Importance of the traceability of animals andanimal products in epidemiology

IntroductionConsumer confidence in food safety has decreasedconsiderably since the recent episodes of food-borne Escherichiacoli O:157 infection in the United States of America (USA) andEurope, and the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) anddioxin crises in Europe. Globalisation of trade andindustrialisation of food processing have exposed consumers toa greater number of hazards. The elimination of trade barriersand the complexity of the food processing chain may causeproblems due both to the range and quantity of food productsavailable and to the speed of dissemination of infection orcontamination linked to food consumption.

Consumers increasingly insist on a comprehensive andintegrated food safety policy (the so-called ‘farm to table’policy), which has consequences both for producers and forcontrol authorities (2). For the producer, this implies thefollowing:

a) that full responsibility is assumed by animal feedmanufacturers, farmers, the food industry and retailers for thequality of the products marketed, in relation to the safety of thefinal products

b) that animal feed, food products and all ingredients are fullytraceable.

For the control authority, the tasks are as follows:

a) undertake proper risk analysis to describe and quantify risksalong the food chain, including animal feed quality and animalhealth, to either eliminate or mitigate these risks by theapplication of proper safeguards

b) provide sound scientific advice to consumers regarding therisks of particular food products or food types.

Traceability is widely recognised to be the basis of any modernfood safety control system integrating both animal health andfood hygiene components. However, the exact meanings of‘traceability’ and ‘traceability system’ have never been clearlydefined and, in particular, the differences between a tracebacksystem and a traceability system have never been analysed indepth.

The verb ‘trace’ refers to the following:

a) to follow the footprints, track, or trail of

b) to follow or study in detail or step by step

c) to discover by going backwards over the evidence step bystep

d) to discover signs, evidence, or remains of.

It derives from the Vulgar Latin tractiare to drag, from Latintractus, past participle of trahere (to pull) (10). The word

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 2001, 20 (2), 372-378

V. Caporale, A. Giovannini, C. Di Francesco & P. Calistri

Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Abruzzo e del Molise ‘G. Caporale’, Via Campo Boario, 64100 Teramo,Italy

SummaryTraceability of animals and animal products has become a priority for governmentsof the developed countries, due to consumer demand for comprehensive andintegrated food safety policies. In addition to analysing the differences betweentraceback and traceability systems, the authors describe some applications ofanimal traceback systems and the principal characteristics of an animalidentification and registration system. The importance of a traceability system forfood-borne risk assessment and management, and the most recent approachestowards a comprehensive and integrated animal health and food safety policy arereported.

KeywordsAnimal products – Epidemiology – Food safety – Identification – Registration –Traceability – Traceback.

‘traceability’ is a neologism employed in very specific contexts.For example, the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency defines ‘traceability’ as ‘the ability to trace the history,application, or location of an entity by means of recordedidentifications’ (12).

Traceback systems have been implemented for the purposes ofanimal health, as part of surveillance, to provide theinformation required to implement control measures againstdisease. Similar systems have been implemented for the foodproduction industry to provide the information needed to recalland to remove any contaminated product from the market.

Traceability systems have a broader scope and aim to documentthe history of a product along the entire production chain fromprimary raw materials to the final consumable product. Thescope of these systems is not limited to the ability to detect andtrace batches of high risk animals or products, but to supportquality assurance processes for animals or products. Quality isdefined as ‘the totality of characteristics of an entity that bearsits ability to satisfy stated and implied needs’ (9).

Therefore, in the fields of animal health and food safety,traceability can be defined as the ability to document allrelevant elements – movements, processes, controls – neededto define an animal/animal product life history. In this sense,traceability becomes the principal tool to both ensure theeffective responsibility of feed manufacturers, farmers and foodoperators in relation to the final product quality and to assessand manage risks effectively.

Traceability of animalsThe primary goal of an animal traceback system is to provideinformation on the source of infection or prohibited additivesso that preventive and control measures can be applied to avoidthe introduction of the contaminant.

For the purposes of veterinary medicine, the need to trace theorigin of animals arises as soon as control programmes forinfectious disease are implemented in a population. In manycases, the success of a control programme is linked to the abilityto trace the origin of an infected animal. An early example oftraceback is the Market Cattle Identification (MCI) programmefirst applied in the 1950s in the USA (11). The MCI programmewas based on the identification and registration of marketedcattle, which allowed traceback of infection to the herd of originfrom animals which gave positive test results at slaughter.

Epidemiological surveillance is a system for informationcollection and analysis, aimed at continuous monitoring of thehealth status of a population, to plan and implement actions forprevention and control of disease. The existence of anidentification and registration system for animals and animalholdings is often crucial for proper action planning. An

example of an epidemiological surveillance system based onidentification and registration of bovine animals is the IsraelComputerised Animal Health Monitoring System (ICAHMS)(13). The ICAHMS was implemented in 1961, to providerelevant information on epidemic emergencies, to facilitateepidemiological investigations and to provide information toplan appropriate strategies for animal disease control.

Modern technologies (e.g. the Internet, software for themanagement of geographical information, etc.) can be appliedto build on-line systems to increase the efficacy and theefficiency of the management of epidemic emergencies (1).Such systems supply information on the origin and movementsof animals very rapidly, when speed in tracing infection sourcesand disease spread analysis is crucial to plan and implementproper action.

Animal identification and registration is the foundation of anytraceability system for animals and animal products.

Animals can be identified either individually or ashomogeneous groups, depending on the objectives of thesystem. A range of identification tools can be used in theimplementation of a traceability system based on identificationof the single animal (e.g. brands, tattoos, ear tags and electronictransponders). However, the identification must be permanent,tamper-proof and cause no harm to the animal. Identifiersshould not be reused, and must be easy to apply and read.

An animal identification and registration system must identifyand archive both animals and holdings or herds. The conceptof a holding can be defined differently according to localconditions. For example, in the European Union (EU), holdingmeans ‘any establishment, construction or, in the case of anopen-air farm, any place in which animals are held, kept orhandled’ (5). In other farming conditions, pastures, villages,etc., can fit the concept of a holding.

The concept of a herd or flock can be used to identify differentgroups of animals kept inside a holding and having the sameepidemiological or health characteristics. In the EU, herdmeans ‘an animal or group of animals kept on a holding as anepidemiological unit; if more than one herd is kept on aholding, each of these herds shall form a distinct unit and shallhave the same health status’ (4).

To allow complete traceability of animals, an ideal animalregistration system should be able to supply at least thefollowing information:

a) the list of all animals (or groups of animals depending on thechosen identification unit) present in a holding (or herd/flock)

b) the dates and the list of all movements – changes of holding(or herd/flock) – of each animal (or group of animals) frombirth to death/slaughter.

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2) 373

Animal registration systems must also record the interactionsbetween entities. The laying down of rules and procedures tobe followed to report and to record interactions betweenentities and to update, verify, validate, process and store allinformation, is crucial. The implementation of a database,where all information regarding the origin, movements anddeath of animals is recorded, is a considerable organisationalchallenge. Therefore, an efficient animal registration systemmust be based on clear rules and procedures that allstakeholders (animal keepers, veterinary services, associationsof farmers, slaughterhouses, etc.) must follow, to assure theintegrity of the entire system. If procedures are not followedstrictly, even by single participants or within limitedgeographical areas, the system could rapidly become invalid. Inother words, an animal registration system, like a puzzle,requires that all the ‘pieces’ be present and in the rightsequence, in order to show the complete final image.

Traceability of animal productsAn integrated production chain control system should be ableto identify and document the following with accuracy:

a) all materials and ingredients used

b) production processes

c) personnel involved

d) final products.

This identification and documentation has the following aims:

a) to increase confidence in product safety

b) to control public health risks derived from productuse/consumption

c) to facilitate disease control procedures, including sampling

d) to identify the source of possible contamination

e) to facilitate the product recall procedure.

The globalisation of trade complicates the identification of theorigin of materials used for either feed or food preparation.Furthermore, the lack of harmonisation of labellingrequirements, in particular at the international level, oftenprecludes traceback of an ingredient or raw material to thesource. However, to imagine that acceptable food safety systemscould exist in the absence of proper traceability of animal feed,food products and food ingredients is unreasonable.

The main ‘subject’ to be identified and traced is the ‘lot’. Lotrefers to a defined quantity of a commodity producedessentially under the same conditions (7). A lot is identified bylabels and/or certifications that follow the product. Productsshould bear all information needed to ensure that they can behandled, stored, processed, prepared and used safely at eachstep of the production and distribution process.

374 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2)

Importance of traceability forassessment and management offood risksThe existence of an adequate and integrated traceability system,covering both animals and animal products, is essential toperform effective risk assessment along the production chain.This is true both for animal health and food safety relating tofoods of animal origin.

In particular, an effective food safety policy must recognise theinter-linked nature of food production, and thus, the need foran accurate system to assess and monitor the risks associatedwith raw materials, farming practices and food processing. Asound food safety policy requires effective regulatory action tomanage risks and the implementation of an effective controlsystem to monitor and enforce regulations. Each element is apart of a chain; thus, changes in farming practice, feed and foodproduction and processing often require amendments toexisting regulations, while feedback from the control systemshelp to identify and manage both existing and emerging risks.Each part of the cycle is critical to ensure that the highest safetystandards are enforced (2).

The identification of high-risk components in food production(e.g. feed production, animal rearing, transportation, pre-slaughter processing, slaughter, further processing, retailing orconsumption practice) requires knowledge of the flow of tradefrom raw materials, semi-manufactured and final product lots,to the final product sold to the consumer.

In the absence of an effective traceability system, thisknowledge can only be achieved through exhaustivemonitoring of the entire production system. In contrast, aneffective traceability system would allow the collection of allnecessary information at critical points of the production chain,resulting in a clear improvement in the efficiency of the datacollection process. The simplification of monitoring becomesparticularly relevant in the case of very rare events, by avoidingthe risks from overly complicated systems based uponhypothetical problems. Collection of data for risk assessmentcould be performed retrospectively, following the sameprinciples used for case-control studies.

Comprehensive and integratedanimal health and food safetypoliciesConsumers in many areas of the world are increasingly voicingwide-ranging demands relating to the health of animals and thesafety of animal products. These include animal welfare,

traceability, good environmental management practices andgenetic makeup of animal feed components. In summary,consumers want to be provided with more information aboutthe source of food and details of the ways and means ofproduction (3).

Traceability of animals and animal products along the entireproduction chain is an important issue for consumers, and thisconsumer demand has forced governments to make traceabilityof products a priority issue.

In food safety policies based on ‘hazard analysis and criticalcontrol point’ (HACCP), such as those applied in theindustrialised countries, producers are asked to guarantee thequality of animal products by documenting that all steps of thefood chain, from feed safety and animal health status, to finalproduct wholesomeness, are clearly known and under controlso that appropriate corrective actions can be taken if required.However, responsibility for inspection and auditing proceduresand tests, including random sampling and analysis, to assessand certify that the system is working properly falls upon thecompetent control authority (e.g. veterinary service or foodsafety agency).

Nevertheless, the application of HACCP systems does notimply the existence of a traceability system as a directconsequence of the documentation procedures. Although oneof the HACCP principles (principle number 7) states the needto establish documentation and record-keeping procedures,and although these procedures can provide useful informationfor a traceability system, the aims and scope of documentationin HACCP are different. In the latter, the aim is to documentthat the system is under control, that corrective actions arealways taken when pre-defined critical limits are exceeded, andthat recall of unsafe products is undertaken when required.

Some industrialised countries are attempting to implementeffective traceability systems. However, most of these attemptsare based on a voluntary application of specific programmes byfood producers. In the case of the Program for Certifying Non-Hormone Treated Beef to the European Union of the FoodSafety and Inspection Service (FSIS) in the USA (8), specificstandards are defined to guarantee the traceability of beef to beshipped to the EU.

The first comprehensive answer to the traceability challengewas provided by the EU in the beef and veal sector, as a

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2) 375

Fig. 1Example of a bovine meat traceability system using electronic transponders

AnimalElectronically identifiedby transponder in eartags or bolus

All information regarding theanimal (origin, movements,health status, diet) isrecorded and updated

Central database

Reading of electroniclabel to supplyinformation toconsumers

Automatic registrationof animal data

Transfer of data fromtransponder to electronic labelRetailer (butcher) Slaughterhouse

will be applied to a potential livestock population ofapproximately 300 million animals in Europe.

This new experience provides the opportunity to envisageefficient traceability systems based on electronic identificationof animals and telematic networks (e.g. the Internet) which willlead to the implementation of automated registration systems.An example is the beef traceability system hypothesised inFigure 1, the components of which are as follows:

a) a database containing identification and all relevant animaldata

b) electronic identification of each animal using transpondersencapsulated either in ear tags or in an endoruminal bolus

c) automatic registration of animal identification data atslaughterhouses and transfer of identity and relevantinformation on the animal to the carcass and meat cuts usingelectronic labels (‘Tag-it’)

d) reading and printing of tag data by the retailer (butcher) whomakes this information available to consumers.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profiling is under study as apossible means to audit the entire production system from theidentity of animals, to carcasses and meat cuts.

376 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2)

consequence of the BSE crisis. In particular, the EuropeanCommission implemented a system for the identification andregistration of bovine animals at the production stage andcreated a beef labelling system specific to the EU (6).

The EU legislation requires that bovine meat be labelled in sucha way as to provide information concerning the identification ofthe animal (or batch), the slaughterhouse and the cuttingfacility, if any. As of 1 January 2002, labels will also have toprovide information on the country of birth of the animal andon all those countries in which the animal lived.

Such a system requires a consistent connection betweenmultiple identification and registration systems which is almostimpossible to achieve in the absence of an integrated automaticinformation system.

New technologies can facilitate the exchange of data. A large-scale electronic identification project (IDEA project:identification électronique des animaux) has been promoted bythe European Commission. The aim of this ongoing project isto evaluate both the on-farm performances of electronicidentification (EID) devices in cattle, sheep and goats, and thefeasibility of EID in a realistic scenario involving animals andanimal products in the EU. The three-year project involvesnearly one million animals in six member countries and, if theresults are satisfactory, EID may be recognised as an officialsystem for animal identification under EU policies. Thus, EID �

Importance épidémiologique de la traçabilité des animaux et desproduits d’origine animale

V. Caporale, A. Giovannini, C. Di Francesco & P. Calistri

RésuméLa traçabilité des animaux et des produits d’origine animale est devenue unepriorité pour les gouvernements des pays industrialisés, les consommateursexigeant la mise en place de politiques de sécurité alimentaire globales etintégrées. Après avoir analysé les différences existant entre les systèmes detraçage ascendant et de traçabilité, les auteurs décrivent quelques exemplesrelevant du premier système ainsi que les principales caractéristiques d’unsystème d’identification et d’enregistrement des animaux. L’importance d’unsystème de traçabilité pour l’évaluation et la gestion du risque de toxi-infectionalimentaire, ainsi que la tendance récente visant à mener une politique intégrée etglobale de sécurité alimentaire et de santé animale font également l’objet de ladiscussion.

Mots-clésEnregistrement – Épidémiologie – Identification – Produits d’origine animale – Sécuritéalimentaire – Traçabilité – Traçage ascendant.�

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2) 377

References1. Bellini S., Di Francesco C., Giovannini A., Colangeli P., Calistri

P., Petrella D. & Caporale V. (2000). – Implementation of asystem for the regional management of animal healthemergencies. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 19 (3), 841-847.

2. Commission of the European Communities (2000). – Whitepaper on food safety. Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, Brussels, 52 pp.

3. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia(2000). – From plate to paddock. Turning the tables.Consumer-driven demands on global food chains andimplications for Australia. 32 pp. Website: http://www.nra.gov.au:80/corporate_docs/publications/pdf/food/platetopadock.pdf (document accessed on 3 May 2001).

4. European Council (1964). – Directive 64/432/ECC of 26 June1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade inbovine animals and swine. Off. J. Eur. Communities, 121, 1964-1977.

5. European Council (1992). – Directive 92/102/ECC of 27November 1992 on the identification and registration ofanimals. Off. J. Eur. Communities, L 355, 32-36.

6. European Parliament and European Council (2000). –Regulation (EC) No. 1760/2000 of 17 July 2000 establishinga system for the identification and registration of bovineanimals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef productsand repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 820/97 EuropeanCouncil. Off. J. Eur. Communities, L 204, 1-10.

7. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) CodexAlimentarius Commission (1999). – General standard for foodlabelling, complete text. FAO, Rome, 57 pp.

8. Food Safety and Inspection Service (2000). – Program forcertifying non-hormone treated beef to the European Union.United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety andInspection Service, Export library, Washington. Website:http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ofo/export/nhtcprog.htm (documentaccessed on 8 May 2001).

9. International Organization for Standardization (ISO)(1995). – ISO 8402 Quality management and qualityassurance. Vocabulary. ISO, Geneva, 28 pp.

10. Merriam Webster (2001). – Merriam-Webster ’s collegiatedictionary, 10th Ed. Merriam-Webster, Springfield,Massachusetts, 1,600 pp.

Importancia de la rastreabilidad de animales y productos deorigen animal en epidemiología

V. Caporale, A. Giovannini, C. Di Francesco & P. Calistri

ResumenLa demanda de políticas globales e integradas de protección alimentaria por partede los consumidores de los países industrializados ha hecho de la rastreabilidadde los animales y sus derivados un tema prioritario para los gobiernos de esospaíses. Además de analizar las diferencias entre los sistemas de rastreabilidad ylos de determinación del origen, los autores describen algunas aplicaciones deestos últimos y las características principales de un sistema de identificación yregistro. También aluden a la importancia que reviste un sistema de rastreabilidadpara evaluar y gestionar los riesgos de toxi-infecciones alimentarias, y describenlos planteamientos más recientes para elaborar políticas de protecciónalimentaria de carácter global e integrado.

Palabras claveDeterminación del origen – Epidemiología – Identificación – Productos de origen animal –Protección alimentaria – Rastreabilidad – Registro.

�

378 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2)

11. Schwabe C.W., Rieman H.P. & Franti C.E. (1977). –Epidemiology in veterinary practice. Lea & Febiger,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 303 pp.

12. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)(1998). – EPA guidance for quality assurance project plans.EPA QA/G-5. EPA Office of Research and Development,Washington, DC, 136 pp.

13. Van-Ham M. (1996). – Israel animal health monitoringsystem. Isr. J. vet. Med., 51 (2), 51-58.