Tag Archives: Traceability

Interview with Frederik Lean – Building a food tech community and vertical farming

This is a an interview I have looked forward to for a long time. Both due to Frederik being a friend of mine, but also because he is really driven towards making change happen, not just talk about, but building stuff, as he would put it. In this interview we are focusing on Vertical Farming, and how that will lead us to create a more sustainable agricultural system. But lets hear from the man himself.

Can you start with telling us a little about yourself?

Sure. I’m basically an altruistic hippie caught inside a the body of a super capitalist startup dude out for vengeance on the food system while wearing round design-thinking glasses. Also, I grow plants indoor using all sorts of fancy equipment and try to build a productive community around food technology in Copenhagen. Background within economics, technology and open-source projects.

What are your current work in relation to foodtech?

1 year ago, I co-initiated CPH Foodtech Community (connecting food & technology people on hands-on development projects), Growstack Cooperative (enabling and kickstarting vertical farming) & Reffen Greens (growing microgreens and herbs in a 20’ shipping container), and have all sorts of ambitious projects associated with these initiatives. CPH Foodtech Community is essentially the platform that spun-out the Growstack project (which is now becoming a cooperative), which again is the reason why the opportunity to establish Reffen Greens as a local micro-scale vertical farm came about.

What is vertical farming? And why is it important?

Vertical farming is basically the use of technology like LED lights, automated irrigation, sensors, dispensers and data science to grow plants in multiple levels on top of each other in highly controlled environments and usually without soil. And why is it an important thing? First of all, it’s no secret that our current agricultural system has a few very serious issues in terms of things like pollution, deforestation, lack of arable land and limited biodiversity, meaning that scaling up our current way of producing plants simply just isn’t a viable option in the future. Secondly, the biggest risk factor within agriculture is really the weather. And since we have very little certainty about the state of our climate even in the coming 10-15 years, removing that risk seems like a pretty good idea. At the same time, people’s food habits are actually getting worse in terms of climate impact. And if we want people to eat less meat and other environmentally unfriendly foods, we better start making plants the far superior alternative. With vertical farming we can actually attain higher quality, pesticide free and non-pollutant plant production year round and grow all kinds of varieties that would otherwise be difficult, because we have full climate control and can use enriched sensor-data to find out exactly how to optimise for not only yield and size, but also taste and nutritional value at the same time. Apart from this, vertical farming has the potential to really decentralise part of food production as we know it, which has some pretty valuable socioeconomic benefits and other cool stuff within achievable range.

Small scale vertical farm
Frederik at TechBQQ spreading the word about vertical faming and food tech.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building on that, from your knowledge, how can Vertical Farming help create greater traceability and transparency of food products?

Well, given how digital the production is, it’s a lot easier to know exactly what inputs the plants have received and track the journey all the way from seed production to your plate. Kristoffer, you are probably fishing for a recommendation to develop some kind of fancy blockchain application here – but I’m Just (pun intended) not gonna give it to you.
Kristoffer: I honestly wasn’t, but I think that Vertical Farming in itself is going to create transparency. By looking at farms which is based in the same buildings as supermarkets, people could go by where their lettuce, basil is grown, thereby minimising both the physical and psychological distance between us, and the food we eat. And hopefully inspiring people to ask questions about the foods origin and cultivation.
If someone was interested to learn more, where could they read more on this topic? 
There’s always www.growstack.org – but honestly simple Google and youtube searches will bring you an abundance of good introductions to the topic. Then there are different kinds of scientific articles, documentaries and books written on the topic as well – again google is your friend. Another quick reference could be www.agritecture.com which usually features a few interesting developments from the global scene. And no – if you google Growstack Marketplace and find links to anabolic steroid products available for purchase, it is not us. I promise.

An X-ray and AI scanner finds holes and needles

The Australian strawberry industry has been hit by ‘sabotage’ this year: recent weeks consumers have over a 100 times found large needles stuck into the berries. To ensure the confidence in Australian berries, the producers have therefore begun to control strawberries for export with X-ray. X-ray inspection of food
is an old and well-established technology, but today you have to develop unique solutions for each product to be able to test for different errors. For example, one solution is used to find out if a potato is hollow, while an other solution is used to find out if cold cuts are contaminated with metal shavings. Therefore, X-ray inspection today is preferably used on expensive products with known types of errors – or to sabotaged strawberries.

But people behind a new Danish project, are working on a solution, where food will be able to be scanned with cheaper all-round inspection machines in the future. The Danish project will develop a new dynamic X-ray technology that can continuously vary the X-ray energy of the device and choose the right camera technology. By adding artificial intelligence, the goal is to eliminate the need to develop unique software solutions for each product, and instead enable the system to automatically distinguish good products from contaminated.

The system chooses by itself!

“We develop artificial intelligence algorithms that can choose the optimum x-ray power and right camera with the right resolution. This means that we can control many different types of food without changing the inspection system”, says Brian Vinter, professor at Niels Bohr Institutet. Aarhus-based Magnatek is responsible for the development of a new type X-ray source, while QTechnology from Copenhagen is developing cameras for the project. Newtec Engineering in Odense is responsible for system integration, and Niels Bohr Institute is heading the software development.
The Danish Technological Institute will  validate the final solution, and the project has a total budget of 17 million DKK. “One of the big challenges is to get X-ray sources and cameras to communicate with our algorithm at very high speeds. For example, we work on detecting hollow potatoes, which needs to inspect 22 tonnes per hour. Our plan is to try to make a hardware solution, so image recognition takes place directly in FPGA chips, so we do not have to have a large server standing between production lines, “says Brian Vinter. When an X-ray inspection system can handle many types of food, the price will also be lower. Therefore, Brian Winter hopes that on the long-term, inspection systems like this also can find their way to supermarkets, to make extra quality checks before the goods arrive on the shelves.

If you want to read about a company that are applying AI on food production lines, then read this interview with Rufus from Sensomind

Original article from https://ing.dk/ 

Photo by Johnny Martínez on Unsplash

Tiger shrimps produced under outrageous conditions in Vietnam

Tiger shrimps in Danish supermarkets is produced under outrageous conditions in Vietnam. 17 hour shifts at the assembly line and chlorine gas leaves workers with chronic, physical disorders. Supermarkets claim they did not know about the conditions.

37-year-old Ngoc Anh is working 83 hours a week on average, pealing shrimp at a Vietnamese shrimp factory. She has chronic sinusitis due to vapors from the chlorine at the factory and her body aches from dragging heavy boxes of shrimps that are sold to Danish consumers in supermarkets such as Rema 1000, Føtex and Netto.

Shrimp workers suffer from chronic sinusitis due to the hard assembly line work, they are sent home for days of fatigue and dehydration, and every month employees faint at the factories. These are the workers who help to secure Vietnam’s booming industry of tiger shrimps.

Overuse of antibiotics on shrimp farms

Over the past twenty years, global demand for tiger shrimps has led to an intensified shrimp production in Vietnam and this has led to diseases in the dams. This is why antibiotics have been mass-fed to healthy as well as shrimp with diseases.

Therefore Danwatch asked The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration to test 13 different packs of frozen shrimps in their laboratory. All were shrimps bought in Danish supermarkets and produced in Vietnam.

The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration found antibiotic residues in 3 out of 13 packs – more specifically in Coop’s Kæmperejer, Planets Pride Vannamei Shrimp (sold in Meny) and Crown Seafood’s Ocean Delight (sold in Nemlig.com).
All samples were below The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration’s limit values, and the governing body therefore sees no need to follow up.

Antibiotic residues constitutes a problem

Still, every finding of antibiotic residues in food is problematic, says Hans Jørn Kolmos, professor, MD in Clinical Microbiology at The University of Southern Denmark.

“This could lead to increasing treatment difficulties. The more resistance, the more difficult the infections are to treat, the more people die from it. That’s the very elementary calculation”, he says.

Niels Frimodt-Møller, professor, MD in Clinical Microbiology at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, also estimates that overuse of antibiotics can have global consequences:

“Resistance is spreading in southern Europe, Africa and Asia and it is happening with a greater speed than new antibiotics is being produced. Especially in India, China and Africa there has been bad examples. This all boils down to not controlling the use of antibiotics, “says Niels Frimodt-Møller.

Supermarkets will scrutinize the problems

2.500 tonnes of shrimps was last year imported to Denmark. Of this, about 50 tonnes of prawns ended in Coops stores and 70 tonnes of prawns in Rema 1000 stores.

Danwatch has presented the findings of poor working conditions and overuse of antibiotics to supermarkets and importers. They all say they did not know about the problems before Danwatch contacted them. This even though they all have control mechanisms in place to prevent it from taking place.

Kasper Reggelsen, Media Relations Manager, Salling Group, writes in an email:

“What is being presented here does not match our Code of Conduct, and we have already started a dialogue with our supplier to ask for an explanation.”

Similarly, Kristian Lauge Jørgensen, Director of the shrimp importer Company Lauge Seafood Selection writes in a reply to Danwatch:

“In collaboration with the producer, we will follow up on the conditions you refer to, regarding the social conditions of the companies you have visited. It is important to ensure that employees have organized working conditions that complies with applicable rules in the area”.

 

Original article here:

https://danwatch.dk/en/undersoegelse/vietnamese-workers-get-chronical-diseases-from-pealing-shrimp-for-danish-supermarkets/ 

 

Photo by Kaitlin Dowis on Unsplash

Interview with Nuno Soares – Food Safety Expert

Here at My Food Trust, we are always excited to talk to great people, especially when it comes to food safety systems (ISO 22000:2018). So if you also are interested or just want to know more, Nuno Soares is your go-to guy, as he has just published an e-book about ISO 22000:2018. Lets get started!

Can you start with telling us a little about yourself?

I am Nuno Soares, I am a food product engineer. I graduated back in 1999, so I have many years of experience in the food industry, every since my first day back in 1999, developing frozen croissants. In the beginning of my career, I came across HACCP in my first job at a factory, and also implementing that system and ISO, so i have been a part of food safety systems since the start of my career. And I have worked with food safety systems ever since. 

Along working in the industry, I did a Master in Business Administration, because it is important to understand the business side, and that goes for every food safety professional. You must not be closed minded in your thinking, but know how food safety impacts the business side. Soon after this, I started on my PhD, because I knew the importance of research and also to have a different impact in the food industry. During my PhD, I worked on a solution to substitute a glace, that is used in frozen fish to protect it during frozen storage, to increase shelf life and food safety. So since the beginning of my career I have worked with HACCP and ISO 22000, done audits and inspections, so food safety has been a huge part of my professional and personal interest. 

What are your current work in relation to food safety systems?

I am at the moment, a food safety professional, working in the frozen fish industry. On a daily basis, I guarantee food safety of the products. But since I started on my PhD, It has really started my passion to share my knowledge, both my professional work and what I study.

I came to realise my main purpose is to share knowledge broadly, and to help fellow food safety professionals, and that is what I want to do the next coming years. I learned from other great professionals the last 20 years, to develop my skills. Now I want to learn from all the young people that are out there, that are in their beginning or starting their studies.  

Everything I do, should revolve around sharing knowledge, so that is what I do, when I go to work, and when I publish my studies.

What is “ISO 22000:2018”, and why is it important?

ISO 22000:2018 is a food safety management system, first published in 2005. Why it is important, firstly, is not owned and backed by retailers and since the beginning was designed to be applied in any step of the food chain.Which is both a strength and a weakness, by not being associated with any retailers, for instance, ISO is a system that can be perceived are less conditioned by the market. To be applied anywhere in the food chain makes it less specific (e.g. prerequisites) and therefore more challenging during audits.   

But, due to the other food safety systems (e.g. BRC) being associated with retailers, the goal is to make sure that companies live up to a global recognised food safety standard.

Building on that, from your knowledge, how can ISO 22000:2018 and food safety systems help create greater traceability and transparency of food products?

ISO is doing, and will create improved traceability and transparency of food products. Not only ISO, but also the other food safety systems because these systems demand organisations to have implemented traceability procedures and test of products.. ISO is becoming more and more strict on the traceability aspect, knowing the traceability but also in a “timely manner”. This question of timely manner, we can not avoid talking about the possibility of blockchain, because it is a hot topic. Many foresee blockchain to have a big impact on food safety traceability, I also agree, but let’s test and try to use it, to see if we can get to the root cause or the origin of the problem in a timely manner.

The new update also helps on the aspect of transparency, because companies need to look into their context, risks that are associated with their business, so not only food safety. E.g. food fraud, companies should look into the possibility of food fraud, to know what kind of food fraud is common in their industry, and how they can mitigate and control those risks. This is new in ISO 22000:2018 and was not addressed in the older version.   

Also Food Defense may be addressed now inside the organization context, since companies must be aware of potential malicious ways to tamper with their products, that might introduce a foodborne illness to the consumers. So now companies can look to ISO, to introduce more focus on food fraud and food defense

If someone was interested to learn more, where could they read more on this topic?

They are more than welcome to read my ebook, of course. You can find a lot of information on social media, but first go to the source. Of course you can read blogs, and people that are talking about food safety, but the best way to know how you can implement it in your business, is first of all going to the food safety systems official pages and resources.

So, if ISO is your fancy, then download the e-book about ISO 22000:2018 here!

 

Blockchain, Provenance, Traceability & Chain of Custody

This is an article written by John G. Keogh.

Here are my answers to questions posed over the past few months online and in industry and regulator dialogue. As some of my points can be successfully argued from different angles, this is intended to create the dialogue and not limit it. Your comments and perspectives are valuable and I look forward to this discussion.

Question 1 : Do I need a Blockchain for effective Food Recall? 

No. In a closed supply chain with limited exchange partners you don’t need a blockchain to execute a rapid recall of an unsafe product. Any GS1-standards based technology platform can be used to rapidly trace (backward) and track (forward) a consumer packaged product if the product has a data carrier (barcode) and/or batch/lot # attached. Check out the GS1 global office website or your country GS1 organization as they have a traceability and product recall standard and guidelines on how to execute recall effectively.

In the USA, industry standards body GS1 has partnered with GMA and FMI and has a nationwide, cloud-based Rapid Recall Express platform in operation for almost 10 years. There are similar industry-driven, national recall platforms in place in CanadaAustralia and New Zealand which align to regulations and helps protect consumers and reduces industry risks. GS1 South Korea has a ‘stop-sale’ process in place with multiple government regulators for about 10 years. If any of the regulators determine a product is unsafe, the regulator sends a GS1-centric message to the retailers HQ. Within 30 minutes of receiving the regulators alert, all points of sale (cash registers) in the country are blocked and the ‘stop-sale’ process is enacted. I have seen this in action and it’s amazing. The stop-sale process is quickly followed by the formal recall process. This globally unique process reduces the risk of consumer harm and helps to protect the brand at the same time.

Blockchain is helpful for a recall use case when you have multiple exchange partners across multiple countries and using disparate technologies (see Q2). The opensource and purpose-built blockchain data protocol from OriginTrail is very useful in this scenario because it enables GS1-standards based interoperability between multiple blockchains and legacy. As the below slide from OriginTrail indicates, today we have many data silos and interoperability is crucial to address both traceability, transparency and to execute a rapid recall. Origin Trail will be the first to advise that without first addressing data governance (accurate and standardized data) blockchain will not work as intended.

Disclaimer: I advise the Origin Trail board on industry standards, transparency and trust

Question 2: Are current food regulations driving the need for Blockchains?

Yes. Regulations are generally non-prescriptive and in the food chain they call for a “1-up/1-down” traceability. In complex, multi-party supply chains this is costly, time-consuming and can lead to (preventable) illness and death. In the Walmart Mango use case, it took almost 7 days to execute a mock recall based on 1-up/1-down approach and 2.2 seconds using their specific Blockchain configuration. Blockchain technology is helpful in complex, multi-country, multi-exchange party supply chains that already have good data governance and industry data standards (GS1) in place. A standards-based blockchain enables linkages to be made between the exchange parties and permits sharing of product master data, transactional data and event data – the unhindered flow and visibility of this data is what we call transparency.

I have adapted and use the following diagram to explain the success of the Walmart model in context of theoretical and practical applications of transparency and trust using technology. In this model, the below-the-line RMT indicates regulation mediated transparency. You will note that this is based on mistrust – so are strong contracts that buyers put in place with suppliers. The alternative is what Walmart achieved with voluntary trust-building with strategic transparency and identification based trust enabled by technology – what I call TMT or Technology Mediated Transparency.

Question 3: Can Blockchain guarantee Food Safety and Food Authenticity?

No. Blockchain is oversold as a guarantee of food safety, food authenticity and anti-counterfeit in general. The only legitimate and legal way to guarantee food safety and authenticity is through analytical testing of the product itself – we cannot track the outer package or container and claim the food is safe and authentic. On-pack security features (forensic, covert or overt) help in fraud detection but forensic evidence is required for successful conviction in food fraud cases.

Example 1. WINE bottle recycling

There is a known underground industry that trades in used wine bottles. A hotel or restaurant worker may be incentivized to collect and sell empty vintage wine bottles for hundreds of dollars each. They are re-filled and re-sold for thousands of $, often with fake security features. According to a 2017 Forbes article, an estimated 30,000 bottles of fake imported wine are sold in China every hour. Solution providers are making technology advances and offering security features that create obstacles on the bottle itself including tamper-evident features and fraud alerts for multiple scans of the serialized identifier. Despite the technology improvements and their utility, the only way to legally guarantee the wine is genuine is through forensic testing of the wine bottle contents against the reference samples taken from the harvested crop, or the final blended mix. The storage of reference samples by harvested batch may be a regulatory requirement in some regions.

Example 2. Commingling of fresh fruit and vegetables

Colorful vegetables for sale at the Central Market of Hoi An, Vietnam

Fresh fruits and vegetables may be commingled with products from multiple, geographically dispersed suppliers which increases the risks related to quality, safety, authenticity and provenance. For example, a product may claim to be organic but might have 50% non-organic mixed in to complete the order. The role of blockchain and other technologies in this scenario is limited because human behaviour is the variable. Risk reduction strategies will vary and depend on the context and culture. They can draw on combinations of 1) incentivized behaviour to reduce cheating 2) training on a food safety culture 3) effective food safety practices 4) farm and supply chain auditing 5) industry supply chain standards 6) technology solutions and 7) analytical science. The latter, analytical science being the most critical for evidence.

Question 4: Can Blockchain deliver a guarantee of Food Provenance?

European flags on minced meat. International meat trade

No. This is confusing I know. Provenance refers to geographic source or origin and is determined by forensic science not software, GPS or hardware (see below traceability). Let me share a hypothetical example; lets say we have potatoes and carrots in Vietnam that go to market as ‘product of Vietnam’. In one possible scenario, bad actors could roll the veggies in dampened local dirt to enhance the illusion of being a local product. When the product is forensically tested, both the veggie species, and their carbon fingerprint proves they are indigenous to, and were grown in a particular region of China. This is food fraud and classified as an economically motivated adulteration where a cheaper product is sold as a more expensive premium local product. Blockchain, IoT, stickers/logos or barcodes on bundles of products will not solve this because human behaviour is the variable.

Analytical laboratories can address these issues as part of a regular audit of suppliers and supply chains. Similarly, forensic testing can determine if fish were wild caught or farmed. Companies doing exceptionally well at this today include Perth-based Source Certain and New Zealand-based Oritain, to name a few.

Question 5: What’s the difference between provenance, traceability and chain of custody?

Even the experts get these confused. Let me explain how I see it. Provenance is defined above as geographic source or origin and it is guaranteed only through the results of forensic testing of it’s carbon fingerprint. You will hear experts or software companies say they ‘track provenance’. In many cases what they really mean is classic supply chain traceability or in some cases, chain of custody. Classic traceability includes the source of the materials and is best interpreted as the ‘business or logistics source’. In my opinion, we should not call it tracking provenance as we are not necessarily tracking the true geographic source or origin per-se, we are tracking physical ‘movement’ from a business or logistics source through the supply chain. This draws an important distinction between classic product traceability and forensic product traceability of the geographic source or origin as defined by forensic testing of the products carbon fingerprint.

To help the discussion and align on terminology, see below definitions of food traceability extracted from Olsen and Borit (2013).

CODEX: Traceability is defined in the Codex Alimentarius Commission Procedural Manual (FAO/WHO, 1997) as “the ability to follow the movement of a food through specified stage(s) of production, processing and distribution ”.

ISO: Traceability defined in ISO 9000 and ISO 22005. ISO 9000 (ISO, 2000) as “The ability to trace the history, application or location of that which is under consideration”

The ISO 22005 (ISO, 2005 ) definition is word for word the same as the ISO 9000 definition, but ISO 9000 is a standard for quality management systems in general whereas ISO 22005 is a specific standard for traceability in the food and feed chain. ISO 22005 adds that “Terms such as document traceability, computer traceability, or commercial traceability should be avoided. ”

For all these ISO definitions (ISO 8402, ISO 9000, ISO 22005), there is an additional clause which states that when relating to products, traceability specifically entails “the origin of materials and parts, the processing history, and the distribution and location of the product after delivery”.

EU General Food Law (EU, 2002) defines traceability as “The ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food producing animal or substance intended to be, or expected to be incorporated into a food or feed, through all stages of production, processing and distribution ”.

 

The net-net, traceability includes the material origin. A brief note: within a supply chain, physical products are tracked-forward but traced-backwards and this bi-directional capability is generally referred to as traceability. The chart below is unpublished and from my academic research. It shows the nuances of information, product and assurance flows.

 

Chain of Custody (CoC)

CoC or cumulative tracking was an active discussion in pharmaceuticals in the early to mid 2000’s but seems to have lost some favour. CoC is critically and legally important in highly regulated sectors. For example in weapons, explosives, transport of bulk money, works of art etc. where exact time stamps of the product physical movement, locations and details of all transactions including the parties in physical custody must be tracked and registered. This is similar to a FedEx package delivery where very detailed information is available and signatures are required for acceptance from one party to another. This accumulation of data along the supply chain is sometimes referred to as similar to a ‘Russian doll’.

Example: Pharmaceuticals and Tobacco

Pharmaceuticals and tobacco are two sectors that are highly regulated to protect against many issues including illicit trade, counterfeit, human health and safety etc. What this means is that every dispensing unit of a drug and every pack of cigarettes must be globally and uniquely identified with a serial number and tracked at every stage in it’s supply chain (to the point of dispensing for drugs and to the last point before purchase for tobacco. Note, drugs are tracked to prescriptions and patients, tobacco is not tracked to smokers).

In the (old) chart below from GS1, CoC is represented by cumulative tracking in comparison to 1-up/1-downcentralized database control for closed networks and distributed databases; which we noted more than 15 years ago and is now similar to the current blockchain dialogue. The latest version of the various traceability models can be found in the GS1 Global Traceability Standard (2017).

Disclaimer: I was previously a senior vice president at GS1 Canada and Director of Product & Consumer Safety at GS1 Global office.

Food is regulated of course but not to the extent above that it requires serial number specificity (lot size 1). Generally, food is tracked by lot, batch or date code and a can of soda will have the same global trade item number (GTIN) as the same soda product next to it. The GTIN, while globally unique and aligned to the brand is not a serial number and is referred to as a product family or class code. With the increase in food fraud, there is now growing momentum to add a second data carrier to a food product with a serialized identifier and links to a product web page or product authentication tools. Note, date carrier is a ‘family name’ for all barcodes and RFID tags. Regulations may suggest the ‘data to be carried’ and the brand owner will then select the appropriate data carrier.

To visualize how a GTIN works in a food chain today, see the chart below from GS1 which can be found in the 2017 version of the Global Traceability Standard

BREAKING NEWS

On August 13th 2018, GS1 released a new standard called the GS1 Digital Linkstandard which will enable connections to all types of B2B and B2C information. This new standard is the foundational bridge between physical products and their digital twins.

That’s it for this post – your comments, feedback and opinions are highly valued and very important. Keep an eye out for upcoming posts on topics related to transparency, trust, credence, anti-counterfeit, traceability, product recall, blockchain, provenance and many more.

About the Author:

John G. Keogh is a sought-after speaker, advisor and researcher. Operating at the intersection of the Public + Private sectors globally, he provides confidential advisory, research & interventions across policy, operations, strategy and technology.

John holds a PG Dip. and an MBA in General Mgmt. He has an MSc (distinction) in Business and Management Research into Supply Chain Transparency and Consumer Trust. He is currently a part-time, associate researcher at Henley Business School, undertaking doctoral (DBA) research into food chain transparency and consumer trust. John plans to publish an ebook “Food Chain Transparency – what executives need to know” in 2018.

Photo by Martin Adams on Unsplash

Interview – Founder of SensoMind, Rufus Blas

We love the new technologies here at MyFoodTrust, of course in relation to improving the current lack of transparency. Last week we talked to Daniel from Bext360, and their use of blockchain and AI. Today we focus on AI again, which we find super interesting as a tool for food transparency, so it was a no brainer to do a interview with Rufus from SensoMind.

Read here, how SensoMind have applied AI to create a system to detect anomalies in food products and what role AI will play in creating transparency in food supply chains in the future.

Can you start with telling us a little about yourself and SensoMind?Hi, my name is Rufus. I’ve been involved in AI ever since I studied at MIT in 2004 at their Artificial Intelligence Lab. I hold both a PhD and an MBA and have a passion for innovation management and entrepreneurship. Previously I worked a lot with perception for self-driving vehicles in agriculture. I founded Sensomind with my partner in 2016 in order to democratize AI and get it out to the masses.  We’ve built our own set of tools around top AI products such as Googles Tensorflow which we thought at the time were too much targetting data scientists and not enough the engineers that are out in the field today. Our core competencies lie in analysis of complex sensor data. This is available in abundance in manufacturing so is one reason why we have gotten into this industry.

Rufus Blas
Sounds interesting, but can Sensomind’s AI technology be applied on food?
We’ve been working extensively with food manufacturing customers where our technology can be used for quality monitoring and sorting of food products. Most of our solutions are based on optical sensors (Such as cameras and multi-spectral imaging). Vision technology has been around in the food industry for 10-20 years but it’s been very difficult to apply it to food products with organic shapes and high variety. Examples include monitoring breads, meat, and fruits & vegetables. With AI you can teach the system just be showing it examples which opens up for completely new applications. An example can be automating the cutting of meat.  The price of a final product has a large influence on the cutting being done correctly and it can be very difficult using traditional computer vision to recognize exactly where to cut.
And in relation to that, can Sensomind’s technology help tackle the problem of, e.g. food contamination or unapproved enhancements/additives in food?
So we have a system to detect anomalies which can for example detect contaminants. In the food industry we have used this to detect contaminants such as bone fragments, metal, plastic, and other objects which shouldn’t be there. Unlike a human operator, our system never tires. Unapproved additives is difficult to detect using traditional color cameras so here we work with spectrometers or multi-spectral cameras. Using traditional computer vision an engineer would normally sit and try to make a model for different additives based on a pre-conceived notion of what to look for. AI allows a more statistic and data-driven approach which reduces the chance of unapproved additives making it through the production undetected.
In your opinion, what role does new technologies, e.g. AI, play in creating transparency in food supply chains?
Supply chains are notoriously difficult to model because of large amounts of often poor quality or missing data. AI is really good at crunching numbers and extracting meaningful informations from poor quality and multi-source data (including images, text, numbers, etc). AI can help piece together the information about specific products which would be impossible to model by hand.
If someone was interested in learning more about the work you do, where can the find more? 
The obvious thing would be to contact me. Check out our website (sensomind.com). We have a number of international projects going so location is often not a big issue.
A big thank you to Rufus, and great to hear of the use of AI in the food supply chain. Here at MyFoodTrust, we are always looking for how new technologies can enhance transparency and traceability.
So if you know of any startups, please let me know!
Have a great day.
© MyFoodTrust 2018

Farm animal welfare & transparency. So call me blockchain? Maybe

This article is written by Dan McGlynn:

Sustainability & animal welfare – the power of transparency, technology & collaboration – so call me blockchain, maybe?

Farm Animal Welfare – it’s now seen as a strategic opportunity by many global companies.

The benchmark…

I was fortunate enough to attend the launch of the 6th BBFAW report evaluating the performance of 110 large food institutions. The headline was ‘good progress but still a long way to go’.

Thank you to Nicky Amos for inviting me, one of the best events I have ever attended.

The venue was the London Stock Exchange – strange setting you may possibly think? Not so, it became very evident when David Harris, Head of sustainable investment at FTSE Russell opened the event by talking about how investors are closely linking sustainability and animal welfare metrics with share performance and valuation.

All business should take note – as the consumer becomes more aware and demands greater transparency on the goods that they are buying, companies that are transparent with their performance in dealing with ethical, sustainability and animal welfare issues will outperform those that are not.

Steve McIvor – chief executive of World Animal Protection made some great comments : ‘Consumers are showing that they increasingly care about the welfare of animals when they are deciding where to eat’.

The Foodservice industry still has ‘a lot more work to do’ providing transparency of animal welfare in their supply chains according to the new report. Despite making some progress (JD Wetherspoons rose 3 places) in the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare, pub & restaurant chains lag behind retailers and manufacturers and still need to make improvements.

No hospitality company achieved the ‘tier one’ status in the ranking but McDonald’s & our very own Greggs placed towards the top of tier two after making farm animal welfare a part of their business strategies.

The likes of KFC, Pizza Hut and Starbucks managed tier five, defined as showing limited evidence of implementation, while Subway and Burger King both ranked in tier four, and were defined as making progress. Waitrose, Marks & Spencer and The Co-operative Group all achieved tier one ranking.

The stats are staggering. Globally, 50 billion chickens are slaughtered every year (that’s 7500 every 10 seconds) – a large proportion of those live in unacceptable conditions. A lot of work is being done with the emerging markets of countries such as China, Brazil and Thailand.

 

Did you know that the largest dairy industry in the world is in India? China produces 700 million pigs per year – the UK produces 10 million. Big numbers, lots of animals.

The report scores companies on 4 areas:

·      Management policy & commitment

·      Governance & management

·      Leadership & innovation

·      Performance reporting & impact – increasingly becoming more important

Similar to the Modern Slavery act 2015, it’s not good enough just to have a policy in place. The company needs to have the commitments as part of their culture and strategy and more importantly, measure and report on their performance.

Only 11% of companies report on animal welfare outcomes – that’s 12 out of 110 global businesses. The answer is data and technology.

Can blockchain fill this void? Possibly. There are more and more commentators on this subject, very few are experts and it’s unproven in food. Watch this space and I aim to provide more insight on this subject soon.

There is existing technology that maps supply chains and is able to harvest sustainability & animal welfare KPIs from any part of that chain – look at my linked in profile and you will find out who they are!

Transparency will be king – do not underestimate the power of transparency. Technology will be the vehicle for this much need transparency.

If any of the above has resonated and you would like to discuss this subject further, lets connect and get in touch. I am heading up a project to drive collaboration in the foodservice industry focusing on compliance, ethical and animal welfare performance. All fingers point towards integrity.

Don’t get me started on integrity (doing the right thing even when nobody is looking). That subject is for another day.

I also love feedback – good, bad and ugly, it’s how we all grow so please let me know your thoughts.

Have a great day

Dan McGlynn

Authenticate IS

Original posted here:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/farm-animal-welfare-transparency-so-call-me-maybe-dan-mcglynn/

Towards a Transparency Culture in the Food Chain

This article is written by John G. Keogh.

Conventional wisdom suggests that transparency is an irrefutable practice in public and private sector governance (1). In fact, transparency is viewed as foundational for the efficient functioning of markets and provides a bedrock layer for trust to function as a ‘social lubricant’ by reducing information asymmetry (2). Although there is a complex bidirectional relationship between transparency and trust, increased transparency increases trust, according to a growing number of empirical findings and industry research.

“Trust is in Crisis” Edelman, 2017 Trust Barometer

The recurring exposures of deceptive practices, ethical lapses as well as opportunistic and immoral behaviour by individuals, governments, media, NGO’s and businesses has catapulted transparency into global prominence especially in the food industry.

No doubt you would concur that we have ideological and biased reporting, allegations of ‘paid-for’ scientific publications, deceptive practices, fake news and then there is the viral nature of social media to spread the falsehoods.

With all this going on in the background, sceptical consumers continue to raise their concerns about major social issues related to sustainability of natural resources and habitat destruction of endangered species. A key question raised often is whether the 3rd party certifiers are independent and unbiased, whether their results are peer-reviewed and can be trusted. And more importantly, can they be trusted when they rely on the firms they audit for revenue?

Research by Graham Bullock (2015) on 245 eco-labels and sustainability schemes in the USA found only 2 firms met criteria of being independent, had qualified staff (PhD level experts) and their results were peer-reviewed. He further noted that 56% of Americans do not trust companies’ green claims. Bullock’s insightful research was based on the findings from Starobin and Weinthal (2010) who found competency issues with 3rd party certifiers for Kosher labels.

Furthermore, consumers have legitimate concerns spanning from fair trade to the immoral acts of human slavery and forced child labour in our food chains. On top of concerns for animal welfare and a growing fear of antibiotic resistance, consumers are suffering from a lack of consensus among the public health agencies, NGO’s and the food business operators on the long-term health and safety of common foods. Again, whom can they trust?

do you remember the 2015 ‘processed meat causes cancer’ from the WHO? It seemed well grounded in scientific evidence but after significant push-back from industry, there was consumer confusion followed by a partial retraction by WHO a few days later. Who can the consumer trust to provide transparent, and trusted information? Unbiased reporting and evidence-based recommendations? Was the retraction the result of an industry lobby to protect revenues or grounded in sound science?

When transparency is lacking, so is trust!

In my view, the problem today is a lack of a transparency culture throughout the food ecosystem. But my question is; who is hiding what and why are they doing it? Following on from that, it is no wonder (at least to me) that Edelman argues that trust is in crisis. The challenges we are now faced with is ‘whom’ do we trust, and ‘what information’ can we trust? And my question is, therefore ‘can a transparency culture help’? I think it can.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines transparency as the “quality or state of being transparent”. And ‘transparent’ is defined as “having the property of transmitting light….” and “free from pretense or deceit”, “easily detected or seen through”, “readily understood,” “characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices”

What is a Transparency culture?

Much like a food safety culture which is brilliantly outlined in several books by Frank Yiannas, VP of Food Safety at Wal-Mart, in my view, a transparency culture is essentially about human behaviour. Regardless of laws, regulations, standards and organizational SOP’s, a transparency centric culture means doing the right thing when nobody is looking. And when they are looking, to accept responsibility and accountability.

A transparency culture should extend throughout the organizational ecosystem and is critically important to the boundary spanning employees who engage in direct communication and business transactions with stakeholders. A transparency culture is also about honest, forthright, clear and understandable communications, not hiding details in the fine print or providing scientific or technical language that consumers cannot normally decipher.

An example of a Transparency Culture fail

A transparency culture in the food chain is not only about the food itself but also related to business practices which impact consumers negatively. In the past week, Canada’s premier retailer, Loblaw received immunity from prosecution as the whistleblower on more than a decade of industry practices of collusion and price-fixing for bread. This ethical and immoral lapse was not just one person but a whole supply chain colluding to cheat consumers and break Canadian anti-trust laws. Will a Blockchain fix this? Nope.

This illegal practice will be costly for Loblaw and others, and not just financially. It will take time for consumer trust to bounce back. Loblaw is booking a CDN$ 150 million charge this quarter to appease angry consumers with a 25-dollar ‘mea-culpa’ voucher. Unethical behaviour doesn’t pay and will get exposed eventually.

 ‘‘Transparency is the deliberate attempt to make available all legally releasable information—whether positive or negative in nature—in a manner that is accurate, timely, balanced, and unequivocal, for the purpose of enhancing the reasoning ability of publics and holding organizations accountable for their actions, policies, and practices” Rawlings (2009)

How do we fix this?

The entire food ecosystem needs a rethink on transparency as an enabler of consumer trust. From farm to retail we should consider how to put into practice a program, or programs to ensure ‘transparency as a culture’ is embedded in all aspects of the food chain.

A lofty goal right? Why am I proposing this? well, no government or enforcement agency can control or govern all aspects of our complex society. Therefore, voluntary measures such as those embedded into a corporate social responsibility (CSR) program becomes an alternative, non-state mechanism to address these societal issues and concerns broadly (5). And specifically, issues such as food safety, food security, food fraud and price fixing – the latter being one of those issues where consumers, regulators and insiders alike probably shake their heads in dismay thinking that was a thing of the past.

Embarking on a CSR journey focused on implementing a transparency culture is one way for an organization to publically state, ‘we are taking responsibility’ and ‘we are accountable’ for addressing these big-hairy societal issues and also the specific issues of food safety, fraud and deceptive practices. By the way, transparency is viewed in the discourse as fundamental to the implementation of successful CSR, which, if not managed ethically, becomes just another tool for an organization to peddle untruths such as greenwashing (fake sustainability claims).

Finally, in a transparency culture, whistleblowing at all levels should be encouraged to continually improve processes by shining a light in the opaque areas of the food chain where unethical, immoral, deceitful and illegal behaviours are most rampant. This is no doubt a marathon, and the food industry is likely still at the start line without a race plan.

Thanks for reading.

Cheers.

About the Author:

John G. Keogh is a sought-after speaker, advisor and researcher. Operating at the intersection of the Public + Private sectors globally, he provides confidential advisory, research & interventions across policy, operations, strategy and technology.

John holds a PG Dip. and an MBA in General Mgmt. He has an MSc (distinction) in Business and Management Research into Supply Chain Transparency and Consumer Trust. He is currently a part-time, associate researcher at Henley Business School, undertaking doctoral (DBA) research into food chain transparency and consumer trust. John plans to publish an ebook “Food Chain Transparency – what executives need to know” in 2018.

Sources:

(1) Welch et al., (2006), (2) Berg (2004). (3) Rawlins, (2008), (4) Penders et al., (2017), (5) Dubbink et al., (2008), plus in-text references.

 

Original posted here:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/towards-transparency-culture-food-chain-john-g-keogh/

Interview – Founder of bext360, Daniel Jones

I have looked so much forward to this interview.  Ever since I first read about bext360, and their use of blockchain, I have impatiently been waiting to see their work in action. So, if you are a coffee addict, and want to be sure that the coffee you drink everyday, in fact is the quality of what it is suppose to be, bext360 will have you covered. Lets get started!

Can you start with telling us a little about yourself and Bext360?I’m (Daniel Jones) a US and Africa based entrepreneur with over 17 years of experience living and working in emerging and frontier markets including China, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and India. I have professional roots in technology, applied mathematics, electronic commerce, and emerging economies. In 1991, I was with the Defense Intelligence Agency, where I was a key architect and topology designer of the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications Systems (JWICS), the first and now largest TCP/IP system to transfer voice, video, and data across Top Secret networks.

After that, I spent the last five years living in Kinshasa, DRC, where I evaluated supply chains and structured/funded companies as CEO and founder of Pioneer Management. In the DRC, I founded RAMIKA, the first US-owned company to successfully export conflict-free minerals from the DRC to the US in compliance with supply chain and traceability requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition, I structured the first private port facility constructed in the DRC.

I launched bext360 in April 2017. bext360 is company that develops technologies to streamline critical supply chains in emerging economies. Although our technology can be used across industries for different commodities, we are focused on the coffee industry first. Our bext-to-brew” platform aims to revolutionize the coffee supply chain with IoT, blockchain, machine vision and artificial intelligence (more on this below), while bringing consumers and farming communities together to improve product quality, community livelihoods and the consumer coffee experience. A guiding principle of bext360 is to build community by enabling buyers and other organizations with direct paths to improve the quality of both the product and the communities that provide the coffee.

Great, but how did you first get involved with coffee supply chains?I got involved with coffee supply chain after working for years in the Democratic Republic of Congo exporting conflict-free minerals, where security necessitated by large cash transactions represented a significant expense. I saw that most were entirely inefficient and lacked so much transparency. At around the same time, I started learning about blockchain technology and I became fascinated with the idea that it could potentially transform the supply chain for many industries. I landed on coffee because it is one of the most valued commodities in the world and its supply chain is completely antiquated.

Why is there a need for better traceability and transparency of coffee supply chains?

Although coffee is the second-largest traded commodity in the world (a $150 billion market worldwide), its supply chain remains antiquated and opaque. While global demand for coffee continues to grow, farming communities in developing countries must accept low prices and delayed payments for their harvested goods (women are responsible for 70 percent of growing and harvesting). However, millennials and coffee connoisseurs are now demanding transparency for sourcing and origin – indicating a shift in consumer preference and their willingness to pay for supply chain transparency.

And in relation to that, how do Bext360 technology tackle the problem?

bext360 is helping to eliminate many of the inefficiencies of the coffee supply chain while simultaneously providing transparency at each step of the process. Using machine vision, AI and IoT along with blockchain technology, we evaluate and sort coffee cherries and parchment (a phase of coffee been processing) based on quality. Farmers are then able to use a mobile app to view payments based on coffee quality, and may offer or reject the proposed payment. They are effectively increasing compensation for higher quality cherries. Powered by Stellar’s blockchain, the application immediately pays the farmer for her product upon acceptance of the offer. The application may also connect to the farmer’s other accounts for transactions such as loan repayments, local taxes and other financial commitments. Each evaluation and transaction relating to the coffee – including farmer identification, quality, purchasers and payouts – is recorded on the blockchain providing visibility to end consumers.

The certification process in supply chains is extremely costly. Currently, inspectors must physically examine each product at every point of the supply chain to verify that the product is what it purports to be. For coffee, every batch requires certification papers to move along the supply chain from one port to the next. bext360 is moving this data to the blockchain, providing transparency and immutability, which eliminates today’s costly and sometimes unreliable paper trail.

Using blockchain technology, the bext360 platform also creates crypto tokens based on the analyzed quality of the coffee to more accurately reflect the value of this commodity. As the commodity progresses through the supply chain, new tokens are automatically created to represent the increased value of the product until it becomes the roasted coffee we know and love.

For example, when a coffee cherry enters the supply chain, a token is created to represent its quality at the first level. As it continues through the supply chain and is processed to become “green coffee”, a new token will be created at this supply chain node and exchanged with the older token to represent the commodity in its new form. This tokenization technology can be used to represent other products, such as cocoa, nuts, spices, seafood products and pharmaceuticals.

The ability to create tokens representative of commodity value is groundbreaking in many ways. All stakeholders across the supply chain can own tokens, which hold real value for financial institutions. Banks, suppliers, business owners and the machines themselves can own, pay and collect from each other seamlessly. Commodity financing, plays a significant role in the portfolios of certain financial institutions. Rabobank has welcomed the use of tokens to reduce risk, while fundamentally changing how companies interface with the bank itself. Tokenization technology drastically reduces the transaction cost of global commodities and may also be applied to inventory valuation and the development of smart contracts.

Additionally, by providing the data recorded on the blockchain to banks and microfinancing institutions, it makes financials easier to audit and assess lending risk and therefore, reduces the risk to make individual loans. On the bext360 platform record includes: how much each farmer has sold, the quality of her cherries, and how many coffee cherry trees she owns. Based on this information and her unique history, the bank may borrow against the value reflected on her blockchain record. It is an innovative solution to address ongoing limitations for the under-banked – something other startups like Tala are trying to address with alternative credit scores.

Blockchain technology can also bring consumers and farming communities together. Using the bext360 platform, eventually, consumers may tip coffee farmers directly for coffee purchased at their neighborhood coffee shop. Payments to the farmer could be made instantaneously and tracked through the blockchain’s immutable ledger to assure consumers that tips were allocated appropriately.

If someone was interested in learning more about the work you do, where can the find more?

They can visit our website, or also read about us on Fast Company and Fortune. There is also a short documentary video about our company and technology that was created by Freethink Media for their Coded Series that was sponsored by Facebook.

I believe that this combination, blockchain and on-site quality control, will help ensure transparency from start to finish, and as Dan says, bring consumers and farmers closer together.

® 2018 MyFoodTrust

By

Kristoffer Just

Interview – Tom Mueller – Author of Extra Virginity: The Sublime and Scandalous World of Olive Oil

Extra Virgin Olive Oil (EVOO). It might not be a food product that you buy everyday, but when you buy it, it is quite expensive so you want to “the real deal”. But, far from every EVOO product on the shelf at the supermarket is actually a EVOO. Meaning, that some are of lesser quality (low-grade oils), not from the country of labelling (olives from greece, but the label says Italy) and so forth.

I used EVOO as an example in my thesis on how a new technology, blockchain, could reestablish trust, transparency and traceability in the supply chain of EVOO. And that is highly needed, especially if you (if your Danish), saw Kontant on DR last night, where they investigated Danish distributors and a Italian producer. So in relation to that, I have interviewed Tom Mueller, who has extensive knowledge about EVOO and the fraud that happens before the products are on the shelfs. So without further ado:

Can you start with telling us a little bit about yourself?

I’m Tom Mueller. I am a free-lance writer of non-fiction and fiction. I was educated at Oxford (DPhil, Rhodes Scholar), Harvard (BA, summa cum laude), and Alief Hastings High School in rural east Texas, home of the Fighting Bears. I’ve lived or worked in 48 countries.

My first book, Extra Virginity, is a New York Times best-selling account of olive oil culture, history, and crime. My articles have appeared in the New YorkerNational Geographic MagazineNew York Times Magazine and Atlantic Monthly.

What work have you done in relation to EVOO?

Truth about EVOO was born out of my love of great olive oil, and my concern about low-grade oils being passed off as “extra virgin” in the industry today, worldwide.  As a freelance writer who for the last two decades has spent much time in and around the Mediterranean, while contributing to publications including the New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly, National Geographic, and New York Times Magazine, I felt I knew olive oil well.  But it took an assignment for the New Yorker in 2007, “Slippery Business,” to make me understand the remarkable complexity of the olive oil trade, and the immense value of olive oil itself.  Since then I’ve gone steadily deeper into oil; in 2012 I published Extra Virginity, a book that explores this great foodstuff from many angles – cultural, culinary, chemical, criminal – and introduces the artisan producers and age-old landscapes of fine olive oil.

Why does fraud happen along EVOO’s supply chain?

The fraudulent behavior comes from everywhere – from misrepresenting amounts of olives brought to the mill, to various games that are played in the milling process, to blending of higher-grade extra virgin olive oil with low-grade olive oil or with other cheaper vegetable oils, to mislabeling . . .  The list is endless, as is the ingenuity of the fraudsters.

Why is it important for, us as a consumer, to have knowledge about this fraudulent behavior?

First, to ensure you are eating a healthy, tasty and genuine product, whose origin you know. Second, to make sure that honest producers get a fair price for their product – or find a market at all (they are often excluded by low-priced, fraudulent oils). Third, that you aren’t supporting fraudsters when you buy a bottle of oil.

From your knowledge, what can be done to increase traceability and transparency of EVOO products?

It is crucial to do on-site inspections and tests of mills, refineries and storage facilities, especially in ports.  So many checks are on paperwork only, not chemical testing of oils. The chemical and sensory parameters of the extra virgin grade also have to be improved (tightened) – they are currently very loose. Labels should specify the exact geographic location where olives were grown and milled, and the exact name of the producers – too often the “brand” is simply a multinational that buys and blends other peoples’ oils.

Further on that note, do you think tech can help with increasing traceability and transparency of EVOO products? And how?

Steady scientific advances in infra-red, DNA and other testing of olive oil have appeared. These need to be incorporated, rapidly, into current legislation.

What are your tips and tricks to spot that the EVOO you buy, is in fact what it is?

That is very hard to state, because there are many factors that comes into play. But I have outlined some points below, and if you want more thorough tips and tricks go to my website here.

  • Olives are stone fruits, like cherries and plums.  So real EVOO is fresh-squeezed fruit juice – seasonal, perishable, and never better than the first few weeks it was made.
  • Bitterness and pungency are usually indicators of an oil’s healthfulness. Sweetness and butteriness are often not.
  • There are 700+ different kinds of olives, which make thousands of different kinds of oil. Asking “what’s the best olive oil?” is like asking “what’s the best wine?”  The answer is, “depends on what you’re eating it with.”
  • Know the when, who, where of your oil: When it was made (harvest date), who made it (specific producer name), and exactly where on the planet they made it.

A big thank you to Tom, for his insights on this widely loved product across the globe, and why we need to keep pushing for better traceability and transparency of food products, in general.

If you want to read or know about my work on creating better traceability and transparency with tech, read this post, where I state the current supply chain process of EVOO, and how blockchain can shift the supply chain towards more transparency of the food we eat, and how farmers, producers, retailers etc, can get better traceability.

Have a great day!

© 2018 Kristoffer Just Petersen