The Institute of Food Technologists held Traceability Research Summits on July 14, August 22, and November 1, 2011, to address how to meet the growing requirement for agriculture and food traceability. Each meeting had a group of about 50 individuals who came from food companies, trade associations, local, state, and federal governments, 3rd-party traceability solution providers, not-for-profit corporations, consultants, and consumer groups. They discussed and deliberated the objectives of traceability and the means to develop product tracing in the food system. A total of 70 people participated in the 3 summits. These individuals were invited to participate in a small workgroup responsible for considering the details related to product tracing and presenting draft concepts to the larger group on November 1, 2011, in Chicago. During this meeting, the larger assembly further refined the concepts and came to an agreement on the basic principles and overall design of the desired approach to traceability.

In September 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) to execute product tracing pilot projects as described in Section 204 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). IFT collaborated with representatives from more than 100 organizations-including the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, state departments of agriculture and public health, industry, and consumer groups, as well as not-for-profit organizations-to implement the pilots. The objectives of the pilot projects were 1) to identify and gather information on methods to improve product tracing of foods in the supply chain and 2) to explore and evaluate methods to rapidly and effectively identify the recipient of food to prevent or mitigate a foodborne illness outbreak and to address credible threats of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals as a result of such food being adulterated or misbranded. IFT conducted evaluations to determine the impact of currently available technologies, types of data and formats, and the data acquisition process, as well as the use of technology on the ability to follow product movement through the supply chain. Results from the pilots found inconsistencies in the terminology, numbering systems, formatting, legibility, and occasionally the language that sometimes required IFT to contact the submitting firm to gain clarity, thus increasing the time required to capture data before any meaningful analysis could begin. However, the pilot participants appeared to have many of the tools and processes in place which are required to allow the capture and communication of critical track and trace information (such as, key data elements) at critical points of product transfer and transformation (such as, critical tracking events). IFT determined that costs associated with implementing a product tracing system can vary widely as determined by numerous factors: the size of the firm/facility, the method of product tracing already in use (manual or electronic), and the range of each firm's capabilities to implement or improve its product tracing system, to name a few. IFT found that there are several areas (such as uniformity and standardization, improved recordkeeping, enhanced planning and preparedness, better coordination and communication, and the use of technology) in which industry improvements and enhancements to FDA's processes would enable tracebacks and traceforwards to occur more rapidly. IFT developed 10 recommendations for FDA to consider for improving the state of system-wide food product tracing. The recommendations outlined in the report will enable FDA to conduct more rapid and effective investigations during foodborne illness outbreaks and other product tracing investigations, thus significantly enhancing protection of public health.

Fifty thought leaders in the area of food traceability met for a 3rd time to discuss methodologies and finalize the principles that define their vision for traceability. Participants in the summit included representatives from industry, trade associations, government, academia, consumer groups, and more.One main focus of this summit included a discussion on the current regulations and voluntary initiatives in place regarding traceability. Overall, it was recognized that the recommendations from this summit group would be more specific and stringent in comparison to these current regulations and initiatives. The participants sought to be leaders in the traceability arena, with their recommendations leading the industry to optimal traceability systems and methods.Participants agreed on many principles for their vision of traceability, emphasizing the importance of access to traceability data. They discussed having industry be asked for "basic" tracing data prior to the need for a large-scale investigation, having standards for sharing data, and having the data in electronic form. Participants foresaw the importance of capturing data electronically in the future, although they recognized that many firms do not currently do this. The group also saw a need for a transition period to implement changes, and to provide implementation training and resource aid to small businesses.Summit participants discussed specific definitions and examples for key data elements and critical tracking events that could be used by industry to capture tracing data at specific points within the supply chain. Overall, participants refined the goals of the summit group and started to identify specific ways to achieve those goals.

In the U.S., there are dozens of federal and state laws, as well as thousands of cases, addressing whistleblowing. It is impossible to classify these into one category because they target a wide range of industries and are structured with different goals. Some laws protect against anti-retaliation, while others offer financial incentives in exchange for cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of corporate misconduct. This last area has gained significant attention recently. The use of these "bounties" is controversial, mainly limited to the U.S., and has generated intense debate. Nevertheless, the U.S. experience with financial incentives has been successful and it does not appear that it will stop anytime soon.