Food Safety discussed in the Senate today as SB510, The Food Safety Modernization Act is discussed.....see the review here and the link to the video of the hearing....it is a good view!
Date: 10/22/09
Committee: Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Title: Keeping America’s Families Safe: Reforming the Food Safety System
Subject: Discussion of SB510 – Food Safety Modernization Act
View the Hearing: http://help/senate.gov/Hearings/2009_10_22/2009_10_22.html
Partial Highlights of Chairman’s Statements:
The chairman indicated in his opening statement that with more ingredients used, various methods of processing, products traveling thousands of miles and many times from countries with less vigorous standards than ours that is it past time to modernize our laws.
At one point in the hearing, the chairman stated that they intended to move ahead with mark-ups and get the bill to the floor as soon as possible.
Partial Highlights of Senator Durbin’s Statements:
He indicated his encouragement that many groups and organizations, such as FMI, GMA, NRA and others were supportive of the legislation. He put the numbers we continually hear into another perspective by stating that every 5 minutes 3 people rush to the hospital with foodborne illness and each day 13 people die.
He stated that FDA, in his opinion was working with limited staff and outdated laws.
He also expressed concern for the industry and public when he stated that 6 weeks after the tomato recall was when jalapenos had been discovered as the cause and significant industry losses had occurred.
Partial Highlights of Senator Dodd’s Statements:
This legislation has a sense of urgency.
Partial Highlights of Margaret Hamburg’s Comments (Commissioner of the FDA)
President O’Bama has stated that food safety is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of government. His Food Safety Working Group point to three areas and the bill addresses many of the concerns.
1. Prioritize Prevention
This bill does move the focus of the system to prevention. It shifts the FDA’s approach from one that reacts to outbreaks to one that seeks to prevent them in the first place.
2. Strengthening Surveillance and Enforcement
It does not supply all of the legal tools needed as it stands. Sections 301 regarding foreign supplier verification and Section 207 regarding detention of food need review. Also the bill does not mandate access to food records during routine inspections.
3. Improving Response and Recovery
Resources need to be addressed. Section 201 mandates inspections based on risk. However, although the intent is embraced, it doesn’t guarantee consistent fund resources.
When asked about the importance of HAACP, she indicated it was extremely beneficial. The legislation allows the FDA to re-focus on prevention and provides a systematic way of working with producers to shore up points of vulnerability and agreed that a risk based approach was the way to go.
She expressed concern that the mandates and responsibilities far outstripped resources and the FDA needed sustained and predictable funding.
NOTE: At various points there were comments regarding small and organic farmers and there was a difference of opinion as to the extent of their needed participation from a legislation standpoint. The bill as it is currently writing only applies to food produced for interstate commerce.
Margaret Hamburg noted that most actions currently are complaint based. This legislation provides for proactive actions such as testing and access to company files in this bill.
Partial Highlights of Caroline Smith DeWaal’s Statements (Director of CSPI):
Reform is long overdue.
Costs of foodborne illnesses range from 40 billion to 100 billion annually.
Need for a tracing system to trace back to source
Growers need to meet more standards
The bill needs minor changes in inspection systems, import provisions and other areas
On the issue of traceability, its critical, and traceability needs to be on food products from the consumer all the way back through the production cycle.
Needed improvements to bill need to include:
1. Frequency of inspections-Need categories of risk and associated frequencies of inspections
2. Testing – Want mandatory testing criteria built in together with reporting of positive test results
3. Imports- Review determination of accreditation body and responsibilities.
Partial Highlights of Tom Stenzel’s Statements (President of United Fresh):
He stated that the industry is well along in a multi-year produce traceability initiative committed to driving a standardized system of case coding for total supply chain traceability.
The FDA must determine appropriate national safety standards with full input from state, industry, academia and the consumer.
There are failures evident in outbreak management. He used spinach as an example stating it was one field, one lot, one day of shipments and the industry has never recovered based on the actions of government. He pointed out that the tomato industry was basically shut down for 6 weeks in pursuit of the wrong product.
He indicated that small farms should comply just as others.
The current system doesn’t use valuable industry expertise.
FDA lacks accountability when in error to the industry
The produce industry is totally committed to total supply chain traceability of our products. “We do have the technology today to supply a total traceability system”.
Partial Highlights of Michael Robertson’s Statements (Representing FMI, Director of Corporate Quality Assurance with Publix Supermarkets
The FDA needs adequate authority
The FMI supports the requirement that every requested facility have a HAACP preventative control plan.
They support the development of standards for product safety as well as inspections based on risk.
FMI supports enhancing traceback requirements, specifically the legislations establishment of pilot projects. Our industry recognizes that current traceability systems are not uniformly meeting the needs of the industry, the consumer and the government. We understand that there will be technical challenges and significant costs associated with the implementation of traceability throughout the supply chain infrastructure, and that is why we see the pilot program approach as being crucial.
FMI supports mandatory recall authority to FDA and supplier 3rd party certification audits.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Recent News Articles Regarding Food Safety
Although the health care issue has taken front and center stage, the area of food safety is far from being overlooked and although food safety legislation is on the back burner, be assured that the burner is far from turned off. IN addition to these, there is a meeting tomorrow, 10/22 in Washington D.C.Committee: Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Title: Keeping America’s Families Safe: Reforming the Food Safety System
Date: Thursday, October 22, 10:00 a.m.
Place: SD-430
News
10/19/2009
Foodborne Illness Victims Meet With White House To Push For Food Safety ReformRepresenting the millions of Americans who fall ill each year from contaminated food, victims and relatives of victims appealed to the Obama administration to urge congressional lawmakers to pass food safety legislation this year
10/06/2009
New CSPI Report Highlights Ten Riskiest Foods Regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationThese ten foods account for nearly 40 percent of all foodborne outbreaks linked to FDA-regulated foods since 1990.
10/12/2009
Are we all crash test dummies for the food industry?As the lead author of the new report just released from Center for Science in the Public Interest, The Ten Riskiest Foods Regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, today is another day when I'll have a tough time putting anything in my mouth.
09/09/2009
Make Our Food Safe Coalition Asks Senators "What's Hiding in Your Lunch?"Foodborne Illness Victims, Family Members and Advocates Urge Senate to Pass Food Safety Legislation
09/08/2009
Large Majority of Americans Want Stronger Food Safety RulesAmong likely voters surveyed across the nation, about 9 in 10 support the federal government adopting additional food safety measures.
Those and other information can be found at: http://www.makeourfoodsafe.org/
Title: Keeping America’s Families Safe: Reforming the Food Safety System
Date: Thursday, October 22, 10:00 a.m.
Place: SD-430
News
10/19/2009
Foodborne Illness Victims Meet With White House To Push For Food Safety ReformRepresenting the millions of Americans who fall ill each year from contaminated food, victims and relatives of victims appealed to the Obama administration to urge congressional lawmakers to pass food safety legislation this year
10/06/2009
New CSPI Report Highlights Ten Riskiest Foods Regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationThese ten foods account for nearly 40 percent of all foodborne outbreaks linked to FDA-regulated foods since 1990.
10/12/2009
Are we all crash test dummies for the food industry?As the lead author of the new report just released from Center for Science in the Public Interest, The Ten Riskiest Foods Regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, today is another day when I'll have a tough time putting anything in my mouth.
09/09/2009
Make Our Food Safe Coalition Asks Senators "What's Hiding in Your Lunch?"Foodborne Illness Victims, Family Members and Advocates Urge Senate to Pass Food Safety Legislation
09/08/2009
Large Majority of Americans Want Stronger Food Safety RulesAmong likely voters surveyed across the nation, about 9 in 10 support the federal government adopting additional food safety measures.
Those and other information can be found at: http://www.makeourfoodsafe.org/
Saturday, October 17, 2009
FoodTRACE vs. PTI - Dollars and Sense
Why FoodTRACE® vs. PTI?
Here are just a few reasons……..
1. Cost - PTI estimated at 10 to 20 cents per carton---- FoodTRACE® less than a penny per carton
2. No infrastructure changes – companies already have what’s needed
3. Implementation time – PTI, up to 2012 – FoodTRACE® - about 90 days
4. FoodTRACE® addresses imports
5. FoodTRACE® traces to item level
There is much more – email us at info@usfoodtrace.com with any questions or comments!
Review the following article that was in the Perishable Pundit recently as well….
Despite Progress Made, Feedback On PTI Reveals Real Problems
Our coverage of traceability has been extensive, and our recent piece brought much controversy. In fact some of the association folks weren’t all that happy that we ran the piece, expressing to us a wish that we had exercised “more discretion.”
Of course, when a person holding a responsible position in the industry is willing to sign his or her name to a letter commenting on an important industry issue, we would be doing an enormous disservice to our readership, and to the industry at large, to squelch such opinions.
And, in fact, one thing the associations need to look at concerning traceability now and also for future initiatives is how to do things like the Produce Traceability Initiative in an environment in which people feel free to speak the truth throughout the process.
Immediately after we ran Dan Sutton’s letter, we received calls from a number of mid-size shippers that wanted to thank us. The problem they felt is that, in their opinion, they had been de facto frozen out of the discussions. Large companies with prominent food safety experts can speak in these meetings without fear that anyone will doubt their commitment to food safety. So if Alec Leach from Taylor Farms or Jim Lugg from Fresh Express voice a problem with a proposal, it is clear that this is because there is a problem with the proposal.
In contrast, mid-size shippers are all too easily dismissed as not being concerned with food safety. So they tend to clam up in the meetings if they are there at all.
There was a well-attended workshop on PTI at the recent PMA convention. The workshop was supposed to be a kind of “nuts & bolts” how-to, yet the questions from the floor seemed more focused on “should we?” rather than “how-to.”
Now Gary Fleming, Vice President of Industry Technology and Standards at PMA, emphasized that “Should we?” is not really the question as, speaking of PTI, he emphasized that it was definitely happening.
He may be right, especially depending on what definition of “happening” one chooses to adopt.
Still, right or wrong, it is vaguely reminiscent of Richard Nixon declaring, “I am not a crook” — true or not, the fact that Nixon had to say it indicated he was in a lot of trouble.
Our sense is that the Produce Traceability Initiative is in a lot of trouble.
In the first place, the association of PTI with Mom and Apple Pie has simply made honesty impossible for many companies. We had a chance to sit down with several of the signatories to the PTI on the buy side; these were folks who had previously expressed concern about the initiative privately to the Pundit. When we inquired about why they signed, given the reservations they had expressed, we got basically the same answer from each: That their competitors had signed and that they didn’t want to appear not progressive or not caring about food safety and so they signed.
All have some kind of traceability programs right now and are thus in varying degrees of compliance with the initial stages of PTI, but none of them have appropriated the money to conform to the latter stages of PTI and tell us they have no definitive plans to do so.
There are also whole sectors of the industry that seem to have no intention of implementing PTI. Is there, for example, even one terminal market wholesaler who is doing anything to implement PTI?
There is a whole roster of technical issues: For example, some say field packers have problems with it, as do those who sell or receive mixed pallets.
Yet even if the technical problems could be solved, the signatories to the agreement actually spend the money to implement it, and if the sectors not participating in the agreement could be persuaded to join in, there is still a major question necessary to accomplish the realization of PTI: Will buyers constrain their supply chains to PTI-compliant product? No buyer has made a public commitment to do so and few, on either the buy or sell side, seem to believe it likely.
In other words, one can put all the scanners in and rewrite programs to accommodate GTINs but, in the end, if PTI-compliant product costs $8 a case and non-PTI-compliant product costs $7.50 a case, if the buyer purchases the cheaper product, the whole system breaks down.
Although cost is a major issue, there is also a major feeling that the whole thing is unnecessary. Part of it is the sense that those switching over to PTI already have excellent traceability. If one is selling direct to a major retailer, that is a pretty easy thing to trace. In many ways, the PTI is sort of backward, starting with the sectors of the industry that have the best traceability. Maybe we should have started with a bunch of small restaurants and local purveyors and built a system from there.
The other big question, repeated over and over again by shippers of every size, was whether all the specificity that the PTI aims for would actually make any difference. Imagine a shipper who is selling to Wal-Mart, say 10,000 cases a day. This shipper has to call up Wal-Mart and explain that 692 cases, identified with specificity due to the PTI, are possibly laced with E. coli 0157:H7 and are being recalled.
Will Wal-Mart, or any other buyer, accept the specificity of this case-level initiative? Or will they, to use the phrase ubiquitous in these circumstances, “err on the side of caution” and throw every box delivered that day or maybe every box from that shipper in the dump?
Remember the buyer will bill back any costs related to this recall or dumping to the seller, so what incentive does the buyer have to not be ultra-cautious? But if it doesn’t make a difference and buyers are going to dump everything regardless of the traceability system, then why is it essential to spend a lot of money to get down to the case level?
PTI is far along now and, good or bad, we doubt it will be changed much simply because we could not imagine getting industry consensus on an alternative. The degree to which it will actually “happen” is very dependent on what the government does. If the government leaves many options for companies, we suspect that various companies will use those various options. Big buyers such as Wal-Mart may demand GTINs and such for their own internal systems, but others will be more flexible and whole sectors of the industry will be on different systems.
Our real concern is that this process has revealed a problem that will arise again: The associations try to nudge the industry in a positive direction; the identification of the direction as positive creates PR difficulties for companies concerned about the initiatives, and this shuts off important feedback that the associations need to hear. This limitation of the feedback loop results in less-than-optimal outcomes, including “façade outcomes” in which consensus is thought to exist but actually does not.
How to avoid this is tricky. Clearly a demand for specific commitments that have consequences if not followed could surface some of the hidden problems. For example, the associations could have said, “We can’t ask producers to spend money on PTI unless they have an assurance that those who don’t spend money on PTI can’t under-price them, so we need a commitment from buyers to constrain their supply chain to PTI-compliant product, or we can’t proceed.” Such a declaration would have surfaced the actual willingness of the buying community to commit to PTI. It would have answered the question as to whether buyer commitment was shallow or deep. After all, a public commitment to vendors could result in lawsuits if the buyers renege later, so it would be a real measure of seriousness.
Beyond demanding commitments with consequences, there may be methodological initiatives that could help surface real feelings. Although meetings, e-mails and conference calls can seem to be good exchanges, perhaps methodologies need to be developed for people to submit anonymous feedback, even if for credibility sake we restrict the anonymity to members of a task force or board. Perhaps even votes on whether to propose something should have to pass an anonymous vote.
As an industry, we may want to consider consulting some game theorists to discuss how these negotiations can be designed to not only get an agreement, but to sustain complete and honest input throughout the process.
Another update soon as we finish gathering the results of our very successful test of the FoodTRACE® system!
Here are just a few reasons……..
1. Cost - PTI estimated at 10 to 20 cents per carton---- FoodTRACE® less than a penny per carton
2. No infrastructure changes – companies already have what’s needed
3. Implementation time – PTI, up to 2012 – FoodTRACE® - about 90 days
4. FoodTRACE® addresses imports
5. FoodTRACE® traces to item level
There is much more – email us at info@usfoodtrace.com with any questions or comments!
Review the following article that was in the Perishable Pundit recently as well….
Despite Progress Made, Feedback On PTI Reveals Real Problems
Our coverage of traceability has been extensive, and our recent piece brought much controversy. In fact some of the association folks weren’t all that happy that we ran the piece, expressing to us a wish that we had exercised “more discretion.”
Of course, when a person holding a responsible position in the industry is willing to sign his or her name to a letter commenting on an important industry issue, we would be doing an enormous disservice to our readership, and to the industry at large, to squelch such opinions.
And, in fact, one thing the associations need to look at concerning traceability now and also for future initiatives is how to do things like the Produce Traceability Initiative in an environment in which people feel free to speak the truth throughout the process.
Immediately after we ran Dan Sutton’s letter, we received calls from a number of mid-size shippers that wanted to thank us. The problem they felt is that, in their opinion, they had been de facto frozen out of the discussions. Large companies with prominent food safety experts can speak in these meetings without fear that anyone will doubt their commitment to food safety. So if Alec Leach from Taylor Farms or Jim Lugg from Fresh Express voice a problem with a proposal, it is clear that this is because there is a problem with the proposal.
In contrast, mid-size shippers are all too easily dismissed as not being concerned with food safety. So they tend to clam up in the meetings if they are there at all.
There was a well-attended workshop on PTI at the recent PMA convention. The workshop was supposed to be a kind of “nuts & bolts” how-to, yet the questions from the floor seemed more focused on “should we?” rather than “how-to.”
Now Gary Fleming, Vice President of Industry Technology and Standards at PMA, emphasized that “Should we?” is not really the question as, speaking of PTI, he emphasized that it was definitely happening.
He may be right, especially depending on what definition of “happening” one chooses to adopt.
Still, right or wrong, it is vaguely reminiscent of Richard Nixon declaring, “I am not a crook” — true or not, the fact that Nixon had to say it indicated he was in a lot of trouble.
Our sense is that the Produce Traceability Initiative is in a lot of trouble.
In the first place, the association of PTI with Mom and Apple Pie has simply made honesty impossible for many companies. We had a chance to sit down with several of the signatories to the PTI on the buy side; these were folks who had previously expressed concern about the initiative privately to the Pundit. When we inquired about why they signed, given the reservations they had expressed, we got basically the same answer from each: That their competitors had signed and that they didn’t want to appear not progressive or not caring about food safety and so they signed.
All have some kind of traceability programs right now and are thus in varying degrees of compliance with the initial stages of PTI, but none of them have appropriated the money to conform to the latter stages of PTI and tell us they have no definitive plans to do so.
There are also whole sectors of the industry that seem to have no intention of implementing PTI. Is there, for example, even one terminal market wholesaler who is doing anything to implement PTI?
There is a whole roster of technical issues: For example, some say field packers have problems with it, as do those who sell or receive mixed pallets.
Yet even if the technical problems could be solved, the signatories to the agreement actually spend the money to implement it, and if the sectors not participating in the agreement could be persuaded to join in, there is still a major question necessary to accomplish the realization of PTI: Will buyers constrain their supply chains to PTI-compliant product? No buyer has made a public commitment to do so and few, on either the buy or sell side, seem to believe it likely.
In other words, one can put all the scanners in and rewrite programs to accommodate GTINs but, in the end, if PTI-compliant product costs $8 a case and non-PTI-compliant product costs $7.50 a case, if the buyer purchases the cheaper product, the whole system breaks down.
Although cost is a major issue, there is also a major feeling that the whole thing is unnecessary. Part of it is the sense that those switching over to PTI already have excellent traceability. If one is selling direct to a major retailer, that is a pretty easy thing to trace. In many ways, the PTI is sort of backward, starting with the sectors of the industry that have the best traceability. Maybe we should have started with a bunch of small restaurants and local purveyors and built a system from there.
The other big question, repeated over and over again by shippers of every size, was whether all the specificity that the PTI aims for would actually make any difference. Imagine a shipper who is selling to Wal-Mart, say 10,000 cases a day. This shipper has to call up Wal-Mart and explain that 692 cases, identified with specificity due to the PTI, are possibly laced with E. coli 0157:H7 and are being recalled.
Will Wal-Mart, or any other buyer, accept the specificity of this case-level initiative? Or will they, to use the phrase ubiquitous in these circumstances, “err on the side of caution” and throw every box delivered that day or maybe every box from that shipper in the dump?
Remember the buyer will bill back any costs related to this recall or dumping to the seller, so what incentive does the buyer have to not be ultra-cautious? But if it doesn’t make a difference and buyers are going to dump everything regardless of the traceability system, then why is it essential to spend a lot of money to get down to the case level?
PTI is far along now and, good or bad, we doubt it will be changed much simply because we could not imagine getting industry consensus on an alternative. The degree to which it will actually “happen” is very dependent on what the government does. If the government leaves many options for companies, we suspect that various companies will use those various options. Big buyers such as Wal-Mart may demand GTINs and such for their own internal systems, but others will be more flexible and whole sectors of the industry will be on different systems.
Our real concern is that this process has revealed a problem that will arise again: The associations try to nudge the industry in a positive direction; the identification of the direction as positive creates PR difficulties for companies concerned about the initiatives, and this shuts off important feedback that the associations need to hear. This limitation of the feedback loop results in less-than-optimal outcomes, including “façade outcomes” in which consensus is thought to exist but actually does not.
How to avoid this is tricky. Clearly a demand for specific commitments that have consequences if not followed could surface some of the hidden problems. For example, the associations could have said, “We can’t ask producers to spend money on PTI unless they have an assurance that those who don’t spend money on PTI can’t under-price them, so we need a commitment from buyers to constrain their supply chain to PTI-compliant product, or we can’t proceed.” Such a declaration would have surfaced the actual willingness of the buying community to commit to PTI. It would have answered the question as to whether buyer commitment was shallow or deep. After all, a public commitment to vendors could result in lawsuits if the buyers renege later, so it would be a real measure of seriousness.
Beyond demanding commitments with consequences, there may be methodological initiatives that could help surface real feelings. Although meetings, e-mails and conference calls can seem to be good exchanges, perhaps methodologies need to be developed for people to submit anonymous feedback, even if for credibility sake we restrict the anonymity to members of a task force or board. Perhaps even votes on whether to propose something should have to pass an anonymous vote.
As an industry, we may want to consider consulting some game theorists to discuss how these negotiations can be designed to not only get an agreement, but to sustain complete and honest input throughout the process.
Another update soon as we finish gathering the results of our very successful test of the FoodTRACE® system!
Thursday, October 1, 2009
FoodTRACE Press Release
The following press release was issued on October 1, 2009 by FoodTRACE.
October 1, 2009
PRESS RELEASE – Condensed
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
HEADLINE
FoodTRACE® launches electronic true traceability solution for the Produce Industry.
SUMMARY
FoodTRACE® announces the availability of its true traceability solution to the produce industry. The industry, the government and the consumer are all concerned over the continuing problems with food safety and now it is addressed in a more efficient and effective way.
BODY
ALM, Alternate Logistics Marketing ( www.almconsult.com ) and DRS&T, Del Rey Systems and Technologies ( www.delreysys.com ), both in San Diego, California, have completed two years of development collaboration, and testing resulting in the announcement of a critical application designed to address the two areas that need to consistently operate more efficiently in the case of a food borne illness event; traceability and epidemiology. The companies have created FoodTRACE® (www.usfoodtrace.com).
FoodTRACE® addresses these issues with their program that is currently being launched. The issue of traceability is addressed in the Bio-Terrorism Act of 2002 but those criteria have proven inadequate by themselves. However, companies currently complying with the Bio-Terrorism Act of 2002 already have everything in place in order to utilize the FoodTRACE® program and become part of an instantaneous traceability network. Companies can submit that data, electronically and automatically to FoodTRACE®. That's it. Whatever information a company is currently maintaining, in whatever format that it is in, FoodTRACE® can accept that information and create a single language for all. There is no software, hardware or numbers to buy, there is no additional personnel required, simply a low cost monthly fee, and FoodTRACE® does the rest….and all for much less than one cent per carton. FoodTRACE® also makes available at little or no cost, various custom designed reports to provide exception reporting and other trace-back or informational capabilities. This is especially valuable to smaller companies that can benefit from a variety of professionally designed traceability reports. Most importantly, in the case of an event, FoodTRACE®, within 24 hours of awareness of an event, will advise companies if they are potentially implicated, absolutely implicated, potentially exonerated or absolutely exonerated regarding all of the products that have been reported into the system.
"Other programs being offered to the industry currently require another number to be applied to every carton of product that is packed" stated Mike Domingos, President of ALM. "This is extremely cumbersome, expensive and difficult to maintain, ours is not”. John Granich of DRS&T commented, "Our program is affordable to all size companies and no infrastructure needs changing with ours. All companies have the capability of utilizing only our system or ours as an enhancement to other systems. Based on our conversations on the hill, with the FDA, CDC and others, we believe we exceed all current and anticipated coming requirements of the Government”.
FoodTRACE® is U.S. based as opposed to some others that are being offered. Summarily, it creates electronic traceability for food products, fully up and down the chain from any point in the chain, addresses epidemiology and works to protect both the consumer and the industry.
END
Contact: miked@almconsult.com (831-229-2331) jgranich@delreysys.com (703-851-0986)
October 1, 2009
PRESS RELEASE – Condensed
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
HEADLINE
FoodTRACE® launches electronic true traceability solution for the Produce Industry.
SUMMARY
FoodTRACE® announces the availability of its true traceability solution to the produce industry. The industry, the government and the consumer are all concerned over the continuing problems with food safety and now it is addressed in a more efficient and effective way.
BODY
ALM, Alternate Logistics Marketing ( www.almconsult.com ) and DRS&T, Del Rey Systems and Technologies ( www.delreysys.com ), both in San Diego, California, have completed two years of development collaboration, and testing resulting in the announcement of a critical application designed to address the two areas that need to consistently operate more efficiently in the case of a food borne illness event; traceability and epidemiology. The companies have created FoodTRACE® (www.usfoodtrace.com).
FoodTRACE® addresses these issues with their program that is currently being launched. The issue of traceability is addressed in the Bio-Terrorism Act of 2002 but those criteria have proven inadequate by themselves. However, companies currently complying with the Bio-Terrorism Act of 2002 already have everything in place in order to utilize the FoodTRACE® program and become part of an instantaneous traceability network. Companies can submit that data, electronically and automatically to FoodTRACE®. That's it. Whatever information a company is currently maintaining, in whatever format that it is in, FoodTRACE® can accept that information and create a single language for all. There is no software, hardware or numbers to buy, there is no additional personnel required, simply a low cost monthly fee, and FoodTRACE® does the rest….and all for much less than one cent per carton. FoodTRACE® also makes available at little or no cost, various custom designed reports to provide exception reporting and other trace-back or informational capabilities. This is especially valuable to smaller companies that can benefit from a variety of professionally designed traceability reports. Most importantly, in the case of an event, FoodTRACE®, within 24 hours of awareness of an event, will advise companies if they are potentially implicated, absolutely implicated, potentially exonerated or absolutely exonerated regarding all of the products that have been reported into the system.
"Other programs being offered to the industry currently require another number to be applied to every carton of product that is packed" stated Mike Domingos, President of ALM. "This is extremely cumbersome, expensive and difficult to maintain, ours is not”. John Granich of DRS&T commented, "Our program is affordable to all size companies and no infrastructure needs changing with ours. All companies have the capability of utilizing only our system or ours as an enhancement to other systems. Based on our conversations on the hill, with the FDA, CDC and others, we believe we exceed all current and anticipated coming requirements of the Government”.
FoodTRACE® is U.S. based as opposed to some others that are being offered. Summarily, it creates electronic traceability for food products, fully up and down the chain from any point in the chain, addresses epidemiology and works to protect both the consumer and the industry.
END
Contact: miked@almconsult.com (831-229-2331) jgranich@delreysys.com (703-851-0986)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
