Tag Archives: Food Traceability

Supply chain

Towards Food Traceability Standardization: Data System Design Concepts

By John M. Ryan, Ph.D.
No Comments
Supply chain

While we are in the middle of another massive food recall exercise, many people are dreading having to implement a food traceability system as designed by the FDA in response to Food Safety Modernization Act requirements.  The FDA, after smoking some whacky weed, has burdened the food industry with a “well thought out” set of traceability rules.  Currently being delayed due to a lack of understanding, some traceability rules must surely be devised and implemented prior to the demise of the FDA regardless of how burdensome they might be.

The Goal: Create and tie lot codes to Key Data Elements (KDEs) at Critical Tracking Events (CTEs).

Food traceability is critical to the survival of innocent companies and products when the recall monster raises its head.

With so much confusion over the FDA’s FSMA food traceability requirements, companies need to begin considering standardization.  This is especially true for companies with long supplier lines.

Take for instance tomato sauce.  Boiled tomatoes may have salt, basil, garlic and other ingredients added during the cooking process and prior to bottling and labeling the sauce.  The FDA Food Traceability List below includes tomatoes and fresh herbs (basil, parsley and garlic) that are, in this case, input in a raw form prior to the cooking process.   All require identification of the specific harvest location, time and traceability lot number and all fall within traceability requirements.  From harvest, through cooling, into sorting, etc. these ingredients must be tracked.  A hundred cases of tomatoes harvested from the same field on the same day may be divided and shipped to five or more locations including distribution centers, stores or a farmer’s market.

For the tomato sauce under consideration, a kill step (cooking) is involved meaning that these Food Traceability List (FTL  Table 1) ingredients no longer need to be tracked under their original lot tracking number.  A new lot number is generated and tied to the original tracking numbers after the cook (blend) step.

It gets confusing and difficult early in the life of the tomato sauce.

The Food Traceability List

Food Traceability List Description
Cheeses, other than hard cheeses, specifically:
  • Cheese (made from pasteurized milk), fresh soft or soft unripened
 Includes soft unripened/fresh soft cheeses. Examples include, but are not limited to, cottage [1], chevre, cream cheese, mascarpone, ricotta, queso blanco, queso fresco, queso de crema, and queso de puna. Does not include cheeses that are frozen or previously frozen, shelf stable at ambient temperature, or aseptically processed and packaged.
  • Cheese (made from pasteurized milk), soft ripened or semi-soft
 Includes soft ripened/semi-soft cheeses. Examples include, but are not limited to, brie, camembert, feta, mozzarella, taleggio, blue, brick, fontina, monterey jack, and muenster. Does not include cheeses that are frozen or previously frozen, shelf stable at ambient temperature, or aseptically processed and packaged.
  • Cheese (made from unpasteurized milk), other than hard cheese[2]
 Includes all cheeses made with unpasteurized milk, other than hard cheeses. Does not include cheeses that are frozen or previously frozen, shelf stable at ambient temperature, or aseptically processed and packaged.
Shell eggs Shell egg means the egg of the domesticated chicken. Includes products (whether fresh or frozen) that contain raw, unpasteurized eggs as ingredients.[3]
Nut butters Includes all types of tree nut and peanut butters. Includes all forms of nut butters, including shelf stable, refrigerated, frozen, and previously frozen products. Examples include, but are not limited to, almond, cashew, chestnut, coconut, hazelnut, peanut, pistachio, and walnut butters. Does not include soy or seed butters.
Cucumbers (fresh)[4] Includes all varieties of fresh cucumbers.
Herbs (fresh) Includes all types of fresh herbs. Examples include, but are not limited to, parsley, cilantro, and basil. Herbs listed in 21 CFR 112.2(a)(1), such as dill, are exempt from the requirements of the rule under 21 CFR 1.1305(e).
Leafy greens (fresh) Includes all types of fresh leafy greens. Examples include, but are not limited to, arugula, baby leaf, butter lettuce, chard, chicory, endive, escarole, green leaf, iceberg lettuce, kale, red leaf, pak choi/bok choi, Romaine, sorrel, spinach, and watercress. Does not include whole head cabbages such as green cabbage, red cabbage, or savoy cabbage. Does not include banana leaf, grape leaf, and leaves that are grown on trees.  Leafy greens listed in § 112.2(a)(1), such as collards, are exempt from the requirements of the rule under § 1.1305(e).
Leafy greens (fresh-cut)[5] Includes all types of fresh-cut leafy greens, including single and mixed greens.
Melons (fresh) Includes all types of fresh melons. Examples include, but are not limited to, cantaloupe, honeydew, muskmelon, and watermelon.
Peppers (fresh) Includes all varieties of fresh peppers.
Sprouts (fresh) Includes all varieties of fresh sprouts (irrespective of seed source), including single and mixed sprouts. Examples include, but are not limited to, alfalfa sprouts, allium sprouts, bean sprouts, broccoli sprouts, clover sprouts, radish sprouts, alfalfa & radish sprouts, and other fresh sprouted grains, nuts, and seeds.
Tomatoes (fresh) Includes all varieties of fresh tomatoes.
Tropical tree fruits (fresh) Includes all types of fresh tropical tree fruit. Examples include, but are not limited to, mango, papaya, mamey, guava, lychee, jackfruit, and starfruit. Does not include non-tree fruits such as bananas, pineapple, dates, soursop, jujube, passionfruit, Loquat, pomegranate, and sapodilla. Does not include tree nuts such as coconut. Does not include pit fruits such as avocado. Does not include citrus, such as orange, clementine, tangerine, mandarins, lemon, lime, citron, grapefruit, kumquat, and pomelo. Tropical tree fruits listed in § 112.2(a)(1), such as figs, are exempt from the requirements of the rule under § 1.1305(e).
Fruits (fresh-cut) Includes all types of fresh-cut fruits. Fruits listed in § 112.2(a)(1) are exempt from the requirements of the rule under § 1.1305(e).
Vegetables other than leafy greens (fresh-cut) Includes all types of fresh-cut vegetables other than leafy greens. Vegetables listed in § 112.2(a)(1) are exempt from the requirements of the rule under § 1.1305(e).
Finfish (fresh, frozen, and previously frozen), specifically:
  • Finfish, histamine-producing species
 Includes all histamine-producing species of finfish. Examples include, but are not limited to, tuna, mahi mahi, mackerel, amberjack, jack, swordfish, and yellowtail.
  • Finfish, species potentially contaminated with ciguatoxin
 Includes all finfish species potentially contaminated with ciguatoxin. Examples include, but are not limited to, grouper, barracuda, and snapper.
  • Finfish, species not associated with histamine or ciguatoxin
 Includes all species of finfish not associated with histamine or ciguatoxin. Examples include, but are not limited to, cod, haddock, Alaska pollock, salmon, tilapia, and trout.[6] Siluriformes fish, such as catfish, are not included.[7]
Smoked finfish (refrigerated, frozen, and previously frozen) Includes all types of smoked finfish, including cold smoked finfish and hot smoked finfish.[8]
Crustaceans (fresh, frozen, and previously frozen) Includes all crustacean species. Examples include but are not limited to shrimp, crab, lobster, and crayfish.
Molluscan shellfish, bivalves (fresh, frozen, and previously frozen)[9] Includes all species of bivalve mollusks. Examples include, but are not limited to, oysters, clams, and mussels. Does not include scallop adductor muscle. Raw bivalve molluscan shellfish that are (1) covered by the requirements of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program; (2) subject to the requirements of 21 CFR part 123, subpart C, and 21 CFR 1240.60; or (3) covered by a final equivalence determination by FDA for raw bivalve molluscan shellfish are exempt from the requirements of the rule under § 1.1305(f).
Ready-to-eat deli salads (refrigerated) Includes all types of refrigerated ready-to-eat deli salads, including ready-to-eat deli salads that are frozen at some point in the supply chain prior to retail. Examples include, but are not limited to, egg salad, potato salad, pasta salad, and seafood salad. Does not include meat salads.

The tomato paste company must train and establish data input requirements for all suppliers and must assure that each supplier is in traceability compliance.  Compliance requires that each supplier and the tomato sauce company are all capable of supplying the FDA lot traceability data when any recall occurs.  The FDA, in turn, must store (electronic record keeping) take that data (spread sheet or whatever form) from all sources and somehow establish a traceability path.

The FDA cannot do that.  Someone must wonder how all this will eventually work.

The Need for Some Standardization

If you study the FDA FSMA Food Traceability requirements for any period of time, you will notice how similar requirements are repeated.  This repetition provides a basis for standardization.  Given a relatively large processor company with perhaps hundreds of suppliers and dozens of final products, the need to control and guide those suppliers in a consistent manner arises if any semblance of food traceability is to result.  Take for example the concept put forth by the illustration below.  A “Universal Input Screen” (Figure 1) sets the scene for entering food traceability data (in compliance with FDA rules) from any place in the supply chain.

Figure 1

By checking on the “Harvest” link at the top of the screen, the farm can enter data to record date, time location, lot number, product name/description, quantity, unit of measure, variety, name, and packing or cooling information.  The harvester can also record the shipper and date shipped, location of packing and other data.

Likewise a producer can, by clicking on the “Manufacture” button enter data relative to receipt from, transformation, new lot number, kill step (including date, verification and reference documents.)

If required, other input screens can be developed to incorporate such things as GS1 requirements or data (Figure 2).  GS1 identities are in use for hundreds of food products and many companies are in need of incorporating them into their own traceability systems.

In Case 1, the supplier has a kill step for a GS1 product in their process that ends traceability for the item prior to hand off to the parent production facility.  In case 2 only the parent facility has a kill step.  In both instances, maintenance and hand-off of GS1 identities is critical.

Figure 2 GS1 and Kill Steps

The system can be programmed so that whenever a “Critical Tracking Event” occurs, Key Data Element data may be entered and controlled by a smart programmer who sets up controls to only allow required data for any event.  For example, if the “Harvest” button is enabled, any data entry for “Transformation” would be unenabled.

Other controls can be established such as date checks, traceability lot number verification or comparison to Food Traceability List requirements.

Standardizing the use of a system like this would establish a single Traceability Plan for all suppliers as well as the parent company.  The ability to supply the FDA or any traceability effort would be available by entering a request using the “Traceability Data Summary Request” button.  Fast, simple and allows the computer to do the work.  Reduces response time to a minimum and maybe even saves lives and money.  That’s what food traceability should do.

Time to standardize!

Track and Trace, traceability, supply chain

Benefits of Traceability Solutions Research Results Announced

By Carlos Alejandrino, Wiggs Civitillo
No Comments
Track and Trace, traceability, supply chain

Starfish recently conducted an analysis of the benefits of traceability solutions. This study had over 300 respondents across various food-related sub-industries, including produce, meat, seafood, dairy, eggs, packaged & manufactured goods. The surveyed companies spanned across production, logistics, retail, and services functions across the industry value chain. Respondents came from both large and small companies, with employees from Kroger, Merck, and Amazon included.

Survey Method

Respondents were asked which benefits they Intended and Incurred/ Experienced when utilizing traceability benefits, additionally they were asked which benefit they felt was the Most Valuable. Four answers were offered: (1) Improve Compliance, Insurance, and Legal; (2) Improve Operational Efficiency; (3) Reduce Impact of Recalls, Waste, and Errors; and (4) Increase Revenue. These four options were based on categories of traceability benefits defined by Planet Tracker.

Survey Results

Reducing the Impact of Recalls, Waste, and Errors was a significant reason for companies engaging with traceability solutions. This answer was the #1 most chosen intended benefit in 7 out of 10 respondent categories, with it being the #2 most chosen in the other 3 categories.

Reducing the Impact of Recalls, Waste, and Errors and Increasing Revenue were equally common benefits that respondents Incurred / Experienced. Both answers were the #1 most chosen Intended benefit in 5 out of 10 respondent categories, with both being either the #1 or #2 most chosen in all categories.

Interestingly, when asked which benefit of utilizing traceability was the most valuable, the other two answer options gained prominence. Improving Operational Efficiency was the #1 most chosen as the Most Valuable benefit in 8 out of 10 categories, with it being the #2 most chosen in the other 2 categories. Uniquely, Improving Compliance, Insurance, and Legal was the #1 Most Valuable benefit for Dairy and Egg companies, this being the only time it appeared as the most significant benefit in any question and the largest gap between the #1 and #2 most chosen benefit across sub-industry categories.

Empirical Findings

Recall, Waste, and Error impact reductions in findings from empirical studies come in the form of greater speed and information quality. In a survey conducted by Sparling and others (2011), 60% of growers and processors chose “faster and more precise recalls” as the greatest benefit to tracing services. This significance is supported by examples of major efficiency in recall management. Including outbreak-source identification time reduction from 35 days to 6 days and a reduction in the direct costs of recalls by 90% for short shelf life products (like fresh seafood) and by 95% for longer shelf life products (like frozen seafood) [Planet Tracker].

Increasing Revenue results in empirical findings come in the form of price premiums and greater sales volumes. The Sparling and others (2011) survey included supply chain efficiencies (operational efficiency) or increased market access (revenue) as the next most common responses for the greatest traceability benefits. Revenue increase can come from increase can from expanded markets and increased customer demand, which 50-62% of firms reported in a Planet Tracker survey. Chinese and Japanese consumers expressed that they would be willing to pay a 6% and 10% premium for traceable seafood [Planet Tracker].

Improving Operational Efficiency benefits in empirical findings span multiple types of outcomes. An Indonesian fishing company experienced a 10% reduction in unproductive vessel trips [Pointrek]. Fresh Del Monte experienced energy and efficiency savings of 15 – 30% [Strailey 2023]. A study on the Spanish vegetable industry found reduced production disruptions of 90%, lower indirect costs of 20%, increased warehousing capacity of 15% and cut safety stock of 30%.

The Dairy and Egg sub-industry’s focus on Improving Compliance, Insurance, and Legal could stem from the sector’s heightened frequency of recalls, with Dairy accounting for the most recalls by far in Q1 2025, with the number being consistent in 2024 [Global Food Recall Index 2025].

Conclusion

Reducing the Impact of Recalls, Waste, and Errors, and Revenue Increases are the most intended and experienced benefits of traceability services. Operational Efficiency is the most valuable benefit, this remains consistent across company roles and sub-industries, with Dairy a possible exception.

Sources:

Starfish strives to improve the safety of food. The team believes in the ability of traceability solutions to drive impactful benefits to achieve this goal and hopes that this and further research will drive awareness for the potential of traceability.

The State of Food Safety in 2026: Risks, Technology, and What FSQA Leaders Are Prioritizing Next

By Paddy McNamara
No Comments

Food safety in 2026 sits at a critical inflection point. Global supply chains remain fragile and volatile, regulatory scrutiny continues to intensify, and consumer tolerance for food safety failures is at an all time low. On the other side of the coin, food safety and quality assurance (FSQA) leaders are being asked to do more with fewer resources, manage risk proactively, respond to incidents faster and more effectively, and demonstrate compliance across increasingly complex operations. According to Mars company FSQA Director Vera Dickinson “coupling food safety with innovation is just a logical thing.”

The past year underscored a key truth: traditional, manual approaches to food safety management are no longer sufficient. As we move into 2026, FSQA executives are prioritizing digitization, data integration, and predictive technologies, not as “nice to have” tools, but as foundational capabilities for protecting public health and brand trust going forward into the future.

According to Brendan Niemira, IFT Chief Science and Technology Officer, “our food system is under pressure like never before. Climate change, resource scarcity, geopolitical disruptions, and rising consumer demands are creating unprecedented challenges. In 2026, those challenges will only intensify, but with those challenges comes opportunity for the food science community to turn uncertainty into innovation, complexity into clarity, and challenges into solutions.”

3 Persistent Pressures Defined Food Safety in 2025

1. Continued Supply Chain Complexity

While most problems that arose within the pandemic have eased, but with the U.S. tariffs policy changing so frequently, global sourcing still remains volatile. Ingredients often cross multiple borders, increasing exposure to contamination risks of country-specific germs, inconsistent regulatory oversight, and traceability gaps.

Larry Rehmann, former Diamond CEO an Senior Operations Leader said “food companies are in the business of managing risk.” FSQA teams are now responsible for monitoring risk well beyond their four walls and what they traditionally handled  and that has become an increasing focus as supply chain complexity has grown.

2. Heightened Regulatory Expectations

Regulators are demanding faster access to records, stronger preventive controls, and clearer accountability, all piled onto the plate of the FSQA. In the U.S., enforcement of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) continues to emphasize prevention, traceability, and rapid access to digital records. Similar regulatory trends are emerging globally.

3. Rising Consumer and Retailer Scrutiny

Word of food safety incidents travels faster than ever. Social media, online news, and retailer compliance programs amplify the reputational and financial damage of recalls, even when public health impacts are limited. As a result, food safety has become a board-level concern rather than a back-office compliance function.

When something goes wrong, almost everyone hears about it, all thanks to our age of exponentially increasing social media communication. On top of this, recent consumer trends have shown that the public has grown much more attentive to the quality of the food they consume in recent years and decades. This combined with the breadth of social media creates a difficult reputational playing field to please the public eye.

Food Safety by the Numbers: 2025 Snapshot

Despite advances in regulation and technology, foodborne illness remains a significant global public health issue. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 48 million people experience foodborne illness each year, resulting in approximately 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths annually. That’s about 7.25% of the U.S. population affected annually. These figures have remained relatively consistent year over year, underscoring the persistent nature of food safety risk. Peter Begg, Lyons Chief Quality Officer, underscores this truth. He noted that “microorganisms don’t care who you are.”

Globally, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 600 million people fall ill from contaminated food each year, leading to 420,000 deaths worldwide

Food recalls were also frequent in 2025, with pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, and undeclared allergens continuing to be among the leading causes of regulatory action.

Top Priorities for FSQA Leaders in 2026

As organizations look ahead, several priorities are emerging as central to food safety strategy.

1. Proactive Risk Management

FSQA leaders are shifting away from cause and effect, incident-driven approaches toward proactive risk identification. This includes earlier detection of deviations, real-time monitoring of critical control points, and the use of predictive analytics to prevent issues before they escalate into recalls. Vera Dickinson, Founder, InnovaQ & Former FSQA at Mars & Mondelēz, sees AI being the copilot for food safety leaders in this respect. Instead of worrying about job replacement with AI, Dickinson encourages food safety leaders to adopt it and use it to more efficiently manage risk.

2. End-to-End Traceability

Traceability expectations are expanding beyond “one step forward, one step back.” Regulatory agencies and trading partners increasingly expect organizations to demonstrate end-to-end visibility across suppliers, co-manufacturers, and distribution channels, communication across the board. Faster traceability has been shown to reduce recall scope and response time

3. Continuous Audit Readiness

Rather than preparing for audits periodically, FSQA teams are prioritizing continuous audit readiness. Bryan Armentrout, VP at Whitewave Foods, said, “audits main; risk assessments prevent.” Digital recordkeeping and standardized workflows are becoming essential as regulators expect immediate access to complete and verifiable documentation. This also goes a long way in the eye of the public, a sort of, “nothing to hide,” approach.

4. Workforce Enablement

Labor shortages and high turnover continue to challenge food safety operations. Leaders are investing in systems that simplify training, reduce manual paperwork, and enable frontline teams to execute food safety programs consistently and accurately. The real challenge comes from finding the balance of efficient and timely onboarding that leads to proficient and effective workers.

The Expanding Role of AI in Food Safety

Like a growing tidal wave, artificial intelligence is moving from experimental use cases to practical application within food safety programs, being deployed on the front lines more and more frequently.

AI-enabled systems are increasingly used for anomaly detection, identifying patterns or deviations in operational data that may signal emerging risk. Predictive models can help prioritize inspections, preventive maintenance, and corrective actions by analyzing historical and real-time data more timely and effectively than a human counterpart.

Additionally, AI is being applied to document intelligence, supporting faster analysis of audit reports, corrective action records, and compliance documentation. These tools help FSQA professionals focus less on administrative review and more on risk mitigation and continuous improvement, staying ahead of the curve.

However, AI is not replacing food safety professionals. Instead, it brings both worlds together, augmenting human expertise, enhancing visibility, speed, efficiency, and decision-making across complex food systems.

The Benefits of Technology for Food Safety Programs

Across the industry, digital transformation is delivering measurable benefits:

Faster recall response: Digital traceability systems enable organizations to identify affected products and locations in hours rather than days, again, allowing for much more proactive responses.

Improved compliance confidence: Centralized digital records reduce the likelihood of missing or incomplete documentation during inspections, keeping everyone on the same page.

Stronger cross-functional collaboration: Integrated platforms allow quality, operations, procurement, and leadership teams to operate from a single source of truth.

Roger Hancock, CEO, Recall InfoLink, went on the record as saying that “connected technology improves visibility, traceability, and recall response efficiency. While progress has been made, siloed systems and disconnected data make it harder to manage recalls effectively. The industry is finally shifting toward more responsive, tech-enabled food safety workflows”

Reduced financial impact: The Consumer Brands Association estimates that the average direct cost of a food recall can exceed $10 million, excluding long-term brand damage, making prevention and early detection financially critical.

Will Food Recalls Increase or Decrease in 2026?

The outlook for 2026 is mixed. In the short term, recall activity may remain steady or increase slightly, not necessarily because food is becoming less safe, but because detection, testing, and reporting capabilities continue to improve. Greater transparency often results in earlier identification of issues that previously went undetected. Think of it this way: a new wave of recalls in 2026 doesn’t signify steps backward, but rather shows the growth and advancement of food safety technologies doing its job better, catching already established food safety issues earlier and more frequently.

Over the longer term, organizations that adopt preventive, data-driven food safety systems early are expected to experience fewer large-scale recalls and more targeted product withdrawals, reducing both public health impact and business disruption.

What This Means for the Future of FSQA

Food safety in 2026 is no longer defined solely by compliance. The most resilient organizations are those that treat food safety as a strategic, technology-enabled function, supported by real-time data, predictive insight, and continuous improvement. Those willing to get ahead of the game will come out on top.

As regulatory expectations rise and supply chains grow more complex, the gap between digitally mature food safety programs and legacy, traditional approaches will continue to widen. For FSQA leaders, the path forward is clear: proactive risk management, enabled by data and technology, is essential to protecting both public health and brand trust in the years ahead.

How Item-Level Supply Chain Data Protects Food Safety and Reduces Waste

By George Dyche
No Comments

Every global supply chain faces constant pressures between economic shifts, tariffs, and logistics challenges. But disruptions in the food supply chain carry unique consequences. They don’t just impact bottom lines – they can lead to food insecurity, price spikes, widespread waste, and even create uncertainty about food safety. A single delay or temperature spike can mean spoiled produce, unsafe products, or empty shelves.

In the U.S. alone, food travels an average of 1,500 miles before reaching consumers – and every mile introduces risks. Managing this complexity requires more than just traditional tracking methods. Without accurate, item-level data, grocers and suppliers are forced to operate in the dark, making it difficult to respond quickly to these potential disruptions.

In a 2025 survey conducted by Impinj of supply chain leaders in the food and grocery sectors validates this challenge. While 90% of respondents believe their organization is equipped to drive accurate supply chain visibility, only one-third actually have a consistent, 360-degree, real-time view. This data accuracy gap makes it difficult to anticipate issues or respond quickly when disruptions occur, and it comes with a serious cost.

Closing the Data Accuracy Gap

To manage these challenges, many organizations are turning to item-level visibility technologies, such as RAIN RFID, which have become increasingly present across food supply chains. Unlike traditional barcodes that require manual line-of-sight scanning, RAIN RFID tags can be attached to or embedded in packaging and read in bulk. Employees can count thousands of items in seconds and generate rapid inventory reports, which increases the likelihood that they can identify errors before they become problems.

Major food retailers are already seeing results. Chipotle, for example, has adopted RFID to track food shipments to its 3,300 restaurants, while Kroger plans to deploy it enterprise-wide to support its omnichannel purchase strategy and improve inventory accuracy.

Technology like RAIN RFID isn’t just a tool, but a foundation for proactive management. More precise item-level information unlocks several opportunities for grocers, such as more targeted recalls, optimized inventory, and minimized waste. It is with this level of visibility that grocers can move from reacting to problems to strategically managing them – whether it’s responding to a major recall or reducing everyday waste.

Food Safety and the Cost of Blind Spots

Food safety has always been a top priority for grocers, especially as regulations evolve. Last year, the FDA postponed the compliance date for its Food Traceability Rule – a decision supported by many in the industry grappling with supply chain complexity. But delayed compliance requirements don’t eliminate risk.

Recalls are expensive, time-sensitive, and widely disruptive – and they illustrate how data blind spots can escalate quickly. In Q3 2025, the FDA logged 145 food recalls – its second-highest quarterly total since 2020.When grocers lack item-level visibility, even a single recall can trigger massive over-removal of products. Without knowing exactly which pallets or shipments are affected, or where those items are located on shelves, retailers may be forced to discard entire batches of product, including items that are safe. This over-removal not only amplifies financial losses but also undermines consumer trust and increases waste.

However, item-level visibility technologies like RAIN RFID enable retailers to gain a detailed record of each product’s journey from supplier to shipment to shelf. In the event of a recall, RAIN RFID can enable brands to remove only the affected items, reducing unnecessary food waste.

The Billions Lost to Everyday Waste

Routine spoilage and waste drain billions from grocery operations. Managing perishables across departments is inherently complex, and visibility gaps only make it worse.

ReFED, a US-based non-profit that works to reduce food loss and waste across the U.S. food system, estimated that the cost of surplus and wasted food for businesses and consumers reached a staggering $473 billion in 2022 alone. And last year, grocery and supply chain leaders felt the impact. According to Impinj’s 2026 report,  75% cited waste reduction as a major challenge, and respondents estimated losing an average of $79 million annually to food waste and spoilage.

Addressing these challenges requires more than just better forecasting. It demands item-level visibility into every product’s journey throughout the supply chain. RAIN RFID offers a practical way to close these visibility gaps, helping grocers track inventory and optimize it before it goes to waste.

Building a Smarter Food Supply Chain

While the food supply chain faces time-sensitive challenges and heavy regulation, innovative technologies are making it easier to manage operations, improve efficiency, and build resilience.

By leveraging item-level visibility through RAIN RFID, grocers and suppliers can close the data accuracy gap, create smart solutions for food safety, and reduce waste. The result is a smarter, more reliable food system that reduces losses and enables grocers to focus on delivering streamlined customer experiences.

 

Connected Factory, manufacturing

Predictive, Preventive, Powerful: The Future of Data-Driven Food Safety

By Wiggs Civitillo
No Comments
Connected Factory, manufacturing

Food safety is at an inflection point. Regulations are shifting, deadlines are moving, and technology is advancing faster than most organizations can keep up. The FDA’s FSMA 204 Traceability Rule is a clear signal: data is now central to compliance, consumer trust, and competitive resilience. But here’s the hard truth — extending compliance dates doesn’t extend the shelf life of risk. Outbreaks won’t wait until 2028. Consumer expectations won’t wait either.

The challenge before us is simple but daunting: can the food industry shift from a reactive mindset — responding after the fact — to a predictive and preventive one, powered by data?

From Reactive to Predictive

For decades, food safety has been a compliance exercise. Check the box, pass the audit, and move on. That model doesn’t work anymore. The industry has too much complexity, too many blind spots, and too much at stake.

The next era of food safety will be defined by predictive tools — artificial intelligence, machine learning, anomaly detection, and real-time visibility platforms that allow us to see risk before it becomes crisis. Imagine spotting a deviation in cold chain patterns before it leads to spoilage, or detecting unusual movement in supply chains that hints at fraud. These tools exist today, but they can only succeed if the data feeding them is complete, consistent, and trusted.

What’s Holding Us Back

So why aren’t we there yet? The barrier isn’t the lack of technology. The tools exist. The real problem is data fragmentation and trust.

  • Fragmentation: Every player in the food chain speaks a slightly different “data language.” A grower might record harvest time in one format, while a processor logs it differently, and a retailer doesn’t capture it at all. Even when companies are technically compliant, the data sets don’t align. What should be a continuous record ends up a patchwork that’s hard to stitch together in real time.
  • Manual Workarounds: In too many cases, people are still rekeying data from one system into another, or relying on email, PDFs, or even phone calls to close gaps. These workarounds introduce errors and slow response times. In a recall, hours matter — and a manual process can be the difference between containment and escalation.
  • Trust & Control: Many companies hesitate to share data because they fear it will be used against them — to negotiate harder, cut margins, or reveal competitive strategies. This lack of trust creates bottlenecks. Without a neutral space, every data exchange feels like a negotiation rather than a collaboration.
  • Short-Term Compliance Thinking: Too often, data-sharing investments are framed only in terms of passing an audit or meeting FSMA 204 requirements. That keeps the focus narrow: “What’s the minimum we need to do?” rather than, “How do we build a system that gives us real-time visibility, predictive insight, and long-term resilience?”

The result is that AI and machine learning don’t have clean, connected data to work with. Instead of unlocking predictive power, they reinforce the fragmentation — analyzing partial views that miss the bigger picture. In other words, bad or siloed data doesn’t just limit progress; it actively undermines the promise of next-gen tools.

What Needs to Change

If we want predictive, preventive, and truly powerful food safety systems, we need to rethink how we share data. That means moving from a “winner take all” mentality to an ecosystem mindset — where data isn’t a competitive advantage but a shared asset.

The key isn’t ripping and replacing existing systems. The food industry has invested heavily in ERP, WMS, quality, and compliance platforms — and those systems aren’t going anywhere. What we need is a neutral connectivity layer: a translator that lets each system keep doing what it does best, while still moving data securely and consistently across trading partners.

Neutrality matters. If one player owns the data exchange, others will always hesitate. But when no one company controls the pipes, collaboration becomes possible. That’s when we can unleash the full potential of AI, machine learning, and real-time analytics — because the data finally flows freely.

With connected, high-quality data, predictive models can detect anomalies earlier. Preventive actions become possible before outbreaks spread. And companies can move beyond compliance to true resilience — strengthening trust with consumers and trading partners alike.

The Call to Leadership

This isn’t about compliance dates or government mandates. It’s about leadership. The companies that lean into collaboration, prioritize interoperability, and invest in data quality will define the future of food safety. They will turn regulation into trust, compliance into resilience, and risk into competitive advantage.

The future of food safety is predictive. It’s preventive. It’s powerful. But only if we decide, as an industry, to break down silos and build systems that can truly talk to each other.

We don’t have 30 months to wait. The opportunity — and the responsibility — is right in front of us.

Track and Trace, traceability, supply chain

Traceability Is a Competitive Advantage, Not Just a Regulation

By Ellie Gabel
No Comments
Track and Trace, traceability, supply chain

Traceability adoption in the food and beverage industry is normalizing. It is expanding across jurisdictions, highlighting a desire for greater food safety. Legislators and technological innovations are in a perfect place to enable the most advanced solutions in history.

They will enhance operational productivity while promoting a trustworthy brand. Compliant companies are global health stewards, and customers demand food chain traceability to reduce risk. It is time to be an early adopter.

Regulatory Drivers in Food Chain Traceability

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in the U.S. asserts that the global supply chain is responsible for maintaining public health. Traceability is a central tenet, emphasizing more robust recordkeeping and faster removal of potentially contaminated products.

The European Union also requires traceability as part of the General Food Law Regulation. If the source presents a safety concern, manufacturers are required to recall it and notify the authorities to determine whether it demands greater attention. Traceability highlights how food safety is a national affair.

Food quality control guidelines vary worldwide, and many prioritize safety. The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points framework forces companies to identify potential biological, physical and chemical contamination sources. Analyses must cover the food’s origin, working environment and transportation medium. Other valuable guidelines include the Good Manufacturing Practices and nationally specific legislation. These have laid the foundation for new regulations.

Noncompliance will cost companies more than auditor fines. Quality oversights will begin without tracking traceability, driving customers to more adherent and reputable businesses. Additionally, organizations must deal with adverse health care implications if they neglect adherence.

Digital Tools Powering Modern Food Chain Traceability 

Data management, food manufacturing
Managing the data required for FSMA compliance is an ideal example of the importance of pursuing digital transformation in food manufacturing facilities. (Image courtesy of One Neck IT Solutions, LLC

Manual documentation is sufficient for tracking food. However, modern tech expedites the process and eliminates tedium, increasing the likelihood of continuous compliance. It allows companies of all sizes to commit more to enhancing traceability and maximizing the value of those efforts to achieve competitive advantages. These are some of the most notable:

  • Blockchain: Rapidly validates and uploads immutable digital certifications and logs transactions
  • The Internet of Things (IoT): Automatically senses and scans smart tags to enable real-time food monitoring
  • Cloud infrastructure: Seamlessly eliminates siloes and encourages collaboration through immediate information sharing
  • RFID tags: Quickly capture metadata about food sources
  • Enterprise resource planning systems: Immediately connects stakeholders throughout the food’s value chain in a single dashboard

Markets like the IoT will have an estimated potential worth of $12.6 trillion by 2030 because of the value it could bring to manufacturers worldwide.

Market Forces and Transparency as a Brand Differentiator

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 9.9 million people experience foodborne illness every year. As a result, customer expectations for transparency and safety are rising. Norovirus was the most common, leading to the most hospitalizations, with salmonella causing the most deaths.

Brands as large as Walmart are using traceability to obtain a market advantage. It leveraged blockchain in its food supply ecosystem to track mango sales in U.S. stores and pork in Chinese locations. The system used digital certificates to validate authenticity and shortened provenance identification from seven days to 2.2 seconds.

The research was an important food chain traceability win for Walmart because customers had all but lost faith in romaine lettuce after a massive recall. The trial was so successful that Walmart will require leafy green suppliers to use the system.

Food sellers also differentiate themselves with traceability because it supports farmers’ livelihoods. Improving detectability and tracking locates the illness source faster, narrowing it down to one or a few origins. Governments can communicate these concerns with a recall, potentially pulling products before they hit shelves.

The swiftness preserves farmers’ reputations, who may struggle with the changing growing seasons. Food manufacturers that protect stakeholders will also see their public image shift in their favor. The initiative promotes them as thought leaders and essential collaborators in the volatile industry.

Operational Benefits of Integrating Traceability

Integrating traceability offers organizations benefits beyond compliance adherence. Every advantage reinforces positive brand perception, creating additional competitive advantages.

Traceability streamlines supply chains and recall processes. The technology and data visibility speed up the triage phase, identifying contaminated products faster. Employees spend less time investigating and more time communicating with authorities and stakeholders about what matters most.

Additionally, data-driven decision-making will create cost savings. Companies no longer carelessly throw away products because they have a more precise idea of what is contaminated due to improved inventory management and live stock updates.

Turning Compliance Into Competitive Advantage 

Food chain traceability is an organizational growth tool. Many view it as a regulatory hurdle, but it promotes accountability and transparency. Customers and clients will appreciate the commitment to public safety and quality, deepening their brand loyalty to the most dedicated. Corporations adopting traceability guidelines early will reap these benefits and more, scaling into new heights of profitability and efficiency.

Raw chicken breast

How the Fieldale Farms Corporation Transformed Its Laboratory Operations with a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS)

By Janet Smith, Kim Waters
No Comments
Raw chicken breast

For over 50 years, Fieldale Farms Corporation has built a reputation as one of the world’s largest independent poultry producers. Rooted in Northeast Georgia, this family-owned business remains committed to providing premium, healthy poultry products to customers in over 50 countries. With the ability to provide product packaging, fully cooked products, and other specialty items, Fieldale is a trusted one-stop source for quality poultry products.

Under the brand Springer Mountain Farms, Fieldale was the pioneer in raising poultry without the use of antibiotics as well as the first poultry producer to be American Humane Certified. With cutting-edge technology and a rigorous commitment to safety, Fieldale ensures every product meets the highest standards of quality for customers around the globe.

For years, the Fieldale Farms laboratory team depended on Microsoft Access databases and Excel spreadsheets to manage its laboratory data. While these tools served their purpose in the past, growing testing demands soon exposed their limitations.

One significant challenge was the lack of a comprehensive audit trail, which made it difficult to trace data changes and ensure accuracy. Also determining whether all samples were processed, testing was completed and protocols followed required extensive manual effort.

“We could not easily trace what method had been used and the technicians responsible without investing significant time and effort,” said Janet Smith, Manager of the Laboratory at Fieldale Farms.

The Fieldale lab required a modern software solution to simplify sample login, enhance tracking, ensure accurate result entry with a detailed audit trail, support strong QA/QC processes, and enable seamless electronic data transfer with laboratory instruments.

To tackle these challenges, Fieldale Farms’ ISO 17025 and USDA FSIS-accredited lab adopted a cloud-based LIMS. With this upgrade, the lab now enjoys full traceability. “Now, we can trace the sample all the way from the front door to final reporting knowing the technicians, methods, and equipment involved each step without a lot of paperwork review,” said Smith.

“With the LIMS, we achieve audit trail capabilities that were absent before,” said Smith. Any changes to validated and/or approved results will spawn an audit trail.  The LIMS audit trail stores the original result, the date and time stamp of the original result, the person that entered the original result and the new result, the date and time stamp of the new result, the user that made the change, and finally the new result. In addition, the LIMS will prompt the user to enter a reason for the change of the result.

Generating reports used to be a tedious time drain, diverting valuable time and resources from core laboratory functions. “Before, I often had to recreate reports for each “new/different” type of sample/customer when I didn’t have a template that was acceptable due to the reports being “static” – containing specific methods that often didn’t fit every scenario,” said Smith. The LIMS allows for dynamic reporting adaptable to different testing methods and client requirements. Reporting is now faster, more accurate, and far less frustrating.

Fieldale Farms Laboratory Team 

Another key benefit for the lab is instrument integration. “Parsing files from the instrument directly into the LIMS database is also a favorite.  No more data transcription errors and it is quick,” said Smith. The LIMS integrates seamlessly with the lab’s Leco Protein Analyzer, PCR, and NIR Spectrometer.

By adopting a modern, cloud-based LIMS solution, the lab eliminated the need for expensive hardware investments and avoided the hassle of setup and maintenance. With no need for specialized IT staff, the system runs smoothly with automatic updates, reducing staff workload and minimizing downtime. The result: improved productivity, streamlined operations, and uninterrupted lab performance.

SGS, food safety

SGS Launches FSMA 204 Food Traceability Solutions

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
SGS, food safety

SGS, a testing, inspection and certification company, has launched comprehensive, integrated FSMA 204 Food Traceability Solutions to help food manufacturers and producers meet the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) latest Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) Section 204 requirements.

FSMA 204 aims to enhance food safety by improving supply chain traceability. It targets high-risk foods on the Food Traceability List and mandates detailed recordkeeping, traceability plans and rapid data sharing.

While the compliance deadline is January 20, 2026, many retailers are already seeking early adoption by suppliers.

Naghmeh Raiyat, Global Head of Food Assurance at SGS, said: “As the compliance deadline for FSMA 204 approaches, businesses face mounting pressure to enhance their traceability systems. Thanks to our extensive knowledge of FSMA requirements, we have developed a solution that will empower businesses with the tools and confidence to not only achieve compliance but also build more resilient and transparent supply chains. Ultimately, this marks another welcome step forward in strengthening consumer trust in food safety.”

Designed to address the increasingly complex compliance needs of stakeholders in the food industry, FSMA 204 Food Traceability Solutions combine FSMA 204 audits, training and the TRAKKEY digital traceability platform:

  • FSMA 204 audits: ensures that organizations meet the FDA’s rigorous traceability requirements. These audits focus on verifying the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of Key Data Elements (KDEs) and Critical Tracking Events (CTEs). By assessing the readiness of traceability systems, the audits support the swift identification and removal of contaminated food products to safeguard public health
  • FSMA 204 training: provides food businesses with the knowledge and skills to implement robust traceability plans. Available online and in person, these courses cover critical aspects of FSMA 204, including traceability rules, KDEs and CTEs, enabling organizations to navigate FDA inspections and meet regulatory demands confidently
  • TRAKKEY digital traceability platform: ensures real-time supply chain-wide visibility. Validated by billions of annual transactions, TRAKKEY integrates effortlessly into existing IT systems and workflows, offering a scalable and powerful tool to:
    • Enhance outbreak investigations: quickly identify contamination sources to enable faster responses
    • Reduce recalls: pinpoint contaminated products to minimize financial losses
    • Improve product information: insights into the origin, processing and distribution of food items
    • Streamline data sharing: efficient communication between trading partners

For more information about the FSMA 204 Food Traceability Solutions, please visit: https://www.sgs.com/en/services/fsma-204-food-traceability-solutions

Why now is the time to prepare for FSMA 204

By Geoff Olsen
No Comments

In recent years, food recalls have become a concern for the food and beverage (F&B) industry, with regulatory bodies tightening oversight as the number of recall-related incidents continues to rise. The F&B industry is no stranger to recalls, but recent trends indicate a steady increase in frequency, with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) issuing 313 recalls in 2023, an 8% increase from the previous year. This uptick can be attributed to various factors, including the detection of undeclared allergens, which made up almost half of food recalls last year, and contamination by harmful bacteria such as Listeria, Salmonella, and E. coli.

Consumers are taking notice of these continuous food recalls as a new Gallup poll revealed that Americans’ perspective of the grocery industry has turned negative due to inflation and food safety concerns. It also showed that, for the first time, Americans have more negative views (47%) than positive (33%) of the grocery industry. The growing number of recalls, plus consumer concerns, has intensified calls for stricter compliance and enhanced traceability within the food supply chain.

Major Changes Are Coming

These recalls have become a persistent public health problem, with over 1,100 Americans falling ill from foodborne illnesses linked to recalled products. However, significant steps are being taken to address these concerns in the next few years. To reduce the number of foodborne illnesses, the FDA introduced the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) 204, a regulation requiring F&B businesses to provide detailed traceability information within 24 hours of a recall. Starting in January 2026, this rule will focus on tracking food inputs from suppliers, enabling companies to pinpoint the source of contamination more efficiently.

FSMA 204 will bring major changes to the F&B industry by enhancing traceability requirements for high-risk foods. The rule mandates that companies must improve tracking across the supply chain to ensure key data points are recorded at critical stages of food production, processing, and distribution. This means F&B businesses must implement more stringent record-keeping processes, invest in technology for real-time tracking, and increase collaboration with suppliers to ensure compliance.

However, many organizations aren’t prepared to undergo the data process transformations needed to align with this new traceability rule. Below are a few actionable steps companies can take to prepare their supply chains for FSMA 204:

Investing in Solutions to Streamline Reporting

Despite the wide scale impact FSMA 204 will have across the F&B industry, a main challenge for companies will be updating and investing in new systems and processes to comply with the rule. FSMA 204 mandates that F&B companies provide detailed, accurate traceability data within a 24-hour window during a recall, which requires modern technology capable of handling real-time information. Many existing systems are outdated or not equipped to meet this new level of compliance. As a result, suppliers will need to adopt new software, train staff, and overhaul data management processes. These changes are certain to be time-consuming and raise operational costs. The complexity of this process, especially in a global and multifaceted supply chain, can be overwhelming without the right tools in place.

In addition, suppliers face the challenge of integrating these new systems with their broader supply chain networks. Ensuring seamless communication between suppliers, manufacturers, and retailers is essential for meeting the strict reporting timelines under FSMA 204. The coordination required to share and track data effectively across multiple partners adds an additional layer of complexity. Suppliers must also ensure their traceability solutions are scalable to accommodate future growth and evolving regulations, all while maintaining business continuity and protecting their bottom line.

Investing in scalable technology not only ensures compliance but also enhances business resilience. It provides better visibility into the supply chain, helping businesses respond quickly to disruptions, recall situations, or emerging food safety threats. Furthermore, these solutions enable businesses to streamline their data-sharing processes with trading partners, improving collaboration and reducing the time and resources spent manually documenting transactions.

While this can be costly, investing in robust technology systems and implementing effective food safety quality programs for employees provides the benefit of demonstrating a commitment to food safety and helps ensure smoother operations.

A few solutions suppliers can consider include advanced technologies like supply chain control towers and blockchain. These solutions provide real-time insights into inventory, orders, and potential disruptions, allowing companies to trace food origins and pinpoint contamination sources quickly. Supply chain control towers centralize data collection, management, and analysis, streamlining reporting processes, while blockchain offers a secure, tamper-proof record that ensures data consistency and transparency across all participants in the supply chain. By leveraging these technologies, suppliers can enhance traceability, reduce contamination risks, and build greater consumer trust.

Enhancing Data Consistency

Data consistency works in tandem with the integration of new technologies. The success of any traceability system under FSMA 204 relies on the consistency and accuracy of data collected throughout the supply chain. However, one of the most significant challenges businesses face is ensuring that data is recorded uniformly across different suppliers and systems. Inconsistent or incomplete data can lead to gaps in traceability, making it difficult to track products effectively or respond quickly to a recall. With the new regulation requiring detailed traceability information within 24 hours of a recall, any discrepancies or gaps in data could lead to delays in identifying contamination sources.

To ensure data consistency, suppliers can implement standardized data collection practices and utilize integrated technologies, such as supply chain control towers and blockchain. By implementing uniform data entry protocols across the entire supply chain, suppliers can avoid errors, discrepancies, and miscommunication that often result from inconsistent or fragmented data. Standardization helps streamline reporting and ensures that all parties—from suppliers to distributors—are working from the same set of accurate, reliable information.

Bringing Employees Along on the Journey

Investing in technology and ensuring data consistency are vital steps in preparing for FSMA 204, but they are only part of the equation. For these initiatives to succeed, businesses must also invest in their employees through training and education. Compliance with FSMA 204 requires everyone involved in the food supply chain to understand their role in the traceability process and the importance of accurate data reporting.

Training programs can be implemented at all levels of the organization to educate employees on the new traceability requirements and how they affect day-to-day operations. This includes not only teaching staff how to use new software solutions but also fostering a culture of accountability and food safety awareness, including setting up conversations with employees at every stage of the supply chain. Employees must understand that even minor data collection or reporting lapses can have significant consequences, from costly recalls to legal penalties and damage to brand reputation.

Continuous education is also key to keeping up with the evolving regulatory landscape. As food safety regulations change and new technologies emerge, businesses must keep their teams informed and updated. This can be achieved through regular workshops, webinars, or online courses that keep employees engaged and equipped with the latest knowledge.

The Cost of Non-Compliance

Failure to comply with FSMA 204 can lead to serious consequences for both suppliers and retailers. The FDA has the authority to enforce various penalties, including civil or criminal actions in federal court. It’s important to remember that this rule is considered mandatory, and parties will be under real pressure from the government if they don’t take the necessary steps to ensure the traceability requirements under this act. Non-compliance can lead to legal repercussions for both companies and suppliers in the form of lawsuits and litigation. In addition, the FDA has the authority to impose significant fines, sanctions, and criminal penalties for non-compliance.

Suppliers that are unable to meet FSMA 204 requirements may also face financial loss and damage to the company’s reputation as retailers and manufacturers may decide to switch to more reliable partners. Compliance penalties can also result in lost sales and brand damage that can impact consumers’ decisions.

Operationally, non-compliance with FSMA 204 can disrupt supply chain processes, leading to delays in identifying and resolving contamination issues. The inability to quickly trace food inputs can result in prolonged and costly recalls. Furthermore, non-compliance can strain relationships with trading partners who rely on accurate traceability data for product safety.

Preparing for FSMA 204 requires a multifaceted approach that combines technology, data standardization, and employee engagement. By investing in solutions that streamline reporting, enhance data consistency, and bring employees along through training and education, F&B companies can position themselves for success. These actions will help ensure compliance with FSMA 204 and lead to more efficient, transparent, and resilient supply chains, ultimately improving food safety for consumers.

Allergens

How Can US Food Businesses Navigate Labeling Regulations While Ensuring Compliance?

By Fred Whipp
No Comments
Allergens

With nearly 1 in 4 US citizens reporting a food allergy, the importance of mitigating against cross-contamination in-store and throughout the whole supply chain is becoming increasingly recognized. As reports of allergy tragedies related to food negligence continue to spiral, it begs the question as to whether the food industry is truly and wholly compliant with regulations, such as the FASTER Act.

The Food Allergy Safety, Treatment, Education and Research Act or FASTER Act marks the first time that food allergen labeling has been expanded since the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA). Launched on January 1st, 2023, in the US, the FASTER Act identified sesame as the ninth major food allergen, requiring manufacturers to list and specify the allergen’s presence in packaged foods.

Despite more rigorous regulations being put in place, cases relating to the misleading labeling of food products remain an issue. Earlier this year, the FDA issued a warning to Bimbo Bakery for falsely listing allergens, including sesame, on its food labels in the US. The warning comes amid reports of manufacturers adding allergens to product labels and recipes to rule out the risk of cross-contamination and cleaning procedures required by new labeling laws.

What is the FASTER Act?

The FASTER Act is both a recognition and validation of the seriousness of sesame allergies and sensitivities, promoting R&D for more effective diagnosis and prevention. The Act requires all restaurants and catering companies to ensure all food produced and packed for sale in the same premises has a complete ingredient list identifying all ingredients on the product label, including sesame, the ninth major allergen. It also requires that food manufacturers using sesame in their products ensure procedures are in place, such as thoroughly cleaning equipment across production lines, to avoid cross-contamination.

However, as we have seen, despite more stringent regulations being put in place, there have been numerous cases of manufacturers responding to new labeling laws by intentionally adding sesame as a listed allergen on previously allergen-free products to avoid the rigorous cleaning processes needed to avoid any points of cross-contamination. This practice has been criticized by various organizations, including most notably the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which filed a regulatory petition to the FDA in 2023, urging the FDA to address manufacturers intentionally or unnecessarily adding sesame to their formulations or product labels.

Despite the introduction of the Act, reports of negligence are still occurring, exposing a somewhat backward approach to the future of food safety. Not only does this actively risk undermining customer trust, but it also further limits food choices for individuals with allergies.

Keeping compliance central

To remain compliant, food providers and catering companies must establish robust channels of communication with their suppliers to remain informed of any changes to formulations or manufacturing and production processes. Alongside this, staff training in allergens is essential, making employees aware of changes to in-house menus, recipes or stock to provide a comprehensive allergen list to customers upon request.

Manually checking ingredients across every PPDS (prepacked for direct sale) item is not always practical in large facilities, especially when multiple players in the supply chain are involved. One of the most effective ways to maintain accurate ingredient and allergen details is with the help of specialist software that automates updates to nutritional and allergen information across various systems and sites, saving valuable time while ensuring labelling remains accurate by leveraging real-time updates and data.

The future of process management platforms

Food businesses must consider using process management platforms in 2024 to not only ensure but also document that staff follow protocol stringently. This could involve assigning employees digital checklists or logbooks to complete to make certain they have understood new formulations or changes to an existing one. By automating these processes, the highest levels of compliance will be met, both assuring head offices of proper in-house operations and providing records of this in case of inspection.

By integrating IoT technology embedded in process management platforms leveraging sensors, RFID tags and smart thermostats, food businesses can ensure the real-time monitoring of food storage conditions like temperature, humidity and expiration dates, as well as improved supply chain visibility and end-to-end traceability. Examples include cold storage facilities, delivery trucks and even stockrooms equipped with IoT sensors that systematically check, log and alert staff to changes in temperatures or changes to products in the stockroom. When employees are made aware of the storage location of food products and their various allergen content within the stockroom, cross-contamination is more easily avoided, allowing for the easier identification and separation of food products and taking extra precautions to ensure packaging is kept intact when handling.

Improved supply chain traceability

Integrating advanced technologies throughout the supply chain further safeguards against food contamination and promotes confidence, compliance and thus protection from food to farm. Radio frequency identification (RFID) tags document the complete journey from origin to destination by transmitting location and sourcing data to companies, updating them on the exact whereabouts of each product throughout its journey to them. This way, any issues relating to product recall or batch contamination can be traced back through the chain, identifying locations of potential food safety breaches, such as a facility also handling other allergen products.

Installing IoT cameras in manufacturing facilities further enforces quality control by inspecting food products, flagging lapses in improper packaging or the presence of allergens in the facility, automating much of the processes behind compliance with food safety practices. Although the upfront cost of implementing such technologies is expensive, businesses will, in time, reap the benefits of reduced labour costs and improved operational consistency, bolstering their supplier-to-customer relations.

Supply chain traceability is equally important when considering downstream supply chain operations, such as in-country transportation. IoT sensors fitted in refrigerated packaging or vehicles track shipment and courier conditions in real-time, automatically alerting drivers to allergen products on board or changes in temperatures. If the reason for improper storage conditions proves challenging to rectify, drivers will be redirected to nearby facilities where food products can be temporarily stored when equipment malfunctions to ensure the longevity, hygiene and quality of perishable goods.

Time saving without cutting corners

The FASTER Act recognizes and highlights the importance of strict quality control, regulating the accurate labeling of products and mitigating cross-contamination in manufacturing and production facilities. With the right technology and systems in place, equipping businesses with the necessary tools, such as mpro5, the task at hand becomes significantly more manageable.

Process management platforms that automate lengthy manual tasks provide time-saving benefits and further reduce the likelihood of businesses cutting corners when allergen labeling by enforcing compliance. By integrating technologies to create an IoT infrastructure from food to farm, all stakeholders will benefit from the assurance that their products are safe for consumption, whatever the dietary or allergen requirement.

By improving traceability, providing real-time data and ensuring correct storage, waste is reduced, and customer safety is rightfully centered at the heart of all operations. In doing so, food businesses can maintain compliance with safety standards and identify and address potential food safety risks within the wider supply chain whilst cultivating customer confidence and trust once the products are in-store.