What is Traceability

1. What is Traceability Des Bowler Management for Technology Pty Ltd30th June 2006

2. 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

3. 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)

4. What Causes a Traceability Event • Product contamination detected by export customer during routine testing – 70% • Domestic consumer complaints creating a product recall – 25% • Auditing of system by Company for QA purpose – 4% • Animal/ Product issues detected during product processing (e.g. sick animals found on arrival at slaughter) – 1%

5. 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!

6. 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

7. Normal level of Consumer Complaints

8. Product Problem - Customer Complaints

9. Process Problem - Customer Complaints

10. 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.

11. Movements of Animals 1 days before discovery Notification to CVO Disease discovery 4 days before discovery 2 days before discovery Plus 2 days Plus 3 days Plus 1 day 3 days before discovery

12. 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.

13. 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]

14. Hypothetical Example • A US Customer discovers unacceptable levels of a banned chemical in the random testing of the 80CL trim carton. What would happen?

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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?

18. 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?

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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).

25. 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.

26. Thank You! Des Bowler