IntroductionAs an island state in the turmoil of the mid-twentieth Century,the United Kingdom (UK) drove for self-sufficiency in foodproduction. Increasingly intensive methods became the normin certain sectors, such as poultry and pigs. Subsequently, in the1960s, a backlash occurred against ‘factory farming’ and all thatthis system appeared to entail – poor attention to the welfare ofthe individual animal, excessive use of chemicals and damageto the environment. However, the consumer has become usedto the idea of cheap food, and has not generally expected to paya premium for animal produce reared in a more traditionalmanner.

This increasing public concern for animal welfare has meantthat, in recent years, the UK has taken action on farm animalwelfare in advance of European Union (EU) regulations. Forexample, the use of sow-stalls and veal crates has been phasedout. As imported food animals may now be raised in conditionsbanned in the UK, this has left farmers in the UK at acommercial disadvantage.

Since the late 1980s, consumers have seen a major crisis in foodproduction and a series of food scares. Such problems haveaffected many of the member states of the EU and countriesfurther afield, but bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)was first identified in cattle in the UK and remainspredominantly a problem in that country. Although theevidence suggesting that BSE is a zoonosis did not appear until1996, the unproven fears that this would be the case hadcaused serious damage to consumer confidence in beef longbefore this time. Many consumers were shocked to hear of the‘unnatural’ livestock feeding practices which turned ruminantsinto carnivores, enabling the epizootic of BSE to occur (26).

As was the experience elsewhere, Salmonella enteritidis wasconsidered to be widespread in the poultry industry of the UKin the late 1980s, causing great concern for poultry farmers,especially egg-producers. Listeria monocytogenes was found incertain unpasteurised dairy products and chilled preparedmeals. Sheep were contaminated by radioactive caesium fromthe Chernobyl incident. Lead contamination was found in

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 2001, 20 (2), 584-597

Traceability in the food animal industryand supermarket chains

SummarySince the 1950s, consumers in the United Kingdom (UK) have learned to expectcheap, but safe food. A number of incidents in the 1980s and 1990s caused publicalarm and loss of confidence in the role of producers and the Government in thefood supply. This review examines the impact of recent food scares in the UK,where scrutiny of the food industry has led to the introduction of new controls atall stages of production. Animal feed manufacture, livestock production, slaughterand the use or disposal of animal by-products are now controlled in waysunimagined prior to the identification of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)in the late 1980s. Traceability has become an important issue for consumers and,by proxy, for the multiple retailers that service consumer needs. Retailers haveincreasingly managed the food chain to ensure high standards that can be provenby audit. The retailers have also found that a commercial advantage can be gainedfrom certain aspects of source verification. In order to maximise sales in adepressed market, producer groups have themselves developed a multiplicity ofassurance schemes.

KeywordsAnimal products – Assurance – Food – Livestock – Supermarkets – Traceability.

R.G. Pettitt

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Room 204, 1A, Page Street, London, SW1P 4PQ, United Kingdom

batches of cattle feed. More recently, incidents of Escherichia coli(VTEC O157) food poisoning (some of which have been fatal)gave even greater cause for concern (24).

In addition, criminal tampering with foodstuffs has occurredduring this period, carried out by persons with a grudge againsta food company or simply for monetary gain throughblackmail. Such an incident can be devastating for amanufacturer or retailer, but an effective mechanism forproduct recall and removal from sale can moderate thecommercial damage and the risk to the customer.

The need for traceabilityThe White Paper on Food Safety (12) by the EuropeanCommission emphasised that such problems are aninternational issue and addressed many of the concerns notedabove. In particular this paper summarised, as follows:

‘A successful food policy demands the traceability of feed andfood and their ingredients. Adequate procedures to facilitatesuch traceability must be introduced. These include theobligation for feed and food businesses to ensure that adequateprocedures are in place to withdraw feed and food from themarket where a risk to the health of the consumer is posed.Operators should also keep adequate records of suppliers ofraw materials and ingredients so that the source of a problemcan be identified.’

Traceability of livestock and food serves a number of purposes,namely to protect the following:

– animal health: control of epizootic and enzootic livestockdiseases, e.g. classical swine fever (hog cholera), foot andmouth disease, Aujeszky’s disease, Johne’s disease, scrapie

– public health: recall of food products from sale, enforcementof drug withdrawal periods

– both animal and public health: control of zoonotic diseases(tuberculosis, salmonellosis, BSE) and control of emergencies(contaminated land, contaminated animal feed)

– animal welfare: enforcement of standards

– the investment by the taxpayer: audit of livestock supportschemes.

Tracing the source of livestock has become more complicatedin recent years. The marketing of livestock and animal productshas developed with improvements in transport, especially roadtransport. Many livestock, notably cattle and sheep, are nowtraded many times before being ready for slaughter. Animalsmay be slaughtered hundreds of kilometres from the originalplace of rearing, and in Europe, international trade of live foodanimals is particularly common.

Systems of food animal traceability have not always kept pacewith commercial developments, but have evolved as needs

were identified. As traceability entails increased costs, theperceived need for improvement has often followed a costlycrisis in the agriculture or food industry.

Identification systems forlivestockTraceability of livestock requires the unique identification ofindividual animals or groups of animals. For centuries,livestock have been identified in order to prove ownership or tomaintain breeding programmes. Systems of ear punch marks,horn brands and tattoos are still in use, although not oftenrecognised for official purposes. The ear tag is a more modernsolution, allowing official bodies to regulate the issue ofnumbers, although the ear tag suffers from the possibility ofloss.

Member states of the EU have now standardised official cattleidentification in the form of uniquely-numbered pairs of tags(one in each ear) to guard against loss of identity. In addition tothe official numbering, farmers often use cross-referencedmanagement identification systems such as freeze brands,collars, colour marks or even the pet names of cows for day-to-day use.

Recording movements oflivestockA simple paper farm register of animal movements on and offthe farm has proved invaluable for the control of epizooticdisease. Assuming that every record book covering a chain ofmovements is complete, accurate and retained for reference,animals can be traced back to the possible source of a disease.Stock can be forward-traced to identify premises at risk of thespread of disease. However, tracing through farm-based paperrecords is laborious and time-consuming.

Where livestock subsidy is paid from EU funds, the farmregister must be effectively maintained to justify claims. Thisprovides a valuable incentive for the register to be kept up-to-date, over and above the legal requirement.

Modern developments in disease control and subsidy audit areleading to centralised regional or national movement registersheld as computer databases. In Europe, this is most developedfor cattle tracing, the main driving-force being the need forsource-verification of beef following the BSE crisis of 1996. Forexample, in the UK, two systems are in use, in Great Britain(England, Scotland and Wales) and Northern Ireland,respectively. Great Britain has a centralised database of cattle,each individual being recorded on the system and issued with

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2) 585

an identity document (a ‘passport’ in younger cattle) whichaccompanies the animal throughout life. This document issurrendered at slaughter, providing the meat inspection servicewith the necessary information to label meat according tosource. A separate tracing system is in operation in NorthernIreland, as described in the paper by McGrann and Wiseman inthis issue (21).

The cattle tracing system in Great BritainWhen a new-born calf is ear-tagged, the birth is registered onthe central database and entered in the farm register. Thedatabase issues a paper passport which accompanies the calfthroughout life. At each movement to a new farm, the off- andon-movements are recorded in the farm register, on thedatabase and on the passport. At the slaughterhouse, themovement history on the passport can be used in thepreparation of labels for the meat. The meat hygiene service(MHS) returns the passport to the central database to record thedeath of the animal (Fig. 1).

The integrity of the tracing system is controlled by the physicalinspection of a proportion of animals and documents.Sanctions such as movement restriction, loss of value or loss ofpremium may be applied where non-compliance is detected(Fig. 2).

The triplicate movement records on the passport, database andfarm register are a necessary safeguard while the databases arebeing trialled, although the extra work is unpopular withfarmers. Future development of live access to the computerisedcattle database systems should allow the industry to dispensewith paper documents, the necessary information beingextracted directly from the database when needed.

For national trade, the current EU system of marking for sheepand goats identifies the premises of birth, but does notnecessarily allot each animal an individual number.Consultation of the farm register and the documents whichaccompany batches of sheep or goats still satisfies most of therequirements for tracing. However, accurate identification ofintermediate holdings (where a particular sheep or goat hasbeen kept between the holding of birth and the slaughterhouse)can prove difficult with such a system. For example, tracingthrough paper records might reveal a number of possibleholdings which would each need to be investigated in thecourse of tracing the source of disease.

Pigs in the EU are also required to be identified to the holdingof birth. However, because much of the pig (and poultry)industry in the UK is vertically integrated, intermediateholdings are limited in number.

Recent developments inidentification and traceability oflivestockIncreasingly, new technology is entering the field of animalidentification. For example, many countries incorporate a barcode on the ear tag for ease of use and to avoid transcriptionerror.

Radio-frequency identification devices (RFIDs) may beattached to ear tags, implanted subcutaneously or beincorporated in a bolus placed in the reticulum of ruminants.

586 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2)

Central cattledatabase

Farm register1

Slaughterhouse records

Birth registration

Passport

Passport

Farm register2

Farm register3

OFF

OFFOFF

ON ON

ON

OFF

OFFON

Passport

Farm register1

Slaughterhouse records

Birth registration

Passport

Passport

Farm register2

Birth andtagging of calf

Batchnumber

Farm register3

OFF

ON OFFOFFON

ON

Passport

Passport

OFFOFF

OFF

ON ON

ON

Passport

Fig. 1The cattle tracing system in Great Britain

One major constraint on the uptake of this technology inEurope is the absence of widely accepted internationalstandards for the use of these devices. An approved Europeanstandard will hopefully follow publication of the results of thecurrent trial (Identification électronique des animaux [IDEA])being conducted by the European Commission (27).

Scottish Borders Traceability and AssuranceGroupThe Scottish Borders Traceability and Assurance Group (TAG)is an industry initiative comprising a full traceability system forcattle based on electronic identification (EID) using RFID eartags and readers to comply with the standards of theInternational Organization for Standardization (ISO) 11784and 11785. Electronic data transfer (EDT) is used to transmitdata to farm databases, a scheme database and the nationalcattle tracing system (Fig. 3) (8).

If the look-up table is made available to third parties, such as amarket or slaughterhouse, the RFID device may be readautomatically into the business management system. This

integration of RFID tags with slaughterhouse management iswell developed in some other countries, such as Australia (18).

For greater security of identification, more sophisticatedsecurity technology, such as DNA profiling or retinal imaging,may be applied to food animals in the future, although the costis currently prohibitive. The collection of samples stored forlater DNA profiling (if required) has seen limited use in themeat industry as a method to limit the cost of product recall.

Trade benefits of traceability –government initiatives

Legislative controls requiring the traceability of livestock haveenabled producers to benefit from schemes that allow widertrade. Following the implementation of further BSE-relatedcontrols in 1996, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries andFood (MAFF) subsequently introduced two schemes in the UKin which traceability is an essential feature.

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2) 587

Fig. 2The cattle passportNote the bar codes for avoidance of transcription errors

The MAFF BSE database is consulted to check the history ofeach animal, to establish that no BSE has been confirmed on thefarm of origin. Any death on the farm must be reported andinvestigated by histopathology for lesions of spongiformencephalopathy at a MAFF laboratory. If BSE were to besuspected (which has not happened to date), membershipwould be suspended immediately until a negativehistopathology result was received.

When each animal over thirty months of age is sent forslaughter, the animal must be accompanied by an officialcertificate which confirms the BAS status of the animal. Thescheme has attracted only a limited membership.

The date-based export schemeThe date-based export scheme (DBES) is the second MAFFscheme designed to implement the terms agreed in the EU(Commission Decision 98/692/EC) (11) and the OfficeInternational des Epizooties (OIE) recommendations for theresumption of international trade in beef from the UK. Thescheme allows the export from the UK of deboned beef and

588 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2)

The Beef Assurance SchemeFollowing scientific advice to restrict the consumption ofadditional parts of older cattle, a decision was taken in 1996 toallow the sale for human consumption of beef from GreatBritain only if the meat was produced from cattle under the ageof thirty months at slaughter. As an exception to this rule, theBeef Assurance Scheme (BAS) was designed to allow the sale ofbeef from grass-fed, slow-maturing traditional breeds of beefcattle which may not be finished at thirty months. Membershipof BAS allows the deadline to be relaxed, slaughter for humanconsumption being acceptable up to forty-two months of age.The rules of membership are onerous, as follows:

– the producer is required to double-tag all cattle (this wasintroduced in advance of the general legal requirement in 1998)

– documentary proof must be provided that meat-and-bonemeal has not been fed during the last seven years

– the farm must not have experienced BSE

– the herd must be an all-beef herd and must have containedno dairy cattle in the previous seven years

– purchased cattle must be sourced from farms of similarstatus.

EID : electronic identificationRFID : radio-frequency identification device

Fig. 3The Scottish Borders TAG cattle tracing system

beef products from eligible cattle born after 1 August 1996. Tobe eligible, cattle must also fulfil the following basic criteria:

– be aged between six and thirty months at the time ofslaughter

– have a complete movement history on the cattle passportand, where appropriate, on the cattle tracing system

– the mother must have survived at least six months after thebirth and must not be a suspected or confirmed case of BSE.

In addition, cattle must be slaughtered in DBES-approvedslaughterhouses and the carcasses cut and processed in export-approved establishments (23).

In advance of farmers sending the animals for slaughter, theslaughterhouse checks the eligibility of each prospective animalusing the MAFF DBES administration unit. The various checksinclude searching the following databases for the necessaryofficial evidence that the mother of the calf survived for sixmonths:

– cattle tracing system (record of a later calving on thedatabase; date of slaughter at a licensed slaughterhouse)

– subsidy schemes (date of claim)

– slaughter schemes (over thirty-month scheme, BSE selectivecull)

– notifiable diseases database (records of sundry diseaseoutbreaks, e.g. anthrax, tuberculosis).

If evidence is insufficient to pass these checks, the animals willnot be sent to a DBES-approved slaughterhouse. For thoseanimals that pass, the database is checked again on the day ofslaughter to ensure that the animal is still eligible for exportunder the scheme.

Management of the food supplychainThe Food Safety Act of 1990 was part of the response to thefood crises by the Government of the UK. This legislation wasdrafted to implement the response of the EU Directive 89/397(10). At all points in the food supply chain, ‘due diligence’ mustnow be demonstrated. For the retail end of the supply chain,this has been translated into an increased emphasis ontraceability of all ingredients, in order to assure the consumerand the government inspector that due diligence is in place (6,16, 32).

The House of Commons Select Committee on Agricultureresumed the situation, as follows:

‘From a food safety point of view, the traceability of producethroughout the food chain is of substantial benefit. Multipleretailers have recognised this, and effectively audit theirproduce from the level of the farm until it arrives on their

shelves. As well as allowing multiple retailers to influenceproduction methods in response to changing consumerpreferences, assurance schemes and traceability assist greatly inpinpointing food safety problems when they arise’ (19).

In addition, the food-processing sector is increasingly usingprocess control approaches based on hazard analysis, criticalcontrol point (HACCP) principles advocated by the CodexAlimentarius Commission. This is an international initiativeemployed to identify, evaluate and control hazards which aresignificant for food safety (2).

Once converted from an animal to an item of food, traceabilitydepends on similar prerequisites as noted above for animals,namely:

– identification of the item or batch

– records of the source and distribution of product.

Although parallels exist with the traceability of livestock, theaudit trail for food items becomes increasingly complex as theitems are mixed, processed or stored for long periods. The firstprerequisite for the continuity of identification through the foodchain is maintenance of a link between the animal and theprimary product. The official animal identification number maybe transferred to the product, but more generally, a cross-reference is maintained between the animal identificationnumber and the identification of the product batch.

Product coding systemsOnce packaged for sale, most food products (and many otheritems such as pharmaceuticals) are labelled with a productcode, generally in the form of a bar code.

Most items are given a batch code or lot number to allow anynecessary tracing in the case of product recall; this is a legalrequirement in the EU. The amended Council Directive89/396/EEC established a framework for a common lot orbatch identification system to facilitate product recall along theentire food chain (10). This was implemented by the Food (LotMarking) Regulations 1996 in the UK (Fig. 4) (20).

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2) 589

Fig. 4Symbol for the EAN 13 product code

The batch code or lot number is provided by the manufacturer,and may be formed from production line numbers, shiftnumbers, time of production, etc., in any combination. This isusually printed on the packaging as a series of letters and

Fig. 5Symbol for EAN 128 coding

Fig. 7Labelling for a pallet quantity of trade items

numbers, but may additionally be encoded within a bar code,such as the EAN128 code (35).

Product codes and lot numbers or batch codes, are generallyprinted on the outer case packaging and pallet label (the ‘tradeitem’) in addition to being printed on the individual retail items.The value of having this ‘secondary’ product information in thebar code is that traceability data can be scanned into thecomputer network of the retailer to automate the maintenanceof an audit trail. Batch or lot numbers in this format may beformed using alphabetic characters, numeric characters, orboth, and may have any length up to a maximum of twentycharacters (Fig. 5).

The ‘sell-by’ or ‘use-by’ date is closely associated with the lotnumber or batch code as a pointer to the date of production.The product code and the ‘sell-by’ date may therefore be all thatis needed to identify a product for withdrawal from sale, forexample, where the production over a single day is found to bebelow specification. However, this is relatively crude, andtherefore expensive to implement. Full reference to the batchcode allows product recall to be more discriminating.

Example of product coding by a supermarketchainStandardised bar-coding for the outer packaging of products ina controlled food chain is presented in Figures 6 and 7 (29).The major retailers use the entire range of modern informationtechnology systems to maintain the source and distributiondata for each batch. Investments in ‘business-to-business’computer systems and associated scanning technology are notmade for traceability alone, but are driven by the need to reducemargins in an intensely competitive industry.

Although bar codes are most commonly used for data entry, theuse of newer technology is becoming more popular. Adevelopment of the bar code is the ‘two-dimensional’ bar code,known as a portable data file (PDF). An example is the PDF417standard which can encode more than a kilobyte of data in

590 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2)

Fig. 6Labelling for outer case of a trade item

machine-readable code the size of a postage stamp. This can belaser-printed on documents used to accompany shipments ofproduce, enabling rapid entry of source data to the retailernetwork of the receiving depot (Fig. 8). To further automate theprocess of data collection, RFIDs may be attached to containers(such as pallets) and vehicles. Depots and retail premises maybe connected by a wireless local area network (WLAN) tofacilitate data capture and exchange.

Business-to-business exchangeof electronic dataAccording to ECR Europe, a joint trade and industry body, theefficient consumer response (ECR) movement began in themid-1990s and was characterised by the emergence of newprinciples of collaborative management along the supply chain.Companies realised that consumers could be served better,faster and at less cost by working together with trading partners(14).

Two main strands of ECR are relevant to traceability in retailing,namely: electronic data interchange (EDI) and supply chainmanagement (SCM). Electronic data interchange refers toelectronic communications or transactions between businessesvia software applications (1).

A simple form of EDI is the use of electronic mail to replacepaper documents in business transactions. A more advancedimplementation of EDI is the use of private wide area network(WAN) installations.

Food Trak: an example of Internet-basedelectronic data interchangeA computer-based traceability service for the food supply chainhas been developed in the UK by a private company. The FoodTrak service enables information, principally related to foodsafety, to be input at the farmer or grower level, checked againstrelevant approved practices, linked with identifiable batches offood and passed on through a secure Internet connection tonominated parties further along the supply chain (22).

At each stage of production or manufacture, data are loadedonto the Food Trak computer via a modem link or bytelephone. An electronic ‘key’ is passed to the next business inthe supply chain to enable access to the data for that batch. This‘key’ may be encoded into the bar code of the batch (17). Whenthe finished product reaches a retailer, the full history of allingredients and products is stored on the system, to be accessedas necessary by the retailer.

Example of electronic data interchange in asupermarket chainThe supermarket chain Tesco has over 500 outlets in the UK.The ordering system is sales-based, collecting information onproduct sales from the checkout scanners. These data are sentelectronically to the store control-centre computers. Thesecomputers calculate what items need to be replenished andsend the data to the depot serving that store. Where stock is notheld at the depot, orders are generated automatically andforwarded to suppliers using EDI. By employing such a system,a replacement can be on the shelves within 24 hours of a sale(15).

Online trading exchangeThe latest incarnation of EDI is the concept of the onlinetrading exchange. Trading exchanges are similar in design tothe ‘hub and spoke’ system of private EDI networks. Thecompany that runs the exchange is the ‘hub’, and all of thebuyers and suppliers who belong to the exchange are the‘spokes’. However, instead of expensive private networkinstallations, the trading exchange is configured as an ‘Extranet’.This uses the technology of the Internet to provide secureglobal data exchange to business subscribers.

Businesses connect to an exchange using standard Internetbrowsers. Members conduct transactions by sendinginformation to the hub, which routes that information to theappropriate party. Documents such as purchase orders, invoicesand shipping notices are typically sent in extensible markuplanguage (XML) format, which allows the receiving companiesto load the documents into their own business systems.

A trading exchange being developed for use by UK multiplefood retailers is GlobalNetXchange, favoured by Sainsbury(UK) for the ‘Sainsbury information direct’ (SID) service.Carrefour (France) and Metro (Germany) also useGlobalNetXchange. Tesco, a major rival of Sainsbury in the UK,is developing the ‘Tesco information exchange’ (TIE) on theworld-wide retail exchange, alongside two other major UKretailers, Marks & Spencer and Kingfisher (34).

Supply chain managementSupply chain management is the use of information technologyto plan and control the flow of goods, services, information andmoney, back and forth through the supply chain (1). As the use

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2) 591

Fig. 8PDF471 symbology

Name Acronym Use

Complaints analysis reporting system CARES Used by stores to report details on customer complaints and by the company to communicate those complaints to the relevant supplier

CARES for depots Reporting system used by the distribution network to communicate all product refusals at the point of receipt and whole load failures

Corporate file management CFM Central database of supplier and item details; maintained by buyers

Crates tracking Monitors all collections of empty plastic crates from RDC sites

Distribution inventory and stock control DISCO Records the movement of stock into and out of RDC sites

Gate house register GHR Records the movement of all vehicles and equipment on and off the RDC site

Office automation system in Sainsbury’s OASIS Sainsbury’s internal electronic mailing system, which can have external links to suppliers

Sales-based replenishment SABRE Store ordering system; orders goods to replenish actual sales and forecasts of sales

Supply chain integrated ordering network SCION Central ordering system; generates purchase orders for suppliers to deliver goods into RDCs

Sainsbury’s information direct SID Online trading exchange

RDC: regional distribution centre

Table IMainframe computer systems in supermarkets: example of J. Sainsbury (29)

of information technology in the commercial world expands,the retailer is able to shorten the supply chain. The shorter thechain and the more data shared between vendor and purchaserby electronic means, the better the quality of the audit trail forany particular batch of product.

The major food retailers use complex computer systems thatmaintain stock levels at a commercially-desirable minimum.Online ‘electronic point-of-sale’ (EPOS) data are nowcommonly used as a source of information for the system thatreplenishes stocks of produce. The complexity of modernsystems is illustrated by the example presented in Table I.

Farm assurance and whole-chain assurance schemesSupermarket companies in the UK are engaged in a highlycompetitive struggle for market share and have found thatcertain guarantees relating to the source, breed, feeding regimeand welfare-friendly management of animals can encourageconsumers to buy their product instead of the product offeredby a competitor. The supermarkets are also keen to differentiateadditional requirements for different end-customers. Own-label branding is an important factor in the UK. These productsare seen as providing additional assurance through thesupermarket branding, despite carrying a discount against theprice of the traditional brand (13).

The five largest supermarket retailers control approximately60% of the market for food in the UK. These companies havetherefore become extremely powerful operators in decidingthe future direction of food production. In the recent past,farmers would have expected to be paid a premium for the

Many retailing organisations have ‘sub-contracted’ the role ofsource verification to the various producer-driven farmassurance schemes in operation. These schemes rely on acombination of compliance with statutory requirements, suchas the identification of livestock and movement recording, withadditional guarantees designed to provide the necessaryassurance required by the particular ‘added-value’ scheme.Requirements may dictate organic farm practice, keepinganimals in more extensive conditions than those required bylaw, restricting production to certain breeds or geographical

592 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2)

Fig. 9Examples of assurance labels currently used in Great Britain

production of food to certain additional standards. Now thatmargins are reduced, the market works in a different way;much of the market is closed to a farmer who does notembrace one or more of the assurance schemes designed togive added value. To the consumer, a confusing array ofassurance labels now exists (Fig. 9).

locations, etc. These schemes are usually promoted andoperated by producer trade organisations and either self-regulated or controlled by an independent party (4, 9). Tosatisfy trading partners, assurance schemes are obtainingaccreditation to the EN45011 standard for product certificationschemes.

Farm Assured British Beef and LambIn 1992, Farm Assured British Beef and Lamb (FABBL) wascreated as a limited company by the National Farmers’ Union(NFU), the National Cattle Association, the National SheepAssociation and the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers. Thisis an example of a horizontal partnership, i.e. one that existswithin one part of a supply chain (2).

In common with similar schemes, FABBL is concerned withanimal welfare, origin of stock and feed, feed composition andstorage, housing and handling facilities and the responsible useof veterinary medicines.

Assured British MeatHalf of the beef and lamb in supermarkets in the UK is nowestimated to be from FABBL or the equivalent schemes inScotland and Wales. Overall management and independentverification of compliance with the rules of the (meat) schemeswas instituted by a new producer-driven initiative known asAssured British Meat (ABM). The agreement between ABM andFABBL was announced in 1998. Other schemes havesubsequently joined ABM to realise the aim of enhancedconsumer confidence in beef, lamb and pork by establishing asafety assurance framework for the entire supply chain.

The ABM standards cover the manufacture of feedstuffs, on-farm production, transport, livestock markets, abattoirs,caterers, butchers, manufacturers and retailers. All members aresubject to rigorous, independent inspection to ensure that thesestandards are adhered to. For example, the rules of the ABMscheme for multiple retailers include the following with regardto product traceability:

a) an appropriate system must be in place to enable products tobe withdrawn and enable subsequent recall of products whichhave been sold

b) all finished products must be identified in such a manner asto allow the product withdrawal system to operate effectively

c) part-finished or finished products awaiting packing must beclearly labelled with the appropriate description and codinginformation

d) to maintain full traceability, all meat production recordsshould be kept with a record of the supplier (3).

Although the individual parts of the ABM scheme arehorizontal partnerships, the scheme itself is an example of avertical partnership, forged through collaboration betweenparts of a supply chain (2).

National Farmers’ Union British Farm StandardlabelThe process of reorganisation and clarification shown by ABMis continuing: ‘Increasingly, the different parts of the food chainare coming together to produce coherent schemes that cancover a product throughout the food chain’ (22).

The British Farm Standard scheme was launched by the NFUin June 2000, supported by a red tractor logo. This schemecombines six different quality standards (Assured ChickenProduction, Assured Combinable Crops, Assured Produce,Assured British Meat, National Dairy Farm Assurance Schemeand Assured British Pigs) into one trademark to identify foodwhich meets specific standards of food safety, animal welfareand environmental issues. The scheme was developed, in part,to address concerns about the proliferation of food labels,which were confusing consumers and creating unnecessaryburdens for producers. It is managed by Assured FoodStandards (AFS) which will seek mutual recognition of schemesin the EU and beyond. Most major retailers in the UK aresupporting the initiative (7).

The role of AFS is both to develop an integrated and commonframework, within which existing assurance schemes canwork, and to license the use of the British Farm Standard logo(25).

Other assurance schemesAssurance schemes do not relate only to health risks and animalwelfare. Organic food is gaining a market share despite thepremium paid by the consumer. Since early 1999, the drive tocertify own-label food items as free of genetically modified(GM) products has been gaining momentum (30).

All such schemes need to be credible to the sophisticatedconsumer. A confusing plethora of industry-funded labellinginitiatives is gradually being replaced by independently auditedassurance programmes. In some cases, labelling claims need tobe supported by scientific evidence, for instance the claim thatan item is free of GM products. Retailers may use their ownlaboratories or contract this work to specialists in the field.

The value of assurance schemes is that many products,especially animal products, are not amenable to being tested ina laboratory to prove the claims on the label. For instance, eggsproduced intensively may be indistinguishable from a ‘welfare-friendly’ variety, so an effective tracing system is the only meansto ensure that the labelling reflects the true contents of thepackage. Traceability is very important in improving long-termcompetitiveness and is made most effective by the developmentof partnerships (8).

Farm assurance schemes may have particular characteristicsdesigned by the retailer for marketing advantage. In this case,the retailer will usually employ an inspection force to ensure

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2) 593

compliance with the rules, non-compliance leading to loss ofthe contract. Some retailers go as far as requiring their ownaudit visits at all the premises of the suppliers, in addition to theinspections necessary for retaining membership of theassurance scheme. This is a true vertical partnershiparrangement, where assurance at all stages of the supply chainis managed to the benefit of all parties concerned.

The Partnership in Livestock programmeThe Partnership in Livestock programme, introduced in 1990by Sainsbury, was the first of its kind in the UK. Links havebeen developed between the supermarket, processors and thesupplying farms. The farm assurance programme has beenoperated through established national or regional schemes orthrough schemes run by suppliers, which are verifiedindependently. Trained personnel employed by Sainsbury visitall the abattoirs and randomly selected farms, to monitorstandards (31).

The programme has 12,000 farmer suppliers, all of whom arevisited and accredited individually. This illustrates the pro-active role played by the UK supermarkets in the food supplychain – linking back to individual agricultural producers andusing food technology skills in developing new products andquality assurance (2).

Freedom Foods LtdAn example of additional animal welfare requirements is theTesco/Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(RSPCA) Freedom Food label. This sets out to assure, throughindependent inspection, that suppliers meet more stringentanimal welfare conditions. Tesco promotes the Freedom Foodsproducts to the consumer as having no extra cost. However, theproducer has to meet both the direct cost of inspection fees andthe indirect cost of less intensive production (2).

Traceability from farm to the retailer shelves is an importantfacet of the scheme. Accreditation does not stop with theproducer, but continues through inspection and assessment ofhauliers, abattoirs, processors, manufacturers and packers whoare expected to demonstrate product segregation throughoutthe supply chain (33).

The assessors check that throughout the chain, traceability andsegregation procedures are in place to ensure that FreedomFood products are not mixed with non-Freedom Foodproducts (28).

DiscussionThe test of a traceability system is the ability to effectivelyremove produce from sale and consumption if any doubt arisesas to the status of the produce. Some multiple retailers, inaddition to providing internal audits, employ third parties tospot-check traceability. A company will be contracted topurchase products at random in the stores and verify the sourcethrough the batch codes on the label. Additionally, the premisesof the producer may be inspected for compliance with theproduction standards of the retailer or any additional declaredfarm assurance standards which relate to the product.

Despite the best endeavours of the retailers, recall of aperishable product will not always be total. Food is generallypurchased for immediate consumption, so will often be eatenbefore the recall is enacted. However, to protect the good nameof the retailer, widespread publicity is usually embarked uponto maximise the response. Honesty is seen to be the best policyfor retaining customer trust and loyalty. Indeed, following thehigh profile food scares of the 1980s and 1990s, trust insupermarkets by consumers is well in excess of the trust for theofficial government bodies which profess to have the welfare ofthe consumers at heart.

Multiple retailers have become dominant in the UK foodsupply chain, with over 70% of all food purchases being madefrom them and 45% being bought as ‘own label’ products.Multiple retailers have thus become the ‘gate-keepers’ of theindustry (5) and are happy to exploit this position as thechampion of the consumer.

594 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2)

�

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2) 595

Traçabilité dans les filières de production animaleet la grande distribution

R.G. Pettitt

RésuméDepuis les années 1950, les consommateurs britanniques savent qu’ils peuventcompter sur des aliments à la fois bon marché et sains. Les incidents survenusdans les années 1980 et 1990 ont cependant ému les consommateurs et provoquéune perte de confiance dans le rôle des producteurs et de l’État en matière desécurité alimentaire. L’auteur examine l’impact de la crise de confiance desconsommateurs au Royaume-Uni, où la vigilance exercée sur l’industrieagroalimentaire a conduit à l’introduction de nouveaux contrôles à tous les stadesde la production. L’industrie de l’alimentation animale, les élevages, les abattageset l’utilisation ou l’élimination des sous-produits d’origine animale sont désormaissoumis à des contrôles d’une rigueur inimaginable avant la détection del’encéphalopathie spongiforme bovine (ESB) à la fin des années 1980. Latraçabilité est devenue une question importante pour les consommateurs et,partant, pour les nombreux détaillants qui assurent leur approvisionnement. Lesdistributeurs exercent un contrôle de plus en plus étendu sur la chaîne alimentaireafin de garantir des normes élevées et vérifiables par audit. Les distributeurs ontégalement découvert que certains aspects de l’attestation d’origine peuvent avoirune incidence commerciale intéressante. Pour optimiser les ventes sur un marchédéprimé, les groupements de producteurs ont eux-mêmes développé diversprogrammes d’assurance qualité.

Mots-clésAnimaux d’élevage – Assurance qualité – Produits alimentaires – Produits d’origineanimale – Supermarchés – Traçabilité.

Rastreabilidad en el sector agropecuario y en las cadenas desupermercados

R.G. Pettitt

ResumenDesde los años cincuenta, los consumidores del Reino Unido se hanacostumbrado a disponer de alimentos baratos pero con condiciones de higienegarantizadas. En los años ochenta y noventa, una serie de episodios provocaronno sólo la alarma sino también la pérdida de confianza del público en el cometidode los productores y el Gobierno dentro de la cadena de aprovisionamientoalimentario. En este artículo, el autor examina las consecuencias de las recientescrisis alimentarias en el Reino Unido, donde el sector ha sufrido un procesopúblico que ha desembocado en la aplicación de nuevos controles en todas lasfases de la producción. Las fábricas de piensos animales, la producciónganadera, los mataderos y el uso o descarte de subproductos animales sufrenahora controles de una rigidez inconcebible antes de que se identificara laencefalopatía espongiforme bovina (EEB) a finales de los ochenta. La

�

596 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2)

rastreabilidad se ha convertido en una cuestión de gran importancia para losconsumidores y, por delegación, para los numerosos minoristas que abastecen elmercado. Los minoristas han organizado la cadena alimentaria de forma que seaposible garantizar y controlar por auditoría el máximo nivel de calidad. Tambiénhan descubierto que pueden obtener ventajas comerciales de algunos factoresligados a la obligación de comprobar el origen de los alimentos. Por otra parte,con el fin de conseguir la mayor cifra de ventas posible en un mercado deprimido,los propios colectivos de productores han desarrollado múltiples dispositivos degarantía de calidad.

Palabras claveAlimentos – Ganado bovino – Garantía – Productos de origen animal – Rastreabilidad –Supermercados.

References1. 3-Com (1999). – Business-to-business electronic commerce:

market landscape and solutions, 25 pp. Website:http://www.3com.com/technology/tech_net/white_papers/503048.html (document accessed on 15 March 2001).

2. Anon. (1999). – Partnerships/alliances in the British beefindustry are the only way to maintain safety and quality.Website: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/AcaDepts/ae/rjl/aemscfams/partners.htm (document accessed on 15 March 2001).

3. Assured British Meat (ABM) (1999). – Product identificationand traceability. In ABM abattoir, cutting and packing standardsmanual. Ref. No. AB/SM0001. ABM, Stourport-on-Severn,Worcestershire, p. 21.

4. Baines R.N. & Davies W.P. (1997). – Food quality assurance,public perceptions and international benchmarks. InGlobalisation of the food industry: policy implications(R.J. Loader, S.J. Henson & W.B. Trail, eds). University ofReading, Reading, 109-124.

5. Baines R.N. & Davies W.P. (1999). – Environmental and animalsafety dimensions to developing food safety and qualityassurance initiatives in the United Kingdom. InternationalWorkshop on market rights and equity: food and agriculturestandards in a shrinking world. Institute for Food &Agricultural Standards, Michigan State University. Website:http://www.royagcol.ac.uk/research/document/ifas99.htm(document accessed on 19 March 2001).

6. Browning A. (1997). – Opening address (Food chainmanagement conference). In Management of regulation in thefood chain – balancing costs, benefits and effects (B.J. Marshall& F.A. Miller, eds). Centre of Agricultural Strategy (CAS) Paper36. CAS, Reading, 12-17.

7. Cabinet Office (UK) (2000). – Rights of Exchange: social,health, environmental and trade objectives on the globalstage. Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit,London, 237 pp. Website: http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/2000/trade/rights.pdf (documentaccessed on 19 March 2001).

8. Calder R. & Marr P. (1998). – A beef producer initiative intraceability: Scottish Borders TAG. Supply Chain Manag., 3 (3),123-126.

9. Caswell J.A. & Henson S.J. (1997). – Interaction of privateand public food quality control systems in global markets. InGlobalisation of the food industry: policy implications(R.J. Loader, S.J. Henson & W.B. Trail, eds). University ofReading, Reading, 217-234.

10. Commission of the European Communities (1989). – CouncilDirective 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official controlof foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Communities, L 186, 23-26.

11. Commission of the European Communities (1998). –Commission Decision 98/692/EC of 25 November 1998amending Decision 98/256/EC as regards certain emergencymeasures to protect against bovine spongiformencephalopathy. Off. J. Eur. Communities, L 328, 28-35.

12. Commission of the European Communities (2000). – WhitePaper on food safety. Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, Brussels, 52 pp. Website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub06_en.pdf (document accessed on 20 March 2001).

13. Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade(Canada) (1998). – Farm to plate traceability – the foodmarketing trend? Website: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/geo/html_documents/84228-e.htm (document accessed on19 March 2001).

�

14. Efficient Consumer Response (ECR) (2000). – What is ECR?Website: http://www.ecrnet.org (document accessed on19 March 2001).

15. European Commission Information Society Directorate-General (1999). – Electronic commerce – an introduction.Website: http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/ecommerce/answers/introduction.html (document accessed on 20 March 2001).

16. Fearne A. (1998). – The evolution in the meat supply chain:insights from the British beef industry. Supply Chain Manag.,3 (4), 214-230.

17. Food Trak (2001). – How it works. Website: http://www.farmline.com/folcorps/foodtrak/how_it_works.asp(document accessed on 18 April 2001).

18. Gregor S., Jones K. & Menzies D. (1999). – Supply chainmanagement and electronic data transfer in the Australianbeef industry. Position Paper. Version 1.0. Central QueenslandUniversity, Rockhampton. Website: http://www.mecis-nn.cqu.edu.au/positionpaper/pos-paper-1.0.html (documentaccessed on 20 March 2001).

19. House of Commons (1998). – Select Committee onA g r i c u l t u r e F o u r t h R e p o r t . We b s i t e : h t t p : / /www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmagric/331iv/ag0402.htm (document accessed on20 March 2001).

20. Joint Food Safety and Standards Group (JFSSG) (1999). –Food law. Food Standards Agency, JFSSG, London, 80 pp.Website: http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/maff/pdf/foodlaw.pdf (document accessed on 20 March 2001).

21. McGrann J. & Wiseman H. (2001). – Animal traceabilityacross national frontiers in the European Union. InTraceability of animals and animal products (M.K. Sheridan &H.A. McDaniel, eds). Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2), 406-412.

22. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) (1999). –Working together for the food chain. Booklet PB4717. MAFF,London, 67 pp. Website: http://www.maff.gov.uk/foodrin/fdchain/fdchain.pdf (document accessed on 20 March 2001).

23. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) (2001). –Date-based export scheme. Website: http://www.maff.gov.uk/animalh/int-trde/prod-ex/dbes/dbes-f.htm (documentaccessed on 20 March 2001).

24. Pennington Group (1998). – Report on the circumstancesleading to the 1996 outbreak of infection with E. coli O157 inCentral Scotland, the implications for food safety and thelessons to be learned. The Scottish Office, Edinburgh.Website: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/documents-w4/pgr-00.htm (document accessed on 20 March 2001).

25. Porter C. (2000). – Setting the Meat Standard. Meat Int.,10 (8), 12-16.

26. Phillips N., Bridgeman J. & Ferguson-Smith M. (2000). – TheBSE inquiry. Vol. 1: findings and conclusions. The StationaryOff ice , Norwich, 308 pp. Websi te : ht tp : / /www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume1/toc.htm (documentaccessed on 18 April 2001).

27. Ribo O., Korn C., Poucet A., Meloni U., Cropper M., DeWinne P. & Cuypers M. (2000). – Animal tagging andtraceability activities in the framework of the fight againstfraud. In Symposium on latest developments in livestockidentification and traceability, 16 February, Milton Keynes.Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes, CD-ROM.

28. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(RSPCA) (2000). – What is the freedom food scheme?Website: http://www.rspca.org.uk/content/about_rspca/freedom.html (document accessed on 19 March 2001).

29. Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd (1999). – Delivering theproduct. Manual. Website: http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/sid/documents/sid_dtpmanual.pdf (document accessed on21 March 2001).

30. Sainsbury J., plc (1999). – Sainsbury’s completes GMelimination. News release 19 July. Website: http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/environment/pr/99/07-GMelimination.htm(document accessed on 21 March 2001).

31. Sainsbury J., plc (1996). – Sainsbury’s supermarkets’ animalwelfare principles. In 1996 interim environmental report.Website: http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/environment/hi-fi/page27.htm (document accessed on 19 March 2001).

32. Schroder W.R. & Marks N. (1996). – The retailer-driven UKfood industry: structure, performance and implications forAustralia. Aust. Agribusiness Rev., 4 (2), 30-41. Website:http:/ /www.agribusiness.asn.au/review/1996v4no2/96Schroder.htm (document accessed on 18 April 2001).

33. Society of Food Hygiene Technology (SOFHT) (2000). – Asmall price to pay for freedom. Technical Report. SOFHTFocus , 28 . Website: http:/ /www.sofht.co.uk/sf28_freedomf.htm (document accessed on 20 March 2001).

34. Tesco (2001). – What is the Tesco Information Exchange?Website: http://www.tesco.com/tie/main.htm (documentaccessed on 21 March 2001).

35. Uniform Code Council Inc. (1995). – UCC/EAN-128application identifier standard. Website: http://www.uc-council.org/reflib/00403/d30-t.htm (document accessed on18 April 2001).

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2) 597