Ever wondered where that apple or deli salad you’re noshing on came from (and where it’s been)? We may soon have more clarity on questions like these, thanks to a new federal regulation known as FSMA 204.
The next time you pick up a snack—say, an apple or a jar of almond butter—at a local store, take a moment to see if you can figure out where that item was grown or produced. If you’re in a supermarket, you might glance at the label, but that often just tells you the name of the distributor. Bar codes aren’t much help either—they typically provide little more information than the item’s price or SKU (stock-keeping unit) number.
But in less than two years from now, the picture will be much clearer—at least for players in the food supply chain—thanks to a federal regulation known as FSMA 204. FSMA 204, which stands for Section 204 of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Safety Modernization Act, establishes new, tightened traceability recordkeeping requirements for “persons who manufacture, process, pack, or hold foods included on the [agency’s] Food Traceability List”—a roster that includes many fresh fruits and vegetables, a variety of soft cheeses, shell eggs, nut butter, herbs, some categories of seafood, and refrigerated and ready-to-eat deli salads.
The FDA’s goal is to better protect the public from foodborne diseases by strengthening the food tracking system from farm to retailer, according to a white paper from Wiliot, an Illinois-based provider of cloud services and internet of things (IoT) technologies. The end goal is a stronger tracking system that will allow for faster identification and rapid removal of potentially contaminated food from the market, the FDA says on its website.
The nuts and bolts
Though it’s part of a much broader food safety initiative, FSMA 204 at its core is simply about recordkeeping—recordkeeping by every entity that participates in the “harvesting, packing, and transportation of foods covered by Section 204,” according to the Wiliot white paper. That includes commercial farms, packing operations, and food processing facilities as well as a host of logistics-sector players. While carriers are exempt from FSMA 204, warehouses, food suppliers, wholesalers/distributors, grocery and convenience stores, and retail food establishments of all stripes come under the new rule’s purview.
As for the records themselves, parties subject to the rule must “maintain records containing key data elements (KDEs) associated with specific critical tracking events (CTEs) in the food handling process,” according to the FDA’s website. Examples of CTEs include harvesting, cooling, initial packing, shipping, and receiving. KDEs vary according to the CTE, but in the case of harvesting, for instance, the data elements would include the location of the farm (or even field) and date of harvest. Each affected company must store all of that information for 24 months. And if an outbreak of foodborne illness occurs, the company must be able to share all of it with federal regulators on 24 hours’ notice.
What makes this all the more complicated is that these companies must be able to share the data not just with the FDA, but also with suppliers, wholesalers, distributors, stores, and restaurants.
“Historically, the industry was only required to track where product came from and directly where it was shipped. That’s all changed with FSMA 204,” Brian Piancino, COO of Texas-based wholesaler Affiliated Foods Inc., said in a release describing his company’s response to the new requirements. “Now everyone from the grower in the field, to the processor, to the warehouse must have electronic data tracking in place and the ability to provide that data to the next person in line in the supply chain all the way to the backroom of the retail store.”
The FDA doesn’t dictate the type of technology required for compliance, but Wiliot says any company looking to meet the new requirements will almost certainly have to use automatic identification(auto ID) technologies such as smart tags and IoT sensors, all linked to interoperable online databases, to avoid incurring huge increases in labor costs.
No time to waste
The new traceability regulations took effect on Jan. 20 of this year, but the FDA has set a three-year grace period for adopting new processes, so enforcement begins on Jan. 20, 2026. While that might sound like a lot of breathing room, experts say it’s actually a pretty aggressive timeline for an IT project of this scope.
“That leaves only [28] months for an estimated 1.5 million-plus grocery stores, restaurants, convenience stores, and the entire supply chains of the products on the Food Traceability List to get traceability processes and traceability data management and recordkeeping systems in place,” says Derek Hannum, chief customer officer for ReposiTrak, a provider of supply chain risk mitigation and compliance management solutions. “In short, there is an enormous amount of work to get done and not very much time to do it.”
According to Hannum, the protocols needed to comply with the new traceability requirements will be a big step up from current recordkeeping practices, like the common “one forward/one back” approach, where each company keeps its own records on who it receives product from and who it ships product to. A big part of the challenge will be finding ways to share detailed information swiftly with so many other parties.
“It’s the sharing of the data between suppliers, wholesalers, distributors, stores, and restaurants that is new, and virtually no one has systems or processes in place today to make this data-sharing easy and routine in the complex network of players that comprise the U.S. food supply chain,” Hannum says.
Savanna Holt, a transportation manager with supply chain consulting and technology services firm enVista, agrees. “Based on [what we’re seeing with] the clients, organizations, and other industry stakeholders we’ve been working with, [almost] no one is compliant with FSMA 204 standards yet,” she says. “The majority of the industry is still in the initial stages of trying to wrap their heads around FSMA 204’s requirements and determine what best practices are for compliance.”
The chief hurdle is that the new rule requires a far more granular level of data tracking than current practices like one step forward/one step back, Holt says. Complying with the new standards will likely require significant technology investments, a burden that will probably fall most heavily on the parties closest to consumers. “FSMA 204 is not the first FSMA ruling. Previous rulings were more focused on suppliers, so they would likely already have more practices in place for becoming compliant with this new ruling,” Holt says. “Because of this, FSMA 204 is impacting those toward the middle and end of the supply chain, like distributors and[retailers], the most.”
Focus on the technology
That’s not to say everybody has yet to leave the starting gate. Some companies, like Affiliated Foods Inc., are well underway on their compliance journey. Affiliated, which serves more than 800 member stores across the Southwest, recently adopted the ReposiTrak Traceability Network, an online portal that enables its suppliers to exchange the “key data element” information required by the FDA for every critical tracking event in the food handling process.
But Affiliated may be more the exception than the rule. As the enforcement deadline draws near, many players in the food supply chain will have to significantly up their tracking game, which will likely mean investing in more robust auto ID, IoT, and other data-management and -sharing technologies.
For those starting out on their journey, ReposiTrak’s Hannum offers a word to the wise. For all its complexities, he says, FSMA 204 compliance is fundamentally an IT matter—and organizations should approach it that way.
“As more companies start to realize that FSMA 204 traceability is not actually a food safety project, but rather a supply chain data management project, they can then begin to mobilize the people and resources required for compliance,” he says.
ReposiTrak, a global food traceability network operator, will partner with Upshop, a provider of store operations technology for food retailers, to create an end-to-end grocery traceability solution that reaches from the supply chain to the retail store, the firms said today.
The partnership creates a data connection between suppliers and the retail store. It works by integrating Salt Lake City-based ReposiTrak’s network of thousands of suppliers and their traceability shipment data with Austin, Texas-based Upshop’s network of more than 450 retailers and their retail stores.
That accomplishment is important because it will allow food sector trading partners to meet the U.S. FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act Section 204d (FSMA 204) requirements that they must create and store complete traceability records for certain foods.
And according to ReposiTrak and Upshop, the traceability solution may also unlock potential business benefits. It could do that by creating margin and growth opportunities in stores by connecting supply chain data with store data, thus allowing users to optimize inventory, labor, and customer experience management automation.
"Traceability requires data from the supply chain and – importantly – confirmation at the retail store that the proper and accurate lot code data from each shipment has been captured when the product is received. The missing piece for us has been the supply chain data. ReposiTrak is the leader in capturing and managing supply chain data, starting at the suppliers. Together, we can deliver a single, comprehensive traceability solution," Mark Hawthorne, chief innovation and strategy officer at Upshop, said in a release.
"Once the data is flowing the benefits are compounding. Traceability data can be used to improve food safety, reduce invoice discrepancies, and identify ways to reduce waste and improve efficiencies throughout the store,” Hawthorne said.
Under FSMA 204, retailers are required by law to track Key Data Elements (KDEs) to the store-level for every shipment containing high-risk food items from the Food Traceability List (FTL). ReposiTrak and Upshop say that major industry retailers have made public commitments to traceability, announcing programs that require more traceability data for all food product on a faster timeline. The efforts of those retailers have activated the industry, motivating others to institute traceability programs now, ahead of the FDA’s enforcement deadline of January 20, 2026.
Inclusive procurement practices can fuel economic growth and create jobs worldwide through increased partnerships with small and diverse suppliers, according to a study from the Illinois firm Supplier.io.
The firm’s “2024 Supplier Diversity Economic Impact Report” found that $168 billion spent directly with those suppliers generated a total economic impact of $303 billion. That analysis can help supplier diversity managers and chief procurement officers implement programs that grow diversity spend, improve supply chain competitiveness, and increase brand value, the firm said.
The companies featured in Supplier.io’s report collectively supported more than 710,000 direct jobs and contributed $60 billion in direct wages through their investments in small and diverse suppliers. According to the analysis, those purchases created a ripple effect, supporting over 1.4 million jobs and driving $105 billion in total income when factoring in direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts.
“At Supplier.io, we believe that empowering businesses with advanced supplier intelligence not only enhances their operational resilience but also significantly mitigates risks,” Aylin Basom, CEO of Supplier.io, said in a release. “Our platform provides critical insights that drive efficiency and innovation, enabling companies to find and invest in small and diverse suppliers. This approach helps build stronger, more reliable supply chains.”
Logistics industry growth slowed in December due to a seasonal wind-down of inventory and following one of the busiest holiday shopping seasons on record, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index (LMI) report, released this week.
The monthly LMI was 57.3 in December, down more than a percentage point from November’s reading of 58.4. Despite the slowdown, economic activity across the industry continued to expand, as an LMI reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
The LMI researchers said the monthly conditions were largely due to seasonal drawdowns in inventory levels—and the associated costs of holding them—at the retail level. The LMI’s Inventory Levels index registered 50, falling from 56.1 in November. That reduction also affected warehousing capacity, which slowed but remained in expansion mode: The LMI’s warehousing capacity index fell 7 points to a reading of 61.6.
December’s results reflect a continued trend toward more typical industry growth patterns following recent years of volatility—and they point to a successful peak holiday season as well.
“Retailers were clearly correct in their bet to stock [up] on goods ahead of the holiday season,” the LMI researchers wrote in their monthly report. “Holiday sales from November until Christmas Eve were up 3.8% year-over-year according to Mastercard. This was largely driven by a 6.7% increase in e-commerce sales, although in-person spending was up 2.9% as well.”
And those results came during a compressed peak shopping cycle.
“The increase in spending came despite the shorter holiday season due to the late Thanksgiving,” the researchers also wrote, citing National Retail Federation (NRF) estimates that U.S. shoppers spent just short of a trillion dollars in November and December, making it the busiest holiday season of all time.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
As U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face an uncertain business landscape in 2025, a substantial majority (67%) expect positive growth in the new year compared to 2024, according to a survey from DHL.
However, the survey also showed that businesses could face a rocky road to reach that goal, as they navigate a complex environment of regulatory/policy shifts and global market volatility. Both those issues were cited as top challenges by 36% of respondents, followed by staffing/talent retention (11%) and digital threats and cyber attacks (2%).
Against that backdrop, SMEs said that the biggest opportunity for growth in 2025 lies in expanding into new markets (40%), followed by economic improvements (31%) and implementing new technologies (14%).
As the U.S. prepares for a broad shift in political leadership in Washington after a contentious election, the SMEs in DHL’s survey were likely split evenly on their opinion about the impact of regulatory and policy changes. A plurality of 40% were on the fence (uncertain, still evaluating), followed by 24% who believe regulatory changes could negatively impact growth, 20% who see these changes as having a positive impact, and 16% predicting no impact on growth at all.
That uncertainty also triggered a split when respondents were asked how they planned to adjust their strategy in 2025 in response to changes in the policy or regulatory landscape. The largest portion (38%) of SMEs said they remained uncertain or still evaluating, followed by 30% who will make minor adjustments, 19% will maintain their current approach, and 13% who were willing to significantly adjust their approach.
Specifically, the two sides remain at odds over provisions related to the deployment of semi-automated technologies like rail-mounted gantry cranes, according to an analysis by the Kansas-based 3PL Noatum Logistics. The ILA has strongly opposed further automation, arguing it threatens dockworker protections, while the USMX contends that automation enhances productivity and can create long-term opportunities for labor.
In fact, U.S. importers are already taking action to prevent the impact of such a strike, “pulling forward” their container shipments by rushing imports to earlier dates on the calendar, according to analysis by supply chain visibility provider Project44. That strategy can help companies to build enough safety stock to dampen the damage of events like the strike and like the steep tariffs being threatened by the incoming Trump administration.
Likewise, some ocean carriers have already instituted January surcharges in pre-emption of possible labor action, which could support inbound ocean rates if a strike occurs, according to freight market analysts with TD Cowen. In the meantime, the outcome of the new negotiations are seen with “significant uncertainty,” due to the contentious history of the discussion and to the timing of the talks that overlap with a transition between two White House regimes, analysts said.