Fresh Produce Traceability

Transcription

1 Fresh Produce Traceabiity A Guide to Impementation Version 2 Produce Marketing Association Produce Marketing Association 1500 Casho Mi Road Newark, DE te: +1 (302) fax: +1 (302) Canadian Produce Marketing Association 9 Corvus Court Ottawa, Ontario K2E 7Z4 te: +1 (613) fax: +1 (613) October 2006

2 This document has been prepared by the Produce Marketing Association and the Canadian Produce Marketing Association as a service to its association members and their customers. The information provided herein is offered in good faith and is beieved to be accurate when prepared, but is offered without warranty as to fitness for a particuar purpose or any other matter. PMA, CPMA, members of the two associations, and contributors, discaim a responsibiity for any oss or damage arising from reiance on such information by any party. PMA, CPMA, association members, and contributors do not assume any responsibiity for compiance with appicabe aws and reguations. Appropriate ega counse shoud be consuted when any such issues arise. This document is not intended to be a-incusive on any subject covered. Produce Marketing Association Canadian Produce Marketing Association

3 tabe of contents Acknowedgements 3 Executive Summary 4 u Introduction 4 u The Path Forward 4 u Traceabiity - What is it? 5 u What s In It for Me? (Business Benefits) 8 u Standards and Traceabiity 9 u About the Piot Studies 10 u Outcome of the Piot Studies 12 Data Eements for Traceabiity 14 u About the Can-Trace Traceabiity Standard (Version 1.0) 14 u Mandatory and Optiona Data Chart 15 u Data Eements Across the Suppy Chain 16 - Primary Producers/Growers Chart Processors/Packers/Repackers/Shippers Chart 18 - Whoesaers/Distributors/Retaiers Chart 18 - Store Operators (Food Service) Chart 19 - Third-Party Logistics 19 Impementation 20 u Overview 20 u Creation of a Traceabiity Team 21 Impementation Approach 1: Paper-Based and human-readabe systems 21 u Minimum Requirements 21 u Current Practices 22 u Paper-Based Document Limitations 23 u Recommendations from Piot Projects 23 Impementation Approach 2: Technoogy-Based (automated data capture via bar codes) 24 u Current Practices 25 u Bar Coding Standards 25 u E-commerce Standards 26 u Recommendations from Piot Projects 26 Impementation Approach 3: Technoogy-Based (automated data capture via RFID) 27 u Current Practices 27 u RFID Limitations 28 u Recommendations from Piot Projects 28 Consumer-Item Traceabiity: The Fina Frontier 28 Appendix I: CPTTF 10 Best Practices (Summary List) 30 Appendix II: Executive Summaries of Piot Studies / Piot Participants 31 Appendix III: Technoogies for Data Capture 34

4 tabe of contents Appendix IV: Can-Trace Business Case Fina Report (Produce) 39 Appendix V: Gossary 41 Appendix VI: Can-Trace Data Attributes (Definitions) 46 Decision Support Tempates and Instructions for their use are avaiabe at: 2

5 Acknowedgements Enhancing traceabiity in the produce suppy chain is a ong-term effort, and surey it must be a coaborative effort if it is to succeed. Nowhere was that more evident than in the deveopment of these Produce Traceabiity Guideines, and the two Produce Piot Studies on which they are based. The success of a these efforts is due to the taent, dedication and cooperation of many individuas, teams and organizations in the United States and Canada, aong with their coaborators from around the word. In particuar, we wish to thank: The CPMA/PMA Traceabiity Task Force (CPTTF) members and staff: Doug Grant, The Oppenheimer Group (Co-Chair) Steve Junqueiro, Save-Mart (Co-Chair) Robert Aard, Quebec Appe Packers Association Anne Fowie, Canadian Horticutura Counci Dan Funk, Doe Food Company, Inc. Mark Givens, Corrin Larry Kieswetter, Lobaw Companies Mike Martin, Rio Queen Citrus Mike McGee, L & M Companies Matt McInerney, Western Growers Association Larry McIntosh, Peak of The Market Wayne McKnight, Wa-Mart Dave Murphy, Yum! Brands Michae Stuart, Forida Fruit and Vegetabe Association Darie Trottier, Sysco Food Services (Canada) Tom Wason, Sysco Food Services (U.S.) CPMA staff ead Jane Proctor PMA staff ead Gary Feming Piot Study participants in the U.S. and Canada (see Appendix II). Agricuture and Agri-Foods Canada for their generous financia support of the Can- Trace activities which contributed to this document. GS1 Canada, and Nige Wood for technica review of the sections on data carriers from the CPMA Industry Technoogy White Paper. The Can-Trace Standards Working Group, and the CPMA Industry Technoogy Advisory Counci. The GS1 Goba Traceabiity Industry Requirements Team. CPMA and PMA Board of Directors and staff for their ogistica and materia support in coordinating the piot studies, and preparing and pubishing this information to ensure equitabe technoogy soutions for the produce sector. We ook forward to continued coaboration and progress in the future! 3 Dan Dempster President Canadian Produce Marketing Association Bryan Sibermann President Produce Marketing Association

6 Executive Summary u Introduction We ive in a word of gobaization, a word in which poitica and commercia reaities are the drivers for increasing suppy chain efficiencies, accountabiity and security. One key to achieving gains in a three areas ies in the area of traceabiity. For the goba produce industry, suppy chain traceabiity is, today, more than ever, a high visibiity issue. Reguatory requirements wi mandate partia compiance. But the stakes, and the rea issues, go far beyond current and pending reguations. As scrutiny increases on recas, and market access based on traceabiity competency becomes an increasing reaity, the North American produce industry is striving to achieve an equitabe soution one that wi make traceabiity fiscay practica, and ensure that fisca responsibiity for traceabiity is assumed by a members of the produce suppy chain. Together, PMA and CPMA, in cooperation with industry and standards bodies, have been focused on deveoping information standards that wi enabe a rationa transition to whoe-chain traceabiity in North America and internationay. At the heart of this effort is the recognition that true traceabiity (as we as the efficiencies, accountabiity and security that go with it) requires a common anguage of information, chain-wide and eventuay, word-wide. Whie technoogy provides a means toward that end, it is ony a faciitator, not an end in itsef. The transitiona steps toward this common anguage must be incrementa and impementabe by a partners, at a technoogy eves, a across the chain. Equay important, these steps that improve compiance and security must aso offer suppy chain members tangibe business benefits that enhance their competitiveness in the goba marketpace. u The Path Forward The Piot Projects, which formed the basis for Version 1 of this document, focused on the operationa aspects of traceabiity at different points of the suppy chain, empoying mock recas to ascertain what information was being coected and shared, and where gaps existed that imposed ogistica and economic hardships in the tracing-and-reca process. The goa of these simuations was not to impose a technoogy standard, but to ascertain a path to an information standard that coud provide tangibe operationa benefits to the businesses invoved. 4 Buiding on the extensive work on traceabiity both through piots and through the foundationa work of the CPMA/PMA Traceabiity Task Force (CPTTF) and Can-Trace, it is therefore recommended that industry begin the path to traceabiity by first standardizing the data which it is

7 necessary to capture, keep and share aong the suppy chain in order to ensure tota suppy chain traceabiity. The CPTTF determined that the Can-Trace Food Traceabiity Data Standard shoud be adopted as the data standard for produce traceabiity in North America. Throughout pioting in the U.S. and Canada, these standards were tested and vaidated. In addition, best practices were determined to assist in impementation. As with any suppy chain standard or guideine, it is reasonabe to expect that enhancements wi occur as the standard/guideine is finaized and impementation begins or as a wider spectrum of users focus on the issue. Such is the case with this guideine. In the year since V.1 was pubished, changes have occurred both internationay and within Can-Trace. Internationay, a group of suppy chain experts from a vasty divergent ist of organizations formed the Traceabiity Industry Requirements Team under the auspices of the Goba Standards Management Process of GS1. Tasked with creating a goba traceabiity standard, the work resuted in the reease of the GS1 Traceabiity Standard in February Concurrenty, the Standards Committee of Can-Trace undertook a review of the Can-Trace Food Traceabiity Data Standard to incude recommendations from various industry segments. In the spring of 2006, V.2 of the Data Standard was reeased. Experts working on both the goba standard and the Can-Trace standard arrived generay at the same concusions reative to necessary changes in data eements to ensure fu chain traceabiity. Consequenty, the North American produce industry, under the auspices of CPMA and PMA, reviewed the origina Guide to Impementation and have updated this document accordingy. It shoud be noted that this document is not intended to be prescriptive reative to the data carrier used to capture and carry the data (e.g. barcodes, RFID), but seeks to communicate what piots, and subsequent reviews, have shown to be the data eements necessary for traceabiity. Decisions on the vehices to capture and carry the data shoud be made by industry members in consutation with their suppy chain partners. However, to assist in making that determination, the document incudes information on three approaches to impementation: paper-based, automated data capture via bar codes, and automated data capture via RFID. u Traceabiity : What is it? Traceabiity is the abiity to trace the history, appication or ocation of that which is under consideration (ISO 9001:2000) Whoe-chain food traceabiity is comprised of both tracking and tracing. Tracking is the abiity to foow the path of a traceabe item through the suppy chain as it moves between parties. (GS1 Traceabiity Standard) Tracing is the abiity to identify the origin, attributes, or history of a particuar traceabe item ocated within the suppy chain by reference to records hed. (GS1 Traceabiity Standard) 5 Segmented Traceabiity Today, pending or existing reguations and industry requirements vary from country to country.

8 However, the U.S. Bioterrorism Act, the EU Genera Food Law EC/178/2002, the ISO Internationa Standard ISO/DIS 22005, Codex Traceabiity Principes and others generay focus on a segmented ( one-step-up/one-step-down ) approach to traceabiity. Essentiay, this means any suppy chain participant is responsibe for keeping records identifying the immediate previous source of the product, as we as the immediate next recipient. Whie this approach reguates each segment of the chain, it aso impies that whoe-chain (or externa ) traceabiity must exist, since each participant can identify prior product origin and subsequent product destinations. Practicay speaking, in most suppy chains today, the information or data required for traceabiity exists, but ack of an efficient or standardized method of capturing and sharing that data makes traceabiity cumbersome, sow and sometimes impossibe to execute with any certainty. Widey differing data coection practices and often, proprietary information/ identification systems yied mutipe unique identifiers among various suppiers. For a distributor who may have hundreds of such suppiers, each with proprietary ot identifiers, the chaenge is enormous. Once the distributor repackages or reconfigures ots or paets, the traceabiity chaenge is magnified accordingy. Agro-Terrorism Preparedness In the USA, the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 cas for one-up/one-down traceabiity for each ink in the suppy chain, to be enforced by the FDA Center for Food Safety and Appied Nutrition (CFSAN). 6 The Section 306 Administration and Record Keeping reguation requires that each company in the suppy chain keeps information about the company that they received the products from (previous source, non-transporter), the company who deivered the product to them (previous source,

9 transporter), the company who took it away (subsequent source, transporter), and the company they gave (sod) the products to (subsequent source, non-transporter). The recordkeeping reguations specify what information must be made avaiabe, but do not specify how the records must be kept as ong as the information can be retrieved within a 24 hour period. However, basic compiance with traceabiity reguations wi be woefuy inadequate to dea with the repercussions of an agro-terrorist act or any other emergency food safety reated incident. If the produce industry is faced with a food safety incident, immediate and effective externa traceabiity wi be demanded. Ony those trading partners with extensive standardization of data (incuding appropriate abeing at the paet and case eve) wi be equipped to respond swifty and effectivey. Thus, the need for a common anguage of information; a standardization of data that wi simpify not ony tracking and tracing but inventory contro, shipping and receiving, and a of the business operations aong the suppy chain. Whoe-Chain Traceabiity For true whoe-chain traceabiity, product must be uniquey identified and recorded at each stage of its possession or transformation and these identifiers must be inked if they are to be of vaue in both traceabiity and day-to-day operations. Recording of Information Effective traceabiity requires standardizing the information that needs to be recorded through each step of the food production and distribution chain. Linking of Information To ensure continuity in the fow of traceabiity information, each partner must pass on information about the identified ot or product group to the next partner in the chain. It is imperative that the inks between the ots and the ogistica units (resuting from a product transformation) are recorded. Within a company, the contro of a these inks and accurate recordkeeping make it possibe to connect what has been received with what has been produced and/or shipped. The end resut is standardized data representing a of the information necessary to coect, keep and share in support of effective whoe-chain traceabiity. 7 Traceabiity Management Traceabiity management invoves the association of a fow of information with the physica fow of traceabe items. Each trading partner must perform different roes within the suppy chain, but a must foow the basic agreed to steps in the traceabiity process.

10 In order to achieve traceabiity across the suppy chain, a trading partners must achieve interna and externa traceabiity. Trading Partner Trading Partner Trading Partner Externa traceabiity Interna traceabiity Externa traceabiity Interna traceabiity Externa traceabiity Interna traceabiity Externa traceabiity Traceabiity across the suppy chain u What s In It for Me? Every business wi need to make its own cost/benefit assessment of impementing industry standards for externa traceabiity. In doing so, many companies may ony consider the need for preparedness within the framework of reguatory compiance. Doing so wi undervaue the business impications of preparedness, as pressure from the trading community to compy with traceabiity requirements and practices aso wi have impact. The Can-Trace and CPTTF Piot Projects ceary demonstrate that traceabiity is not simpy an irksome reguatory requirement that increases the cost of doing business. Rather, traceabiity offers rea potentia for adding vaue to the way business is conducted across the entire suppy chain. Business Benefits of Adopting Traceabiity Best Practices 1. Benefits reated to maintaining business and achieving reguatory compiance. Lend support to egisation and associated reguations covering the fresh produce suppy chain. Address concerns of agro-terrorism or tampering in the food suppy chain Market benefits reated to meeting market or customer requirements. Boster consumer confidence through the industry s abiity to prompty identify and reca potentiay unsafe product. Meet customer expectations through improved abiity to reca product efficienty and effectivey. Distribution organizations wi begin requiring the use of newer technoogies and standards. This incudes EDI, GTIN, SSCC as we as RFID. Therefore, the technica

11 migration required for trace-abiity wi aso meet emerging demands from retaiers and foodservice companies. 3. Risk and reca benefits derived from improvements in traceabiity systems and management, and the associated reduction in iabiity costs. Enhance food safety programs and quaity contros by faciitating the abiity to isoate the source and extent of safety and/or quaity contro issues. Minimize the scope of product to be recaed and the time to execute a reca. This wi minimize iabiity in reca situations in addition to the cost of product. The financia impact of recaing an entire commodity or brand versus a specific grouping of product (e.g., a batch or ot) can be enormous. By ensuring proper segregation and cear identification of product, companies may demonstrate that their product is not impicated in a given product reca. 4. Process improvement benefits, which resut from using traceabiity as a too to improve suppy chain operations, increase product quaity or reduce costs. Improve suppy chain efficiencies and trading partner coaboration. Create a feedback oop from grower to retaier/food service to improve product quaity, condition, and deivery. Understanding how a particuar product performs under different circumstances can create opportunities to improve the suppy chain performance. For exampe, understanding differences in quaity between orchards from a saes performance point of view. Quantifying Business Benefits Finay, it is not difficut to quantify the business benefits associated with adoption of Traceabiity Best Practices beyond basic reguatory compiance. Can-Trace has produced a business case Decision Support System which enabes: Data coection Cost-benefit anaysis Reporting Scenario anaysis A set of the Decision Support Tempates, with instructions, are avaiabe for your use on the Can-Trace web site: u Standards and Traceabiity A singe industry data standard represents a ow risk choice for companies who want to coordinate the exchange of information with their trading partners. 9 The Can-Trace Standard One such set of standardized data is that deveoped by Can-Trace, a coaborative project among more than one hundred Canadian organizations incuding trade associations, government organizations and representatives from a sectors of the food suppy chain. The objective of

12 Can-Trace was to define and deveop a vountary data standard for whoe-chain traceabiity, by estabishing minimum data eements to be coected, kept and shared by trading partners. Essentiay, the Can-Trace Standard defines the data requirements to support a one-up/one-down traceabiity mode with whoe-chain appicabiity. These data requirements: are vountary, are based on existing goba standards (GS1 and ISO), are consistent with the CPTTF Traceabiity Best Practices report, are meant to coexist with, not repace, existing systems, represent an information standard, not a technoogy standard, and incude recommendations for mandatory and optiona data coection. The Can-Trace Produce Piot Project estabished that the Can-Trace Canadian Food Traceabiity Standard is sufficient to estabish traceabiity. The Can-Trace Standard V.1 was used as a reference for anayzing the interna tracing activities of mock-reca participants in the CPTTF Piot Study. The Can-Trace Standard (version 1.0) was pubished in November 2004 and athough a revised version was expected, at the time of the piots it represented the best-fit guideines avaiabe at that time for assessing the quaity of an organization s interna traceabiity, as we as providing a benchmark of an organization s preparedness for externa traceabiity. The subsequent reease of V.2 of the Standard, and of the GS1 Traceabiity Standard, further refines the information required and appropriate business rues, thereby enhancing traceabiity. CPTTF Best Practices CPTTF Best Practices are at the heart of Externa Traceabiity (traceabiity between trading partners). The adoption of these practices wi not ony standardize data fow across the suppy chain, but aso significanty enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of recaing product from fied identification to the receiving dock at a retaier or foodservice outet. Finay, whie a singe data standard across the industry wi support Externa Traceabiity, the CPTTF Best Practices do not in themseves create any new industry standards. They are buit on estabished and customary suppy chain practices that are commony used within the food industry. Whie focused on impementation via bar coding, the principes can be appied regardess of the data carrier. u About the Piot Studies 10 CPTTF Piot To assess and compare the CPTTF Traceabiity Best Practices against rea-word conditions, three produce industry firms participated in this study invoving a mock reca exercise. The participants incuded NewStar Fresh Foods, SYSCO, and Hannaford Brothers.

13 NewStar was the grower/shipper for green onions received by SYSCO and ettuce received by Hannaford Bros. SYSCO represented the Foodservice side of the suppy chain and Hannaford represented the Retaier. A three participants empoyed onine systems in their workfow with minima dependence on paper records. The principa objective for this piot study was to compare Best Practices with each participant s existing processes. This became the basis of a Gap Anaysis designed to highight the changes needed to move from current industry practices to future optimum processes for traceabiity. Can-Trace Produce Piot The Can-Trace study invoved seven participating companies representing diverse suppy chain roes. The study focused on: Understanding key handing, packaging and production processes at participating companies and some of their suppy chain partners, Coecting and assessing paper-based documents for adherence to the Can-Trace minimum data standard, Executing and studying severa traceabiity scenario simuations. Three separate simuations were executed against two different scenarios to assess one-up/onedown tracking and tracing in the Canadian produce suppy chain: Scenario 1: Grower>>Packer/Shipper>>Distributor Scenario 2: Importer>>Distributor>>Retai Food Service A fourth simuation, using a scenario beginning at a Hote and tracing back to a oca Grower, was aso executed. 11

14 u Outcome of the Piot Studies Resuts of Gap Anaysis The most significant finding of the Can-Trace Produce Piot study was that no common identifier is present throughout the entire suppy chain. Product descriptions and product identifiers vary between companies, requiring the use of other identifiers to ensure accurate reca. The primary recommendation resuting from the Can-Trace study was for industry-wide adoption of a consistent product ot or batch identifier that aigns with the Goba Trade Item Number (GTIN). Simiary, the major issue observed in the CPTTF study was the ack of integration between interna tracking systems and externa systems. The companies participating in the CPTTF piot study are industry eaders in their use of technoogy and in their aggressive approach to food safety. However, members of the same suppy chain took different approaches to the data coected and stored, and to tracking product internay. Product was received and then moved into the interna system without maintaining a data ink to the suppier and to individua cases or paets. This oss of identity meant that the scope of reca was widened significanty: For a reca initiated at the harvest or distribution eve, enhanced traceabiity coud significanty reduce the voume of product impicated. For a reca initiated at the retai eve, gaps in traceabiity widened the scope to severa days worth of production, as opposed to the severa paets actuay invoved in the simuation. Outcome of Simuations Within the defined scope and boundaries of these mock recas, a scenarios were executed successfuy. It was demonstrated that the affected product was identified, coud be traced to source, and subsequenty recaed from distribution. The participants were a highy competent in their abiity to trace product internay. The ack of consistent use of the CPTTF Best Practices (see Appendix I) is where the process broke down. The scope of the recas frequenty widened to incude product that was not affected, and stores which woud not have been invoved, had Best Practices been in pay. For exampe, one simuation invoved a harvest to customer reca. There, savings from reduced scope of reca (with improved traceabiity) woud have been on the order of fifty percent. 12

15 Another simuation of an importer to retai reca demonstrated that, had a specific ot number been incuded in the traceabiity data within the Retaier s distribution system, five out of six retai destinations coud have been spared any reca-reated activity, for a truy significant savings in abor costs. This appears to be an industry-wide issue, and the ess-automated firms seem particuary vunerabe at present. Irrespective of technoogy, adopting standard data requirements and traceabiity processes across the produce suppy chain wi greaty enhance the industry s abiity to track and trace product. 13

16 Data Eements for Traceabiity u About the Can-Trace Traceabiity Standard (Version 2.0) The Can-Trace Data Standard has been endorsed by the CPTTF as the North American produce traceabiity data standard. This Standard defines the data requirements; it does not define how this standard shoud be impemented (i.e., which data carriers to use.). The Can-Trace Standard defines two categories of data: Mandatory Data refers to the information that a suppy chain partners are obiged to coect, keep, or share. Optiona Data are additiona pieces of information that are usefu but not essentia. The chart which foows defines the individua data eements in each category. Within the Mandatory Data category, there are two types of data: Master and Transactiona. Both are required for traceabiity. Master Data is information that sedom changes. Master data appies to product, party and ocation information. It incudes information such as product description, buyer identifier, ocation etc. Transactiona Data is data that is unique to each individua transaction. Exampes incude quantity, ot number, shipment identifier and shipment date. The minimum requirement for any company is to have paper-based documents that contain necessary information to provide one-up/one-down traceabiity. 14

17 u Mandatory and Optiona Data Important Note: There is no need to dupicate existing records for traceabiity. For exampe, a shipment identifier serves as a reference to other data eements such as Ship From Location Identifier, Ship To Location Identifier, Receipt Date, and Ship Date etc. Mandatory Data Eements: Required for Traceabiity Sender Identifier Lot Number Product Description Product Identifier Quantity Unit of Measure Shipment Identifier Ship From Location Identifier Ship Date Ship To Location Identifier Receiver Identifier Receipt Date See Appendix VI for definitions of the mandatory and optiona data eements. Optiona Data Eements: For Enhanced Traceabiity Best Before Date Contact Information Country of Origin (Province/State) Logistics Provider Identifier Pack Date Receiver Name Sender Name Shipping Container Seria Number Vehice Identifier 15 Paper-Based Documentation in the Piot Studies In both the Can-Trace and CPTTF Piot studies, a wide variety of paper-based documentation was examined. These incuded Bis of Lading, Paet Labes, Harvest Reports, Invoices and Purchase Orders, Carrier and Receiving Receipts, Waybis, Shipping Advice, and Packing Sips.

18 Virtuay a the data eements in the Can-Trace Mandatory and Optiona Data categories are currenty being captured in paper documents but not in a way that is consistent from trading partner to trading partner. For exampe, in the Can-Trace Piot study, Pack Date, Sender/ Vendor/Suppier Identifier and Lot/Batch Number were used by the majority of participants, athough not captured consistenty by a. At a minimum, to achieve traceabiity, the use of the Mandatory Data Eements is required. Use of the Optiona Data Eements can further enhance traceabiity, depending upon trading partner requirements. Finay, it is the standardizing of a such data, as aid out in the CPTTF Best Practices, and the sharing of such data in a standard format, that wi enabe true Externa Traceabiity. Sharing of this data in a standard format enabes a trading partners to respond to a reca without the need for additiona transation of the suppied data. In eiminating the need for additiona transation, a participants wi enjoy operationa benefits in norma transactions, and wi reaize significant time and cost advantages in reca transactions. u Data Eements Across the Suppy Chain The Can-Trace Mandatory Data requirement is identica for: Primary Producers Processors Whoesaers/Distributors/Food Service/Retaiers However, the data eements that are coected from an upstream trading partner, those that are kept, and those that are shared with a downstream trading partner, wi differ somewhat according to one s position in the suppy chain. The charts that foow provide at-a-gance reference to Mandatory and Optiona Data Eements those to be coected, those to be kept, and those to be shared for individua produce suppy chain participants incuding: Primary Producers/Growers Processors/Packers/Repackers/Shippers Whoesaers/Distributors Store/Food Service Operators/Retaiers Third-Party Logistics 16

19 To effectivey use this data standard the foowing steps wi be hepfu aong with the diagrams in the foowing pages: Step 1: Step 2: Seect Roe and review corresponding figures (i.e. A E) on foowing pages. Are you a Primary Producer (A)? Are you a Processor (B)? Are you a Whoesaer, or Distributor or Retaier (C)? Are you a Retai Store/Food service Operator (D)? Are you a 3rd Party Logistics Provider (E)? Refer to the foowing modes for the mandatory data requirements (which are identified by roe) that must be coected, kept and shared. The data eements shoud be assessed from three perspectives: 1. What is required to be coected? 2. What is required to be kept in your records? 3. What is required to be shared? Step 3: Step 4: Conduct a gap anaysis of your current business practices. It may be that you aready capture most of this information. Deveop a pan to coect, keep and share appropriate data eements and modify your business accordingy. A 17

20 B C 18

21 D E 19

22 Impementation u Overview The CPTTF Best Practices document differentiates between Interna and Externa traceabiity and defines them as foows: Interna traceabiity refers to confidentia or proprietary data and processes that companies use within their span of operations to track product. Externa traceabiity refers to the data exchange and business processes that take pace between trading partners. Source: CPTTF Traceabiity Best Practices When determining goas for traceabiity, companies shoud: Create a traceabiity project team within the organization. Conduct a Gap Anaysis on existing traceabiity practices. Conduct a Business Case Anaysis to quantify Return On Investment (ROI) resuting from enhanced traceabiity. (Decision Support Tempates are avaiabe for your use at Deveop a strategic pan for enhancing traceabiity. Deveop a migration path for incrementa adoption of recommendations contained in this document. Obviousy, few, if any, businesses can simpy scrap their existing systems and jump to an entirey new eve of operations that fuy embraces a ten CPTTF Best Practices as we as the most advanced technoogy avaiabe to support externa traceabiity. Progress, if it is to be achieved, must come incrementay. That said, every change made to address compiance shoud be viewed as an opportunity to adopt best practices, and make operations and processes more consistent with emerging standards, and thus with trading partners. For companies with paper-based systems, or those with egacy IT systems: New systems or major enhancements to existing systems shoud incude migration to GS1 industry standards for numbering cases and paets (GTIN for cases, and SSCC for paets see Technoogies for Data Capture Appendix III). Acquire a GS1 Company Prefix as part of this process. For companies with robust IT systems and traceabiity processes: Take advantage of your capabiities to use existing minimum data standards consistenty with your suppy chain partners. It is recommended that industry members coaborate on joint projects to further streamine the traceabiity processes between enterprises. 20

23 Whie knowedge and standards wi continue to evove, the foowing section incudes impementation recommendations suitabe for companies of a sizes, at a stages of technoogy, a aong the suppy chain. These recommendations encompass three approaches: Impementation Approach 1: Paper-Based and human-readabe systems Impementation Approach 2: Technoogy-Based (automated data capture via bar codes) supported by human readabe information Impementation Approach 3: Technoogy-Based (automated data capture via RFID) Regardess of the impementation method, each suppy chain participant shoud have a Traceabiity Team to take the ead in any reca or tracking/tracing activities. u Creation of a Traceabiity Team Participants in the piot studies a had documented procedures in pace for reca. It is recommended that a companies estabish such procedures, which incude identifying a Traceabiity Team in advance. Whether or not your team incudes a designated pubic reations person, your team shoud be prepared for deaing with the media. Impementation Approach 1: Paper-Based and human readabe systems u Minimum Requirements The minimum requirement for any company is to have paper-based documents that contain necessary information to provide one-up, one-down traceabiity. Whie the adoption of eectronic data exchange technoogies wi faciitate traceabiity, it is possibe to use paper-based systems to capture and share the minimum data eements required for traceabiity. Existing business practices may, however, need to be modified to ensure that a the necessary data eements are being captured on paper-based documents. 21 To recap, the Can-Trace Mandatory Data Requirements, essentia for traceabiity, incude: Sender Identifier Unit of Measure Lot Number Ship From Location Identifier Product Description Ship Date Product Identifier Receipt Date Quantity Ship To Location Identifier Shipment Identifier Receiver Identifier

24 u Current Practices Overview Generay, where current traceabiity practices rey on foowing the paper trai, deivery receipts (from distribution centers or direct store deivery) are examined to provide information on products received during a reca timeframe. Deivery records typicay contain a summary description of the product, the number of cases/paets, the date/time of deivery, shipping and receiving ocations. Unfortunatey, current practices demand considerabe investigation, subsequent time deays, and a potentiay-arge scope of product impicated. An additiona tracking process is required to hande fina disposition, such as recording the product identification and probem description, recording the return/disposa or reease of product for re-sae. Human-readabe information at the case eve woud have vaue where product impicated coud be referenced to inventory in the back room, and associated records. Data Capture and Usage in the Can-Trace Piot Study As shown in the tabe beow, data eements used in the simuated recas incuded many, but not a, of the Can-Trace Mandatory and Optiona Data Eements. 22

25 Observations Concerning Current Data Usage 1. Pack Date, more so than Date of Harvest, was perceived as a significant data eement for traceabiity by the participating companies. 2. Shipment Identifier is not currenty used to communicate reca information. Buyer s purchase order number is used for this purpose, but purchase orders in their current format may not provide the specificity required for fu traceabiity. 3. Shipped quantity is used in reca communications. 4. Master data eements such as suppier phone numbers, traceabiity contact names, customer phone numbers, e-mai addresses, etc., are used during recas and other traceabiity exercises. Whie these eements are not specified in the standard, the Vendor/Suppier Identifier provides the ink to this contact information. u Paper-Based Document Limitations With respect to traceabiity, studies identified imitations in the paper-based documentation currenty used in the produce suppy chains studied: 1. No common identifier of product is present consistenty throughout the suppy chain. Product descriptions at the various companies vary and other identifiers are required to ensure recas are accurate. 2. Absence of a ot number for tracking means that other, ess effective means must be used to identify recaed product resuting in a wider product scope. 3. Pack date, as captured by growers, is not consistenty carried through the suppy chain. 4. Distributor reca notification does not aways incude shipment identifier or shipment date. Both pieces of information are typicay present and coud be incuded to aow for specific identification of received product and to reduce the time spent ocating product, particuary for destinations not yet capabe of working by paet abe (seria number). 5. Product ot or seria numbers are not aways identified as such. Athough present, they can be identified as paet tags, etc. This can ead to confusion. 6. Where present, suppier ot number is not aways recorded. A new ot number may be assigned within the next operation, but the suppier s ot number shoud be recorded whenever one is suppied. The suppier s ot number shoud be inked to any new ot number created at the next operation. u Recommendations from Piot Projects Suppiers or distribution centers shoud mark cases with human-readabe data incuding suppier name, product description and ot number. In the piot studies, participants had proprietary codes for each of these eements; without humanreadabe abeing, there is no easy way to cross-reference this information. 2. Add the Lot Number to fixed-weight consumer packs containing a suppier ID. For consumer packs, addition of the ot number woud improve traceabiity. (As noted

26 previousy, addition of a ot number for oose produce woud be impractica at present, due to ogistica issues, technica imitations and increased costs.) 3. Shipment Identifier shoud augment or repace a buyer s purchase order number in reca communications, as Shipment Identifier is defined to be unique. With the possibe use of backorders, mutipe products, mutipe receiving ocations, and mutipe receiving dates on one purchase order. Purchase Order numbers cannot be guaranteed unique to a shipment. (Traceabiity practices in other industries have shown unique shipment identifiers are superior to purchase order numbers in isoating shipments. Thus, the use of a Shipment Identifier is recommended as a best practice.) 4. Ship Date, when known, shoud aways accompany Shipment Identifier. It serves to further specify the transaction containing recaed product. This woud speed recas by more precisey identifying the transaction containing compromised product. This is especiay vauabe for ocations not yet equipped to work with paet abes such as SSCC or seria numbers. 5. Product ot or seria numbers shoud aways be identified as such, rather than using other nomencature (e.g., Paet Tags ) which can ead to confusion. 6. Suppier ot number shoud aways be recorded, even when a new ot number is assigned in the next operation. In such cases, the suppier s ot number shoud be inked to any new ot number created. Automation of data gathering and management woud faciitate faster reca processes for organizations that do not currenty have such support. Impementation Approach 2: Technoogy-Based (automated data capture via bar codes) Many companies today are successfuy using bar code systems within the span of their interna operations. Most use proprietary numbering systems and ack data synchronization with their trading partners, which imits impementation of whoe chain or externa traceabiity. The CPTTF Best Practices paper describes how bar coding and e-commerce can be utiized across the suppy chain to enabe externa traceabiity. It prescribes the adoption of standard bar codes for cases and paets, and requires both data synchronization (products and ocations) aong with transactiona e-commerce (incuding Advance Ship Notices). 24 At this time however, there is concern about the costs associated with scanning individua case bar codes (needed for externa traceabiity). Other companies are examining RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) to determine their future technoogy strategy.

27 u Current Practices Overview The use of proprietary numbers for case and paet wi continue to hamper the adoption of externa traceabiity as we as severa other industry technoogy initiatives. Any bar codes impemented with proprietary numbers woud not be meaningfu to trading partners downstream. Resoution of this probem woud resut in an enormous (if not impossibe) task for retaier/food service companies to synchronize proprietary numbers with their suppiers. A prerequisite for externa traceabiity is to share (and synchronize) standard data between trading partners. Therefore, the priority for the produce industry must be to adopt the GS1 numbering system; such as the GTIN and GLN numbers for products and ocations. These standard numbers support both bar code and RFID technoogy. Retai/food service companies must have processes in pace to synchronize suppier GTIN s and GLN s with their interna systems. Companies can work coaborativey on this initiative with their trading partners, or work through a third-party data synchronization service. The key outcome is to ensure that retaier/food service companies can scan a GTIN (and Lot#) bar code on a physica case of product and have it reference to the appropriate product description within their interna system. The foundation ies in product coding providing a standard and consistent means of identifying the product at three eves: the ogistics eve, the trade eve and the consumer eve. The fina step for goba traceabiity is the seamess sharing of these common identifiers in a common anguage, a across the suppy chain. It goes without saying that seamess sharing promises the business benefits that wi make a trading partners more competitive: entering data just once instead of many times, yieding faster, more abor-efficient operations and improved accuracy in transactions and traceabiity. The vision is to achieve an industry-wide, standards-based approach to data capture, compatibe to goba standards. (For further detais, refer to Appendix III: Technoogies for Data Capture ) u Bar Coding Standards Case Codes Case Codes define any item or standard grouping of items made up to faciitate the operations of handing, storing, order preparation, shipping, etc. (Source: Fresh Produce Traceabiity Guideines.) 25 The GTIN-14 is a 14-digit GTIN that identifies the unit of trade (cartons, trays, bins, etc). The GTIN can be printed in one of two symboogies: ITF-14 Symbo (Intereaved 2 of 5) is a reativey arge and simpe symboogy, suited for direct print to corrugated. It is imited in that it does not aow for encoding the ot number and other data needed for traceabiity.

28 GS1-128 (UCC/EAN-128) is a smaer, more comprehensive symboogy incorporating AIs (Appication Identifiers) in addition to the GTIN. An AI is a prefix that defines the meaning and format of the information foowing. Paet Codes (SSCC) The Seria Shipping Container Code is commony known as a Paet Code, or Paet License Pate. It is used to uniquey identify an item of any composition estabished for transport and/or storage, which needs to be managed through the suppy chain. u E-commerce Standards Eectronic Data Interchange (EDI) Sometimes known as e-commerce, EDI represents the computer-to-computer exchange of a fu range of business transactions in a standard format. EDI enabes any given trading partner to capture or review (in a standardized way) the fu amount of data that defines a transaction. The underying data is transmitted to a computer. The data tag (whether RFID or bar code) is the shorthand key that unocks the fu identification stored in the computer. The Advanced Ship Notice (ASN) The ASN is an EDI document that fuy describes what is on a paet, and is sent to the recipient s computer in advance of the paet s arriva. An SSCC code on the paet is the key that unocks a the ASN data that s in the computer. When the paet arrives, the SSCC code is scanned into the computer. It automaticay fetches the corresponding ASN data, thus automating the receiving process. u Recommendations from Piot Projects As previousy noted, suppiers and distribution centers shoud mark cases with human-readabe data incuding suppier name, product description and ot number. This is particuary important for participants currenty using proprietary codes for each of these eements. The addition of human-readabe abeing is essentia for cross-referencing this information in traceabiity scenarios. 2. Organizations need to consider using a feasibiity study to determine if existing IT systems can hande the repacement of proprietary codes with standard codes ike GTIN and SSCC numbering. (See Paet and Case Coding PMA Best Practices, December, 2002 on 3. Companies shoud acquire EAN.UCC /GS1 Company prefixes as part of their migration to industry standards for numbering cases and paets. 4. A universa numeric product identifier (such as GTIN and Lot Number) can support the proposed minimum data standard. The Goba Trade Item Number (GTIN) is recommended as the standard data structure, as it is internationay recognized and understood. (It shoud, however, be noted that the current state of coding in the produce industry wi ony aow merging [roing up] the GTINs at the distribution eve [e.g. consoidating the many codes to one code and assigning a new GTIN] and passing this new code to the next trading partner.)

29 5. The routine use of GS1 identification (with standard data attributes defined) at the case and paet eve for packaged product woud deiver consistent information and so faciitate product withdrawas and recas. 6. Any advancement in automated data coection is proven to reduce errors and faciitate faster reca processes; these benefits are magnified to the degree that such advancement is geared to a common anguage of whoe-chain traceabiity. 7. Use of e-commerce as it reates to data synchronization and transactiona data where it supports traceabiity is recommended. For exampe, EDI purchase orders, Advance Ship Notices and invoices provide a weath of information usefu for externa traceabiity. To impement tota suppy chain traceabiity based on bar coding, a suppy chain partners, incuding distributors (retai/food service distributors) must capture case and paet code information. Impementation Approach 3: Technoogy-Based (automated data capture via RFID) There are many inherent benefits to RFID, however impementation wi be gradua as the technoogy matures and becomes ess costy. It is safe to say that bar codes wi remain a viabe technoogy, co-existing with the gradua adoption of RFID for some years to come. For those currenty impementing or assessing the viabiity of RFID, the seriaized number contained In the EPC code is a key benefit, incuding for traceabiity purposes. It shoud be noted that the GS1-128 aso has the capacity for providing that information but other factors/benefits wi additionay infuence RFID adoption. u Current Practices Many arge organizations, incuding Wa-Mart, Metro-AG, Tesco and Abertsons, are taking the ead in impementing advanced technoogies within their own faciities. Some have gone past the piot stage and are beginning to require adoption from some of their suppiers. 27 Overview RFID technoogy has the potentia to greaty improve suppy chain efficiencies and ower costs over the ong term. Product traceabiity and visibiity across the suppy chain wi be ight years ahead of where we are today. An enormous amount of data captured through RFID wi provide the fue to drive other technoogy and business initiatives such as continuous repenishment, category management, e-commerce and Traceabiity.

30 Whie RFID technoogy has been around for decades, it has ony recenty emerged as a viabe grocery suppy chain soution. However, with fresh produce being high voume and ow margin aong with other compexities unique to our industry, obtaining a reasonabe ROI for many companies is sti months, if not years, away. u RFID Limitations Fresh produce companies that are currenty participating in RFID initiatives are finding that the technoogy is expensive and probematic. There are mutipe standards, interna computer systems are not RFID capabe, and many procedura issues have yet to be resoved. Their focus has been on meeting the immediate requirements of retai versus exporing the benefits RFID coud have to interna operations. Other companies are taking a cautious approach to RFID. They are earning from the piot projects underway and waiting for technoogy to prove itsef and become more cost-effective before deciding to proceed. This cautious approach mitigates risk in the short term, but may prove damaging as other companies make technoogica eaps past them. The RFID andscape wi continue to evove and, as demand for RFID technoogy increases, costs wi drop accordingy. A favorabe outcome from RFID with eading retaiers wi force other retaiers to acceerate their RFID pans, putting greater pressure on suppiers to proceed earier rather than ater. u Recommendations from Piot Projects 1. Adopt the GS1 numbering system, and impement standard numbers for products and ocations (GTIN s and GLN s). 2. Impement data synchronization processes with trading partners. 3. Some companies may be required to participate in RFID initiatives with their trading partners. Other companies shoud form an RFID team within their company to examine the technoogy and deveop a business case strategy for their company. Consumer Item Traceabiity: The Fina Frontier The CPTTF efforts to define a data standard and improve traceabiity aong the produce suppy chain do not currenty extend to a consumer produce items. 28 Currenty, there are significant economic and ogistica barriers to the fu adoption of common traceabiity standards and processes at the consumer item eve.

31 In most instances when a consumer detects product contamination or symptoms of iness, it may be days or weeks after the purchase date. Packaging (shrink wrap, bags, etc) or product identification may not exist. Given the time eapsed, the product impicated may we have competed its cyce through the suppy chain. As we, cross-contamination may have taken pace at any point in the suppy chain or during preparation and handing. For consumer packs, the addition of ot number woud improve traceabiity. However, for oose produce, this addition woud be difficut due to ogistica issues, technica imitations, and significanty increased suppy chain costs. Current efforts to examine the RSS-14 may enhance traceabiity for these products but the incusion of a ot number is not currenty under consideration. (See Appendix III for further information on this bar code.) Identification at the case eve imits the scope of product impicated and provides the required information for trace-back. Unfortunatey, once product is emptied onto retai store dispays, cardboard cases are crushed and recyced, or in the case of Returnabe Pastic Containers (RPCs), they are returned shorty after use. Retai dispays containing cardboard cases or product hed in the back room may not accuratey refect the product (or ot number) actuay sod to consumers. Simiar circumstances are true for food service. Cases are destroyed after transferring product into storage containers, or transferred to containers to disperse throughout the estabishment into mutipe kitchens within that estabishment. Changing retai eve practices is not an easy undertaking. For a compete soution, a retai stores/food service outets woud need the necessary bar code scanning technoogy and reated systems. Given the investment required, case eve scanning (at retai store/food service outet eve) is not a practica option at this time. As such, current traceabiity practices are reiant on foowing the paper trai. For this reason, any steps towards impementing Best Practices esewhere throughout the suppy chain wi move our industry coser to achieving the critica mass required to affect improved traceabiity at the consumer item eve. 29

32 Appendices APPENDIX I: CPTTF 10 Best Practices for Enhanced Traceabiity n At the Store/Foodservice Outet 1. Add the ot number to fixed-weight consumer packs containing a suppier ID (e.g. bagged ettuce). 2. Suppiers shoud mark cases with human readabe data incuding suppier name, product description and ot number. n At the Distribution Center 3. Encode GTIN and ot number in a GS1-128 barcode. 4. Use human-readabe suppier name, product description, and ot number. 5. During the seection process (where mixed paets are buit for deivery), scan the suppier case and ink to the interna paet number (or to the store ocation identifier). 6. During receiving, use suppier paet tags by encoding the company prefix and seria number in GS1-128 barcode format. 7. Receive the EDI ASN (Advance Ship Notice). 8. Scan suppier paet data during the receiving process and match to EDI ASN data. n At the Suppier Faciity 9. Use suppier case coding by encoding GTIN and Lot number in GS1-128 barcode, as we as human-readabe suppier name, product description, and ot number. 10. Use suppier paet tags by encoding company prefix and seria number in GS1-128 barcode. Adoption of these Best Practices wi resut in enhanced traceabiity from fied identification to the receiving dock at a retaier or foodservice outet. A copy of the compete CPTTF report on recommended Best Practices can be obtained from the PMA website, at or from the CPMA website at The report goes into detai on each practice and expains the rationae supporting them. These Best Practices are vountary. Companies are free to use and adapt these best practices in a manner that enhances the fow of information with their suppy chain partners. 30

33 APPENDIX II: Executive Summaries of Piot Studies/Piot Participants n Can-Trace Produce Piot Executive Summary RCM Technoogies Canada was commissioned to support the deveopment of standards for the produce sector under the Can-Trace Traceabiity and Standards initiative. This anaysis examines the current tracking and tracing capabiities of the Canadian produce sector through a piot study with a group of vountary industry participants. The piot studies had three main objectives reated to traceabiity standards: Deveoping an understanding of key handing, packaging and production processes at the participating companies and some of their suppy chain partners (suppiers, carriers, customers); Coecting sampes of paper-based documents and product abes to determine adherence to Can-Trace s proposed minimum data standard for traceabiity; and Executing severa traceabiity simuation scenarios and studying processes used and resuts achieved. The data for the piot study was coected through site visits to the participant companies and phone conferences to coect the paper-based traceabiity data and to perform traceabiity simuations. Data coection for the piot studies and the business case was suppemented through the use of business case questionnaires. The piot study yieded a number of resuts which can be addressed in estabishing vaid and reasonabe traceabiity standards. Our most significant finding is that no common product identifier is present throughout the entire suppy chain. Product descriptions and product identifiers vary between companies, requiring the use of other identifiers to ensure accurate reca. We recommend a consistent product ot or batch identifier that aigns with the Goba Trade Item Number (GTIN) be adopted by the industry. At the grower eve, it is recommended that pack date repace the proposed Can-Trace standard of harvest date. Various mixing and packing operations are performed after harvesting and products may incude components with mutipe harvest dates. It shoud be noted that our recommendation potentiay imits reca fow for certain potentia scenarios (in-fied damage, etc.). Severa changes at the initiating distributor eve coud simpify coordination of recas. 31 Reca notification does not incude shipment identifier or shipment date. Both pieces of information are typicay present and coud be incuded, reducing the time needed to ocate specific product, particuary for destinations not yet capabe of working by paet abe (SSC or seria number).

34 Product ot or seria numbers are not aways caed such. Athough present, they can be identified as paet tags, batches etc. This variation in nomencature eads to confusion. Where present, suppier ot number is not aways recorded. A new ot number may be assigned within the next downstream operation, but the suppier s ot number shoud be present whenever one is suppied. The traceabiity simuations (via mock recas) were executed successfuy, with product sources and destinations accuratey identified. As the mock recas did not actuay invove the physica reca of product and notification of end customers, there was no abiity to measure the actua time required to compete neither the reca, nor define the precision with which product coud be identified outside of the participant companies. n Participating Piot Companies Company Type Suppy Chain Roe(s) Participant Name Hote Foodservice Fairmont Hotes and Resorts Foodservice Distributor Distributor Neptune Food Service Grower/Importer/Distributor Grower, Importer, The Oppenheimer Group Packer/Shipper, Distributor Distributor Distributor Pro Organics Retaier # 1 Distributor, Retaier Sobeys Retaier # 2 Retaier Thrifty Foods Grower Canadian Grower, A Season Mushrooms Packer/Shipper n CPTTF Piot Study Executive Summary Recent food safety events in the produce sector have driven home the need for traceabiity systems in produce suppy chains which can respond quicky and accuratey to recas. RCM Technoogies (RCMT) was asked to conduct this CPTTF Piot Project to compare current practices to the Best Practices outine in the CPTTF report Traceabiity Best Practices. The Best Practices are based on the standardization of data, which is to be transferred through produce suppy chains. Many of the best practices advocate use of standard numbering standards, such as GTIN and SSCC, and standardized machine readabe formats, such as GS1-128 barcodes. 32 The companies participating in the piot study are industry eaders in both their use of technoogy and their aggressive approach to food safety. Even so, it was apparent that members of the same

35 suppy chain took different approaches to the data coected and stored, and to tracking product internay. These differences ead to oss of product identity in some situations and the resuting widening of the scope of recas in order to be sure to capture impicated product. One piot study firm, SYSCO, demonstrated that by compeing partners to compy with their interna traceabiity system can enforce whoe chain traceabiity based on the interna system. SYSCO has effectivey created and enforced whoe chain traceabiity since each transaction from the fied to fina customer is based on a SYSCO product number and ot number and it can be traced forward and tracked backward. Whie this approach works with one trading partner at a time, it woud not be successfu industry wide, as each interface of a non-standard interna system with an externa suppier presents a new integration chaenge. The ack of integration among the systems studied was significant, as it increases the cost and compexity of business transactions and decreases the certainty in reca situations. Modifying existing systems to accept CPTTF Best Practices wi, in the ong run, be the most economica and efficient way to achieve whoe chain traceabiity. The major issue observed in the study was the ack of integration between interna tracking systems and externa systems. Product was received and then moved into the interna system without maintaining a data connection to the suppier and to individua cases or paets. This oss of identity meant that the scope of reca was widened significanty. For a reca initiated at the harvest or distribution eve, enhanced traceabiity coud resut in a significant reduction in scope of the voume of product impicated. However, with the gaps in traceabiity, a reca initiated at the retai eve working back and then forward woud require a scope that coud amount to severa days of production, rather than severa paets. Achieving the CPTTF Best Practices can improve data coection and communication through produce suppy chains. Whie it wi not be easy or without cost, whoe chain traceabiity can enabe significant benefits through improvements in the accuracy and timeiness of recas, the increase in operationa efficiencies and potentia new revenue sources, as we as improvements in customer and consumer confidence in the produce sod in North America. n Participating Piot Companies Participant Name NewStar Fresh Foods Suppy Chain Roes Grower, Importer, Packer/Shipper, Distributor SYSCO (Baugh Suppy Chain Cooperative and Foodservice of San Francisco) Importer, Packer/Shipper, Distributor 33 Hannaford Brothers Distributor, Retaier

36 APPENDIX III: Technoogies for Data Capture n GTIN: The Backbone to Efficiencies The term GTIN (Goba Trade Item Number) can be viewed as a type of umbrea term. What North Americans once caed the UCC-12 or UPC A (UPC bar code) is one type of GTIN. What the rest of the word once caed the EAN-13 (bar code) is a GTIN. What a of us caed the SCC-14 (case code) is a GTIN. The much-discussed RSS-14 symboogy is aso a GTIN. And the newest GTIN on the bock is the SGTIN. As noted in GS1 s GTIN Impementation Guide, A GTIN is used for the unique identification of trade items wordwide within the EAN.UCC System. A GTIN has a 14-digit data structure though its data carrier (bar code) may contain ony 12-digits (the UPC), 13-digits (EAN-13) or 8-digits (EAN-8). The GTIN is defined as a 14-digit number to accommodate a the different structures. n Case and Paet Coding Whie consumer item coding (via the generic UPC and PLUs) was embraced by industry, case and paet coding has seen sow adoption. Aso, unike consumer item coding, case and paet coding does conform to the GS1 guideines when utiized. Adoption by the produce sector has been sow, however driving forces such as traceabiity and data synchronization/data cataogues is putting pressure on industry to adopt these methods of coding. (The advent of Radio Frequency Identification, RFID, has caused a great dea of discussion in industry reative to which method of case and paet eve identification shoud be adopted but it is cear that regardess of the data carrier utiized, the GTIN wi be an integra part of the identification. There wi be more on RFID ater in the document.) Case Codes (GTIN-14) The GTIN-14, a GTIN formery known as the SCC-14, is a 14 digit code used to identify fixed content shipping containers and can be printed in one of two symboogies: ITF-14 (once known as the Intereaved 2 of 5, I 2 of 5 or ITF) or, GS1-128 The ITF-14 is a reativey arge and simpe symboogy that consists of the GTIN encased in thick back bars. (Its size reates to scan capacity when printed on corrugated which does not aow for the same preciseness in ink adherence and therefore must contain simpe ines for scanning.) The ITF has the advantage of direct print to corrugated capacity but is imited since it can ony contain the company prefix and item reference number and does not aow for encoding of the ot number, and other data necessary for traceabiity. Because the information it contains is reativey static however, it aows for printing and inventory of cases for use in a future fied or pack house environment. ITF-14 symbo 34

37 The GS1-128 is a much more compex symboogy which occupies ess space than the Intereaved 2 of 5 and can incorporate additiona information through the use of Appication Identifiers (AIs) in addition to the GTIN. An Appication Identifier (AI) is a prefix used to define the meaning and format of the information foowing in a data fied. For exampe, (AI 01) indicates, in the foowing exampe, that the number that foows is a case eve trade item number (or Case GTIN). GS1-128 symbo : The case code is commony considered for use as a trade unit defined in the Fresh Produce Traceabiity Guideines (FPTG) as any item or standard grouping of items made up to faciitate the operations of handing, storing, order preparation, shipping, etc. A trade unit can be a box, case, buk bin, or even a paet in imited cases. The GS1-128 symboogy is not intended for data scanned at POS. Paet Codes (SSCC) The Seria Shipping Container Code is commony referred to as the paet code or paet icense pate. The paet code is commony considered for use on a ogistics unit defined in the FPTG as an item of any composition estabished for transport and/or storage, which needs to be managed through the suppy chain. Logistic units require a unique identification number. SSCC 35