at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48

Contents lists available

Food Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ foodcont

Review

Food traceability as an integral part of logistics management in foodand agricultural supply chain

Techane Bosona*, Girma GebresenbetDepartment of Energy and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Lennart Hjelms väg 9, Uppsala, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 5 November 2012Received in revised form28 January 2013Accepted 2 February 2013

Keywords:Food traceabilityFood traceability informationFood traceability technologyFood recallFood traceability performance

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ46 762481459.E-mail address: techane.bosona@slu.se (T. Bosona

0956-7135/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.02.004

a b s t r a c t

The contemporary food supply chain (FSC) should adequately provide information that consumers andother concerned bodies need to know such as variety of the food attributes, country of origin, animalwelfare, and genetic engineering related issues. For this, effective food traceability system (FTS) isimportant. The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive literature review on foodtraceability issues. About 74 studies, mainly focusing on food traceability issues and published during2000e2013, were reviewed. Based on the review results, the definition, driving forces, barriers indeveloping and implementing FTSs, benefits, traceability technologies, improvements, and performancesof FTSs have been identified and discussed. Considering FTS as an integral part of logistics management,new conceptual definition of FTS has been provided. This review has pointed out that the issue ofdeveloping effective and full chain FTS is quite complex in nature as it requires a deeper understanding ofreal processes from different perspectives such as economic, legal, technological, and social issues.Therefore, future researches (recommended here) on traceability should focus on: integration of trace-ability activities with food logistics activities; technological aspects of FTSs; the linkage betweentraceability system and food production units; standardization of data capturing and information ex-change; awareness creation strategies; continuity of information flow and effective communication oftraceability information to consumers and other stakeholders; the linkage between different drivers ofFTS; improvement strategies of FTS; and development of performance evaluation frameworks for FTSs.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .332. Scope and approach of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

2.1. Scope of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332.2. The methodological approach of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3. Food traceability as integral part of food logistics management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343.1. Defining food traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343.2. Interpreting food traceability definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343.3. Redefining food traceability as integral part of logistics management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343.4. Relevance of the proposed definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4. Driving forces for food traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364.1. Regulatory concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364.2. Safety and quality concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364.3. Social concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364.4. Economic concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374.5. Technological concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5. Benefits of food traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .375.1. Increase in customer satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

).

All rights reserved.

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48 33

5.2. Improvement in food crises management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385.3. Improvement in FSCM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.4. Competence development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.5. Technological and scientific contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.6. Contribution to agricultural sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

6. Barriers in implementing effective food traceability system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396.1. Resource limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396.2. Information limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396.3. Standard limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406.4. Capacity limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416.5. Awareness limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

7. Technological advancement in relation to product traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .417.1. Technologies for managing traceability data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417.2. Continuity of traceability information flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

8. Perceptions toward food traceability technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439. Traceability characteristics in agriculture and food supply chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

9.1. Elements of food traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449.2. Traceability in the case of local food supply chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

10. Improving food traceability systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4411. Assessing the performance of food traceability systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4512. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4613. Limitation and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

1. Introduction

Historically, food scares have beenwith human beings for manyyears. Atkins (2008) has discussed that, in Europe, food scares(especially zonotic hazards) have been with the society of UK for atleast 150 years. Saltini and Akkerman (2012)mentioned that only inEurope food borne illness affects about 1% of population (approx-imately sevenmillionpeople) eachyear. Only in 2011, approximately16.7% of population (47.8 million people) got sick in America inrelation to food related illness (Resende-Filho and Hurley, 2012).

In the modern livestock production sector, long distance animaltransport is increasing. This in turn not only has increased thepotential of infection and spread of diseases related to livestock, butalso has exposed the sector for bioterrorism attacks. For example, inthe USA cattle production sector, a terrorist attack (infection) ata single point could result in a loss of around 23 million cattlewithin 8 days (Greger, 2007). These challenges have triggered theimportance of animal identification and certification processes.Historically, issue of animal identification (e.g. by marking theirbodies) may be traced back to 3800 years (Smith, Pendell, Tatum,Belk, & Sofos, 2008). However, still it is an important issue withinagriculture and food supply chain (FSC).

Other risk of food such as contamination with radioactive ma-terials disturbs the FSC. After release of radioactive from damagednuclear plants due to earthquake in Japan in 2011 (WHO, 2011),many countries have implemented intensive food control measuresconcerning their food trade relationship with Japan while somecountries suspended transporting food from Japan. A study inFinland (Orre, 2005) has indicated that, as proactive strategy,effective training on food logistics is important. Such trainingshould include cleaning warehouses and retails, controlling andtransporting non-contaminated food items to retail storage facil-ities after the radioactive materials have passed over a region.

In addition to risk to public health, food crises lead to economiccrises due to direct and indirect (damage to reputation and brandname) costs of product recall. The indirect cost dominates the recallcost as the loss of market value and reputation could lead to totalbankruptcy of the brand name (Saltini & Akkerman, 2012). There-fore, traceability is an important component of contemporarysupply chains in the production industry in general and in food

sector in particular as the food sector is sensitive from human andanimal health point of view (Olsen & Aschan, 2010).

Before 2005, the food traceability systems (FTSs) to be fulfilled byfood and feed business firms in Europe were based on the need ofcustomers. Since January 1, 2005, these firms are legally bound (bythe new EU regulations) to have FTSs independent of customers’ re-quirements (Azuara, Tornos, &Salazar, 2012; Schwägele, 2005). Basedon the review results, this paper has discussed the attention trace-ability has received in recent decade in relation to its capacity to boostinformation connectivity in supply chain and reinforce logisticsprocess aswell as food supply chainmanagement (FSCM) as awhole.

The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensiveliterature review on FTSs. It was intended to shed light on issuesthat need further research works in order to promote the integra-tion of traceability systems with logistics processes to enhance theFSC performance. Some questions were raised at the beginning ofthis review:What does food traceability really mean?What are thedriving forces and challenges behind the implementation of FTSs?What are the technological advancement enhancing food trace-ability issues?What are the benefits of FTSs? How does FTS work inthe case of local FSC? How better FTSs could be enhanced? How theperformance of FTSs can be assessed?

2. Scope and approach of this study

2.1. Scope of this study

This study focused on traceability system in the FSC. Fig.1 il-lustrates the scope of this study and the investigated major issuesrelated to the development of FTSs. The definition of food trace-ability, forces that drive the implementation of food traceability,technological innovations, benefits of food traceability, and barriersto the implementation of food traceability were investigated. Theissues of enhancing better FTS and assessing its performance werealso discussed.

2.2. The methodological approach of this study

Searching for appropriate literature from different databases,identifying key issues to be analyzed, discussing the review results

Fig. 1. Analytic framework illustrating the scope of this literature review on foodtraceability.

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e4834

and providing recommendations are important procedures in lit-erature review (Karlsen, Dreyer, Olsen, & Elvevoll, 2013; Li, Visich,Khumawala, & Zhang, 2006). Using similar method, studies pub-lished during 2000e2013 and focused on food traceability issueswere reviewed in this study. First, the objective and scope of thisstudy were set. Then, relevant studies were searched from differentsources mainly from scientific journals published by ELSEVIER andEMERALD publishers of scholarly papers. Key words such as FoodTraceability, Tracing Livestock, Food Recall, Food Traceability In-formation, Food Traceability Technology, and Food TraceabilityPerformance were used to search for relevant studies. Then, themore relevant papers were screened based on their titles and ab-stracts. The reviewed papers covered the food traceability issues incases of livestock and meat products, fish and seafood products,fruit and vegetables and other food products. Although somestudies discussed food traceability issues from global prospective,about 62% of the papers (reviewed in this study) focused on Europe,20% on North America (USA and Canada), 14% on Asia and SouthAmerica, and 4% on Australia and New Zealand. Unfortunately,there was no paper specifically focusing on Africa (see Table 1).

3. Food traceability as integral part of food logisticsmanagement

3.1. Defining food traceability

In literatures, there exist different definitions of FTSs. Table 2presents many examples of definitions categorized based on thekey terms used. In traceability literatures tracing and tracking havebeen used often as key terms. In best cases, tracing and trackinghave been interpreted as exploration of an entity (e.g. food product)under consideration (in the supply chain) in the upstream direction

Table 1Summary of reviewed papers.

Geographical focus area orsource of publication

Number of reviewed papers

1991e2000 2001e2010 After 2010 Total

Europe 1 33 11 45North America 0 12 3 15South America, and Asia 0 5 5 10Australia and New Zealand 1 3 0 4Total 2 53 18 74

and downstream direction respectively. Karlson et al. (2013)mentioned how these two terms were defined in many studies.According to Schwägele (2005) traceability refers to both tracingand tracking i.e. traceability is not only unidirectional activity in thesupply chain (see Fig. 2).

3.2. Interpreting food traceability definitions

Most of these definitions (see Table 2) attempted to addresstraceability as the ability to follow the movement of food productsthroughout the supply chain. There are three key componentsreflected in these definitions: backward follow-up of products(tracing), forward follow-up of product (tracking), and the producthistory information associated with the product movement in thesupply chain. From this perspective, there are limitations inaddressing complete concept of contemporary traceability. Forexample, only about 30% of the definitions (see Table 2) haveclearly reflected these three components while the remainingdefinitions have incorporated only one or two of the key compo-nents. Specifically, in many cases, the important component(product history information) is either missing or not presentedclearly. It is also noticed that the lack of consistency in using keywords (‘tracing’, ‘tracking’, and ‘tracing and tracking’) is alsoa source of confusion as these words have been used inter-changeably. For example, according to International StandardOrganisation, ISO 8402, the general definition of traceability is“the ability to trace the history, application or location of an entityby means of recorded identifications” (Bertolini, Bevilacqua, &Massini, 2006; Canavari, Centonze, Hingley, & Spadoni, 2010;Karlson et al., 2013; Kelepouris, Pramatari, & Doukidis, 2007; Olsen& Aschan, 2010). In this definition the importance of producthistory information is clearly reflected, but it is not clear whetherthe key term, ‘trace’, indicates both forward and backward follow-up and whether it covers the whole supply chain or not. Theselimitations necessitate the introduction of new comprehensivedefinition of traceability.

Moreover, some researchers (Folinas, Manikas, & Manos,2006; Salampasis, Tektonidis, & Kalogianni, 2012) tried to dif-ferentiate traceability as logistics traceability (following physicalmovement) and qualitative traceability (following productquality and consumers’ safety). We (authors of this paper) arguethat distinguishing traceability into two types (logistics trace-ability and qualitative traceability) could lead to mis-understandings. Because, in a supply chain, any information flowalong the physical movement of products should be addressedwithin logistics management. The definition of logistics man-agement confirms this argument. Council of Supply ChainManagement Professionals (CSCMP) defines logistics manage-ment as “Logistics management is part of supply chain manage-ment that plans, implements, and controls the efficient, effectiveforward and reverses flow and storage of goods, services andrelated information between the point of origin and the point ofconsumption in order to meet customers’ requirements” (http://cscmp.org/aboutcscmp/definitions.asp).

3.3. Redefining food traceability as integral part of logisticsmanagement

Complete traceability system should address the tracing andtracking of products and the associated complete product historyinformation throughout the FSC. To address this contemporaryconcept of traceability and reduce the limitations in definingfood traceability and limitations in understanding the linkagebetween food traceability and logistics activities (see section

Table 2Definitions of food traceability in food supply chain given (cited) by different authors.

Key terms Examples of definitions Source

Tracing C “Capacity to trace goods along the distributionchain on a batch number or series number basis”

Tamayo et al. (2009)

C “The ability to trace food products up and down theproduction chain through all stages of production”

Schwägele (2005)

C “The probability of finding the source of a problem” Resende-Filho and Hurley (2012)C “The ability to trace the history of product through thesupply chain to or from the place and time of production,including the identification of the inputs used and productionoperations undertaken”

Manos and Manikas (2010)

C “The ability to trace the history, application or location ofan entity by means of recorded identifications”

Bertolini et al. (2006), Olsen and Aschan (2010);Karlson et al. (2013); Kelepouris et al. (2007)

Tracking C “Tracking the source and destination of food productsand components”

Kher et al. (2010)

C “The ability to identify the farm where it was grown andsources of input materials, as well as the ability to conductfull backward and forward tracking to determine the specificlocation and life history in the supply chain by means of records”

Opara (2003)

C “The registering and tracking of parts, processes, and materialsused in production”

Rábade and Alfaro (2006)

C “The ability to follow the movement of food through specifiedstages of production, processing, and distribution”

Hall (2010), Hobbs et al. (2005),Levinson (2009)

C “The ability to track any food, feed, food-producing animal orsubstance that will be used for consumption, through all the stagesof production, processing and distribution”

Thakur andDonnelly (2010)

Tracing and Tracking C “The ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food-producinganimal or substance through all stages of production and distribution”

Folinas et al. (2006), Engelseth (2009),Canavari et al. (2010),

C “The ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food-producinganimal or substance intended to be, or expected to be incorporated intoa food or feed through all stages of production, processing and distribution”

Salampasiset al. (2012)

C “The history of a product in terms of the direct properties of that productand/or properties that are associated with that product once these productshave been subject to particular value-adding processes using associatedproduction means and in associated environmental conditions”

Regattieriet al. (2007)

C “The ability to trace and track food, and food ingredients through the supplychain; thus traceability can be applied through all stages of production,processing and distribution”

Van Rijswijket al. (2008)

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48 35

3.2), we have proposed a new comprehensive definition of foodtraceability:

Food traceability is part of logisticsmanagement that capture, store,and transmit adequate information about a food, feed, food-producingis correct animal or substance at all stages in the food supply chain sothat the product can be checked for safety and quality control, tracedupward, and tracked downward at any time required. Fig. 2 presentsschematic representation of this concept.

Fig. 2. Conceptual representation of material and traceability info

3.4. Relevance of the proposed definition

Some researchers (Manos & Manikas, 2010; Rábade & Alfaro,2006) have cited that the initiative of food traceability is mainlyconnected with food quality and safety assurance but rarely withbusiness development and logistics improvement issues. However,the linkage between qualitative information and physical flow iskey factor in developing effective and efficient traceability and this

rmation flow that best reflects the case of food supply chain.

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e4836

issue should be considered from logistics management point ofview. For example, packaging is part of logistics operations insupply chain and the use of primary-consumer-packing andappropriate labeling techniques should get attention in logisticsmanagement. Yam, Takhistov, and Miltz (2005) pointed out thatapplication of intelligent food packaging technologies is a usefultool for facilitating food traceability and monitoring food condi-tions. Designing such food packages and integrating with datacapturing and transmitting devices is logistics activities.

Integrated logistics information systems, into which traceabilitydevices (see section 7) and IT applications were integrated, wasdeveloped by Chow, Choy, Lee, and Chan (2007) in order toestablish a collaborative environment where supply chain partnerscan exchange real-time logistics information via web-based visu-alization of logistics process. Their result indicated that small andmedium logistics providing firms (considered in their case study)could significantly improve their business performances in terms ofcost saving, revenue generation and customer satisfaction.

Food recalls are associated not only with information problemsbut also with logistics problems (McCallum, 2012). The lack of co-ordinated logistics operations definitely affects the product flowfrom farm to fork and consequently the efficiency of food trace-abilityefforts. In otherway, thedevelopment and implementationofIT-supported FTS could improve operational planning and increaseefficiency of food logistics processes (Bourlakis & Bourlakis, 2006;Heyder, Theuvsen, & Hollmann-Hespos, 2012; Liao, Chang, & Chang,2011; Manos &Manikas, 2010; Saltini & Akkerman, 2012; Van Dorp,2003). Bourlakis and Bourlakis (2006) strongly argued that IT op-erations should be formulated alongside logistics operation of foodretailers and if continuous maintenance service is in place, these IToperations could increase operational efficiency of the retailers.Rábade and Alfaro (2006) stated that “the traceability mechanismsandbuyeresupplier coordination aremutually reinforcing”, the ideareflected in their companion paper (Alfaro & Rábade, 2009).

Such important facts described in the above paragraphs indicatethat food traceability activities are basically embedded in logisticssystems. This pinpoints the appropriateness of the newly proposeddefinition of food traceability. Furthermore, conceptualizing(starting from definition level) and implementing FTSs as integralpart of logistics management could be very useful to:

➢ identify the appropriate FTS for each food company and incor-porate it atearlystageofdesignof logistics systemof thecompany

➢ reduce vagueness in defining food traceability➢ facilitate the implementation of FTSs➢ train employees (more easily) how to handle food items➢ simplify the maintenance service (in case traceability system

breaks)➢ apply easily communicable traceability devices for partners

and strengthen the information connectivity along the FSC.➢ increase the communication and knowledge exchange be-

tween logistics experts and IT experts➢ utilize the integrated database for evaluating the perfor-

mances of FTS, logistics management, and FSCM

4. Driving forces for food traceability

Often, a combination of two or more factories influences thedevelopment and implementation of FTSs. Many driving forcesbehind the development and implementation of FTSs have beenidentified as indicated in Table 3. These drivers have been catego-rized into five: food safety and quality, regulatory, social, economic,and technological concerns.

4.1. Regulatory concern

New legislations (introduced to address the safety and qualityconcerns and resolve ownership disputes) are identified asimportant driving forces. Many food companies implement FTSsmainly to fulfill these regulatory issues and stay in market. Recentdevelopments indicate that maintaining market power (and pro-tection against loss of consumer confidence) and political pressureto protect consumer welfare are emerging as major drivers thatpush large retailers to invest in food traceability projects (Bertoliniet al., 2006; Heyder et al., 2012; Liao et al., 2011; Resende-Filho &Hurley, 2012).

Nowadays, mandatory food traceability laws are being enforcedand EU has realized this by introducing General Food Law (GFL)(Kher et al., 2010; Schwägele, 2005). Accordingly traceability datacan be mandatory or optional (Folinas et al., 2006). Mandatory datainclude lot number, product ID, product description, supplier ID,quantity, unit of measure, buyer ID. Optional data include supplier’sname, contact information, receipt date, country of origin, date ofpack, trade unit, transportation vehicle ID, logistics service providerID, buyer’s name, and dispatching date.

In Asia, China and Japan are introducing FTSs mainly asvoluntary basis. Smith et al. (2008) discussed that in the EU andJapan, introducing retail traceability programwas mandatory whileit was voluntary in United States as of 2008. Due to this reason,United States lags behind many countries in development andimplementation of cattle identification and traceability systems(Schroeder & Tonsor, 2012; Smith et al., 2008). A study conductedby Department of Health and Human Services of USA (Levinson,2009) indicated that only around 12.5% of the investigated foodproducts were handled by facilities that could provide lot-specificinformation of the products and could be traced through eachstage of the supply chain. This indicates that United States is at riskof losing its global market share.

4.2. Safety and quality concern

In the recent two decades food traceability has become impor-tant issue due to food crises such as foot-and-mouth disease,bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the dioxin crisis, theavian flu, the melamine contamination of milk, and other foodsafety incidents involving aquatic products as well as food coun-terfeiting and issue of sustainable production including labor issues(Bertolini et al., 2006; Engelseth, 2009; Hobbs, Bailey, Dickinson, &Haghiri, 2005; Hong et al., 2011; Kelepouris et al., 2007; Liao et al.,2011; Liu, Kerr, & Hobbs, 2012; Salampasis et al., 2012; Van Dorp,2003; Van Rijswijk, Frewer, Menozzi, & Faioli, 2008; Wognum,Bremmers, Trienekens, Van der Vorst, & Bloemhof, 2011). Foodquality and safety crises in turn cause significant crises in economicand marketing relationship at national and international levels. Liuet al. (2012) reported that in 2002, EU banned import of aquaticproducts from China claiming that residues from veterinary med-icines, pesticides and heavy metals detected in the aquatic foodproducts exceeded EU standards. This could affect the trade ofChina, a country that exports about 3.06 million tons of aquaticproducts per year with the value of US$ 9.74 billion.

4.3. Social concern

Increasing the confidence of consumers in their food, thechanging lifestyles and increasing income of consumers, theincreasing awareness of society about their health are some of so-cial issues that motivate food companies to implement traceabilitysystems. The improvement in food crises management enables theconcerned agencies to build capacity to safeguard the food safety

Table 3Driving forces for food traceability.

Major concerns Driving forces Sources

Regulatory concern C Introduction of new food safetylegislations and efforts to maintain marketpower and stay in the business i.e. partnersof food supply network have to have FTSto stay in business

Bertolini et al. (2006), Hong et al. (2011), Liao et al. (2011),Mai, Bogason, Arason, Árnason, and Matthiasson (2010), Olsenand Aschan (2010), Rábade and Alfaro (2006), Van Dorp (2003),Verbeke and Ward (2006), Xiao-hui et al. (2007),Xiaoshuan et al. (2010)

C Ownership disputes (e.g. protecting animalsfrom theft in the case of animal production)

Golan et al. (2004)

Safety and quality concern C Limiting the potential causes and spread ofdiseases related to food and food producinganimals, food contamination by radioactivematerials and/or bioterrorism and foodcounterfeiting

Azuara et al. (2012), Greger (2007), Liao et al. (2011),Mai et al. (2010), Mousavi et al. (2002), Orre (2005),Schroeder and Tonsor (2012)

C Tackling food safety crises i.e. increasingincidence of food-related safety hazards(foot-and-mouth disease, mad cowdisease, dioxin in poultry, microbialcontamination of fresh produce)

Folinas et al. (2006), Liu et al. (2012), Resende-Filhoand Hurley (2012)

C Value preservation and value additionin the FSC (e.g. up-to-date vaccination andanimal welfare in animal production)

Engelseth (2009), Smith et al. (2005)

Social concern C Addressing declining consumer confidencein food in the market and public concernabout rising incidence of food-relatedillnesses and deaths

Donnelly et al. (2012), Food Standards Agency (2002),Heyder et al. (2012), Hu et al. (2012), Kher et al. (2010)

C The gradual shift from quantity-oriented toquality/safety-oriented agriculture due to changinglifestyles and rising income of consumers demandingfresh, palatable, nutritious and safe food

Salampasis et al. (2012)

C The need to identify genetically modifiedorganisms (GMO) and non-GMO agricultural chains(to address the concern of consumers)

Opara (2003)

C The increase in awareness of consumers abouttheir health and weight control, e.g. quality andnutritional values of food

Kimura et al. (2008)

Economic concern C Better market access and better food price forthe owner, and better food quality for consumer

Donnelly and Olsen (2012)

C Governmental funding promoting FTSs (economicbenefit for food companies)

Manos and Manikas (2010)

Technological concern C Advancement in technology (encouraging traceability) Salampasis et al. (2012)

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48 37

and security which in turn strengthens the social and political se-curity of a nation. The contemporary FTSs, companies should notattempt only to comply with the government rules, but they shouldadequately provide information that consumers need to know suchas variety of the food attributes, country of origin, animal welfare,and genetic engineering related issues (Golan et al., 2004).

4.4. Economic concern

Economic benefit of traceability systems is relatively consideredas less strong driver as efficient full chain traceability system iscapital and resource intensive and require significant initial in-vestment. However, better market access, better product prices,potential governmental funding were identified as driving forces.For example, in the United States, in addition to controlling thespread of animal diseases, economical motives have influenced thedevelopment of traceability systems in the livestock sector (Golanet al., 2004). These are: protecting property (animals) from theft;proving (through traceability documentation) that animals possessvaluable attributes such as up-to-date vaccinations, proving thatanimal welfare provisions are in place so that the animals deservehigher prices.

4.5. Technological concern

Effective traceability systems require more complex devices andsystems which do not attract the attention of food companies due

to the complexity of the devices and the systems as well as the highcosts associated with them. However, the emerging new andcheaper technologies (see section 7) are motivating companies todevelop full chain traceability systems integrating information atall stages of the supply chain. Specially, the decreasing cost andincreasing effectiveness of new traceability systems enhanced withthe development of nanotechnology based traceability devices(Chrysochou, Chryssochoids, & Kehagia, 2009; Karippacheril, Rios,& Srivastava, 2011, pp. 285e310) is expected to highly motivatefood companies to actively participate in the development andimplementation of FTSs.

5. Benefits of food traceability

Kher et al. (2010) studied the views of food risk managementprofessionals (in which 38 experts participated) in Europe andpointed out that all experts participated in answering the ques-tionnaire agreed that the advantages of implementing FTSs out-weighed the disadvantages (e.g. initial investment cost and extrawork load) it has. The benefits of effective FTS can be categorizedbroadly as: Social benefits (Schwägele, 2005; Wilson & Clarke,1998); Authorities’ benefits (Donnelly & Olsen, 2012; McMeekinet al., 2006; Smith et al., 2005); and Food companies’ benefits(Golan et al., 2004; Kher et al., 2010; Wognum et al., 2011). How-ever, for better explanations, the benefits identified in this reviewhave been categorized as: increase in customer satisfaction,improvement in food crises management, improvement in FSCM,

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e4838

competence development (for companies), technological and sci-entific contribution and contribution to agricultural sustainability.Table 4 presents examples of major advantages of food traceabilityunder each category.

5.1. Increase in customer satisfaction

The consumers’ satisfaction is reflected by the increase in con-sumer confidence in food available in market and the availability ofadequate information tomake food choice. Such information can beorganized, analyzed using FTSs and communicated to customersand other stakeholders. The occurrence of food safety incidentswhich attracted media attention globally could erode consumers’confidence. Such reduced consumers trust in food in the marketshould be improved and for this FTS is an important tool.

5.2. Improvement in food crises management

Regarding food safety and quality issue, traceability in the FSChelps to: minimize the production and distribution of unsafe orpoor quality products; limit the extent of damage by facilitatingproduct recall activities; establish the extent of their liability incases of food safety failure by identifying the evidence (based ondocumented information) of negligence or improper productionpractices; and identify the existence and quantity of genetically

Table 4Benefits of traceability systems.

Main category Example of benefits

Increase inconsumers’ satisfaction

C Increasing consumers’ confidence infood and reducing customers complaints(increased food quality and safety)C Promote food choice e.g. for consumerswith food allergiesC Reduction of social cost (e.g. medical cost)

Improvement in foodcrises management

C Improving crises management in eventof hazard incidence; Enabling authoritiesto identify hazardous foodstuffs (andwithdraw from market) and detect fraudC Tracing the origin of foodstuffs andingredientsC Controlling animal and food relateddiseasesC Reducing counterfeiting, liabilityclaim, and lawsuitsC Reduction of out of date/spoilage costC Reduction in the volume, cost, frequency,and severity of product recalls as a result ofincreased capacity of detecting the vulnerabilitat early stageC Reduction of media impact on the food compby facilitating food recall action

Improvement in FSCM C Improving FSCM (increases transparency andvalue to the quality of FSCM by reducing informasymmetries and logistics costs: costs of procurinventory, transport, information and data manwarehouse)C Reinforcing the level of coordination betweepartners of food supply networkC Improved feedback to the food producers

Competence development C Improving competitiveness of the members(traceability has promotional capacity)C Increase access to contracts and marketsC Protecting brand name and reputation of firmC Increasing labor productivity

Technological andScientific contribution

C It enables availability of scientific data for effresearch to identify the cause of food hazard incC Promotion of new technology such as IT adv

Contribution toagricultural sustainability

C It strengthens the implementation of sustaininitiatives in food production, handling and distas the traceability data could be used for assurinthat food is sourced from appropriate sources o

modified organisms (GMO) components in the food product.Traceability helps also to verify the existence of credence attributesthrough bookkeeping record that establishes their creation andpreservation (Golan et al., 2004). The credence attributes can becontent attributes (e.g. calcium content in a glass of enriched or-ange juice can not be determined by consumer just by drinking it)or process attributes (e.g. earth friendly and fair trade can not bedetected by consumers or by testing equipment).

The improvement in performance of food recall activities en-hances the level of security as well as reduces food recall costs.Some researchers (Thakur, Sørensen, Bjørnson, Forås, & Hurburgh,2011) argued that ensuring food safety and quality is one ofimportant objectives of any FTS. However, we and some researchers(Resende-Filho et al., 2012) consider food traceability as animportant tool to reduce such a consequence of food related (healthand economic) crises as it ensures the effective management offood crises, but it does not avoid the probability that food safety andquality crises occur. FTS is an information-based proactive strategyto food quality and safety management and it facilitates the iden-tification of products affected; specifies what type of incidentoccurred and when and where (in the supply chain) it occurred;and identifies who is responsible (Opara, 2003).

The traceability systems enable the accessibility of integrateddata throughout production, storage, distribution, quality control,and selling processes (Schwägele, 2005). As food traceability is

Source

Arana, Soret, Lasa, and Alfonso (2002), Liao et al. (2011),Mousavi et al. (2002), Shanahan et al. (2009)

Chrysochou et al. (2009)

Canavari et al. (2010), Kher et al. (2010)Azuara et al. (2012), Hall (2010), McMeekin et al., 2006,Opara (2003), Thakur and Donnelly (2010)

Golan et al. (2004), Hayes et al. (2005), Schwägele (2005),Van Rijswijk et al. (2008)Atkins (2008), Negrini et al. (2008), Smith et al. (2005)

Hobbs et al. (2005)

Mai et al. (2010)

y

Donnelly et al. (2012), Randrup et al. (2012), Saltiniand Akkerman (2012), Tamayo et al. (2009)

anies Dabbene and Gay (2011)

addsationement,agement,

Bollen et al. (2007), Engelseth (2009), Hong et al. (2011),Li et al. (2006); Karlson et al. (2013), Regattieri et al. (2007)

n Dabbene and Gay (2011), Rábade and Alfaro (2006)

Riden and Bollen (2007)of FSC Bourlakis and Bourlakis (2006), Van Dorp (2003)

Heyder et al. (2012), Schroeder and Tonsor (2012)s McEntire et al. (2010)

Mai et al. (2010)ectiveidences

Regattieri et al. (2007)

ancement Mangina and Vlachos (2005)abilityributiong ensuringr farms

Donnelly and Olsen (2012), Wognum et al. (2011)

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48 39

mainly to provide safe and quality food product to the consumers,the traceability data shall include all relevant data concerning: (a)the origin and types of food/feed, ingredients, meat animals (spe-cies, authenticity, age); (b) processes at all stages in the FSC (pri-mary production, further processing, testing, storage, distribution,retailing, consumption); and (c) resources used (people, machines,transport equipment). These integrated data and information arevery important in food crises management.

5.3. Improvement in FSCM

One of the major benefits of FTSs is its importance for FSCM.Traceability helps to increase the efficiency of FSCM by (Golan et al.,2004) reducing costs of supply-related activities mainly logisticscosts; providing information trail (regarding each product type)starting from raw agricultural inputs to products in the retailer;differentiating foods with undetectable attributes; and enablingfirms to manage their resources efficiently using new traceabilityinformation systems. The improvement in FSCM enables FSCpartners to increase cooperation among them and develop theirtechnical and economic competence.

5.4. Competence development

Effective FTS can be a source of competitive advantages forpartners of FSC (Alfaro & Rábade, 2009; Xiaoshuan, Jian, Feng,Zetian, & Weisong, 2010) because it: i) enables to solve foodsafety problems; ii) provides a good-faith legal defense in productliability cases; iii) enables a company to understand well its logis-tics system; iv) provides promotional advantages by connectingmanufacturer with consumers (Hall, 2010); and v) enables todevelop products of better quality in long run using the laboratorybased test results and availability of traceability information. Ingeneral, food producers who have efficient production systems anddistribution channels are competent in the market.

5.5. Technological and scientific contribution

The increasing implementation of FTSs promotes researches inFSC. Because, designing effective FTS requires adequate knowledgeabout the productionesupply channel and addressing four pillarsof food traceability (Regattieri, Gamberi, & Manzini, 2007). Thesepillars are: Product Identification (volume, weight, perishability);Data to Trace (degree of detail, dynamism, data storage); ProductRouting (production activities, equipment, storage systems); andTraceability Tools (accuracy and reliability of captured data). Thenew traceability devices used to capture, store, and transmit datasignificantly encourage the efforts to develop more advancedtechnologies and promote the future research regarding foodtraceability and FSCM.

5.6. Contribution to agricultural sustainability

Traceability system increases the quality of food and foodproduction system as it increases the awareness of workersthrough the focus on data capturing and documentation processes(Donnelly & Olsen, 2012). Traceability data is very instrumental fortransparency of food production and sourcing that in turn helpsthe implementation of sustainability initiatives especially at thefarm level. For example, avoiding the depletion of fish stocks isenvironmental concern and EU has regulations for ensuring thatfish are sourced from a legal catch or farm (Donnelly & Olsen,2012). Across Europe and America, about 50% of seafood couldnot be traced back to origin (Donnelly & Olsen, 2012). Fish prod-ucts can be traced through labeling of product, external tags,

chemical marking (e.g. tattooing, chemical branding with inor-ganic substances like silver nitrate or potassium nitrate), physicalmarking (e.g. fin clipping) and using DNA markers (Hayes,Sonesson, & Gjerde, 2005) and other more advanced technol-ogies (see section 7). FTS could also reduce food product losses inFSC as traceability activities promote effective packaging tech-nologies. For example, Sonneveld (2000) has pointed out that, dueto effective packaging, food losses during distribution have beenreduced to levels less than 1%.

6. Barriers in implementing effective food traceability system

In developing and implementing FTSs, food companies facemanybarriers (see Table 5). The problems identified during this reviewhave been categorized as resource limitation, information limitation,standard limitation, capacity limitation and awareness limitation.

6.1. Resource limitation

Developing and implementing traceability systems is expensiveand complicated task that could lead to financial problem. More-over, allocating the cost and benefits among the partners of FSCneeds extra effort and cost. This even could lead to initial resistance(against implementation of FTSS) by some partners. It also requiresmuch administration and paper works, especially for companiesimplementing the traceability system for the first time (Kher et al.,2010). Food recall costs may be influenced by factors such as timetaken to discover the fault, ability to identify and locate affectedproduct batch, and value of the product (Randrup, Wu, & Jørgen,2012). Traceability is a complex task as its application is asso-ciated with some key requirements (Salampasis et al., 2012):

(I) traceability should be able to address both internal and chaintraceability with information for product’s total lifecycle;

(II) the traceability has to be complete addressing both backwardtraceability and forward traceability of the product with ade-quate related information;

(III) the traceability has to be cost effective and user friendly toimplement and operate; and

(IV) the traceability system has to be extensible to easily accom-modate new traceability data.

6.2. Information limitation

Traceability in the agriculture is associated with inherent un-certainty that makes it difficult to acquire certain and timely data atall stages in the FSC. According to European legislation on foodtraceability EC 178(2002), article 18, it is required to establishtraceability system at all stages of food production, processing,storage, and distribution; implement (apply) one-step-backwardand one-step-forward approaches; and label adequately the food/feed before placing on market. However EU regulation (EC178(2002)) lacks detailed internal traceability requirements.Bertolini et al. (2006), Donnelly, Karlsen, and Dreyer (2012) and Hu,Zhang, Moga, and Neculita (2013) argued that addressing both in-ternal traceability (within a company) and chain traceability (be-tween companies in the supply chain) with clear connectionsbetween internal and chain traceability data enable to achievefastest and precise tracing activities. According to Canavari et al.(2010), the traceability information can be classified as “strategic”information (information on product quality, social and environ-mental ethics, service level) and “operational” information (infor-mation on legal requirement, hygienic-sanitary safety). It is alsonecessary to have information showing whether the food product

Table 5Barriers in developing and implementing effective food traceability systems.

Category Example of existing problems References

Resource limitation C It is expensive and complicated task (i.e. there areeconomic, technological and legislation constraints)especially for SMEs

Li et al. (2006), Negrini et al. (2008),Riden and Bollen (2007)

C Difficulties in coordinating and allocating cost andbenefits of traceability system among the actors of theFSC under consideration

Canavari et al. (2010)

Information limitation C Lack of complete, accurate, timely, and easilyaccessible information (e.g. available informationusually focus only on origin not quality andsafety issues)

Ackerley et al. (2010), Wilsonand Clarke (1998)

C Difficulty in identifying the production and harvestconditions when the products are not packed at earlystage of supply chain (especially in fresh produce)

Manos and Manikas (2010)

C Traceability in agricultural sector is associated withinherent uncertainty

Bollen et al. (2007)

Standard limitation C Lack of uniformity in implementing the traceabilitysystems i.e. different companies use different standardsinformation exchange

Thakur and Donnelly (2010),Thakur et al. (2011)

C Different links in the chain have different level ofaccuracy of traceability

Kher et al. (2010)

C Lack of integration and transparency in retrievingtraceability information along the whole FSC

Salampasis et al. (2012)

C Data related issues such as data protection, trust,privacy/security, and reliability

Chrysochou et al. (2009), Donnellyand Olsen (2012), Mangina and Vlachos (2005)

C Problem of information asymmetry along supply chain Xiaoshuan et al. (2010)Capacity limitation C It is resource-intensive requiring much administration

and paper works which place burden on small producersof food (i.e. due to capacity limitation of smaller companies)

Engelseth (2009), Schwägele (2005)

C Lack of trained staff for technical and management aspectsof traceability system

Xiaoshuan et al. (2010)

Awareness limitation C Initial resistance, e.g. considering traceability as a hugebureaucratic load and reluctance in investing in IT-supportedtraceability systems and less attention given to link the qualityand safety information with product flow

Alfaro and Rábade (2009), Heyder et al. (2012),Saltini and Akkerman (2012)

C Less willingness by some FSC partners to participate in theimplementation of traceability systems

Liao et al. (2011)

C Less clarity concerning the incentives and benefits to be gainedfrom implementing traceability system and its investment cost

Van der Vorst (2004)

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e4840

contains GMO components, because the consumers require suchinformation; there is inadequate knowledge about long term ef-fects GMO on health and environment; and there are no real in-ternational agreement on principles, testing methods and safetyevaluation (Regattieri et al., 2007).

Food packing and labeling are main requirements for imple-menting (paper or electronic based) effective FTS as these activitieslinks material flow with information flow (Manos & Manikas,2010). However, in some cases customers desire to buy loose pro-duce (unpacked) especially in case of fresh produce. Such casescould be considered as extra challenge in realizing traceability in-formation flow.

6.3. Standard limitation

Lack of adequate and standardized data and means of data ex-change are area that needs more efforts and research works toimprove FTSs. FTS is usually complicated due to variations in datacapturing, inconsistency in types of captured data, variations insharing data within a facility and among FSC partners, and lack ofdefinitions of key terms such as “lot” or “batch” (McEntire et al.,2010). The major problem which is common for traceability tech-niques such as numerical code, bar code, radio frequency identifi-cation (RFID) tags is lack of standardization which createscompatibility problems among different solutions introduced bydifferent actors in a supply chain (Regattieri et al., 2007; Salampasiset al., 2012).

Canavari et al. (2010) argued that every company or supplynetwork must find its ownmodel fitting its purposes and activities.In developed countries, automated data capturing and electronicdata coding showed well progress at food company levels but, dueto lack of standardization, data transmission from one actor toanother is difficult and introducing sector-specific data terminologyis recommended as effective way to tackle the problem (Thakur &Donnelly, 2010). Structured data lists, vocabularies and ontologycan be considered as appropriate tools to achieve universal dataexchange (Thakur et al., 2011). However, the code standardizationexercise is costly (Van Dorp, 2003).

Kher et al. (2010) has pointed out that, in GFL, the existingtraceability systems are efficient but stricter enforcement anduniform standards within FSC are required to make the systemsmore effective. Under GFL, regulation No.178/2002, new standardshave been set for implementation of food and ingredient trace-ability systems as of 1, January 2005. According to this regulation,each of food and feed business operators must answer two ques-tions: from whom were the ingredients and food/feed obtained(one-step-backward)? To whom the products were sold (one-step-forward)? (see Fig. 3). But the information (questions) shouldinclude how food was transported (including the distributionroute) to get complete information in case a damage or con-tamination happened during transport from shipper to receiver(Hall, 2010). Even in developed countries, there is gap of informa-tion for tracing food damages/contamination during transportation(Ackerley, Sertkaya, & Lange, 2010).

Fig. 3. Conceptual illustration of one-step-backward and one-step-forward approach:who is the supplier/s of ingredients and/or partially processed food? Who is/are thereceiver/s of food items?

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48 41

6.4. Capacity limitation

The complex nature of FTS requires skilled staff for its develop-ment, implementation, and management. Moreover, differentpartners in the FSC have different objectives of FTSmaking full chaintraceabilitymore complex. The FSC partnersmay not have adequateskill andnumberof employees to effectively implement andmanagethe FTS (Xiaoshuan et al., 2010). Even in the case of small foodproducers, FTS could placemorework load as they have experiencedcapacity limitation (Engelseth, 2009; Schwägele, 2005).

6.5. Awareness limitation

Considering traceabilityas extra burden, lack of clear informationconcerning the benefits of traceability and absence of uniformwillingness among FSC partners to participate in the implementa-tionof traceability systems are problems related to lack of awareness(see Table 5). For example, the study by Liao et al. (2011) indicated

Table 6Technological innovations applied for product traceability purposes.

Description Examples Example of in

Productidentification

C Bar codes Manufactureritem number

C Tag (e.g. RFID tags) Breed, date oof Livestock

C EID (e.g. electronic tag) Product nameorigin, and coand storage

Quality and safety measurement C Penetrometer,firmometer, twist tester,Instro machine, Kiwifirm

Firmness of fl

C Infrared & magneticresonance imaging

Firmness of pphysical objec

C Equipment for chemicalanalysis

Presence of h

C Smart packaging devices(e.g. pH indicators,chemical bar codes)

Growth of bamonitoring o

C Nanotechnology baseddevices (Nano sensors)

Presence of ptemperatureand toxins

Genetic analysis C DNA tests Quantity of GEnvironmental

monitoringC Intelligent packaging(temperature-indicator,freshness-indicator,Gas-indicator,biosensors)

Temperature,composition o

Geospatial datacapturing

C GIS, RS, GPS Site specific dplants on the

C Nuclear techniques Isotopic and e

Data exchange C EDI, EXL Exchange of s

Software C QualTrace, EQM, Food Trak Integration of

EID-electronic identification, GIS-geographic information system, RS-remote sensing, GPinterchange, EXL-extensible markup language, DNA-deoxyribonucleic acid. Sources: KariDonnelly (2010); Yam et al. (2005).

that introducing FTS in developing countries is not easy task due totechnical limitation and lack of awareness. These authors identifiedthat the Taiwan Agriculture and Food Traceability program, initiatedin 2004 by Taiwan government, failed mainly due to lack of farmers’awareness of the traceability program. This indicates that effectivetraining and education programs are required to increase the tech-nical capacity and the awareness level of participants.

7. Technological advancement in relation to producttraceability

7.1. Technologies for managing traceability data

Table 6 presents lists of most technological innovations appliedin FTSs. These technological innovations are mainly applied forProduct Identification, Quality and Safety Measurement, GeneticAnalysis, Environmental Monitoring, Geospatial Data Capturing,Data exchange, and Software development for integrated trace-ability analysis (Opara, 2003).

In the product identification process, the most common types ofcapturing data in the FSC are paper record, bar code, RFID andelectronic systems (Azuara et al., 2012; Manos & Manikas, 2010;McEntire et al., 2010). Some of technologies introduced to meatindustry include bar codes, microcircuit cards, radio frequency tagsand transponders, voice recognition systems, biocoding, andchemical markers (Mousavi, 2002).

formation to be captured Remark

identification number,, packed date, batch number

Widely used for inventorycontrol, stock recording,and checkouts

f birth, farm, vaccinations Tags should withstand tear,wear, and harsh environmentalconditions. Can also be used astime-temperature indicators

, batch/lot number, price,nditions of handling

eshy products To measure quality andsafety status

roduct, presence of hazardousts inside food productsazardous microbial contaminants

cteria (e.g. for real-timef fish spoilage)

athogens, gases, spoilage, changingand moisture, chemicals,

Can be applied as Nano sensorsin smart packaging and as portableNano sensors

MOs and other transgenic materialsrelative humidity, atmosphericf the air (including pollutant)

To analyze impact of externalenvironment on quality andsafety of food

ata on animals and their movement,farm

To remotely collect and integratedata, and map geospatial variability

lemental fingerprints To determine the provenance offood; to identify the geographicalorigin and source of contamination

tandardized and structured data To facilitate information sharingparticularly via internet

technologies for full traceability system Example of commercial software

S-global positing system, EQM-enterprise quality management, EDI-electronic datappacheril et al. (2011); Mousavi et al. (2002); Pacquit et al. (2007, 2006); Thakur and

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e4842

RFID tag consists of an integrated circuit (that stores the uniqueidentification number), an antenna (to which a microchip isattached) and a memory and it interacts with a reader that isconnected to a computer system. The radio waves reflected backfrom the RFID tag is converted by the reader into digital informa-tion that will be added to the information system of the company(Azuara et al., 2012; Kelepouris et al., 2007). The integrated circuit isprotected and covered by encapsulation which protects againstdust, extreme temperatures, moisture, heat and salt (Azuara et al.,2012). The distance at which the reader can work depends on thefrequency band. Azuara et al. (2012) mentioned the followingtypical frequency bands: low frequencye LF (125e134.2 kHz); highfrequency e HF (13.56 MHz); ultra high frequency e UHF (865.5e867.6 MHz in Europe, 915 MHz in USA, and 950e956 MHz inJapan) and industrial, scientific andmedicale ISM (2.4 GHz). LF andHF bands are used for animal identification while UHF and ISMbands are used for object identification.

Although alphanumerical code, bar code, and RFID are funda-mental techniques available for traceability (data capturing),nowadays, alphanumerical codes are not frequently used becausethey require significant human resources and costs, they are notautomatic in code reading, and they are associated with high dataintegrity corruption. Bar codes are also less attractive to food sector,because positioning the code labels and scanning process requiresconsiderable human intervention and so there is room for error andinefficiency (Regattieri et al., 2007). Bar codes use standards such asEuropean Article Numbering (EAN) and Uniform Code Council(UCC) and GS1. GS1 is a common global standard came into exis-tence by the affiliation of EAN and UCC (Chrysochou et al., 2009).

RFID tags are very effective tools for food traceability becausethe tags are very small with no compatibility problem with foodsand they have no communication problem between tags andtraceability database (Azuara et al., 2012; Regattieri et al., 2007;Salampasis et al., 2012). They can carry a wide range of unique foodproduct information that can be updated; can provide additionalinformation such as temperature; can be read from a long distance;and the automaticity of RFID saves time of traceability exercise(Chrysochou et al., 2009). The main limitation of RFID tags is theirhigh costs (a threshold value is upto 8 Euro per tag) (Chrysochouet al., 2009; Regattieri et al., 2007). Specific environmental condi-tions (wet, cold, etc.) and metal objects may sometimes disturb theinformation communication by RFID tags (Chrysochou et al., 2009).

There are quality and safety measurement techniques that arevery important to control the safety status of food products. Peres,Barlet, Loiseau, and Montet (2007) discussed the physicochemicaltechniques (e.g. analysis of variation of the radioactive isotopecontent of the product) and biological techniques (e.g. analysis oftotal bacterial flora using different techniques such as deoxy-ribonucleic acid (DNA) chips). Other technologies such as timeetemperature indicators (indicate the temperature history duringdistribution and storage), freshness indicators (estimate theremaining shelf life), gas indicators (monitor changes in the gascomposition inside the package), and biosensors (detect, record,and transmit information pertaining to biochemical reactions) areemerging technologies under intelligent packaging technologies(Yam et al., 2005). Yam et al. (2005) classified these smart packagedevices into two types: Data Carriers (e.g. bar code labels and RFIDtags) which store and transmit data, and Package Indicators (timeetemperature indicators, gas-indicators, biosensors) which canmonitor the external environment and issue warnings for appro-priate measures to be taken when the food in the package isexposed to damage or contamination.

The potential future innovations for improved speed and pre-cision of food traceability lie in integration of emerging technol-ogies (DNA fingerprinting, nanotechnology, retina imaging) into

crop and foodeanimal production industries (Opara, 2003). DNAbased technologies, edible tags, and e-paper tags (electronic paperthat displays the appearance of regular ink on paper) are emergingtechnologies being introduced in FTSs (Chrysochou et al., 2009).Although, they are expensive, DNA-based traceability techniquesare very effective and have further advantages over paper basedaudits because: i) these techniques can be used to verify the ac-curacy of other methods like ear tagging; ii) DNA is more stablemolecule at environment up to 120 �C; and iii) the results can berepeated, standardized and automated (Negrini et al., 2008).

A fully operational electronic-based traceability system requireshardware (such as physical auxiliary devices, material handlingequipment and plant layout design) and software (such as algo-rithms, labeling and coding techniques, read/write capabilities,software hardware interface, and system integration) (Mousavi,Sarhadi, Lenk, & Fawcett, 2002). QualTrace, EQM, and FoodTrackare examples of commercial software applicable for FTSs (seeTable 6).

7.2. Continuity of traceability information flow

Application of advanced IT in connection to internet has becomeimportant information sharing among the members of FSC(Bourlakis & Bourlakis, 2006). Salampasis et al. (2012) used Trace-ALL as an application framework for FTS. TraceAll is an innovativeframework completely based on standards of Semantic Web ini-tiatives and enables food industry to implement effective trace-ability system. Thakur and Donnelly (2010) has discussed sometechnologies for traceability information exchange such as EDI(Electronic Data Interchange which enables firms with mature ITcapabilities to efficiently exchange standardized and structureddata), XML (Extensible Markup Language which facilitates thesharing of structured data particularly via internet) are being testedin food industry (see Table 6). Once captured, the traceability in-formation must be linked to traceable resource unit (TRU) such asa truckload of raw material (unprocessed food) or a productionbatch.

Traceability information flow could be realized through inte-grating static (retirement/catch date, country of origin, expiry date,size, etc.) and dynamic (lot/batch number, order ID, despatch date,taste, etc.) traceability data (Folinas et al., 2006; Olsen & Aschan,2010). Folinas et al. (2006) argued that there are two types oftraceability information flow models:

I. One step upeOne step down flow model: In this case thereis information filtering i.e. keeping some information at eachstage while allowing other to follow the product as it movesto the next stage of the supply chain. This model is moreflexible and easy to use and is suggested for food traceabilitye.g. by EC Regulation 178/2002.

II. Aggregated information flowmodel: In this case there is noinformation filtering. Aggregated information follows theproduct all the way in the supply chain to the point of sale.This model is widely used for traceability of organic products,fresh fish and meat, and identifying GMO-free products.

Chain traceability requires effective information connectivitybetween the information systems of partners in the supply chain. Inorder to address this, contemporary researches focus on developingeffective information connectivity with aid of advanced informa-tion technology (Azuara et al., 2012; Bertolini et al., 2006; Engelseth2009; Salampasis et al., 2012; Shanahan et al., 2009). In order tobriefly describe the concept of Product Transformation (also calledbatch-dispersion) in a supply chain, an explanation based ona simplified diagram and similar to what was discussed by Olsen

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48 43

and Aschan (2010) has been used here (see Fig. 4). Olsen andAschan (2010) applied the process mapping method, an approachwidely used in process re-engineering. It enables to get a picture ofinformation flow in the existing system of a supply chain underconsideration, identify point of information discontinuity, and re-design the system. The trade units (TUs), logistic units (LUs), ve-hicles, trips etc. should be uniquely identified and recorded alongwith the information about the mixing, grouping or ungrouping,joining or splitting, and information about links between TU and LUas well as inputs and outputs (see Fig. 4). The availability of suchwell-connected information flow can boost the development of aneffective FTS (Olsen & Aschan, 2010; Regattieri et al., 2007).

In different FSCs, there are important stages which greatly in-fluence the quality and availability of clear information. Forexample, in food industry where raw materials are sourced fromdifferent suppliers, batch mixing stage is important stage as foodrecall size depends on batch size, batch mixing and clear infor-mation (lot-specific information) recorded at the mixing stage, andthe available skill (at firm level) to manage the food recall action.Reductions in batch size and batch mixing improve the precision oftraceability, however, they affect the production operations (Riden& Bollen, 2007; Saltini & Akkerman, 2012; Tamayo, Monterio, &Sauer, 2009). In case of fresh produce supply chain, the level ofsupply chain at which the produce is packed and labeled de-termines the availability and quality of information required fortraceability system (Liao et al., 2011; Manos & Manikas, 2010). Forinstance, packhouses are the source of major uncertainty and dis-jointed information systems in fruit supply chain (Bollen, Riden, &Cox, 2007). In the meat industry, capturing and storing informationat the stage of cutting and boning processes (after slaughter) ismore difficult and the captured data needs to be linked to animalsupply chain and meat retail supply chain which in turn needsdevelopment of effective information connectivity (Mousavi et al.,2002). Van Dorp (2003) has discussed that European Commission(EC) adopted rules in Brussels, on 17 July 2000, concerning

Fig. 4. A typical material flow in a supply chain illustrating the linkage between trade unistages where information should be captured, stored and transmitted as required. TU ¼ trastage.

compulsory beef labeling systems. As compulsory information,a beef label must include a traceability reference number (relatingbeef with animal) such as batch number (to be assigned at cuttingand deboning level), and license number of slaughterhouse andcutting or deboning plant.

8. Perceptions toward food traceability technologies

The perceptions of experts toward traceability are not necessa-rily in line with those of consumers. Unlike experts, consumers arenot much interested in traceability (especially the technical aspectof traceability issues). Consumers need often labels that are un-derstandable and it is not advisable to overload the consumers withinformation, especially on the package front label (Kimura et al.,2008; Van Dorp, 2003; Van Rijswijk et al., 2008; Verbeke & Ward,2006). A study by Kimura et al. (2008) has pointed out that pro-viding too little information to consumers is also not advisable. Nonelectronic label is usually considered less credible and reliable byconsumers. On the other hand, label is perceived more convenient(by consumers) than RFID or bar codes which require a device toretrieve product information (Chrysochou et al., 2009).

Usually, consumers consider that quality and safety assurancesupported by traceability system are important and they are willingto pay a higher price for such quality and safe food product. How-ever, they consider that traceability alone is of less importance(Hobbs et al., 2005; Van Rijswijk et al., 2008; Verbeke & Ward,2006). A case study by Hobbs et al. (2005) using 104 Canadianconsumers of beef sandwich, indicated that consumers were will-ing to pay only about 7% of the base value of product as additionalprice for traceability system without additional quality and safetyassurances (i.e. only traceability to the farm) while they werewilling to pay up to 40% when the introduced traceability systemwas associated with more quality and safety controlling efforts.Even, there are different consumers’ perceptions concerning foodquality and safety issues in different countries due to cultural

ts, logistics units, transformations, and duration between transformations. It indicatesde unit; LU ¼ logistic unit; RM ¼ raw material; Ing ¼ ingredient; T ¼ transformation

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e4844

differences. For example, Van Rijswijk et al. (2008) cited that innorthern and central parts of Europe (e.g. UK, Scandinavia andGermany), food safety and ethical issues have priorities while foodquality has more priority in southern countries (e.g. France, Spain,Italy, and Greece). However such perceptions are subjected forchanges due to potential influences of increasing consumers’awareness and incidences of food crisis. In addition to food qualityand safety, consumers give more attention to sustainability issueswithin agri-food system (Hu et al., 2013).

There exist also societal concerns regarding impact of technol-ogies. For example, reported drawbacks of RFID technology such asthe uncertainty in ethical and privacy issues (e.g. should personaldata be used for tracking consumers’ purchases?) as well as theuncertainty regarding the impact on consumers’ health (e.g. what isthe impact of electromagnetic radiation on health?) have attractedattention. In US, the issue of privacy (RFID related) has sparkeda debate between government agencies and privacy groups(Chrysochou et al., 2009). In general, these concerns indicate thatdeveloping food traceability should take into consideration theeffective way of communicating traceability information to theconsumers and other stakeholders.

9. Traceability characteristics in agriculture and food supplychain

9.1. Elements of food traceability

Well-designed traceability systems are required for food pro-cessors. According to Opara (2003), six elements of traceabilityexist in agricultural and FSC: Product Traceability (focuses onphysical location of products at any stage in the FSC), ProcessTraceability (focuses on type and sequences of activities that haveaffected the product), Genetic Traceability (focuses on the geneticconstitution of the product), Input traceability (focuses on type andorigin of inputs such as fertilizer, chemical sprays, feed, additivesused for food preservation), Disease and Pest Traceability (tracesthe epidemiology of pests and emerging pathogens that may con-taminate food), and Measurement Traceability (focuses on qualityof measurement relating individual measurement results toaccepted reference standards).

The choice of suitable and efficient traceability depends onstructure of FSC under consideration; relationship between part-ners; capacity (human or technological) of managing transactions,quality and production processes; and packaging materials andmethods (Manos & Manikas, 2010). In long FSC, implementation ofeffective traceability system needs integration of different parts ofsupply chains. For example in meat industry full traceability can beachieved by integrating the livestock supply chain, abattoir andboning hall activity chain, and meat retail supply chain (Mousaviet al., 2002; Wognum et al., 2011). The recent study by Saltini andAkkerman (2012) has indicated that implementing traceabilitysystem that fully cover the entire supply chain could lead to highestbenefit than improving traceability partially (on a single productionsystem).

9.2. Traceability in the case of local food supply chain

Local food supply chain refers to short food chains which mostlyprovide food products that are produced and consumed within thesame area (e.g. within a radius of about 250 km in case of Sweden).Developing well detailed traceability systems is not easy for smallfood producing and processing companies. For exampleChrysochou et al. (2009) have reported that it is difficult toimplement the bar code on fruits that are to be sold on streetmarkets and small grocery stores which are important means of

marketing for small food producers, although these bar code onfruits are advantageous from environmental point of view (i.e. theycan substitute for plastic packaging). These small companies mayexperience cost disadvantages when compared with medium andlarge sized companies (Kelepouris et al., 2007; Kher et al., 2010).The limitations include lack of information about the traceabilitysystems and lack of enough knowledge to implement it (Kher et al.,2010; Manos & Manikas, 2010).

In order to overcome these problems, activities related toinformational flow should be coordinated to facilitate the devel-opment of effective and efficient FTSs in the case of small scale FSC.Referring to previous studies, Manos andManikas (2010) suggestedthat a central database can be established for small food producersso that they can easily access and share information via a personalcomputer and Internet connection. The central database may becoordinated by farmers’ cooperatives and it can serve as a mile-stone for the integrated FSCM.

In the case of small enterprises with simpler and shorter FSC,such as the case of local FSC, the recall process is less costly andmore effective (Donnelly et al., 2012). This simplifies the develop-ment of food traceability in case of small scale FSCs. The result ofcase study by Manos and Manikas (2010) indicated that, in the caseof small farmers, an efficient paper-based traceability system(simplest form of traceability) could enable to effectively trace theproduct. This indicates that there is no need of introducingexpensive and complicated traceability systems (for small pro-ducers) at farm level. It should be noticed that developing cost-effective traceability technologies for both large and small scaleproducers and enterprises as well as providing training (for thesetechnology users) on the principles and procedures of traceabilityare essential (Opara, 2003).

10. Improving food traceability systems

Traceability in agriculture and FSC is a field under developmentwhere more innovations are required. Especially, full chain FTSs aremore complex and require the development of better traceabilitydevices (see Table 6), as well as innovations in FSCM (Thakur &Donnelly, 2010; Xiaoshuan et al., 2010). The traceability informa-tion should be analyzed using new technological innovations andelectronic-based (and exponentially developing) data analysistechniques.

Once technological capacity is in place, other important factorssuch as employee’s skill, awareness, and motivation (as well as thecommitment) of leadership are necessary for effective traceability(Donnelly et al., 2012). Therefore, appropriate training on conceptand importance of food traceability is essential, because somepartners of FSC consider traceability activities not only as costlyprocess but also as extra burden. This type of training enables tosolve problems identified as capacity and awareness limitations(see Table 5). Furthermore, researches on integrated traceabilitysystems and further development of user-friendly traceability toolsand data processing software should be promoted by all stake-holders. These scientific researches should be planned to effectivelytackle the challenges (see Table 5) in FTSs.

Integrating traceability activities and food logistics activities isthe effective means of improving the supply chain management.Specifically, it could strengthen the information connectivity andcommunication among partners and this strong information con-nectivity could enhance the traceability systems. Moreover, con-sidering traceability issues at early stage of designing the foodlogistics network is important. Because, food traceability is relatedto some important logistics elements such as packaging, labeling aswell as application of data capturing and transferring techniques.

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48 45

There are increasing interests from society, governmentagencies, and researchers in the security of FSC. These interests canbe organized and used to attract financial funding and promote thedevelopment and implementation of effective and efficient FTSsthat intern enhance the management of food safety risks. It is alsoimportant to prepare traceability guidelines. Food companies needmore clear guidelines and regulations for implementing FTSs (Vander Vorst, 2004). It should also be noticed that traceability alone isnot a sufficient condition to satisfy the food safety requirements inthe FSC and it should be considered as a complimentary tool toother quality and safety management programs such as HazardAnalysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems.

Effective traceability system reinforces a maximum level of co-ordination between different partners of FSC (Rábade & Alfaro,2006). On the contrary, lack of coordination and inaccuracy ofshared information cause inefficiency, not only in FTSs but also inFSCM. Information delay, divergent interests and opportunisticbehavior of some actors, and information asymmetry across thesupply chain affect the quality of shared information (Canavariet al., 2010; Mohtadi, 2008). Therefore, controlling the quality ofthe information shared between actors of supply chain needs moreattention. This enables to tackle the traceability challenges identi-fied as information and standard limitations.

The decreasing cost of new traceability tools such as improvedbar codes and RFID tags enable to promote better FTSs. For examplecheaper and more efficient nanoscale RFIDs are emerging due tothe development of nanotechnologies (Karippacheril et al., 2011,pp. 285e310). These authors also have pointed out that, integrationof nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, andcognitive science is an emerging trend in agriculture and food se-curity. In the next decade, the dramatic increase in the applicationof RFID technology is expected in food industry (Chrysochou et al.,2009) due to its decreasing cost and increasing performance(Azuara et al., 2012; Salampasis et al., 2012). This in turn couldreduce the overall traceability cost such as cost of tracking ship-ments e.g. by reducing time of dealing with various shelf-life issuesand simplifying communication among partners (McCallum, 2012).This declining cost of RFID technology and the development inother digital tools such as GIS (see Table 6) encouraged countrieslike China to introduce FTSs and improve their competitiveness inthe global food market (Smith et al., 2008; Xiao-hui, Da-fang, &Dong-sheng, 2007; Xiaoshan et al., 2010).

11. Assessing the performance of food traceability systems

In assessing the success of an agri-food supply chain, a perfor-mance measurement system can be defined as “a system that en-ables a firm to monitor the relevant performance indicators ofproducts, services and production processes in appropriate timeframe” (Aramyan, Lansink, Van der Vorst, & van Kooten, 2007).These performance indicators (criteria for evaluating products,services, and production processes) enable to evaluate the effec-tiveness (achieving the highest percentage of expected output), theefficiency (achieving the expected output withminimum resource),and the competency (gaining the best comparative net value). Theevaluation can be performed by comparing against the appropriatenorms and/or goals of the systems under consideration (Aramyanet al., 2007; Fugate, Mentzer, & Stank, 2010). Examples of perfor-mance indicators identified by Aramyan et al. (2007) for the eval-uation of agri-food supply chain performance are: profit; lead-time;delivery promptness, waste elimination; reliability; cost; respon-siveness (e.g. order fulfillment lead-time); asset; service effective-ness and efficiency; operational effectiveness and efficiency; andflexibility. The authors grouped these indicators into four cate-gories: efficiency, flexibility, responsibility, and food quality.

In case of food traceability, we argue that the performance of fullchain traceability should be evaluated against its overall goal. Thisoverall goal should incorporate important specific goals: Com-pliance with rules and legislation; food safety and quality; socialand stakeholders’ satisfactions; economic benefits; and techno-logical and scientific benefits. The efficiency and effectiveness ofFTS in achieving these specific goals could pinpoint the perfor-mance level of the system.

Many factors impact the performance of FTSs. Goal of eachcompany, tradeoff between costs and benefits, and the level (highor low) of implemented traceability system can be mentioned asexamples (Van der Vorst, 2004). The fact that partners in the FSChave usually conflicting goals makes the performance evaluationmore complex. The ability to limit the volume of recalled productsand the cost related to recall activities have been often used asmeasure of the performance of traceability systems (Dabbene &Gay, 2011). Van der Vorst (2004) conducted a study on perfor-mance levels of FTSs and deduced three strategic levels of trace-ability performance which can be expressed as:

(I) Compliance-oriented performance level e In this case, eachcompany complies to regulatory (government) issues indi-vidually, and focuses on registration of incoming and outgoingmaterials. This makes the food chain to act as a fragmentedorganization and the chain performance can be assessed bycompiling individual performances.

(II) Process-oriented performance level e In this case, the focusis on controlling the production process using local ICT-systems while complying with regulatory issues and aimingto gain a better return from the traceability system.

(III) Market-oriented performance level e In this case, achievinghigher competitive advantage is the main target, focusing onprocesses redesign (value addition) and establishment of fulltraceability system within supply chain. The traceability per-formance is based on the joint effort of partners to design andprovide a product.

Information is the heart of the performance measurementprocess. However, it is probably difficult to develop a commontraceability information flow model fitting all circumstances in thesupply chain. However, the better performance of a FTS can beexplained in terms of its breadth, depth, precision, and access to(the captured, stored, and transmitted) data and information.McEntire et al. (2010) defined these important terms as:

➢ Breadth: The amount of information the traceability systemrecords.

➢ Depth: How far upstream or downstream in supply chain thesystem traces and tracks

➢ Precision: The degree of assurancewith which the system canpinpoint a particular product’s movement or characteristics

➢ Access: The speed with which tracking and tracing informa-tion can be communicated to supply chain members and thespeed with which the requested information can be dis-seminated to public health officials during food-relatedemergencies

Continuous flow of reliable traceability information could inturn enhance the integration of logistics activities and improve theFSCM as whole (McEntire et al., 2010; Tamayo et al., 2009). Effectivetraceability system reinforces a maximum level of coordinationbetween different partners of FSC (Rábade & Alfaro, 2006).Although improving efficiency of logistics processes and introduc-ing IT systems are getting more attention by food industries, effortsto integrate IT operations with logistics operations are rare

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e4846

(Bourlakis & Bourlakis, 2006). Moreover, this review has pointedout that the issue of developing complete and effective FTS thatfully integrated into food logistics management is quite complex innature as it requires a deeper understanding of real processes fromdifferent perspectives such as economic (market power, financialbenefits and costs), legal (governmental legislations, politicalpressure), technological (availability and affordability, capacity todevelop new techniques), and social (public health, sustainability)issues. Therefore, it is not only the food traceability performancebut also the methods of assessing the performance should bestudied and developed.

12. Conclusion

The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensiveliterature review on FTSs within limited scope which embraces thedefinitions, drivers, benefits, barriers, technologies, improvement,and performance of FTSs. About 62% of randomly selected studiesfocused on Europe augmenting the claim (by other studies) thatEurope is leading in developing and implementing FTSs.

Three key components of traceability definitions were noticed:backward follow-up (tracing), forward follow-up (tracking), andproduct history information associated with product movement inthe supply chain. Key terms such as tracing, tracking, tracing andtracking have been used (in defining food traceability) ofteninconsistently and interchangeably which created confusions. Ingeneral, there are limitations in addressing complete concept ofcontemporary FTSs. Therefore, new definition has been proposed inthis study: Food traceability is part of logistics management whichcapture, store, and transmit adequate information about a food, feed,food-producing animal or substance at all stages in the food supplychain so that the product can be checked for safety and quality control,traced upward, and tracked downward at any time required. Thisdefinition suggests that, conceptually, food traceability should beconsidered as an important and integral part of logistics manage-ment in contemporary food and agricultural supply chains.

Major driving forces behind the development and imple-mentation of FTSs have been identified and presented in five cat-egories: food safety and quality, regulatory, social, economic, andtechnological concerns. Similarly, the major benefits of FTSs havebeen identified and categorized as: increase in customer sat-isfaction, improvement in food crises management, improvementin FSCM, enhanced company competence, enriched technologicaland scientific contribution and contribution to agricultural sus-tainability. The identified barriers to implementation FTSs also havebeen presented as limitations in: resource, information, standard,capacity, and awareness.

The technological innovations that are mainly applied for Prod-uct Identification, Quality and Safety Measurement, Genetic Anal-ysis, Environmental Monitoring, Geospatial Data Capturing, Dataexchange, and data/information integration have been identified.This study has pointed out that more effective and cheaper foodtraceability technologies are emerging which in turn facilitating theintegration of static and dynamic traceability data and ensuring thecontinuity of information flow within the supply chain.

Experts are often inclined toward technical aspect of food trace-ability while consumers consider that traceability alone is lessimportant unless it address well issues of food quality and safety aswell as sustainability of food production. Some actors of food supplychain (FSC) consider traceability as bureaucratic burden and are lesswilling to implement it. There exist also societal concerns about thepotential impactsof traceability technologies (e.g.RFID)onconsumers’health and on data privacy. In general, the implementation of foodtraceability should be associatedwith effectiveway of communicatingtraceability information to the consumers and other stakeholders.

The choice of suitable and efficient traceability depends onstructure of FSC under consideration; relationship between part-ners; capacity (human or technological) to manage transactions,quality and production processes; and packaging materials andmethods. In long FSC, implementation of effective traceabilitysystem needs integration of different parts of supply chains.Implementing traceability system that fully cover the entire supplychain leads to highest benefit than focusing on partial improve-ment of traceability.

Developing well detailed traceability systems is not easy forsmall food producing and processing companies as they lackfinancial capacity, adequate traceability information and enoughknowledge to implement it. In the case of small farmers, an efficientpaper-based traceability system (simplest form of traceability)enables to effectively trace the product indicating that there is noneed of introducing expensive and complicated traceability sys-tems at farm level. However, coordinated information connectivity,by establishing a central database, is essential so that the small foodproducers can easily access and share information via a personalcomputer and Internet connection. This also serves as a milestonefor the integrated supply chain management for local FSC and mostprobably, such database may be coordinated by farmers’cooperatives.

Developing and implementing a full chain FTS is a complex taskthat requires more innovations. It can be enhanced by: developingeffective and efficient traceability technologies and innovativeFSCM; providing trainings to improve employee’s skill, awareness,and motivation (as well as the commitment) of leadership;encouraging more researches on integrated traceability systemsand further development of user-friendly traceability tools and dataprocessing software; integrating traceability activities and foodlogistics activities; strengthening the information connectivity andcommunication among partners; considering traceability issues atearly stage of designing food logistics network is important;organizing the increasing interests from society, governmentagencies, and researchers in the security of FSC and using it toattract financial funding and promote; preparing more cleartraceability guidelines; and ensuring the quality of the informationshared between actors of supply chain.

The performance of full chain food traceability should be eval-uated against its overall goal which should incorporate importantspecific goals such as: compliance with rules and legislation; foodsafety and quality; social and stakeholders’ satisfactions; economicbenefits; and technological and scientific benefits. The efficiencyand effectiveness of the introduced FTS in achieving these specificgoals could pinpoint the performance level of the system. Theperformance of FTS could also be evaluated by its ability to improvethe breadth, depth, precision and access of information. Such animproved information flow will in turn enhance the integration oflogistics activities and improve the FSCM as whole.

13. Limitation and recommendations

This review was based on limited number of studies mainlysourced from scientific electronic databases that could be accessedby the authors of this study. There might be other relevant studieson food traceability issues but not enclosed in this. However, thereview result has pointed out important issues regarding FTSs asdiscussed in previous sections. Based on these review results,important recommendations have been provided.

Developing better and full chain FTS is reasonably complex innature as it requires a deeper understanding of real processes fromdifferent perspectives such as legal, economic, technological, andsocial issues. This makes FTS a potential area of research in agri-food supply chain. Therefore:

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e48 47

➢ Further researches on traceability should focus on issues suchas: improving technological aspects of traceability systems;the link between traceability system and food productionunits; standardization of information exchange; integrationof traceability into logistics management; awareness creationstrategies, and the efficiency of communicating traceabilityinformation to consumers and other stakeholders.

➢ The linkage between different drivers of food traceabilitycould positively influence the implementation of the trace-ability system. For example it can facilitate the strategicplanning for developing and implementing affordable anduser friendly FTSs. This should be further investigated usingcase studies.

➢ Studies on assessment of food traceability performance arerare in comparison to the increasing interest in FTSs. There-fore, detailed studies should be conducted to develop effec-tive frameworks for performance evaluation of FTSs.

References

Ackerley, N., Sertkaya, A., & Lange, R. (2010). Food transportation safety: charac-terizing risks and controls by use of expert opinion. Food Protection Trends,30(4), 212e222.

Alfaro, J. A., & Rábade, L. A. (2009). Traceability as a strategic tool to improve in-ventory management: a case study in the food industry. International Journal ofProduction Economics, 118, 104e110.

Aramyan, L. H., Lansink, A. G. J. M., Van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., & van Kooten, O. (2007).Performance measurement in agri-food supply chains: a case study. SupplyChain Management: An International Journal, 12(4), 304e315.

Arana, A., Soret, B., Lasa, I., & Alfonso, L. (2002). Meat traceability using DNAmarkers: application to the beef industry. Meat Science, 61, 367e373.

Atkins, P. (2008). Fear of animal foods: a century of zoonotics. Appetite, 51, 18e21.Azuara, G., Tornos, J. L., & Salazar, J. L. (2012). Improving RFID traceability sys-

tems with verifiable quality. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 112(3),340e359.

Bertolini, M., Bevilacqua, M., & Massini, R. (2006). FMECA approach to producttraceability in food industry. Food Control, 17, 137e145.

Bollen, A. F., Riden, C. P., & Cox, N. R. (2007). Agricultural supply system traceability,part I: role of packing procedures and effects of fruit mixing. Biosystems Engi-neering, 98, 391e400.

Bourlakis, M., & Bourlakis, C. (2006). Integrating logistics and information tech-nology strategies for sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of EnterpriseInformation Management, 19(4), 389e402.

Canavari, M., Centonze, R., Hingley, M., & Spadoni, R. (2010). Traceability as partof competitive strategy in the fruit supply chain. British Food Journal, 112(2),171e186.

Chow, H. K. H., Choy, K. L., Lee, W. B., & Chan, F. T. S. (2007). Integration of web-based and RFID technology in visualizing logistics operations e a case study.Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 221e234.

Chrysochou, P., Chryssochoids, G., & Kehagia, O. (2009). Traceability informationcarriers. The technology backgrounds and consumers’ perceptions of thetechnological solutions. Appetite, 53, 322e331.

Dabbene, F., & Gay, P. (2011). Food traceability systems: performance evaluation andoptimization. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 75, 139e146.

Donnelly, K. A.-M., Karlsen, K. M., & Dreyer, B. (2012). A simulated recall study infive major food sectors. British Food Journal, 114(7), 1016e1031.

Donnelly, K. A.-M., & Olsen, P. (2012). Catch to landing traceability and the effects ofimplementation e a case study from the Norwegian white fish sector. FoodControl, 27, 228e233.

Engelseth, P. (2009). Food product traceability and supply network integration.Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 24(5), 421e430.

Folinas, D., Manikas, I., & Manos, B. (2006). Traceability data management for foodchains. British Food Journal, 108(8), 622e633.

Food Standards Agency. (2002). Traceability in the food chain e A preliminary study.Available at http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/traceabilityinthefoodchain.pdf Accessed 25.06.12.

Fugate, B. S., Mentzer, J. T., & Stank, T. P. (2010). Logistics performance: efficiency,effectiveness, and differentiation. The Journal of Business Logistics, 31(1), 43e61.

Golan, E., Krissoff, B., Kuchler, F., Calvin, L., Nelson, K., & Price, G. (2004). Traceabilityin U.S. food supply: Economic theory and industry studies. Agricultural EconomicReport [830]. USDA/Economic Research Service, Available at www.ers.usda.govAccessed 25.06.12.

Greger, M. (2007). The long haul: risks associated with livestock transport.Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 5(4),301e311.

Hall, D. (2010). Food with a visible face: traceability and the public promotion ofprivate governance in the food system. Geoforum, 41, 826e835.

Hayes, B., Sonesson, A. K., & Gjerde, B. (2005). Evaluation of three strategies usingDNA markers for traceability in aquaculture species. Aquaculture, 250, 70e81.

Heyder, M., Theuvsen, L., & Hollmann-Hespos, T. (2012). Investments in trackingand tracing systems in the food industry: a PLS analysis. Food Policy, 37,102e113.

Hobbs, J. E., Bailey, D. V., Dickinson, D. L., & Haghiri, M. (2005). Traceability in theCanadian red meat sector: do consumers care? Canadian Journal of AgriculturalEconomics, 53, 47e65.

Hong, I.-H., Dang, Jr-F., Tsai, Y.-H., Liu, C.-S., Lee, W.-T., Wang, M.-L., et al. (2011). AnRFID application in the food supply chain: a case study of convenience stores inTaiwan. Journal of Food Engineering, 106, 119e126.

Hu, J., Zhang, X., Moga, L. M., & Neculita, M. (2013). Modeling and implementa-tion of the vegetable supply chain traceability system. Food Control. 30(1),341e353.

Karippacheril, T. G., Rios, D. L., & Srivastava, L. (2011). Global markets, global chal-lenges: Improving food safety and traceability while empowering smallholdersthrough ICT. ICT in Agriculture, Module 12. Available at http://www.ictinagriculture.org/sites/ictinagriculture.org/files/ICT%20in%20Agriculture%20e-Sourcebook_0.pdf Accessed 19.01.13.

Karlson, K. M., Dreyer, B., Olsen, P., & Elvevoll, E. O. (2013). Literature review: doesa common theoretical framework to implement food traceability exist? FoodControl. 32(2), 409e417.

Kelepouris, T., Pramatari, K., & Doukidis, G. (2007). RFID-enabled traceability in thefood supply chain. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 107(2), 183e200.

Kher, S. V., Frewer, L. J., De Jonge, J., Wertholt, M., Davies, O. H., Luijckx, N. B. L., et al.(2010). Experts’ perspectives on the implementation of traceability in Europe.British Food Journal, 112(2), 261e274.

Kimura, A., Wada, Y., Tsuzuki, D., Goto, S.-i., Cai, D., & Dan, I. (2008). Consumervaluation of packed foods. Interactive effects of amount and accessibility ofinformation. Appetite, 51, 628e634.

Levinson, D. R. (2009). Traceability in the food supply chain. Research report [OEI-02-06-00210]. Department of Health and Human Services of USA.

Liao, P.-A., Chang, H.-H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2011). Why is the food traceability systemunsuccessful in Taiwan? Emprical evidence from a national survey of fruit andvegetable farmers. Food Policy, 36, 686e693.

Liu, H., Kerr, W. A., & Hobbs, J. E. (2012). A review of Chinese food safety strategiesimplemented after several food safety incidents involving export of Chineseaquatic products. British Food Journal, 114(3), 372e386.

Li, S., Visich, J. K., Khumawala, B. M., & Zhang, C. (2006). Radio frequency identifi-cation technology: applications, technical challenges and strategies. SensorReview, 26(3), 193e202.

Mai, N., Bogason, S. G., Arason, S., Árnason, S. V., & Matthiasson, T. G. (2010). Benefitsof traceability in fish supply chain e case studies. British Food Journal, 112(9),976e1002.

Mangina, E., & Vlachos, I. P. (2005). The changing role of information technology infood and beverage logistics management: beverage network optimization usingintelligent agent technology. Journal of Food Engineering, 70, 403e420.

Manos, B., & Manikas, I. (2010). Traceability in the Greek fresh produce sector:drivers and constraints. British Food Journal, 112(6), 640e652.

McCallum, S. (2012). Protecting the food supply: hi-tech food banks and the safetyof food supply chains. DomPrep Journal, 8(4), 5e6.

McEntire, J. C., Arens, S., Bernstein, M., Bugusu, B., Busta, F. F., Cole, M., et al. (2010).Traceability (product tracing) in food systems: an IFT (Institute of Food Tech-nology) report submitted to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), volume1: technical aspects and recommendations. Comprehensive Reviews in FoodScience and Food Safety, 9, 92e158.

McMeekin, T. A., Baranyi, J., Bowman, J., Dalgaard, P., Kirk, M., Ross, T., et al. (2006).Information systems in food safety management. International Journal of FoodMicrobiology., 112, 181e194.

Mohtadi, H. (2008). Information sharing in food supply chains. Canadian Journal ofAgricultural Economics, 56, 163e178.

Mousavi, A., Sarhadi, M., Lenk, A., & Fawcett, S. (2002). Tracking and traceability inthe meat processing industry: a solution. British Food Journal, 104(1), 7e19.

Negrini, R., Nicoloso, L., Crepaldi, P., Milanesi, E., Marino, R., Perini, D., et al. (2008).Traceability of four European protected geographic indication (PGI) beefproducts using single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and Bayesian statistics.Meat Science, 80, 1212e1217.

Olsen, P., & Aschan, M. (2010). Reference method for analyzing material flow, in-formation flow and information loss in food supply chains. Trends in Food Sci-ence and Technology, 21, 313e320.

Opara, L. U. (2003). Traceability in agriculture and food supply chain: a review ofbasic concepts, technological implications, and future prospects. Food, Agri-culture and Environment, 1(1), 101e106.

Orre, K. (2005). The logistics of food supply following radioactive fallout. Journal ofEnvironmental Radioactivity, 83, 429e432.

Pacquit, A., Frisby, J., Diamond, D., Lau, K. T., Farrell, A., Quilty, B., et al. (2007).Development of a smart packaging for the monitoring of fish spoilage. FoodChemistry, 102, 466e470.

Pacquit, A., Lau, K. T., McLaughlin, H., Frisby, J., Brid, Q., & Diamond, D. (2006).Development of a volatile amine sensor for the monitoring of fish spoilage.Talanta, 69, 515e520.

Peres, B., Barlet, N., Loiseau, G., & Montet, D. (2007). Review of the current methodsof analytical traceability allowing determination of the origin of foodstuffs. FoodControl, 18, 228e235.

Rábade, L. A., & Alfaro, J. A. (2006). Buyer-supplier relationship’s influence ontraceability implementation in the vegetable industry. Journal of Purchasing andSupply Management, 12, 39e50.

T. Bosona, G. Gebresenbet / Food Control 33 (2013) 32e4848

Randrup, M., Wu, H., & Jørgen, B. M. (2012). On the track of fish batches in threedistribution networks. Food Control, 26, 439e445.

Regattieri, A., Gamberi, M., & Manzini, R. (2007). Traceability of food products:general framework and experimental evidence. Journal of Food Engineering, 81,347e356.

Resende-Filho, M. A., & Hurley, T. M. (2012). Information asymmetry and trace-ability incentives for food safety. International Journal of Production Economics,139, 596e603.

Riden, C. P., & Bollen, A. F. (2007). Agricultural supply system traceability, part II:implications of packhouse processing transformations. Biosystems Engineering,98, 401e410.

Salampasis, M., Tektonidis, D., & Kalogianni, E. (2012). TraceALL: a semantic webframework for food traceability systems. Journal of Systems and InformationTechnology, 14(4), EarlyCite pre-publication article.

Saltini, R., & Akkerman, R. (2012). Testing improvements in the chocolate trace-ability system. Impact on Product Recalls and Production Efficiency, 23, 221e226.

Schroeder, T., & Tonsor, G. T. (2012). International cattle ID and traceability: com-petitive implications for the US. Food Policy, 37, 31e40.

Schwägele, F. (2005). Traceability from a European perspective. Meat Science, 71,164e173.

Shanahan, C., Kernan, B., Ayalew, G., McDonnell, K., Butler, F., & Ward, S. (2009).A framework for beef traceability from farm to slaughter using global stan-dards: an Irish perspective. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 66, 62e69.

Smith, G. C., Pendell, D. L., Tatum, J. D., Belk, K. E., & Sofos, J. N. (2008). Post-slaughter traceability. Meat Science, 80, 66e74.

Smith, G. C., Tatum, J. D., Belk, K. E., Scanga, J. A., Grandin, T., & Sofos, J. N. (2005).Traceability from a US perspective. Meat Science, 71, 174e193.

Sonneveld, K. (2000). What drives (food) packaging innovation? Packaging Tech-nology and Science, 13, 29e35.

Tamayo, S., Monterio, T., & Sauer, N. (2009). Deliveries optimization by exploitingproduction traceability information. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intel-ligence, 22, 557e568.

Thakur, M., & Donnelly, K. A.-M. (2010). Modeling traceability information in soy-bean value chains. Journal of Food Engineering, 99, 98e105.

Thakur, M., Sørensen, C.-F., Bjørnson, F. O., Forås, E., & Hurburgh, C. R. (2011).Managing food traceability information using EPCIS framework. Journal of FoodEngineering, 103, 417e433.

Van der Vorst, J. G. A. J. (2004). Performance levels in food traceability and theimpact on chain design: results of an international benchmark study. InH. J. Bremmers (Ed.), Dynamics in chains and networks (pp. 175e183). TheNetherlands: Wageningen academic publishers http://dx.doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-526-0.

Van Dorp, K.-J. (2003). Beef labeling: the emergence of transparency. Supply ChainManagement: An International Journal, 8(1), 32e40.

Van Rijswijk, W., Frewer, L. J., Menozzi, D., & Faioli, G. (2008). Consumer perceptionsof traceability: a cross-national comparison of the associated benefits. FoodQuality and Preference, 19, 452e464.

Verbeke, W., & Ward, R. W. (2006). Consumer interest in information cues denotingquality, traceability and origin: an application of ordered probit models to beeflabels. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 453e467.

WHO. (2011). FAQs: Japan nuclear concerns e Food safety. World health organization,Available at http://www.who.int/hac/crises/jpn/faqs/en/index7.html Accessed14.0712.

Wilson, T. P., & Clarke, W. R. (1998). Food safety and traceability in the agriculturalsupply chain: using the internet to deliver traceability. Supply Chain Manage-ment: An International Journal, 3(3), 127e133.

Wognum, P. M., Bremmers, H., Trienekens, J. H., Van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., &Bloemhof, J. M. (2011). Systems for sustainability and transparency of foodsupply chains e current status and challenges. Advanced Engineering Infor-matics, 25, 65e76.

Xiao-hui, Q., Da-fang, Z., & Dong-sheng, Q. (2007). Studies on GIS based tracing andtraceability of safe crop product in China. Agricultural Sciences in China, 6(6),724e731.

Xiaoshuan, Z., Jian, Z., Feng, L., Zetian, F., & Weisong, M. (2010). Strengths andlimitations on the operating mechanisms of traceability system in agro food,China. Food Control, 21, 825e829.

Yam, K. L., Takhistov, P. T., & Miltz, J. (2005). Intelligent packaging: concepts andapplications. Journal of Food Science, 70(1), 1e10.