Posts Tagged ‘Food Safety’

Got No Reason to Hide

March 26th, 2010

Full disclosure is not something we like to offer just to anyone.  But accountability and transparency can actually be a good thing.

We too often hear stories of companies and individuals whose previously hidden faults or misdemeanours have become exposed for all to see.  You know examples.  I won’t list any here.

Then there are organizations and individuals who are committed to doing things right and well, and have put checks and balances in place to help ensure not only are proper procedures followed, but also to protect against activities that would damage reputations and potentially hurt people.

On a personal note, my wife is a bookkeeper and loves to track whatever we spend.  She uses QuickBooks to enter all of our receipts and at the end of the year, she can tell me how many times I went to Tim Horton’s (coffee for you non-Canadians) or Starbucks and how much money is spent on movies, or whatever.

Some of you might be thinking, “Wow! That’s keeping pretty close tabs on things.”  Maybe you wouldn’t want the same level of transparency.  Here’s my point: if I have nothing to hide, it’s fine with me that every dollar I spend is accounted for and visible to my wife.  And with this approach, the level of trust is very high, which is a good thing in a marriage.

On the business side, I have noticed that not everybody wants everything tracked.  I’ve come across a few interesting situations in which there actually is resistance to complete traceability, and the apparent reason is because certain people in the company want to be able to have a way of hiding things.  Yep, they want to be able to have  buffers that can be applied to cover up mistakes or questionable practices.

Some companies in the food industry are taking steps towards transparency.  For example, Cargill Meat Solutions is putting in video cameras into their slaughter facilities to monitor how they are doing regarding animal handling.  Not only does this build confidence and trust in others, but it also will undoubtedly motivate people internally to ensure that they are doing the right things.

In a similar way, a good traceability and visibility solution can help do the same things.  If everything is above board and as it should be, putting in a solution that tracks every movement of product and every activity related to people performing duties with products will be a system to ensure things are done properly.

I expect that transparency will be a driver to help move traceability forward in the next few years.  This accountability to government, to customers, and to consumers will be in the form of several initiatives that have been in the works for some time.  These include sustainability, corporate social responsibility, food safety, supplier scorecards, environment, country of origin, quality, animal welfare, labour, insurance, and regulatory compliance.

Of course, financial benefit and productivity are important as well.  With the exception of strong visionaries, however, I believe it will take the earlier initiatives to drive traceability, and then companies will begin to realize the huge benefits of implementing it.  And one of the benefits of traceability will be a system of accountability that will give transparency and help prevent the unwanted publicity that comes from secrets being brought to light.

We live in a day when we can’t afford to have secrets.  It doesn’t take long  before a whole lot of people find out about something.  Articles like “Supply chain transparency only answer to hostile campaigns” show the importance of this issue.

What the Great Teacher said is very true: “What you have whispered behind closed doors will be shouted from the housetops for all to hear!”  It’s better to not have anything to hide and to have the mechanisms in place to ensure the right things are being done.

The Next Big Food Safety Story . . . Yours?

February 18th, 2010

I never like to see companies being slammed in the news.

I like Kellogg. I like their cereals.

I believe that Kellogg isn’t as bad as this article makes them out to be.

But the reality is that they are getting bad press. Why?

When I hear of a problem, I often think of a kaizen process of asking a series of 5 “Why?”s to get to a deeper level of understanding of the source of a problem.  It could go something like this:

  1. Kellogg is getting bad press. Why?
  2. Atlanta plant inspection found bacterial contamination and sanitation violations. Why?
  3. The plant had “significant deviations” from the manufacturing practices for food manufacturers. Why?
  4. Proper food safety steps were not enforced.  Why?
  5. There’s not a good system in place.  Why???

I don’t know the why of number 5 with Kellogg or even if this is accurate, but here are some possibilities of “Why” that I’ve seen a lot with companies:

  • Our ERP system is supposed to do it (but it doesn’t, because either it can’t, or that module is not yet implemented – and it will take a long time, a lot of money, and IT resources that are forever tied up with other priorities)
  • At the management level, we expected that we  have a system
  • Our people are expected to be accountable with or without a system
  • We haven’t found a good system that works
  • We have a system, but it isn’t being used properly

Whatever the reason, there is certainly a growing awareness and an increasing need for companies to have a working system and to use it.

The system could be a manual process, but a manual system will require very tight observation, discipline, and accountability.

A good electronic solution can make the job of ensuring processes are adequately followed so much easier.  Of course, it could be that such a system is not used properly, but with the right system, quality assurance managers can be alerted when conditions are not met, or parameters are outside critical limits.  If certain HACCP or GMP checklists are not followed according to a prescribed schedule, the right people can be notified by email, text message, or other method.

The technology is here.  The systems are available.  The payback is justifiable.

Without the system, the risk is high – too high.  The media is always out there, hunting for sensational stories.  Don’t let your company be the next big food safety issue news item.

Traceability Requires Several Key Elements

February 9th, 2010

A couple of years ago, I met with a Food Safety representative of one of our government agencies.  We got talking about traceability, and she asked me what my experience showed regarding the percentage of food companies that have traceability solutions.  I said to her that from what I can see, traceability in the food industry in North America does not exist.  This was interesting to her because, as it turned out, the day prior to this she had sat through a thesis presentation of a master’s student who claimed that 85% of companies she had studied had traceability solutions.  The person I was meeting with commented that she herself leaned towards my findings.

Obviously we have a different view on what traceability means.

My boss was at the Traceability Interoperability Summit last month in Denver, and he reported that one of the presenters had surveyed over 100 companies to see how they were meeting the one-up and one-down traceability requirements as mandated by the Bioterrorism Act of 2002.  My boss asked me what my guess was as to the percentage of companies that were compliant.  I guessed zero, which was exactly what this other company had found.

Without even realizing it, many food processing operations do not have true and complete internal traceability because they fail in one or more of the following required areas:

  1. real-time data entry and access
  2. no data islands
  3. integrated data chain
  4. no gaps

(I don’t remember the source of this list.)

They may have some form of product tracking, but it often doesn’t classify as a traceability solution.  I mean, could they scan the bar code of a finished goods case and be able to pull up within a couple of minutes all the lot numbers and suppliers of each and every ingredient and component in that case, including packaging?  And do they have a system that would enable them to determine all the downstream locations, lot numbers, finished goods, and orders of a specific  ingredient that is found to be suspect?

1) Real-time data entry and real-time access to information:  Clipboards with paper and pen are still amazingly commonplace.  Manual recording is used for downtime recording, quality/HACCP forms, and other data collection.  Some of this data is never entered into an electronic system but is filed for potential manual retrieval.  Other data is keyed in manually at a later time for the purpose of generating reports and graphs to be posted after the fact.  It’s not uncommon to see posted reports that are months old.

2) No data islands:  Widespread use of tools such as MS Excel spreadsheets, which may do some basic importing of data but operate mostly as off-line tools, shows that data islands exist.  Departmental “silos” keep people from having visibility of other areas of the plant.

3) Integrated data chain: Too often there are multiple vendor systems that are not exchanging data that would enhance their capability.  With the robust and reliable interface methodologies available, gone are the days when interfaces between systems need to be an issue.  Using best of breed systems is the best strategy for overall performance and value as long as the systems are communicating with each other.  For example, an ERP system will not offer complete in-plant product tracking with interfaces to devices (although some actually claim to, the truth is that there is no one system that will do everything for everybody, even within a single company).  But the ERP system’s capabilities will be extended with an appropriate interface with the right in-plant productivity solution.

4) No gaps: (receiving – raw material and ingredient batch control – material issue into processes – work-in-process including rework – transformation – pack-off – inventory – order fulfillment):  Data gaps in the processes prevent complete traceability since there is not a satisfying link from source to destination.

A true internal traceability solution is characterized by these elements.   What’s needed in many food processing plants is an integrated solution that meets these traceability requirements.  Without it, paper abounds, schedules are missed, product gets lost, labour goes wasted, and food safety is at risk.

I’d be interested in knowing what are your thoughts regarding the adoption in the food industry of traceability according to the above requirements.

Produce Traceability Initiative (PTI) Requirements Met by Carlisle

February 5th, 2010

The produce industry associations have introduced the Produce Traceability Initiative (www.producetraceability.org), an industry-wide effort to bring electronic traceability to the produce supply chain by 2012.

Carlisle Technology is well-equipped to help produce companies meet and exceed the PTI requirements. With years of experience providing integrated bar coding solutions for the food industry, Carlisle Technology is well ahead of the curve with regards to traceability solutions for produce.

Having provided bar code labeling, scanning, and traceability solutions for the meat and poultry industry in North America since 1988, Carlisle’s first work involving GS1-128 bar code labels was in 1993 when Loblaw Company, Canada’s largest grocery retailer, required meat and poultry companies to code cases of catch weight (variable weight) products with the new UCC/EAN-128 bar code (now called GS1-128).

Here are some key features of Carlisle Technology’s solution as it relates to the Produce Traceability Initiative:

Case Labeling:

  • Generates GS1-128 compliant case labels using database driven information.
  • Label formats are product code specific (i.e. selecting a product determines the label format)
  • Labeling can be manual or automated (print & apply)
  • Supports lot tracking and control
  • Supports Country of Origin details
  • Supports export labeling with foreign description
  • Exceeds all required data elements for the PTI

Pallet Labeling:

  • Complete Pallet Handling capabilities (with mixed product, lots, etc.)
  • Support for the SSCC Pallet identifier
  • Support for multiple lots and related bar codes
  • SSCC references all the details of the cases (standard functionality, but not required by the PTI)
  • Labeling can be manual or automated (print & apply). Applicators can label 2 sides.
  • Supports ASNs (Advanced Shipping Notices)

Traceability:

  • Supports one-up and one-down traceability requirements
  • Provides complete internal traceability (tracking all physical entities within an organization)
  • Detailed lot tracking
  • Case-level serialization is included (standard functionality, but not required by the PTI)
  • Exceeds all required data elements for the PTI
  • Offers complete, detailed inventory control
  • Includes order picking and shipping with mobile bar code scanning terminals
  • Produces all shipping documentation
  • Interfaces with accounting systems for electronic data transfers and posting

With Carlisle Technology as your supplier of integrated traceability solutions, you can count on our experience in and commitment to the food industry to help you implement the right system in a way that provides a return on your investment by improving your own operations while you meet the PTI requirements.