Food processing plants and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) need an excellent and reliable traceability system to ensure that consumers are well protected from consuming unsafe food. The traceability systems are being implemented by different food industries all around the world including Malaysia. This study aims to determine the implementation status of traceability system among food processing plants and SMEs. Another important goal is to identify the Critical Traceability Points (CTPs) in food processing and SMEs’ supply chains. A survey involving 17 processing plants and 53 SMEs from Kelantan, Malaysia, on the traceability and product recall system was conducted. The findings revealed that the food processing plants and SMEs are interested in implementing traceability system but they lack information and capital to carry out the system. Receiving
The European law described traceability as the ability to track any food, feed, food-producing animal, or substance that will be used for consumption through all stages of production, processing, and distribution [
Traceability system concept recently attracted much attention as most of the country all around the world is advancing in the processing industries and many organizations are involved with the processing industries especially food products. The incident such as Mad Cow Disease, Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Europe and
Malaysia is also improving and advancing in processing industry especially the food and beverages industries. The food processing sectors in the East Coast accounts for about 10% of Malaysia’s processing output [
Definition of Small and Medium Enterprises by size of operation [
Category | Small | Medium |
---|---|---|
Manufacturing | Sales turnover from USD 93,000 to less than USD 4.6 million or full time employees from 5 to less than 75 | Sales turnover from USD 4.6 million to not exceeding USD 15 million or full time employees from 75 to not exceeding 200 |
|
||
Services and other sectors | Sales turnover from USD 93,000 to less than USD 933,000 or full time employees from 5 to less than 30 | Sales turnover from USD 933,000 to not exceeding USD 6.2 million or full time employees from 30 to not exceeding 75 |
There are no published reports of traceability program in food processing plants and SME in Malaysia. In Malaysia, the level of traceability and recall programs is still in the early stage as not many industries apply the traceability systems for detecting and recall of unsafe food. Traceability systems in Malaysia are still new because multi-ingredient foods may include materials from various food chains and most Malaysia’s products are imported. The traceability system is an effective way to track the unsafe products supply because it is capable of identifying the problem related through records maintained by the company, the immediate supplier and customer of an identified food products [
In traceability system that is applied in Malaysia, the companies and SMEs involved with food may only be able to trace the affected products by investigation through the chains. Investigation may be able to identify the source of damage that lead to the recall of the products. By identifying the source of product damage, the process can be reversed to identify affected products for recall. Investigation by traceability systems may improve the trace of affected products as very little is still known about these programs. FAO/WHO [
The study for the traceability and recall plans was carried out for the food processing industries, Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in Kelantan. Ninety food processing industries and SMEs were invited to participate in the study. This study covered all kinds of food products that were processed and sold around the area. In conducting the traceability and recall plans for the food processing industries and SMEs around the area, there were several steps taken. Questionnaires were prepared for food industries to be answered and interviewed. A previsit was conducted to gain rapport and confidence from the invited companies and enterprises, followed by a second visit to collect data.
A questionnaire divided into three sections with section A: personal basic information; section B: overview of traceability system implementation; and section C: detailed information and factors of traceability system was developed (available on request from corresponding author). In order to ensure the validity of the questionnaires, the questionnaires were pilot tested on 20 food industries before being used for survey to ensure the questions are clear and understood easily. The questionnaires were provided in English and Malay for the participants. The revised questionnaire was then used to gather data. Data collected were analyzed using Microsoft excel and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0. Since the data collected were in survey format, nonparametric tests, particularly Chi-square analysis (
This study was conducted to determine the status of traceability through the food chain and to identify the Critical Traceability Points (CTP) of food processing plants and SMEs. The population of the study consists of workers and owners of the processing plants and SMEs. The initial total number of population was 90. The sample size was then reduced to 70 participants as the population to be studied could not give their full cooperation due to their work commitments. Thus, only 70 questionnaires were obtained for this study of which 17 were from the processing plants and 53 from SMEs. The participants consist of males and females of different ages, position, and academic backgrounds. The data for the study were collected in May to October 2013.
In order to ensure that the variables used internally are consistent, a reliability assessment was performed using Cronbach’s Alpha. The higher the Cronbach Alpha coefficient is, the more correlated the items are within the relevant variable which theoretically should be higher than 0.7 [
The following section provides an overview of the profile sample of participants. The participants represent 70 processing plants and SMEs that are involved with food products who agreed to participate in the study. The demographic information based on Table
Table
Demographics of participants from processing plants (
Demographic items |
|
---|---|
Gender ( |
|
Male | 17 (24.3) |
Female | 53 (75.7) |
Age ( |
|
≤20 | None |
21–30 | 6 (8.6) |
31–40 | 17 (24.3) |
41–50 | 18 (25.7) |
51–60 | 22 (31.4) |
≥61 | 7 (10.0) |
Current position ( |
|
General manager | 50 (71.4) |
Department manager | 1 (1.4) |
Production manager/executive | 1 (1.4) |
Quality assurance/executive | 2 (2.9) |
System operator | 8 (11.4) |
Others | 8 (11.4) |
Education background ( |
|
PMR | 25 (35.7) |
SPM | 27 (38.6) |
STPM/diploma | 12 (17.1) |
Undergraduate or higher | 6 (8.6) |
Employees number ( |
|
≤10 | 49 (70.0) |
11–20 | 20 (28.6) |
21–30 | 1 (1.4) |
31–40 | None |
41–50 | None |
≥51 | None |
Plant/SME size ( |
|
≤50 m2 | 22 (31.4) |
50–250 m2 | 36 (51.4) |
250–500 m2 | 12 (17.1) |
≥500 m2 | None |
In the following section, relevant data about the participant’s response to the different questions were recorded. This section consists of six questions which strive to capture the responses of the participants regarding the implementation of food traceability system. The responses given by the participants from the processing plants and SMEs are presented in Table
Participants knowledge on food traceability system implementation.
Food traceability implementation |
|
|
Significance |
---|---|---|---|
Do you know about the traceability system of food products? | |||
Yes | 41 (58.6) | ||
No | 29 (41.4) | 2.057 | df = 1; |
If no, never heard of it | 10 (14.3) | 35.714 | df = 1; |
No time | 8 (11.4) | 41.657 | df = 1; |
No training | 9 (12.9) | 38.629 | df = 1; |
Not useful | 2 (2.9) | 62.229 | df = 1; |
Is it necessary to implement traceability system? | |||
Yes | 65 (92.9) | ||
No | 5 (7.1) | 51.429 | df = 1; |
Do you think that the traceability system implementation is a success? | |||
Yes | 32 (45.7) | ||
No | 29 (41.4) | ||
Do not know | 9 (12.9) | 0.514 | df = 1; |
Are you interested in carrying out food safety traceability system to empower yourself and your staff to deliver a safer product? | |||
Yes | 56 (80.0) | df = 1; |
|
No | 14 (20.0) | 25.200 | |
At the current time, have you implemented, or do you plan to implement, a system of product traceability in the plant? | |||
Yes | 37 (52.9) | ||
No | 33 (47.1) | 0.229 | df = 1; |
Since traceability system is new in Malaysia and not widely applied by the industries, the participants were unaware of the system nor confident with the effectiveness of the system. Rohan et al. [
Even though the participants agreed on the necessity of implementing traceability system, most of the participants (54.3%) still think that traceability system implementation cannot succeed (
Figure
Critical Traceability Points (CTPs) of food processing plants and SMEs (
Based on Table
Table
The importance of traceability system implementation (
Importance of traceability system |
|
|
Significance |
---|---|---|---|
To reduce product liability | Neither agree nor disagree = 9 (24.3) |
9.757 | df = 1; |
|
|||
To meet current regulatory requirements | Disagree = 2 (5.4) |
13.027 | df = 2; |
|
|||
To meet anticipated future regulatory requirements | Disagree = 2 (5.4) |
19.333 | df = 3; |
|
|||
To reduce the risk of a product problem occurring | Agree = 27 (73.0) |
7.811 | df = 1; |
|
|||
To meet current consumer requirements | Neither agree nor disagree = 4 (10.8) |
10.432 | df = 2; |
|
|||
To reduce the impact when a product recall occurs | Neither agree nor disagree = 4 (10.8) |
13.351 | df = 2; |
|
|||
Reduce customer complaints | Neither agree nor disagree = 6 (16.2) |
9.784 | df = 2; |
|
|||
Access new markets | Neither agree nor disagree = 6 (16.2) |
14.000 | df = 2: |
|
|||
Reduce spoilage or improved freshness | Agree = 20 (54.1) |
0.243 | df = 1; |
|
|||
Reduce costs of production or improved yield | Neither agree nor disagree = 2 (5.4) |
14.973 | df = 2; |
|
|||
Reduce risk of product recalls | Neither agree nor disagree = 3 (8.1) |
24.737 | df = 2; |
The results from Table
Based on Table
Detail on traceability implementation (
Traceability implementation |
|
|
Significance |
---|---|---|---|
What types of traceability method did you use for tracing the product? | |||
Paper document | 30 (81.1) | ||
Barcodes | 7 (18.9) | ||
2D code | None | ||
Electronic tag/radio | |||
Frequency identification | |||
(RFID) | None | 14.297 | df = 1; |
Have you had any product recalls/withdrawals since implementing your traceability system? | |||
Yes | 15 (40.5) | ||
No | 22 (59.5) | 1.324 | df = 1; |
Have you benefited directly from the implementation of a product traceability system in the plant? | |||
Yes | 13 (35.1) | ||
No | 24 (64.9) | 3.270 | df = 1; |
Table
Participants response on impact of implementing traceability system (
Impact of implementation |
|
|
Significance |
---|---|---|---|
Number of product recalls or withdrawals decreased | |||
Neutral | 7 (18.9) | ||
Agree | 29 (78.4) | ||
Strongly agree | 1 (2.7) | 35.243 | df = 2; |
Scope of product recalls or withdrawals smaller | |||
Disagree | 2 (5.4) | ||
Neutral | 8 (21.6) | ||
Agree | 25 (67.6) | ||
Strongly agree | 2 (5.4) | 38.351 | df = 3; |
Reduced costs in the event of a product recall or withdrawal | |||
Neutral | 3 (8.1) | ||
Agree | 33 (89.2) | ||
Strongly agree | 1 (2.7) | 52.108 | df = 2; |
Inventory cost | |||
Neutral | 8 (21.6) | ||
Agree | 25 (67.6) | ||
Strongly agree | 4 (10.8) | 20.162 | df = 2; |
Production cost | |||
Neutral | 1 (2.7) | ||
Agree | 25 (67.6) | ||
Strongly agree | 11 (29.7) | 23.568 | df = 2; |
Ability to access new markets | |||
Neutral | 11 (29.7) | ||
Agree | 13 (35.1) | ||
Strongly agree | 13 (35.1) | 0.216 | df = 2; |
Ability to meet customer requirements | |||
Neutral | 4 (10.8) | ||
Agree | 21 (56.8) | ||
Strongly agree | 12 (32.4) | 11.730 | df = 2; |
Ability to meet regulatory requirements | |||
Disagree | 2 (5.4) | ||
Neutral | 9 (24.3) | ||
Agree | 20 (54.1) | ||
Strongly agree | 6 (16.2) | 19.3 | df = 3; |
How company is perceived by commercial customers | |||
Neutral | 1 (2.7) | ||
Agree | 22 (59.5) | ||
Strongly agree | 14 (37.8) | 18.216 | df = 2; |
How company is perceived by rest of industry | |||
Agree | 16 (43.2) | ||
Strongly agree | 21 (56.8) | 0.676 | df = 1; |
Thirty-three (89.2%) of the participants agreed that the traceability system implementation had impact on costs in the event of a product recall and withdrawal for the processing plants and SMEs. Twenty-five (67.6%) of the participants also agreed that the implementation of the traceability system had impact on the production cost of the processing plants and SMEs. The traceability system of products could provide direct benefits to the processing plants and SMEs through the increase of efficiencies in management of inventories and improvements in product flow and in management of inputs while reducing the costs associated with the recall of product which may be due to possible contamination or quality assurance and access to markets where the consumers require product tracing [
In the following section, the data about the response of the participants on the detailed factors of the traceability system implementation were collected. The purpose of the evaluation was to evaluate the factors that affect the traceability system. Table
Participants’ evaluation on factors that affect the traceability system.
Factors that affect traceability system |
|
% |
---|---|---|
Would you like to know the origins of the food you eat? | 44.800 (1); |
Strongly agree (10) |
|
||
Do you consider traceability important to the consumer? | 65.514 (2); |
Strongly agree (15.71) |
|
||
Does traceability system operate easily? | 29.314 (3); |
Strongly agree (1.43) |
|
||
Do you need policy guidance for enterprise implementing system from government? | 90.800 (3); |
Strongly agree (20) |
|
||
Traceability system implementation being taken into corporate strategy by top management. | 35.257 (3); |
Strongly agree (15.71) |
|
||
Could the tracking information be used to identify product approaching its due date so that it can be used or sold quickly? | 35.686 (2); |
Strongly agree (40) |
|
||
Paper recording and documentation are waste of money. | 19.486 (3); |
Strongly agree (7.14) |
Sixty-three (90.0) of the processing plants and SMEs participants strongly agreed and seven (10.0%) agreed (
Fifty-five (78.6%) of the participants agreed that it is important to consider the importance of traceability system to the consumer. The food traceability system is designed to reduce uncertainties in food consumption by consumers as they consider safer products and consumers would like to acquire sufficient information of the quality and safety of the food they eat [
Thirty-nine (55.7%) (
The majority of the participants agreed that the tracking information can be used in order to identify the product approaching its due date so that it can be used or sold quickly. By implementation of automated reporting system of traceability, the companies can easily and more quickly determine the contaminated product batch and recall only for those affected products and this system is fundamental in enabling producers to quickly identify and act regarding the problem with the products [
However, among the participants, thirty-six (51.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that the paper recording and documentation processes of the traceability system are waste of money. According to Beissel [
Since the traceability system implementation in Kelantan, Malaysia, is new and not widely implemented, it faces many challenges which lead to major barriers to the success of the traceability implementation. In this study, 70 participants of food processing plants and SMEs have some knowledge about the food safety requirements. Identification of forward and backward traceability of the products is vital part in food management system because it influenced the recall process of the products. The CTPs, particularly at the receiving and dispatching stages in the processing plants and SMEs, also provided a better traceability for detecting the affected food. However, the lack of recording during the product process stages may have profound effects as potential contamination occurring during the processing may not be identified. A better and detailed record keeping throughout the pre-, during, and postprocessing can improve the CTPs and enable a better tracing and tracking of damaged products supplied within the supply chain. The factors for implementation of better traceability system are also determined through this study. Technology advancement, government financial support and training, effectiveness of operation, and record keeping influenced the implementation of traceability system. Based on the study, it can be suggested that the participants can work together with the bigger food processing industries in order for them to develop an additional guidance related to traceability and strengthen the traceability system that had been implemented. This guidance could encourage facilities to assign a person to be responsible for responding to emergencies of food products. Besides, the participants should be involved with training and education activities can be conducted to inform the processing plants and SMEs about the importance of traceability system and provide them with knowledge and information that are related to food safety. It is also suggested that food processing plants and SMEs should seek for statutory authority in order for them to strengthen the existing record keeping with more specific information.
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the research funding from RAGS (R/RAGS/A07.00/00295A/001/2013/000120) and the Malaysia Ministry of Education for the financial support.