ePedigree Delay a Sign of An Eventual Supply Chain U.N.?

StevenSimske — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:49:00 GMT

I have been remiss in discussing the delay in the California ePedigree until 2015. This has been interpreted as a long-term delay for track and trace and overall product safety. For a nice overview and analysis of the problem, see http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=17793.

However, ePedigree initiatives are underway by the WHO, FDA, EU, AQSIQ (China), GS1 and other standards/regulatory organizations. A full serialization+pedigree requirement may be delayed until 2015, but it is unlikely that ePedigree will not already be in place before then. Recent passing of PRO-IP and Country-of-origin labeling (COOL) legislation in the US indicates that the US,too, will continue with initiatives before 2015.

The delay of California ePedigree legislation, moreover, may be indicative of another passing of the torch. Much as the recent Presidential (and Congressional) election results likely signal a more collaborative, less "independent" US foreign policy, the delay in ePedigree may signal a more collaborative, less independent nation-to-nation legislation in the future.

Will the big players--WHO, FDA, EU, AQSIQ, GS1, ISO, and others--work together to create a reasonable roadmap for product track and trace, pedigree and provenance? In effect, create a "United Nations" for track and trace? I, for one, hope so. With the increasingly convoluted supply chains for virtually all products resulting in chaos during recall, fraud and even normal node-node shipping situations (how many retailers can confidently tell you everywhere a product has been on its way to their shelves?), how long can it be before the legitimate market says, "enough is enough"? Plus, a universal process will reduce confusion, lower cost, and improve response time around the planet.

Is the current combination of counterfeiting, diversion, factory overrun, smuggling, return fraud and other supply chain crime the commerce equivalent of the two World Wars? A series of events so drastic that the set of collective players decides to band together into a United Nations to try to prevent such a meltdown in the future? (I realize the United Nations is by no means perfect--but we have been without nuclear combat for 63 years...). Maybe so. And maybe the delay in the California ePedigree shows that the US, rather than defining the path forward, is willing to work with the rest of the Supply Chain United Nations in formulating the optimum set of requirements moving forward.

-Steve

Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Law in effect Today

StevenSimske — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 07:32:00 GMT

An evolutionary "time out" with some timely news with respect to the recent tainted-food scares:

"On May 13, 2002, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, more commonly known as the 2002 Farm Bill, became law. One of its many provisions requires country of origin labeling (COOL) for beef, lamb, pork, fish, perishable agricultural commodities, and peanuts. On January 27, 2004, Public Law 108-199 delayed implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until September 30, 2006. On November 10, 2005, Public Law 109-97 delayed implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until September 30, 2008. As described in the legislation, program implementation is the responsibility of USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service. The recently enacted Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) expands the list of covered commodities to include chicken, goat meat, ginseng, pecans and macadamia nuts."

Which means, as of today (October 1), the country-of-origin labels should be on most of your food. This didn't come about because of the Chinese milk, the California spinach or the Mexican peppers, not to mention the terrorizing tomatoes!, but it sure is getting a lot of press because of it:

http://health.yahoo.com/news/ap/med_healthbeat_food_labels.html

It's not just about safety--it's also about supply chain track and trace, consumer buying empowerment, buying local, and contingencies (recall, expiration, etc.):

"Those who want to buy local — or who prefer, say, Chilean grapes and New Zealand lamb — can more easily exercise their purchasing power. Those worried about lax safety regulations in certain countries can avoid those imports. And the next time tomatoes are suspected of food poisoning, consumers may be able to tell investigators they bought only ones grown in a certain region, speeding the probe."

The key is that the printing on the product is used to convey valuable information. Watch for some cheating going on. If I'm a counterfeiter the first thing I'm going to manipulate is the COOL information.

We'll return to "an evolving analogy" next blog posting.

-Steve

Security Printing and Imaging : COOL

ePedigree Delay a Sign of An Eventual Supply Chain U.N.?

Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Law in effect Today