One-Up, One-Back ERM in the Food Supply Chain

Gessner, Guy H;Volonino, Linda;Fish, Lynn A

Information Systems Management; Summer 2007; 24, 3; ABI/INFORM Research
pg. 213

Information Systems Management, 24:213-222, 2007

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1058-0530 print/1934-8703 online
DOI: 10.1080/10580530701404561

C\
Taylor & Francis
~
Taylor&FrancisGroup

One-Up, One-Back ERM in

the Food Supply Chain
Guy H. Gessner

Associate Professor,
Marketing Department,
Canisius College,
Buffalo, NY, USA
Linda Volonino

Professor,
Information Systems,
Canisius College,
Buffalo, NY, USA
Lynn A. Fish

Associate Professor,
Management Department,
Canisius College,
Buffalo, NY, USA

Address correspondence to
Lynn A. Fish, Ph.D.,
Management Department,
Canisius College,
2001 Main Street,
Buffalo, NY 14208, USA.
E-mail: fishl@canisius.edu

Repeated outbreaks of E. coli and other food poisonings call

attention to the need for fast, accurate tracing capabilities to identify sources
of contamination and track contaminated foods to their destinations. Concerns about biological agents contaminating food or beverages led to the U.S.
Bioterrorism Act of 2002. This Act requires those in the food supply chain
to identify the immediate previous source ("one-back") of all food received
and the immediate subsequent recipient ("one-up") of all food released, but
recordkeeping remains seriously inadequate. In this article, we examine the
role of radio frequency identification (RFID) in electronic record management (ERM) to improve supply chain operations and responses to public
health crises.
ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS
identification

electronic records management, supply chain, radio frequency

Contaminated pet food in North America caused the death or illness of

thousands of pets in March 2007, triggering an international investigation
of the pet food supply chain. Initial data showed that all contaminated pet
foods had been manufactured by Menu Foods of Ontario, Canada, and sold
under a variety of brand names in the United States (FDA, 2007). Facilities
in Kansas and New Jersey produced the poisoned pet food with date codes
December 3, 2006 to March 6, 2007. Sixty million containers of wet pet food
were recalled. Cornell University scientists pinpointed the cause of the pet
deaths was lethal aminopterin levels in the food (Blum, 2007). In China and
other Asian countries, aminopterin is used as a rat poison to keep stored
wheat grain from becoming infested with rodents. Recently, Menu Foods
had switched to a Chinese wheat gluten supplier. In April, after tracing
the distribution of the contaminated wheat gluten to the supplier, Hill's Pet
Nutrition recalled dry pet food since it used that supplier.
This pet food poisoning was investigated by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) over concerns that it might be terrorism or sabotage
(USFDA, 2007). On March 23, 2007, Dennis]. Kucinich, Chairman of the U.S.
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, requested that Menu Foods provide his Subcommittee with all
internal documents, correspondence, email, records, data, and information
relating to this incident (U.S. Federal News Service, 2007a).
213

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

We present this case to illustrate the complexity,

challenges, and crucial role of records management
in global food supply chains and the importance of
being able to produce records quickly on request. In
the U.S., food companies are required to maintain
the immediate previous source ("one-back") of all
food received, and the immediate subsequent recipient ("one-up") of all food released for each product. As such, the complete record for a food product
does not exist, but must be compiled, typically by
the FDA or other regulatory body. Unless records are
kept electronically, compiling the record for a food
product expediently would be nearly impossible.
Consider the problems with containing a food
contamination outbreak. Menu Foods voluntarily
recalled 60 million cans and pouches of gravy-style
pet food marketed by 95 firms through their retail
stores and bought by innumerable pet owners. Two
weeks later, a new recall included all date codes,
giving retailers an efficient means of withdrawing
the recalled product, and removing any confusion
that could result in leaving suspect product on store
shelves (U.S. Federal News Service, 2007b). In addition to tracing the contaminated pet food sources
and destinations, identification of the food's ingredients (that may have caused the poisoning) was
necessary. At this micro-analysis level, a record of
the ingredients is needed-and the record extended
to China. While it was not certain, it appears that
tainted wheat gluten from China slipped past quality inspections because aminopterin is not included
in routine toxicity screens. Sabotage was unlikely as
the poisoned food came from two manufacturing
plants located a thousand miles apart. This determination saved wasted efforts.

REGULATION OF THE U.S. FOOD

INDUSTRY AND RECORDKEEPING
U.S. food industry regulation intensified in 2002
in response to concerns of bioterrorism. Bioterrorism is the deliberate release of viruses, bacteria, or
other agents to cause illness or death in people,
animals, or plants. That year, Congress passed the
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act. The Bioterrorism Act, as it is
known, consists of five sections. The two sections
relevant to the food supply chain are:

Section 306, Protecting Safety and Security of

Food and Drug Supply. Provides safety and security guidelines for the entire food and beverage
production industry, including agribusiness and
animal feed supply. Section 306 requires persons
who manufacture, process, pack, transport, distribute, receive, hold, or import food to establish
and maintain one-up and one-back records. All
food and beverage companies needed to be FDA
compliant by the end of 2006.
Section 414, Maintenance and Inspection of
Records. Authorizes the FDA to require the maintenance and retention of certain "chain of distribution" records and authorizes the USFDA to obtain
access to those and other records maintained by
food companies. Companies must be able to supply records within 24 hours of an FDA request
(USFDA, 2005).
Despite its obvious importance, the Bioterrorism Act had been overshadowed by the SarbanesOxley and USA Patriot Acts until food-related
outbreaks, such as those listed in Table 1, brought
the issue to the public's attention. The Center for
Disease Control defines an "outbreak" as two or
more people who got sick or died after eating the
same food.
The impetus for our research stems from these
biological risks and the need for food suppliers to
comply with Sections 306 and 414 of the Bioterrorism
Act. Track, trace and recall capabilities are needed
to support compliance with the regulation. Fundamentally, protecting the food supply depends on
effective supply chain management, which depends
on records management. Electronic records management (ERM) is essential to the ability to respond
rapidly to a release of pathogens, deadly animal diseases, or other contamination of the food supply.
Bioterrorism attacks or accidental poisoning can
occur at any point in the farm-to-table food continuum, including crops, livestock, food products
in the processing and distribution chain, wholesale
and retail facilities, storage facilities, transportation, and food and agriculture research laboratories.
Thus, research in these areas is important for several reasons.
Pre-2001, records critical to business operations were
considered most vital. Post-2001, businesses must

Gessner, Volonino, and Fish

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

214

TABLE 1

Examples of Biological Outbreaks Affecting the U.S.

Food Supply

Date

Biological Outbreak

November 2003

Hepatitis outbreak linked to green onions

that began at a Pennsylvania Chi-Chi's
restaurant sickened 575 people and killed
three.
Salmonella outbreak, traced to tomatoes,
sickened over 400 people in nine states.
Federal investigators traced the tomatoes
to a Florida packing house.
Salmonella outbreak linked to peanut
butter, causing 288 illnesses in 39 states.
E. coli-contaminated prepackaged spinach
that killed 3 people and sickened more
than 200 in 26 states was traced to a
California's Salinas Valley farm.
E. coli outbreak at Taco Bell in three
Northeastern states traced to green
onions from California.
Novovirus outbreak linked to raw oysters
harvested from San Antonio Bay, Texas.
The novovirus could have been picked up
anywhere along the oysters' route from
their habitat to diners.

July 2004

August 2006February 2007

September 2006

Late 2006

March 2007

TABLE 2

Food Terrorism, Sabotage, and Accidental

Contamination Incidents

Country

Food Threat

Russia

In Russia, over 400 victims suffered acute

intestinal infection after consuming
products of a milk factory believed to
have been poisoned by a factory
worker. As a result, the company
suffered huge financial losses.
A series of food poisoning using
herbicides were practiced in Germany
and even a deadly poisoning of orange
juice using thallium was reported.
In an effort to damage Israel's economy in
1978, citrus fruit exported to several
European countries was contaminated
with mercury, which led to significant
trade disruption.
An alleged contamination of Chilean
grapes with cyanide in 1989 led to the
recall of all Chilean fruit from Canada
and the USA. leading to a boycott by
American consumers. 1J"he damage
amounted to several hundred million
dollars, and more than 100 growers
and shippers were going bankrupt.
In 1998, a company in the USA recalled
14 million kilograms of frankfurters and
luncheon meat potentially
contaminated with Listeria.

Germany

European
countries, Israel

Chile, USA,
Canada

USA

retain and be able to produce an ever-expanding

set of records for regulatory and compliance
purposes.
If terrorists or saboteurs successfully attack the
nation's food supply, the cost in human life and
the potential economic damage could be astronomical. It is imperative for covered businesses
to implement ERM best practices to best comply
with the Bioterrorism Act.
The Bioterrorism Act allows the FDA to bring a
civil action in federal court to enjoin those who
fail to comply with this rule. In addition, the FDA
can seek criminal actions in federal court to prosecute persons who fail to establish and maintain
records, as required by the final rule.
Food processors are being tested for brand protection through food safety audits and mock
recalls. Many processors that supply the national
retail chains are now conducting mock recalls
on a quarterly basis at the retailer's request, or
annually, within their internal quality assurance
procedures.
From a supply chain perspective, completing all
connections to move electronic records in the
farm-to-table continuum is good business practice.

215

Impacts of such an ERM system include quality,

safety, and process improvements, inventory
reduction, and protection of the company's reputation. ERM will provide communication between
members, detailed product traceability across the
network required by regulations, and necessary
visibility into the supply chain.
Real-time visibility to inventory by lot, batch, and
pallet anywhere across the extended network
enables companies to reduce inventory levels and
improve control and deployment.
Food terrorism ranges from financial sabotage to
stock manipulation to jealousy from rival companies.
Even disgruntled workers can be moved to contamination acts. Examples of food terrorism, sabotage,
or accidental contamination that have occurred in
several countries are listed in Table 2.
Despite known risks, as of 2005, close to 75% of
companies in the food supply chain still managed
inventory through disconnected spreadsheets and
One-Up, One-Back ERM in the Food Supply Chain

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

paper documents (Hulme, 2005). Reasons for this

inefficiency include: integration difficulties, particularly between supply chain members, where mistrust and incompatible information systems exist;
and the lack of financial icentives to invest in information technologies needed for control until regulators demand it.

fax. Once a company is successfully registered, the

FDA assigns a Registration Number unique to this
facility. This unique registration number serves as
the match-code used to link supply chain records to
the facility.

FDA's Food Facilities

Registration Database
ERM IN THE FOOD CHAIN
Several recent product recalls have highlighted the
need for electronic records to facilitate fast, accurate
tracking of product through the food supply chain.
In September 2006, the FDA recalled all fresh spinach after E. coli-tainted leaves sickened hundreds of
people. Using the barcode on a bag of bad spinach,
investigators traced its origin to California's Salinas
Valley. It would have been much faster to track the
contaminated leaves to the grower if spinach bags
and containers had carried radio frequency identification (RFID) tags with complete histories of the
contents' origins.
When the source of the 2006 E-coli outbreak at
Taco Bell caused by lettuce could not be located, a
comprehensive lettuce recall-both tainted and good
product-throughout the lettuce supply chain was
necessary (Zhang, 2007). This safety margin significantly increased costs while harming the company's
reputation and future sales. The different recordkeeping systems-paper and electronic-used
throughout the supply chain made it too difficult to
track the problem back to its source.

LINKING SUPPLY CHAIN RECORDS

The master record, to which all other records are
linked, is the location of each domestic and foreign
food facility that manufactures or processes, packs
or holds, food for human or animal consumption
in the United State&; On October 10, 2003, the Secretaries of the Department of Health and Human
Services and the Department of Homeland Security
issued a final rule to establish a Food Facilities Registration Database maintained by the U.S. FDA (Title
21 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1, Subpart H).
Companies that are required to register can complete Form 3537 online, through surface mail or by

As of September 2006, the FDA's Food Facilities

Registration Database contained records for 126,210
domestic food facilities and 171,837 foreign food
facilities (USFDA, 2006b). This legislation mandates
that companies in the food industry register with
the FDA. As with any database, the challenge is to
keep the tables and records accurate and up-todate. Section 1.234 requires owners, operators, or
agents, in charge of domestic and foreign facilities,
to update all information that had been submitted in
the initial registration within 60 calendar days of a
change (USFDA, 2006a). Periodically, the FDA tests
the accuracy of the data in its Food Facilities Registration Database.

Inaccurate Records in FDA

Food Facilities Database
From July through August 2006, the FDA conducted a test to determine the accuracy of two data
fields related to the ability to notify a facility regarding an issue. Those fields were (1) primary transm1ssion mode such as e-mail, facsimile, or telephone
and (2) identity of the emergency contact or U.S.
Agent. A random sample of 400 domestic facilities and 400 foreign facilities revealed only 52.0%
to 61.9% of the registered domestic facilities records
and 38.5% to 48.5% of the registered foreign facilities
records contained accurate data in both those fields
(USFDA, 2006a).
The FDA is taking follow-up actions with registered companies to update the required data elements on each record. The critical success factor
during an outbreak or other negative situation is
time. The FDA requires access to facility records
and relevant data within 24 hours after notifying
the emergency contact person using the primary
transmission mode. In 50% of the cases, even this

Gessner, Volonino, and Fish

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

216

first step of emergency notification is likely to be a

challenge and slow down response time because of
inaccurate electronic records.

FDA Prior Notifications Database

A second database requiring compliance constructed and managed by the FDA is one for prior
notifications. Prior notice is required for any imported
food products and can be submitted via the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) to the Automated
Commercial System (ACS) or through the FDA's Prior
Notice System Interface (PNSI). In a Prior Notification, the FDA requires the following data elements
(CBP, 2004):
product by FDA Product Code;
manufacturer/shipper/grower;
registration number for the facility or exemption
claim;
Country of origin;
Country from which the product is shipped;
anticipated port of arrival;
ACS entry type and date; and
Bill of lading, air waybill, and/or in-bond number,
as appropriate (for definitions of these terms, see
http://www.gallaghertransport.com/gtiglossary.
html).
The match-code between import transactions and
food facilities locations is the unique registration
number assigned by the FDA. Prior notifications are
sent to the FDA who issues a confirmation number
back to the sender via the FDA PNSI or ABI. This
confirmation number is required by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection in order to enter food
products into the United States. The FDA studied
prior notifications submitted between October 2004
and December 2004 (USFDA, 2005). The completeness or density of the data elements varied by transportation mode because not all data elements are
required for every transportation mode. For example, container numbers are rarely reported for rail
movements. The lack of uniformity in data fields
across transportation modes will cause challenges
in designing data retrieval strategies. (For example,
the FDA cannot always use container numbers to
track food items).
217

The data architecture, upon which the eventdriven FDA tracing system is built, is comprised of
these two databases that are mandated by law and
not based upon food safety events. The end result is
that the FDA is encouraging forward and backward
traceability by food companies for data in any format-paper or electronic (U.S. FDA News, 2004). In
order to request such records, the FDA must show
credible evidence that the product poses serious
adverse health consequences or death to humans or
animals (Blanchard, 2005).
So if it is not required, why should information
technology (IT) managers move from their paperbased management systems to electronic records,
and information integration throughout the supply
chain? To begin, paper records make it difficult to
correlate this data into a meaningful report in a
timely manner as expected by the FDA and consuming public. More importantly, electronic record
exchange throughout the supply chain reduces
costs and errors, and improves quality, productivity, operations, and customer service. Simply put, in
today's economy, electronic records are just good
business practice. To be competitive in tomorrow's
economy, companies will have to capture data in a
more timely, accurate, and complete way. To meet
this need, data acquisition platforms that incorporate
barcodes through RFID tags and associated software
are required (McCrea, 2007).

ERM IN THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN:

STATE OF THE INDUSTRY 2007
In a simplified sense, the food supply chain
begins with the livestock or farm, moves to the
manufacturer (processor), then through the distribution centers and wholesalers to the retailer
and final customer. Ideally, information gathering
should begin at the livestock or farm and track an
item through to the final customer. The technology
to accomplish this feat exists; however, information
integration is difficult and complex given today's
technology. We continue by addressing the state of
electronic record creation and movement through
the food supply chain, with a particular emphasis
on RFID and enterprise resource planning (ERP)
systems.
One-Up, One-Back ERM in the Food Supply Chain

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Farm
Starting tracking at the farm, several companies
have instituted information systems to assist in food
recalls and product quality efforts. Dole Food Company, the world's largest fresh vegetables producer,
recently implemented RFID to track leafy greens
as they move from fields to trucks and through
the processing facilities (Zhang, 2007). When fully
implemented, the system will allow Dole to trace
contaminated produce to a specific location in the
field. Western Growers, who are responsible for
growing, packing and shipping half of the U.S. fresh
produce, are using global-positioning systems to
assist growers to track their goods through the supply chain.
Livestock tracking differs throughout the world,
with Europe and Australia as industrial leaders
(McCrea, 2007). In 2004, to assist in combating "mad
cow" disease the USDA moved to standardize and
expand animal identification programs to all livestock, including poultry (Swedberg, 2007a). The
FDA approved the use of VeriChip (RFID tag) to
track livestock. Through the RFID tag, an electronic
record can track the specific animal to the specific
piece of meat, its defect information, grading data,
hotscale weight and finished weight as it continues
to move through the supply chain (Higgins, 2004b).
Theoretically, this electronic record should be able
to be tracked through to the final customer; however, many issues, as discussed below, exist that
impede this.
In spite of the need for identification, the program
halted because of the cattlemen's revolt against the
tag costs (U.S. $5 to 15 per animal). Congress froze
the U.S. $33 million intended to start the USDA
pilot-RFID livestock tagging program (Higgins,
2006). Fortunately, the program has not stopped in
its entirety. Michigan currently mandates the use of
RFID livestock tags due to a tuberculosis outbreak,
with full implementation expected by March 2007.
Wisconsin offers an incentive program for livestock
producers to purchase USDA-approved IS011784
(data structure)/ISO 11785 (air-interface protocol)
passive 134.2 KHz RFID tags and processing facilities to implement RFID systems (Swedberg, 2007a).
However, seventeen states have actually enacted legislation limiting mandatory RFID livestock tagging.
Livestock RFID implementation issues deal with

read rates on livestock and their inaccuracies-turning a cow around to be "re-read" is an extremely
difficult task!
The technology to electronically capture item-level
data at the farm has successfully been implemented
at several farms and livestock producers. However,
these efforts are limited and have not permeated the
industry.

Manufacturer/Processors
From the farm, the food and its associated data
continue on to the manufacturer or processor. If the
produce and livestock are RFID tagged, an electronic record interchange can occur, and no human
intervention is required. RFID data, through associated RFID middleware and conventional middleware, can be filtered into a company's ERP system,
and ERM may continue.
Due to the data volume required by the Bioterrorism Act (Higgins, 2006), several large companies
have implemented and operate ERP systems that are
based upon electronic record movement to mirror
carefully-crafted business processes. For example,
Berner Foods Inc., a 60-year old cheese producer,
uses Ross Systems' ERP iRenaissance suite to track its
manufacturing operations, finished products, quality
control, regulatory compliance, food safety, supplier
management, financials and regulatory management
(Hulme, 2005). The iRenaissance systems tracks date
codes and lots, ingredient tracing and final product
shipping as requested by the Bioterrorism Act. However, differences between ERP capabilities indicate
potential deficiencies in electronic record tracking.
At Chicago-based Bloomer Chocolate, the ERP software did not integrate with quality-control software
and required manual intervention to track tested
materials (O'Connor, 2006a). Fortunately, Bloomer
was able to use a warehouse management system (WMS) coupled with RFID and business process improvements to improve this. The tags allow
Bloomer to update its inventory in real-time-a feat
its ERP is not configured to do-and the WMS interfaces with the quality-control software. Bloomer's
current problem is a lack of middleware to track
work-in-process using RFID; therefore, the lot and
associated numbers must be entered manually into
each chocolate batch.

Gessner, Volonino, and Fish

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

218

RFID implementation in manufacturing processes

to electronically track product through the food supply chain is just beginning. For example, a Cheese
consortium in Mantua, Italy added RFID tags to
track cheese wheels during manufacture, integrating the farm and the respective cows producing the
milk, the day of milk production, cow diet, through
cheese manufacturing and distribution (Kahn, 2005).
The tags assisted the consortium to decrease counterfeiting and reduce operating costs 50 %. Similarly, Lebkuchen Schmidt, a German bakery, uses
RFID tags in mixing to smooth operations, improve
efficiency and decrease quality problems (Wessel,
2006). While using RFID offers significant electronic
benefits, manufacturers, such as cereal manufacturers that purchase corn or wheat, are unlikely to benefit from tagging as inventory counting and tracking
is less-time consuming with bulk materials (Chopra
& Sodhi, 2007). Similarly, tracking specific ingredients used in recalled foods through information at
the granular level or paper is difficult.
In a move to coordinate data exchange across
supply chains, the British Telecom RFID unit, BT
Auto-ID Services, offers its customers a collaborative
data-exchange platform and network infrastructure
(Collins, 2007). In another move to electronically
manage product information, Optiva, Formation's
software system automatically tracks product ingredients and generates Food Allergen and Consumer
Protection- (FALCPA) compliant labels, saving
time and money while reducing errors (Higgins,
2004b).
Since system integration and data management is
important in today's business environment, manufacturers continue to install ERP and MES (manufacturing execution systems) systems. Unfortunately,
in the food industry, hardware and software implementation costs are upwards of U.S. $10 million and
the complexity of coordinating multiple databases
are significant (Higgins, 2004a). A key benefit to be
gained through MES implementation is its ability to
identify quality failures, and isolate them when they
occur prior to being passed onto the public, which
meets compliancy factors of the Bioterrorism Act.
While electronics management systems exist, three
areas with difficult traceability issues yet to solve in
ERM and food processing are rework (versus donating produce and livestock to charity), bulk deliveries (and the commingling of bulk deliveries), and
219

packaging (tracking of product to packaging through

the supply chain) (Higgins, 2004b). Many processors
mix supplies from different growers to meet retailers' demands, and therefore, do not have written
contracts or records indicating the food's origin,
potentially leaving the company open for significant
litigation costs (Zhang, 2007).

Distributors/Retailers
As demonstrated by Wal-Mart's successful RFID
implementations, the business case for RFID-tagging
is significant at the retail level, where companies can
cut receiving handling, and storage expenses (Chopra & Sodhi, 2007). U.S. distributors and retailers are
limited to tagging cases and pallets through to the
final customer due to consumer privacy issues (Fish
& Forrest, 2007). ERM for food items that are case
or pallet RFID tagged at the processor provides a
seamless method to track data through the supply
chain. Unfortunately, most U.S. companies are not
taking full advantage of RFID-tagging and associated information capabilities, as they are employing a "slap-and-ship' tag application method at the
end of the distribution line (Fish & Forrest, 2007).
Therefore, the company is limiting its capabilities as
it incurs the tag costs and reaps little benefit by its
application.
As the product and its associated tags move
through the supply chain, storage and food distribution in cold environments and for liquids poses
significant issues to tag readability. Due to high
water content, many fresh and frozen foods absorb
electromagnetic radiation at UHF frequencies (868
to 956 MHz), preventing RFID readers from reading
the tags (Collins, 2004). Hence, the need to redesign
product packaging to improve readability in a cold
environment exists. Recently, in the bottling distribution chain, a RFID-enabled bottle cap -embedded with a 2.45 GHz passive RFID tag that works
well with liquids - was introduced, improving bottle
tracking, enabling efficient product recalls, and offering promotional information in real-time to consumers (Swedberg, 2007b).
Using RFID tags to improve backroom operations
offers retailers a significant improvement in many
operations. Wal-Mart's RFID mandate, as recorded
by a University of Arkansas study, demonstrated a
One-Up, One-Back ERM in the Food Supply Chain

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

significant improvement in replenishment rate three

times faster than non-RFID product, stock-out reduction, a proactive pick list process, and estimated cost
savings for RFID-equipped Wal-Mart stores over
US$1.7 billion (Hardgrave et al., 2005). Hence, by
using RFID tags as an electronics record, supply
chain operations and customer service improves,
and costs are reduced. Unfortunately, U.S. manufacturers are limited by consumer privacy issues to
pallet and case tagging as well as tag removal prior
to leaving the backroom. Until item-level tagging
occurs, the full-effects of tagging will be limited.
Item-level tagging through the retailer out onto the
shop floor will improve inventory accuracy, increase
sales, and reduce out-of-stocks, safety stock requirements, cycle-counting time, and shrinkage.

Transportation
In transportation, ERM can improve operations,
and reduce supply chain transit times, costs and
labor. Since proof-of-delivery paperwork is required
to complete the transfer each time the transportation
mode changes, RFID-tagging can help automate this
process. Particular to imported food, electronic data
may assist companies to meet FDA requirements.
Specific to food, RFID-tagging can assist in reducing food losses due to spoilage. For example, a California food distributor uses an RFID tracking system
to monitor the temperature and conditions inside the
vehicles to watch for heavy shaking and temperature changes (Swedberg, 2006). The system utilizes a
base station (transceiver connected to an RF antenna
mounted on a warehouse or DC) linked wirelessly
to a Statfrak computer, which sends data via the
Internet to StarTrak's data center and a secure Website. Similarly, Wayne Farms LLC uses Intelliship to
provide an audit trail for in-transit poultry products
through hard-wired advanced temperature monitoring systems on all refrigerated trucks with intelligent
padlocks to record truck door openings and closing, temperature changes, and 24/7 communication
(Higgins, 2004b). Within truck variances can impact
produce shelf life, and management knowledge of
product location (through RFID tags) within the
truck can reduce spoilage, improve inventory management, and enhance product quality, particularly
on long-hauls (O'Connor, 2006b).

Cold produce transport provides a particularly

difficult environment for RFID usage. By combining RFID and temperature/humidity sensors, timerelative data capture or event-driven data capture
during transport can occur, and when coupled with
software, data collection and identification as specified by the Bioterrorism Act can easily be identified
(Kevan, 2005). The U.S. Army in its combat feeding
program uses semi-passive, sensor-enabled tags to
track rations through the supply chain by capture
temperature data, and therefore, increasing shelf
life.
Metal and liquids poses a particularly difficult
environment for reading RFID tags, and therefore,
metal containers or liquid transport create RFID
implementation issues. Recent developments on passive RFID tags on re-useable liquid containers and
drums will allow companies to track the container's
location (Bacheldor, 2007).

RFID Implementation Best Practices

Due to its complexity, RFID implementation is not
an easy process. Best practices combine traditional
project and operations management practices by following the established project implementation life
cycle and including company strategy development,
detailed planning, pilot implementation, continued
roll-out, and continuous improvement until RFID
integration is complete (Fish & Forrest, in press). IT
managers need to address the complexity of different operating systems, middleware, and hardware
that may use different languages and architectural
structures. Specific to electronic record capture
and management, implementers should watch for
radio frequency interference due to the environment, install the infrastructure to support the portal system first, pre-configure the RFID equipment,
install the RFID hardware after the infrastructure,
bring the system online while optimizing the interrogators, and train local technicians to maintain the
RFID system.
RFID tag, size, frequency, standards and type are
concerns. Smaller RFID tag size is favored, particularly as supply chains move toward item-level tagging. With respect to frequency, 2.45GHz tags work
better around metal and liquids than 13.56 MHz and
900 MHz tags (Swedberg, 2007b). Around the world,

Gessner, Volonino, and Fish

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

220

standards and frequencies vary. EPC Class 2, Gen 2

air-interface standard tags are effective for use with
metals and liquids and provide readability up to 20
feet (6.1 meters) (Bacheldor, 2007). Semi-passive
tags do not beacon their identity, are less complex
and expensive than active tags, and are reliable in
indicating events such as temperature changes and
trailer door modifications; while active tags operate
at ranges greater than 100 feet (30.5 meters) require
fewer readers and are more proactive in transmitting
information about intrusions.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
Effective ERM has always been important, but
with the passage of the Bioterrorism Act it is absolutely essential. There is a critical need for research
and investment in ERM in the food supply chain.
ERM irr the food chain can help save lives during a
poisoned food outbreak, meet regulatory requirements, minimize damage to the brand and profits,
and reduce liability and risks associated with product recalls. Comparable to efforts to automate and
integrate business operations and internal controls
to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, investments to comply with the Bioterrorism Act can
improve overall efficiencies and operations. ERM
poses great challenges, yet offers equally great
opportunities.
During an outbreak, the goal is containment so
the FDA imposes a four-hour time limit for one-up,
one-back traceability. Officials investigating a food
contamination incident would probably not be able
to determine whether the contamination was accidental, intentional, or due to negligence until they
had pinpointed the outbreak's source using traceable records. If those records are maintained manually, it is may be impossible to quickly produce the
required traceability records.
Another goal is to minimize the scope of a recall
to only tainted food. The less thorough and inaccurate the records, the greater the safety margins in
recalls. A lot of untainted products may be recalled
because of uncertainty. The direct and indirect costs
will be higher for all parties involved. Therefore, further research and development to support ERM in
the food chain and automated solutions for traceability are needed.
221

REFERENCES
Bacheldor, B. (2007, March 19). Manufacturer tests RFID to track industrial-size containers of liquid. RFIDJournal. Retrieved March 21, 2007,
from http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleprinU3156/-1/1/
Blum, D. (2007, March 28). Who killed Fido? We all did. The New
York Times. Retrieved March 28, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.
com/2007/03/28/opinion/28blum.html
CBP (2004, November 1). Interim procedures for trade partners, BTA
Processing Instructions Trade Version 3.
Chopra, S. & Sodhi, M. (2007, March 3). In search of RFID's sweet spot.
The Wall Street Journal, p. R.10.
Collins, J. (2004, September 24) Frozen-food distributor tests RFID, RFID
Journal, Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://www.rfidjournal.
com/article/articleprint/1137/-1/1/
Collins, J. (2007). BT auto-ID launches service for food supply chain,
RFID Journal, July 28. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://www.
rfidjournal .com/article/articleprint/2 526/-1 /1/
Fish, L. A. & Forrest, W. C. (in press) Best practices in RFID implementation. In Blecker & G. Huang (Eds.) Handbook of radio frequency
identification - RFID. Verlang Publisher, Berlin, Germany.
Fish, L.A. & Forrest, W. C. (2007, April 1). Comparing retail RFID implementation around the world. Supply Chain Management Review..
Hardgrave, B., Waller, M., & Miller, R. (2005, November.). Does RFID
reduce out of stocks? A Preliminary Analysis. Sam M. Walton College of Business, Information Technology Research Institute,
Retrieved March 15, 2006, from http://itri.uark.edu/research/display.
asp?article=ITRl-WP058-1105
Higgins, K. T. (2004a, May). Make it, pack it, trace it, track it. Food Engineering, 76 (5), 38-45.
Higgins, K. T. (2004b, December). Eye know you. Food Engineering,
December. 76 (12) 37-44.
Higgins, K. T. (2006, August). Data automation & food safety. Food
Engineering, 78 (8), 44-50.
Hulme, G. V. (2005, May 23). Food chain's fear factor. lnformationWeek,
pp. 39-41.
Kahn, G. (2005, July 7). Who made my cheese? Tags track parmesan's
age, origin. The Wall Street Journal, p.B1.
Kevan, T. (2005, March). Control of the cold chain: Systems tap RFID
and sensors to deliver greater visibility and improved record-keeping.
Frontline Solutions, pp. 30-32.
McCrea, B. (2007, March 1). Integrating RFID into logistics and supply
chain operations: Plotting your RFID roadmap. Logistics Management. Retrieved March 23, 2007, from http://www.logisticsmgmt.
com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articlelD=CA6424068
O'Connor, M. C. (2006a, June 6). Bloomer tracking chocolate with RFID.
RFID Journal. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://www.rfidjournal.
com/article/articleprint/2402/-1/1/
O'Connor, M. C. (2006b, December 1). Cold-chain project reveals temperature inconsistencies. RFID Journal. Retrieved March 21, 2007,
from http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleprint/2860/-1/1/ 1
Swedberg, C. (2006, September 12). LA-area food distributors use
active transponders to track trucks, temperatures. RFID Journal.
Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/
articleprint/2648/-1/1/
Swedberg, C. (2007a, January 31). Wisconsin ups RFID-adoption incentives for cattle growers. RFID Journal. Retrieved March 26, 2007,
from http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleprint/3010/-1 /1 I
Swedberg, C. (2007b, March 16). NEC works on RFID tags, readers for
bottle caps. RFID Journal. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from http://
www.rfidjournal.article/articleprint/3150/-1/1/
USFDA (2005, November). Protecting the food supply. Retrieved March
21, 2007, from http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/-dms/fsbtac23.html
USFDA (2006a, September). Questions and answers regarding establishment and maintenance of records: final guidance, Retrieved March
21, 2007, from http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/-dms/recguid4.html
USFDA (2006b, October). Summary report of the USFDA's initial test
of the accuracy of the emergency contact/U.S. agent data in the
food facilities registration database, Retrieved March 21, 2007, from
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/-furls/ffregacc.html

One-Up, One-Back ERM in the Food Supply Chain

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

US FDA (2007). Pet food recall. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://
www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/petfood .html
USFDA News (2004, December 6). FDA issues final rule on the establishment and maintenance of records to enhance the security of the U.S.
food supply under the Bioterrorism Act. Retrieved March 21, 2007,
from http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/N EWO 1143 .html
U.S. Federal News Service (2007a, March 26). Rep. Kucinich sends letter
to pet food company concerning recall, use of poison in 60 million
products. U.S. Federal News Service (2007b, March 29). Pet food
recall broadened due to confusion on date codes.
Wessel, R. (2006, August 28). German baker's RFID application is recipe for success, RFID Journal, Retrieved September 13, 2006, from
http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleprinU2621/-1 /1/
Zhang, J. (2007, March 13). Tailing virulent veggies; Produce industry
develops means to pinpoint origin of contaminated products, The
Wall StreetJournal, p. 81

source identity of all the ingredients contained in

that product.

BIOGRAPHIES
Dr. Guy H. Gessner is a member of the American Frozen
Food Institute (AFFI) and Marketing Faculty of Canisius
College. His research has appeared in the Journal of Data
Warehousing, Marketing Management, Journal of Economic Psychology, and the Journal of Business Research.
He can be reached at Gessner@canisius.edu.

NOTES

Dr. Linda Volonino is an Information Systems professor at Canisius College and an electronic evidence
consultant.

One-up. For all ingredients received, the processor

must be able to identify the disposition of the ingredients in all intermediate and finished products.
One-back. For all products intended for human
consumption, the processor must maintain the

Dr. Lynn A. Fish is associate professor in the Management Department at Canisius College. Her recent research
has been published in Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education and Supply Chain Management Review.
She can be reached at Fishl@canisius.edu.

Gessner, Volonino, and Fish

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

222