Insights

When all else fails you may be stuck with manual approaches to traceability. These can be painful and they often illustrate quite clearly why a capable electronic system is preferred. But don't underestimate the transition to use of a system or systems.

For many food companies, FSMA Rule 204 initially appears to be a traceability technology project. In reality, the biggest challenge may be supplier readiness. Retailers, distributors, manufacturers, and foodservice operators are increasingly discovering that compliance depends on whether suppliers can consistently meet expectations across three critical domains:

We continue to observe large gaps between the current capabilities and required capabilities for even the most basic supply chain traceability. No where is this gap most observable than ERP software.

In many small and mid-sized foodservice organizations, food safety isn’t led by a dedicated Quality or Food Safety Manager. It’s carried—often quietly—by someone whose primary role lies elsewhere.

The FDA’s compliance timeline for FSMA Rule 204 has led many food companies to ask the same question: “How soon do we really need to act?” While enforcement dates matter, organizations that treat FSMA Rule 204 as a last-minute compliance project often face higher cost, greater disruption, and increased regulatory risk than those that prepare early.

If traceability doesn’t start at the manufacturing-node—grower, packer, processor, first land-based receiver—every downstream partner pays for that omission. And pays dearly.

What Can We Infer About Food Loss and Waste from FSMA Rule 204? More Than You Might Think. When people first read FSMA Rule 204, one question naturally comes up: “Does the FDA want to know amounts of food loss and waste as part of the Electronic Sortable Spreadsheet?”

For decades, cost reduction has been the golden child of corporate performance. Procurement teams are rewarded for shaving pennies off contracts, cutting input costs, and locking in lower prices year over year. On paper, it works beautifully. On the ground, it’s a different story.

When Everyone Wants Progress but No One Owns the Strategy. This morning, on a call with an industry working group, something hit me hard: many organizations aren’t struggling with AI because of technology… they’re struggling because of governance. Here’s the real issue—one I see repeatedly across associations, coalitions, and multi-stakeholder industry bodies:

But let’s be honest — most companies are waiting. Some are hesitating. And a few are still wondering what FSMA even stands for. (Yikes.) So, from the trenches of FSMA 204 projects this year, here are three short, true stories that prove why waiting is the worst strategy you could have right now.

Artificial Intelligence has quickly become the food industry’s buzzword of the year. From predictive compliance to AI-powered customer service, the potential is enormous. But for many companies, the question remains: Where do we start? The truth is, AI adoption is not a leap—it’s a journey. And like any journey, it needs a roadmap.

Traceability has always been a cornerstone of food safety. Knowing where a product came from, how it was handled, and where it went is critical for recalls, compliance, and consumer trust. Yet despite decades of effort, most food traceability systems are still fragmented, manual, and slow.AI is now emerging as the accelerator—filling gaps, reducing manual work, and turning traceability into a real-time capability.