From Farm to Courtroom: Where Food Safety Regulations Intersect with Technology
As food safety matters become more public, food handlers are challenged to implement comprehensive food safety solutions across the food supply chain that provide traceability, transparency and clear chain of custody.
July 01, 2019 at 09:30 AM
5 minute read
|
Safety is one of the top market challenges in the food industry. Food recalls are happening with greater frequency, which is alarming for public health, and finds food-related companies battling more consumer lawsuits in the courtroom. In fact, there are 1.3 recalls in the United States every day.
The fact is, food risks are escalating as the market evolves. One in six Americans—48 million people—fall ill every year due to food contamination, and 125,000 children die of foodborne illness.
In the United States, a person who is injured as a result of a foodborne illness may bring a civil cause of action against another by claiming that the other individual is legally liable for the harm caused by the foodborne illness.
Many different parties can actually be liable, including restaurant employees and personnel (servers, waiters, cooks, and others), food distributors, shippers of food products and suppliers of ingredients for foods. In other words, everyone along the food supply chain which encompasses farms, processors, distributors, restaurants, groceries and convenience stores.
Food poisoning lawsuits generally fall under the category of defective product liability claims: the idea being that you have been sold a defective product (food) that injured (poisoned) you. The most common legal theories in these cases include strict product liability, negligence and breach of warranties. Often class action suits arise from a specific outbreak of food borne illness. In food poisoning cases, consumers need to trace the contamination to its source, and the food industry is now more focused on transparency and traceability as a result.
As food safety matters become more public, food handlers are challenged to implement comprehensive food safety solutions across the food supply chain that provide traceability, transparency and clear chain of custody. While government agencies are working to implement standards for food safety, there are currently no federal regulations mandating a uniform set of standards, and the industry is largely voluntarily regulating. But the FDA is not sitting on the sidelines. In January 2019, the FDA implemented a voluntary Leafy Green Provenance Labeling initiative that identifies harvest location, pick date and lot numbers to enable quick recalls as necessary.
The GS1, a global standards organization with worldwide membership, has developed standards that offer the food, and other, industries a common language to identify, capture and share supply chain data—ensuring that important information is accessible, accurate and easy to understand. They administer Global Trade Item Number (GTIN), which captures item data through barcode and RFID labelling. RFID provides a unique digital identity so every entity that “touches” a food item can share and document data at every point along the food supply chain with virtually 100% accuracy.
The good news is that technology is being developed and deployed across the supply chain in response to safety concerns. The technology focuses on automation and traceability methods such as blockchain, hardware, software, RFID labelling and IoT sensors. The track and trace technology harnesses shared data to provide transparency on the chain of custody of food items, and immediate traceability to ensure quick recalls.
Following the trail of a bag of lettuce tagged with an RFID label that includes its GTIN demonstrates how the food industry is able to comply with the voluntary standards offered by the FDA and other industry groups. It is important to note that processes that can be automated mean less human handling, a known source of foodborne illnesses.
Start at the source where the grower can apply a serialized industry standard label to the lettuce which contains its GTIN, which provides lot, date and producer location. Moving on to the processor, when the item is “transformed” into a new, processed item, such as a prepared salad, it receives a new product ID with a processed date. In the commercial kitchen, all previous serialized data is scanned and read, and the item is placed in a physical inventory, optimized for order placement and rotation. Here, the bag of lettuce is assigned a new item ID, as well as a prep and use-by date.
All of the information that is contained on the labels offers access to food provenance, clear expiry data and ability to recall products at any point along the supply chain. The advantage of RFID labels is that data—in industry standard format—can be used to ensure food safety all along the supply chain, stored in the cloud or utilizing blockchain. Additional data is captured through IoT sensors such as those placed in refrigerators that must maintain a specified temperature to ensure freshness.
Food safety all comes down to compliance with industry standards, effective FDA, government and industry regulation and most importantly, effective deployment of technology. The ability to implement solutions that leverage advances in hardware, software, RFID, IoT, the cloud and blockchain will make the nation's food supply safer and ensure that food companies keep their business in the kitchen—and out of the courtroom.
Ryan Yost is vice president for the Printer Solutions Division (PSD) for Avery Dennison Corporation. Avery Dennison Printer Solutions responds to the unique challenges of businesses in the food, retail and fulfillment markets. Its solutions are rooted in efficiency, cost savings, food safety and sustainability through intelligent innovations that solve business problems and improve business processes.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAmazon, Starbucks Win Motion to Dismiss Most Claims in Biometric Data Privacy Case
Beastie Boys, Rimon Law Allege Copyright Infringement by Chili's in Social Media Videos
3 minute readWill Voice Recognition Tech Be the Target of a New Wave of BIPA Complaints?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250