It's not often that a simple lot number saves the day. But during this summer's spinach scare, a lot number and the supplier's ace product tracking system helped lead FDA investigators to the source of the deadly E. coli outbreak.
David Maloney has been a journalist for more than 35 years and is currently the group editorial director for DC Velocity and Supply Chain Quarterly magazines. In this role, he is responsible for the editorial content of both brands of Agile Business Media. Dave joined DC Velocity in April of 2004. Prior to that, he was a senior editor for Modern Materials Handling magazine. Dave also has extensive experience as a broadcast journalist. Before writing for supply chain publications, he was a journalist, television producer and director in Pittsburgh. Dave combines a background of reporting on logistics with his video production experience to bring new opportunities to DC Velocity readers, including web videos highlighting top distribution and logistics facilities, webcasts and other cross-media projects. He continues to live and work in the Pittsburgh area.
The story of what happened this summer when spinach was contaminated by a virulent strain of E. coli is first a tragedy for the families of those who died. It is second, a compelling detective story that unfolded as health officials around the nation scrambled to identify the source and the cause of the outbreak (a strain eventually identified by scientists as E. coli 0157: H7).
It is also a story about food distribution and the ability of those who ship food around the nation to track in detail where their shipments have come from and where they go. When something goes awry, that "field to fork" tracking information can offer valuable clues to the problem's source and allow those who manage the affected supply chains to react swiftly and effectively.
The outbreak in August and September led to three deaths and sickened at least 200 people in 26 states. Using a bar code from a bag of tainted spinach, investigators eventually traced the source of the outbreak to plants grown in California. Grocers and distributors responded immediately, pulling fresh spinach from store shelves, distribution centers and processing facilities. During subsequent weeks, investigators narrowed the source of the contamination further to the world's largest supplier of organic produce, Natural Selection Foods of San Juan Bautista, Calif. The company provides vegetables for 34 regional and national food brands, among them Dole Fresh Vegetables. At least nine bags of baby spinach later discovered to be tainted with the E. coli bacterium carried the Dole brand and were packed by National Selection Foods.
Quick response
Dole's response to the situation came long before the company received any confirmation that some of the contaminated products had been packaged under its brand. As soon as there was a suspicion that vegetables might be the cause of the E. coli outbreak, Dole began discussions with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other authorities to help determine the source. Dole also began making preparations to recall products if and when it was warranted.
"As these events unfold, you do not know at first what the problem is, but you need to prepare and begin discussions as soon as possible," says Steve Robinson, Dole's vice president of business process development. "We maintain a database of all customer data. We track all movements of each pallet and case that we manufacture using bar codes that are scanned at each step. If a recall is needed, we know specifically the date of and lot numbers of the products involved and can call up in the system to see exactly where that product was shipped."
Dole relies on homegrown software systems for product tracking and tracing. As orders leave the facility, specific information about the products and their destinations is recorded in the system. Much of that information is then shared with customers through advance ship notices.
Once the FDA had determined that bagged spinach was the cause of the E. coli contamination, Dole immediately pulled its customer records to see where fresh spinach was shipped. It then sent e-mails to customers notifying them of the need to remove and destroy all bagged spinach in the food pipeline.
"We make sure that our food safety programs are well entrenched," adds Robinson. "Traceability is part of good food safety. It starts in the field, [extends] on through manufacturing, and then continues once it leaves us."
Hannaford Brothers, a retail grocer with 150 stores in New England, was also deeply involved in the spinach recall. "We were all impacted and had product in the pipeline," recalls Gerry Greenleaf, vice president of distribution. "When we got the notice, we mobilized our systems very fast."
Information from Hannaford's EXE warehouse management system showed which stores had received spinach shipments, according to assigned product codes. Since this recall required that all spinach be destroyed, managers did not have to check for individual lot numbers. The company pulled the affected products from its three DCs and immediately notified stores using a Web-based application that delivers a pop-up alert to each store manager.
"E-mail is great, but it does not get attention always," says Greenleaf. "With the spinach, we were able to communicate quickly to retail using the alert system."
Though in this instance stores were instructed to destroy all their spinach, that's not usually the case. In most recalls, stores are simply told to send the recalled items back to the DC on the next available truck. From there, products go to a reclamation center where they are either returned to the manufacturer or destroyed. Greenleaf adds that any recalled product that is in transit (inbound from the manufacturer to the DC) is merely refused at receiving and sent back to the manufacturer.
Tracking history
Though most consumers would be surprised to hear it, the United States has no laws requiring companies to recall products found to be defective. It does, however, have a law requiring companies in the food supply chain to keep track of their goods' whereabouts. Passed in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, that law, the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, calls for companies to maintain detailed records for use in the event of a recall or a terrorism-related investigation.
"The Bioterrorism Act requires anyone who touches food products to be able to identify the immediate previous source of the food and the immediate subsequent recipient of the food," says Deborah White, associate general counsel for the Food Marketing Institute (FMI). FMI is a trade association serving 1,500 food retailers. Along with the record-keeping requirements, the act also stipulates the registration of facilities that handle food and places certain regulations on imported foods. It covers fruits, vegetables and alcohol products. (Meat and chicken, which are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, do not fall under this legislation.)
In the event of an infectious outbreak, the Food and Drug Administration is given investigatory responsibility for tracing the infection back to its origins, relying on records kept by suppliers throughout the chain. When the FDA comes knocking on a food distributor's door, it had better have a good, trustworthy and accurate method of sharing that information quickly.
These days, that record-keeping method is almost certain to be electronic. There are many software programs that offer the ability to record and track lot numbers and date codes. Most inventory control systems and warehouse management systems (WMS) have fields for recording this information, in addition to the specialized software programs geared specifically for tracking and tracing functions.
One example is software maker Aldata's G.O.L.D. Track line of software, which is used by many grocery wholesalers and retailers to track and trace products through the supply chain. Along with recording lot and batch numbers and manufacture dates, the software also stores information such as expiration dates, the temperatures a product is exposed to along its journey, and country of origin for imported goods. Typically, the information needed to populate information fields resides in electronic form and is handed from the supplier to the recipient for automatic entry into the warehouse management system. This information is then passed along to customers.
Lot numbers and product codes are typically also recorded on invoices, bills of lading and other documentation shared between suppliers and customers, according to Jill Hollingsworth, vice president of food safety for FMI.
"In general, there is a link from the retailer to the distributor and back to the supplier. They work as partners," she says. Enterprise, inventory management and warehouse control systems are also designed to make it easy to exchange this information. Once a threat is identified, stores can now be notified in hours, not days, Hollingsworth adds.
Because goods being recalled may be in transit when the notification goes out, transportation companies also need to be a part of the information chain. "This requires a software handshake between the transportation guys, the suppliers and the retailers," says Bruce Bowen, vice president of retail solutions for Aldata. "Often this is done through a simple exchange of XML data."
Going into withdrawal
Recalls that make the news, like the case of the contaminated spinach, are relatively rare. More often, companies recall products for much less serious reasons. Oftentimes, the cause is a manufacturing error, like the failure to add an ingredient during processing. Though perfectly safe to eat, these products might not taste the way consumers expect, so the company decides to withdraw them from the market.
Even something as seemingly innocuous as packaging can prompt a recall. One breakfast cereal manufacturer recently recalled a kids' cereal brand because of a crossword puzzle on the back of the cereal box. When viewed a certain way, the puzzle appeared to have a rather inappropriate answer. Though there was nothing wrong with the cereal, the manufacturer nonetheless chose to pull the product.
Whether the threat is minor or serious, food suppliers still must have a recall plan in place. Keith Arntson, Del Monte's distribution manager for western states, says that recalls are an infrequent occurrence at the company's Lathrop, Calif., DC, which distributes mostly canned goods. But it has nonetheless established a detailed procedure.
"We very rarely recall products," he says, "but when we do, we directly contact our customers by e-mail. Then we follow up with a letter." The Lathrop facility's DC Wizard warehouse management system captures item and date codes as products are shipped so that a list of where affected lots were delivered can be easily generated to initiate a customer contact.
Arntson says that there are times when a canned product is recalled because of a labeling defect. In those instances, the cans often can simply be relabeled and redistributed to customers. If there's a problem with the cans' contents, however, they're usually sent back to the supplier's DC for further evaluation. In a few cases, the customer is instructed to destroy the product.
Randy Fletcher, vice president of logistics and supply chain management for Associated Grocers, says his distribution center in Baton Rouge, La., receives about one recall a week from his many suppliers. Associated Grocers is a cooperative of more than 220 independent grocers in the South. Fletcher says the notification of the recall, usually in e-mail form, normally comes from the suppliers themselves. FMI also notifies its members when a recall occurs. "Both our buyers' software systems and our Retalix WMS have the ability to record and find lot numbers," says Fletcher. "We can track upstream from where we got the product and downstream to where we sent it."
Associated Grocers then uses a variety of methods to get the message out to its customers, including e-mail, fax and notification on the company Web site. "Within an hour, we send out the first notification to customers," Fletcher says. "We use any method we can to assure that notice is given promptly."
He then follows up the electronic notifications with a hard copy that provides further details, such as the severity of the threat and the procedure for dealing with the product.
During the recent spinach scare, Associated Grocers was told to destroy all of the spinach it had in its warehouse. The cooperative sent the same instructions to its stores, directing that all spinach be destroyed, even though Associated Grocers did not have any spinach from the contaminated supply. (Its spinach comes from Florida.) That was in accordance with FDA recommendations as a precaution, as the source of the tainted spinach was still being investigated. Public confidence was also a consideration. Given the severity of the threat, most grocers did not want to risk alienating customers by continuing to carry any bagged spinach whatsoever, regardless of source.
In less critical recalls, stores are instructed to return recalled products to Associated Grocers' DC in Baton Rouge. From there, the distributor works with suppliers to determine what to do with the product. Some is destroyed, some is sent back to the supplier to be relabeled. In the case of the cereal boxes with the offending crossword puzzles, Associated Grocers was instructed to cut off the puzzles from the boxes, send the puzzles to the manufacturer as proof of credit, and donate the cereal to a food bank.
"We don't want to destroy it if it is consumable," adds Fletcher.
Fast action
As bad as it was, this summer's contaminated spinach scare could have been much worse if not for the fast response on the part of the FDA and the food industry. Relying on their software systems, grocery suppliers, wholesalers and retailers were able to quickly pull products from shelves to assure the integrity of the supply chain.
"There is always a delay ... until the person is diagnosed and we know what the cause is," says FMI's Hollingsworth. "But once that is determined, the system works quickly and effectively."
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."