Trends in Food Science & Technology 99 (2020) 402–412

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Trends in Food Science & Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tifs

Food traceability system from governmental, corporate, and consumer T

perspectives in the European Union and China: A comparative review
Jianping Qiana,∗, Luis Ruiz-Garciab,∗∗, Beilei Fana, Jose Ignacio Robla Villalbac, Ultan McCarthyd,
Baohui Zhanga, Qiangyi Yua, Wenbin Wua,∗∗∗
a
Key Laboratory of Agricultural Remote Sensing (AGRIRS), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese
Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 100081, Beijing, China
b
Department of Agroforestry Engineering, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Av. Complutense s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain
c
Sensors Technology Laboratory, Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Metalúrgicas, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CENIM-CSIC), Avenida Gregorio del
Amo 8, 28040, Madrid, Spain
d
School of Science and Computing, Department of Science, Waterford Institute of Technology. Waterford, Ireland

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Background: Food safety has garnered much worldwide attention recently for reasons that are, unfortunately,
Traceability not always positive. Traceability system (TS) is designed to assure safe and good quality food, while reducing the
Traceability system costs of food recalls. It should encompass all stakeholders, including governments, companies, and consumers,
Food safety each of whom has an important role in the implementation and guardianship of such systems. The EU and China
Artificial intelligence
are amongst the main players implementing TS and are constantly exploring new opportunities and monitoring
Blockchain
challenges for TS in a time of shifting consumer demands and rapid new technology innovation.
EU
China Scope and approach: This article states development stages from TS 1.0 to 3.0. and reviews TS development in a
number of key countries and regions. Comparisons between the EU and China are drawn in terms of government,
corporate, and consumer involvement in traceability.
Key findings and conclusions: A functional TS, while providing bi-directional communication between trading
partners, must meet the laws and regulations where it operates. A functional system must also consider consumer
value and perception, which varies with geography. There are a variety of promising technologies available on
the market today to modernize TS, including artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain. A key finding of this
research is that both the EU and China have developed significant trade links in recent years which will certainly
positively impact both economies. Key to underpinning the sustainability of these trade links will be the
adoption of common TS to prevent negative associations.

1. Introduction
Global food supply systems are under increased pressure due to
human activity and consumer requirements. This increased pressure
negatively impacts global food security and health (McCarthy et al.,
2018). Climate change, land degradation, pesticide use, the develop-
ment of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms, and residual animal
growth hormone in human food all contribute to food supply challenges
(Notarnicola, Hayashi, Curran, & Huisingh, 2012; Thiollet-Scholtus &
Bockstaller, 2015). Similarly, recent food scares, including the bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) outbreak (Wales, Harvey, & Warde,
2006) and the contamination of chicken feed with dioxin in Belgium
(Bernard et al., 2002), highlight the need to either implement or im-
prove TS in the food sector.
The aim of a food TS is to identify food product origin, safeguard
food in transit, and decrease the associated time and cost of food recalls
(Regattieri, Gamberi, & Manzini, 2007). A well-designed TS can track
products at each stage, including harvest, processing, transport, sto-
rage, distribution, and sales (Olsen & Aschan, 2010). While there is
certainly a cost associated with implementing a TS, the ability of a TS to
assist in identifying problems with food safety and quality result in a
decrease in the production and distribution of unsafe or low-quality
products and the associated negative publicity, liability, and recalls
(Golan et al., 2004). An effective TS will also help improve business

∗
Corresponding author.
∗∗
Corresponding author.
∗∗∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: qianjianping@caas.cn (J. Qian), luis.ruiz@upm.es (L. Ruiz-Garcia), wuwenbin@caas.cn (W. Wu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.03.025
Received 13 July 2019; Received in revised form 15 January 2020; Accepted 16 March 2020
Available online 20 March 2020
0924-2244/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Qian, et al. Trends in Food Science & Technology 99 (2020) 402–412

processes across the supply network via enhanced transparency, in-

Whole, or part, of a production chain and sales

Specified stages of production, processing, and
crease profitability and enhancing informed decision making. Corre-

or internally in one of the steps in the chain

sponding potential drawbacks may include additional adding enterprise

All stages of production, processing, and

cost and more information recording associated with TS.
Key global food chains including seafood and fresh produce are
under increasing pressure to implement basic TSs in response to con-

Upstream in the supply chain

sumer concerns about food supply safety. To ensure maximum effec-
tiveness and serve all stakeholders equally, a modern-day TS must be
developed in sync with regulatory, social, economic, and technological
developments (Boys & Fraser, 2018; Kim & Woo, 2016). An often-

Trace where

distribution

distribution
overlooked aspect of food safety is the important role governments play

All stages
in the development of TSs through the enactment of legislation af-
fecting traceability. Examples of both national and pan-national TSs
include the European Union's Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed
(RASFF), the U.S. Food Modernization and Safety Act, and Canada's

By lot or serial number

National Agriculture and Food TS (Dickinson & Von Bailey, 2005).

By means of recorded
Tools and technologies employed to modernize TSs are constantly

Through records
evolving to provide for system advancements. Considerable progress in

identification
information and communications technology (ICT) facilitate the de-

Trace how
velopment of both local and international TSs (Qian et al., 2017).
Identification technologies, including barcodes and radio frequency
identification (RFID), are now integrated into TSs to rapidly and ac-

intended to be, or expected to be incorporated into a food

curately track food products (Luvisi, Panattoni, Bandinelli, Rinaldelli, &
Triolo, 2012). Wireless sensor networks (WSN) and portable devices

A food, feed, food-producing animal, or substance

allow for real-time collection of data, including environmental condi-

Parts, processes, and material used in production

tions and farming operations (Steinberger, Rothmund, &
Auernhammer, 2009). Consequently, TSs have been successfully im-

An entity (history/application/location)
plemented in many different agro-food industries, including vegetables

Origin and life history of a product

(Mainetti, Patrono, Stefanizzi, & Vergallo, 2013), fruits (Reyes, Correa,
Esquivel, & Ortega, 2012), aquaculture (Parreno-Marchante, Alvarez-

A product batch and its history

Melcon, & Trebar, 2014), and beef (Ardeshiri & Rose, 2018).

An item or group of items

However, an all too often overlooked aspect of food safety is public
perception towards the success of TSs in safeguarding food. Results
Food and feed chain

have indicated that confidence in TSs can often be both product-specific

and country/region-specific (Menozzi, Halawany-Darson, Mora, &
Trace what

Giraud, 2015). A number of previous studies have evaluated TSs based

or feed

on factors such as the relationship between the public's willingness to

Food

pay and motivating features (Jin & Zhou, 2014).

Traceability definitions based on international standards, legislation, and scientific articles.

This article states development stages from TS 1.0 to 3.0 and re- The collection, documentation, maintenance,

views TS development in different cultures and environments. In ad-

The ability to trace and follow (Track and

dition, TS development in the EU and China is compared from the

The ability to follow the movement

perspective of governmental, corporate, and consumer viewpoints.

Finally, future trends in the evolution of TS is explored, including AI
and application of information
Ability to identify the origin

and blockchain technology.

Registering and tracking

2. The context of traceability

Ability to track
Ability to trace

Ability to trace

2.1. Definition of traceability

Traceability?

The term "traceability" varies according to the location and legis-

trace)

lation. Thus, the definition of traceability should be expansive to ac-

count for the wide variety of food to which it relates and the complexity
ISO-22005 (ISO, 2007)
EU General Food Law
ISO 8402 (ISO, 1994)

of the food supply chain (Golan et al., 2004; Olsen & Borit, 2013).
Opara and Mazaud

Table 1 includes a variety of interpretations of the term traceability

Schwägele (2005)
APICS (Alfaro &
Rábade, 2009)

from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, legislation, and

CAC (2005)

Moe (1998)
(EU, 2002)

global standards.
ISO-22005 defines traceability as the “ability to follow the move-
(2001)
Source

ment of a feed or food through specified stage(s) of production, pro-

cessing, and distribution” (Karlsen, Dreyer, Olsen, & Elvevoll, 2013). In
International standards

the EU, the General Food Law No 178/2002 (EU, 2002) adopts a one-
step-back-one-step-forward approach. The Codex Alimentarius Com-
Scientific articles

mission (CAC, 2005), which seems to be the most commonly accepted,

concisely defines traceability as the ability to track the progress of a
Legislation

product through the food chain, including production, processing, and

Table 1

View

distribution. In line with this, the American Production and Inventory

Control Society (APICS) definition more broadly defines traceability as

403
J. Qian, et al.
Fig. 1. Three development stages of TS.
a means to assure food safety (Alfaro & Rábade, 2009).
A common trait across TS definitions is the use of terminology and
functionality. In terms of functionality, these systems function by for-
ward and backward traceability or a track and trace approach (Dupuy,
Botta-Genoulaz, & Guinet, 2005; Golan et al., 2004; Moe, 1998). In
terms of terminology across definitions, certain common characteristics
and terms repeat, including the 'trace'/'flow' the 'movement'/'path' of an/a
'entity'/'steps'/'object'/'batch'/'food'/'feed'/'substance'/'item' (Karlsen et al.,
2013). Combining definitions results in the following definition of
traceability related to food products: the ability to access any or all
information relating to that which is under consideration, throughout
its entire life cycle, by means of recorded identifications (Olsen & Borit,
2013; Stranieri, Cavaliere, & Banterle, 2017).
2.2. TS development stages
As far back as the 1980's TS were making their way into the food
sector as a measure to increase food safety. Demand requirements
combined with technological advancements have progressed these
systems as detailed in Fig. 1 below. In the TS 1.0 stage, simple in-
formation recording with paper or electronic documents were the main
feature encompassing laws and regulations on food traceability. The
concept of the Internet of Things (IoT) was applied to TS around 2008
and marked the coming of 2.0 stage. In this stage, electronic informa-
tion integration of each link became possible across the whole supply
chain and the application of electronic and real time information
sharing became a reality. Currently, a demand for intelligent decision-
making has promoted a new generation of information technology such
as AI to enhance and promote chain intelligence thus driving TS 3.0.
2.3. TS application in main counties and regions
TSs are crucial to global supply networks, as they provide the ability
to trade commodities globally. Therefore, many countries have man-
dated the implementation of TSs, as depicted in Fig. 2. Both the Eur-
opean Union's General Food Law and its USA equivalent Food Bio-
terrorism Regulation adopt a one step forward and one step backward
type of TS (Menozzi et al., 2015). Canada established the Agriculture
Policy Agreement (APF) in 2003, to ensure a safe and secure Canadian
food supply under the Safe Food for Canada regulation.
In China, the General Administration of Quality Supervision,
Inspection, and Quarantine (AQSIQ) requires TSs for all meat and
404
Trends in Food Science & Technology 99 (2020) 402–412
aquatic product export companies (Feng, Fu, Wang, Xu, & Zhang,
2013). In Japan, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries
published the "Guidelines for Introduction of Food TSs and Case Study
of TS" in 2003 (McEntire et al., 2010). This asserted that food business
operators at every link in the food chain should document the identity
of food products, raw materials, supplies, and purchasers and correlate
them with each other (similar to EU 178/2002). The Agricultural Pro-
ducts Quality Control Act was implemented in 2005 in Korea and fo-
cuses on tracking products (Kim & Woo, 2016). In Australia, the Na-
tional Livestock Identification System (NLIS) tracks animals from their
birthplace to the slaughterhouse (Bai et al., 2017). In New Zealand, a TS
was developed with IT technology already used in the sheep industry
(Cruickshank, 2005). Other countries and regions actively promote TS
application with new information technologies for specific products,
such as bovine in Brazil (Ruviaro, Barcellos, & Dewes, 2014), honey in
Argentina (Baroni et al., 2009), and grapes in India (Dandage, Badia-
Melis, & Ruiz-Garcia, 2017).
3. Governmental perspective: food safety supervision and
traceability legislation
3.1. China
The Food Safety Law of China (FSL) has been in effect since October
1, 2015. This law is deemed one of the most far-reaching and strict
legislation on food safety to date (Geng, Liu, & Beachy, 2015). The
Chinese Food and Drug Administration (CDFA) and the National Health
and Family Planning Commission of China (NHFPC) (Wu & Chen, 2018)
have crucial responsibilities in implementing food safety regulations.
The CDFA supervises and administers the food safety laws concerning
food production and the supply chain. The NHFPC performs food safety
risk analyses concerning surveillance, assessment, management, and
communication. The administration of quality and safety of primary
consumable agricultural products (edible agricultural products) is
under the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture of China (MOA),
which follows the Law of the People's Republic of China on Quality and
Safety of Agricultural Products (QSAP). The marketing and sales of
primary consumable agricultural products, the development of safety
standards, the publication of safety notifications, and the quality and
safety management of agricultural inputs are under the purview of the
FSL (Chen, Wang, & Song, 2015).
Approximately 52 food TS (FTS) regulations and laws have been
J. Qian, et al.
Fig. 2. Traceability promotion across countries and regions.
established recently in China (Tang et al., 2015). The "State Council's
Decision on Further Enhancing Food Safety” describes the quality and
safety standards for agricultural products. In addition, the "Notice of the
Ministry of Finance on printing and distribution of documents on the
management of special funds for the development of rural logistics
systems" supports the improvement and renovation of wholesale mar-
keting facilities for fresh agricultural products. Also, the Agricultural
Product Quality Safety Law and Food Safety Law states that companies
are required to document the entire food supply chain, including pro-
curement, production, processing, packaging, and distribution (Ding
et al., 2015). In addition, China has 118 local regulations for enhanced
government inspections and financial investment in food TSs. These
regulations detail the traceability technology, material support, pilot
projects, and inspection requirements (Bai, Zhang, & Jiang, 2013).
3.2. EU
Under EC 178/2002, traceability is compulsory within the EU across
all food and feed operators (EU, 2002). This regulation stipulates that
all food and feed operators document the names and addresses of their
suppliers and customers, as well as the nature of the product and date of
delivery. This approach is also referred to as “one-step-back-one-step-
forward” and when each trading partner documents this, the result is a
fully traceable product. There are also a number of added requirements
if the food product has any element of “protected status” or contains
GMO's.
Functioning within EC 178/2002 is RASFF, The Rapid Alert System
for Food and Feed. RASFF is a powerful electronic communication tool
offering a real-time communication platform across EU Member State
national food safety authorities, the European Commission, European
Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland, and
Switzerland (Pádua, Moreira, Moreira, Filipa, & Barros, 2019). RASFF is
available for consumer use since June 2014. Information about a ser-
ious health risk derived from food or feed must be immediately re-
ported to the European Commission through their designated contact
point, which is responsible for sending RASFF notifications to the
Commission. The RASFF portal provides the latest information on food
recalls and public health warnings in all EU countries.
EC 178/2002 provides a framework for the development of food
and feed legislation both at the European Union and national levels,
405
Trends in Food Science & Technology 99 (2020) 402–412
where each member state must adhere to these guidelines. According to
the regulation, responsibility varies depending on the structure of the
different national legal systems. In any scenario, if the basic EC 178/
2002 requirements are followed, each product should be fully traceable
via the “one-step-back-one-step-forward” approach.
4. Corporate perspective: TS technologies and their application
Investigations and innovations into future TSs are constantly un-
dertaken and include traceable technologies (Pizzuti, Mirabelli, Sanz-
Bobi, & Goméz-Gonzaléz, 2014), system development (Alfian et al.,
2017; Barge, Gay, Merlino, & Tortia, 2014), system modeling (Comba,
Belforte, Dabbene, & Gay, 2013; Sun & Wang, 2019), and systems op-
erating mechanisms (Dabbene & Gay, 2011). The incorporation of
identification technologies, such as barcodes, enhance transparency
and facilitate rapid product identification. RFID and WSN are coupled
to a decision support system adapted to the food process (Van der
Spiegel, Sterrenburg, Haasnoot, & van der Fels-Klerx, 2013).
4.1. Technology framework
Each step in the food production process is a link in the chain and
included for analysis and monitoring. A comprehensive TS encompasses
the entire chain, including production/processing, logistics/distribu-
tion, and sale/retail information. Fig. 3 shows the organization of a
typical IT-based TS, including sensing layer, communication, and an
application layer in the food supply chain (Yang, Qian, Sun, & Ji, 2014).
4.2. Production labeling and identification
The basic element of a TS is the traceable resource unit (TRU)
(Dabbene & Gay, 2011). There are three kinds of TRUs: batch, trade
unit, and logistical unit (Aung & Chang, 2014). Unique identities are
essential to individually track a TRU through the supply chain (Olsen &
Borit, 2013). TRUs can be given unique identities using technologies
such as barcodes or RFIDs (Ruiz-Garcia & Lunadei, 2011). This section
focuses on three commonly adopted identification technologies, namely
barcoding, RFID, and biometric technology.
J. Qian, et al.
Fig. 3. Example of a three-layered IT-based TS.
4.2.1. Barcodes
Barcodes are ideal for expediting inventory control and recording
stock and checkout (Ghaani, Cozzolino, Castelli, & Farris, 2016). Bar-
codes are simple to use and inexpensive. The coded information is read
using an optical barcode scanner. Barcodes can be one-dimensional
(1D) or two-dimensional (2D) with varying functionality (Liang et al.,
2013). The quick response (QR) code is a 2D barcode often found in
traceable labels.
4.2.2. RFID
RFID technology, a wireless automatic identification technology
(Jedermann, Ruiz-Garcia, & Lang, 2009), facilitates contactless identi-
fication of products for efficient, streamlined electronic data sharing
(Bosona & Gebresenbet, 2013). In contrast to barcodes, RFID facilitates
the rapid acquisition of large quantities of information in real-time
(McCarthy, Ayalew, Butler, McDonnell, & Ward, 2009).
Ampatzidis, Vougioukas, Bochtis, and Tsatsarelis (2009) assessed
the ability of RFID and barcode technologies to enhance the traceability
of manual fruit harvesting. Qian et al. (2012) assessed a TS for flour
milling, using both technologies. Current advances in RFID technology
have expanded the use of RFID in food TSs via advanced data logging
capabilities and integrated sensors (McCarthy, Ayalew, Butler,
McDonnell, & Ward, 2010; Ruiz-Garcia & Lunadei, 2011).
4.2.3. Biometric identification
Biometric identification technology has recently become popular
due to its stability, convenience, and anti-counterfeit capabilities
(Darwaish, Moradian, Rahmani, & Knauer, 2014). Biometric identifi-
cation facilitates individual identification of domestic animals, using
identifiers such as DNA (Jiménez-Gamero, Dorado, Muñoz-Serrano,
Analla, & Alonso-Moraga, 2006), nasal stripes (Tharwat, Gaber, &
Hassanien, 2015), retinal scans (Allen et al., 2008), and facial re-
cognition (Corkery, Gonzales-Barron, Butler, Donnell, & Ward, 2007).
While biometric identification is a valuable technology, it has less post
mortem functionality, given that most biometric identifiers (retina, iris,
face, etc.) are removed during processing.
406
Trends in Food Science & Technology 99 (2020) 402–412
4.3. Supply chain data sensing and management
4.3.1. Primary production: Farming information collecting and
management
There is a vast array of data that can be collected from farms using a
variety of technologies. A WSN facilitates the real-time collection of
environmental data, allowing for rapid acquisition and monitoring
(Fernandes, Matos, Peres, Cunha, & Morais, 2013; Wang, Zhang, &
Wang, 2006). A WSN is a small discrete communication device with
precision sensor(s) designed to assess a variety of parameters, including
soil moisture, salinity, pH, and weather (Garcia-Sanchez, Garcia-
Sanchez, & Garcia-Haro, 2011).
Collection and management of information, acquired wired or
wirelessly, contribute to the modernization and efficiency of farming
(So-In, Poolsanguan, & Rujirakul, 2014; Tseng et al., 2006). An auto-
matic acquisition system for assembling information on herbage
reaping is based on Short Messaging Service (SMS) and Global Posi-
tioning System (GPS) (Amiama, Bueno, Álvarez, & Pereira, 2008). In a
system described by Steinberger et al. (2009), mobile farming in-
formation data is collected and wirelessly transmitted to a server for
storage and processing. Li, Qian, Yang, Sun, and Ji (2010) integrated a
farming data acquisition system with a decision support system for
cucumber traceability, using a handheld computer. Scene image and
video can be used for both real-time monitoring of surroundings and in-
depth image analysis. Li, Ji, Wang, Sun, and Yang (2017) implemented
a system to identify individual cows (via tailhead and moment features)
on commercial dairy farms. By combining technologies in an Internet of
Things (IoT) based approach, a significant added value is achievable
(Giusto, Iera, Morabito, & Atzori, 2010).
4.3.2. Processing: Information acquisition and analysis
The traceability of processed foods is challenging because products
are often transformed, split, and/or merged (Fan et al., 2019). Proces-
sing optimization models have been proposed to enhance the precision
of traceability at the processing stage. Dupuy et al. (2005) proposed a
batch dispersion model using the Gozinto diagram method, which was
validated in the sausage processing industry. Thakur and Hurburgh
(2009) designed a batch data model to compensate for different cir-
culating carriers requiring different packaging sizes in grain processing,
where integrated definition modeling (IDEF0) was employed to
J. Qian, et al.
improve the batch dispersion model. Kallel and Benaissa (2011) added
semi-finished products between the components and final products of
the batch dispersion model and established a four-layer batch disper-
sion model. To compensate for packhouse variability (product grading)
in fruit processing, a mixing model was developed where probabilities
for bin origin are assigned to individual fruit when they are packed
(Bollen, Riden, & Cox, 2007).
4.3.3. Distribution: Logistics information monitoring and forecasting
Perishable foods require a temperature-controlled environment to
maintain product quality and minimize losses. To achieve “cold chain
logistics”, real-time data exchange between consumers and suppliers is
essential (Göransson, Nilsson, & Jevinger, 2018). Key cold chain mon-
itoring technologies include RFID and WSN (Badia-Melis et al., 2016).
Wireless sensors for fruits have been deployed for use in cold warehouse
conditions, fruit chambers, and refrigerated trucks during international
transportation (Ruiz-Garcia, Barreiro, & Robla, 2008). Cold chain lo-
gistics for fresh fish are also tracked with wireless sensing technologies
(Abad et al., 2009). RFID semi-passive tags have been validated for use
in refrigerated trucks (Jedermann et al., 2009) and for tracking com-
mercial shipments of pineapples from Costa Rica to the USA (Amador,
Emond, & Nunes, 2009). Both RFID and WSN provide effective methods
for temperature monitoring, however, these technologies are limited
due to high cost, occupied space, and restricted monitoring points.
4.3.4. Data exchange and query
Globally standardized information exchange between trading part-
ners is challenging but essential for TSs. Scalability and non-proprietary
standardization are crucial for TSs and provide a framework for flexible
and responsive global food chains. Globalization and the mounting
complexity of food supply chain networks highlight the need for effi-
cient information exchange systems (Donnelly, Karlsen, & Olsen, 2009;
Folinas, Manikas, & Manos, 2006; Storøy, Thakur, & Olsen, 2013).
To facilitate information exchange, Extensible Markup Language
(XML), an independent and easy platform for extending user-defined
language, has been widely adopted. XML has been adopted as the
standard for electronic data exchange (EDI) and transmission between
heterogeneous databases due to its interactivity and strong semantics.
Frederiksen, Osterberg, Silberg, Larsen, and Bremner (2002) studied the
feasibility of using XML to exchange traceability information from
fishermen to consumers in the Danish aquatic product market. Schuster,
Lee, Ehsani, Allen, and Rogers (2011) investigated machine to machine
information exchange in a standard production environment for Florida
citrus.
4.4. TS technologies application in EU and China
The history of TSs in the EU and China is shown in Fig. 4. The
hardware and software of many modern systems have been combined
and the system relies on a number of technologies to function. The
technology includes RFID, barcoding, WSN, and cloud and fog com-
puting in combination with machine learning and artificial intelligence.
In a European study to determine optimal TS granularity, a fish feed
factory (FeedCo), a supplier of fish feed ingredients (IngredCo), and a
salmon farmer (SalmCo) were investigated (Karlsen et al., 2011). The
conclusion from this study was that coarse granularity proved to be
simpler and less expensive than a fine granularity system. Higher
granularity increases system complexity and costs and the TS altered
the realistic solutions and specification of the data technology system
(Karlsen, Dreyer, Olsen, & Elvevoll, 2012).
China began implementing TSs in the early 2000s when the
Management Regulations for Animal Vaccination Identification Tag
were issued. These regulations stipulated the requirements for im-
munity ear tags for livestock and an immunity archives management
system (Bai et al., 2017). Similarly, an edible agriculture product TS
was designed and carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA)
407
Trends in Food Science & Technology 99 (2020) 402–412
(currently the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, MARA). Sub-
sequently, according to the requirement of market circulation,
MOFCOM (Ministry of Commerce) presented a plan for a meat and
vegetable circulation TS for food safety. Recently, a wheat flour milling
TS, created by Qian et al. (2012), incorporated 2D barcodes, RFID
technology, and QR codes. Production costs increased by 17.2% when
the system was implemented; however, reported sales income rose by
32.5%. Walmart conducted a blockchain test, co-created by IBM, to
track produce in the US and pork in China in 2017. This technology was
used to store the records of all transactions, recreate product history,
and identify product origin (Galvez, Mejuto, & Simal-Gandara, 2018).
5. Consumer perspective: perception and acceptance of TSs
Implementing correctly TSs have a positive impact on consumer
experience as they potentially enhance consumer confidence as to the
origin and quality of their product (Chen & Huang, 2013). Currently,
consumer uncertainty exists due to the lack of food information for
consumers (Resende-Filho & Hurley, 2012). Thus, providing consumers
with food quality or safety information should have a positive effect
(Rijswijk & Frewer, 2012) and one may conclude that TSs can facilitate
this (Chrysochou, Chryssochoidis, & Kehagia, 2009).
Numerous studies have focused on analyzing consumer opinion of
food TSs (Chen & Huang, 2013) and evaluating the consumer's role in
the quality assurance characteristics of food TSs around the world, in-
cluding the USA (Loureiro & Umberger, 2007), Canada (Hobbs, Bailey,
Dickinson, & Haghiri, 2010), and Korea (Lee, Han, Jr, & Lim, 2011).
Since the related research indicates that traceability awareness and
opinion are product-specific and country/region-specific issues
(Menozzi et al., 2015), consumer acceptance of TSs between China and
the EU need to be compared. Previous work conducted by different
researchers was focused on the analysis of consumer preference for
traceable food and its influencing factors, as shown in Table 2.
In Belgium, consumers preferred information on food safety and
quality standards more than information about traceability and origin
(Verbke et al., 2002). In contrast, Ubilava and Foster (2009) observed
that Georgian consumers considered product traceability and quality
certification interchangeable. Interestingly, most Spanish and Portu-
guese consumers preferred not to pay a higher price for the inclusion of
traceability programs, while the French and Germans were prepared to
pay more for traceability program implementation (Calvo Dopico et al.,
2016).
By applying the theory of planned behavior (TPB), French and
Italian intentions of purchasing traceable food were compared, in-
cluding habits, trust, past behavior, and sociodemographic data. In this
study, the intent to buy traceable chicken and honey in France was
influenced by attitudes, while trust impacted the intent to buy traceable
chicken and honey in Italy (Menozzi et al., 2015).
In contrast to the EU, country of origin information impacted
Chinese consumer decisions less than organic production information
(Ehmke, Lusk, & Wallace, 2008). Ortega, Wang, Wu, and Olynk (2011)
used choice experiment models to determine that Chinese consumers
would pay more for a government certification program than a TS.
However, a food TS influenced Chinese consumers more than product-
specific information labels. A study by Song et al. (2008) suggested that
a majority of Chinese consumers are uninformed about food TSs, but
more than 90 percent consider TSs necessary.
In China, consumer age, educational level, safety perceptions, and
the average product price were key factors in determining consumers'
willingness to pay for traceable products (Wang et al., 2009; Zhang
et al., 2012). Moreover, in a study to determine the inclination to pay
for pork, milk, and cooking oil products in Nanjing, China, the data
demonstrated that familiarity with food traceability and recognition of
food quality and safety certifications positively influenced consumers’
willingness to pay for food traceability.
J. Qian, et al. Trends in Food Science & Technology 99 (2020) 402–412

Fig. 4. Historical timeline of traceability applications in the EU and China.

Table 2
Comparison of consumer preference for traceable food and its influencing factors between the EU and China.
Item Country/ Product Content
Region

Perception/acceptance/WTP for
TS
Influencing factors
The EU Fruits/vegetables Greece: Higher WTP for origin-labeled over products labeled with quality certification and
traceability on how it was processed (Tsakiridou, Mattas, Tsakiridou, & Tsiamparli, 2011)
Beef Belgium: More emphasis on quality assurance and shelf life labeling than country-of-origin labeling
or traceability information (Verbeke & Roosen, 2009)
Meat Germany: consumers relate traceability to more than origin. Traceability of meat associated with
several production procedures and humane animal treatment (Lichtenberg, Heidecke, & Becker,
2008)
Food, not special kind France and Germany: Many willing to pay a premium for implementing a traceability program
(Calvo et al., 2016)
The Belgium consumers expressed more interest in labeling denoting quality and quality standards
than traceability and origin (Loureiro & Umberger, 2007)
Italy: consumers are strongly concerned with safety issues related to food chain controls and recall
possibilities, whilst French consumers are more interested in quality aspects linked to quality labels
and an indication of origin (Rijswijk, Frewer, Menozzi, & Faioli, 2008)
China Pork Higher WTP for farming information and government certification of the authenticity of traceability
information (Wu et al., 2017)
Pork Over 90 percent of respondents indicated that they considered that the TS was very necessary (Song,
Liu, Wang, & Nanseki, 2008)
Pork/milk/oil Nanjing consumers are willing to pay a significantly positive price premium for food traceability
despite some differences across food products. Most demand is for traceable milk, 21.7 percent
higher than regular milk prices, followed by cooking oil (19.8 percent) and pork (16.7 percent)
(Zhang, Bai, & Wahl, 2012)
Fishery products Consumers are willing to pay a premium of 6% for fishery traceability (Wang, Zhang, Mu, Fu, &
Zhang, 2009)
The EU Chicken, honey Attitudes drive the intention to purchase traceable chicken and honey in France, which is similar to
Italy (Menozzi et al., 2015)
Minced beef/beef Attitude was the main determinant of intention to purchase, followed by subjective norm and PBC
steak (perceived behavioral control) (Spence, Stancu, Elliott, & Dean, 2018)
Agri-food, not special Important factors = Confidence in provided information, perceived levels of convenience, impact
kind on product quality and safety, impact on consumers' health and the environment, and potential
consequences for ethical and privacy liberties (Chrysochou et al., 2009)
China Milk Influenced by certification bodies, with highest preference for government certification, however,
consumers with higher income and knowledge had a higher trust in third-party certification bodies
(Bai et al., 2013)
Pork/milk/oil Consumer's knowledge of food safety certification can significantly affect their WTP (Zhang et al.,
2012)
Fishery products Main Determinants = Age of consumers, educational level, the safety perception, and the average
price (Wang et al., 2009)
Food, not special kind Income, education, and concern about food safety, have significant effects on consumers' willingness
to pay a premium for a traceability certificate (Wu, Xu, & Gao, 2011)

408
J. Qian, et al. Trends in Food Science & Technology 99 (2020) 402–412

Table 3
Comparison of TS legislation, technologies and customer acceptance between China and EU.
Item Similarities Differences

China EU

Food safety supervision and
traceability legislation
TS technologies and their
application
Perception and acceptance of
traceability
1. Hierarchical food safety supervision;
2. Strict food safety legislation.
1. Information technology framework based on
production labeling and identification, supply chain
data sensing and management, data exchange and
query.
2. New generation information technology application
synchronously
1. Research on consumer preference for traceable food
and its influencing factors;
2. Product-specific and a country/region-specific.
1. Segmented supervision by different
institutions in supply chain;
2. Weak connections between
legislations.
1. Technology research and application
later;
2. Main TS application driven by
government and enterprises.
1. Acceptance of TS by more than 90
percent of sample investigated.
2. Key factors on consumer age,
educational level, safety perceptions,
and the average product price.
1. Sound legislations system across
different institutions;
2. Risk assessment mechanism.
1. System obstacle-free application
in EU countries;
2. Playing an import role by trusted
third party in system running.
1. Different willingness of pay
more for TS in different
countries;
2. Purchase traceable chicken and
honey in France and Italy driven
by attitudes.

6. Comparison analysis between China and EU 7.2. Blockchain to improve TSs across the food supply chain

Table 3 compares and contrasts legislation, technologies and cus-
tomer acceptance for TS in both the EU and China. Both regions have
implemented a strict food safety with a functional Hierarchical food
safety supervision model. More attention is required to informational
linkages across the supervisory model in China. In terms of IT adoption,
it is evident that both regions have integrated IT systems successfully in
both regions which have significantly improved efficiencies. There is a
general overall consumer acceptance of TS across both regions however
this acceptance may be both country and/or product specific as detailed
herein. Recently, food trade globalization has become a major trend. TS
plays an important role in enhancing food trade trust between EU and
China. Some challenges and barriers such as standardization and in-
teroperability also exist. In fact, it is difficult to establish uniform
standards both two bodies. But a modern risk communication me-
chanism between the EU and China is needed and feasible to increase
communication among scientists, risk assessors, risk managers, and
consumers. Moreover, a common blockchain-based traceability plat-
form between the EU and China should be gone forward to address
system barriers.
7. Future trends
7.1. AI to improve TS intelligence in food processing
During food processing, raw materials are added to the system in
product supply lots and then raw or intermediate ingredients are mixed.
Processing traceability requires the ability to monitor the composition
of the final product, including each ingredient and its history. This
becomes particularly complicated when multiple bulk assets are broken
down across the production of multiple batches of final product (Comba
et al., 2013). AI can play an important role in improving TS intelligence
as listed below (Koch, 2018):
1) Batch mixing optimization: A batch dispersion model was proposed
to reduce the mixing of raw materials and improve processing effi-
ciency. Research was performed, using the creation of a Mixed
Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model for sausage production
(Dupuy et al., 2005) and a genetic algorithm for fresh-cut vegetables
(Xing, Liu, Qian, Wang, & Wu, 2015).
2) Quality forecasting and control: Artificial intelligence methods can
be applied for quality prediction and control, such as knowledge
modeling a frozen shellfish cold chain (Xiao, He, Fu, Xu, & Zhang,
2015) or petri net in wheat flour processing (Wang et al., 2018).
Addressing sources of contamination and/or food fraud in a food
supply chain can be challenging. Food contamination and fraud result
in economic losses and threaten human health (e.g., toxic or con-
taminated ingredients, or non-declared substitutes that cause allergic
reactions) (Gerbig, Neese, Penner, Spengler, & Schulz, 2017). Evidence
of provenance and compliance with international standards are im-
portant in safeguarding food quality and protecting consumers
(Danezis, Tsagkaris, Camin, Brusic, & Georgiou, 2016). To address food
safety challenges, blockchain technology provides transactional, dis-
tributed ledger functionality, which performs without a centralized,
trusted authority. Updates in the ledger are immutable, with crypto-
graphic time stamping for serial recording. Blockchains operate in a
robust, decentralized fashion making the technology very appealing for
use in tracking global supply chains (Galvez et al., 2018). The estab-
lishment of blockchain-based TSs between China and the EU would
have a number of advantages, as listed below.
1) China is a significant global seafood exporter (FAO, 2007; D'Amico
et al., 2014). Therefore, the establishment of a common blockchain-
based traceability platform between the EU and China would be
advantageous.
2) A modern risk communication mechanism between the EU and
China is needed to increase communication among scientists, risk
assessors, risk managers, and consumers. A common risk commu-
nication mechanism, similar to RASFF, would address the progres-
sively complex food safety challenges in an interdependent food
system. The functionality of blockchain would be an ideal platform
to develop such a system, with the aim of mitigating risks and in-
creasing trade channels.
8. Conclusion
The importance and relevance of TSs are becoming more and more
evident over time. TSs function to maintain and ensure the safety and
integrity of our food supply. The framework, design, and requirements
for TSs will vary across geographies, cultures, and products. However,
the underlying driver of these systems is the need to share standardized
and accurate information across trading partners, be those local or
global.
The development of a fit-for-purpose TSs requires the input from
primary producers to governments and the use of modern technology to
meet the operational and legal requirements. Only through collective
agreement and stakeholder engagement is it possible to deliver a fit for

409
J. Qian, et al.
purpose, state of the art TS for our global food supply networks capable
of addressing the environmental, corporate, and social challenges sur-
rounding food security and safety.
With respect to the EU and China it is important that stakeholders in
both regions appreciate and recognize the common advantages of ex-
isting systems and in the future use these commonalities as a starting
framework to develop a long term and sustainable TS across both jur-
isdictions. A key finding emerging from this manuscript is that both the
EU and China have developed significant trade links in recent years
which will certainly positively impact both economies. Again and fi-
nally, key to the sustainability of these trade links will be the adoption
of a mutually beneficial TSs which will prevent associations with these
trade links.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (31671593) and the Agricultural Science and Technology
Innovation Program Elite Youth Mission (CAAS 2060302-05-962-3).
Also, this publication has emanated from research supported in part by
a research grant from Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) under Grant
Number 16/IFB/4439.
References
Abad, E., Palacio, F., Nuin, M., González de Zárate, A., Juarros, A., Gómez, J. M., et al.
(2009). RFID smart tag for traceability and cold chain monitoring of foods:
Demonstration in an intercontinental fresh fish logistic chain. Journal of Food
Engineering, 93(4), 394–399.
Alfaro, J. A., & Rábade, L. A. (2009). Traceability as a strategic tool to improve inventory
management: A case study in the food industry. International Journal of Production
Economics, 118(1), 104–110.
Alfian, G., Rhee, J., Ahn, H., Lee, J., Farooq, U., Ijaz, M. F., et al. (2017). Integration of
RFID, wireless sensor networks, and data mining in an e-pedigree food TS. Journal of
Food Engineering, 212, 65–75.
Allen, A., Golden, B., Taylor, M., Patterson, D., Henriksen, D., & Skuce, R. (2008).
Evaluation of retinal imaging technology for the biometric identification of bovine
animals in Northern Ireland. Livestock Science, 116(1–3), 42–52.
Amador, C., Emond, J. P., & Nunes, M. C. D. N. (2009). Application of RFID technologies
in the temperature mapping of the pineapple supply chain. Sensing & Instrumentation
for Food Quality & Safety, 3(1), 26–33.
Amiama, C., Bueno, J., Álvarez, C. J., & Pereira, J. M. (2008). Design and field test of an
automatic data acquisition system in a self-propelled forage harvester. Computers and
Electronics in Agriculture, 61(2), 192–200.
Ampatzidis, Y. G., Vougioukas, S. G., Bochtis, D. D., & Tsatsarelis, C. A. (2009). A yield
mapping system for hand-harvested fruits based on RFID and GPS location technol-
ogies: Field testing. Precision Agriculture, 10(1), 63–72.
Ardeshiri, A., & Rose, J. M. (2018). How Australian consumers value intrinsic and ex-
trinsic attributes of beef products. Food Quality and Preference, 65, 146–163.
Aung, M. M., & Chang, Y. S. (2014). Traceability in a food supply chain: Safety and
quality perspectives. Food Control, 39, 172–184.
Badia-Melis, R., Qian, J. P., Fan, B. L., Hoyos-Echevarria, P., Ruiz-García, L., & Yang, X. T.
(2016). Artificial neural networks and thermal image for temperature prediction in
apples. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 9(7), 1089–1099.
Bai, J., Zhang, C., & Jiang, J. (2013). The role of certificate issuer on consumers' will-
ingness-to-pay for milk traceability in China. Agricultural Economics, 44(4–5),
537–544.
Bai, H., Zhou, G., Hu, Y., Sun, A., Xu, X., Liu, X., et al. (2017). Traceability technologies
for farm animals and their products in China. Food Control, 79, 35–43.
Barge, P., Gay, P., Merlino, V., & Tortia, C. (2014). Item-level Radio-Frequency
IDentification for the traceability of food products: Application on a dairy product.
Journal of Food Engineering, 125, 119–130.
Baroni, M. V., Arrua, C., Nores, M. L., Fayé, P., del Pilar Díaz, M., Chiabrando, G. A., et al.
(2009). Composition of honey from Córdoba (Argentina): Assessment of North/South
provenance by chemometrics. Food Chemistry, 114(2), 727–733.
Bernard, A., Broeckaert, F., Poorter, G. D., Cock, A. D., Hermans, C., Saegerman, C., et al.
(2002). The Belgian PCB/dioxin incident: Analysis of the food chain contamination
and health risk evaluation. Environmental Research, 88(1), 1–18.
Bollen, A. F., Riden, C. P., & Cox, N. R. (2007). Agricultural supply system traceability,
Part I: Role of packing procedures and effects of fruit mixing. Biosystems Engineering,
98(4), 391–400.
Bosona, T., & Gebresenbet, G. (2013). Food traceability as an integral part of logistics
management in food and agricultural supply chain. Food Control, 33(1), 32–48.
Boys, K. A., & Fraser, A. M. (2018). Linking small fruit and vegetable farmers and in-
stitutional foodservice operations: Marketing challenges and considerations.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 1–13.
CAC (2005). Codex procedeural manual (15th ed.). . Retrieved from. In: fttp://ftp.fao.org/
codex/Publication/ProcManuals/Manual_15e.pdf.
410
Trends in Food Science & Technology 99 (2020) 402–412
Calvo Dopico, D., Mendes, R., Silva, H. A., Verrez-Bagnis, V., Pérez-Martín, R., & Sotelo,
C. G. (2016). Evaluation, signalling and willingness to pay for traceability. A cross-
national comparison. Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC, 20(2), 93–103.
Chen, M. F., & Huang, C. H. (2013). The impacts of the food TS and consumer involve-
ment on consumers' purchase intentions toward fast foods. Food Control, 33(2),
313–319.
Chen, K., Wang, X. X., & Song, H. Y. (2015). Food safety regulatory systems in Europe and
China: A study of how co-regulation can improve regulatory effectiveness. Journal of
Integrative Agriculture, 14(11), 2203–2217.
Chrysochou, P., Chryssochoidis, G., & Kehagia, O. (2009). Traceability information car-
riers. The technology backgrounds and consumers' perceptions of the technological
solutions. Appetite, 53(3), 322–331.
Comba, L., Belforte, G., Dabbene, F., & Gay, P. (2013). Methods for traceability in food
production processes involving bulk products. Biosystems Engineering, 116(1), 51–63.
Corkery, G. P., Gonzales-Barron, U. A., Butler, F., Donnell, K. M., & Ward, S. (2007). A
preliminary investigation on face recognition as a biometric identifier of sheep.
Transactions of the ASABE, 50(1), 313–320.
Cruickshank, C. J. (2005). Traceability databases in the New Zealand sheep industry.
Retrieved from. In: http://www.nzsap.org/system/files/proceedings/2005/
ab05020.pdf.
Dabbene, F., & Gay, P. (2011). Food TSs: Performance evaluation and optimization.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 75(1), 139–146.
Dandage, K., Badia-Melis, R., & Ruiz-Garcia, L. (2017). Indian perspective in food tra-
ceability: A review. Food Control, 71, 217–227.
Danezis, G. P., Tsagkaris, A. S., Camin, F., Brusic, V., & Georgiou, C. A. (2016). Food
authentication: Techniques, trends & emerging approaches. TRAC Trends in Analytical
Chemistry, 84, 123–132.
Darwaish, S. F., Moradian, E., Rahmani, T., & Knauer, M. (2014). Biometric identification
on android smartphones. Procedia Computer Science, 35, 832–841.
Dickinson, D. L., & Von Bailey, D. (2005). Experimental evidence on willingness to pay for
red meat traceability in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Japan.
Journal of Agricultural & Applied Economics, 37(3), 537–548.
Ding, J., Huang, J., Jia, X., Bai, J., Boucher, S., & Carter, M. (2015). Direct farm, pro-
duction base, traceability and food safety in China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture,
14(11), 2380–2390.
Donnelly, K. A., Karlsen, K. M., & Olsen, P. (2009). The importance of transformations for
traceability – a case study of lamb and lamb products. Meat Science, 83(1), 68–73.
Dupuy, C., Botta-Genoulaz, V., & Guinet, A. (2005). Batch dispersion model to optimise
traceability in food industry. Journal of Food Engineering, 70(3), 333–339.
D'Amico, P., Armani, A., Castigliego, L., Sheng, G., Gianaldoni, D., & Guidi, A. (2014).
Seafood traceability issues in Chinese food business activities in the light of the
European provisions. Food Control, 35(1), 7–13.
Ehmke, M. D., Lusk, J. L., & Wallace, T. (2008). Measuring the relative importance of
preferences for country of origin in China, France, Niger, and the United States.
Agricultural Economics, 3(38), 277–285.
EU (2002). Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European parliament and of the council. The
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.
Fan, B., Qian, J., Wu, X., Du, X., Li, W., Ji, Z., et al. (2019). Improving continuous tra-
ceability of food stuff by using barcode-RFID bidirectional transformation equipment:
Two field experiments. Food Control, 98, 449–456.
FAO (2007). Aquaculture in China and asia. Retrieved from. In: http://www.fao.org/
newsroom/common/ecg/1000565/en/factsheet.pdf.
Feng, J., Fu, Z., Wang, Z., Xu, M., & Zhang, X. (2013). Development and evaluation on a
RFID-based TS for cattle/beef quality safety in China. Food Control, 31(2), 314–325.
Fernandes, M. A., Matos, S. G., Peres, E., Cunha, C. R., & Morais, R. (2013). A framework
for wireless sensor networks management for precision viticulture and agriculture
based on IEEE 1451 standard. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 95, 19–30.
Folinas, D., Manikas, I., & Manos, B. (2006). Traceability data management for food
chains. British Food Journal, 108(8), 622–633.
Frederiksen, M., Osterberg, C., Silberg, S., Larsen, E., & Bremner, A. (2002). Info-fisk.
Development and validation of an Internet based TS in a Danish domestic fresh fish
chain. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 11(2), 13–34.
Galvez, J. F., Mejuto, J. C., & Simal-Gandara, J. (2018). Future challenges on the use of
blockchain for food traceability analysis. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 107,
222–232.
Garcia-Sanchez, A. J., Garcia-Sanchez, F., & Garcia-Haro, J. (2011). Wireless sensor
network deployment for integrating video-surveillance and data-monitoring in pre-
cision agriculture over distributed crops. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture,
75(2), 288–303.
Geng, S., Liu, X., & Beachy, R. (2015). New Food Safety Law of China and the special issue
on food safety in China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(11), 2136–2141.
Gerbig, S., Neese, S., Penner, A., Spengler, B., & Schulz, S. (2017). Real-time food au-
thentication using a miniature mass Spectrometer. Analytical Chemistry, 89(20),
10717–10725.
Ghaani, M., Cozzolino, C. A., Castelli, G., & Farris, S. (2016). An overview of the in-
telligent packaging technologies in the food sector. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 51, 1–11.
Giusto, D., Iera, A., Morabito, G., & Atzori, L. (2010). The internet of things. Springer.
Golan, E., Krissoff, B., Kuchler, F., Calvin, L., Nelson, K., & Price, G. (2004). Traceability
in the U.S. Food supply: Economic theory and industry studies. Agricultural Economic
Report, 3, 1–48.
Göransson, M., Nilsson, F., & Jevinger, Å. (2018). Temperature performance and food
shelf-life accuracy in cold food supply chains – insights from multiple field studies.
Food Control, 86, 332–341.
Hobbs, J. E., Bailey, D. V., Dickinson, D. L., & Haghiri, M. (2010). Traceability in the
Canadian red meat sector: Do consumers care? Economic & Market Information, 53(1),
J. Qian, et al.
47–65.
ISO (1994). Quality management systems-Fundamentals and vocabulary ISO. International
Organization for Standardization.
ISO-22005:2007. (2007). Traceability in the feed and food chain - general principles and basic
requirements for system design and implementation. International Organization for
Standardization.
Jedermann, R., Ruiz-Garcia, L., & Lang, W. (2009). Spatial temperature profiling by semi-
passive RFID loggers for perishable food transportation. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture, 65(2), 145–154.
Jiménez-Gamero, I., Dorado, G., Muñoz-Serrano, A., Analla, M., & Alonso-Moraga, A.
(2006). DNA microsatellites to ascertain pedigree-recorded information in a selecting
nucleus of Murciano-Granadina dairy goats. Small Ruminant Research, 65(3),
266–273.
Jin, S., & Zhou, L. (2014). Consumer interest in information provided by food TSs in
Japan. Food Quality and Preference, 36, 144–152.
Kallel, L., & Benaissa, M. (2011). A production model to reduce Batch dispersion and
optimize traceability. 4th international conference on logistics. Hammamet, Tunisia,
2011 5.31-2011.6.3.
Karlsen, K. M., Dreyer, B., Olsen, P., & Elvevoll, E. O. (2012). Granularity and its role in
implementation of seafood traceability. Journal of Food Engineering, 112(1–2), 78–85.
Karlsen, K. M., Dreyer, B., Olsen, P., & Elvevoll, E. O. (2013). Literature review: Does a
common theoretical framework to implement food traceability exist? Food Control,
32(2), 409–417.
Kim, Y. G., & Woo, E. (2016). Consumer acceptance of a quick response (QR) code for the
food TS: Application of an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Food
Research International, 85, 266–272.
Koch, M. (2018). Artificial intelligence is becoming natural. Cell, 173(3), 531–533.
Lee, J. Y., Han, D. B., Jr, R. M. N., & Lim, S. S. (2011). Valuing traceability of imported
beef in Korea: An experimental auction approach. The Australian Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, 55(3), 360–373.
Liang, K., Thomasson, J. A., Shen, M. X., Armstrong, P. R., Ge, Y., Lee, K. M., et al. (2013).
Ruggedness of 2D code printed on grain tracers for implementing a prospective grain
TS to the bulk grain delivery system. Food Control, 33(2), 359–365.
Lichtenberg, L., Heidecke, S., & Becker, T. (2008). Traceability of meat: Consumers' as-
sociations and their willingness-to-pay. European association of agricultural economists
(EAAE) 2008 international congress. August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium.
Li, W., Ji, Z., Wang, L., Sun, C., & Yang, X. (2017). Automatic individual identification of
Holstein dairy cows using tailhead images. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture,
142, 622–631.
Li, M., Qian, J. P., Yang, X. T., Sun, C. H., & Ji, Z. T. (2010). A PDA-based record-keeping
and decision-support system for traceability in cucumber production. Computers and
Electronics in Agriculture, 70(1), 69–77.
Loureiro, M. L., & Umberger, W. J. (2007). A choice experiment model for beef: What US
consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-
origin labeling and traceability. Food Policy, 32(4), 496–514.
Luvisi, A., Panattoni, A., Bandinelli, R., Rinaldelli, E., & Triolo, E. (2012). Ultra-high
frequency transponders in grapevine: A tool for traceability of plants and treatments
in viticulture. Biosystems Engineering, 113(2), 129–139.
Mainetti, L., Patrono, L., Stefanizzi, M. L., & Vergallo, R. (2013). An innovative and low-
cost gapless TS of fresh vegetable products using RF technologies and EPCglobal
standard. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 98, 146–157.
McCarthy, U., Ayalew, G., Butler, F., McDonnell, K., & Ward, S. (2009). Impact of reader
antenna polarisation, distance, inlay design, conveyor speed, tag location and or-
ientation on the coupling of UHF RFID as applied to modified atmosphere packaged
meat. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 69, 135–141.
McCarthy, U., Ayalew, G., Butler, F., McDonnell, K., & Ward, S. (2010). The effect of
increased interrogation zone, reader antenna polarization and application factors in
the performance of UHF RFID tag detection on modified atmosphere packaged meat.
Packaging Technology and Science, 23, 339–350.
McCarthy, U., Uysal, I., Badia-Melis, R., Mercier, S., O'Donnell, C. P., & Ktenioudaki, A.
(2018). Global food security – issues, challenges and technological solutions. Trends
in Food Science & Technology, 77, 11–20.
McEntire, J. C., Arens, S., Bernstein, M., Bugusu, B., Busta, F. F., Cole, M., et al. (2010).
Traceability (product tracing) in food systems: An IFT report submitted to the FDA,
volume 1: Technical aspects and recommendations. Comprehensive Reviews in Food
Science and Food Safety, 9(1), 92–158.
Menozzi, D., Halawany-Darson, R., Mora, C., & Giraud, G. (2015). Motives towards
traceable food choice: A comparison between French and Italian consumers. Food
Control, 49, 40–48.
Moe, T. (1998). Perspectives on traceability in food manufacture. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 9(5), 211–214.
Notarnicola, B., Hayashi, K., Curran, M. A., & Huisingh, D. (2012). Progress in working
towards a more sustainable agri-food industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 28, 1–8.
Olsen, P., & Aschan, M. (2010). Reference method for analyzing material flow, in-
formation flow and information loss in food supply chains. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 21(6), 313–320.
Olsen, P., & Borit, M. (2013). How to define traceability. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 29(2), 142–150.
Opara, L. U., & Mazaud, F. (2001). Food traceability from field to plate. Outlook on
Agriculture, 30(4), 239–247.
Ortega, D. L., Wang, H. H., Wu, L., & Olynk, N. J. (2011). Modeling heterogeneity in
consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China. Food Policy, 36(2),
318–324.
Pádua, I., Moreira, A., Moreira, P., Filipa, M. D. V., & Barros, R. (2019). Impact of the
regulation (EU) 1169/2011: Allergen-related recalls in the rapid alert system for food
and feed (RASFF) portal. Food Control, 98, 389–398.
411
Trends in Food Science & Technology 99 (2020) 402–412
Parreno-Marchante, A., Alvarez-Melcon, A., & Trebar, M. (2014). Advanced TS in aqua-
culture supply chain. Journal of Food Engineering, 122(1), 99–109.
Pizzuti, T., Mirabelli, G., Sanz-Bobi, M. A., & Goméz-Gonzaléz, F. (2014). Food Track &
Trace ontology for heloping the food traceability control. Journal of Food Engineering,
120, 17–30.
Qian, J. P., Fan, B. L., Wu, X. M., Han, S., Liu, S. C., & Yang, X. T. (2017). Comprehensive
and quantifiable granularity: A novel model to measure agro-food traceability. Food
Control, 74, 98–106.
Qian, J. P., Yang, X. T., Wu, X. M., Zhao, L., Fan, B. L., & Xing, B. (2012). A TS in-
corporating 2D barcode and RFID technology for wheat flour mills. Computers and
Electronics in Agriculture, 89(3), 76–85.
Regattieri, A., Gamberi, M., & Manzini, R. (2007). Traceability of food products: General
framework and experimental evidence. Journal of Food Engineering, 81(2), 347–356.
Resende-Filho, M. A., & Hurley, T. M. (2012). Information asymmetry and traceability
incentives for food safety. International Journal of Production Economics, 139(2),
596–603.
Reyes, J. F., Correa, C., Esquivel, W., & Ortega, R. (2012). Development and field testing
of a data acquisition system to assess the quality of spraying in fruit orchards.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 84(none), 62–67.
Rijswijk, W. V., & Frewer, L. J. (2012). Consumer needs and requirements for food and
ingredient traceability information. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(3),
282–290.
Rijswijk, W. V., Frewer, L. J., Menozzi, D., & Faioli, G. (2008). Consumer perceptions of
traceability: A cross-national comparison of the associated benefits. Food Quality and
Preference, 19(5), 452–464.
Ruiz-Garcia, L., Barreiro, P., & Robla, J. I. (2008). Performance of ZigBee-Based wireless
sensor nodes for real-time monitoring of fruit logistics. Journal of Food Engineering,
87(3), 405–415.
Ruiz-Garcia, L., & Lunadei, L. (2011). The role of RFID in agriculture: Applications,
limitations and challenges. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 79(1), 42–50.
Ruviaro, D. F., Barcellos, J. O. J., & Dewes, H. (2014). Market-oriented cattle traceability
in the Brazilian legal Amazon. Land Use Policy, 38, 104–110.
Schuster, E. W., Lee, H. G., Ehsani, R., Allen, S. J., & Rogers, J. S. (2011). Machine-to-
machine communication for agricultural systems: An XML-based auxiliary language
to enhance semantic interoperability. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 78(2),
150–161.
Schwägele, F. (2005). Traceability from a European perspective. Meat Science, 71(1),
164–173.
So-In, C., Poolsanguan, S., & Rujirakul, K. (2014). A hybrid mobile environmental and
population density management system for smart poultry farms. Computers and
Electronics in Agriculture, 109, 287–301.
Song, M., Liu, L. J., Wang, Z., & Nanseki, T. (2008). Consumers' attitudes to food TS in
China: Evidences from the pork market in Beijing. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture,
Kyushu University, 53(2), 569–574.
Spence, M., Stancu, V., Elliott, C. T., & Dean, M. (2018). Exploring consumer purchase
intentions towards traceable minced beef and beef steak using the theory of planned
behavior. Food Control, 91, 138–147.
Steinberger, G., Rothmund, M., & Auernhammer, H. (2009). Mobile farm equipment as a
data source in an agricultural service architecture. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture, 65(2), 238–246.
Storøy, J., Thakur, M., & Olsen, P. (2013). The TraceFood Framework – principles and
guidelines for implementing traceability in food value chains. Journal of Food
Engineering, 115(1), 41–48.
Stranieri, S., Cavaliere, A., & Banterle, A. (2017). Do motivations affect different volun-
tary traceability schemes? An empirical analysis among food manufacturers. Food
Control, 80, 187–196.
Sun, S., & Wang, X. (2019). Promoting traceability for food supply chain with certifica-
tion. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217, 658–665.
Tang, Q., Li, J., Sun, M., Lv, J., Gai, R., Mei, L., et al. (2015). Food TSs in China: The
current status of and future perspectives on food supply chain databases, legal sup-
port, and technological research and support for food safety regulation. BioScience
Trends, 9(1), 7–15.
Thakur, M., & Hurburgh, C. R. (2009). Framework for implementing TS in the bulk grain
supply chain. Journal of Food Engineering, 95(4), 617–626.
Tharwat, A., Gaber, T., & Hassanien, A. E. (2015). Two biometric approaches for cattle
identification based on features and classifiers fusion. International Journal of Image
Mining, 1(4), 342.
Thiollet-Scholtus, M., & Bockstaller, C. (2015). Using indicators to assess the environ-
mental impacts of wine growing activity: The INDIGO® method. European Journal of
Agronomy, 62, 13–25.
Tsakiridou, E., Mattas, K., Tsakiridou, H., & Tsiamparli, E. (2011). Purchasing fresh
produce on the basis of food safety, origin, and traceability labels. Journal of Food
Products Marketing, 17(2–3), 211–226.
Tseng, C. L., Jiang, J. A., Lee, R. G., Lu, F. M., Ouyang, C. S., Chen, Y. S., et al. (2006).
Feasibility study on application of GSM–SMS technology to field data acquisition.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 53(1), 45–59.
Ubilava, D., & Foster, K. (2009). Quality certification vs. product traceability: Consumer
preferences for informational attributes of pork in Georgia. Food Policy, 34(3),
305–310.
Van der Spiegel, M., Sterrenburg, P., Haasnoot, W., & van der Fels-Klerx, H. J. (2013).
Towards a decision support system for control of multiple food safety hazards in raw
milk production. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 34(2), 137–145.
Verbeke, W., & Roosen, J. (2009). Market differentiation potential of country-of-origin,
quality and traceability labeling. Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade
Policy, 10(1), 20–35.
Verbeke, W., Ward, R. W., & Avermaete, T. (2002). Evaluation of publicity measures
J. Qian, et al.
relating to the EU beef labelling system in Belgium. Food Policy, 27(4), 339–353.
Wales, C., Harvey, M., & Warde, A. (2006). Recuperating from BSE: The shifting UK in-
stitutional basis for trust in food. Appetite, 47(2), 187–195.
Wang, F., Zhang, J., Mu, W., Fu, Z., & Zhang, X. (2009). Consumers' perception toward
quality and safety of fishery products, Beijing, China. Food Control, 20(10), 918–922.
Wang, N., Zhang, N., & Wang, M. (2006). Wireless sensors in agriculture and food in-
dustry—recent development and future perspective. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture, 50(1), 1–14.
Wang, S., Zhao, C., Qian, J., Wu, B., Chen, D., & Song, Y. (2018). Bill of lots combined
with Petri tracing model improving traceability of wheat flour processing.
Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 34(14), 263–271.
Wu, Y. N., & Chen, J. S. (2018). Food safety monitoring and surveillance in China: Past,
present and future. Food Control, 90, 429–439.
Wu, L., Gong, X., Qin, S., Chen, X., Zhu, D., Hu, W., et al. (2017). Consumer preferences
for pork attributes related to traceability, information certification, and origin
412
Trends in Food Science & Technology 99 (2020) 402–412
labeling: Based on China's Jiangsu Province. Agribusiness, 33(1), 424–442.
Wu, L., Xu, L., & Gao, J. (2011). The acceptability of certified traceable food among
Chinese consumers. British Food Journal, 113(4), 519–534.
Xiao, X., He, Q., Fu, Z., Xu, M., & Zhang, X. (2015). Applying CS and WSN methods for
improving efficiency of frozen and chilled aquatic products monitoring system in cold
chain logistics. Food Control, 60, 656–666.
Xing, B., Liu, X., Qian, J., Wang, J., & Wu, X. (2015). Establishment of materials batch
mixing optimization model for traceability of fresh-cuts fruits and vegetables pro-
cessing. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 31(10),
309–314.
Yang, X., Qian, J., Sun, C., & Ji, Z. (2014). Key technologies for establishment agricultural
products and food quality safety traceability systems. Transactions of the Chinese
Society for Agricultural Machinery, 45(11), 212–222.
Zhang, C., Bai, J., & Wahl, T. I. (2012). Consumers' willingness to pay for traceable pork,
milk, and cooking oil in Nanjing, China. Food Control, 27(1) 0-28.