قابلیت ردیابی غذا های دریایی در ایالات متحده: روند های فعلی، طراحی سیستم و کاربرد های بالقوه Seafood Traceability in the United States: Current Trends, System Design, and Potential Applications

Introduction “Traceability” is defined as the ability to trace the history, application, or location of that which is under consideration (ISO 9000 2000 clause 3.5.4). The concept of tracing products from their origin to the consumer is not a contemporary idea. Many industries have incorporated product tracing into their internal operations for decades. Most of us have purchased items, from cars to electronics, that are labeled with unique serial numbers, allowing manufacturers and government authorities to identify and locate individual products. However, the introduction of traceability into the food supply sector is a relatively new concept that continues to gain momentum, particularly in the European community. The seafood industry is a commercial food sector in which traceability is becoming a legal and commercial necessity (Borresen 2003). Globalization of trade and the lack of international standards have made identifying the origin and history of seafood products difficult, raising concerns from retail, food service, and consumers about the safety of their seafood supplies. These concerns have recently been heightened by the food safety problems experienced in Europe that have made traceability a prominent topic in the food industry. Driven largely by growing food safety issues, including bio-terrorism (Bledsoe and Rasco 2002), and demands by the consumer for detailed information on the nature, origin, and quality of the food they are purchasing, traceability will make an impact on the seafood industry. Whether this impact is perceived as positive or negative within the seafood industry will depend on the potential market benefits and the design, management, and marketing of traceability concepts (Thompson and others 2003). Within the food industry, traceability implies the ability to trace and follow feed, food, and food-producing animals through all stages of production, processing, and distribution (FSA 2002). The fundamental basis for a traceability system is its ability to trace both products and activities (Moe 1998). This requires a system capable of (1) tracing products through the distribution chain, (2) providing information on product ingredients, and (3) understanding and communicating the effects of production practices and distribution on product quality and safety. While traceability by itself does not provide quality assurance, it has important aspects that relate to food safety, quality, and product labeling (Kim and others 1995). An effective traceability system also provides for an efficient flow of information through the entire market channel. Limited traceability is not new to the U.S. food industry, particu larly with respect to food safety. Mandatory procedures have been established to reject or recall products that present a food safety issue. Good manufacturing practices (GMP), ISO 9000 quality management, and hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) procedures are growing in use and broadening the scope of traceability in accommodating this information (Moe 1998). Inspection and data systems such as HACCP, which is mandatory for all seafood, are designed to control biological, chemical, and physical hazards during processing. HACCP, however, does not require a traceability system because most of the collected data are not communicated to other market channel members in the supply chain (Hernandez 2001). Currently, product recall procedures and mandated documentation are the only form of product traceability in the United States. Despite the apparent success of this system in preventing foodborne illness, it still cost the U.S. food industry approximately 7 billion dollars in 2000 for foodborne disease (ERS 2003). The costs of product recalls associated with contamination are also increasing in the U.S. Class I product recalls, which are considered high health risk cases, have grown from 24 cases per year and 1.5 million pounds of affected food during 1993 to 1996, to 41 cases per year and 24 million pounds between 1997 and 2000 (Ollinger and Ballenger 2003). These trends may indicate that current regulations concerning food safety may be inadequate and that traceability could be an important strategy for reducing costs of foodborne disease and product recalls, while also addressing consumer concerns over quality, the environment, and resource sustainability. Some firms have voluntarily begun to offer traceable products to their customers. Although largely limited to niche markets, these actions highlight the growing demand, by food service, retailers, and consumers, for more information on food products. The use of informational labeling on food products is becoming a regulatory tool used to inform customers and influence markets for food quality (Caswell 1998). Currently, consumers are limited in the information about the origin and history of the food they purchase. The Commission of the European Communities believes that consumers have the right to receive information on the quality and constituents of their food so they can make informed decisions (FSA 2002). Surveys have shown that a large majority of consumers both in the European Union (E.U.) and the United States were willing to pay a premium price for products, which include Country-of-Origin-Labeling (COOL) and geographical labeling and certifications (Wessels and others 1999; Loureiro and McCluskey 2000; Clemens and Babcock 2002; Roosen and others 2003; Umberger and others 2003). Informational labeling requirements are likely to have a significant impact on the food market, helping to prevent fraud by providing more information to the consumer. Labeling, by itself, does not provide traceability; however, it is an important aspect of traceability that allows the physical tracking of the product and can be used as an effective means of differentiating products and creating brand recognition. Growing Food Safety Problems Recent food safety concerns in Europe including Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), hoof-and-mouth disease, dioxin poisoning in chicken feed, and the growing anxiety over the proliferation of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) foods, have increased attention in Europe, Japan, the United States, and their trade partners on food traceability (Borresen 2003). In addition, the events of September 11, 2001, in the United States have highlighted the need to protect the national food supply from bioterrorism. Simply claiming that a product has been tampered with is sufficient enough to precipitate a full product recall, which may cost a firm, not only monetarily, but also its reputation (Bledsoe and Rasco 2002). Despite more stringent controls on food safety, confidence in the global food supply has continued to decline. Consumer confidence of food safety in the United States fell from 83% in 1996 to its current level of 74% (ERS 2002). This has resulted in increasing attention on traceability by policymakers in the United States and other nations as a means to reduce uncertainty about food safety and to regain consumer confidence. Policy makers in the United Kingdom responded rapidly to the recent outbreak of BSE by enacting the Compulsory Beef Labeling Scheme (CBLS) in September 2000. This law required that all producers of beef and beef products conform to a strict set of traceability and labeling guidelines. In January 2003, Japan passed legislation developed by the Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery requiring domestic producers of beef to register all cattle into a centralized database. Other countries including Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are considering or have implemented new traceability requirements for their meat products. Emerging mandatory requirements have made traceability an international trade issue, which may strain relations and result in establishment of trade barriers. Traceability is also being debated within international forums. For example, during the most recent Codex Alimentarius committee meeting in December 2002, the United States strongly opposed the implementation of mandatory traceability. The United States argued that the government should not be involved in the day-to-day operations of private industry and should confine their role to issues of food safety. This debate is likely to continue as governments (1) attempt to increase consumer confidence in food safety, (2) counteract a heightened threat of bio-terrorism, and (3) confront a global economy increasingly influenced by consumer demands for more information on the origin and history of their food. The seafood industry, already confronted by inherent safety liabilities including scrombroid poisoning, ciguatera, shellfish poisoning, and mercury contamination, must address existing and emerging legislation and its effect on trade. In addition to food safety, concerns over declining fish populations and growing pressure from consumers to produce sustainable food will impact the role of food traceability in domestic and international markets.