IDENTIFICATION AND TRACEABILITY OF MEAT
AND MEAT PRODUCTS
D. Yordanov1, G. Angelova2
University of Food Technology, Department of “Meat & Fish Technology”, Plovdiv, Bulgaria1
“Digest” Ltd., Design & Engineering, Plovdiv, Bulgaria 2
Introduction
With the expansion of global trade, com-
puterization and communications, plain
language descriptions of products and
services, need to be replaced by identifica-
tion and product tracing systems that are
usable in all trade and industry sectors
worldwide. Traceability is increasingly
becoming standard across the agri-food
industry, largely driven by recent food cri-
ses and the consequent demands for trans-
parency within the food chain.
Product traceability is the process of
maintaining records of all materials and
parts from purchasing to finished goods
where a unique number identify a part,
batch, or a finished product. Traceability in
the food industry must aim to create a link
between the various steps in the entire food
chain, so-called “from farm to work”.
These steps must cover animal production
at the farm, processing in meat plants and
other food premises, distribution to whole-
salers and retailers and right through to the
moment the food is placed on the con-
sumer’s table. Tracing of animals can pro-
vide greater confidence in certification
schemes, especially regarding their disease-
free status (6, 9).
Traceability also forms an essential com-
ponent of any risk management strategy
and is a key requirement for post-marketing
surveillance. Traceability provides the
ability to identify and track a product or a
component to its point of origin. The point
of origin may be a particular lot or batch,
production line and time frame, field, or
3 Biotechnol. & Biotechnol. Eq. 20/2006/1
supplier. Product traceability is very im-
portant to reliability. If a particular lot of a
critical component is found to be defective
after being used in product that is already
sold, traceability provides a means of iden-
tifying the units for recall. The meat pro-
ducts require complete traceability (1, 9).
The quality of meat products are deter-
mined by a complex of indexes – organo-
leptical, technological, hygienically. There
are a lot of factors impacting on them. As
results of the advance of meat science, new
requirements about meat quality, nutritional
and biological values and safety have
arisen (13). Here are some of the benefits
and solutions provided with product identi-
fication and tracing (6):
• Procedures for identifying and tracing the
product during all stages of production,
delivery & installation.
• Requires knowing what parts comprise
the product, their specification, their
status, etc.
• Requires knowing the exact content of
products that have been delivered to each
customer so that the right customer ser-
vice can be provided.
• Helps to satisfy “Process Control”.
Tracing Methods
The increasing role of traceability leads to
the development of a range of traceability
concepts and technologies adapted to dif-
ferent industry need. These concepts and
systems have been promoted through both
private and public sector initiatives and
thus have sought to address different needs;
not surprisingly different concepts and
technology solution have therefore
evolved. The basic characteristics of trace-
ability systems are similar, requiring pro-
duct identification, product tracking and
maintenance of information relating to
products and its movement. Yet there re-
mains a lack of clear consensus as to how
traceability is achieved in practice. But the
fundamentals of a traceability system re-
quire: the unique identification of the pro-
duct (or batch) throughout its entire pro-
duct history; the collection of information
on the product and its movements; inte-
grated information management .
A key feature of any traceability system
is the ability to clearly identify that which
is to be traced. Ideally the product identifier
should (9,10):
- uniquely identify the unit or batch;
- be secure;
- be permanent;
- retain identity throughout the product
life-cycle;
- be simple to read and capture identify-
ing data;
- not hinder its host.
In practice no single identification system
is likely to meet all these requirements and
the choice of methods will ultimately be
determined by specific need of the supply
chain in question.
A variety of options exists for tracing,
applicable in the farms and meat industry
(Table 1).
In the live animal, ear tags and tattoos are
cheap and easy. Radio Frequency Identifi-
cation (RFID) tags and transponders are
very expensive and can be unreliable. Sub-
cutaneous transponders raise questions of
welfare and the risk entering the food
chain. Some elegant ideas such as injecting
a unique antigen into the pigs from each
farm to give readable antibody in the meat
may find even less favour with the con-
sumer.
Inside the slaughter and processing plant,
the simpler options include paper bar codes
Biotechnol. & Biotechnol. Eq. 20/2006/1
TABLE 1
Examples of some tracing methods (15)
Visual ear tags
RFID ear tags
Live animal Bar Code Ear Tags
Tattoos
Antibodies by injection
Paper bar codes
RFID tags
Slaughtering&Processing Batch markers
Molecular bar codes
Quantum dots
Microwave radar
Retail & distribution Machine readable codes
Numerical codes
Consumer Public access website
that can be read and reprinted at each point
where a cut is divided into smaller portions.
Batch can be identified by some form of
“marker” or interruption that passes
through all lines within the plant. More
expensive options include RFID or smart
credit card type systems (15)
EAN UCC numbering system
The European commission has recognized
an urgent need to regain consumer confi-
dence in beef products and therefore be-
lieves in fact tracing of beef products
throughout the supply chain. The European
Parliament has adapted a regulation on
compulsory labeling of beef (EC)
1760/2000. This regulation aims to ensure
a link between, on one hand, the identifi-
cation of the carcass, quarter or pieces of
beef and on the other hand individual ani-
mal or the group of animals from which
they are derived. In particular the beef label
must contain the following 6 mandatory
elements in human readable format (3):
- a reference number or reference code
ensuring the link between the meat and
the animal or a group of animals;
- country of birth;
- country of fattening;
- country of slaughter;
- country of cutting;
4
 TABLE 2
Information exchange for Meat Identification and Labeling (12)
Tracking
Farm Slaughtering Cutting Selling Consuming

Carcass ticket Processing label Consumer label

EAN/UCC Symbol: EAN/UCC Symbol: EAN/UCC Symbol: EAN/UCC Symbol:
None EAN/UCC 128 EAN/UCC 128 EAN-13
Valid passport or health EANCOM (EDI), EANCOM (EDI), EAN/UCC 128 Only a GTIN which is the
certificate EAN/UCC 128 AI 01 GTIN key to the article database
Ear-tag number AI 01 GTIN AI 251 Ear tag № or during scanning at the point
AI 251 Ear tag № AI 10 Batch № of sale
Additional: Additional:
AI 422 – Country of AI 422 – Country of birth
birth AI 423 – Country of Fattening
AI 423 – Country of AI 7030 – Country of slaughter
Fattening and approval № of the
AI 7030 – Country of slaughterhouses
slaughter and ap- AI 7031-39 Country of cutting
proval № of the halls and approval № of the
slaughterhouses cutting hall
Tracing

- approval number of the slaughterhouses
and cutting hall.
Adopting the EAN/UCC System, a
unique identification numbering system
together with the use of UCC/EAN – 128
bar codes, provide unique and unambigu-
ous identification for worldwide recogni-
tion and can improve the efficiency and
exchanging information between supply
chain participants. Item numbering is a
system of identifying products by giving
each one a unique number. Traceability
requires the identification of all physical
entities (locations) where fresh produce
originates from and where it is packed and
stored. These may include but are not li-
mited to fields, growers, packers, carriers,
wholesalers and retailers (10, 12).
A system for identifying and tracing pro-
duce is needed so that sub-standard or un-
safe produce can be recalled. It also ena-
bles the cause of problems to be identified
and their recurrence prevented. The essen-
tial requirements for an effective system are:
• Each batch of product must be clearly
marked.
• A record must be kept of the batch ID
and the destination details.
• Records of operations critical to food
safety and quality must be maintained.
The following table (Table 2) shows
how product identification methods and
records combine to form an effective sys-
tem for product identification and trace-
ability linking the stages of growing,
packing and delivery to retailers (12).

5 Biotechnol. & Biotechnol. Eq. 20/2006/1

Radio Frequency Identification
(RFID)
RF tags present a robust and potentially
more cost effective solution than barcodes
for tracking meat as they are unaffected by
contamination and with an appropriate en-
closure will withstand both the tempera-
tures and chemicals used in cleaning and
disinfection. Transponders, injected or em-
bedded in ear tags for animal identification
are remotely activated receiver-transmitters
which use a short range and pulsed echo
principle at approximately 150 Hz. These
devices (external or injectable transpon-
ders) are primarily used for identification
purposes, and transmit the information only
on request. A basic system consists of the
following three parts:
- a temper proof device permanently attached
or implanted, usually termed the identifier
- an activating/reading device (both the
electronic identifier and reader must have
an antenna
- software (electronic recording and trans-
fer of data is far more accurate than in-
formation written by hand on whatever is
available at the time and later transferred
to a more permanent record)
Transponders should be small, light-
weight and robust, with an operational life-
time of the animal. The protective covering
of the electronic identifier, usually bioglass
for injectable transponders or plastic for ear
tags, is also important. The casing must
allow penetration of radio waves and must
be sufficiently strong to withstand injection
or tagging and to function throughout the
life of the animal and during the slaughter.
The device should remain the same loca-
tion from application until slaughter of the
animal. For injectable transponders, the
protective covering should promote encap-
sulation by connective tissue to prevent
migration of the transponders inside the
body of animal. Identification by RF tech-
nology offers a number of distinct advan-
tages over competing technologies, for ex-
ample an unobstructed line of sight is not
Biotechnol. & Biotechnol. Eq. 20/2006/1
required, in contrast to bar code systems.
Radio telemetry employs low frequency
radio signals, typically 500 kHz or below,
characterized by poor directional control,
but good penetration of most materials that
are not metallic or ferromagnetic.
When pigs with implanted transponders
are slaughtered, recovery of the transpon-
der can be a problem. Transponders in-
jected in the head of the animal do not re-
main with the carcass throughout the
slaughter process. When the head is re-
moved, the transponder is separated from
the carcass. Hence, another method must
be found to automatically link the carcass
identity with identification of the hook that
holds up the carcass before being cut into
hams, loins, shoulders, etc. When the
transponders are not injected properly, mi-
gration or loss may occur. This leads to a
loss of certainty as to whether the
transponder has been recovered. To ensure
that transponders are recovered, special
detectors must be installed at the end of
slaughter line. A potential means of avoi-
ding transponders in the food chain is the
use of electronic ear tags. (5, 7, 10, 11).
Experience to date has shown that con-
ventional tagging; bar code labeling sys-
tems and RF tags can incorporate levels of
error and may not have the sufficient preci-
sion. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) tech-
nology can overcome these difficulties by
tracing animals animal by-products through
their DNA code rather than an associate
label.
DNA – based Traceability
The basic principle of DNA – based trace-
ability is that each animal is genetically
unique and that the animal’s own DNA
code can be used to identify it and products
derived from it. In simple terms, the pro-
duct acts as its own label. This form of
identification has a number of distinct ad-
vantages. The code is permanent, unique to
the individual and remains intact through-
out the life history of the animal or product.
6
 Live Animal Tracking Relatively simple
Breeder, Finisher, Inexpensive
Transport, Slaughter

DNA In-plant Tracking Very complex

Cutting, Processing Extremely expensive
DNA
Post-plant Tracking
Distribution, Retail, Little extra cost
Food Service

Figure. Role of DNA in the three major tracking steps that make up the pork value chain (15).

As a consequence there is no requirement DNA profiles does not in itself constitute a

to establish an external product labeling
system. DNA taken from any point along
the production chain can be matched with
the history of the animal, providing the
foundation for an individual animal trace-
ability system (9). DNA tracking can link
meat back to the farm of origin, bypassing
the expensive step of tracking through the
plant (Figure). DNA typing is very
accurate, and relatively free of the human
error compared to hand-labeling system. It
can therefore be used to audit and verify
other tracking systems that are vulnerable
to human error. DNA can be detected in
cooked as well as fresh product, and if
necessary in stomach contents.
The implementation of DNA-based
traceability requires the collection of DNA
samples (reference sample) from ani-
mals/carcass to enable the DNA code to be
read. Samples can either be archived for
subsequent analysis or analyzed and the
resultant DNA profiles stored in a database
along with information on animals origins.
Samples of DNA can in theory be collected
from any biological tissue. In practice the
DNA sampling function should be cheap
and relatively easy to perform, and should
produce samples in a format suitable for
laboratory analysis. There have been a
number of innovations in the area of DNA
sampling, most notably the combination of
live animal identification (ear tagging) with
sampling through DNA - sampling ear tags
(2). Storing samples or their associated
traceability system, rather it provides trace
back capability, which could potentially be
used to locate the source of a product
should a particular need arise.
Probably the most critical technological
developments leading to the uptake of
DNA tracing concepts relate to DNA
analysis technology; for a review of the
relative merits of different DNA markers
the reader is referred elsewhere (14).
A number of genomics companies are
developing DNA tracking systems for
meat. The tracking systems exploit natural
variation in DNA code, which is made up
of just four units or nucleotides
(A=adenine, C=cytosine, G = guanine, T =
thymine). The systems fall into two types:
The first uses restriction fragment length
polymorphisms (RFLPs), and the second
uses single nucleotide polymorphisms
(SNPs or “snips”).
RFLPs are fragments of DNA of varying
length that can be separated by electropho-
resis. They are created by an enzyme that
cuts the DNA at a particular recognition
site. They identify repetitive sequences of
DNA that are naturally variable, so that for
example some individuals may be “-
ACACAC-” while others are “-ACAC-“.
The advantage is that many are known al-
ready. The disadvantage is that there may
be many fragments of different lengths in a
population, and that the different variants
can therefore be difficult to identify with-
out error.

7 Biotechnol. & Biotechnol. Eq. 20/2006/1

 SNPs are single units of the code that
naturally, so that some animals may be ‘A’
while others are “C”. SNPs are therefore
like a digital code. SNPs represent the sim-
plest type of genetic marker. As their name
suggests, SNPs refer to genetic variation at
the lowest possible level: the single base or
nucleotide. The disadvantage is that SNP
discovery is expensive, but SNP maps and
libraries are being established. With their
greater precision, SNPs are therefore the
preferred solution for the long term (4, 7, 8,
10, 15, 20).
Conclusions
Traceability is increasingly recognized as
key risk mitigation and management tool,
as well as a critical component of quality
assurance in the agri-food industry. Within
the livestock sector, animal identification -
a key requirement for traceability is be-
coming mandatory in many regions of the
world. Effective quality systems require
reliability, integrity and traceability. The
production of safe food involves a chain of
responsibility and every participant in the
chain from ‘farm to fork’ has a role to play
to ensure food is as safe as is practically
possible.
All farmers are food producers just the
same as processors; wholesalers, caterers
and retailers, and they play a vital role in
the production of food which meets the
highest standards of hygiene and safety.
The chain is only as strong as its weakest
link and farmers, as the first link in this
chain, need to be aware of all relevant food
safety issues and need to able to demonstrate
that they operate safe production systems.
The ‘farm to fork’ approach to food
safety can only be successful if the whole
process is transparent, with every stage
monitored to ensure the maximum degree
of traceability. The suppliers unable to
meet these concerns may be denied access,
irrespective of quality or price competitive-
ness. Technologies exist to maintain the
identity of animals and animal products
from birth to consumption. Public and pri-
Biotechnol. & Biotechnol. Eq. 20/2006/1
vate groups should avail themselves of
these opportunities to improve public
health and quality parameters for animal
products, or be prepared to have their mar-
ket opportunities limited.
REFERENCES
1. Augsburg J.K. (1990) J. Anim. Sci., 68, 880-883.
2. Brem G. (2004) Dtsch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr.,
111(7), 273-276.
3. Council of the European Communities (EC)
(2003) Council Regulation N 1760/2000 of the Euro-
pean parliament and of the Council of 17 July estab-
lishing a system for the identification and registration
of bovine animals and regarding the labeling of beef
products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) N
820/97, Off. J. Eur. Communities, L 268, 24-28.
4. Cunninghan E.P., Meghen C.M. (2001) Rev.
Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 20, 491- 499.
5. Geers R., Puers B., Goedseels V., Wouters P.
(1997) Electronic identification, monitoring and tracking
of animals, CAB International, Wallingford, 156.
6. Jordanova A. (2004) Product Identification and
Traceability, Operations Management, 345, Mini-
Tutorial Assignment.
7. Klindtworth K., Klindtworth M., Wendl G.
(2003) Electronic Identification and Moleculara
markers for Improving the traceability of Livestock
and Meat - (EID + DNA Tracing), 17-18.06.2003
JRC, Ispra, Italy.
8. Kwok P.Y. (2001) Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum.
Genet., 2, 235-258.
9. Loftus R. (2005) Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz.,
24(1), 231-242.
10. Madec F., Greers R., Vesseur P., Kjeldsen N.,
Blaha T. (2001) Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 20,
523-537.
11. Robinson R. (1995) Electronic identification of
animals and carcasses. In quality and grading of carcasses
of meat animals, CRC press, New York, 201-213.
12. Traceability of beef (2003) Application of
EAN.UCC Standards in implementing Regulation
(EC) 1760/2000, European Meat Expert Group,
EMEG.
13. Valkova - Jorgova K. (2003) The influence of the
thermal treatment of meat products on the content of
heterocyclic aroma amines, University of Food Tech-
nology Edition, 2, 329-333 (Bg).
14. Vignal A., Milan D., SanCristobal M., Eggen
(2002) Genet. Selec. Evol., 34(3), 275-305.
15. Webb J. (2004) Advances in Pork Production,
15, p. 33.
8