What’s in Your Traceability Tech Stack?

The tech stack—a combination of various technologies that are stacked one over the other to build an end-to-end application—used to be a term solely used by software developers. It may be a term coined in the tech industry, but as other industries increasingly digitize their operations, its meaning has evolved to a combination of hardware and software that a business uses to operate and optimize its processes.

The idea that multiple technologies are layered or “stacked” on top of each other to create a fully functioning system is perhaps no better applied than to the concept of end-to-end (E2E) traceability in the food value chain. Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Food Traceability Rule FSMA Section 204 explicitly states that the FDA cannot prescribe specific technologies for the maintenance of records, the agency fully supports the food industry’s collaborative and voluntary approaches to adapt tracing technologies that enable an E2E, interoperable supply chain, explains Jim Jones, Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods at the FDA.

"We are beginning to hear anecdotally from food retailers and suppliers that they want to start sharing buyer specifications in a pre-competitive setting to provide and receive peer-to-peer feedback"

Jim Jones

FDA Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods

He notes that advances in food traceability and other technologies—like whole genome sequencing and artificial intelligence—will help protect consumers from foodborne illness and allow the FDA to respond to outbreaks more rapidly and accurately. “For example, we are beginning to hear anecdotally from food retailers and suppliers that they want to start sharing buyer specifications in a pre-competitive setting to provide and receive peer-to-peer feedback,” Jones told Food Technology. “This level of collaboration will be critical to help reduce supply chain silos, drive technological and operational innovation, and achieve widespread data interoperability via data standards. This collaboration will also prevent suppliers from having to adapt varying traceability approaches for their different buying customers.”

The shift from the traditional one-step-forward, one-step-back track-and-trace systems to an E2E mindset that means sharing more accurate, detailed information to entire supply chains is driving the need for companies to improve their tech stacks, says Julie McGill, vice president, supply chain strategy and insights, Trustwell, who helped write traceability standards related to FSMA 204. “Many of the traceability event attributes outlined by FSMA 204, especially shipping and receiving, capture 75% of the information needed for compliance,” she says. “Who did I get it from? How much did I get? What is it? What date did the event happen? But the rule’s traceability lot code (TLC) requirement has added a new attribute into the mix because this is information that many companies were not sharing before, specifically the TLC source or source reference. And even if you were capturing that data inside your operation’s four walls, you certainly weren’t sharing that across the supply chain and your supply chain partners weren’t asking for it.”

"That’s a big reason why there is a big push toward integrating tech-enabled traceability technologies, not only to capture the data, but to enable supply chain partners to share it."

Julie McGill

Trustwell

As a result, McGill says, many companies are looking at what digital systems they are using today, identifying the gaps, and looking at how to integrate tech-enabled traceability solutions that complement their existing tech stacks, enabling them to share necessary data with their customers. “It’s kind of like the telephone game. I have a piece of information at the beginning, but does it still look the same at the very, very end? And so, when you think about things like manual data sharing, that’s where things can break down very quickly. If folks can do this electronically, then if you start with accurate data, you should end with accurate data. That’s a big reason why there is a big push toward integrating tech-enabled traceability technologies, not only to capture the data, but to enable supply chain partners to share it.”

Standards: The Base Layer

Harmonizing standards to achieve interoperability is one of the top challenges for successfully choosing and integrating tech-enabled technologies into a food enterprise’s traceability program—and to ultimately achieving E2E traceability in the supply chain. The good news is that needle has moved toward common standards, language, and identification as a foundation for capturing and sharing data efficiently through various tech-enabled traceability technologies.

GS1, the global not-for-profit organization that sets coding system language standards for businesses to identify, capture, and share information, has established standards for traceability that have been around for some years, but FSMA 204 has prompted industry to learn more about the standards and how to use them, say experts. In particular, the release of the GS1 open standard Electronic Product Code Information Services and Core Business Vocabulary 2.0 (EPCIS/CBV 2.0), which allows businesses to share and capture supply chain information about the status and movement of goods, has proved a major step forward. CBV is a companion standard that provides definitions for data values that can be used to populate the data structures defined in EPCIS.

Liz Sertl, senior director, supply chain visibility, GS1 U.S., says the updated GS1 standard signals real progress toward interoperability and common language when viewed through the lens of the traditional analogy used to define traceability: the handshake of data throughout the supply chain. “Recently, I heard someone say, ‘When you start talking about tech-enabled traceability, especially regarding FSMA 204, it’s more like a baton, because you’re not handshaking and then releasing. You’re actually passing information, just like a baton is passed in a race,’” Sertl explains. “I really like that analogy because we can’t just do this on our own anymore. We have to pass information in a way that other organizations can take it and do something with it.”

That baton pass has resulted in progress with industry-led traceability initiatives in the produce and seafood sectors, says Blake Harris, technical director, Global Food Traceability Center, IFT. “Programs like the Produce Traceability Initiative (PTI) and the Global Dialogue on Seafood Traceability (GDST) have created sector-specific guidelines and best practices,” Harris says. “These initiatives leverage GS1 standards to improve traceability for specific food commodities, such as seafood, by developing voluntary, industry-driven standards.”

Ed Treacy, vice president of supply chain, International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA), agrees, noting that the PTI is a good example of industry adopting harmonized standards. He says that all major U.S. retailers and foodservice distributors have aligned on the PTI requirements and will accept the PTI Harmonized Case Label. “A contributing factor is that PTI was built on GS1 standards,” he explains.

Treacy notes that another example of standard harmonization, which should ultimately aid stakeholders in determining appropriate technologies, is the produce industry’s agreement to define the FSMA 204 TLC as the combination of the Global Trade Item Number and lot number. “This started within the PTI FSMA 204 Working Group in their efforts to create a best practice document, [and] other industries have adopted the produce definition of TLC.”

Sara Bratager, IFT’ssenior food safety and traceability scientist, notes that other industry-led traceability efforts are picking up pace as well, especially in sectors with items that appear on FSMA 204’s Food Traceability List. “At IFT’s Global Food Traceability Center, we are currently working with the Dairy Grazing Apprenticeship on a U.S. Department of Agriculture–funded grant as part of their Climate-Smart Commodities partnerships,” she says. “We are working with folks all throughout the dairy supply chain to figure out a common language to use among dairy producers, processors, distributors, and retailers to get a common protocol for traceability in dairy.”

Standardized data is the bedrock of compliance and is essential for achieving E2E traceability in the food industry, agrees Alex Miller, director, enterprise accounts with traceability software provider iFoodDS. However, he adds, recognizing the inherent diversity within the industry, it is unrealistic to expect universal adherence to a single set of standards, especially with products such as seafood sourced from, in some cases, remote parts of the world. “Therefore, it is imperative to partner with vendors capable of supporting data ingestion through various methods and offering data translation services to ensure seamless integration and data integrity across disparate systems and standards.”

"Traceability is not about a single company, it’s about a supply chain, which is only as strong as its weakest link."

Jennifer McEntire

Food Safety Strategy

In Medias Res

For food value chain companies, selecting tech-enabled traceability solutions and partners can seem daunting, especially with standard-setting and interoperability issues still in play. On the operations side, an immediate challenge to building an effective traceability tech stack is selecting and integrating new solutions or systems into existing processes. There are a few factors to consider when deciding what technologies fit best in medias res, or in the middle of things, experts say.

Ultimately, traceability is not about a single company, it’s about a supply chain, which is only as strong as its weakest link, notes Jennifer McEntire, founder, Food Safety Strategy, LLC and former IFPA chief food safety and regulatory officer. “A few years ago, there was a lot of press around some companies and their use of technology for traceability, she says. “Right now, I think companies are starting over in a way, ensuring they have the foundational data required by the rule [FSMA 204] versus springing ahead on the tech side. The technology needs to pair with the physical process.”

For companies in the market looking to build their traceability tech stack, McEntire says the first step is to get clarity around what the operator already has and what gaps they are trying to fill. “They should also consider what ‘nice to have’ information will help them get a return on investment [such as] gaining supply chain efficiencies or marketing opportunities,” she advises. “This should be done before ever talking to a vendor who may otherwise try to sell them something that’s not a good fit.”

Natalie Hunter, managing director, New Era Partners, a traceability consulting group that specializes in FSMA 204, agrees, noting that organizing an internal, cross-functional team of experts to lead the product decision-making and implementation process is helpful to ensure success in mapping out the needs versus the wants in terms of traceability system features and tools.

“Needs will be defined by the type of data being collected as required by your business and regulatory needs, and what problems you need the technology to solve,” Hunter explains. “For example, the ability to create an electronic sortable spreadsheet for the FDA should be requested to comply with FSMA 204 regulation. Wants will be defined by exciting elements that might not be necessary for business execution but may offer effectiveness improvements or extended insights.”

Hunter also recommends that companies determine a multi-month or year-long implementation plan, including regular cycles of testing to determine if the technology is working as intended. She adds that good software service providers will understand the importance of doing this and work to support companies with the process.

The flexibility of the tech-enabled traceability tool or system to accommodate different types of data carriers, such as QR codes, barcodes, RFID tags, or digital twins, that can facilitate data capture and transfer at various points of the supply chain is another important consideration. “In general, I would say the most important feature in a traceability system is the availability of diverse touchpoints for capturing data, whether it’s a web dashboard, mobile app, or EPCIS capture/query interface,” adds Jayson Berryhill, cofounder of Wholechain, one of the 12 winners of the FDANew Era of Smarter Food SafetyLow- or No-CostTech-EnabledTraceability Challenge. “There isn’t a one-size-fits-all silver bullet solution and therefore, the need for flexibility needs to be built into the design of the system so that it can support the range of contexts throughout a supply chain.”

"Software needs to fit the business, not the other way around."

Sharmeen Khan

OpsSmart Global

Sharmeen Khan, cofounder and chief marketing officer at OpsSmart Global, a traceability software platform and FDA Low- or No-Cost Tech-EnabledTraceability Challenge winner, recommends that companies also keep in mind the scalability and adaptability of a system to different commodities, supply chain segments, and user needs, as well as its ability to integrate with other business or supply chain management solutions. OpsSmart, for example, is module-based and soft-coded, so users can customize and manage the solution for their specific business and regulatory compliance needs.

“Software needs to fit the business, not the other way around,” Khan explains. “Something that I often hear is tech developers saying, ‘These are our five solutions, pick one.’ And they’re an out-of-box solution. But human food, from produce to animal protein, involves complexities, even within the same commodity. The way you grow tomatoes in Florida compared to how you grow tomatoes in Michigan is a completely different method. The soil is different, the temperature is different, the weather is different. You can’t grow it the same way. So, you can’t expect your traceability solution for Florida to work in Michigan.”

Top-of-Stack Considerations

In addition to considering the features and affordability of possible tech-enabled traceability solutions that will fit into their organizations, companies should determine their budget, ensuring that it covers the costs of implementation, training, and ongoing support from technology providers. Maria Velissariou, founder of Maria Velissariou Consulting and former IFT chief science officer, advises that workforce development and building new organizational capabilities are just as important as the decision to invest in digital traceability tools.

“There are a lot of people who were trained in the analog era, people like myself, but we do appreciate the importance of digitaliztion and we need to be upskilled or re-skilled to participate,” Velissariou says. “That may mean that you need to bring in talent with very specific capabilities, let’s say a data analyst or a bioinformatician. Specific to traceability, there has to be an organizational strategy on how to manage the system, and once the system is in place, the traceability system needs to be maintained like with every other system.”

A well-trained workforce of cross-functional experts who not only understand the supply chain, research and development, processing, logistics, and other business needs sits at the interface of the digital and the functional where they can optimize, maintain, and evolve the traceability system for a successful result, she adds. “These are the custodians of the traceability system and their critical role in maintaining the system and the smooth operation in the value chain has to be appreciated by management,” says Velissariou. “There has to be the right business decision to invest in building that capability for the traceability program to succeed.”

"Security and scalability are always important, but I would start with, will your folks use this?"

Chip Terry

BlueTrace

Workforce training in using new technologies is an area that is often forgotten to the business’s detriment, agrees Chip Terry, CEO and founder of BlueTrace, a software platform that works with water-resistant printers designed to help seafood and shellfish operations achieve regulatory compliance and business efficiencies. “Security and scalability are always important,” Terry notes, “but I would start with, will your folks use this? There are lots of great systems that sit on the shelf because front-line workers can’t or won’t use them.”

Terry adds that while the traceability feature is important in a tech-enabled solution, “knowing what you received, what you have in inventory, the profitability of each lot, and upcoming sales orders” are operational features that drive the bottom line of a business and get interest from owners. Shellfish and seafood harvest and fishing operators, for example, can benefit from technology solutions that not only help small operations meet regulatory documentation requirements but also help the business realize efficiencies that save time and money.

Ultimately, when selecting the tech-enabled traceability solutions that most closely fit your operational needs, it’s best to walk before you run, advises Philip L. Heggelund, chief technology officer, PandoScape. For example, a vendor may market its blockchain technology as a solution to the problem of data immutability, a feature that ensures that the data can’t be changed. The food company may not know that data immutability can be solved using digital signatures, a far less complex and more affordable technology than blockchains, he says, but they’re caught up in the buzzword.

“Often, a company doesn’t even have a data immutability problem, [so if] they are going to purchase a traceability technology because it’s on a blockchain, [it] is solving a problem they don’t even have,” Heggelund explains. “Yes, it’s nice to have data that is immutable and more trustworthy, but it’s more important to solve more immediate traceability systems issues. It’s sort of like me buying a pressure washer for a driveway I haven’t built yet. Someday I may need it, but it’s better to focus on getting the driveway built so I can park my car.”ft

Fast-Track Tech Stack

 

© z_wei/iStock/Getty Images Plus

 

According to Grand View Research, the global food traceability technologies market, valued at nearly $17 billion in 2023, is expected to reach more than $30 billion by 2030, a compound annual growth rate of 8.8%. That’s a lot of tech heading the food industry’s way in a few short years. Industry experts note that some tech-enabled traceability solutions today are enjoying fast-tracked adoption over others, depending on where a company sits in the food value chain. Alex Miller, director, enterprise accounts with iFoodDS, offers this current Top 5 list:

 

• Cloud computing/software as a service (SaaS) is favored for its scalability, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness, enabling companies to manage large datasets efficiently and facilitating real-time data access and collaboration.

• Mobile apps are popular due to their ease of use, enabling workers to input and retrieve data on the go, thereby enhancing operational efficiency and accuracy. To maximize benefits, this data should be integrated into a SaaS solution, providing centralized access, comprehensive reporting, and seamless E2E traceability.

• IIoT technologies, including sensors, barcodes, RFID, and QR codes, are widely implemented for their ability to automate data collection and improve traceability accuracy, offering real-time product tracking throughout the supply chain.

• Blockchain/distributed ledger offers enhanced transparency and security across the supply chain, making it an option that is ideal for E2E traceability.

• Software (data analytics/data warehouses/ERP) are increasingly adopted for their ability to streamline operations, enhance data accuracy, and provide valuable insights into the supply chain. However, the use of disparate software systems across a supply chain can hinder transparency. Integrating these systems into a single source of truth, like a SaaS solution, will make data more accessible and significantly enhance E2E traceability.

Stacked Questions

© TarikVision/iStock/Getty Images Plus

 

Philip Heggelund, chief technology officer of software development company PandoScape, notes that it’s a good idea to look at the value of a traceability system through the lenses of integration, compliance, and insight goals. Questions to be answered include:

 

• Integration. How well will this traceability system be able to integrate with my existing systems and potentially with external systems? Will it be easy to collect this data internally? Will it be easy to collect the required data from suppliers? Will it be easy to share the data with buyers or regulatory bodies?

• Compliance. How well will this traceability system help me with my compliance requirements? Will the software help me track the various regulatory and buyer requirements that I have? Will the software analyze and provide reports or feedback on when there are gaps in my data? Will the software provide solutions to filling those gaps?

• Insight. Can the system help provide insights about my traceability data that help my company to be more efficient? Increase the value of my product? Reduce risk?

 

“My recommendation to a company today would be to focus on a traceability system that provides strong integration and compliance value,” Heggelund says. “Finally, once those needs are being met, turn to focusing on the insight value of the traceability system. This insights value does not need to be delivered by the same traceability system that provides the integration and compliance.”