Food & beverage
Food and beverage software built for the 24-hour trace
FSMA 204 expects your traceability records within 24 hours of a request. A plant that keeps batch records in binders needs about a week.
What makes food and beverage different
4 things that decide this
- 01FSMA 204 requires traceability records for foods on the FDA's Food Traceability List, delivered as an electronic sortable spreadsheet within 24 hours of a request.
- 02The rule turns on Key Data Elements and Critical Tracking Events: what lot arrived, what batch consumed it, and where that batch shipped. Paper can hold those facts. It cannot query them.
- 03Auditors already treat trace speed as a proxy for control. A slow mock recall shows up in SQF and BRCGS audits and in FDA 483 observations long before enforcement does.
- 04Most processors under 200 employees sit between spreadsheets and an ERP quote they cannot justify. The workable answer is a capture layer over the systems already running.
Who buys this, and why it lands on their desk
The QA or FSQA director owns the audit and the mock recall, so the 24-hour clock is their problem first. Plant managers own the line and reject anything that slows a changeover. Both are right, and the build has to satisfy both.
Entity type changes the scope. A co-packer runs one line for many customers, so every trace crosses customer boundaries and confidentiality rules. A beverage plant codes lots by date and tank, which shifts the capture points. We ask which one you are before anything is scoped.
- 01QA and FSQA directors buy trace speed they can demonstrate in an audit.
- 02Plant managers buy capture that rides the existing workflow instead of adding steps.
- 03Co-packers buy lot visibility across customers without exposing one customer to another.
- 04Owners buy a scoped build instead of a plant-wide ERP cutover.
Sector context
The numbers your build has to answer to
Jan 2026
FSMA 204 compliance date for foods on the FDA Food Traceability List
24 hrs
Deadline to hand FDA an electronic sortable spreadsheet of traceability records
2028
FDA enforcement-discretion window for many firms. Audit schemes already cite the rule
42,708
US food and beverage processing establishments (Census County Business Patterns, 2022)
The work we take in this sector
Scoped small, integrated with what is already bolted to the floor.
Traceability capture
Lot numbers recorded at receiving, transformation and shipping, so a trace is a query. The output format matches what an FDA records request asks for: sortable, electronic, complete.
Batch-record digitization
The paper traveler becomes a structured record without changing what operators write down. Recipe changes propagate once, not by hand across copies.
Recall dashboards and timed drills
A mock recall you can run monthly with a stopwatch on it. When the real request comes, the drill is the procedure.
Label, scale and ERP integration
Labelers, checkweighers and scales already hold half your lot data. We pull from what they expose, including file drops where no API exists.
Supplier documents and COAs
Certificates of analysis chased by email and filed in binders become parsed records tied to the lot they cover. Missing documents get chased by the system, not by QA.
The glue layer instead of the ERP
Food ERPs are built for bigger plants. We build the middle: capture, trace and reporting over the spreadsheets and systems you already run, maintained after launch.
- ReceiveLot in, KDEs captured
- TransformBatch consumes lots
- ShipLot out, customer linked
- TraceOne query, both directions
- EvidenceThe 24-hour spreadsheet
FSMA 204 is a data-shape problem. Each Critical Tracking Event captures its Key Data Elements at the moment it happens, and the 24-hour spreadsheet becomes a report, not a scramble.
The trace that takes a week
Ask a plant to trace one lot end to end and you learn where the paper lives. Receiving logs in one binder, batch sheets in another, shipping records in the office. Each is accurate. None of them joins to the next without a person reading pages.
The fix is not more discipline. It is capture at the three points where lot identity changes hands, stored so the join is automatic. That is a small build compared to an ERP, and it is the difference between a week and an afternoon when the request is real.
- Time your last mock recall honestly, door to door. That number is what an auditor infers control from.
- Capture beats transcription: a record typed twice is wrong somewhere.
- Start on one line. A plant-wide cutover is how traceability projects die.
Systems where a record has to hold up
“I am extremely happy with the results and would highly recommend Hashlogics to anyone.”
Daniel Khin · CEO, PremiumAudit.io
The food ERP pitch, and how we scope it instead
Traceability
A typical food ERP pitch
A module you configure after the rollout lands.
How we scope it
A capture layer over the systems you run now, live on one line first.
Batch records
A typical food ERP pitch
Operators re-trained onto the ERP's screens.
How we scope it
The record you already keep, digitized where it is written.
Recall readiness
A typical food ERP pitch
A report somebody builds when asked.
How we scope it
A timed drill built into the system, run monthly.
Label and scale systems
A typical food ERP pitch
Replace what does not fit the platform.
How we scope it
Integrate what is bolted down. It already holds your lot data.
Scope
A typical food ERP pitch
Plant-wide, priced accordingly.
How we scope it
Fixed price after a free scoping call. A paid two-week diagnostic applies only where we must read an existing codebase.
What this work runs on
Where we usually build
Document and agent work
Standards buyers raise
Questions processors ask
01What does FSMA 204 actually require, and by when?+
FSMA 204 requires firms handling foods on the FDA's Food Traceability List to keep Key Data Elements for defined Critical Tracking Events. On request, FDA gets them as an electronic sortable spreadsheet within 24 hours. Its compliance date was January 20, 2026, and FDA has announced enforcement discretion for many firms until 2028. The date that matters commercially is sooner: SQF and BRCGS audits and large retail customers already ask about trace speed.
02Can we hit the 24-hour requirement without replacing our systems?+
Yes, in most plants we see. The records already exist in receiving logs, batch sheets and shipping documents. What is missing is capture at the moments lot identity changes and a store that joins them. We build that layer over your existing label, scale and accounting systems. An ERP replacement is a different project, and usually not the one you need first.
03What is the free Mock-Recall Audit?+
An engineer times how fast your team can trace one lot end to end, receiving through shipments, then maps the gap to 24 hours. You get your current trace time, where the joins break, and the shortest path to close them. The findings are yours whether or not you hire us. Scoping calls are free. A paid two-week diagnostic applies only where we must read an existing codebase to answer honestly.
04We run a co-packing operation. Does multi-customer traceability change the build?+
It changes the data model, not the approach. Every lot carries a customer boundary, so a trace has to resolve completely for one customer without exposing another's volumes or recipes. That is a permissions and schema decision made on day one. Retrofitting it after a shared table exists is expensive, which is why we ask about co-packing before scoping.
05Will this disrupt the line during rollout?+
The build starts on one line and rides the existing workflow. Operators keep recording what they already record. The capture points change from paper to a screen or a scan, and the changeover test is run outside production hours before anything goes live. A plant-wide cutover is the failure mode here, and we do not propose one.
06What would you need to see before quoting?+
Scoping calls are free, and for most greenfield capture work the call settles scope. Three things drive the estimate: which systems already hold lot data, how batch records are kept today, and whether co-packing or multi-plant boundaries apply. Where the honest answer requires reading existing code, a paid two-week diagnostic produces the scope, the risks and a fixed price.
Go deeper
- Business process automation →Automation that runs unattended, on your own infrastructure.
- Shift Link case study →Compliance verification built as a gate, not a dashboard.
- Manufacturing software development →The wider plant-floor problem: production tracking without the ERP.
- What audit trail means for a system →The record an auditor expects to see after the fact.
