Trends in Food Science & Technology 91 (2019) 240–247

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Trends in Food Science & Technology

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

Review

Transparency in food supply chains: A review of enabling technology T

solutions
Jake Astilla, Rozita A. Darab,∗, Malcolm Campbellc, Jeffrey M. Farberd, Evan D.G. Frasere,
Shayan Sharifa, Rickey Y. Yadaf
a
Department of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
b
School of Computer Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
c
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
d
Food Science Department, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
e
Arrell Food Institute and Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
f
Food, Nutrition, Health Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

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

Keywords: Background: Modern food supply chains are complex and contain numerous stakeholders, with each performing
Food transparency specific roles pertaining to food production. As food supply chains become more complex, the importance of
Traceability food production transparency increases. Several factors contribute to the need for transparency such as an in-
Sustainability crease in the global population, detection of foodborne illness outbreaks, efficient management of risks and
Internet of things
recalls, and satisfying consumer demand. A case in point is the necessity that food production systems become
Blockchain
more sustainable through improvements in production efficiency and reducing the wasting of resources and
Big data
food. Other examples include the need for timely identification of the source of food production, in addition to
requiring a more rapid knowledge of the cause of contamination during outbreaks of foodborne illness.
Scope and approach: This review sets out to describe enabling technologies, provided by the Internet of Things
(IoT), which have the potential to increase food production transparency. In addition, other technologies im-
portant for managing and using food supply chain data, such as blockchain and Big Data analytics, are reviewed.
The IoT is the overarching technology which allows for data collection from multiple phases within supply
chains leading to data driven transparent systems of food production.
Key findings and conclusions: Enabling transparency in food supply chains via implementation of technologies
will require considerable effort from all stakeholders involved, resulting in many new challenges and require-
ments that must be addressed. These challenges and requirements range from technical issues, such as Internet
connection, storage requirements, device security, and government requirements and regulations, to those
concerning consumer acceptance.

1. Introduction
Transparency, defined in supply chains as access to non-distorted,
factual, relevant, and timely information about supply chain products
(Wognum, Bremmers, Trienekens, Van Der Vorst, & Bloemhof, 2011),
has emerged as a critical component of modern food supply chains.
Today, massive potential exists to implement new technologies within
food supply chains to establish transparency, thereby gaining consumer
trust and aiding approval from regulatory bodies (Pettey, 2018). Food
industry actors and regulators among others in the United Kingdom,
Australia, and New Zealand identified transparency as the most crucial
strategy in building, or rebuilding, consumer trust in existing food
systems (Wilson et al., 2017). Additionally, food industry experts have
identified trust as one of the most important factors in food production
(Bilyea & McInnes, 2018). For example, a 2016 study of consumer
habits revealed that 94% of consumers find it important that food
manufacturers be transparent about how food is made (Label Insight,
2016). To trace food throughout the supply chain, information should
be available from “farm to fork” and beyond, including information
about agricultural procedures on farms, as well as information per-
taining to shipping, packaging, and storage conditions until consumer
purchase. Additionally, importance should be placed on continuing to
provide consumers with information after food is purchased, for ex-
ample, via smart packaging technologies that aid consumers in knowing

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: drozita@uoguelph.ca (R.A. Dara).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.024
Received 24 December 2018; Received in revised form 2 April 2019; Accepted 19 July 2019
Available online 24 July 2019
0924-2244/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Astill, et al.
the expiration status of food products (Mustafa & Andreescu, 2018).
Beyond the increased interest that consumers express about trans-
parency, serious issues exist within current non-transparent food supply
chains. Examples of the current pitfalls of food production include de-
layed responses, underdiagnosis during outbreaks of foodborne illness
(Hoelzer, Moreno Switt, Wiedmann, & Boor, 2018) and food adultera-
tion cases, such as adding undeclared ingredients, e.g. horse meat
(Baggini, 2018), to meat products and seafood fraud (Leal, Pimentel,
Ricardo, Rosa, & Calado, 2015). In addition to these issues, food supply
chains are host to inefficiencies that can lead to wasting of large
quantities of food (Shafiee-Jood & Cai, 2016). Wasting of food can be
induced in many ways, including by improper storage conditions
throughout the supply chain, leading to food and resource losses, or
losses that occur during food processing (Parfitt, Barthel, &
Macnaughton, 2010).
Today's food supply chains are large and complex with many out-
sourced procedures such as food product storage and transportation
services (Hsiao, Vorst, & Omta, 2006), resulting in a lack of commu-
nication between stakeholders who individually focus on one narrow
area of food production (Barratt, 2004). This makes achieving trans-
parency a difficult task, yet a suite of new technologies have the po-
tential to be implemented by industry and enhance the transparency of
food production systems. These technologies all fall under the broad
heading of the Internet of Things (IoT) which itself consists of sensors
and devices that collect and transfer data resulting in more efficient
management and decision making (Atzori, Iera, & Morabito, 2010). IoT
systems themselves require a range of enabling technologies including
data platforms, data security and accountability technologies such as
blockchain, as well as systems for big data analytics (Kshetri, 2017;
Manyika et al., 2015).
This paper will explore the types of IoT technologies that need to be
developed and integrated into the agri-food economy in order to pro-
mote a greater degree of transparency. In doing so, this paper will draw
attention to the technological enablers that can help areas of need and
solutions to advance supply chain transparency. The technologies se-
lected for discussion in this review focus on the IoT, and include those
for data acquisition, data management, and data analysis. The paper
concludes that food production systems will need to overcome multiple
challenges concerning new technologies in order to increase transpar-
ency in food supply chains.
2. The case for transparency, traceability and sustainability
within food supply chains
The following section highlights the importance of transparency in
food supply chains, in addition to describing the necessity for trace-
ability and sustainability. By increasing the transparency of the op-
erations that go into food production, levels of traceability and sus-
tainability should also improve due to the wealth of new data and
information, underpinned by evolving technologies that have and will
become available.
2.1. Transparency
Consumers are now increasingly interested in how food ingredients
and products are produced (Duffy, Fearne, & Healing, 2005). Food
adulteration is a major cause for concern, as production is not currently
a completely transparent process. For example, oils and honeys re-
present two of the most commonly adulterated foods that consumers
unknowingly buy (Moore, Spink, & Lipp, 2012). Furthermore, on a
larger scale, certain industries, such as the seafood industry, are vul-
nerable to fraud, where lesser value fish are commonly labelled and
sold at higher value. Oceana recently reported that 44% of sampled
seafood products from Canadian retail and restaurant locations were
mislabelled (Oceana Canada, 2018). There are many concerns over the
accuracy of properly labelled seafood, as many different species of fish
241
Trends in Food Science & Technology 91 (2019) 240–247
can be grouped under one label, leaving consumers with very little
confidence about the veracity of seafood products (Levin, 2018). Mis-
labelling of seafood products has been researched in European coun-
tries, showing that almost 7% of tuna fish products were mislabelled,
and that number was as high as 50–100% for certain types of tuna
(Sotelo et al., 2018). In addition, a 2013 case of food fraud induced
widespread fear in the public when horse meat was discovered in
multiple ground beef products in Europe. This led to a large-scale food
recall and a substantial temporary drop in red meat sales (Baggini,
2018). Beyond inducing fear and distrust in consumers, a lack of
transparency in food supply chains can also lead to serious health
consequences. For example, in 2014, melamine contaminated milk
powder led to 300,000 infants becoming sick and six deaths in China
(Huang, 2014). The scandal led to new Chinese regulations for food
additives, however, the potential for situations like this to arise again
still exists and can only be abolished by substantially increasing
transparency in food production systems.
2.2. Traceability
Traceability in supply chains can be referred to as the ability to
track the history, location, and function of an entity (Aung & Chang,
2014). Traceability is of great importance to stakeholders, including
consumers, throughout the food production industry, and this is high-
lighted during outbreaks of foodborne illnesses. Approximately 4 mil-
lion Canadians are affected by domestically acquired foodborne illness
each year, resulting in a costly 11,600 hospitalizations and over 200
deaths (Thomas et al., 2013). Responding to outbreaks is even more
difficult when considering the complexity of some food supply chains,
as the foods that give rise to foodborne illness vary greatly. For ex-
ample, in the last 10 years, outbreaks of foodborne illness have resulted
in hundreds of hospitalizations and numerous deaths in the USA.
Alarmingly, these outbreaks have been linked to a variety of food
products, including peanut butter, strawberries, cantaloupes, various
lettuce products, chicken salad, and other vegetables (FDA, 2016).
Some of these products require extensive processing or are the result of
a combination of multiple food products, making it increasingly diffi-
cult to identify the source of contamination. To exemplify the current
lack of ability to identify the causative agent during outbreaks of
foodborne illness, an example is the recent Escherichia coli outbreak in
the USA in December 2017 which was linked to leafy greens. CDC could
not pinpoint exactly what type of leafy vegetable was the culprit
(Asbury, 2018). Increasing traceability via technology in food supply
chains has been demonstrated recently by Walmart and IBM, where a
mango product sold in Walmart was tracked through the supply chain
using blockchain technology. A blockchain is a distributed database (or
ledger) of encrypted records or digital events that can be shared among
collaborating parties. Data are collected in a secure format and ori-
ginality of data can be validated at any time. The result of the IBM and
Walmart project was a single historical record of all the steps included
in mango production, processing and distribution systems. This in-
cluded tracking the mango's harvest in Mexico all the way through to
the sale of the product by Walmart in the USA. Whereas it would have
taken a week to track the mangoes using their current procedures, the
blockchain approach pioneered by Walmart allowed officials to de-
termine the origin of the mango product in just over 2 seconds (Yiannas,
2018).
Currently, under the new Safe Food for Canada Regulations, food
business operators are obliged to use a “one-step back and one-step
forward” approach to supply chain management where any actor (a
processor, distributor or retailer) must be able to trace food one step
back (to the person who provided them the food, including the date on
which the food was provided), as well as being able to trace the food
one step forward (to the person to whom the food manufacturer pro-
vided the food). From a food safety standpoint, however, this is in-
sufficient and it is increasingly being recognized that consumers,
J. Astill, et al.
regulators, and food safety officials need more information about what
is occurring within the supply chain. Expanding traceability of food
supply chains will face extra challenges due to the complexity of the
procedures required to produce certain food products. Nevertheless, by
increasing traceability, the source of contamination during cases of
foodborne illness can be identified more accurately and quickly, re-
sulting in fewer affected people, and causing less fear and confusion for
the consumer.
2.3. Sustainability
The sustainability of food supply chains is linked to social, en-
vironmental, and economic factors (Wognum et al., 2011). To be so-
cially sustainable, food supply chains cannot induce consumer concerns
surrounding food product purchases. Increasing the transparency and
traceability of food supply chains should enhance their social sustain-
ability. To this end, it is crucial that food supply chains are not host to
procedures that waste resources, including those required for food
production such as fertilizers (Walter, Finger, Huber, & Buchmann,
2017), as future requirements to feed the rising global population will
increase competition for available resources (Godfray et al., 2010).
Environmental sustainability also extends to the reducing the effects
that supply chain procedures have on the environment, a prominent
example is the emission of greenhouse gases during various supply
chain procedures. Monitoring vehicle emissions using infrared ( Huang
et al., 2018) and gas sensor (Peitzmeier, Loschke, Wiedenhaus, &
Klemm, 2017) roadside technologies have been demonstrated to be able
to measure gas concentrations emitted by passing by vehicles. These
technologies have potential to rapidly identify vehicles involved in food
supply chains that are emitting elevated levels of greenhouse gases.
Sustainable food supply chains also need to ensure profitability for all
stakeholders, which means that the costs associated with newly in-
corporated technologies, or losses occurred to wasted food, do not deter
profitability.
Waste within food supply chains is a major issue that affects every
step of the supply chain (Shafiee-Jood & Cai, 2016). In this regard, in
developing countries, the majority of losses occur directly post harvest
(Pearson & Perera, 2018), while consumers in affluent countries tend to
waste more food as compared to consumers in less affluent countries
(Parfitt et al., 2010). Increasing transparency in the supply chain has
the potential to decrease the amount of food products that are wasted
after purchase, in addition to decreasing the waste that occurs within
food supply chain operations. In order to decrease post-purchase food
product waste, consumers need food products to have longer shelf lives,
and this can be accomplished in part by decreasing the time food takes
to go from farm-to-fork. Transparency-enabling technologies can help
reduce food processing time in supply chains. For example, when
Walmart tested blockchain to track the supply chain of a mango pro-
duct, it was discovered that mangos took three days to move from a
customs broker in Mexico to a processor in the USA (Yiannas, 2018). In
this instance, blockchain technology provided the retailer with pre-
viously unknown information that could then lead to modifications of
supply chain processes, resulting in a shorter time period for a product
to reach a retail outlet, and a greater period of time for a product to be
purchased and consumed before reaching expiration. Other technolo-
gies are emerging that also can decrease food waste by providing ac-
curate information concerning food product condition. As an example,
smart packaging devices provide potential to more accurately monitor
the status of food products, decreasing the amount of food which is
wrongly discarded (Mustafa & Andreescu, 2018).
There are also issues concerning sustainability of food supply chains
during outbreaks of foodborne illness. Due to the inability to quickly
and specifically trace the origin of affected products, unaffected food
products are often discarded due to being misidentified as a potential
source of foodborne pathogens, or due to unwarranted behaviours ex-
hibited by consumers in response to outbreak situations, such as broad
242
Trends in Food Science & Technology 91 (2019) 240–247
food consumption changes that include avoidance of unaffected pro-
ducts (Peake, Detre, & Carlson, 2014). More transparent food supply
chains are needed so that during outbreaks of foodborne illness the
exact cause and location of the problem can be identified, leading to the
disposal of only the affected products. Additionally, as technology-en-
abled transparency enables precise and rapid solutions for control of
foodborne illness outbreaks, one can envisage a significant reduction in
health care costs and improvements in public perception of the food
industry.
3. Technological enablers of transparency in food supply chains
The technologies that can enable transparency within supply chains
related to food production must be able to collect information and data
throughout the entire supply chain. Importantly, these technologies
must allow data to be collected by devices automatically as processes
along the supply chain occur. Devices must also collect data that can
then be made available to relevant stakeholders, including consumers,
in real-time. Making data available from the supply chain additionally
requires processes and standards to ensure that data are secure and of
high quality, as well as being protected by limiting access to appro-
priate stakeholders and consumers. Blockchain solutions have gained
popularity as technologies that can enable high quality data to be ac-
cessed in a secure and trusted manner. The following section introduces
important transparency-enabling technologies and describes how they
can enhance transparency in addition to traceability and sustainability
in food production systems.
3.1. Data acquisition technologies
A prominent emerging data acquisition technology is sensors, which
are devices capable of collecting, processing, analyzing and storing
data. The ability to collect relevant supply chain data is important, and
this can be facilitated by incorporation of sensors into food supply chain
infrastructure. Sensors embedded in different stages of food production
can collect information from processes in a variety of different ways,
even to the extent of being present in relatively simple things or objects.
Sensors can measure the temperature of a barn on a livestock farm or
track the location of food products as they are being shipped
(Burmester, Munilla, Ortiz, & Caballero-Gil, 2017). More complex
sensors include accelerometers for livestock (Neethirajan, 2017), and
biosensors, which can detect the presence of an entity and transmit its
identification into a digital signal that is understandable to a user
(Bhalla et al., 2016). Use of data acquisition technologies even extends
to retail outlets, for example, smart shelves or sensor embedded shelves
that collect data about products and consumers have been speculated to
become part of retail outlets and replace regular shelves (Brown & Roth,
2014). In current food supply chains, sources of data that require
manual tracking still exist and are of importance for enabling trans-
parency. A prominent example includes monitoring the welfare and
health of farmed animals by visual inspection or scoring. However, this
is an area where automated data collection would be favoured, and
many technologies for automated welfare monitoring of farmed animals
have potential for implementation into future production systems, in-
cluding various sensors, vocalization analysis systems, and imaging
technologies (Rutten, Velthuis, Steeneveld, & Hogeveen, 2013; Sassi,
Averós, & Estevez, 2016). In addition to increasing transparency, im-
plementing new and developing data acquisition technologies is ad-
vantageous to producers among other food system stakeholders, as they
automatically provide data that can be used to make important man-
agement decisions.
In food production systems, detection of microbial spoilage, or-
ganisms, or foodborne pathogens could be enhanced by biosensor
technology, as detection can occur in a much more rapid manner. There
is the potential for traceability and sustainability to be greatly influ-
enced by biosensor technology. Placing biosensors into food product
J. Astill, et al.
packaging or in other areas that can detect specific pathogens could
provide the ability to rapidly identify contaminated products. In turn,
this will lead to immediate investigation into the supply chain of the
contaminated product, resulting in faster identification of the source
and cause of contamination. Biosensors also have potential for use on
farms, where they could rapidly detect livestock diseases that possess
the potential to cause foodborne illnesses, or zoonotic disease outbreak
(Vidic, Manzano, Chang, & Jaffrezic;renault, 2017). Despite the ad-
vancements in biosensor development and use, these technologies still
require more research before they can be fully integrated into food
supply chains (Adley, 2014). For example, current issues exist con-
cerning biosensor incorporation into food packaging, including tech-
nical difficulties associated with biosensor detection from complex food
products (Mustafa & Andreescu, 2018), and the costs associated with
their implementation into food packaging (Neethirajan, Ragavan,
Weng, & Chand, 2018).
DNA barcoding is another sensor technology that can greatly en-
hance transparency and decrease food adulteration within food supply
chains. With DNA barcoding of organisms, sensor technology can de-
termine the biological species that are present based on unique se-
quences of reference DNA (Galimberti et al., 2013). This technology has
the potential to be used in different stages of the food supply chain to
verify the identity of raw materials. DNA barcoding technology can
decrease the chances of some of the aforementioned scandals such as
the inclusion of horse meat into beef products, or the mislabelling of
seafood products in addition to decreasing other types of food fraud
from occurring in the future. It has also been speculated that DNA
barcoding technology would be economically feasible for fish species
identification in Canada (Ugochukwu, Hobbs, Phillips, & Gray, 2015).
Recent research employing DNA barcoding has shed light on the sale of
seafood products in the United Kingdom made from endangered species
of shark, highlighting that consumers are also purchasing seafood
products that unknowingly contain different species (Hobbs, Potts,
Bjerregaard Walsh, Usher, & Griffiths, 2019). To best use DNA bar-
coding data within supply chains, rapid assays need to be developed.
Thus far, the use of nanotechnology to facilitate DNA barcoding tech-
nology has shown some promise in the design of rapid colorimetric
assays that can detect the substitution or dilution of food products
(Valentini et al., 2017). Further development of rapid assays and de-
vices that can determine the validity of the composition of food pro-
ducts using DNA barcoding technology is required.
3.2. Internet of Things (IoT)
The IoT consists of multiple technologies that already do, or will
affect the way industries operate, in addition to altering the way hu-
mans live and work. The IoT describes a network of devices all con-
nected to the internet, and, therefore, connected to each other, pro-
viding the ability for communication between devices, and between
people and devices (Atzori et al., 2010). In addition to the increasing
availability of internet access and enhanced development of sensor
technology, cloud computing and the availability of mobile devices and
networks have led to the surge in the implementation of IoT technol-
ogies (Corcoran, 2016), and they will allow IoT devices to be implanted
into food supply chains. Food production begins on farms, and in-
creased internet availability now allows for devices on farms to connect
to IoT networks in order to collect data from the beginning of the supply
chain. Enhancing production in various agricultural settings can be
made possible by IoT technologies, as simple farm networks can allow
connected devices to communicate data to producers, providing in-
creased awareness of the status of various parameters in their agri-
cultural production systems at all times (Ojha, Misra, & Raghuwanshi,
2015). To enhance transparency in food production systems, data col-
lected by these devices needs to extend beyond the confines of the farm
and should be available to other partners, stakeholders, and even
consumers. For example, IoT connected sensors on a dairy farm could
243
Trends in Food Science & Technology 91 (2019) 240–247
inform consumers about certain health parameters of the cows that are
supplying raw milk to dairy processors. Further, commercial IoT de-
vices are in development that would have potential to assess the en-
vironmental conditions that livestock are subjected to when being
shipped (Hein, 2018).
Radio frequency identification (RFID) tags also have the potential to
make data collection via the IoT a more automated procedure (Badia-
Melis, Mishra, & Ruiz-García, 2015). Conceivably, RFID-tagged food
products could be identified by RFID readers present in certain loca-
tions in food supply chains, such as at a processing plant or in a cargo
trailer, resulting in a spatial and temporal record of the path in which a
food product takes to reach a retail outlet. This technology also pro-
vides the potential to collect information about the way in which a
product was handled throughout its entire production. For example,
Fleet Complete and BlackBerry have jointly produced devices that can
monitor a trailer cargo as it is being shipped, making it possible to track
parameters in cargo trailers such as temperature, humidity, and pres-
sure, along with the shipping time and load status (Korshunova, 2017).
Using RFID technology in a wireless sensor network, a fermented cab-
bage food product, kimchi, was traced from farmer to retailer (Alfian
et al., 2017). In this system, constant storage conditions, including
temperature and humidity, were provided via the sensor network. Ad-
ditionally, data mining techniques were employed to predict missing
sensor data. For data collected by IoT connected devices to be useful for
relevant stakeholders and consumers, it needs to be validated, stored,
processed, and made accessible. There are some candidate technolo-
gical solutions for collection and distribution of food supply chain data,
including blockchain and data warehouses, although other potential
strategies exist.
3.3. Platforms for managing IoT generated data
A number of different options exist to make IoT data accessible,
including centralized systems of data storage, such as data warehouses,
which enable stakeholders to retrieve data that are stored in these
systems. However, centralized systems face challenges, as system fail-
ures could lead to a total loss of data access, data accessibility in a large
scale is an issue, and additional security problems exist with centralized
systems of data storage. Platforms for managing data that are collected
from food supply chains need to ensure data accessibility, accuracy and
accountability, and certain technologies are available to do so, namely,
blockchain, which has attributes that could ameliorate the barriers that
centralized systems face (Panarello, Tapas, Merlino, Longo, & Puliafito,
2018), and new systems for blockchain management of IoT data are
being researched (Košťál, Helebrandt, Belluš, Ries, & Kotuliak, 2019).
Blockchain is a technology that provides the ability to make trans-
actions on a public or private ledger that is accessible to different
groups or people, without the need for an official third party to monitor
the transactions. It is a favourable way to carry out transactions because
of its increased security features and lack of requirement for a cen-
tralized authority (Yli-Huumo, Ko, Choi, Park, & Smolander, 2016).
Blockchain enhances security by verifying transactions via multiple
nodes in the blockchain network, ensuring that transactions are valid
between two groups. Additionally, as transactions are made, records of
transactions are stored in blocks, and the blocks of data are stored in a
chain, creating the blockchain (Panarello et al., 2018). Each block re-
ceives a unique identity, referred to as a hash, and this identity is de-
pendent on all of the data stored in the last block and the blocks before
it (Galvez, Mejuto, & Simal-Gandara, 2018). This makes it very difficult
to modify data in the blockchain, nevertheless, it is not impossible to
modify records or falsify transactions. (Orcutt, 2018). Blockchain pro-
vides a platform to manage data generated by IoT devices embedded
into food supply chain infrastructure, in turn this data can be made
accessible to all stakeholders, including industry partners or consumers,
who are granted access. As a platform to manage IoT data, blockchain
use has been proposed to monitor resource consumption in smart
J. Astill, et al.
communities (Alcarria, Bordel, Robles, Martín, & Manso-Callejo, 2018)
and in smart homes (Qu, Tao, & Yuan, 2018).
Blockchain has been suggested to be a potential tool that can in-
crease transparency, traceability and sustainability in food supply
chains (Ahmed & Broek, 2017). Accordingly, it has been tested as a data
management platform in other industry supply chains, including wood
products (Figorilli et al., 2018) and pharmaceuticals (Sylim, Liu,
Marcelo, & Fontelo, 2018), in addition to being described as having
great potential for use in rice supply chains (Kumar & Iyengar, 2017).
Most studies on blockchain implementation in supply chains focus on
its ability to decrease fraud and product falsification due to its im-
mutable storage of data. It also could provide the ability to more pre-
cisely determine inventory of food and resources in food supply chains,
thereby decreasing potential wasting. To achieve this, value stream
mapping, a tool that allows for a better understanding of the movement
of materials and information through the value chain, has been re-
viewed as a tool to determine where food loss occurs in supply chains
(De Steur, Wesana, Dora, Pearce, & Gellynck, 2016). However, value
stream mapping suffers from some pitfalls and challenges, including
those related to data acquisition and data reliability for map design
(Forno, Pereira, Forcellini, & Kipper, 2014), suggesting blockchain to be
a potentially more effective tool to identify wasting in food supply
chains due to its ability to share reliable data between multiple stake-
holders.
Blockchain technology is also a preferred technology for food supply
chains because it provides the potential for smart contracts, or premade
contracts that rely on a specific condition being met. Additionally,
smart contracts allow for conditional automated processes to occur (Yli-
Huumo et al., 2016), and this has potential uses in food supply chains.
This could, for example, allow for financial transactions between sta-
keholders to become automated and be based on an event occurring,
such as a food product entering a processing facility after shipment
from the farmer, leading to the farmer receiving a payment. Ad-
ditionally, smart contracts could allow for more specific conditions to
be included into transactions throughout the food supply chain. A fu-
ture model could include implementation of sensors in cargo trailers
that detect whether previously agreed upon environmental conditions
(such as temperature or humidity) of the trailer are met during ship-
ping. The data that are collected in the trailer would trigger a payment
to the shipping company if the conditions were satisfactory. Smart
contracts are also another suggested tool that can help to reduce or
eliminate food fraud in the food production industry through validation
of transactions (Ge, Brewster, Spek, Smeenk, & Top, 2017).
Beyond data warehouses and blockchain, other technologies have
the potential to manage data generated by IoT devices and systems,
including (FI)WARE, which is a cloud-based computing technology.
FIWARE can be defined as an internet-based system that allows data
from a wide range of devices to be processed, stored, and made ac-
cessible, and it has been proposed as a way to manage data in precision
agriculture systems (López-Riquelme, Pavón-Pulido, Navarro-Hellín,
Soto-Valles, & Torres-Sánchez, 2017). Beyond use in agricultural set-
tings, FIWARE has the potential to manage data generated by IoT de-
vices. Systems where data processing is carried out closer to the device
level, such as in fog computing and edge computing, which feature
computing power assignment in local area networks or devices, re-
spectively, are also though to be capable of managing data that are
generated by IoT devices (Klonoff, 2017), putting forth the potential for
use in the food industry.
3.4. Big data technology solutions
Big data analytics has been described as technology that can provide
“big visibility” to supply chains operations (One Network Enterprises,
2015). In order to best use data from food supply chains, systems of big
data analytics will need to be implemented to manage the projected
large and heterogeneous data that will be produced (Djedouboum,
244
Trends in Food Science & Technology 91 (2019) 240–247
Abba Ari, Gueroui, Mohamadou, & Aliouat, 2018). The tools that big
data analytics can provide in the food production industry extend be-
yond providing transparency to consumers, as they also can provide
stakeholders with new abilities including enhanced demand forecasting
and increased optimization of procedures within supply chain organi-
zations. For example, in partnership with bakeries, IBM has analyzed
weather data in order to predict the demand for certain products, as
links between sunshine, temperature, and consumer preferences have
been demonstrated (Alicke, Glatzel, Karlsson, & Hoberg, 2016).
Importantly, big data analytics can make inferences from data that
humans fail to notice. This ability of big data analytics can improve
food supply chains in different ways. For example, algorithms that in-
clude consumer purchasing and inventory data can predict food re-
quirements at retail stores, resulting in adequate food delivery and
decreased food waste. Another benefit of big data analytical tools could
arise when trying to predict the emergence of a foodborne illness or
preventing an outbreak in its very early stages. Additionally, this data
provides the capability to determine certain practices or actions within
food supply chains that are effective at preventing outbreaks. Likewise,
predicting the shelf life of food products could become much more
accurate, as data collected from supply chains could be used to more
precisely determine when a food product will likely spoil. Not all uses
for big data analytics in food industries are speculative. For example, an
automated text classification system has been implemented for restau-
rants listed on Yelp in New York City. The system searches for specific
terms in Yelp reviews indicative of foodborne illness and then uses this
data to identify outbreaks of foodborne illness (Effland et al., 2017).
Additionally, there is the potential for data from supply chain opera-
tions to be used in coordination with the system described above in
order to determine if the cause of foodborne illness is originating from a
certain restaurant, or from further back in the supply chain. Ultimately,
IoT systems will rely on big data analytics to make best use of the
wealth of data that are generated.
4. Challenges and requirements for technology-enabled
transparent food supply chains
There are multiple challenges that will be faced and requirements
that need to be met in order for new technologies to provide the sug-
gested benefits to food supply chains. The challenges range from pro-
blems associated with internet connectivity to issues concerning data
governance.
4.1. IoT connectivity
As the name suggests, connectivity to the internet is essential for IoT
technology to function, however, there are current concerns about the
ability to connect the projected number of IoT devices to the internet
using centralized network systems and cloud computing systems.
Different models of computing that reduce the need to send data to
centralized servers, such as fog or edge computing, where data are
analyzed in part by sensors, are possible alternatives that can reduce
this burden (Klonoff, 2017). Additionally, it is popular opinion that
blockchain can provide enhanced security for fog computing systems
(Antunes, 2018). Internet connectivity is also an important considera-
tion as some rural areas may have no or limited access to broadband
internet (Saltzman, 2016). Indeed, rural farms are essential for estab-
lishing transparency in food production systems.
4.2. Data privacy and security
In addition to connectivity issues, data security is a highly relevant
concern for IoT technologies. For the many devices that could be em-
bedded into supply chains or elsewhere, there is the potential for these
devices to become hacked, leading to either unlawful collection of data,
or manipulation of device function. Understandably, security issues
J. Astill, et al.
have been demonstrated as the top concern of the public surrounding
the IoT (Zubiaga, Procter, & Maple, 2018). Accordingly, worldwide IoT
security spending is speculated to reach $1.5 billion in 2018 (Panarello
et al., 2018). Additionally, adopting a transparent system of food supply
chain operations will require that policies be put in place for stake-
holders to follow surrounding issues concerning data privacy. IoT
technology has also raised concerns pertaining to data ownership, as it
is a current debate as to who has the rights to control and use the data
generated by IoT devices, and examples of this exist in agricultural
settings (Wiseman, Sanderson, & Robb, 2018). Beyond agriculture,
other examples exist, if a cargo trailer that ships food products is
equipped with an internet connected temperature sensor, does the data
that are generated belong to the device manufacturer, the shipping
company, or the stakeholders that are sending/receiving the food pro-
duct? Regardless of ownership, to enable the highest levels of trans-
parency, data access needs to be widespread throughout the food pro-
duction industry.
4.3. Implementation of IoT solutions
Despite the immense promise for its potential use as a data man-
agement platform for IoT networks, implementation of IoT data man-
agement and governance solutions also faces some challenges. If we
consider a blockchain solution, for instance, to monitor the entire
supply chain of multiple food products will require many different
stakeholders to adopt the technology. This is increasingly difficult due
to the presently held opinion that the technology behind blockchain is
not well understood by many of those who would be involved in its
implementation (Fainor, 2018; Marr, 2018). Blockchain also requires a
large amount of computing power from servers in the network which is
a concern for both environmental and economical reasons. Ad-
ditionally, the encryption of data can cause blockchains to exhibit de-
lays in data processing, leading to a delay in the ability to access in-
formation (Zheng, Xie, Dai, Chen, & Wang, 2017). Adding to the
financial and energy requirements needed to run a blockchain database,
there are additional concerns with storage, as each node in the network
stores a copy of the data in the blockchain, resulting in large amounts of
data needing to be stored (Zheng et al., 2017). To this end, utilisation of
mathematical tools, such as hypergraphs, has been proposed as a
method to reduce the storage needs of blockchain systems (Qu et al.,
2018). Nonetheless, for successful implementation of IoT platforms,
concerns regarding computing power, economic and environmental
costs to operate, as well as storage requirements, must be addressed.
4.4. Interoperability of systems and policies
Interoperability is an important characteristic for data and tech-
nology-enabled food supply chains to possess. Interoperability can be
described as the ability of different entities, people, or systems to suc-
cessfully work together. Interoperability is defined as the ability of two
systems to exchange and share data, while additionally making data
accessible and presentable to a user from both systems (HIMSS, 2013).
In the healthcare industry, interoperability leads to more complete,
accessible, and accurate patient records resulting in better treatment
and healthcare provided. In food supply chains, interoperability be-
tween stakeholders and systems of data collection and storage will be
crucial. Without interoperability throughout the entire food supply
chain, the data that are collected by IoT devices has significantly less
value, as it is unavailable and unusable to stakeholders up- or down-
stream in the supply chain (Manyika et al., 2015). It is also crucial that
interoperability of data collected from different sources within a supply
chain is attained, e.g., data collected on a farm or group of farms all the
way to transporter, processor, packager, and retailer. Food supply
chains also need to establish unified policies concerning the use of
newly implemented technologies and the information that they make
available. Individual stakeholders may currently have established
245
Trends in Food Science & Technology 91 (2019) 240–247
polices concerning their data and how their data are used. However,
different stakeholder policies may not align, placing certain actors in
food supply chains at risk. For example, data regarding processor pay
rate to chicken producers has allegedly been used by multiple chicken
processors in order to fix prices, and thus inhibiting producers from
being payed at competitive levels (Wiseman et al., 2018).
4.5. Economic sustainability
Incorporation of IoT devices and data management solutions into
food supply chains for the purpose of creating harmonious and trans-
parent systems of food production will need to meet certain require-
ments in order to function successfully. A key attribute of sustainable
supply chains is economic sustainability for all stakeholders (Wognum
et al., 2011). Complete transparency requires total involvement by all
players throughout the food supply chain. This will be associated with
new costs and risks; therefore, it is essential that there is an economic
benefit for all stakeholders involved. Importantly, there are multiple
proposed mechanisms that will enhance revenues. As previously men-
tioned, the reduction of wasted resources throughout the supply chain,
including at retail locations, should increase revenues for some stake-
holders.
4.6. Operationalizing food supply chains through technology
In addition to the technical challenges that new technologies face as
they are incorporated into various industries, there are also some un-
ique challenges to enabling transparency that food supply chains have
to deal with. Although many supply chains feature complex processes
that involve combinations of different products, food supply chains can
present greater difficulties in tracking these complexities. Traceable
units, or specific objects that can be traced, are important to define
within food supply chains. Tracking traceable units though the food
supply chain is critical during events of transformation, where traceable
units are joined or separated (Olsen & Borit, 2018). Complexity of
transformations within food supply chains is a challenge for trace-
ability. For example, in Canada, beef cattle can be traced with RFID
technology until they reach the slaughterhouse, where this identifica-
tion is then lost as the animal is processed into different meat products
(Young, 2015). After slaughter, beef products can be traced to the retail
store if they are packaged at the slaughterhouse. This provides con-
sumers only with knowledge of when and where their beef product was
processed at the slaughterhouse. If other processing or packaging oc-
curs at separate locations, the level of traceability is compromised.
Other industries face even more complex issues when considering tra-
ceability. For example, in the dairy industry, before milk reaches a
retail outlet it is pooled from multiple cows, followed by milk from
multiple farms being pooled before processing and shipping to retail
outlets occurs. Clearly, food production faces unique challenges asso-
ciated with enabling transparency in supply chains, and different in-
dustries within food production will each face their own unique chal-
lenges.
4.7. Consumer acceptance
Although new technologies may provide a more transparent un-
derstanding of food supply chains, there are certain questions yet to be
answered about technology acceptance by stakeholders and consumers.
Compared to other industries, innovations in the food industry are even
more at risk of being rejected. As shown by Van Dijk, Fischer, Marvin,
and Van Trijp (2015), prospective nanotechnology utilisation was more
positively favoured by academic and industry experts for use in the field
of medicine rather than food. This difference was partially attributed to
experts’ suggesting that a lack of public knowledge would lead to ne-
gative thoughts concerning the technology. When considering trans-
parency-enabling technologies, public understanding and acceptance
J. Astill, et al.
during outbreaks of foodborne illness will be important to consider.
With new technologies identifying much more specifically the foods
that are at risk during outbreaks, it is not well understood whether
consumers will be able to trust technology and consume food products
that previously would have been suspected of being contaminated or
would have been contaminated. Importantly, the benefits of transpar-
ency-enabling technologies in food supply chains will be apparent to
consumers as they will be granted with more information pertaining to
food production. Another concern when considering the consumer
perspective, is whether consumers would be willing to pay more money
for food products that are produced with greater transparency.
5. Conclusion
As technology enters food supply chains leading to enhancements in
transparency, certain requirements will need to be satisfied. Whether
IoT and blockchain enabled systems are the solution, it is imperative
that food supply chains should use systems that are cost effective;
overhead costs associated with technologies must be minimized and the
resultant increase in transparency must lead to increases in revenue.
When implemented, technology-enabled transparent systems should
reduce the risk in food supply chain operations, in addition to ensuring
authenticity of data, reducing cybercrime, and protecting stakeholder
data. Transparent food production systems must facilitate rapid ex-
change of data between stakeholders, as this will lead to the expedition
of processes and transactions times. Furthermore, these technologies
should ensure compliance with newly implemented policies and reg-
ulations for all parties involved. Additionally, technology-enabled food
production systems must expand as time goes on; this is highlighted by
the integration of new data sources and technologies as they become
available. Transparent systems of food production face numerous re-
quirements and challenges, nevertheless, with the incorporation of
these new technologies, there exists for the first time, the potential to
make food production a truly transparent process.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge funding from the University of Guelph Food From
Thought initiative
References
Adley, C. (2014). Past, present and future of sensors in food production. Foods, 3(3),
491–510. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods3030491.
Ahmed, S., & Broek, N. ten (2017). Food supply: Blockchain could boost food security.
Nature, 550(7674), 43–43 https://doi.org/10.1038/550043e.
Alcarria, R., Bordel, B., Robles, T., Martín, D., & Manso-Callejo, M.-Á. (2018). A block-
chain-based authorization system for trustworthy resource monitoring and trading in
smart communities. Sensors, 18(10), 3561. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18103561.
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 traceability
system. Journal of Food Engineering, 212, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.
2017.05.008.
Alicke, K., Glatzel, C., Karlsson, P.-M., & Hoberg, K. (2016). Big data and the supply chain:
The big-supply-chain analytics landscape (Part 1) | McKinsey. Retrieved December 19,
2018, from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/
big-data-and-the-supply-chain-the-big-supply-chain-analytics-landscape-part-1#cite-
note-1.
Antunes, H. (2018). Blockchain and fog: Made for each other. Retrieved August 8, 2018,
from https://blogs.cisco.com/innovation/blockchain-and-fog-made-for-each-other.
Asbury, J. (2018). E. coli outbreak linked to lettuce over, CDC says. Retrieved August 1,
2018, from https://www.newsday.com/news/health/romaine-lettuce-e-coli-
outbreak-1.16379144.
Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010). The internet of things: A survey. Computer
Networks, 54, 2787–2805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2010.05.010.
Aung, M. M., & Chang, Y. S. (2014). Traceability in a food supply chain: Safety and
quality perspectives. Food Control, 39, 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
FOODCONT.2013.11.007.
Badia-Melis, R., Mishra, P., & Ruiz-García, L. (2015). Food traceability: New trends and
recent advances. A review. Food Control, 57, 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodcont.2015.05.005.
Baggini, J. (2018). Five years on from the horsemeat scandal, our flawed food system has still
not been fixed. Retrieved August 15, 2018, from https://www.prospectmagazine.co.
246
Trends in Food Science & Technology 91 (2019) 240–247
uk/life/five-years-on-from-the-horsemeat-scandal-our-flawed-food-system-has-still-
not-been-fixed.
Bhalla, N., Jolly, P., Formisano, N., & Estrela, P. (2016). Introduction to biosensors. Essays
in Biochemistry, 60(June), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1042/EBC20150001.
Barratt, M. (2004). Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain.
Supply Chain Management, 9(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13598540410517566.
Bilyea, T., & McInnes, D. (2018). With natural capital and trust, Canada can become an
agrifood powerhouse - the Globe and Mail. Retrieved August 30, 2018, from https://
www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/with-capital-and-
trust-canada-can-become-an-agrifood-powerhouse/article30989002/.
Brown, S., & Roth, D. (2014). A vision for the future of shopping and the smart shelf.
Retrieved from https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/retail/digital-retail-
futurecasting-report.html.
Burmester, M., Munilla, J., Ortiz, A., & Caballero-Gil, P. (2017). An RFID-based smart
structure for the supply chain: Resilient scanning proofs and ownership transfer with
positive secrecy capacity channels. Sensors, 17(7), 1562. https://doi.org/10.3390/
s17071562.
Corcoran, P. (2016). The Internet of Things: Why now, and what's next? IEEE Consumer
Electronics Magazine, 5(1), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCE.2015.2484659.
De Steur, H., Wesana, J., Dora, M. K., Pearce, D., & Gellynck, X. (2016). Applying value
stream mapping to reduce food losses and wastes in supply chains: A systematic re-
view. Waste Management, 58, 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.08.
025.
Djedouboum, A., Abba Ari, A., Gueroui, A., Mohamadou, A., & Aliouat, Z. (2018,
December 18). Big data collection in large-scale wireless sensor networks. Sensors
(Switzerland). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institutehttps://doi.org/10.3390/
s18124474.
Duffy, R., Fearne, A., & Healing, V. (2005). Reconnection in the UK food chain. British
Food Journal, 107(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700510573177.
Effland, T., Lawson, A., Balter, S., Devinney, K., Reddy, V., Waechter, H., et al. (2017).
Discovering foodborne illness in online restaurant reviews. Journal of the American
Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx093.
Fainor, J. (2018). Blockchain: The next revolution in the food supply chain. Retrieved August
8, 2018, from https://www.fooddive.com/news/blockchain-the-next-revolution-in-
the-food-supply-chain/513741/.
FDA (2016). Recent prominent foodborne illness outbreaks. Retrieved from https://www.
fda.gov/downloads/food/resourcesforyou/healthcareprofessionals/ucm577493.pdf.
Figorilli, S., Antonucci, F., Costa, C., Pallottino, F., Raso, L., Castiglione, M., et al. (2018).
A blockchain implementation prototype for the electronic open source traceability of
wood along the whole supply chain. Sensors, 18(9), 3133. https://doi.org/10.3390/
s18093133.
Forno, A. J. D., Pereira, F. A., Forcellini, F. A., & Kipper, L. M. (2014). Value stream
mapping: A study about the problems and challenges found in the literature from the
past 15 years about application of lean tools. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 72(5–8), 779–790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-
5712-z.
Galimberti, A., De Mattia, F., Losa, A., Bruni, I., Federici, S., Casiraghi, M., et al. (2013).
DNA barcoding as a new tool for food. Food Research International, 50(1), 55–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.09.036.
Galvez, J. F., Mejuto, J. C., & Simal-Gandara, J. (2018). Future challenges on the use of
blockchain for food traceability analysis. TRAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 107,
222–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRAC.2018.08.011.
Ge, L., Brewster, C., Spek, J., Smeenk, A., & Top, J. (2017). Blockchain for agriculture and
food.
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F.,
et al. (2010). Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science (New
York, N.Y.), 327(5967), 812–818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383.
Hein, T. (2018). PigProgress - new tool helps monitor pig welfare during transport.
Retrieved September 13, 2018, from https://www.pigprogress.net/Health/Articles/
2018/8/A-pair-of-eyes-in-the-pig-truck-321279E/?cmpid=NLC%7Cpigprogress_
focus%7C2018-08-15%7CNew_tool_helps_monitor_pig_welfare_during_transport.
HIMSS (2013). What is Interoperability? Retrieved August 15, 2018, from https://www.
himss.org/library/interoperability-standards/what-is-interoperability.
Hobbs, C. A. D., Potts, R. W. A., Bjerregaard Walsh, M., Usher, J., & Griffiths, A. M.
(2019). Using DNA barcoding to investigate patterns of species utilisation in UK shark
products reveals threatened species on sale. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1028. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-018-38270-3.
Hoelzer, K., Moreno Switt, A. I., Wiedmann, M., & Boor, K. J. (2018). Emerging needs and
opportunities in foodborne disease detection and prevention: From tools to people.
Food Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2017.07.006.
Hsiao, H. I., Vorst, J. G. A. J. Van Der, & Omta, S. W. F. (2006). Logistics Outsourcing in
Food Supply Chain Networks: Theory and Practices. 7th International Conference on
Management in AgriFood Chains and Networks (pp. 135–150). Ede, The Netherlands.
Huang, Y. (2014). The 2008 milk scandal revisited. Retrieved August 21, 2018, from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/yanzhonghuang/2014/07/16/the-2008-milk-
scandal-revisited/#bf66cb44105b.
Huang, Y., Yam, Y. S., Lee, C. K. C., Organ, B., Zhou, J. L., Surawski, N. C., et al. (2018).
Tackling nitric oxide emissions from dominant diesel vehicle models using on-road
remote sensing technology. Environmental Pollution, 243, 1177–1185. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.09.088.
Klonoff, D. C. (2017). Fog computing and edge computing architectures for processing
data from diabetes devices connected to the medical internet of things. Journal of
Diabetes Science and Technology, 11(4), 647–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1932296817717007.
Korshunova, G. (2017). BlackBerry and Fleet complete partner to advance trailer and cargo
J. Astill, et al.
visibility. Retrieved July 30, 2018, from https://www.fleetcomplete.com/en/news/
blackberry-cargo-tracking/.
Košťál, K., Helebrandt, P., Belluš, M., Ries, M., & Kotuliak, I. (2019). Management and
monitoring of IoT devices using blockchain †. Sensors, 19(4), 856. https://doi.org/10.
3390/s19040856.
Kshetri, N. (2017). Can blockchain strengthen the internet of things? IT Professional,
19(4), 68–72. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2017.3051335.
Kumar, M. V., & Iyengar, N. C. S. N. (2017). A framework for blockchain technology in
rice supply chain management plantation. Advanced Science and Technology Letters,
146, 125–130. https://doi.org/10.14257/astl.2017.146.22.
Label Insight (2016). How consumer demand for transparency is shaping the food industry.
Retrieved from https://www.labelinsight.com/hubfs/Label_Insight-Food-Revolution-
Study.pdf?hsCtaTracking=fc71fa82-7e0b-4b05-b2b4-de1ade992d33%7C95a8befc-
d0cc-4b8b-8102-529d937eb427.
Leal, M. C., Pimentel, T., Ricardo, F., Rosa, R., & Calado, R. (2015). Seafood traceability:
Current needs, available tools, and biotechnological challenges for origin certifica-
tion. Trends in Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.03.003.
Levin, J. (2018). Who's responsible for ending seafood fraud? New UN report says governments
need to play a strong role. Retrieved August 21, 2018, from https://www.oceana.ca/
en/blog/whos-responsible-ending-seafood-fraud-new-un-report-says-governments-
need-play-strong-role.
López-Riquelme, J. A., Pavón-Pulido, N., Navarro-Hellín, H., Soto-Valles, F., & Torres-
Sánchez, R. (2017). A software architecture based on FIWARE cloud for precision
agriculture. Agricultural Water Management, 183, 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agwat.2016.10.020.
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Bisson, P., Woetzel, J., Dobbs, R., Bughin, J., et al. (2015). The
internet of things: Mapping the value beyond the hype. Retrieved from www.
mckinsey.com/mgi.
Marr, B. (2018). The 5 big problems with blockchain everyone should Be aware of.
Retrieved august 8, 2018. from https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2018/
02/19/the-5-big-problems-with-blockchain-everyone-should-be-aware-of/#
64efffca1670.
Moore, J. C., Spink, J., & Lipp, M. (2012). Development and application of a database of
food ingredient fraud and economically motivated adulteration from 1980 to 2010.
Journal of Food Science, 77(4), R118–R126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.
2012.02657.x.
Mustafa, F., & Andreescu, S. (2018). Chemical and biological sensors for food-quality
monitoring and smart packaging. Foods, 7(10), 168. https://doi.org/10.3390/
foods7100168.
Neethirajan, S. (2017). Recent advances in wearable sensors for animal health manage-
ment. Sensing and Bio-Sensing Research, 12, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbsr.
2016.11.004.
Neethirajan, S., Ragavan, V., Weng, X., & Chand, R. (2018). Biosensors for sustainable
food engineering: Challenges and perspectives. Biosensors, 8(1)https://doi.org/10.
3390/bios8010023.
Oceana Canada (2018). Oceana Canada report uncovers widespread seafood fraud across
country. Retrieved September 3, 2018, from https://www.oceana.ca/en/press-
center/press-releases/oceana-canada-report-uncovers-widespread-seafood-fraud-
across-country.
Ojha, T., Misra, S., & Raghuwanshi, N. S. (2015, October). Wireless sensor networks for
agriculture: The state-of-the-art in practice and future challenges. Computers and
Electronics in Agriculture https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.08.011.
Olsen, P., & Borit, M. (2018). The components of a food traceability system. Trends in Food
Science & Technology, 77, 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.05.004.
One Network Enterprises (2015). Turning “big data” into “big visibility.”.
Orcutt, M. (2018). How secure is blockchain really? - MIT technology review. Retrieved
July 30, 2018, from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610836/how-secure-is-
blockchain-really/.
Panarello, A., Tapas, N., Merlino, G., Longo, F., & Puliafito, A. (2018 August 6).
Blockchain and iot integration: A systematic survey. Sensors (Switzerland).
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institutehttps://doi.org/10.3390/s18082575.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains:
Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society Bhttps://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0126.
Peake, W. O., Detre, J. D., & Carlson, C. C. (2014). One bad apple spoils the bunch? An
exploration of broad consumption changes in response to food recalls. Food Policy,
49(P1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.06.006.
Pearson, D., & Perera, A. (2018). Reducing food waste: A practitioner guide identifying
requirements for an integrated social marketing communication campaign. Social
Marketing Quarterly, 24(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500417750830.
Peitzmeier, C., Loschke, C., Wiedenhaus, H., & Klemm, O. (2017). Real-world vehicle
emissions as measured by in situ analysis of exhaust plumes. Environmental Science
247
Trends in Food Science & Technology 91 (2019) 240–247
and Pollution Research, 24(29), 23279–23289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-
9941-1.
Pettey, K. (2018). Gartner top 8 supply chain technology trends for 2018 - smarter with
gartner. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/gartner-top-
8-supply-chain-technology-trends-for-2018/.
Qu, C., Tao, M., & Yuan, R. (2018). A hypergraph-based blockchain model and applica-
tion in internet of things-enabled smart homes. Sensors, 18(9), 2784. https://doi.org/
10.3390/s18092784.
Rutten, C., Velthuis, A., Steeneveld, W., & Hogeveen, H. (2013). Invited review: Sensors
to support health management on dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science, 96,
1928–1952. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6107.
Saltzman, A. (2016). No connectivity: The internet “blackout zone” that is rural Canada.
Retrieved March 27, 2019, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/no-
connectivity-the-internet-blackout-zone-that-is-rural-canada-1.3792786.
Sassi, N. Ben, Averós, X., & Estevez, I. (2016). Technology and poultry welfare. Animals,
6(10), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6100062.
Shafiee-Jood, M., & Cai, X. (2016). Reducing food loss and waste to enhance food security
and environmental sustainability. Environmental Science and Technologyhttps://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01993.
Sotelo, C. G., Velasco, A., Perez-Martin, R. I., Kappel, K., Schröder, U., Verrez-Bagnis, V.,
et al. (2018). Tuna labels matter in Europe: Mislabelling rates in different tuna
products. PLoS One, 13(5), e0196641. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0196641.
Sylim, P., Liu, F., Marcelo, A., & Fontelo, P. (2018). Blockchain technology for detecting
falsified and substandard drugs in distribution: Pharmaceutical supply chain inter-
vention. JMIR Research Protocols, 7(9), e10163. https://doi.org/10.2196/10163.
Thomas, M. K., Murray, R., Flockhart, L., Pintar, K., Pollari, F., Fazil, A., et al. (2013).
Estimates of the burden of foodborne illness in Canada for 30 specified pathogens and
unspecified agents, circa 2006. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, 10(7), 639–648.
https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2012.1389.
Ugochukwu, A. I., Hobbs, J. E., Phillips, P. W. B., & Gray, R. (2015). An economic analysis
of private incentives to adopt DNA barcoding technology for fish species authentication in
Canada. NRC Research Presshttps://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2015-0033.
Valentini, P., Galimberti, A., Mezzasalma, V., De Mattia, F., Casiraghi, M., Labra, M., et al.
(2017). DNA barcoding meets nanotechnology: Development of a universal colori-
metric test for food authentication. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 56(28),
8094–8098. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201702120.
Van Dijk, H., Fischer, A. R. H., Marvin, H. J. P., & Van Trijp, H. C. M. (2015). Determinants
of stakeholders' attitudes towards a new technology: Nanotechnology applications for food,
water, energy and medicine. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1057198.
Vidic, J., Manzano, M., Chang, C., & Jaffrezic-renault, N. (2017). Advanced biosensors for
detection of pathogens related to livestock and poultry. Veterinary Research, 48, 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-017-0418-5.
Walter, A., Finger, R., Huber, R., & Buchmann, N. (2017). Opinion: Smart farming is key
to developing sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America, 114(24), 6148–6150. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1707462114.
Wilson, A. M., Withall, E., Coveney, J., Meyer, S. B., Henderson, J., McCullum, D., et al.
(2017). A model for (re)building consumer trust in the food system. Health Promotion
International, 32(6), 988–1000. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daw024.
Wiseman, L., Sanderson, J., & Robb, L. (2018). Rethinking Ag data ownership. Farm Policy
Journal, 15(1), 71–77.
Wognum, P. M., Bremmers, H., Trienekens, J. H., Van Der Vorst, J. G. A. J., & Bloemhof,
J. M. (2011). Systems for sustainability and transparency of food supply chains -
current status and challenges. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25(1), 65–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2010.06.001.
Yiannas, F. (2018). A new era of food transparency powered by blockchain. Innovations:
Technology, Governance, Globalization, 12(1–2), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1162/
inov_a_00266.
Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current re-
search on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PLoS One, 11(10),
e0163477. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163477.
Young, L. (2015). Where's the beef (from)? Tracking meat from farm to fork. Retrieved
August 22, 2018, from https://globalnews.ca/news/2038440/wheres-the-beef-from-
tracking-meat-from-farm-to-fork/.
Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H.-N., Chen, X., & Wang, H. (2017). Blockchain challenges and
Opportunities: A survey. International Journal of Web and Grid Services, 1–24. https://
doi.org/10.1504/ijwgs.2018.10016848.
Zubiaga, A., Procter, R., & Maple, C. (2018). A longitudinal analysis of the public per-
ception of the opportunities and challenges of the Internet of Things. PLoS One,
13(12), e0209472. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209472.