Content uploaded by Armando Giovannini
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Armando Giovannini
Content may be subject to copyright.
Importance of the traceability of animals and
animal products in epidemiology
Introduction
Consumer confidence in food safety has decreased
considerably since the recent episodes of food-borne Escherichia
coli
O:157 infection in the United States of America (USA) and
Europe, and the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and
dioxin crises in Europe. Globalisation of trade and
industrialisation of food processing have exposed consumers to
a greater number of hazards. The elimination of trade barriers
and the complexity of the food processing chain may cause
problems due both to the range and quantity of food products
available and to the speed of dissemination of infection or
contamination linked to food consumption.
Consumers increasingly insist on a comprehensive and
integrated food safety policy (the so-called ‘farm to table’
policy), which has consequences both for producers and for
control authorities (2). For the producer, this implies the
following:
a) that full responsibility is assumed by animal feed
manufacturers, farmers, the food industry and retailers for the
quality of the products marketed, in relation to the safety of the
final products
b) that animal feed, food products and all ingredients are fully
traceable.
For the control authority, the tasks are as follows:
a) undertake proper risk analysis to describe and quantify risks
along the food chain, including animal feed quality and animal
health, to either eliminate or mitigate these risks by the
application of proper safeguards
b) provide sound scientific advice to consumers regarding the
risks of particular food products or food types.
Traceability is widely recognised to be the basis of any modern
food safety control system integrating both animal health and
food hygiene components. However, the exact meanings of
‘traceability’ and ‘traceability system’ have never been clearly
defined and, in particular, the differences between a traceback
system and a traceability system have never been analysed in
depth.
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 by
step
d) to discover signs, evidence, or remains of.
It derives from the Vulgar Latin tractiare to drag, from Latin
tractus, 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
Summary
Traceability of animals and animal products has become a priority for governments
of the developed countries, due to consumer demand for comprehensive and
integrated food safety policies. In addition to analysing the differences between
traceback and traceability systems, the authors describe some applications of
animal traceback systems and the principal characteristics of an animal
identification and registration system. The importance of a traceability system for
food-borne risk assessment and management, and the most recent approaches
towards a comprehensive and integrated animal health and food safety policy are
reported.
Keywords
Animal products – Epidemiology – Food safety – Identification – Registration –
Traceability – Traceback.
‘traceability’ is a neologism employed in very specific contexts.
For example, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency defines ‘traceability’ as ‘the ability to trace the history,
application, or location of an entity by means of recorded
identifications’ (12).
Traceback systems have been implemented for the purposes of
animal health, as part of surveillance, to provide the
information required to implement control measures against
disease. Similar systems have been implemented for the food
production industry to provide the information needed to recall
and to remove any contaminated product from the market.
Traceability systems have a broader scope and aim to document
the history of a product along the entire production chain from
primary raw materials to the final consumable product. The
scope of these systems is not limited to the ability to detect and
trace batches of high risk animals or products, but to support
quality assurance processes for animals or products. Quality is
defined as ‘the totality of characteristics of an entity that bears
its 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 all
relevant elements – movements, processes, controls – needed
to define an animal/animal product life history. In this sense,
traceability becomes the principal tool to both ensure the
effective responsibility of feed manufacturers, farmers and food
operators in relation to the final product quality and to assess
and manage risks effectively.
Traceability of animals
The primary goal of an animal traceback system is to provide
information on the source of infection or prohibited additives
so that preventive and control measures can be applied to avoid
the introduction of the contaminant.
For the purposes of veterinary medicine, the need to trace the
origin of animals arises as soon as control programmes for
infectious disease are implemented in a population. In many
cases, the success of a control programme is linked to the ability
to trace the origin of an infected animal. An early example of
traceback is the Market Cattle Identification (MCI) programme
first applied in the 1950s in the USA (11). The MCI programme
was based on the identification and registration of marketed
cattle, which allowed traceback of infection to the herd of origin
from animals which gave positive test results at slaughter.
Epidemiological surveillance is a system for information
collection and analysis, aimed at continuous monitoring of the
health status of a population, to plan and implement actions for
prevention and control of disease. The existence of an
identification and registration system for animals and animal
holdings is often crucial for proper action planning. An
example of an epidemiological surveillance system based on
identification and registration of bovine animals is the Israel
Computerised Animal Health Monitoring System (ICAHMS)
(13). The ICAHMS was implemented in 1961, to provide
relevant information on epidemic emergencies, to facilitate
epidemiological investigations and to provide information to
plan appropriate strategies for animal disease control.
Modern technologies (e.g. the Internet, software for the
management of geographical information, etc.) can be applied
to build on-line systems to increase the efficacy and the
efficiency of the management of epidemic emergencies (1).
Such systems supply information on the origin and movements
of animals very rapidly, when speed in tracing infection sources
and disease spread analysis is crucial to plan and implement
proper action.
Animal identification and registration is the foundation of any
traceability system for animals and animal products.
Animals can be identified either individually or as
homogeneous groups, depending on the objectives of the
system. A range of identification tools can be used in the
implementation of a traceability system based on identification
of the single animal (e.g. brands, tattoos, ear tags and electronic
transponders). However, the identification must be permanent,
tamper-proof and cause no harm to the animal. Identifiers
should not be reused, and must be easy to apply and read.
An animal identification and registration system must identify
and archive both animals and holdings or herds. The concept
of a holding can be defined differently according to local
conditions. For example, in the European Union (EU), holding
means ‘any establishment, construction or, in the case of an
open-air farm, any place in which animals are held, kept or
handled’ (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 different
groups of animals kept inside a holding and having the same
epidemiological or health characteristics. In the EU, herd
means ‘an animal or group of animals kept on a holding as an
epidemiological unit; if more than one herd is kept on a
holding, each of these herds shall form a distinct unit and shall
have the same health status’ (4).
To allow complete traceability of animals, an ideal animal
registration system should be able to supply at least the
following information:
a) the list of all animals (or groups of animals depending on the
chosen 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) from
birth to death/slaughter.
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2) 373
Animal registration systems must also record the interactions
between entities. The laying down of rules and procedures to
be followed to report and to record interactions between
entities and to update, verify, validate, process and store all
information, is crucial. The implementation of a database,
where all information regarding the origin, movements and
death of animals is recorded, is a considerable organisational
challenge. Therefore, an efficient animal registration system
must be based on clear rules and procedures that all
stakeholders (animal keepers, veterinary services, associations
of farmers, slaughterhouses, etc.) must follow, to assure the
integrity of the entire system. If procedures are not followed
strictly, even by single participants or within limited
geographical areas, the system could rapidly become invalid. In
other words, an animal registration system, like a puzzle,
requires that all the ‘pieces’ be present and in the right
sequence, in order to show the complete final image.
Traceability of animal products
An integrated production chain control system should be able
to 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 product
use/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 the
origin of materials used for either feed or food preparation.
Furthermore, the lack of harmonisation of labelling
requirements, in particular at the international level, often
precludes traceback of an ingredient or raw material to the
source. However, to imagine that acceptable food safety systems
could 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’. Lot
refers to a defined quantity of a commodity produced
essentially under the same conditions (7). A lot is identified by
labels and/or certifications that follow the product. Products
should bear all information needed to ensure that they can be
handled, stored, processed, prepared and used safely at each
step of the production and distribution process.
374 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2)
Importance of traceability for
assessment and management of
food risks
The existence of an adequate and integrated traceability system,
covering both animals and animal products, is essential to
perform effective risk assessment along the production chain.
This is true both for animal health and food safety relating to
foods of animal origin.
In particular, an effective food safety policy must recognise the
inter-linked nature of food production, and thus, the need for
an accurate system to assess and monitor the risks associated
with raw materials, farming practices and food processing. A
sound food safety policy requires effective regulatory action to
manage risks and the implementation of an effective control
system to monitor and enforce regulations. Each element is a
part of a chain; thus, changes in farming practice, feed and food
production and processing often require amendments to
existing regulations, while feedback from the control systems
help to identify and manage both existing and emerging risks.
Each part of the cycle is critical to ensure that the highest safety
standards 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 or
consumption practice) requires knowledge of the flow of trade
from raw materials, semi-manufactured and final product lots,
to the final product sold to the consumer.
In the absence of an effective traceability system, this
knowledge can only be achieved through exhaustive
monitoring of the entire production system. In contrast, an
effective traceability system would allow the collection of all
necessary information at critical points of the production chain,
resulting in a clear improvement in the efficiency of the data
collection process. The simplification of monitoring becomes
particularly relevant in the case of very rare events, by avoiding
the risks from overly complicated systems based upon
hypothetical problems. Collection of data for risk assessment
could be performed retrospectively, following the same
principles used for case-control studies.
Comprehensive and integrated
animal health and food safety
policies
Consumers in many areas of the world are increasingly voicing
wide-ranging demands relating to the health of animals and the
safety of animal products. These include animal welfare,
traceability, good environmental management practices and
genetic makeup of animal feed components. In summary,
consumers want to be provided with more information about
the source of food and details of the ways and means of
production (3).
Traceability of animals and animal products along the entire
production chain is an important issue for consumers, and this
consumer demand has forced governments to make traceability
of products a priority issue.
In food safety policies based on ‘hazard analysis and critical
control point’ (HACCP), such as those applied in the
industrialised countries, producers are asked to guarantee the
quality of animal products by documenting that all steps of the
food chain, from feed safety and animal health status, to final
product wholesomeness, are clearly known and under control
so that appropriate corrective actions can be taken if required.
However, responsibility for inspection and auditing procedures
and tests, including random sampling and analysis, to assess
and certify that the system is working properly falls upon the
competent control authority (e.g. veterinary service or food
safety agency).
Nevertheless, the application of HACCP systems does not
imply the existence of a traceability system as a direct
consequence of the documentation procedures. Although one
of the HACCP principles (principle number 7) states the need
to establish documentation and record-keeping procedures,
and although these procedures can provide useful information
for a traceability system, the aims and scope of documentation
in HACCP are different. In the latter, the aim is to document
that the system is under control, that corrective actions are
always taken when pre-defined critical limits are exceeded, and
that recall of unsafe products is undertaken when required.
Some industrialised countries are attempting to implement
effective traceability systems. However, most of these attempts
are based on a voluntary application of specific programmes by
food producers. In the case of the Program for Certifying Non-
Hormone Treated Beef to the European Union of the Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) in the USA (8), specific
standards are defined to guarantee the traceability of beef to be
shipped to the EU.
The first comprehensive answer to the traceability challenge
was provided by the EU in the beef and veal sector, as a
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2) 375
Fig. 1
Example of a bovine meat traceability system using electronic transponders
Animal
Electronically identified
by transponder in ear
tags or bolus
All information regarding the
animal (origin, movements,
health status, diet) is
recorded and updated
Central database
Reading of electronic
label to supply
information to
consumers
Automatic registration
of animal data
Transfer of data from
transponder to electronic label
Retailer (butcher) Slaughterhouse
will be applied to a potential livestock population of
approximately 300 million animals in Europe.
This new experience provides the opportunity to envisage
efficient traceability systems based on electronic identification
of animals and telematic networks (e.g. the Internet) which will
lead to the implementation of automated registration systems.
An example is the beef traceability system hypothesised in
Figure 1, the components of which are as follows:
a) a database containing identification and all relevant animal
data
b) electronic identification of each animal using transponders
encapsulated either in ear tags or in an endoruminal bolus
c) automatic registration of animal identification data at
slaughterhouses and transfer of identity and relevant
information on the animal to the carcass and meat cuts using
electronic labels (‘Tag-it’)
d) reading and printing of tag data by the retailer (butcher) who
makes this information available to consumers.
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profiling is under study as a
possible means to audit the entire production system from the
identity of animals, to carcasses and meat cuts.
376 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2)
consequence of the BSE crisis. In particular, the European
Commission implemented a system for the identification and
registration of bovine animals at the production stage and
created a beef labelling system specific to the EU (6).
The EU legislation requires that bovine meat be labelled in such
a way as to provide information concerning the identification of
the animal (or batch), the slaughterhouse and the cutting
facility, if any. As of 1 January 2002, labels will also have to
provide information on the country of birth of the animal and
on all those countries in which the animal lived.
Such a system requires a consistent connection between
multiple identification and registration systems which is almost
impossible to achieve in the absence of an integrated automatic
information system.
New technologies can facilitate the exchange of data. A large-
scale electronic identification project (IDEA project:
identification électronique des animaux) has been promoted by
the European Commission. The aim of this ongoing project is
to evaluate both the on-farm performances of electronic
identification (EID) devices in cattle, sheep and goats, and the
feasibility of EID in a realistic scenario involving animals and
animal products in the EU. The three-year project involves
nearly one million animals in six member countries and, if the
results are satisfactory, EID may be recognised as an official
system for animal identification under EU policies. Thus, EID
■
Importance épidémiologique de la traçabilité des animaux et des
produits d’origine animale
V. Caporale, A. Giovannini, C. Di Francesco & P. Calistri
Résumé
La traçabilité des animaux et des produits d’origine animale est devenue une
priorité pour les gouvernements des pays industrialisés, les consommateurs
exigeant la mise en place de politiques de sécurité alimentaire globales et
intégrées. Après avoir analysé les différences existant entre les systèmes de
traçage ascendant et de traçabilité, les auteurs décrivent quelques exemples
relevant du premier système ainsi que les principales caractéristiques d’un
système d’identification et d’enregistrement des animaux. L’importance d’un
système de traçabilité pour l’évaluation et la gestion du risque de toxi-infection
alimentaire, ainsi que la tendance récente visant à mener une politique intégrée et
globale de sécurité alimentaire et de santé animale font également l’objet de la
discussion.
Mots-clés
Enregistrement – Épidémiologie – Identification – Produits d’origine animale – Sécurité
alimentaire – Traçabilité – Traçage ascendant.
■
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 20 (2) 377
References
1. Bellini S., Di Francesco C., Giovannini A., Colangeli P., Calistri
P., Petrella D. & Caporale V. (2000). – Implementation of a
system for the regional management of animal health
emergencies.
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 19 (3), 841-847.
2. Commission of the European Communities (2000). – White
paper on food safety. Commission of the European
Communities, 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 and
implications 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 June
1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in
bovine animals and swine.
Off. J. Eur. Communities, 121, 1964-
1977.
5. European Council (1992). – Directive 92/102/ECC of 27
November 1992 on the identification and registration of
animals.
Off. J. Eur. Communities, L 355, 32-36.
6. European Parliament and European Council (2000). –
Regulation (EC) No. 1760/2000 of 17 July 2000 establishing
a system for the identification and registration of bovine
animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products
and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 820/97 European
Council.
Off. J. Eur. Communities, L 204, 1-10.
7. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Codex
Alimentarius Commission (1999). – General standard for food
labelling, complete text. FAO, Rome, 57 pp.
8. Food Safety and Inspection Service (2000). – Program for
certifying non-hormone treated beef to the European Union.
United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, Export library, Washington. Website:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ofo/export/nhtcprog.htm (document
accessed on 8 May 2001).
9. International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
(1995). – ISO 8402 Quality management and quality
assurance. Vocabulary. ISO, Geneva, 28 pp.
10. Merriam Webster (2001). – Merriam-Webster’s collegiate
dictionary, 10th Ed. Merriam-Webster, Springfield,
Massachusetts, 1,600 pp.
Importancia de la rastreabilidad de animales y productos de
origen animal en epidemiología
V. Caporale, A. Giovannini, C. Di Francesco & P. Calistri
Resumen
La demanda de políticas globales e integradas de protección alimentaria por parte
de los consumidores de los países industrializados ha hecho de la rastreabilidad
de los animales y sus derivados un tema prioritario para los gobiernos de esos
países. Además de analizar las diferencias entre los sistemas de rastreabilidad y
los de determinación del origen, los autores describen algunas aplicaciones de
estos últimos y las características principales de un sistema de identificación y
registro. También aluden a la importancia que reviste un sistema de rastreabilidad
para evaluar y gestionar los riesgos de toxi-infecciones alimentarias, y describen
los planteamientos más recientes para elaborar políticas de protección
alimentaria de carácter global e integrado.
Palabras clave
Determinación 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 monitoring
system.
Isr. J. vet. Med., 51 (2), 51-58.
