The Institute of Food Technologists has published a report prepared for the FDA on recommendations for food traceability in the US. Interestingly enough, IFT recommends that electronic data must be delivered to the FDA in case of an enquiry, but only after 24h. The format of the data is not prescribed, nor the system where such data should be stored. Food companies should be allowed to use paper records if they wish to do so, but the paper records need to be passed to an electronic format regularly (such as every day). Third parties can provide that service.

The recommendation are also very clear that internal traceability needs to be established. In their own words: "The ability to trace products internally accurately must be maintained by food companies." This is a great advancement over the European one step up, one step down system without internal traceability. I would also say that it is a clear message to those who believe that internal traceability is an optional add-on to the traceability equation.

An exciting new element in the recommendations is that of a mandatory traceability audit. This will not be liked by the industry, but makes a whole lot of sense. The main challenge in food traceability today are the myths that surround it, like the "red tape myth" and the "I have it" myth. A mandatory audit for food businesses would be a real eye opener.

The IFT report recognises that there is going to be a cost to the industry, but hopes to minimise that by the advantages that traceability brings to the companies.

Implementing the practices recommended by IFT will have an economic cost to the industry, but may also
have benefits, including improved supply chain management, inventory control, access to contracts and
markets, more targeted recalls and hence lower costs to recall. Firms could also benefit by protecting
brand name, maintaining consumer confidence, and reducing possible liability claims. Furthermore,
product tracing could allow the exclusion of a firm’s product from an investigation. A rapid response to an
accidental or intentional contamination or other triggering event through improved product tracing would
yield social benefits beyond the direct benefits and cost reductions to the firms.

This will probably not convince most food companies who have shown a lot resistance to fully adopt traceability, in spite of the above benefits.

A recent study by Andres Silva of the University of Kent has shown that there are potentially huge benefits for the sourcing process if basic data is known about the raw materials in the warehouse. By using the "oldest" batches first, the average time in the warehouse can be reduced quite significantly which should result in less non-compliances, less waste and better customer relationships. Mr Silva has not yet produced an economic study to express the benefits in currency, something that would be direly needed.

The US is about to get organised in terms of food traceability. So far, the approach seems interesting and certainly more advanced than most countries. It will be interesting to follow the process and see the reaction of the food industry to the new regulations.