NH Bill HB1650 has been introduced in the House of Representatives to protect local farms and food production.  The bill would exempt food grown or manufactured, and then sold within New Hampshire, from the federal food safety regulations. The “Made in New Hampshire” brand would be regulated by the state, and could be leveraged by small, local businesses to increase sales and promote locally grown products.

• Promoting the purchase and consumption of fresh and local agricultural products
• Enhancing the agricultural economy
• Encouraging agri-tourism opportunities in New Hampshire
• Giving New Hampshire citizens unimpeded access to healthy food from known sources
• Encouraging good manufacturing practices, including sanitation and hygiene, in the production, handling, storage and transportation of foodstuffs

Farms or food manufacturers would label the packaging or display of their food products with a “Made in New Hampshire” label, letting buyers know that the product falls only under New Hampshire regulations.

Local regulators would not be allowed to enact stricter regulations than the state, ensuring that in-state food businesses are lean, productive and safe. The bill also provides penalties for both federal officials or their agents attempting to enforce federal regulations and for producers and processors who label their food as “Made in New Hampshire” when it does not meet “Made in New Hampshire” requirements.

What do you think? Would a “Made in New Hampshire” label assure you that the food is safe? Leave a comment and let us know your thoughts.

The Healthcare Distribution Management Association (HDMA) has just updated their guide for formatting, encoding, and placing bar codes on pharmaceuticals. The HDMA is the USA’s association representing primary healthcare distributors, and their aim is the safe and efficient distribution of healthcare products and services. 

As part of their mission, the HDMA creates and exchanges industry knowledge and best practices to enhance the value of the healthcare supply chain. Their new guide, “HDMA Guidelines for Bar Coding in the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain 2011” has recently been published to give manufacturers and repackagers the latest information on applying GS1 and HIBCC standard bar codes to packages, cases, and pallets.

The new guide explains how to apply the standards to identify drugs at all levels of packaging as they move through the supply chain. It also has expanded guidance on the use of 2D bar codes and RFID on packages and shipping containers. Previous editions of the guidelines had recommendations on linear bar code technology only, but the recent changes to imaging equipment – better performance and lower cost – have prompted their recommendations for 2D bar coding as well.

Some significant changes you will find include:

• The addition of a unique serial number in the GS1-128 product identification bar code to product case labels
• A recommendation to add an optional 2D GS1 DataMatrix bar code symbol to drug packages and product cases
• A reduction in the bar code dimensions, thus freeing up space on labels for serial numbers
• New information on standardized numerical identifiers (SNIs)

Although the HDMA does not enforce compliance with their guidelines for product case labels, compliance would greatly improve efficiency and accuracy in the pharmaceutical supply chain. If you need more information on the HDMA, or would like a complete list of their guidelines, visit their website.

Country-of-origin labeling (COOL), which was written into law in the 2008 Farm Bill, has been ruled as a barrier to free trade by the World Trade Organization. The WTO ruled last Friday that COOL violates the trade agreements the US has with other countries, including Mexico and Canada.

When country-of-origin labeling became American law, Canada alleged that the mandatory COOL provisions appear to be inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under the WTO Agreement, which prevents technical barriers to trade. The US signed a treaty preventing technical barriers to trade in 1979. Mexico soon joined Canada in opposing the country-of-origin labeling for fresh beef and pork by filing a trade complaint. The WTO panel said Friday that Canadian and Mexican livestock imports got “treatment less favorable than” US domestic livestock.

Under COOL, foreign cattle and pigs had to be segregated in US packing plants. Foreign animals also were required to have more documentation about where they came from and, in the case of cattle, had to have tags to indicate they were free of mad-cow disease. Canada and Mexico claim their cattle and hog exports dropped significantly because of the costs related to COOL.

The US trade representative’s office said it was considering all options, including appealing the decision; the US has 60 days to appeal. Should the US ignore the WTO decision, Canada and Mexico could ask for tariffs to offset their losses.

Many US agriculture and environmental groups are upset with the decision, saying the ruling violates a consumer’s right to know where their food comes from. 

Is COOL “protectionist” labeling, or a tool to inform consumers about the source of their food. Would repealing COOL lead to unsafe imports of beef or pork? Let us know what you think.

Strict regulations, high material costs, and consumer pressures for safer food are just some of the factors impacting food producers today. The recent outbreak of listeria in cantaloupes and last July’s recall of baby spinach due to E. Coli contamination are just two examples that show how important accurate traceability is in modern food supply chains.

The food industry’s Produce Traceability Initiative (PTI), launched in 2008, is a voluntary industry-led effort to enhance traceability throughout the entire produce supply chain. PTI is moving forward with meeting their milestones for 2011:

Improve operations, gain insight into costs, and minimize the impact of food recalls with labeling and data collection solutions. Create durable labels on-demand at the point of activity, and streamline data collection and labeling tasks with durable equipment made to operate in difficult conditions.

Whether you print labels in the field or create bar codes in a manufacturing or distribution plant, we have the products that support traceability throughout the manufacturing and supply process. Want to find out more about track-and-trace applications for your business? You can read a related white paper “Tracing Food in the Supply Chain”. For more on PTI and their milestones, go here.

Do you need the right labeling products to aid your efforts at complying with PTI or other industry regulations? Call us at 1-800-325-5260 to discuss a solution that’s right for you.

Major foodservice companies are seeing measurable benefits as part of the industry-driven Foodservice GS1 US Standards Initiative. Two years ago, the initiative was launched as a voluntary industry collaboration to reduce waste, improve product information, and add traceability in the foodservice supply chain. GS1 US hopes the industry will attain a 75 percent voluntary adoption of GS1 standards by the year 2015.

A Global Data Synchronization Network (GDSN) will provide electronic access to shared data for all supply chain partners, allowing them to improve inventory control and warehouse management, and let them make purchasing and other transactions more efficient.

Using GS1 standards, the industry will have standardized product information and data, much like that of the grocery and retail industries. Instead of distributors each using their own internal systems to move data from manufacturers, distributors can provide more accurate product information with GS1 standards and data sharing. As a result, the industry will gain complete product traceability, from the operator back down the chain to the distributor, manufacturer, processing plants and ultimately, the farm. Traceability is key for food safety, since knowing where a product came from ensures quality control and better recalls in case of a food borne illness outbreak.

The number of foodservice companies subscribing to the GDSN has grown from 191 in 2009 to 1,430 today. Are you thinking of implementing these standards in your business? If you are looking for an affordable way to label your products for better track and trace applications, then give us a call at 1-800-325-5260.

The FDA will soon issue guidelines for marking medical devices with a Unique Device Identification (UDI) and for identifying pharmaceuticals with a Serial Number Identification (SNI).

The FDA’s goal has been to improve traceability of medical devices and pharmaceuticals, but delays have left many manufacturers and distributors of these products confused as to how they must proceed. Now, though, there are final draft recommendations available for review.

UDI

The UDI system identifies and tracks medical devices to a particular patient in order to determine the efficacy of a treatment or a device, and also tracks non-disposable medical equipment to determine when upgrades or service is needed. Such a system would also enable faster and more efficient recalls. The FDA wanted a standardized system that was unambiguous, unique, and harmonized globally.

The UDI is made of of two identifiers: a unique device identifier and a unique production identifier. The GS1 GTIN-14 provides the unique device identifier (the manufacturer’s ID and product ID). The production identifier can include a serial number, lot or batch number, a manufacturing or expiration date, or any combination of these numbers.

The UDI is then encoded in any standard bar code symbology determined by HIBCC or GS1 industry standards, then entered and stored in a UDI database. To see the final draft recommendations of global harmonization of UDIs developed by the Global Harmonization Task Force, go here.

SNI

Some states in the US already have drug pedigree laws. In fact, California is mandating that 50% of drugs must be serialized by January 2015 and the remaining by January 2016. Right now, pharmaceuticals are identified with a non-serialized National Drug Code, or NDC, managed by the FDA. The NDC is usually incorporated in a GS1 GTIN.

The SNI system defines an SNI as a 10-digit NDC plus up to 20 digits of serialization. The SNI data will be stored in a database for tracking and retrieval of lot and expiration data of the drug. The guidelines for SNI do not specify a particular technology, so linear, 2D barcodes, or RFID can be used. The final guidelines for serialization was issued in March 2011. For more on these guidelines, go here.

Many issues need to be addressed and developed, but UDI and SNI are here to stay. The FDA is hosting a UDI conference on November 30 to December 1 2011 in Cambridge, MA. See UID Conference 2011 for more information and registration details.

Are you dealing with UDI or SNI issues? We’d be interested in your thoughts.

At our recent “Demystify DoD Labeling Standards” seminar, held just last week in Nashua, NH, we had a chance to talk with people who are involved with government contracts and needed a better understanding of UID or RFID. For them, the seminar was just the thing to help them become more knowledgeable about labeling standards so they could make appropriate recommendations for military-compliant labeling in their business.

Those who came to our seminar had a variety of labeling issues. Some attendees were just implementing RFID in their shipping department and needed specifics about the right way to do the labeling to meet MIL-STD-129 requirements. Another was required to create UID labeling to conform to MIL-STD-130, and had to know what exactly needed marking and how it should be done. Others were trying to figure out how to implement data capture and collection for faster uploads to the UID registry.

All of this information was presented in a relaxed four hour seminar session. John Burke, VP of Winco ID, gave an overview of the military labeling standards and an explanation of the various levels of compliance that Winco ID provides to our customers.

David Holliday, Sales Manager at Winco ID, presented the details of MIL-STD-129 with RFID, and MIL-STD-130 with UID. After a thorough explanation of the standards, David explained how all of that data can be uploaded to the Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) electronically using idWorx! Electronic submission to the WAWF and UID registry makes data submission faster and more accurate.

We were fortunate to have two guest speakers at our seminar – John O’Kelly of Newcastle Systems, and John O’Brien, Director of Business Development at Valmarc. Both of them had information and advice that went beyond compliance labeling.

John O’Kelly spoke about the Newcastle family of carts and accessories. Unlike carts used to tote items from one place to another, the Newcastle carts are designed for the user who wants computing power in any area of their workplace. Various models are available for different needs, and they allow you to have a mobile powered workstation. In fact, our own cart that we bring along to every seminar and trade show, was on display. More information about Newcastle Systems and their products can be found here.

John O’Brien had a riveting presentation about anti-counterfeiting strategies, and the products available to thwart counterfeiting and diversion. Valmarc has developed new technology that allows consumers to use special smart phone apps to verify the authenticity of products they are about to purchase. More information about Valmarc and their work can be found here.

Also on hand were displays of innovative RFID label printers from our partner, Zebra Technologies, which everyone had a chance to test out.

It was gratifying to hear that our seminar helped people gain a better understanding of DoD labeling. One person made the comment that “you try to read (the) MIL-STD-129 and your eyes glaze over and things go fuzzy” but the seminar answered many of his questions. An individual who has been working with government contracts for a while said “Winco ID has been a big help over the years – they take a lot of the guess work out of it”. All appreciated the active feedback and discussion that took place during the seminar, the examples of labels, and the equipment displays.

Look for notification of our next seminar in the near future. If you can’t make it to one of our seminars, then give us a call at (603) 598-1553. We’d be happy to bring our seminar to you, if you are a local business. Or we can provide a webinar, tailored to answer your specific questions. You don’t have to be overwhelmed with compliance labeling issues – we can help.

Did you take part in the recent Public Workshop on UDI, hosted by the FDA?

I was planning on joining the webcast, but unfortunately missed both days. Never fear, though – a lot of the material from the Workshop has been made available for review on-line.

Head over to the Workshop site here and download what you need.

You’ll need to provide your own packed lunch, I’m afraid!

The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) will carry out two new pilot projects under the direction of the FDA. The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), is a nonprofit scientific society consisting of professionals in the food science, food technology and related professions. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act included a requirement for this study.

The pilots will investigate efficient track and trace methods for food. The focus of the pilot project will be on the type of data that is most useful for tracing, how to connect the various point in the supply chain, and how to make data available to the FDA as quickly as possible.

The IFT will ask for stakeholder input in designing and implementing the two pilots, and will consult with the USDA, state public health agencies, and organizations that represent consumer interests. One pilot study will be done with the processed food industry to design a track and trace method for processed foods and some key ingredients. The second pilot study will be done with the produce industry to determine the best track and trace methods for selected fruits and vegetables.

IFT hopes to reflect the diversity of the food supply, find methods that are practical for businesses of all sizes, and include the farm, restaurants, and grocery store supply chains. They will also assess the cost and benefits of track and trace methods.

Once the pilot projects are complete, the FDA will initiate rule making on record keeping requirements for high-risk foods to facilitate tracing. The FDA will hold three public meetings during the comment period on the proposed rule.

For more info, check out the story on the IFT site.