries. In 1st annual RFID Eurasia, Istanbul (pp. 1e5).
Peri, C. (2006). The universe of food quality. Food Quality and Preference, 17(1e2), 3e
8.
Peris, M., & Escuder-Gilabert, L. (2009). A 21st century technique for food control:
electronic noses. Analytica Chimica Acta, 638(1), 1e15.
Petersen, A. (2004). Status of food traceability in the European Union (EU) and United
States of America (US), with special emphasis on seafood and shery products.
Masters Assignment. Denmark: Danish Technical University.
Pinto, D., Castro, I., & Vicente, A. (2006). The use of TICs as a managing tool for
traceability in the food industry. Food Research International, 39(7), 772e781.
Raspor, P. (2008). Total food chain safety: how good practices can contribute?
Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(8), 405e412.
Regattieri, A., Gamberi, M., & Manzini, R. (2007). Traceability of food products:
general framework and experimental evidence. Journal of Food Engineering,
81(2), 347e356.
Rijswijk, W. V., & Frewer, L. J. (2006). How consumers link traceability to food quality
and safety: an international investigation. In 98th EAAE seminar Marketing dy-
namics within the global trading system: New perspectives, Greece (pp. 1e7).
Rijswijk, W. V., Frewer, L. J., Menozzi, D., & FAioli, G. (2008). Consumer perceptions
of traceability: a cross-national comparison of the associated benets. Food
Quality and Preference, 19, 452e464.
Robson, C., Watanabe, Y., & Numao, M. (2007). Parts traceability for manufacturers.
In IEEE 23rd international conference on data engineering, Istanbul, Turkey (pp.
1212e1221).
Rohr, A., Luddecke, K., Drusch, S., Muller, M., & Alvensleben, R. (2005). Food quality
and safetydconsumer perception and public health concern. Food Control,
16(8), 649e655.
Ruiz-Garcia, L., Steinberger, G., & Rothmund, M. (2010). A model and prototype
implementation for tracking and tracing agricultural batch products along the
food chain. Food Control, 21(2), 112e121.
Saltini, r., & Akkerman, R. (2012). Testing improvements in the chocolate trace-
ability system: impact on product recalls and production efciency. Food Con-
trol, 23, 221e226.
Sarig, Y. (2003). Traceability of food products. Agricultural Engineering International:
The CIGR Journal of Scientic Research and Development, 5. Retrieved from http://
www.cigrjournal.org/index.php/Ejounral/article/view/504/499 (Accessed
16.08.12).
Scharff, R. L. (2010). Health-related costs from foodborne illness in the United States.
Retrieved from http://www.producesafetyproject.org/media?id0009
(Accessed 16.08.12).
Schlundt. (2002). New directions in foodborne disease prevention. International
Journal of Food Microbiology, 78, 3e17.
Schwgele, F. (2005). Traceability from a European perspective. Meat Science, 71,
164e173.
Senneset, G., Foras, E., & Fremme, K. M. (2007). Challenges regarding implementation
of electronic chain traceability. British Food Journal, 109(10), 805e818.
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(1), 62e69.
Smith, G. C., Pendell, D. L., Tatum, J. D., Belk, K. E., & Sofos, J. N. (2008). Post-
slaughter 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.
Sohal, A. S. (1997). Computerised part traceability: an implementation case study.
Meat Science, 80, 66e74.
Thakur, M., & Donnelly, A.-M. (2010). Modeling traceability information in soybean
value chains. Journal of Food Engineering, 99, 98e105.
Thakur, M., & Hurburgh, C. R. (2009). Framework for implementing traceability
system in the bulk grain supply chain. Journal of Food Engineering, 95(4), 617e
626.
TRACE. (2009). Tracing the origin of food. Retrieved from http://www.trace.eu.org/
(Accessed 22.11.11).
Trienekens, J., & Zuurbier, P. (2008). Quality and safety standards in the food in-
dustry, developments and challenges. International Journal of Production Eco-
nomics, 113(1), 107e122.
UN. (2007). Safety and quality of fresh fruit and vegetables: A training manual for
trainers. United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/
ditccom200616_en.pdf (Accessed 15.08.12).
Van Reeuwijk, L. P. (1998). Guidelines for quality management in soil and plant lab-
oratories. Rome: FAO. Publication #M-90. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/
docrep/w7295e/w7295e00.HTM (Accessed 22.08.12).
Vogt, D. U. (2005). Food safety issues in the 109th congress. CRS Report for Congress,
US.
Wang, L., Kwok, S. K., & Ip, W. H. (2010). A radio frequency identication and sensor-
based system for the transportation of food. Journal of Food Engineering, 101(1),
120e129.
WHO. (2002). WHO global strategy for food safety: Safer food for better health.
Retrieved from http://www.who.int/entity/foodsafety/publications/general/en/
strategy_en.pdf (Accessed 20.08.12).
WHO. (2007a). WHO j Food safety and foodborne illness. World Health Organization.
Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs237/en/
(Accessed 22.08.12).
WHO. (2007b). The world health report 2007: A safer future. Geneva. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/whr/2007/en/index.html (Accessed 22.08.12).
Will, M., & Guenther, D. (2007). Food quality and safety standards as required by EU
law and the private industry (2nd ed.) Communities.
Wilson, T. P., & Clarke, W. R. (1998). Insights from industry food safety and trace-
ability in the agricultural supply chain: using the Internet to deliver traceability.
Supply Chain Management, 3(3), 127e133.
WRAP. (2008). The food we waste. The Waste & Resources Action Programme
(WRAP) Report. Retrieved from http://www.bhfood.org.uk/pdfs/WRAP_-_The_
Food_We_Waste_08_-_EXEC.pdf (Accessed 24.08.12).
Zhang, J., Liu, L., Mu, W., Moga, L. M., & Zhang, X. (2009). Development of temperature-
managed traceability system for frozen and chilled food during storage and
transportation. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 7 (October).