INSTALLING A DNA-BASED TRACEABILITY SYSTEM IN THE MEAT ...

Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. Vol 14 INSTALLING A DNA-BASED TRACEABILITY SYSTEM IN THE MEAT INDUSTRY

G.H. Shackell, M.L. Tate and R.M. Anderson AgResearch Invermay, Private Bag 50 034, Mosgiel, New Zealand SUMMARY The easiTrace meat traceability system uses DNA collected in the processing works to trace meat samples from the marketplace back to the farm of origin. To date, easiTrace has been installed in seven processing plants and applied to over one million animals. Samples from meat cuts selected at random following export have been traced back to individual carcasses. These carcasses were then linked to the farm of origin using the meat company’s inventory system. For the first time in the history of the NZ export lamb industry, meat from a normal production batch has been traced from the market place back to the farm of origin in New Zealand. Keywords: easiTrace, traceability, meat processing. INTRODUCTION Traceability of meat and meat products is now a major issue in the meat industry. AgResearch Invermay has developed easiTrace to enable meat processors to address this issue without alteration to normal cutting room procedure. easiTrace uses DNA profiling technology. DNA samples from carcasses going through the meat processing plant are stored for the shelf-life of the product. Retailers wanting to trace a meat cut provide package label information and a DNA sample from the meat. By using the processor’s inventory system, the relevant group of stored DNA samples is selected. A five marker DNA profile of the meat sample is compared to the DNA profiles of stored carcass samples. When a match is identified, the meat company’s inventory information is used to establish the property of origin. Providing that the meat processor and the retailer are able to meet strict auditing requirements a certified matching of the meat sample to a specific carcass can be provided within 10 working days of the meat sample being taken. easiTrace has been extensively tested by AgResearch, in conjunction with a meat processor partner, and has been installed in seven processing plants. To date over 1 million carcasses have been sampled. The system has been validated via live market traces, the first three of which are reported here. For the first time in the 150-year history of New Zealand meat industry meat from a normal production batch has been traced from the market place back to the farm of origin in New Zealand. This paper summarises the results of the first three traces from the market and evaluates the performance and reliability of DNA traceability in an industry situation.

533

Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. Vol 14 MATERIALS AND METHODS Figure 1 shows the pathways that were followed from the farm of origin through processing, packaging, storage, sampling, analysis, DNA comparison and back to the farm of origin. A sample was collected from the neck of each carcass on an easiTrace DNA-label, prior to the carcass entering the cutting room. The label had an aggressive adhesive backing, which allowed it to be securely positioned on the printed ticket attached to the carcass. As protection against samples being altered, the label had a built-in tamper indicator. Carcass tickets, with their attached DNAlabels, were bulked and labelled with times and dates prior to being stored using the processor’s storage system. After processing, meat cuts were packaged and labelled with date and time prior to shipping. When a trace was required, the distributor or retailer collected a sample from the meat cut(s) and forwarded it to the laboratory along with packing information from the carton label. The processor used cutting room performance data to associate the packaging information back to slaughter date and time. This information was used to identify both the range of carcasses that could have possibly contributed to the carton of meat cuts, and the ‘most likely’ range. DNA profiles from the carcass tickets were compared with the DNA profile from the meat sample, and an exact match identified. Following matching, the supplier of the animal carcass was identified from the carcass ticket information and the processor’s database.

Processing Farm of Origin

Carcass

Market

Carton

Cut

Store all carcass tickets with DNA sample attached

Select samples for DNA testing

Carton Label

PRODUCT OF NEW ZEALAND Richmond Ltd Oringi ME60 49 0rgh2 2792 13 40 LAMB

PRODUCT OF NEW ZEALAND Richmond Ltd

18.2kg

Oringi ME60 49 0rgh2 2792 13 40 LAMB

PRODUCTOFNEWZEALAND Richmond Ltd Oringi ME60

18.2kg

49 0rgh2 2792 13 40 LAMB

PRODUCTOFNEWZEALAND Richmond Ltd

18.2kg

Oringi ME60 49 0rgh2 2792 13 40 LAMB

Compare DNA

PRODUCTOFNEWZEALAND Richmond Ltd Oringi ME60

18.2kg

49 0rgh2 2792 13 40 LAMB

PRODUCT OF NEW ZEALAND RichmondLtd Oringi ME60

18.2kg

49 0rgh2 2792 13 40 LAMB

PRODUCT OF NEW ZEALAND RichmondLtd

PRODUCTOFNEWZEALAND Richmond Ltd

ME60 49 0rgh2 2792 13 40 LAMB

18.2kg

Oringi ME60 49 0rgh2 2792 13 40 LAMB

DNA sample from meat

Oringi

PATENT PENDING

18.2kg

DNA TRACKING SYSTEM

Stock Data System

PRODUCTOFNEWZEALAND RichmondLtd Oringi ME60

18.2kg

49 0rgh2 2792 13 40 LAMB

PRODUCT OF NEW ZEALAND Richmond Ltd Oringi ME60

18.2kg

49 0rgh2 2792 13 40 LAMB

PRODUCT OF NEW ZEALAND Richmond Ltd

18.2kg

Correct Carcass Ticket identified by DNA

Oringi ME60 49 0rgh2 2792 13 40 LAMB

PRODUCT OF NEW ZEALAND Richmond Ltd Oringi ME60

18.2kg

49 0rgh2 2792 13 40 LAMB

PRODUCTOFNEWZEALAND RichmondLtd Oringi ME60

18.2kg

49 0rgh2 2792 13 40 LAMB

18.2kg

Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of the pathways followed in the easiTrace DNA-based meat traceability system. 534

Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. Vol 14 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The first three market traces completed were blind traces of samples taken from cuts exported to the UK, undertaken to validate the system’s design. The results are shown in Table 1. Wholesalers in the UK sent meat samples to the laboratory and packaging information to the processor. The range of carcass tickets for laboratory analysis was selected using the procedures outlined above. The meat samples were matched to specific carcass DNA labels in all cases. Using our standard protocol, the chances of having detected a half-sib or full-sib match are 3.2 in 10000 and 3.1 in 1000 respectively. The chance of the DNA from an unrelated animal matching the meat sample is less than 1 in one million. Since the objective is to link meat samples to the farm of origin, sibling matches do not compromise the system. However, in the event that a meat sample is matched to two carcass tickets the analysis is repeated, using further DNA markers, until one carcass is eliminated. For traces one and three, the carcasses that matched the samples were outside the range identified by the processor. This necessitated repeating the analysis using an expanded range of carcass tickets. In each case matching carcasses were identified within 100 carcasses of the ML range. Trace one involved three meat samples. A total of 1545 DNA labels were sent to the laboratory, with a ML range of 50 specified. A total of 105 carcass DNA samples were tested. The three meat samples came from three different carcasses, which were all from the same supplier. Six meat samples were included in the second trace. Of the 425 DNA labels that were sent for this trace, a ML range of 100 was identified, and 70 carcass DNA tickets were tested. The meat samples were all within the ML range specified by the processor. Five of the samples had originated from carcasses from one supplier, with two samples originating from a single carcass. The sixth sample was matched to a carcass from a different supplier. A further six meat samples were forwarded for trace three. There were 226 DNA labels sent, with a ML range of 51. As the initial analysis suggested that the samples were from outside the ML range, a total of 152 DNA samples were tested. The six samples were matched to 5 carcasses (two cuts came from the same carcass), which had come from 4 different suppliers. In addition, several sham traces have been undertaken to audit the system from both the processor and laboratory aspects (data not presented). These traces were undertaken by European based processors and were analysed “blind” by the laboratory. One trace correctly identified that a recording error had been made by a processor during the sample collection stage. Another trace matched a meat sample to the correct carcass as well detecting unintentional contamination of the DNA label with blood from another carcass. In a further case, a processor presented a sample that contained undisclosed intentional cross-contamination for analysis. The laboratory matched the meat sample to the correct carcass, but did not initially identify the contamination. The processor subsequently notified the laboratory that the sample had been intentionally tampered with. Because the DNA label is designed to make cross-contamination difficult, non-standard laboratory practices were necessary to detect the presence of blood from two carcasses. When these were applied, two DNA profiles were generated from the DNA label. 535

Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. Vol 14 Table 1. Results of 3 traces undertaken using the easiTrace meat traceability system Trace

Wholesaler

n

Packed

No tested

Sample

Supplier

Carcass

1

A

3

2-12-99

14-2-00 1545 350-400

Received

Range ML range

105

2

A

6

7-2-00

28-3-00

425

1-100

70

3

B

6

7-2-00

28-3-00

226

151-202

152

Total

3

15

1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 3f 15

1 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 5 5 6 5 7 7

337 346 342 38 41 39 42 39 40 104 108 105 36 105 26 13

2196

327

CONCLUSION The easiTrace system has been installed successfully with our meat processor partner, and has been shown to be effective in tracing meat samples from overseas wholesalers back to the farm of origin. The combination of electronic batch-tracking (using date and time of production information), and DNA sampling of individual carcasses provides a viable large-scale traceability system. The advantages that easiTrace has over purely paper or mechanical tracing systems include: • minimal disruption to standard boning room procedures, which allows rapid implementation in a variety of environments • straight-forward and incontrovertible third party verification of origin through DNA analysis. Currently, easiTrace is used simply as an audit tool to verify the origin of batches or consignments of meat. As DNA typing becomes more rapid and cost effective a refined system would link information from large numbers of individual cuts in the market back to the farm of origin, an individual animal, and ultimately to the sire(s) whose genes are responsible for better meat quality. For the system to operate effectively, an auditable production trail is essential and the processor must follow standard operating procedures to avoid contamination. Providing these conditions are met, the standard analytical procedure will match a DNA sample, taken from a meat-cut in the marketplace, to the DNA profile of a carcass at slaughter.

536