Traceability -- A Literature Review

In light of recent food safety crises and international trade concerns associated with food or animal associated diseases, traceability has once again become important in the minds of public policymakers, business decision makers, consumers and special interest groups. This study reviews studies on traceability, government regulation and consumer behaviour, provide case studies of current traceability systems and a rough breakdown of various costs and benefits of traceability. This report aims to identify gaps that may currently exist in the literature on traceability in the domestic beef supply chain, as well as provide possible directions for future research into said issue. Three main conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, there is a lack of a common definition of traceability. Hence identifying similarities and differences across studies becomes difficult if not impossible. To this end, this study adopts CFIA’s definition of traceability. This definition has been adopted by numerous other agencies including the EU’s official definition of traceability however it may or may not be acceptable from the perspective of major Canadian beef and cattle trade partners. Second, the studies reviewed in this report address one or more of five key objectives; the impact of changing consumer behaviour on market participants, suppliers incentive to adopt or participate in traceability, impact of regulatory changes, supplier response to crisis and technical description of traceability systems. Drawing from the insights from the consumer studies, it seems as if consumers do not value traceability per se, traceability is a means for consumers to receive validation of another production or process attribute that they are interested in. Moreover, supply chain improvement, food safety control and accessing foreign market segments are strong incentives for primary producers and processors to participate in programs with traceability features. However the objectives addressed by the studies reviewed in this paper are not necessarily the objectives that are of most immediate relevance to decision makers about appropriate traceability standards to recommend, require, subsidize etc. In many cases the research objectives of previous work have been extremely narrow creating a body of literature that is incomplete in certain key areas. Third, case studies of existing traceability systems in Australia, the UK, Scotland, Brazil and Uruguay indicate that the pattern of development varies widely across sectors and regions. In summary, a traceability system by itself cannot provide value-added for all participants in the industry; it is merely a protocol for documenting and sharing information. Value is added to participants in the marketing chain through traceability in the form of reduced transactions costs in the case of a food safety incident and through the ability to shift liability. To ensure consumer benefit and have premiums returned to primary producers the type of information that consumers value is an important issue for future research. A successful program that peaks consumer interest and can enhance their eating experience can generate economic benefits to all sectors in the beef industry. International market access will increasingly require traceability in the marketing system in order to satisfy trade restrictions in the case of animal diseases and country of origin labelling, to name only a few examples. Designing appropriate traceability protocols industry wide is therefore becoming very important.traceability, institutions, Canada, consumer behaviour, producer behaviour, supply chain, Agricultural and Food Policy, Consumer/Household Economics, Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety, Health Economics and Policy, International Relations/Trade, Livestock Production/Industries, Marketing, Production Economics, D020, D100, D200, Q100,

Traceability -- A Literature Review

In light of recent food safety crises and international trade concerns associated with food or animal associated diseases, traceability has once again become important in the minds of public policymakers, business decision makers, consumers and special interest groups. This study reviews studies on traceability, government regulation and consumer behaviour, provide case studies of current traceability systems and a rough breakdown of various costs and benefits of traceability. This report aims to identify gaps that may currently exist in the literature on traceability in the domestic beef supply chain, as well as provide possible directions for future research into said issue. Three main conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, there is a lack of a common definition of traceability. Hence identifying similarities and differences across studies becomes difficult if not impossible. To this end, this study adopts CFIA’s definition of traceability. This definition has been adopted by numerous other agencies including the EU’s official definition of traceability however it may or may not be acceptable from the perspective of major Canadian beef and cattle trade partners. Second, the studies reviewed in this report address one or more of five key objectives; the impact of changing consumer behaviour on market participants, suppliers incentive to adopt or participate in traceability, impact of regulatory changes, supplier response to crisis and technical description of traceability systems. Drawing from the insights from the consumer studies, it seems as if consumers do not value traceability per se, traceability is a means for consumers to receive validation of another production or process attribute that they are interested in. Moreover, supply chain improvement, food safety control and accessing foreign market segments are strong incentives for primary producers and processors to participate in programs with traceability features. However the objectives addressed by the studies reviewed in this paper are not necessarily the objectives that are of most immediate relevance to decision makers about appropriate traceability standards to recommend, require, subsidize etc. In many cases the research objectives of previous work have been extremely narrow creating a body of literature that is incomplete in certain key areas. Third, case studies of existing traceability systems in Australia, the UK, Scotland, Brazil and Uruguay indicate that the pattern of development varies widely across sectors and regions. In summary, a traceability system by itself cannot provide value-added for all participants in the industry; it is merely a protocol for documenting and sharing information. Value is added to participants in the marketing chain through traceability in the form of reduced transactions costs in the case of a food safety incident and through the ability to shift liability. To ensure consumer benefit and have premiums returned to primary producers the type of information that consumers value is an important issue for future research. A successful program that peaks consumer interest and can enhance their eating experience can generate economic benefits to all sectors in the beef industry. International market access will increasingly require traceability in the marketing system in order to satisfy trade restrictions in the case of animal diseases and country of origin labelling, to name only a few examples. Designing appropriate traceability protocols industry wide is therefore becoming very important

Beneficial Management Practice (BMP) Adoption -- Direct Farm Cost/Benefit Tradeoffs

Monte Carlo simulation was used to examine the on-farm economics from adoption of Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) on four representative Alberta cropping farms. Adoption of shelterbelts, buffer strips, residue management, and the addition of annual and perennial forages, field peas, and oats in crop rotations were included as BMPs that contribute positively to Ecological Goods and Services production from agriculture. Results suggest positive on-farm benefits associated with perennial forage and field pea BMPs. Conversely, BMPs that reduce availability of land for cropping activities, such as shelterbelts and buffer strips, and BMPs that do not increase revenues, such as oats and annual forages in rotation, are costly to producers. The results presented and discussed in this report have important policy implications. Policy mechanisms that incorporate positive mechanisms may improve adoption of BMPs that are costly to producers, while extension mechanisms, such as information programs, may improve the adoption of economically feasible BMPs

Farm Wealth Implications of Canadian Agricultural Business Risk Management Programs

This paper examines the effect of Canadian agricultural business risk management (BRM) programs on farm financial performance. Monte Carlo simulation is used to model stochastic prices and production for a representative Alberta cropping operation. Net present value (NPV) analysis is used to evaluate BRM program participation. Participation is modeled for AgriInvest, AgriStability, and AgriInsurance. Adoption of select BMPs is also modeled to examine the impact of BRM programs on incentives to adopt environmental stewardship practices. Results indicate that BRM program participation significantly improves farm financial performance with a corresponding reduction in risk. Much of the benefit from participation comes from subsidization associated with the programs. While recent changes to BRM programs result in reduced support, the impact on representative farm performance is small. BRM program participation reinforces incentives to adopt BMPs that already have positive net benefits (e.g., crop rotation BMPs) and increases the magnitude of disincentives (i.e., net costs) associated with adoption of land use BMPs such as wetland restoration or buffer strips. The results from this analysis raise questions related to both risk management and environmental policy in terms of policy effectiveness, efficiency and compatibility

Alopecia areata.

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disorder characterized by transient, non-scarring hair loss and preservation of the hair follicle. Hair loss can take many forms ranging from loss in well-defined patches to diffuse or total hair loss, which can affect all hair-bearing sites. Patchy alopecia areata affecting the scalp is the most common type. Alopecia areata affects nearly 2% of the general population at some point during their lifetime. Skin biopsies of affected skin show a lymphocytic infiltrate in and around the bulb or the lower part of the hair follicle in the anagen (hair growth) phase. A breakdown of immune privilege of the hair follicle is thought to be an important driver of alopecia areata. Genetic studies in patients and mouse models have shown that alopecia areata is a complex, polygenic disease. Several genetic susceptibility loci were identified to be associated with signalling pathways that are important to hair follicle cycling and development. Alopecia areata is usually diagnosed based on clinical manifestations, but dermoscopy and histopathology can be helpful. Alopecia areata is difficult to manage medically, but recent advances in understanding the molecular mechanisms have revealed new treatments and the possibility of remission in the near future. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2017 Mar 16; 3:1701