Transcript What is Traceability - Management for Technology Pty Ltd

What is Traceability
Des Bowler
Management for Technology Pty Ltd
30th June 2006
Traceability Means?
Proof of Origin – What am I made from?
 Trace Forward – Where have I gone?
 Track Back – Where did I come from?
 Market Requirement – EU, Japan, US
 Product Recall – AFANZ Chapter 3 Food Standards Code
 Traceability - National Performance Standards (NPS) for

Traceability
Biosecurity - DAFF, AQIS, State Depts
 EU Requirement - 1 Up/ 1 Down Rule
 US 2002 Bioterrorism Act

What Causes a Traceability Event

Product contamination detected by export
customer during routine testing

Domestic consumer complaints creating a
product recall.

Auditing of system by Company for QA
purpose.

Animal/ Product issues detected during
product processing (e.g. sick animals found
on arrival at slaughter)
What Causes a Traceability Event

Product contamination detected by export customer during
routine testing

– 70%
Domestic consumer complaints creating a product recall
25%
–
4%

Auditing of system by Company for QA purpose –

Animal/ Product issues detected during product processing
(e.g. sick animals found on arrival at slaughter) –
1%
However!!!!!

Export or Domestic instigated recall –
mostly only effects a batch or group of
product.
Large likelihood but isolated
impact!

Disease incident may effect whole market –
Very small likelihood but large
impact!
Product Recall – Store Level
Pork mince
Date: 29/05/2006
Supplier Name: Woolworths Supermarkets
Product Info: Use by date 27/05/06 Black tray with clear plastic
overwrap. Random weights between 494 gm and 520gm Product
manufactured on site. 10 packets manufactured and 6 have been
retrieved.
Defect Details: Metal and plastic fragment contamination
Consumer action: Return to place of purchase for a full refund
Market Coverage: Woolworths Shellharbour NSW store
Recall Coverage: Woolworths Shellharbour NSW store
The following link will open in a new window and take you out of the
Product Recalls Australia site.
The Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has overall policy
responsibility for monitoring the conduct and outcomes of food safety
recalls in Australia.
http://www.recalls.gov.au
Normal level of Consumer Complaints
Product Problem - Customer Complaints
Process Problem - Customer Complaints
Traceability, a Moment in Time.




Products 1 to 4 are feed, grass from properties, veterinary drugs,
exposure to agrichemicals.
Products 5 and 6 are livestock from different sources.
Product 7 is the processing plant where the cattle/sheep/pigs are
slaughtered and broken down in to products.
Products 8 to 11 are various possible products such as:


Primal cuts 16%, Offal 6%, Hide 10%, Rendered meat/ bone meal 10%, Tallow 7.5%, Bones 10%, Trim
25%, Waste (water loss, blood, etc) 10%, Foetal blood 0.5%, Pet food 5%
Products 12 to ‘n’ are the further processed products such as:

Retail steaks on a tray pack, Sausage casing created from the collagen scraped from the underside of the
hides, Growth medium for vaccines made from the foetal blood, 80 cl cartons of trim sent to the US for
grinding, Leather shoes made in Italy from the hides, Bone meal used as commercial fish food base.
Movements of Animals
Notification
to
CVO
1 days
before
discovery
discovery
Plus
2
3before
days
days
1days
day
4Plus
days
2Plus
before
discovery
discovery
3Disease
days
before
discovery
Disease Verses Contamination?

Prevalence of Food poisoning: Although most food
borne infections are undiagnosed and unreported, the US
Centres for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that
every year about 76 million people in the United States
become ill from pathogens in food. Of these, up to 5,000
die. ... An estimated 76 million cases of food borne disease
occur each year in the United States. ... Estimated to cause
76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,200
deaths in the United States each year.

A new report has revealed 11,500 Australians become ill
each day from food poisoning.

The Australia New Zealand Food Authority researched the
extent of food poisoning, as part of its review of food
safety standards.
Cost for Traceability







Complex System
Single Body Boning
Primal Labels/ Single Body
batch size
Live ID to Primal
High capital and operating
costs
Low cost for DNA analysis
[Pay now save later]







Simple System
Single Day Batch
Lot Based Live ID
Production Date Batch size
Low capital and operating
costs
High cost For DNA analysis
[Save now pay later]
Hypothetical Example

A US Customer discovers unacceptable
levels of a banned chemical in the random
testing of the 80CL trim carton.
What would happen?
The First Step



All product from the same shipment to be tested.
Product from many production dates and plants.
The shipper and plant notified and told of the
problem:
 Which carton(s) is it that has the problem?
 Product from the same plant and same day?
 How do the US testing people tell the cartons
apart, how do they know which are different
plants, different dates, etc?
 Are there serial numbers or just batch codes
After Review
Review found that the problem was with
several cartons in the shipment but not all
the cartons.
 Identified as coming from one plant across
a few production days.
 The trim was frozen and over 6 months old.
 The chilled meat that was produced all sold.

What does the company do?

What production batches are effected?

What recall protocol should be implemented?

Where have all the other cartons from the
production dates gone?

Distribution companies used to pick and send
products around the world.

Do each of the cartons have serial numbers?

Does the distribution company track the serial
numbers or just the product types?

Does the company recall the tallow, meat meal,
pet food, foetal blood?
Company Placed into Receivership







Once made public liability and recall costs were so
high company was no longer solvent.
Problem was over 3 consecutive days production
days from 1000 head per day.
Trim was frozen and over six months old.
Had the NLIS tag records as well as the NVDs.
Cattle came from saleyards, feedlot and direct
consignment from 120 properties.
Not all trim product effected, only some.
Company thought that the problem was from a
few contaminated cattle out of the 3000 possible,
but which cattle?
Few weeks later ….






Same chemical found in shipment to the US of
frozen trim from a different plant.
The production dates different to first company
but also over 6 months old.
This company has the systems in place to identify
and track each carton through supply chain.
Distribution was done by scanning each carton.
The product identified and the specific production
dates and time determined.
Effected product all came from one specific
production line even though different lines
processed the same batch of cattle.
After Review




Chemical was not found in any product from the
other production lines.
Reviewed the maintenance records for production
equipment and found a service had been done on
the one plastic bulk liner packaging machine for
that line.
The records identified the batch codes of the
materials used for the maintenance.
A specific lubricant was used on the machine for
producing the plastic carton liners. That lubricant
batch was not used on any other machine.
Tracked and Traced Product




The company’s production records identified and
traced forward specific cartons of trim produced
before the service and after the service.
Some carton serial numbers were traced to
specific cold storage facilities and tests conducted.
The product produced before the maintenance
showed no contamination, the product produced
after the maintenance showed the contamination.
The amount of contamination decreased over two
days of production. No contamination was found
by the middle of the second day.
Who was Liable?





The brand, type and batch code for the lubricate
were referred to the manufacturer.
Manufacturer identified the chemical as being used
in very small quantities in the lubricant.
Specific batch was an old batch and had been
withdrawn.
Maintenance company that did the service had
used the old lubricant without knowing the recall.
Company’s insurance company started legal action
against the maintenance company and lubricate
manufacturer for damages.
What did we Learn?

Company One
Thought problem was contaminated cattle.
 Could not track and trace even with individual
animal ID.
 Recalled large volumes and went broke.


Company Two
Good track and trace along whole supply chain.
 Correctly identified source of contamination.
 Contained size of recall.
 Started legal action to recover losses.

Was this a Theoretical Example?
Most widely sold mineral water is Perrier.
 In 1990 minute traces of benzene were
found in samples of Perrier.
 280-million bottles of Perrier recalled from
store shelves.
 Because traces of benzene got into one
batch from a faulty filter.
 Crisis cost one billion francs (€152.5-million,
US$186.6-million).

Where to from here?
Traceability Systems must integrate along
the whole supply chain.
 Each input to the process must be recorded,
not just the major items.
 Track and trace must be transparent along
the supply chain. Where did I come from

and where are all the companions?

Systems must be standards based to work
across multiple industry sections. Retail,
grocery, transport, manufacturing, feed
production, etc.
Thank You!
Des Bowler