Session 2: International conference "Tracking the future"

International Conference TRACKING THE FUTURE 10 – 11 November 2010

Centro Congressi Fondazione Cariplo Via Gian Domenico Romagnosi, 8, Milan (Italy)

***

NOVEMBER 10th, 2010 (afternoon)

Session 2 – Approaches to traceability and supply chain integrity

Objective of this session is to learn about experiences in other sectors and situations concerning selected pending issues in the field of supply chain traceability and integrity.

Programme

14:30 Introduction

Moderator: Rolf Larsen, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences From traceability to supply chain integrity David Martinez and Jose Miguel Pinazo, Asociaciòn de Investigaciòn de la Industria Agroalimentaria

14:50 Pending issues in traceability architectures and organisation Chairman: Tomasz Dowgielewicz, Institute of Logistics and Warehousing

Petter Olsen, Senior scientist, Nofima Marked Mark Zeller, GS1 Germany

15:40 Pending issues in ICT approaches to food chain integrity

Chairman: Vito Morreale, Engineering Ingegneria Informatica

Alberto Costanzo, Director of Automation & Control Department, Industries and Services Business Unit, Engineering.it

Open discussion on the topic

17:00 Pending issues in tracing food safety and quality Chairman: Jorge Molina, Asociaciòn de Investigaciòn de la Industria Agroalimentaria

Marco De Vito, Tecnoalimenti S.C.p.A. Guy Weiss, SICPA Product Security SA

17:50 Proposal of a Conference Declaration on “Actions for Future Food Chain Integrity” -

Raffaello Prugger, Tecnoalimenti 18.00 Discussion and Closure

A) Summaries

The Session 2 was focused on the main pending issues concerning supply chain traceability and integrity.

Jose Miguel Pinazo from ainia Technological Centre focused the first speech on the current trend, from traceability to food chain integrity. To consider the entire food chain as a single issue instead of using traceability systems in isolate companies would improve food safety and quality. Concerning consumers´ information, food chain integrity aims at working in both directions. On the one hand it will provide consumers with reliable and accurate information about the whole food chain. On the other hand, these systems will permit to collect consumers´ requirements that will push food companies within the supply chain to align their strategy so as to give the right answer to the demands (personalized products).

Standards are a key issue when traceability is done • Peter Olsen, Nofima´s researcher

One of the big challenges in traceability is the organization. After analyzing a large number of projects, researchers realized that in the food chain it has not been used the same batch number one step backwards and one forwards. To ensure reliable food traceability it is necessary a unique batch number. Standards are essential to guarantee a transfer of information. Currently, Nofima is working in the definition of a new traceability standard for fish products which is focused on unique identification. It could be extended to many different products.

• Mark Zeller, GS1 representative in Germany

GS1 is offering a novel recall service, B2B. Nowadays, in view of a recall, reactions start after 18 days, to recall all the products requires 42 days and only the 43% of all the recalled products are traced. B2B service to faster react to a recall, unique identification is a key issue for faster recall reaction and immediate contact to all involved actors. A question related to the integration with other services came up. The speaker concludes that it is possible to create different interfaces for other services Concerning companies´ requirements, the system requires critical information to run properly An attendee pointed out that companies already have recall systems and would like to know the benefit that B2B system offer. The speaker answered, unique easy system for the whole chain then all the stakeholders will be benefited

ICT issues in food traceability

Engineering Group presented the complexity related to logistics traceability. Some food examples showed how ad-hoc ICT solutions might be applied to guarantee reliable information transfer along logistics activities. RFID and special labels resistant to extreme situations, such as high temperatures, were shown. Some questions were asked to the audience and answered at the end of the presentations.

Is Internet a key tool to move from traceability to food chain integrity? Web oriented services will allow internal and external traceability information transfer in a cheap way. These systems will provide consumers with trustful information.

Common interchange language? There are many details that must be considered in standards not only the language. Unique identification is stressed.

Will external service providers be considered as a stakeholder to storage traceability information? At the moment external storage of traceability information is not considered. In a horizon of 3-4 years it could be feasible.

Internet of things? University of Parma pointed out that devices are required to control certain parameters to ensure mainly food quality and safety. Atos Origin indicated they are working on these issues.

Software as a Service Model (SaaS)

Pending issues in tracing food safety and quality

• Marco De Vito, Tecnoalimenti S.C.p.A.

The experience which was reported represents an example of how quality and safety has been included into the food chain. It deals with the food chain problem of physical transport of resources along the different phases of the distribution process. The agri-food chain presents strong criticalities due to the number of operators who take part in the different operative phases creating a gap in the preservation parameters of the transported goods. Through technologies such as passive refrigeration and modified atmosphere integrated in the transport unit, and through a new dimensional concept of the same unit, it was possible to control the biological processes of the quality decay. The shelf-life improvement and the consequent more efficient integrated system for moving the resources guarantee the preservation of the high quality of the perishable products on the remote markets. The technological solutions studied are referred to the hardware components for the transport and to the hardware architecture and management software and control of processes along the entire food chain. The reduction of the critical variables along the supply chain, together with the application of monitoring technologies and control of transportation parameters, are able to promote a new standard in the sector of logistic dedicated to the agri-food chain.

• Guy Weiss, SICPA Product Security SA

SICPA is a leading provider of security inks and security systems, protecting banknotes, documents of value and consumable goods. SICPA provides integral services and technology packages: • To deter and combat product counterfeiting, adulteration and diversion • To increase supply chain visibility, agility and security • To protect and inform consumers Consumers want assurances about the products they buy (quality, integrity, safety, conformity, origin and compliance). Nowadays traceability is mainly driven by risk. How to define safe and secure supply chain components: Identification, authentication, track, trace.

B) Presentations Index Speaker Presentation

Introduction

Jose Miguel Pinazo, Asociaciòn de Investigaciòn de la Industria Agroalimentaria (AINIA)

Pending issues in traceability architectures and organisation

Petter Olsen, Senior scientist, Nofima Marked

Mark Zeller, GS1 Germany

Pending issues in ICT approaches to food chain integrity

Engineering group: Open discussion on the topic

Pending issues in tracing food safety and quality

Marco De Vito, Tecnoalimenti S.C.p.A.

Guy Weiss, SICPA Product Security SA

Pg. 6

Pg. 12

Pg. 25

Pg. 37

Pg. 42

Pg. 48

From traceabilityto food chain integrity

From traceability to food chain integrity ainia

Jose Miguel Pinazo SanchezICT Departmentainia technological center Valencia Spain


Integrity issues in food chain

A number of critical food supply chain risk and security and integrity issues exist today

The food chain is highly vulnerable• Un-intentional risk / Intentional threats• The impact of an incident (intentional or unintentional) can be significant

Present methods for managing risk in the supply chain are poor• Majority of risk plans are manual• Visible integrated standards and monitoring mechanisms do not exist across the food chain• Risk monitoring data is rarely integrated into the plan• Trading partner relationships rely on “faith”

Compliance to law/standards• Adherence to several and diverse countries’ and retailers’ regulations (BRC, IFS, ISO…)• Lack of understanding of how this works (GS1,…)

Significant inefficiencies exist in the food supply chain• Increasing levels of complexity (Increasing demands from final consumers)• Global interdependencies are becoming more widespread• There is a lack of interoperability (EDI has not been adopted by SMES, ICT skills gives cause for concerns, e-business adoption depends on size and costs)

Increasing prevalent view that something must be done• Who, what, why, when, where? More research is needed


Food chain integrity: Main drivers

1. The emergence of the “Omni Consumer”: googledconsumer.Consumers have more control than ever re what, where and when tobuy. Empowerment of active consumers: prosumers.

2. Credence driven product innovation: “premium food”Product innovation has led to explosive growth in the sales of products with “credence attributes” (e.g., green, organic, fair, healthy, etc). As credence attributes are not readily verifiable by consumers, trust of the manufacturer and retailer plays an enormous role in the purchasing decisions of consumers.

3. Managing increasingly complex supply chainsGlobalization has “flattened” the world and allowed companies to outsource and globally source. As a result, it is increasingly difficult to establish transparency across the complex global supply chain. Companies are now faced with the enormous challenge of effectively managing critical data and information so as to establish visibility and enhance decision making.


Food quality and safety: a joint effort

Food safety is related to the presence of and levels of food-borne hazards in food at the point of consumption (intake by the consumer). As food safety hazards may be introduced at any stage of the food chain, adequate control throughout the food chain is essential. Thus,

Food safety and quality at the PoS is a joint responsibility that is principally assured through the combined efforts of all the parties participating in the food chain.

Technology plays today a fundamental rolein ensuring food safety and quality in companiesand will play an even increased role in the futureif extended to the entire food chain.

An interesting application of interoperability is intraceability software, which requires a stronginteroperability among the various playersin the supply chain.

means interaction (Source ISO 22000)


Food chain integrityFood chain integrity: Our vision

1. Leverage traceability to empower and protect the brand by means of making new claims (premium products). Traceability improves a company’s ability to deliver creditable information, and allow a digitalprint for food products at the PoS with a multi-valued logical information (sustainability, nutritional value, health-benefit, eco-packaging, …), which contributes to overall brand trust.

2. Integrate the physical and informational supply chain – companies that can capture, store, analyze, and communicate information about product sourcing, processing and movement across their supply chain will have a strategic advantage in the marketplace.

3. Proactively engage the stakeholders and consumer– reaching beyond direct supply chain participants to engage a broad set of stakeholders will move companies away from the traditional defensive posture toward a whole value chain perspective that is opportunistic andexpansive.

Food chain integrity


Food chain integrityFood chain integrity

Traceability systems have served as that source of trusted information allowing companies to connect with concerned consumers, and realize other benefits

Food chain integrity allows companies to support the creation of integrated solutions throughout the supply chain to improve visibility and efficiency of the logistics, empower the brand to make new claims, certify product authentication, ensure consumer safety, facilitate product recall and withdrawal and comply with regulatory requirements pertaining to food safety and quality.


las asistencias tecnológicas (ATE) son servicios orientados a un resultado a

corto plazo, en los que ponemos nuestros conocimientos y experiencias al

servicio de la empresa


Food chain integrity becomes so a property of the food chain. This property could be defined as follows:

”is the capacity of an entire food chain to perform its expected function without deliberate or unintended failure with both a push (displaying their commitment to omni-consumer) and a pull approach (consumer oriented innovation)”.

Food chains with such integrity features will be consumer oriented, transparent, sustainable, competitive and certifiable.

They will assure safety to the European citizen, will satisfy consumer expectations and will document product quality on the markets with a readily and easy verification by consumers/3rd parties.


Food chain integrityFood chain integrity

TRACEBACK has introduced a new approach, based on traceability extended to food safety and quality, for connecting food chain players and for ensuring food chain integrity

But, there is a long path to walk

Time has arrived to merge all e-business infrastructures (traceability, food safety certifications, e-procurement, e-refurnishing, logistics, CRM, PLM…) into a single supply chain e-platform capable of providing a tool to govern the entire supply chain as a single “cooperative entity”reducing transaction costs and redundancies while boosting quality, safety, efficiency and competitiveness

Player A

Player B

Player C

INFORMATION HIGH WAY *

TRACEBACK approach

INFORMATION HIGH WAY *


Food chain integrity ecosystem

non food based benefits consumer-oriented innovation

ubiquitous services (physical&logical coupling)

Food Chain Integrity Backbone

ERP, TIS, QMS, MES, SCMsystems of supplychain players

The Food Chain Backboneprovides the unifyingframeworkfor data capture, store, access, aggregate andtransmissionacross the food chain

The data warehouse builds a complete end-to-end profile& audit trail of alltransactions along thesupply chain: productmovements, attributechanges and processingactivities

PUSH + PULLgreen safe healthy free of personalized ….fair

Stakeholders 3rd parties

Common datastandards

Distributed ITinfrastructure

Executivesupport


Food chain integrity ecosystem

Traceability core servicesTracing, TrackingExternal, Internal,Quality data...

Rem

ote

au

ditin

g o

n

pro

vid

ers

Crisis M

anag

emen

tRecall/W

ithdra

wal

Certificatio

n to

ol an

d

bran

d

Shared

QA

pro

toco

ls

Orig

in au

then

ticity

Iden

tity p

rese

rvatio

n

Sh

elf life

syn

cron

ism

Mass b

ala

nce

Fre

e o

f XY

Z

…



We envision an inter-organisational system (IOS) system that provides food companies with the ability seamlessly interoperate with other agile enterprises, and be able to adapt to actual or imminent changes, instead of making some product or providing some service in the most efficient way, then displaying their commitment to consumer safety

Food Chain Integrity goes beyond current approaches in 3 important ways:

1. While food quality/product safety is critically important, FCI adopts a more strategic view of transparency and leverages the availability of information to empower products and brands to more credibly market functionality and responsibility claims.

2. It requires a more integrated approach to transparency that addresses the dynamics of today’s complex physical and informational chains.

3. Internet-based IOSs are more SME-centric (Hughes, Golden & Powell 2003) since they overcome the need for the installation of proprietary technology and their associated set-up costs.


Thanks a lot for your attention!

Jose Miguel Pinazo SanchezInformation and Communication Technologies Department

[email protected]

Petter Olsen 10/11/10 - ©Nofima Market - May be copied if source is acknowledged

”Tracking the Future” International ConferenceMilan, November 10th 2010

ISO/DIS 12875 and 12877 seafood standardsTemplate for further food standardization work

Senior scientist Petter OlsenNofima


Nofima is the newly formed fusion of almost all Norwegian food research institutes (incorporatingAkvaforsk, Matforsk, Norconserv and Fiskeriforskning) and covers all food sectors and links in the value chain.

Nofima Market is situated in Tromsoe and carries out R&D work related to economics, marketing, logistics, rationalisation and traceability of food products.


Same date/time

Production

Same raw materials

Batch 112

Same production run

Shipping

Same number on all?

Batch 112

Batch 112Batch 112

Batch 112

Batch 112Batch 112

Batch 112

Batch 112Batch 112

Batch 112

Batch 112Batch 112

Petter Olsen 10/11/10 - © Nofima Market - May be copied if source is acknowledged

Batch traceability has built-in limitations


Batch 112

Batch 112Batch 112Batch 112

Batch 112Batch 112Batch 112

Batch 112Batch 112


TU 11209

TU 11202TU 11206

TU 11212

TU 11205TU 11208

Need uniqueIdentification!

Systematic information loss


Internal and chain traceability

Pro duct ion

Raw material batch 151

Raw material batch 156

Ingredient batch 915

Ingredient batch 838

Production batch 211

Production batch 212

Internal

Trade units 19768

Trade units 19432

Trade units 19001

Trade units 18851

Trade units 18771

Trade units 16518

Trade units 16515

Trade units 15510

Received

LU

Trade units 29702

Trade units 28866

Trade units 27654

Trade units 25009

Trade units 23174

Trade units 22651

Trade units 22199

Trade units 21551

Sent

LU


These are the units that we need to trace!


Why chain traceability standards?• Reduce workload for food business operators (FBOs);

avoid large sets of conflicting documentationrequirements.

• Increase transparency and re-use of data; data delivered by different FBOs will have standard meaningand measurement

• Enable benchmarking between same type FBOs• Enable common understanding and automatic

translation of product and process parameters• Establish ”unique identification on lowest level” and

”documentation of transformations” principle to enabletracking and tracing without systematic informationloss; this to establish virtual infrastructure to enable all the previously mentioned drivers (food safety, legislation, labour/cost reduction, etc.)


Standards on what level?• Physical connection – use of internet,

phone, fax, dedicated line, …

• Message type – UN/EDIFACT, XML, UBL, GS1 XML, EPCIS, …

• Parameter naming

• Parameter content

New ISO standards


Enable Electronic Data Interchange

• Standardize practice

• Standardize EDI / XML

• Standardize meaningof words (ontology)

Standardization essentialto enable chain

communication by electronic means



Background - TraceFish standards• CEN Workshop Agreement - CWA 14659 (2003)

Traceability of fishery products — Specification of the information to be recorded in farmed fish distribution chains

• CEN Workshop Agreement - CWA 14660 (2003) Traceability of fishery products — Specification of the information to be recorded in captured fish distribution chains

• Developed in EU-project ”TraceFish” 2000-2003• Involvement and feedback from more than 100

stakeholders• Translated into JA, NO, SP, VI • Became CWA for 3 years, renewed as CWA for

another 3 years (2007-2010)


ISO seafood traceability standards• ISO/DIS 12875 “Traceability of finfish products —

Specification on the information to be recorded in captured finfish distribution chains”

• ISO/DIS 12877 “Traceability of finfish products —Specification on the information to be recorded in farmed finfish distribution chains”

• 3 year development track, Nov. 2008 – Nov 2011• 1st meeting, Madrid Nov. 2008, standards established• 2nd meeting, Nanaimo Oct. 2009, standards refined• 3rd meeting, Thailand Nov. 2010, final version• Formal hearing, voting and acceptance by Nov. 2011


ISO/DIS 12875 applies to:• fishing vessels• vessel landing businesses / auction

markets• processors• transporters and storers• traders and wholesalers• retailers and caterers


ISO/DIS 12877 applies to:• fish feed production• breeders• hatcheries• fish farms• live fish transporters• processors• transporters and storers• traders and wholesalers• retailers


Conclusions from process so far• Standards like the ones proposed are needed• Should be based on unique identification on

lowest level, i.e. the smallest unit that will not be split up, for example a package, a box etc.

• Standards will enable electronic recording and communication, but not require it

• The standards should not have GS1 codes or any other proprietary codes as a prerequisite

• The scope is only finfish, not molluscs, prawn, crawfish, etc.

• Parameters are categorized into ‘shall’, ‘should’ and ‘may’; the last only informative


Unique identification principleThe fundamental principle of chain

traceability is that trade units (TU) shall be identified by unique codes (UI). This

code may be globally unique in itself (for instance the GS1 SGTIN or EPC

numbers) or it could be unique in that particular scope only, which means that

there should be no other TUs in that part of the chain that may have the

same number.


The ”Shall” categoryThis category contains recordings related to identifiers and transformations that is necessary in order to trace the history, application or location of an entity. This means the unique identity of trade and

logistic units, as well as the dependencies between the identifiers of inputs and

outputs in a process.Data elements relating to product properties are not in this

category, even if these properties are essential for other purposes like product documentation or food safety.


The ”Should” categoryThis category contains parameters that

describe and provide supporting information on the units being traced. Common parameters required by law,

commercial requirements or good manufacturing practices are recorded, but

only where an established international format or data list for the value exists.

This includes parameters like "species", "ID of food business", "production date", etc. Part of certification.


The ”May” categoryThis category contains parameters that

describe and provide supporting information on the units being traced. It contains

parameters that are not part of the "should“ category, that may still be useful or relevant to

record. It also contains parameters that are deemed important, but where no established

international format or data list exists.

The "may" category is informative only, and itis included to enable use and uptake of the

standard. Not part of certification.


“Should” and “May”categories

Chain traceability standard:The “Shall”

category


• Belgium• Canada• Denmark• Finland• France• Iceland • India • Italy• Korea• Malaysia

• Mauritius• New Zealand• Norway• Pakistan• South Africa• Spain• Thailand• UK• USA• Vietnam

ISO TC234/WG1 active participants


ISO TC234 vote on 1st draft• Belgium, YES• Canada, NO• Denmark, NO• Finland, YES• France, NO• Iceland, YES• India, YES• Italy• Korea• Malaysia

• Mauritius• New Zealand• Norway, YES• Pakistan• South Africa, YES• Spain, YES• Thailand, YES• UK• USA• Vietnam


ISO TC234 vote on 2nd draft• Belgium• Canada, YES• Denmark, - / YES• Finland, YES• France, YES / -• Iceland, NO• India, NO / YES• Italy, YES• Korea, YES• Malaysia, YES

• Mauritius, - / YES• New Zealand• Norway, YES• Pakistan, YES / -• South Africa, YES• Spain• Thailand, YES• UK• USA• Vietnam, YES

12 - 1½




If the drafts become ISO standards• Note that ISO standards are not legal

requirements (unless a country decides this)• ISO standards are voluntary industry

standards• Buyers of fish products may give preference to

suppliers who implement the standards• Certification may happen on these standards• Buyers of fish products may require their

suppliers to be certified according to these standards


Thank you foryour attention

Petter [email protected]

GS1 Recall Service - Introduction to a Standardized Service

Mark Zeller | GS1 Germany GmbH | 10.11.2010 | 2

Agenda

1. General information

2. What is the GS1 recall service – a short introduction

3. Approach by GS1 Germany - Feedback of retailers and suppliers

4. Opportunities


Recalls in November 2010

Recall of 67,500 chest freezers with risky capacitors that could overheat

Recall of 67,500 chest freezers with risky capacitors that could overheat Fire danger in third party

iPhone power adaptersFire danger in third party iPhone power adapters

retailer recalls sausages with salmonellaretailer recalls sausages with salmonella

Cheese manufacturer recalls cheese that might contain glass pieces

Cheese manufacturer recalls cheese that might contain glass pieces


Recalls in Europe in 2009

Source: AFC Management Consulting

Total number of recalls in 2009:

4.724

3.117 food recalls

1.607 non-food recalls


Recall vs. Withdrawal

Recall (public):Product has already reached the consumerConsequences:

Information of public authorities (suppl.)

Information of the receivers (suppl. )Information of the customers (i.e. press releases)Removal of the products off the shelvesDestruction of the products or return to the suppliers

Withdrawal (not public):

Return of products that have not even reached the consumerConsequences:Information of the receivers (suppl. )Physical removal of the productsReturn to supplier

B2B: same communication channels and pieces of information for recalls und withdrawals


Time to Act on A Recall

18 days to sense & act on a recall

42 days to complete the recall

only 43% of recalled products with health & safety concerns are traced


Main Issues with Today’s Processes

Suboptimal notification processes

Inaccurate announcements

Failure to validate product removals

Use of proprietary systems

Lack of automation


What is the GS1 Recall Service?

A web-based, B2B-communication service which enables trade partners to exchange standardized recall

information quickly, excactly and safe.


What is the GS1 recall service?

Supplier 1

Supplier 2

Supplier n

Retailers can still use their existing

systems

Exchange of standardized recall information

Retailer 1

Retailer 2

Retailer 4

Retailer n

Retailer3


What is the GS1 recall service?

Supplier 1

Distributor n

Retailer 1

Retailer n

Retailer 2

Retailer 3

Retailer1

Distributor 1

Change of the role



Initiator (QA manager)

Approver (QA director)

Receiver

Recall details

Target groups

Attachments

Ok

Ok

Ok

Recall is online!

Request by mail for approval


Features of the GS1 Recall Service

Standardizes the recall process between suppliers, distributors and retailers

Uses GS1 standards (i.e. GDTI)

Improvement of efficiency

Only authorized persons are able to initiate recalls

Recalls can be forwarded to selected target groups

Attachments can be added

Live status of current recalls



Access restricted to authorized subscribers with valid User ID and Password

Comprehensive verification process by GS1 before registration is approved

Self-registration allows subscribers to select authorized internal access

Subscribers assign roles and permissions to internal users

Service requires two separate and authorized users to issue a recall



Unique Identification of..

Business partners via Global Location Number (GLN)

Affected products via Global Trade Item number (GTIN) and e.g. batch

Each recall via Global Document Type Identification (GDTI)

The system records:

When a recall notification is sent

When a recall notification is opened

Who opened a given recall notification

When a recall was modified or updated

All issued recalls are permanently stored electronically



Already introduced in Canada and the United States

Pilots in Australia and New Zealand (start approx. in 2011)

GS1 US: More than 500 participants

Validating processes in several European and Asian countries

GS1 Germany plans to start with a requirements workshop in Q1 2011.


The Two-Stage Process

getting a better overview of the service and the national market

information of the requirements

getting more familiar with the service itself

preparation of the business case

minimization of the investment risk


Experiences with Retailers and Suppliers

Retailers:Hot topic

Interest in improvement of internal and/or external recall processes

Different requirements from different retailers

International interoperability (multinational retailers)

Request for the use of GS1 standards

chicken-and-egg principle

SME should participate as well in the service

Confidence in the role of GS1 in that service

Privacy reasons

Standardization reasons


Experiences with Retailers and Suppliers

SuppliersHot topic and interest in introduction

Preference for one solution with all retailers

Special interest from multi-national companies

Request for the use of GS1 standards

Request for connection to data pools for improved usability


GS1 Recall Service – Keys of Success

Solid base of retailers and suppliers

Well-balanced price structure

No barriers for SME to joinFinancial base to maintain and develop the service

GS1 recall service needs to fit the main requirements of the users

Current internal systems can still be used

Opportunity of interfaces to existing (internal) systems

Continuous development of the service


GS1 Recall Service – Business Opportunities

Extension of the service to additional branches and industries

Added value by connecting data pools to the service

Added value by web 2.0 services and mobileCom services

Offer of recall consultancy services

Development of additional services

Offer of recall training courses


Conceptual Opportunities

Distributor

internal handling of the recall process (supplier)

Possible Roles:

initiator: pre-suppliers

receiver: QA

Supplier Retailer

internal handling of the recall process (retailer)

Possible Roles:

initiator: retailer‘s head office

distributor: (domestic) sales Line

Receiver: (domestic) storeGS1 recall service

framework

Framework can be used for customized, internal recall processes

Interface to the GS1 recall service


Opportunities of Introducing the GS1 Recall Service in Europe

Suppliers: Increasing efficiency for multi-national companies by using one (similar) service as a B2B-communication platform

Retailers: Solution for multi-national retailers by

introducing a core recall system

Introducing interoperability of the domestic systems

Recall

RecallRecall

Recall

Recall

Recall

Recall

Recall

Recall

Recall

Recall

Recall

Recall

Recall

Recall

Recall

Recall

Recall

GS1 Recall Service

Contact DetailsMark Zeller Sales + Implementation

GS1 Germany GmbH

T: +49 221 94714-348

[email protected]

ICT issues in food traceability

Vito MorrealeHead of Intelligent Systems Unit

Research & Development DepartmentENGINEERING [email protected]

Milan, 10th November 2010

Agenda

• Introduction

• ICT challenges and open issues in food chain traceability: experiences and lessons learned

• Questions on ICT issues in food traceability

The rules

• 5 questions

• 5 answers/comments/opinions per question

• 1 minute per answer

Q1

• Internet and the Web offer many opportunities, services, and information that traceability processes and operations could benefit from and exploit

o Is this the key to move from traceability to food chain integrity?

o What’s the meaning of Web-oriented (not only Web-based) traceability?

Q2

• Common interchange language:

– It is not mandatory: interoperability can be achieved with other tools

o is it the best tool to achieve interoperability among players and their systems?

o Is a standard needed?

Q3• External service providers:

– Services: from traceability-specific (reception, dispatch, alert, tracing, …) to very general (information storage, security, mail, maps, messaging, …)

– External = specialized players not belonging to the product supply chain

– Result: service value networko Could Google services be useful for traceability? o Could reliable and certified data storage be more appropriate

to manage traceability information? o Could business intelligence benefit traceability? o Are we (developers) ready for such a model?o Do food companies perceive the real value of such a model?

Q4

• Internet of Things:

– not only, as today, computers, printers, actuators, mobile phones, but any object around us, anywhere, at any time, creating an “universally addressable continuum”

o What is the impact on traceability processes? Or we just need some devices to integrate?

Q5

• Software-as-a-Service (SaaS): software on demand, deployed over the internet, "pay-as-you-go" model.

o Which is the role of SaaS, cloud computing and services in future traceability systems?

o What is the effect on business models of traceability system developers as well as food companies?

Thanks for your attention!!!

Vito MorrealeHead of Intelligent Systems Unit

Research & Development DepartmentENGINEERING [email protected]

??

Un innovativo Un innovativo MarketPlaceMarketPlace per le produzioni per le produzioni agroalimentari fresche di qualitàagroalimentari fresche di qualità

Il Posizionamento strategico del Progetto

AgricolturaAgricoltura FoodnetXchangeFoodnetXchange

Produzione Produzione AgricolaAgricola

Materie prime e Materie prime e mezzi tecnicimezzi tecnici

Trasformazione Trasformazione AlimentareAlimentare

DistribuzioneDistribuzione

Distribuzione Distribuzione alimentarealimentare

Supply ChainManagement

B-to-B B-to-C

e-ProcurementSoftware Category

Management

CRM

•UNIVERSITA’

•IMPRESE DELLA LOGISTICA

•IMPRESE DELLA DISTRIBUZIONE

•IMPRESE DELLA PRODUZIONE

•IMPRESE DI SERVIZI TECNOLOGICI

•PIATTAFORMA INFORMATICA

•APPARATI DI TRASPORTO

•SISTEMI DI CONDIZIONAMENTO

Enti e società partecipanti

I Fattori strategici del FoodNetXcange

• FRAZIONAMENTO

• QUALITA’ E FLESSIBILITA’

• SICUREZZA

• SERVIZIO LOGISTICO “ALL INCLUSIVE”

• INTEGRAZIONE CON I PROCESSI AZIENDALI

• VELOCITA’ DI TRASPORTO

• Allargamento del sistema distributivo ad imprese con volumi di produzione medio-bassi(minore volume-maggiore frequenza)

• Adattamento delle condizioni di trasporto in funzione dei volumi e delle diverse caratteristiche dei prodotti

• Continuità di condizionamento dal magazzino del produttore fino al punto vendita, diminuendo il ruolo di soluzioni di packaging e stoccaggio condizionato

• Sviluppo di una piattaforma di tecnologie e servizi dedicati alle imprese agroalimentari indipendentemente dalle dimensioni

• Gestione di riordini, integrazione con il processo produttivo, logistico

• Mantenimento delle caratteristiche quali-quantitative dei prodotti deperibili per mercati remoti

Obiettivi specifici del progetto

1.1. Analisi delle filiere e mappa dei processi Analisi delle filiere e mappa dei processi intraintra ed intered inter--organizzativi organizzativi

2.2. Modelli e sistemi per la rintracciabilitModelli e sistemi per la rintracciabilitàà3.3. MarketplaceMarketplace DigitaleDigitale4.4. Meccanismi e sistemi intelligenti per lMeccanismi e sistemi intelligenti per l’’automazione dei automazione dei

processi di riordino, di identificazione e di distribuzione processi di riordino, di identificazione e di distribuzione dei prodotti agroalimentari lungo la filieradei prodotti agroalimentari lungo la filiera

5.5. Modelli logistici per il trasporto intermodale delle Modelli logistici per il trasporto intermodale delle produzioni deperibiliproduzioni deperibili

6.6. Sistemi di contenimento innovativoSistemi di contenimento innovativo7.7. Sistemi innovativi di condizionamentoSistemi innovativi di condizionamento8.8. Miglioramento delle caratteristiche e della Miglioramento delle caratteristiche e della shelfshelf--lifelife di di

prodottoprodotto

Il sistema complessivoPIATTAFORMA INFORMATICA

PIATTAFORMA RFID

MODULI E PIANALE

SCAFFALETELEMATICO MARKETPLACE

SCARICOHANDLING IN PIATTAFORMASCARICORicomposizioni di caricoCARICAMENTOCARICAMENTOCARICAMENTOPUNTO VENDITA

ALTA QUALITA’

PUNTO VENDITAMAGAZZINO

StabilizzazioneStoccaggio in unità

condizionata

MAGAZZINO

HUB LOGISTICO TRASPORTO

TRASPORTO

PIATTAFORMA DISTRIBUZIONE

TRASPORTO PIATTAFORMA DISTRIBUZIONE

SISTEMA DI DISTRIBUZIONE TRADIZIONALE (Le bande rosse rappresentano i punti di cricità per il prodotto nel sistema distributivo)

Grafico di decadimento dei parametri di qualità del prodotto

Grafico di decadimento dei parametri di qualità del prodotto

SISTEMA DI DISTRIBUZIONE INNOVATIVO

Time

Time

[T°, P, atm]

[T°, P, atm]

[T°, P, atm]

[T°, P, atm]

[T°, P, atm]

[T°, P, atm]

[T°, P, atm]

[T°, P, atm]

[T°, P, atm]

[T°, P, atm]

I RISULTATI SUI PRODOTTIottenuti attraverso il sistema innovativo (modulo in atmosfera modificata+temperatura controllata)

600%133%600%133%105%700%133%133%300%20%20%20%

MELANZANE FRESCHEZUCCHINE FRESCHECARCIOFI FRESCHIPOMIDORO FRESCHIUVA DA TAVOLAPIZZATORTA ORATA SPIGOLASALAME TIPO FIOCCOMORTADELLAPROSCIUTTO COTTO

180%180%180%180%250%

244%520%460%675%

1233%

700%

ZUCCHINE GRIGLIATEMELANZANE GRIGLIATECARCIOFI BOLLITICARCIOFI GRIGLIATIPEPERONI GRIGLIATIPOMODORI SEMIDISIDRATATIPASTA FRESCAPASTA STABILIZZATAPASTA ALL'UOVOPANE FOCACCIA CON POMODORO

incrementoSelf Life

incrementoShelf Lifees. da 5 a 14 giorni

Il modello logistico distributivo

HUB

HUB

HUB

HUB

HUB

HUB

HUB

HUB

HUB

HUB

HUB

HUB

1) LA PIATTAFORMA INFORMATICAE-Business suiteSistema informativo distribuitoSistema informativo di supporto alla rintracciabilitàSistema di pianificazione del trasporto intermodale

2) IL SISTEMA DI RINTRACCIABILITA’ RFIDMeccanismi e strumenti di comunicazione wireless

3) LO SCAFFALE INTELLIGENTE4) I MODULI DI TRASPORTO

Sistema di refrigerazione controllataApparato di condizionamento dell’atmosfera

5) IL PIANALE INTERMODALE

I RISULTATI TECNOLOGICI

Problematiche di ricerca aperte

• Consolidamento tecnologico• Standardizzazione internazionale• Integrità di filiera• Ridisegno della catena del valore• Modelli logistici tailorizzati per il comparto alimentare

=Complessità di integrazione negli scenari operativi

SICPA PRODUCT AND BRAND PROTECTIONMULTI-LEVEL APPROACH FOR MANAGING SECURITY AND PRODUCT QUALITY IN SUPPLY CHAINS

Presented by Guy Weiss – Supply Chain Solutions Leader

TRACEBACK – Milan – 10 November 2010

© 2010, SICPA Product Security SA, Switzerland2

• Global company founded in 1927

• Leading provider of security inks and security systems, protecting banknotes, documents of value and consumable goods.

• Based in Lausanne, Switzerland

• Offices and manufacturing sites in 22 countries

• Close to 2500 employees of over 45 nationalities

SICPA – DECADES OF SECURITY EXPERTISE


• Provider of integral service and technology packages:• To deter and combat product counterfeiting,

adulteration and diversion• To increase supply chain visibility, agility and security • To protect and inform consumers

• Main sectors of activity:• Food & Beverage

• Health & Personal Care

• Consumer Products

SICPA PRODUCT AND BRAND PROTECTIONFROM PRODUCERS TO CONSUMERS: BUILDING A CHAIN OF TRUSTTM


FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN – PRESENT SITUATION

• Consumers want assurances about the products they buy (quality, integrity, safety, conformity, origin and compliance).

• Food-borne illnesses and poisoning involving contamination, adulteration, and counterfeits have called for strengthened regulations and manufacturing practices.

• Traceability is mainly driven by risk. Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) and traceabilityare both leveraged to identify and control risks.


FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN – PRESENT SITUATION

• At present, “external” traceability (i.e. among different stakeholders of the supply chain) does not exist

• “Internal” traceability programs rely mostly on lot codes, hence, on proprietary company codes

• Lot may have different meanings among stakeholders

• There is a lack of standardized methods for capturing and sharing data

• Many companies have a one step forward, one step backward traceability in place, but have not extended it beyond.


FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN – REGULATORY ASPECTS

• TendencyEach facility handling a product should record its specific transactional portion of the information

• HACCP and traceability are closely connected. While HACCP is usually seen as an internal matter, traceability should ideally span the whole flow of the supply chain

• Regulation EC/178/2002: (came into force in 2005) operators shall be able to identify any stakeholder from whom they have purchased and where their products have been supplied. Food should be adequately labeled.


FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN – REGULATORY ASPECTS

In North America• FDA Bioterrorism Act: food companies are requested to be

registered and must keep records of the produces they receive/sell (one step up and one step back).

• Produce Traceability Initiative: Coding (GTIN, Serial Shipping Container Code - SSCC) of every case throughout the entire supply chain by the year 2012.

• Food Safety Enhancement Act, HR2749,(USA 2009) requires food facilities to have safety plans in place in order to mitigate hazards. Once enforced, all actors will have to maintain pedigree of the products.


FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN DRIVERS FOR SAFE AND SECURE SUPPLY CHAIN

1. Risk management • Market access and regulatory compliance

Unhampered access to market where traceability is mandatory

• LiabilityReduce the probability and consequences of contamination (HACCP, recall process). Ability to prove that a given product is or is not the source of public health problem

• Brand protectionMitigate financial losses and negative impacts on brand image arising from counterfeiting, adulteration, diversion, lower product quality and fraudulent use of a brand name.


FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN DRIVERS FOR SAFE AND SECURE SUPPLY CHAIN

2. Product differentiation• Ability to prove authenticity

• Protected designations of origin (IGP, DOP)

• Consumer interaction, confidence and loyalty

3. Operational efficiency – Productivity gains• Reduce expensive overstocks, enhance speed of operations

• e.g. Waste: 30 percent of perishables never reach consumers due to a variety of supply chain issues


PHARMACEUTICAL SUPPLY CHAINA COMPARISON

• California ePedigreeFrom 2015, life science companies need to trace drug and productinformation such as historical locations, time spent at each location, record of ownership, transaction history, packaging configurations, and environmental storage conditions in the supply chain…

• FDA imposes “What to do”

Industry defines “How to do”

• European projects are amongst others, driven by Government reimbursement controls and thus far address mostly an identification concern (i.e. EFPIA).

However, Track and Trace projects, with EPCIS inspiration are beginning to take shape (i.e. EDQM).


SAFE and SECURE SUPPLY CHAINReference model

PEDIGREE

Is the chain of custody intact?

TRACE

Where was the product ?(locations and owners)

TRACK

Where is the product ?Where is it heading ?

Product visibility Movement visibility

AUTHENTICATION

Is the product genuineand

Is it the right product ?

PRODUCT IDENTITY

Is the code associatedwith

the unit of sale valid ?

PHYSICAL FEATURES

Has the item been tampered with ?Is it authentic ?

SAFE AND SECURE SUPPLY CHAIN REFERENCE MODEL


SICPA’S MULTI-LEVEL OFFERING FOR SAFE AND SECURE SUPPLY CHAIN

AUTHENTICATIONPossibility to create a secured identifier for virtually any application

• Item level secured identification using standardized or proprietary systems(Over 50 billion items are coded annually by SICPA around the world)

• Multi-layer proprietary authentication features used on packaging, labels or directly on product (overt, semi-covert, covert and forensic)

• Anti-tampering

• Product composition analysis

• Automated in-line vision inspection and portable equipment

• Label and packaging design


SICPA’S MULTI-LEVEL OFFERING FOR SAFE AND SECURE SUPPLY CHAIN

PEDIGREE• High volume database and data management system design and

implementation (billions of items are tracked and traced every day using SICPA’stechnology).

• Interoperability with existing systems (ERP, WMS,…)

• State of the art security for data transfer and integrity

• Parent/child affiliation


BUSINESS AND LEGAL VALUE

• Regulatory compliance

• Risk management – For liability protection, each business needs to demonstrate that it has taken steps to maximise the safety of itsproducts

• Identification of diversion patterns

• Proof of ownership of goods and products

• Mitigation of liability risks associated with counterfeiting, diversion and adulteration

VALUE PROPOSITION OF SICPA‘S MULTI-LEVEL SUPPLY CHAIN OFFERING


SUPPLY CHAIN VALUE

• Greater supply chain visibility and product traceability (out of stocks, product obsolescence, shrinkage, reconciliation / deduction, minimize shipping and receiving discrepancies …)

• Increased supply chain security

• Improved production / distribution monitoring and control

MARKETING VALUE

• Control of brand image

• Increased consumer and stakeholder confidence

• Improved consumer reach and market accessibility

VALUE PROPOSITION OF SICPA‘S MULTI-LEVEL SUPPLY CHAIN OFFERING


For further information on SICPA’s Supply Chain and TraceabilitySolutions and Services, please contact us at:

[email protected]

SICPA PRODUCT AND BRAND PROTECTIONFROM PRODUCERS TO CONSUMERS: BUILDING A CHAIN OF TRUSTTM

Documents

Session 2: International conference "Tracking the future"