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.
Just 29% of supply chain organizations have the competitive characteristics they’ll need for future readiness, according to a Gartner survey released Tuesday. The survey focused on how organizations are preparing for future challenges and to keep their supply chains competitive.
Gartner surveyed 579 supply chain practitioners to determine the capabilities needed to manage the “future drivers of influence” on supply chains, which include artificial intelligence (AI) achievement and the ability to navigate new trade policies. According to the survey, the five competitive characteristics are: agility, resilience, regionalization, integrated ecosystems, and integrated enterprise strategy.
The survey analysis identified “leaders” among the respondents as supply chain organizations that have already developed at least three of the five competitive characteristics necessary to address the top five drivers of supply chain’s future.
Less than a third have met that threshold.
“Leaders shared a commitment to preparation through long-term, deliberate strategies, while non-leaders were more often focused on short-term priorities,” Pierfrancesco Manenti, vice president analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a statement announcing the survey results.
“Most leaders have yet to invest in the most advanced technologies (e.g. real-time visibility, digital supply chain twin), but plan to do so in the next three-to-five years,” Manenti also said in the statement. “Leaders see technology as an enabler to their overall business strategies, while non-leaders more often invest in technology first, without having fully established their foundational capabilities.”
As part of the survey, respondents were asked to identify the future drivers of influence on supply chain performance over the next three to five years. The top five drivers are: achievement capability of AI (74%); the amount of new ESG regulations and trade policies being released (67%); geopolitical fight/transition for power (65%); control over data (62%); and talent scarcity (59%).
The analysis also identified four unique profiles of supply chain organizations, based on what their leaders deem as the most crucial capabilities for empowering their organizations over the next three to five years.
First, 54% of retailers are looking for ways to increase their financial recovery from returns. That’s because the cost to return a purchase averages 27% of the purchase price, which erases as much as 50% of the sales margin. But consumers have their own interests in mind: 76% of shoppers admit they’ve embellished or exaggerated the return reason to avoid a fee, a 39% increase from 2023 to 204.
Second, return experiences matter to consumers. A whopping 80% of shoppers stopped shopping at a retailer because of changes to the return policy—a 34% increase YoY.
Third, returns fraud and abuse is top-of-mind-for retailers, with wardrobing rising 38% in 2024. In fact, over two thirds (69%) of shoppers admit to wardrobing, which is the practice of buying an item for a specific reason or event and returning it after use. Shoppers also practice bracketing, or purchasing an item in a variety of colors or sizes and then returning all the unwanted options.
Fourth, returns come with a steep cost in terms of sustainability, with returns amounting to 8.4 billion pounds of landfill waste in 2023 alone.
“As returns have become an integral part of the shopper experience, retailers must balance meeting sky-high expectations with rising costs, environmental impact, and fraudulent behaviors,” Amena Ali, CEO of Optoro, said in the firm’s “2024 Returns Unwrapped” report. “By understanding shoppers’ behaviors and preferences around returns, retailers can create returns experiences that embrace their needs while driving deeper loyalty and protecting their bottom line.”
Facing an evolving supply chain landscape in 2025, companies are being forced to rethink their distribution strategies to cope with challenges like rising cost pressures, persistent labor shortages, and the complexities of managing SKU proliferation.
1. Optimize labor productivity and costs. Forward-thinking businesses are leveraging technology to get more done with fewer resources through approaches like slotting optimization, automation and robotics, and inventory visibility.
2. Maximize capacity with smart solutions. With e-commerce volumes rising, facilities need to handle more SKUs and orders without expanding their physical footprint. That can be achieved through high-density storage and dynamic throughput.
3. Streamline returns management. Returns are a growing challenge, thanks to the continued growth of e-commerce and the consumer practice of bracketing. Businesses can handle that with smarter reverse logistics processes like automated returns processing and reverse logistics visibility.
4. Accelerate order fulfillment with robotics. Robotic solutions are transforming the way orders are fulfilled, helping businesses meet customer expectations faster and more accurately than ever before by using autonomous mobile robots (AMRs and robotic picking.
5. Enhance end-of-line packaging. The final step in the supply chain is often the most visible to customers. So optimizing packaging processes can reduce costs, improve efficiency, and support sustainability goals through automated packaging systems and sustainability initiatives.
That clash has come as retailers have been hustling to adjust to pandemic swings like a renewed focus on e-commerce, then swiftly reimagining store experiences as foot traffic returned. But even as the dust settles from those changes, retailers are now facing renewed questions about how best to define their omnichannel strategy in a world where customers have increasing power and information.
The answer may come from a five-part strategy using integrated components to fortify omnichannel retail, EY said. The approach can unlock value and customer trust through great experiences, but only when implemented cohesively, not individually, EY warns.
The steps include:
1. Functional integration: Is your operating model and data infrastructure siloed between e-commerce and physical stores, or have you developed a cohesive unit centered around delivering seamless customer experience?
2. Customer insights: With consumer centricity at the heart of operations, are you analyzing all touch points to build a holistic view of preferences, behaviors, and buying patterns?
3. Next-generation inventory: Given the right customer insights, how are you utilizing advanced analytics to ensure inventory is optimized to meet demand precisely where and when it’s needed?
4. Distribution partnerships: Having ensured your customers find what they want where they want it, how are your distribution strategies adapting to deliver these choices to them swiftly and efficiently?
5. Real estate strategy: How is your real estate strategy interconnected with insights, inventory and distribution to enhance experience and maximize your footprint?
When approached cohesively, these efforts all build toward one overarching differentiator for retailers: a better customer experience that reaches from brand engagement and order placement through delivery and return, the EY study said. Amid continued volatility and an economy driven by complex customer demands, the retailers best set up to win are those that are striving to gain real-time visibility into stock levels, offer flexible fulfillment options and modernize merchandising through personalized and dynamic customer experiences.
Geopolitical rivalries, alliances, and aspirations are rewiring the global economy—and the imposition of new tariffs on foreign imports by the U.S. will accelerate that process, according to an analysis by Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
Without a broad increase in tariffs, world trade in goods will keep growing at an average of 2.9% annually for the next eight years, the firm forecasts in its report, “Great Powers, Geopolitics, and the Future of Trade.” But the routes goods travel will change markedly as North America reduces its dependence on China and China builds up its links with the Global South, which is cementing its power in the global trade map.
“Global trade is set to top $29 trillion by 2033, but the routes these goods will travel is changing at a remarkable pace,” Aparna Bharadwaj, managing director and partner at BCG, said in a release. “Trade lanes were already shifting from historical patterns and looming US tariffs will accelerate this. Navigating these new dynamics will be critical for any global business.”
To understand those changes, BCG modeled the direct impact of the 60/25/20 scenario (60% tariff on Chinese goods, a 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico, and a 20% on imports from all other countries). The results show that the tariffs would add $640 billion to the cost of importing goods from the top ten U.S. import nations, based on 2023 levels, unless alternative sources or suppliers are found.
In terms of product categories imported by the U.S., the greatest impact would be on imported auto parts and automotive vehicles, which would primarily affect trade with Mexico, the EU, and Japan. Consumer electronics, electrical machinery, and fashion goods would be most affected by higher tariffs on Chinese goods. Specifically, the report forecasts that a 60% tariff rate would add $61 billion to cost of importing consumer electronics products from China into the U.S.