Responsiveness in recalls

The tentacles of a supply chain are far-reaching. There are so many players, steps and processes and therefore so many opportunities for error - human or otherwise. Every industry faces a degree of exposure as product moves down the line, but none is more vulnerable than food manufacture and processing, where the simplest of mistakes can have extreme consequences.

Potential for error abounds in food processing; from inaccurate processing to incorrect supply. This could be direct human input such as an operator using the wrong mix in animal feed or merely checking the wrong item off a checklist. Inaccurate labelling can easily lead to supply of the unsuitable product and make tracing incredibly difficult. In the worst case, a failure in process can result in contaminated product reaching the consumer, conceivably creating widespread foodborne illness and even death.

Recall ramifications

In highly regulated industries such as food production, where there are ample measures in place to ensure that standards are maintained, the unthinkable can still occur. In recent years the Australian market has seen consumers contract Listeria through supply of contaminated cheese and smallgoods, as well as Salmonella Typhimurium from chicken meat and eggs, to name only a handful of widely publicised incidents. Products containing undeclared allergens are regularly recalled as they represent significant risk to consumers with sensitivities. At best, these outbreaks can cause reversible illness and, at worst, can result in death.

The implications arising from this type of incident go beyond the serious health risks. While not life-threatening, the financial ramifications of a recall for food suppliers can be enormous, as can the potential brand and reputation damage that follows. In the case of a food product recall, there is most definitely such a thing as ‘bad’ publicity. If government authorities and statutory bodies step in there can be penalties issued, and it’s not uncommon to incur court costs as well if consumers become litigious. In all cases, the need to react swiftly and surely to minimise the effect is paramount.

According to the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) website: “The protection of the health and safety of consumers is a fundamental requirement and a legal obligation of all companies involved in the production and sale of food and grocery products.” So it’s pretty clear where the responsibility lies.

As an independent statutory agency, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) not only develops food standards but tracks product recalls with a view to identifying common trends and preventing further incidences.

FSANZ categorises food recalls under eight separate categories: microbial contamination; labelling; foreign matter; chemical/contaminant; undeclared allergen; biotoxin; tampering; and other. The agency holds data on all food product recalls dating back around 10 years and makes all of this information publicly available on their website.

The total number of recalls per annum has dropped significantly from 105 in 2003 to around 60 in 2012, but the data reveals that the top three offenders have remained the same over that 10-year period: microbial contamination (a total of 213 recalls from 2003-2012); undeclared allergen (206); and foreign matter (126).

Given the potentially fatal consequences of tainted product reaching the marketplace, a suitable system for tracking and tracing is not an extravagance, it is a business necessity. When it comes to recalls, the AFGC states: “While the supplier has absolute responsibility for the safety of its products, the removal of the product from the marketplace is a shared responsibility throughout the distribution chain.” Guaranteeing delivery of non-harmful product means ensuring all suppliers have checks and balances in place to act accordingly in the event of a recall. Not surprisingly, major food retailers insist on this as a requirement of their quality system.

Fast track action

An effective tracking and tracing program comprises a number of components, starting with accurate and fast identification. For years, the identification workhorse has been the ubiquitous barcode. As foodstuffs move through the production process, they are identified by a unique code; on containers when in process, on packaging for the finished product, on cartons and pallets during transport and on shelves when they finally hit retail stores.

In terms of final inventory, the numbers are staggering, with distribution centres across Australia accepting 10,000 pallets of goods a day in the case of one of the major grocery players. That’s over 3.6 million pallets a year; each stacked two metres high with multiple products, all bearing their own barcode. A 2% inaccuracy rate would mean breaking down 73,000 pallets per year for manual handling and double-checking. Considering these sorts of numbers, the need for error-free tracking is pretty clear. In the event of incorrect labelling on contaminated items, finding the product is akin to the old ‘needle in the haystack’ adage.

SICK devices read barcodes and transmit that information elsewhere - specifically to a database, another crucial element in the system. Implementing cutting-edge code reader technology, known as ‘Smart Decoder Technology’, the readers pick up barcodes on fast-moving products with extreme reliability and minimal no-read rates. A reported 99.99% accuracy rate has been quoted by a supplier to one of the majors. This means overall improvement in the ability to deliver correctly coded product, which pre-existing technology simply couldn’t read. In the event that an incorrect barcode is discovered, the device notifies a central database, which in turn initiates corrective action.

Beyond the barcode

RFID (radio frequency identification) is not a new concept, but it is increasingly found in food tracing as technology improves and prices come down. Implementation is not uncommon in the case of large containers containing raw products and in the mixing of bulk materials.

RFID tags offer more functionality than barcode technology, as they are read/write devices. Using the mixing of raw materials as an example, once an RF tag is attached to a hopper and that tag passes a reading station, the hopper is identified as present and information that is stored on the tag is read. The tag tells an operator which ingredients to use, how much of each is required and where those components are located within the storage facility. Once the process is complete, the tag is updated with additional information relating to the completed task before it passes through to the next stage. Product is not able to move down the line without verification. The use of RFID technology provides an advanced method for tracking and controlling the process mid-production, which is imperative in a situation where quick identification of contaminants introduced during manufacture is required.

The car industry has been utilising RFID for years, where a tag is attached to the car body and is encoded with options information for each vehicle. As the product moves through the assembly line, the operator is automatically advised on which options are required. These are implemented, verified and the vehicle moves down the line. While the process is essentially the same, application in the food industry is relatively recent.

Improvements have seen the cost come down from dollars to cents per unit, so beverage suppliers in Europe are using RFID extensively. The development of disposable tags has led to wine manufacturers including RFID technology on the bottom of every bottle. Individual presentation of each bottle is no longer required, as all bottles within range of an RF reader will be picked up. This delivers greater speed of reading individual products in consolidated shipments. In the case of a product recall, those products which are and are not affected on a fully stacked pallet can quickly be determined.

One piece of the puzzle

There is certainly room for both ID technologies in food production, as each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Some processes make one more suitable than the other; for example, RF tags can survive washdowns, which makes them a more likely choice for use with fresh produce items that are subjected to wash baths as part of the production process. In the short term, however, it’s unlikely that RFID will replace conventional code reading entirely, as barcodes are low-cost, reliable and suited to a number of processes.

Regardless of the chosen technology, the ability to read the stored information quickly and accurately is still the key to minimising delays and to avoid double-checking. SICK readers (conventional barcode and RFID) are only one of the technologies required to provide an effective solution. A suitable software program (a one-up, one-down database, which identifies both supplier and receiver of a product) is required to complete the picture and SICK readers integrate with most available programs.

Minimising the impact

While the ultimate situation would be no need for product recalls, the reality is that they are often required. Minimising the impact should be a major focus of any food manufacturer’s program of redress. This means planning ahead - knowing how the situation will be managed before it occurs is imperative. Having systems in place to identify the source of the problem and affected products quickly and efficiently can reduce the scale of the issue through faster containment, which additionally eases the financial burden associated with any required rectification. Finally, a process of assessment post-recall not only provides insight into ‘what-went-wrong-where’, but also an avenue for improvement in the event of future product withdrawals.