Module: Food Biotechnology

Technical Applications of Food Traceability

Dwiyitno1

Abstract
Traceability is the ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food-producing animal or
substance intended to be or expected to be incorporated into a food or feed, through all stages
of production, processing and distribution (Regulation EC No. 178/2002). The main objective
of a traceability system is to record the history of a product since the raw materials used in
the production and follows the process through the distribution to the consumer. Basically,
there are 2 important aspects regarding the implementation of traceability, which are tracking
and tracing system. GS1 (formerly EAN-UCC) is the most code system used world wide for
traceability purposes. In the present time, bar code symbols are used globally as data carriers
but other technologies, such as radio frequency identification (RFID) tags will be applied in
the future. Nevertheless, DNA-based method, PCR in particular, is the most reliable method
and widely employed in tracing back product origin. Accuracy, speed, completeness,
reliability, validation and verification of the systems are important consideration in
implementing traceability system.

Keywords: food traceability, barcodes, Radio Frequency Identification,

polymerase chain reaction

1. Introduction

Food safety is an important part of food quality as are tracking and tracing systems
(traceability). There are several definitions for traceability. European Union (EU) defines
traceability as the ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food-producing animal or substance
intended to be or expected to be incorporated into a food or feed, through all stages of
production, processing and distribution (Regulation EC No. 178/2002). While in the U.S.
traceability is defined as the efficient and rapid tracking of physical product and traits from
and to critical points of origin or destination in the food chain necessary to achieve specific
food safety and, or, assurance goals (Golan et al., 2004). On the other hand, ISO 9001/2000
defines traceability as the ability to trace the history, application or location of that which is
under consideration. Additionally, labeling and traceability of genetically modified food
(GMF) are important issues that are considered in trade and regulation, particularly by EU
legislation (Regulation EC No. 1829 & 1839/2003).
The main objective of a traceability system is to record the history of a product since
the raw materials used in the production and follows the process through the distribution to

1
 MSc in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition (SefotechNUT) 
  Email: dwiyitno@yahoo.com

1
the consumer. Therefore, traceability system basically benefits to both producer and
consumer. Traceability system enables fewer products to be recalled and brings important
cost savings where the aim is to provide consumers with the high quality and safety products
which are produced in a cost efficient way (Asensio et al., 2007). Furthermore, benefits of an
efficient traceability system provide feedback on product quality to the supply chain and
improve consumer confidence. Currently, traceability systems can be incorporated into
information systems where consumers can get information on any product such as via
electronic data interchange/EDI (EAN, 2002).
The implementation of traceability has generated a significant amount of interest as
there is no single system accepted globally. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between
legal requirements and technologies required for providing a track and trace capability. The
traceability system should enable efficient food safety management, but it is the
responsibility of individual companies and supply chains to voluntarily take advantage of the
capabilities it provides (EAN, 2002). The aim of this paper is to review the technical
application of food traceability, particularly the common tracking techniques as well as
analytical methods availability for tracing back purposes.

2. The implementation of food traceability

Since 1 January 2005, the EU regulations oblige that all food and feed business
operators to establish traceability systems, even when their customers do not require it.
Traceability is also mandatory for beef in Japan, while exported beef in Australia, Argentina
and Brazil is obliged to be traceable. Conversely, up to date traceability is voluntary in the
U.S. (Souza-Monteiro & Caswell in Smith et al., 2005). In order to be able to trace products
and retrieve related information, producers have to provide information and keep track of
products during all stages of production, including primary production, processing,
distribution, retailing, and consumer (Schwagele, 2005). Furthermore, traceability requires a
verifiable method to identify growers, fields and produce in all its packaging and
transport/storage activities at all stages of the supply chain.
Basically, there are 2 important aspects regarding the implementation of traceability,
which are tracking and tracing system (Figure 1). Product tracking is the capability to follow
the path of a specified unit of a product through the supply chain, whereas product tracing is
the capability to identify the origin of a particular unit and/or batch of product located within
the supply chain by reference to records held upstream in the supply chain (EAN, 2002). The
implementation and maintenance of the traceability regulations require an effective and
2
efficient system to track and trace back the products. Consequently, methodologies for the
analyses of the food materials combined with information technology systems are essential to
establish a working tracking and tracing system (Schwagele, 2005).

Provision of information downstream

Tracking

Primary Processing
Distributor Retail Consumer
Producer Company

Tracing

Provision of information upstream

Figure 1. Tracking and tracing system along food chain

By the new EU regulation of traceability, the food processor is obliged to ensure that
the food products meet the requirements of food law in which previously it was sufficient for
a processor to be able to identify the source of an ingredient. This implies that the source of
all materials involved can be traced and a processor must therefore be able to prove that his
suppliers can provide full traceability. If any problem is suspected, tracking must go as far as
the consumer (Schwagele, 2005). Traceability covers everything that happens to the products
before, during and after the manufacturing, packaging, and distribution (Figure 2).

UPSTREAM PRODUCTION DESTINATION

SUPPLIERS

Reception Production Packaging Storage or

Preparation for
GLN4 shipping
GTIN2
SSCC1
SSCC5
GTIN1
GLN1 Lot A GTIN2
GLN5
SSCC2
Production GTIN2
SSCC6
GLN2 SSCC3 GTIN1 GTIN2

GTIN1 GTIN2
SSCC4 Lot B SSCC7 GLN6
GLN3
GTIN2

Original Logistic unit of Logistic unit of Destination

Production line Trade item lots Grouping unit location
location raw materials final products

Figure 2. Traceability link management (GS1, 2006)

3
3. Tracking application for traceability

A product traceability system requires the identification of all the physical properties
from which the product originates, including the location where it is originated, processed,
packaged, and stocked (Regattieri et al., 2007). In order to keep track of items within a food
supply chain it is crucial to identify items in each step of the chain. This application is done
by data carriers as mark or tag that follows the item and can be read further down the supply
chain. Data carriers carry an identifier which is a character based or alphanumeric code.
There are 2 types of information are comprised within data carrier, i.e. primary and secondary
identification (CDCT, 2007). Primary identification is used to determine the identification of
a unit, by recognizing a set of features that can be considered characteristically unique for the
concerned unit. The identification method can be DNA or other molecular based analytical
methods. Nevertheless, secondary identification is an identifier to a unit, in a form that can be
attached to a unit through or partly through the supply chain. The identifier can be thought of
as a code, often as a number or an alpha-numeric string.
In recent tracking and tracing systems, GS1 (formerly EAN/UCC) is universally
accepted as an identification and communication system. Established by EU (1977),
European Article Number (EAN) International and the global partner organization for the
USA and Canada, the Uniform Code Council (UCC), today have more than 1,000,000
member companies in over 145 countries. Not only to identify goods, the code system also
provides for additional information such as best before date, serial number, location number
and batch number to be shown in a bar coded form. These identifying numbers are also used
in electronic commerce (GS1, 2007).
The GS1 system consists of three components (GS1, 2007): (1) Identification numbers;
used to identify a product (Global Trade Item Number-GTIN), location (Global Location
Number-GLN), logistic unit (Serial Shipping Container Number-SSCC), service or asset
(Global Returnable Asset Identifier-GRAI); (2) Data carriers; the barcodes or radio frequency
tags used to represent these numbers. The data carriers vary according to the level of
information required or the space available; and (3) Electronic messages; the means of
connecting the physical flow of goods with the electronic flow of information. These
technologies have been used in meat traceability, providing a robust tracking system for most
elements of the meat chain (Electronic Data Interchange/EDI) (Schwagele, 2005). Table 1

4
illustrates the traceability practices in producing meat and meat product. Typically,
traceability is employed since animal production, slaughtering, processing to distribution.

Table 1. A process line of traceability of meat and meat products

1st CUTTING PROCESSING

SLAUGTERHOUSE nth.. CUTTING HALL RETAIL
HALL INDUSTRY

Meat product label Retail trade item

Technical piece label
on bulk item, labels for pure
Carcass label for groupings of items
groupings of trade meat & meat
& pallets
items & pallets products
NO bar code Bar code: GS1-128 Bar code: GS1-128 Bar code: GS1-128 Bar code: GS1-13
Carcass label Technical piece label Label on a bulk item Label on pure
Accompanying GTIN 1. Meat from one GTIN (beef) meat
document of the Net weight animal Net weight (if GS1-13 + info in
animal SANITEL (optional) Idem carcass label, but variable weight ) text format
number (ear tag) Country of birth Cutting date, Processing date
Country of fattening Best before date (optional) Label on meat
Country of slaughter Country of cutting Best before date products
Approval nr. Approval nr. of cutting (optional) GS1-13 + info in
Slaughterhouse hall Lot or SANITEL nr. text format
Slaughtering date (according to the
(optional) 2. Meat from more rules of minced
SANITEL number than one animal meat, meat
GTIN, Net weight preparations &
Cutting/Best before food products)
date (optional), Lot nr.
Label for groupings Label for groupings WHOLESALER /
of trade items of trade items TRANSPORT
Idem technical piece Idem bulk item OPERATOR
variable count variable count GS1-13 for retail
trade items
Pallet label Pallet label GS1-128 for other
Uniform mono/multi- Uniform mono/multi- packages
lot pallet lot pallet Same indication
SSCC SSCC requirements as the
GTIN content of the GTIN content of the previous phase,
pallet pallet unless other
Cutting/ Best before Processing/’Best agreements with
date before’ date the client.
variable count variable count
Net/Gross weight Net/ Gross weight
Lot nr. (only for mono- Lot nr. (only for
lot pallets) mono-lot pallets)

Mixed pallet Mixed pallet

SSCC + Gross weight SSCC
+ data identical for the Gross weight
whole pallet + other data identical for the
info via EDI whole pallet
other info via EDI
Source: EAN (2002).

5
3.1. Tagging
Tagging is the most traditional way of tracking. Originally, tagging is practiced to
identify rearing animal such as cattle, goat and sheep, particularly to protect from the theft
and exchange in pasture area. Recently, tagging is also beneficial for production practice
verification. Right identification may ascertain authentication of permitted production
practices (e.g., grass-fed, free-range, raised/handled humanely) versus prohibited one (e.g.,
antibiotics, hormonal growth promotants, fed animal by-products) during rearing of the
animals (Smith et al., 2005). There are various types of animal tagging, most of which are ear
mark, neck tags, body mark and tail mark. Application of RFID technology by implanting a
chip into the body is the advanced technique employed for animal tagging (Regattieri et al.,
2007).

3.2. Alphanumerical codes

Alphanumerical codes are a sequence of numbers and letters of various sizes placed on
the labels of the product or on its packaging (Regattieri et al., 2007). The design phase of this
system is very simple and economic, but its management is so cost as requires significant
human resources for code writing and reading manually. Another limitation of
alphanumerical code is no specific standards defined and they are generally owner codes.
Consequently, the performance is not particularly good while the risk of data integrity
corruption is also high. Typically, alphanumerical code is employed for internal traceability
system.

3.3. Bar codes

Nowadays, bar codes are the most widely employed as tracking technique. Generally,
bar codes contain a series of numbers reflecting type of product and manufacturer. EAN-
UCC, now known as GS1, is the most bar coding standard employed worldwide. The
fundamental principle of bar coding system is an unambiguous numbering schema used to
identify goods or services throughout any supply chain. Using automatic data capture
techniques, this numbering system can be applied successfully at every stage of production or
transformation and distribution (GS1, 2007).
Several types of barcode are established by the different providers. The most common
bar code provided by GS1 standard are linear, stacked (multi rows), and 2 dimensional (Data
Matrix) (Figure 3). Typically, a linear bar code consists of a series of vertical parallel and
adjacent (dark-colored) bars and (light-colored) spaces. Predetermined width patterns for bars

6
and spaces are used to encode and represent actual data in the bar code. This data can be the
GTIN itself or any additional information attributed to the item. A bar code reader (scanner)
decodes the width patterns of the bars and spaces. The combination of bar code labels and
scanners allows real-time data capture (EAN, 2002).

linear code (GS1-13) Stacked code (Databar) 2D code (Data matrix)

Figure 3. Different types of bar codes

Linear barcodes is the simplest and therefore the most extensively used. GS1 linear
barcode varies in the number of identity code. The most common bar codes are GS1-8, 12, 13
or 14 for retail packaging and GS1-128 for storage and shipping purposes. GS1-13 consists of
13 digit of GTIN while GS1-128 comprises 18 GTIN code and such additional information.
Beside GTIN, information possible on GS1-128 bar codes are either lot number, best before
date, price, net weight or country of origin (Figure 4). In term of beef labeling, for instance,
the label must contain the following mandatory elements: (1) reference number or reference
code ensuring the link between the meat and the animal or a group of animals; (2) country of
birth; (3) country of fattening; (4) country of slaughter; (5) country/countries of cutting; and
(6) approval number of the slaughterhouse and cutting hall. The GTIN itself does not contain
any information about the product; it is just a world wide unique and unambiguous
identification number (EAN, 2002).

Viande Belgique N.V

CARCASS bovine category XYZ
Weight: 425.8 kg
GTIN : 95487722000255 Reference number : BE51487721
Born in : Belgium Fattened in : Germany, Austria
Slaughtered in: Belgium Approval nr slaughterhouse: UD1098H

Figure 4. An example of GS1-128 carcass label (EAN, 2002)

7
 A stacked barcode contains between 2 and 8 rows, each separated by a separator bar.
Each row contains 16 words (which are generated from character pairs) and a start and stop
character. The last row also contains the number of rows in the symbol and the check digit
characters. There are 2400 possible words which can be generated from each pair of
characters. Symbols with less than 7 rows comprise 2 check digits in the final row. Symbols
with 7 or 8 rows contain 3 check digits in the final row. A numeric mode allows 5 digits to be
encoded in the same space as three alphanumeric characters, so offering a higher density. On
the other hand, two dimensional code is made up of square modules arranged within a finder
pattern. Data Matrix is known as 2D code provided by GS1 with symbols may be square or
rectangular. Data Matrix symbols can encode the entire ASCII character set and uses multiple
encoding modes which have the higher combination capacity i.e. 3100 digits for double digit,
2300 characters (alphanumeric text), 1550 bytes (byte values) (EAN, 2002).

3.4. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)

The limitation of bar code tracking technique is the requirement to keep the bar code in
the proper way in order to be read by the scanner device precisely. Damage and unclean bar
are often problems on the successful application of bar code, particularly in farm purposes
(Schwagele, 2005). RFID technology may overcome this problem by using radio signals
instead of line of sight for identification, and can be integrated into a prototype recording
system. RFID technology is known more sensitive than bar code. Studies indicate that the
RFID achieve successful reads over 98% of the time, with unprotected and reused tags (Watts
et al., 2003). On the contrary, scanners can operate with a 90% success rate where
contamination levels are kept below 10% and barcodes are kept clean and undamaged
(Schwagele, 2005). Recently, RFID tags have been employed as individual track for cattle in
Japan, Canada and South Korea (Smith et al., 2005). In retail companies, RFID technology is
has been used such as in Walmart (USA), Tesco (UK) and Metro group (Germany).
RFID tags are often foreseen as the promising tracking technology to replacing
barcodes in the future. RFID tag data capacity is big enough that any tag will have a unique
code since the product may be individually tracked as it moves from one location to another
location. This may help companies to combat theft and other forms of product losses (Golan
et al., 2004). Moreover, the tracing back of products is an important feature that gets well
supported with RFID tags containing not only a unique identity of the tag but also the serial
number of the object. This may help companies to cope with quality deficiencies and

8
resulting product recalls. However, product identifiers (tags) are not currently in widespread
use, and are expensive in comparison to the barcode. The storage of data associated with
tracking items will require many terabytes on all levels. Problems on penetration also arise
with respect to metals and other conductive media (Foodtrace, 2004).

3.5. Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)

Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) is the system of exchange of the data among trading
partners via electronic media. EDI offers a more efficient and reliable way of communicating
large amounts of data through the supply chain (GS1, 2007). Traditionally, documents
regarding product identity for shipment are delivered via paper documents. This conventional
system is known less effective, time consuming as well as more costly. Through EDI system,
the documents, including product identity, could be delivered via electronic means which is
faster and more effective as the data is integrated automatically with the existing online
system (Figure 5). Implementing EDI system is also beneficial for logistic management as it
automatically monitors the input-output item stock. As traceability requires a good
management system of record keeping a long whole steps of chain, implementation of EDI
system provide significant benefit in either tracking or tracing purposes by means of
computer to computer system.

Upstream supplier Production Distribution

Figure 5. Traceability link management (GS1, 2007)

4. Tracing methods of product origin

With respect to traceability along the full supply chain, particularly for meat and meat
products, needs such administrative implication on tracing systems. Several aspects are
importance to be involved, such as information on animal species, origin, authenticity, age,
composition and production system (Schwagele, 2005). Specifically, Regulation (EC)
2065/2001 for example, traceability on fish product requires the following information:
species of origin (fish species), geographical origin (fish from different regions), and method

9
of production (wild or farmed, organic or intensive) (Moretti et al., 2003). Initially, products
are traced back for particular purposes such as product recall and investigating complaints.
The Sanitel system including an automatic treatment of data related to animal
identification and registration is the general way to assure animal origin. Moreover, the
Sanitel system includes an individual identification of the animal by a number present on an
earring tag. The main disadvantage of this system is that the traceability stopped at the
slaughterhouse. It is therefore almost impossible to link a piece of ear tag with the distributed
meat. Moreover, the administrative traceability is not unfailing, the lost of documents and the
risk of cheating are potentially occurred (Goffaux, et al., 2005). Therefore, it is necessary to
have reliable methods, which allow a fast and unequivocal identification of animal species.
Several techniques are available for the tracing analysis, particularly for food
authenticity. DNA-based and protein-based detection methods are the main technique
employed. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the most DNA-based method employed, while
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) works on protein-based method. In addition,
new methodologies are developed, including the use of microarrays, mass spectrometry, and
surface plasmon resonance (Miraglia et al., 2004; Peres et al., 2007).

4.1. DNA-based methods

DNA-based techniques have demonstrated as fast, cheap and straightforward gene

identification (Mackie et al., 1999; Weder et al., 2001). PCR has been developed into a key
technology for species identification in foods and feeds. PCR-RFLP (restriction fragment
length polymorphism) has been used for the species identification of food relevant animals
and plants. Random amplified polymorphic DNA-PCR (RAPD-PCR) as well as assays based
on single strand conformation pattern (SSCP) were developed for species and variety-specific
identification of different animals and plants (Rehbein et al., 1999; Weder, 2002).

The latest speciation techniques are the analysis based on mitochondrial DNA and
ribosomal RNA (Pineiro et al., 1999). DNA-based techniques have the advantage that one
does not need a standard for each tissue, because almost all the cells in an individual have the
same genomic DNA. Additionally, real time quantitative PCR (QPCR) has been widely
applied for the DNA amplification due to simplicity, specificity and sensitivity, chiefly for
the restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) technique (Weder et al., 2001). QPCR
is the most reliable technique for the quantification of genetically modified organisms
(Schwagele, 2005).

10
 DNA sequence information can also be used for species identification. The
development of modern molecular biology techniques including various sequencing
techniques has led to a large number of base sequences (Schwagele, 2005). Unfortunately,
not all of them are available in the various DNA databases. For species identification, the
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is the most widely used target molecule. The main reason to
use mtDNA for this kind of analysis is the availability of numerous sequences in databases
and the high genetic variability of mtDNA, which allows sophisticated primer design for
sequencing. DNA sequencing is theoretically the most informative and precise technique but
requires samples consisting only of a single species. Sequencing allows species identification
without reference material if the generated sequence is available in a database.

4.2. Protein-based methods

Proteins (enzymes, myoglobin, etc.) have been widely used as species markers.
Applicable techniques include separation of water-soluble proteins by starch, polyacrylamide
or agarose gel electrophoresis, isoelectric focusing (IEF), and two-dimensional
electrophoresis (Pineiro, et al., 1999; Martinez, 2007). Highly resolved water-soluble protein
patterns can be used to differentiate genetically close-related species. The limit of detection
of gel electrophoretical methods varies between 0.1% and 1% and depends on the
visualization procedure of the proteins bands.
Immunological techniques, on the other hand, like ELISA performed on the solid
surface of microwell plates are using suitable target proteins for analysis. A qualitative
detection of animal species is possible and the limit of detection depends upon their content
in meat products (pork 61%; poultry and beef 62%; sheep 65%) (Schwagele, 2005). Notably,
proteomics can be used to differentiate species, breeds, and varieties by their specific protein
pattern.

5. Considerations on implementing traceability system

An efficient and effective system of traceability can significantly reduce operating costs
as well as increase productivity. At the same time, such a system provides product safety
elements and thus makes consumers safer. In order to establish product traceability system,
particularly on food traceability system, there are 4 fundamental concepts must be taken in
account (Regattieri et al., 2007). Accordingly, those aspects are product identification, data to

11
trace, product routing, and traceability tools (Figure 6). The implementation of traceability
system, thereby, should consider to the concerned product properties.

PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION DATA TO TRACE PRODUCT ROUTING TRACEABILITY TOOLS

dimensions number production cycle compatibility vs product
volume typology activities compatibility vs process
weight degree of detail lead times N° of data readings
surface conditions dynamism equipments N° of data writings
shortness data storage manual operations degree of automation
perishability data accuracy
requirements automatic
packaging data reliability
cost confidentiality & operations
publicity movement systems company’s knowledge
life cycle length cost of system
bill of material structure checks & alarms storage systems

Figure 6. Framework for product traceability (Regattieri et al., 2007)

In practice, different technical approaches can be used for tracking system. The data
accuracy and reliability required can guide the selection of the traceability tool. Accordingly,
cost is a relevant factor and so must also be taken into account. Final choice must consider
the degree of compatibility with the product and the production process, the degree of
automation supported by the supply chain analyzed, and in general knowledge along the
supply–production chain (Regattieri et al., 2007). Traceability system has to describe
extensively to which the origin of all the raw materials used and the distribution of the
finished products can be defined precisely and thereby could be identified unambiguously.
Additionally, traceability system has to be able to identify which hazards are focused in the
system as well as the specific time of the tracking-tracing practices (online, hours, days or
weeks). Therefore, aaccuracy, speed, completeness, reliability, validation and verification of
the systems are important considerations in implementing traceability system (GS1, 2007).
Bar codes (mainly the GS1 system) are currently widespread used in tracking system as
they offer several significant advantages. With an integrated system, the process of entering
information into retailers’ systems is automated so when new information is logged into the
system by the producer, it is added in real time to all systems across a network. With such
systems, anyone along the chain can track inputs, production, and inventory by an array of
characteristics (Golan et al., 2004). However, RFID technology is known as the promising
technology due to the higher accuracy and efficiency on identifying items compare to bar
codes (Watts et al., 2003). By the time of reducing cost of production, RFID technology will
be eventually replacing bar codes technology.

12
6. Conclusion

1. The benefits of traceability system on food production and distribution will be achieved
only if implemented comprehensively within all steps of food supply chain.
2. At the present time, bar code symbols are used globally as data carriers, but other
technologies such as radio frequency identification (RFID) tags will be applied widely in
the future.
3. DNA-based method, PCR in particular, is the most reliable method and widely employed
in tracing product origin.
4. GS1 (formerly EAN-UCC) is the most code system used world wide for traceability
purposes.
5. Accuracy, speed, completeness, reliability, validation and verification of the systems are
important considerations in implementing traceability system.

References
Asensio, L., Gonzalez, I., Garcia T., and Martin, R. (2007). Determination of food
authenticity by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Food Control, in press
CDCT. (2007). Compendium of Data Carriers for Traceability. http://www.eufoodtrace.org/
framework/comp.html. Accessed on 2007 April 25.
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2065/2001. (2001). Laying down detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EC) No. 104/2000 as regards informing consumers
about fishery and aquaculture products. Official Journal of the European Communities,
L278/6-L278/8
Commission Regulation (EC) No.178. (2002). Laying down the general principles and
requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying
down procedures in matters of food safety. Official Journal of the European
Communities, L31/1–L31/24.
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1829. (2003). Genetically modified food and feed. Official
Journal of the European Communities, L268/1–L268/23.
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1830. (2003). The traceability and labeling of genetically
modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from
genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC. Official Journal
of the European Communities, L268/24–L268/27.
EAN. (2002). Traceability of beef. Application of EAN/UCC Standards in implementing
Regulation (EC) 1760/2000. www.ean-int.org. Accessed on 2007 April 25.
Foodtrace. (2004). FOODTRACE Concerted Action Programme: Generic Framework for
Traceability. FOODTRACE Generic Framework. http//www.eufoodtrace.org. Accessed
on 2007 April 26.
Goffaux, F., China, B., Dams, L., Clinquart, A., and Daube, G. (2005). Development of a
genetic traceability test in pig based on single nucleotide polymorphism detection.
Forensic Science International, 151, 239–247

13
Golan E., Krissoff B., Kuchler F., Calvin L., Nelson K., and Price G. (2004). Traceability in
the U.S. Food Supply: Economic Theory and Industry Studies. Economic Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic. Report No. 830.
GS1. (2007). Specification for the identification and traceability of meat and meat products.
GS1 Belgium & Luxembourg. www.gs1belu.org. Accessed on 2007 April 26.
ISO. (2001). ISO 9000:2001. Quality Management Standards. International Organization for
Standardization. http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/iso9000-14000/ims/ims.html. Accessed on
2007 April 24.
Mackie, I., Craig, A., Etienne, M., Jerome, M., Fleurence, J, Jessen, F., Smelt, A., Kruijt, A.,
MalmhedenYman, A., Ferm, M., Martinez, I., Perez-Martin, R., Pineiro, C., Rehbein,
H., Kundiger, R. (2000). Species identification of smoked and gravad fish products by
sodium dodecylsulphate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, urea isoelectric focusing
and native isoelectric focusing: A collaborative study. Food Chemistry. Vol.71:1–7.
Martinez, I., Slizyt,_R., and Dauksas, E. (2007). High resolution two-dimensional
electrophoresis as a tool to differentiate wild from farmed cod (Gadus morhua) and to
assess the protein composition of klipfish. Food Chemistry, 102, 504–510
Miraglia, M., Berdal, K.G., Brera, C., Corbisier, P., Holst-Jensen, A., Kok, E.J., Marvin, H.J.,
Schimmel, H., Rentsch, J., van Rie, J.P., and Zagon, J. (2004). Detection and
traceability of genetically modified organisms in the food production chain. Food &
Chemical Toxicology, 42(7), 1157-80.
Moretti, V.M., Turchini, G.M., Bellagamba, F., and Caprino, F. (2003). Traceability Issues
in Fishery and Aquaculture Products. Veterinary Research Communications, 27 Suppl.
1, 497–505.
Peres, B., Barlet, N., Loiseau, G., and Montet, D. (2007). Review of the current methods of
analytical traceability allowing determination of the origin of foodstuffs. Food Control,
18, 228–235.
Pineiro C, Barros-Velasquez J, Perez-Martin RI, Martinez I, Jacobsen T, Rehbein H,
Kündiger R, Mendes R, Etienne M, Jerome M, Craig A, Mackie IM, and Jessen F.
(1999). Development of a sodium dodecyl sulfate–polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis
reference method for the analysis and identification of fish species in raw and heat-
processed samples: A collaborative study. Electrophoresis, 20, 1425–1432.
Regattieri, A., Gamberi M., and Manzini R. (2007). Traceability of food products: General
framework and experimental evidence. Journal of Food Engineering, 81, 347–356.
Rehbein, H., Mackie, I.M., Pryde, S., Gonzales-Sotelo, C., Medina, I., Perez-Martin, R.,
Quinteiro, J., and Rey-Mendez, M. (1999). Fish species identification in canned tuna
by PCR-SSCP: validation by a collaborative study and investigation of intra-species
variability of the DNA-patterns. Food Chemistry, 64,263–268.
Schwagele, F. (2005). Traceability from a European perspective. Meat Science, 71, 164–173.
Smith, G.C., Tatum, J.D., Belk, K.E., Scanga, J.A., Grandin, T., Sofos, J.N. (2005).
Traceability from a US perspective. Meat Science, 71, 174–193
Watts, A. J., Miller, P. C. H., and Godwin, R. J. (2003). Automatically recording sprayer
inputs to improve traceability and control. In Proceedings of the 2003 BCPC Crop
Science and Technology Conference, pp.323–328.
Weder, J.K. (2002). Identification of plant food raw material by RAPD-PCR: legumes.
Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 50, 4456–4463.
Weder, J.K. (2002). Species Identification of Beans, Peas and Other Legumes by RAPD-PCR
after DNA Isolation using Membrane Columns. Lebensm.-Wiss. u.-Technol., 35,277–
283.

14