Tracking and Tracing of Food Products in Canada

Transcription

1 Tracking and Tracing of Food Products in Canada Created: August 21, 2003

2 Executive Summary This White Paper has been compiled by the Electronic Commerce Council of Canada, with input from the Traceability Initiative Steering Committee, as a document to facilitate industry discussion and consultation on food product traceability in Canada with the ultimate goal of developing a common national, industry defined roadmap for traceability. This roadmap can then be used by industry participants to develop common standards and enablers to permit the implementation of seamless traceability programs within their own commodity groups and sections of the supply chain. In addition to an overview of traceability, drivers of traceability and various existing standards models, this White Paper puts forward four main recommendations as proposals for industry discussion. 1. That EAN UCC standards be adopted as the core business item, party and location identification and communication standards for enabling the traceability of food products in Canada. The scope of these standards should, at a minimum, address the traceability of produce, meat, fish and any potentially hazardous product; every attempt should be undertaken to ensure whole chain coverage as required. 2. That verification of core business and logistics practices be undertaken through a standards review and piloting process to identify key Canadian requirements and areas where enhancement may be necessary. 3. That existing data capture and management solutions be leveraged in the creation of a traceability solution. Where appropriate, existing traceability solutions and systems (i.e. CCIA, Agro-traceability Quebec, etc) should adopt the required EAN UCC standards within their systems to permit interoperability with other systems. 4. The standard review and piloting processes should be conducted in a public, inclusive and transparent forum to ensure all key stakeholders are included. In addition, this White Paper invites participants to provide input and feedback either in writing (using questions provided) or via a series of consultation sessions to be held across Canada from September to November of The locations and dates for these sessions are as follows: Halifax: September 23, 2003 Vancouver: September 25, 2003 Montreal: October 6, 2003 Toronto: October 9, 2003 Winnipeg: October 16, 2003 Toronto: GIC: October 27, 2003 Calgary: November 4, 2003 Registration and agenda information will be forwarded via prior to each event. 2

3 Consultation Sessions and Questions As we proceed with the development of a national traceability roadmap we would like to hear from your industry or company. Throughout the months of September, October and November 2003, the partnering associations will be conducting seven consultation sessions. These sessions will be open to all who wish to participate (space dependant) and will be used to facilitate a multi-commodity and multi-stakeholder discussion on traceability. Alternatively, written submissions are welcome. Written submission may be provided by no later than October 1, 2003, to the Traceability Initiative Steering Committee: c/o the Electronic Commerce Council of Canada, 885 Don Mills Rd, Suite 301, Toronto, Ontario, M3C 1V9 or via to Tracking/Tracing@eccc.org. The following consultation questions have been provided as a guide. Please remember to provide a short description of your company/sector with any submission. 1. Do you agree with the recommendations as outlined in this white paper? Please provide rationale for your response. 2. What are the key drivers of product traceability for your company or your sector? 3. Does your company/sector currently have the ability to effectively track or trace products in the supply chain? a. If yes, to what unit level, over what segments in the supply chain; are there any limitations? b. If no, what are some of the barriers to the implementation of a traceability program within your sector? 4. Does your company/sector currently make use of the EAN UCC system in one form or another (i.e. have U.P.Cs, case codes, use EDI, ECCnet, etc)? 5. Do you agree that a national roadmap and standards for traceability are required for the Canadian food supply chain to guide the development of traceability systems? Please provide rationale for your response. 6. What should be the scope of the traceability roadmap and standards from a logistical level and supply chain segment perspective? 7. Do you believe that Canada would benefit from the development of a national data capture and management system for traceability data? Please provide rationale. 8. What format (i.e. central database, linked databases, etc) do you foresee as most practical and suitable for a national data capture and management for traceability data? 9. Would your company or sector association be interested in participating in the standards verification or piloting process? If yes, please provide contact information. 3

4 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 2 Consultation Sessions and Questions... 3 Towards a Common Roadmap for Product Traceability... 5 The Traceability Issue... 6 National Roadmap Required... 7 Drivers of Traceability... 9 Traceability Scope Enablers of Traceability Traceability Data Capture and Management Options EAN UCC Standards EAN UCC Traceability Models: Meat, Produce and Fish Advantages Matrix

5 Towards a Common Roadmap for Product Traceability In July 2003, the Electronic Commerce Council of Canada (ECCC), in conjunction with its partner associations: the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors (CCGD), the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers (CFIG), the Fisheries Council of Canada, the Canadian Produce Marketing Association (CPMA) and the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada (FCPMC), convened a program to identify industry requirements for a whole-chain Canadian food industry traceability (tracking and tracing) program and to develop/verify common data management methodologies based on internationally accepted standards. Given the complex and myriad approaches to the issue of food traceability, the sponsoring associations and their members immediately recognized the need to create a common roadmap for a Canadian Food Industry Traceability Program. It was agreed that in order to facilitate the development of this roadmap, ECCC would produce a White Paper to provide a high level summary of possible approaches to traceability and an overview of traceability data management solutions. This White Paper will be used to drive an industry consultation process to take place in the late summer and fall of This white paper has four key objectives: 1. To facilitate industry consultation in gathering industry requirements and ideas regarding product traceability. This input will be used to shape a common roadmap for a national traceability program for Canadian food products and food products sold in Canada. 2. To be used as an education and awareness information package that assists in the building of a community of food industry companies, commodity groups and industry associations around the development of a unified roadmap. 3. To increase industry awareness regarding the global body of knowledge and experience of product traceability available to Canada through internationally recognized and adopted EAN UCC product standards. 4. To provide an overview of possible approaches to food product traceability to be used in guiding industry discussion and the roadmap building process, specifically in the areas of: 1. Traceability models 2. Scope of a national traceability roadmap 3. Data capture and management solutions 4. Traceability standards and enablers 5

6 The Traceability Issue Traceability is the ability to trace the history, application or location of an entity by means of recorded information. (ISO 8402:1994) For the context of this document, traceability can be defined as the ability to track a food item (of animal or plant origin; finished product or ingredient) forwards or backwards through the food continuum (or supply chain). Traceability can be subdivided into two key functions: Tracking and Tracing. At a high level, Tracking can be defined as the ability to follow the path of an item as it moves through the continuum from point of production to point of consumption. Similarly, Tracing can be defined as the ability to identify the origin of an item or group of items, through records, upstream in the food continuum. The issue of food product traceability is currently at the forefront for both industry and government alike. Numerous initiatives are currently underway, or on the drawing table, to introduce some form of tracking and tracing functionality to specific food products, sections of the supply chain or commodity group. From the perspective of companies higher in the supply chain it is clear that, despite the similar objectives of certain commodity groups, there is little commonality of standards or approaches being undertaken in creating technical solutions to satisfy individual traceability requirements. More disconcerting is the lack of a national strategy and/or framework to guide the development of a traceability system towards the ideal of a national, whole-chain, cross commodity traceability system that is capable of meeting both international and domestic requirements. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada s Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) defines the objective of achieving 80% traceability for Canadian food by 2008 and invites industry to take the lead in defining traceability standards and solutions. Similarly, the Quebec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food s (MAPAQ) pending 2005 traceability requirements provide little detail of the mechanics required for accurate product tracing. In the absence of a policy to outline this roadmap, the traceability issue, to date, has been left to various industry and commodity groups to address. It is, therefore, not surprising that present traceability initiatives take the form of commodity specific or multi-commodity traceability programs intended to satisfy specific individual requirements. In these cases, the roadmap for traceability is defined by the specific driver the solution has been designed to satisfy. With some notable exceptions, such as work underway by the international produce community, issues of interoperability, international standards and a national roadmap for traceability appear to demand less consideration. The inevitable result of such an approach is the proliferation of data structures and systems being used to address traceability resulting in decreased potential for interoperability, decreased efficiency and effectiveness and greatly increased cost to end-users. 6

7 National Roadmap Required From the perspective of companies and industry segments operating at the higher end of the food supply chain, the proliferation of commodity specific and supply chain segment specific traceability programs is less than ideal. As was demonstrated in the retail food and packaged goods sectors with ECCnet, Canada s National Product Registry, a service of ECCC, a single industry-wide solution minimizes cost and complexity while facilitating interoperability and accelerated implementation. When factoring in the requirements for imported and exported products it is clear that the development of a whole-chain national traceability roadmap is imperative. Such a roadmap will identify industry requirements, facilitate the creation and validation of common standards and will permit the whole chain to work together to grow an interoperable, robust national traceability program. As sponsoring associations have diagnosed the need for a national roadmap they have also identified a number of criteria that must be included to ensure the development of a successful national traceability program, including: Built on Industry Input Any traceability roadmap and standards will be based on industry input obtained in an open and transparent development process available to all who wish to participate. The development process will be facilitated through the assembling of a community of companies and associations to achieve this common goal. Accessibility Any traceability structure and standards identified will support multiple commodity requirements and be accessible to any player in the supply chain. Internationally Compatible Due to the high degree of imported products and the requirements of Canada s export markets, any traceability structure and standards identified must be internationally compatible and will be based on international standards. Relative Affordability Any traceability structure and standards identified will be affordable in relation to the value and cost of the commodity or item it is being used to track. For example, a $1 radio frequency identification tag may be cost effective to track a steer but would be cost prohibitive for poultry. Effective Will be able to consistently and accurately achieve the goals of product traceability as defined by the industry and its regulators. Reasonable Implementation Timeline Given the pressing nature of many of the drivers (both domestic and international) of product traceability, the solution identified will be able to be implemented expeditiously, either all at once or using a phased approach. 7

8 Multi-Commodity and National in Scope To minimize the number of standards and solutions any particular company must support, the identified solutions will encompass multi-commodity requirements and be used nationally. Leverage Existing Infrastructures Canadian primary producer food manufacturers, processors, distributors and retailers already have significant investment in product identification schemas and IT systems. Any identified solutions will leverage these investments to control cost and speed implementation. Respect for Proprietary Data Any traceability structure and standards identified will permit supply chain participants to safeguard their proprietary data. 8

9 Drivers of Traceability The need to implement traceability solutions is being promoted by a number of commercial and regulatory, domestic and international, drivers including: a. Food Safety and Recall Effectiveness A principle driver of traceability is food safety and the ability to protect the public through the effective recall or withdrawal of problem products from the market. From a regulatory perspective, product traceability can increase the effectiveness of a recall and facilitate the identification of product location. From a commercial perspective, a comprehensive traceability system can substantially reduce the cost of a recall by enabling only impacted product to be withdrawn from the market in contrast to the adoption of a shot gun approach. b. Market Access In many cases, the ability to track a product, trace a product, or both is being driven by data requirements needed to gain or maintain market access (either domestic or international). The requirements, usually regulatory in nature, require some form of traceability to demonstrate product origin, quality or special traits; for example, over 40 countries have some form of GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) requirement. Inability to comply with the requirements prevents market access, thereby creating a non-tariff barrier to trade. Examples include: U.S. Country of Origin Labeling requirements (signed into law May 13, 2002), U.S. Bio-terrorism Regulations and EU Requirements for Beef (Regulation EC 1760/2000). To illustrate, the U.S. Bio-terrorism Regulations require a food premises to maintain the following for each specified food item: Name of the firm and the responsible individual representative of that firm that was the immediate source or the immediate recipient of the food product. The mailing address, address, telephone and fax numbers of that representative, if available. The type of food; including brand name and specific variety. The date received or released. Lot number or other identifier number, if available. The quantity and type of packaging. The name, address, telephone number and, if available, fax number and address of the food transporter. c. Quality/Content Identity Preservation (IP) - Traceability is being driven by the need to assure the customer and/or end consumer of specific content, quality or other product attributes. Commonly used in reference to organic products and used in other jurisdictions in relation to GMO or GMO free products, IP systems make use of product identification, segregation and traceability to differentiate the required product to both handler and consumer. 9

10 d. Animal Health A current driver of many commodity specific programs, either in place or under development, is the need to protect animal health and control contagious livestock diseases. Traceability programs allow for the ability to trace livestock movement and to identify impacted animals, contact, herd and/or farms. These systems are being developed in response to foot and mouth disease, swine fever, salmonellosis, chronic wasting disease, tuberculosis, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and other related concerns. e. Plant Protection Traceability in the area of plant health is being driven to protect plants and crops in response to pest or disease concerns. f. Government Policy and Regulation Government policies and regulations are ultimately the drivers that will provoke small and medium sized food industry members to implement traceability programs. From a Canadian perspective, the Agricultural Policy Framework identifies an objective of 80% product traceability by Under MAPAQ s regulations, Quebec requires mandatory traceability by Similarly, numerous provinces are examining the issue of traceability within their jurisdictions to better understand the challenges and issues surrounding the tracking and tracing of food products and to assist their constituents in this area. This is in addition to multiple international traceability requirements g. Supply Chain Management Starting with Efficient Consumer Response (ECR) initiatives in Canada, various industry initiatives have increased integration within the supply chain and have facilitated efficiencies through inventory management, process improvement and the leveraging of technology. Supply chain management remains a significant driver of traceability as supply chain partners attempt to improve product and data flow, improve the responsiveness of the supply chain to consumer demands and comply with increasingly complex commercial and regulatory requirements. Improved product traceability permits retailers and distributors to better understand product movement to store/customers while facilitating postmarket monitoring (marketing related or otherwise) in product areas where current mechanisms do not allow for this type of activity. 10

11 Traceability Scope In defining a national roadmap of traceability a number of factors must be considered. What a national roadmap of traceability will look like and how a data management solution will function are greatly dependant upon the scope of the traceability being undertaken. This scope must be defined by three separate factors, each with their own properties and challenges. These factors are: 1) To what logistical level is traceability required? 2) What segments in the supply chain should be covered by a traceability solution? 3) What product categories should be included in the traceability system? 1. To what logistical level is traceability required? Traceability can be accomplished at the consumer unit/item level, at the case level, at the lot/batch level or a combination of all. Typically, the more specific the traceability becomes, the more cost, complexity and implementation lag increase. Therefore, while desirable from an IP or regulatory perspective, unit traceability for all products may prove too costly and complex to be a viable choice for all product categories. It is therefore likely that a national roadmap will be flexible enough to provide for unit level tracking where desired but will also feature case and lot traceability for food safety or other concerns. 2. What segments of the supply chain should be covered by a traceability solution? The Agricultural Policy Framework underscores the need for a whole-chain solution for traceability. At first glance this is generally supported by the view of the members of the supporting associations who advocate for a single industry driven solution. While a wholechain solution can be accomplished within a national roadmap, cost and complexity will increase the broader the scope across the supply chain. The key to determining whether a solution should be whole-chain, processor to consumer, processor to retail warehouse or farm to retail warehouse, will be industry input into what is required. 3. What product categories should be included? The Agricultural Policy Framework identifies the goal of 80% traceability by 2008 without further clarification; while Quebec s pending regulation initially only requires traceability for beef. Similar to the two previous questions, the broader the commodities captured under a national traceability roadmap, the greater the cost, complexity and implementation lag. Again, key to determining the scope of the solution will be industry input into whether the model should cover all products, potentially hazardous foods (PHFs) or just a limited number of identified commodities or products. One solution to the issue of scope may be to create/verify a standards model for high risk products while ensuring the ability to transfer the model to any other product category. 11

12 Enablers of Traceability There are currently numerous traceability systems in place around the globe and many models that could be leveraged in the creation of a national traceability roadmap. All traceability systems share four common features. These features can be referred to as enablers; this section provides a brief overview of each one. 1. Product Identification Numbering System - A way to identify the products, or groups of products, being tracked or traced. Usually numeric, although sometimes alpha-numeric, in nature the methodology may or may not be based on an identification standard. The identification number is affixed to the unit to be tracked and also to a data record that contains specific information about the product to be tracked/traced. The identification number may or may not be encoded into a machine readable format such as a bar code or RFID tag. Examples of standardized numbering systems include HIBCC, AIAG, EAN UCC s GTIN and ISBN. 2. Location (Party) Identification System - A way to identify the companies (parties), locations and processes the products, or groups of products, move through on their way through the supply chain. Again, usually numeric but sometimes alpha numeric, the methodology may or may not be based on an identification standard. The identification number is assigned to a data record that contains specific information about the location including address, GPS co-ordinates, etc. Examples of standardized location identification systems include the Dun and Bradstreet DUNS number, EAN UCC s GLN and the HIBCC location identifier. 3. Business Rules/Process Rules The lynch pin of any traceability initiative is the rules developed to ensure the accurate and timely transfer of data vital to a traceability system s integrity. Commonly referred to as business (or process) rules, they define the who, what and when of the system. Failure to enforce the rules will undermine the credibility of the system. The business and process rules can be implemented in three ways: As voluntary industry standards; industry participants voluntarily agree to support a common approach and solution. Through commercial pressure whereby the rules are imposed as requirements by customers. Through government regulation. 4. A Data Capture and Management Solution A method to register both the core data of the product to be traced and tracked and the specifics of the location, and then log the movement of that product from location to location. (Please note that some traceability systems refer to the matching of product ID to location as recording the linkages ). This data capture and management solution usually takes the form of a database, but for some commodities it may be as simple as company by company detailed record keeping. 12

13 Traceability Data Capture and Management Options Although there are many variations, traceability data capture and management solutions can be generally subdivided into 3 categories. Firstly, one-up/one down systems are the most common and are legislated as a minimum requirement by U.S. Bio-terrorism Regulations and are expected as the minimum requirement in Quebec. Secondly, commodity, or segment specific, programs that cover a limited section of the supply chain are increasingly being implemented to satisfy specific and pressing requirements. Lastly, central data management models (or multi-material whole-chain solutions) involve multiple commodities and are tracked from gate to plate. The following provides an overview of some of the key features of each category. 1. One-up/One-down (proprietary) Arguably the most common traceability data capture and management systems in use are one-up/one-down traceability programs; the most basic format of traceability. Under a one-up/one-down system each participant within the food continuum is responsible for maintaining records about the products they receive and where they where shipped to, or sold. Figure 1.1 provides a basic illustration of a one-up/one-down system. In the absence of a centralized data management solution to trace a product it is necessary to follow the linkages back through the chain to arrive at the ultimate source. Products Out Figure 1.1 Distributor Product In Products Out Processor/Packer Inputs Outputs Supply Chain Farmer Although the simplest to implement, there are a number of drawbacks associated with a one-up/one-down system, including: Tracking/tracing products within a one-up/one-down system is time consuming as the user must contact numerous supply chain participants to piece together the traceability record. The integrity of the system is dependent upon the record keeping of individual companies making the chain only as strong as the weakest link. 13

14 The higher the participant is located in the supply chain, the more products and commodities must be tracked; therefore, the more complex the system becomes to manage. It is important to note that in Canada having the ability to be able to identify where a food product has been sold/shipped is a minimum requirement for all firms along the supply chain in the event of a recall. In addition, under HACCP the importance of tracking products for the purposes of recall effectiveness is further reinforced through its inclusion as a fundamental pre-requisite program. Efforts to put in place a single standard will reinforce this basic requirement by providing standardized data tools to facilitate product tracking and tracing. 2. Commodity/Segment Specific A common approach to traceability, particularly in reference to animal health or plant protection, is a commodity and/or segment specific traceability program. In this instance, a commodity group or a given segment of the supply chain have grouped together to create a traceability solution to satisfy specific drivers. Unlike the one-up/one-down system, the program s data capture and management solution is usually directed by a third party group that in turn also defines the identification schema and business rules for use. While providing for increased efficiency and data integrity over a one-up/one-down data solution, commodity/segment specific solutions do not typically offer whole-chain (gate to plate) traceability. They are usually based on proprietary standards and are not usually interoperable with other traceability systems making them unable to offer a single source solution. The Canadian Cattlemen s livestock identification system, designed for the beef sector, is one example of a commodity specific/segment specific solution. The bison, sheep and goat sectors are considering joining The Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (CCIA) to form the Canadian Livestock Identification Agency. Other commodity groups such as pork, chicken and fisheries are presently at various stages of designing or implementing a similar system. Key drawbacks to commodity/segment specific approaches include: The commodity/segment system can usually cover only a limited number of products or a specific section of the supply chain. Commodity/segment systems are developed to meet a specific requirement and are usually not interoperable with other systems and are not based on non-proprietary international data standards. The systems are primarily domestic in nature; therefore, they are not well positioned to handle imported or domestic products. Due to the proliferation of systems, industry segments higher in the supply chain must support multiple solutions due to their product mix. 14

15 3. Central Data Management Model (or multi-material whole chain solutions) - The most complex of the category is a central data management model that makes use of one database or series of linked databases to track or trace products throughout the supply chain. Models generally leverage existing standards and systems to provide an industry solution. In theory, central data management is a very efficient model as it provides: Cost effectiveness by providing a single access point for the entire supply chain for tracking and tracing data related to a variety of commodities. A single identification and communication method which promotes efficiency through non-proprietary standards which minimize the standards any one industry player must support. A system capable of accommodating imported product data and providing data to satisfy international trade requirements. A seamless whole-chain solution that is capable of satisfying multiple drivers, either commercial or regulatory. It is important to note that a centralized data management structure can be developed as a single stand alone structure or as a series of linked databases that leverage common standards and data structures to provide seamless interoperability. For example, in Canada where some animal health traceability systems exist, it may prove beneficial to leverage their success to create a linked database structure built based on common standards (retrofit to existing systems) whereby the central data management solution is composed of two farmto-processor systems (one animal health, one plant health) and a post processor/imported material-to-retail system. The interoperability could be accomplished in such a manner that the system appears seamless to the user. Several centralized data models exist including in Belgium where a single national database is being created and France where an architecture of linked databases is partially up and running. EAN UCC Standards Beginning in 1974 with the adoption of the Universal Product Code, followed by the EAN code in Europe, the EAN UCC system has evolved to become one of the most widely adopted commercial identification and communication standards in use today. Dominant in the food industry, EAN UCC is composed of a world-wide network of standards organizations working together to promote the adoption of EAN UCC standard product identification and e- commerce standards. EAN UCC standards are used in 140 countries (see figure 1.2) across 25 industry segments by over 1 million companies world-wide. The mission of the EAN UCC is as follows: To improve supply chain management and other business processes that reduce costs and/or add value for both goods and services, EAN International and UCC develop, establish and promote global, open standards for identification and communication for the benefit of the users involved and the ultimate consumer. 15

16 In Canada, the Electronic Commerce Council of Canada (ECCC) is the designated EAN UCC organization and is responsible for fulfilling the EAN UCC vision and mandate. The EAN UCC Product Identification System is an unambiguous numbering schema used to identify goods or services throughout any supply chain. Using automatic data capture techniques, this numbering system can be applied successfully at every stage of production, transformation and distribution. The immediate and most visible application of the EAN UCC system is a bar code (an U.P.C or EAN-13 symbol). It is important to remember that a bar code is simply the machine-readable representation of the associated number. Use of the EAN UCC system ensures the uniqueness of the associated number that identifies the item to which it is assigned. The EAN UCC system works towards global uniqueness and overcomes problems of confusion, duplication and misinterpretation as all users of the EAN UCC system follow the same coding rules. EAN UCC member organizations ensure the uniqueness of the numbers world-wide via the use of specific agreed upon prefixes. An EAN UCC number can be recognized by trading partners operating locally or world-wide. Furthermore, the EAN UCC system allows an item to carry additional information rather than just a unique identifying number; for example, a company or industry specific reference number or a batch number. Therefore, the standard permits for the identification of trade units (GTIN), locations (GLN) and additional data (AIs). For an overview of EAN UCC Standard Product Identification data formats and communications standards, visit the ECCC website at Figure 1.2 EAN International member countries 16

17 EAN UCC Traceability Models: Meat, Produce and Fish EAN UCC, with global input from regulators and industry, has developed three traceability models that should be considered when creating a national traceability roadmap for Canada. These models leverage the existing industry investment in EAN UCC standards/systems and could easily form the foundation for a national traceability model. EAN UCC Meat Model The EAN UCC Traceability of Beef Model was developed to support the implementation of EC regulation 1760/2000. The guidelines provide recommendations needed to understand and use the EAN UCC system for trade units (packaged items) in the beef supply chain between the slaughterhouse and the retail pointof-sale. Effective traceability from the slaughterhouse back to an individual animal or group of animals (which is required by European regulation) is based upon the accuracy of the information about the animal held on the database belonging to the slaughterhouse. The guidelines specifically address the EAN UCC system of identification, numbering and bar coding for the purpose of tracking and tracing beef products. At present, the model does not include specifics about the electronic transfer of traceability data through EDI/ecommerce methods; however, the model has been created in such a way as to facilitate the data transfer in an expeditious manner. Complete documentation of EAN Beef Traceability Guidelines is available on the Electronic Commerce Council of Canada website at: Figure 1.3 provides a graphic representation of the model. The model requires the following data at various stages in the supply chain: GTIN Batch/Lot number Ear Tag number Country of Origin (ISO) Country of Initial Process Country of Process Number of Processor 17

18 Figure

19 EAN UCC Produce Guidelines The EAN UCC Produce Traceability Guidelines were developed to provide a common approach to the tracking and tracing of fresh produce by means of an internationally accepted numbering and bar coding system: the EAN UCC system. Given that the produce industry historically uses generic EAN UCC coding for their products, the development of a common framework that provides for case level/lot tracking and tracing represents a significant advance for the industry. Again, like the meat model, the guidelines do not specifically reference EDI/e-commerce standards but are built on the EAN UCC standard and therefore can leverage the complete suite of EDI and XML transactions in the EAN UCC repertoire. Complete documentation on the EAN Produce Traceability Guidelines is available on the Electronic Commerce Council of Canada website at: Figure 1.4 provides a high level illustration of the model. The model requires the following data to facilitate traceability: GTIN Lot/batch Locations (GLN) purchased from Variable count data Variable weight data Dates (pack, etc) This model also provides for the creation of standardized shipping labels (with serialized shipping codes: SSCC-18s) to link movement of product to logistical data in the form of EDI/e-commerce transactions (i.e. ASNs, etc). Figure

20 EAN UCC Fish Model This model is being developed by EAN UCC to provide a solution for the implementation of the Fish Labeling Regulation (EC) 2065/2001 and EC general laws for food and safety using an internationally accepted unique identification and bar coding system which forms part of the EAN UCC system. Please note that this model is still under construction and not yet final. This broad model covers traded units in the supply of captured and farmed fish. The supply chain for captured fish covers the steps from vessel to retail point-of-sale. The supply chain for farmed fish covers the steps from the broodstock to retail point-of-sale. Feeding production is also included in the farmed fish supply chain. These guidelines specifically address the EAN UCC system of identification, numbering and bar coding for the purpose of tracking and tracing fish products. Similar to the produce and meat models, the guidelines do not specifically reference EDI/e-commerce standards but are built on the EAN UCC standard and therefore can leverage the complete suite of EDI and XML transactions with EAN UCC. Figure 1.5 provides a high level overview of the model for caught fish; a similar model exists for farmed fish. Data required includes: Vessel ID Locations GLN GTIN Dates and weights Species ID Figure

21 Advantages Matrix The following matrix plots some of the relative advantages and disadvantages of implementing traceability with each of the key data management solutions, different logistical units and across different segments of the supply chain. Data Capture and Management Solutions Solution Advantages Disadvantages One-up/One-down Model Least complex and easiest to implement Commodity/Segment Specific Databases Administrative cost burden is spread over the supply chain Conforms with minimum requirements of U.S. Bio-terrorism Regulations Meets the minimum requirements outlined in Quebec regulations Can be whole-chain and multimaterial Can accommodate imports and exports Reduced complexity since it can be tailored to a specific commodity/ supply chain segment Already an install base of animal/plant health systems Greater integrity and responsiveness than a one-up/onedown system Easier to develop and less costly on an individual basis than a centralized data solution Becomes disproportionately more complex at the top end of the supply chain Tracking or tracing products requires more time as the flow must be tracked through the records of each company Most likely will not be able to meet the Quebec stipulation of whole-chain traceability within 24 hrs The integrity of the system is dependent upon the record keeping of individual companies (i.e. the chain is as strong as the weakest link) Typically is not whole-chain Typically covers a limited number of commodities Unless based on common standards, does not promote interoperability Typically are domestic in focus and therefore not capable of handling imports/exports Multiple solutions not desirable higher in the supply chain Central Data Management Single (or linked) solution based on single standard Whole-chain and multi- material On an aggregate basis (i.e. to supply whole-chain all commodity coverage) is more costly and less efficient than a central data solution Complex to develop and implement Costly to develop and implement Can accommodate imports and exports Increased data integrity and speed of traceability Can leverage existing infrastructure and system 21

22 Logistical level Level Advantages Disadvantages Consumer Unit Case Direct traceability to the item purchased by the consumer Allows for IP and brand protection Consistent with policy roadmap Is achievable with most non-bulk, non-in store processed products More feasible implementation than consumer unit When used with lot it can provide necessary traceability for meats and produce Can leverage existing systems Cost prohibitive with lengthy implementation Very costly and complex for in-store processed and bulk items. Can be accomplished indirectly using lot and case Store systems not yet significantly advanced to be able to accomplish all product commodities Does not allow for some of the IP and brand protection afforded by unit traceability Lot/Batch Combination Mandatory requirement for perishables (meat, seafood and produce) Provides unique identifier in bulk perishable commodities Combination of item, case and lot permits satisfaction of most drivers Needs consistent definition of lot/batch Difficult to maintain lot identity through processing 22

23 Supply Chain Segments Segment Advantages Disadvantages Whole-Chain One traceability standard for all commodities across the supply chain Efficiency and effectiveness of single standard The greater the coverage, the greater the complexity and the more difficult it is to implement Processor/Importer to Retail Covers imports and exports Easier to develop and implement since this segment has a great deal of experience in implementing common standards solutions (i.e. the ECCnet registry) Not whole-chain or single standard Difficulty in linking animal health and plant protection systems to postprocessor/importer Less scope = less complexity Consumer (Warehouse Club Model) Most players in this segment already use the EAN UCC system Ability to positively match product to the customer Secondary marketing benefits Privacy issues Very costly Requires closed system (i.e membership club) Accountability issues; implications of failure to notify each and every customer 23