1D and 2D barcodes - what’s the difference?
What is the difference between a 1D and a 2D barcode? It's a question we hear a lot from customers when they first start looking at label and date code verification.
What’s the difference between a 1D and a 2D barcode? It's a question we hear a lot from customers when they first start looking at label and date code verification. Here’s our short guide explaining the main differences between the two and why food manufacturers use 2D rather than 1D barcodes when verifying their packaging.
1D barcode
EAN128 1D Barcode
A 1D or single dimensional barcode is made up of vertical lines which vary in width on a contrasting background collectively forming an image. Alphanumeric data (i.e. letters and numbers) are encoded within the lines and spaces, although with a limit on the number of characters, and linked to a database where the data are housed. When the barcode is scanned using either a camera-based imaging scanner or laser-based scanner, the encoded data is decrypted revealing the information input within the database. The more data stored within, the longer the barcode.
1D barcodes are widely used in the retail industry as they’re better suited to applications where certain information, e.g. price, may change frequently yet the actual product’s identity number stays the same. In the food manufacturing industry, the retailer has control over the 1D barcode as it is this which links to the retailers’ tills for stock control and price monitoring.
2D QR Code
2D barcode
2D barcodes are two-dimensional barcodes made up of a matrix of shapes (dots, squares, hexagons etc.) with data coded both vertically and horizontally. Depending on the type of 2D barcode, it can typically house more than just alphanumerical data, as well as holding much greater volumes of data than a 1D barcode at a much smaller size.
ECC200 2D Barcode
How are 2D barcodes used?
In the food manufacturing environment, 2D barcodes are used to check the packaging revision/artwork number to ensure that the product running is packed in the correct packaging. The manufacturer has control of this barcode, with a unique one for each packaging variation.
The changes on the packaging could be very slight, for example, a ‘new recipe’ flash could have been added or the packaging could be advertising a promotion. These adjustments may not be immediately obvious, which is why visual checks are not reliable especially when 60 packs are running past your eyes every minute! In certain circumstances, for example a new recipe, not having the right packaging could be fatal to the consumer if an allergen has been added so 2D barcodes can bring additional security to your packaging line.
Our Autocoding label & date code verification system safeguards your operations by scanning the 2D barcode on each and every product travelling down the packaging line and comparing the information to the job information programmed by the Technical Manager in the supervisory area of the system. This reliably ensures that the packaging is the correct variant allocated to that job and significantly reduces the costly risk of product recalls and withdrawals caused by label and packaging errors, as well as protecting the consumer from any incorrect allergen information.
Why do we use 2D barcodes to verify label and date codes?
We use 2D barcodes because these are the most reliable in the food manufacturing environment to help keep your factory, your products and your brand secure!
A major benefit of using 2D barcodes as opposed to 1D barcodes is that they can still work if slightly damaged, which is a huge benefit in the variable working conditions of a food manufacturing environment.
In addition, retailers rely on 1D barcodes for stock and price control; every time a price is altered, retailers must reset their tills to download the new information. If the packaging version information was held within the 1D barcode, the barcode would need to be extended to take on board the new information - taking up valuable packaging real estate - and the retailers would be forever resetting their tills! 2D codes offer a useful solution, allowing all of the information required by you, the manufacturer, to be kept separate in a very small space so that the packaging artwork is not disrupted.
Using 2D barcodes and implementing the OAL Connected system gives the manufacturer full control and a reliable way to ensure that the packaging used for a job is correct regardless of any major or minor changes that are made, however last minute, and may not be as noticeable to the human eye.
If a 2D barcode is scanned and the code does not match the one input for that job prior to starting production, then the line automatically stops, and an alarm and red light alerts the Production Manager of the error. The system will then request that the issue is resolved, the solution recorded and additional QA checks are carried out before production can recommence, protecting you from the financial and brand repercussions of a product recall.
To find out more about how the OAL Connected system works, check out our case studies or download our white paper!
Top five reasons for label and packaging errors in food processing
Faye Louch, one of our trainers explains her top five reasons for label and packaging errors in food manufacturing.
Faye Louch is one of our trainers, helping manufacturers eliminate label and date code errors with our market leading Autocoding system and save money through increased efficiency. We asked her for her top five reasons for label and packaging errors in food manufacturing.
1. Human errors in food processing
We've all seen the trend for food retailers to implement category ranges, like 'food-to-go', so the products have unified branding. But this has created difficulties for operators ensuring the correct labels are applied to products. It's now commonplace for all products to have the same design with just one word different on the label artwork; hence it's very easy to select the wrong labels when working in the high speed, quick changeover environment of a food factory.
“I have seen many errors when setting up printers, it’s all too easy to change the date and not the month or put the 32nd of a date. Although quality checks seek to prevent errors when signing off labels, these can be easily missed when you are trying to check 10 or more things as well as keeping an eye on the production line.
”
2. Promotional activities
In most cases promotions are briefed to the production team at the last minute or packaging arrives just before production starts. This increases the pressure on the team and can lead to a lack of clarity on when the promotion was meant to start and finish. Incorrectly packing product into promotional packs after the promotion has ended can lead to retailer fines and claims for loss of income due to the wrong prices being scanned at the tills.
3. Supplier packaging errors
Packaging suppliers make errors too! Splice reels of labels or films are more common than most people think. The difficulty with this, especially due to similar artwork designs, is that it's almost impossible for operators to spot mistakes on the line. 30-minute quality checks (applying a label to a check sheet and signing it off) may catch some, but if the splice error occurs between a check and in some cases reverts back to the correct label, the error will not be noticed until the dreaded phone call from the retailer.
These errors from the suppliers can often go undetected or incorrectly identified as operator errors which may lead to misplaced disciplinary action but without the necessary evidence and it’s very hard to prove otherwise.
4. Equipment errors
If a printer goes into a “fault” state then this can usually lead to one of two things.
The printer stops printing but the line carries on running. This can result in unprinted or badly printed packs. If these are not detected by the operator at the end of the line then these could go out to the customer.
The date code can revert to a default setting. This has been seen on a number of printers. If this change in date is not detected then this will potentially result in a product withdrawal.
5. Last minute dot com…
The nature of the food industry means we have to respond to changes quickly, often at the last minute. Quick decisions and high production demand naturally lead to errors. Incorrect packaging being issued to the line, coupled with quick, inaccurate checks can usually lead to incorrect packaging being used.
Date code, print information required for the product needs to be accurate to ensure what is being printed on the packs is correct. Last minute information is often incorrect or misinterpreted on the shop floor resulting in the wrong date codes being printed. Usually, these are only detected by the retailer or after the production run, resulting in costly re-work.
What is the perfect food factory?
What is the perfect food factory? Watch Harry Norman and Stephen White from the APRIL Robotics team discuss how robots must be part of the perfect food factory.
The perfect food factory
Imagine your food factory has 400 of the best chefs and food technologists working together to create Michelin star food 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Your products would be fantastic but the costs make the idea uneconomical!
Automation and robotics can unlock Michelin star quality food but at costs consumers can afford. Light out food manufacturing facilities means your best food technologists and chefs become incredibly productive with automated systems conducting the majority of tasks.
Unparalleled consistency
Consumers have high expectations when it comes to product consistency. We expect our ready meal to taste the same every time. Automation ensures the recipe and process are followed exactly every time ensuring consistency.
Ready to make food factory perfect too? Get in touch today to find out how we can help you.
Can batch vessel size unlock Michelin star quality in food processing?
Can batch size unlock Michelin star quality in food processing? Chris Brooks, Development Chef at OAL takes a look at the difference the size of cooking vessel can make and whether we can overcome the compromise with robotics?
The level of engineering and automation across food manufacturing is incredible, but from a chef's perspective, there has been little change in the way we cook products. I think technology can help food manufacturers emulate a head chef of a Michelin star restaurant, given the same ingredients of course!
In terms of cooking quality, one of the key stumbling blocks is the size of batches. Traditionally, there is a compromise between efficiency and quality in relation to the size of cooking vessels but robotics enables highly efficient small batches.
Want to see if you can deliver Michelin star quality products in your facility? Get in touch and you find out how you can work with Chris to come up with the right recipe.
The three key food processing trends from Interpack 2017
At Interpack 2017, the world’s largest process and packaging trade show, we asked the global community of food manufacturers to help us answer the question, what will change about food as we move forward to 2030? We tasked them with writing their solutions on our ‘food wall’, causing a great deal of excitement as visitors jostled to ensure their answer was more prominent than the last. Here, we sum up the top three trends they identified.
1) No sugar, low salt, less fat
Globally, food manufacturers are facing external pressures to investigate how they can improve the nutritional value of their products. Therefore, it is no surprise that when asked ‘ what will change about food as we move forward to 2030?’ comments such as ‘No sugar’ or ‘Less salt’ and ‘Low fat’ appeared. Many of our favourite products such as the KitKat have already adapted their recipes to meet government guidelines.
However, there is only so much you can reduce of an ingredient before hindering the taste of the product. So, what is the next step for manufacturers in this position? Click here to find out how changing the way you process ingredients can have a dramatic difference on your end product’s traffic light system without compromising on taste.
Interpack resuse recyle and consume with empathy
2) Sustainability
Sustainability continues to be on consumer's minds and is likely to become even more prominent as we move towards 2030. Interestingly, many of the comments related to reducing packaging or using more sustainable packaging, a challenge for the whole supply chain.
3) The rise of the robots
Thankfully, visitors to our stand agreed that the adoption of robotics and automation will continue to rise in food manufacturing. Visitors identified the ability of robots to automate both repetitive and more complex tasks in food factories.
On a final note...the death of the smartphone
A challenge for many...will anyone find a solution to eliminating the smartphone from mealtimes?
APRIL Robotic Chef on BBC Radio 4
APRIL the Robotic Chef appeared on the BBC Radio 4 programme The Kitchen Cabinet. Jake Norman, Innovation Manager at OAL, explained the robot cooking concept to host Jay Rayner.
Robot taste test
Jake Norman, OAL's Innovation Manager with Jay Rayner
A feature of the show was a taste test between an APRIL cooked broccoli and stilton soup and the same soup prepared by the professional chef, Tim Hayward.
As expected, Tim Hayward's soup came out on top, but the panel did commend APRIL's soup for matching the colour and tasting cheesier.
APRIL's soup benefits from OAL's Steam Infusion fast cooking process that has been proven by the University of Lincoln to emulate homemade products better and enhance dairy flavours.
Removing humans from the cooking process
Being a cooking show, discussions turned to the interesting debate of removing the human chef from the cooking process. Jake chose to highlight the dichotomy between the passion for cooking and the need to eliminate food waste and become more sustainable.
3 millennial innovations for Food Manufacturing 2030
We asked the latest cohort of Bakkavor Graduates "what will the food factory of the future look like?" The millennials were attending an innovation day at the National Centre for Food Manufacturing, as we supported the University of Lincoln inspiring future food industry leaders. “Millennials”, with a reputation for being digitally savvy, were shown the latest automation and robotics technologies before we discussed what will food manufacturing look like in 2030? There key ideas included:
1. Going digital on the shop floor
Unlike their baby boomer counterparts, millennials have grown up with digital technologies and are very much at one with their smart phone. One of the clear changes they see is the movement to digital manufacturing systems and the elimination of paperwork from the factory floor. The key drivers for the adoption of digital will be improved traceability, decision making and the overall equipment efficiency of a factory.
2. More robots
There are many repetitive manual tasks that will be automated as the cost of robotics and automation falls. From cakes to wraps, robots and collaborative robots will play a much greater role in our food production systems. A particularly interesting area of discussion was the potential impact of reduced human interventions on hygiene and the shelf life of products.
3. Flexibility is a requirement
But to do this, millennials recognised the need for flexibility within future food systems providing the opportunity for products, recipes and lines to be changed quicker and easier allowing flexible manufacturing and development.
Inspiring new technologies
At the National Centre for Food Manufacturing, OAL demonstrated how new technologies will shape food manufacturing. Demos included:
OAL Connected - Using automation to connect devices and remove paperwork from the factory floor. Tasks can be recorded digitally covering food safety, traceability, performance, productivity, recipe management, packaging and date security and ERP validation.
Steam Infusion - To demonstrate how new processing technologies can offer efficiency and product differentiation, the grads cooked up a broccoli and stilton soup with Steam Infusion. They could see first hand how the cooking process can eliminate burn on achieving a cleaner, more nutritional product with locked in flavours, colours and vitamins.
APRIL - APRIL (Automated Processing Robotic Ingredient Loading) our robotic chef is disrupting the way we handle and process raw ingredients by combining state of the art cooking and material handling technologies. The site of a five-tonne robot, cooking sauce, definitely inspired the graduates to the possibilities of robots in food manufacturing.
[mailmunch-form id="436502"]
McKinsey Report: where will automation replace humans in food manufacturing
Food service and manufacturing sit at the top of a recent McKinsey report that analysed work activities rather than occupations as a predictor of automation. By identifying jobs with predictable physical work, data processing or data collecting, they were able to assess the technical feasibility of automation.
By breaking down jobs by activities, up to 59% of time spent at work in the US is highly susceptible to automation. Further analysis suggested that food service and manufacturing were more suited to automation than others i.e. many activities within food manufacturing are highly susceptible to automation.
Technical feasibility of automation in food
The McKinsey report highlights food manufacturing and food service as highly susceptible to automation due to the activities involved in the jobs (see figure 1). The main driver for this is the high amount of time people spend on predictable physical work. Often in food factories, people will undertake a high number of predictable activities such as lifting product, moving ingredients etc. (see figure 2).
In our experience, the trend fits for our customers who manufacture a smaller range of SKUs and have already been able to automate a high number of the predictable activities. This is in contrast to chilled food manufacturing, where upwards of 40 SKUs can be produced per day and predictable and unpredictable activities become intertwined.
One major part of the puzzle will be splitting out the predictable from the unpredictable physical work, thus enabling higher levels of adoption of robotics. For instance, lifting ingredients into a saucepan is a predictable task but judging the taste of the food requires the expertise of a chef, hence it isn’t so susceptible to automation.
We’re working with the University of Lincoln to develop robotic systems that provide manufacturers the flexibility to split out the predictable from the unpredictable thus enabling greater levels of automation. APRIL, our robotic chef installed at the National Centre for Food Manufacturing enables this flexibility by breaking down activities in a different way to traditional manufacturing processes.
Food Manufacturing 2030 Conference
If you’re interested in how automation and robotics could change food manufacturing, join us at the “Food Manufacturing 2030 Conference”. Learn and discuss the future of food manufacturing with industry leaders whilst OAL’s robotic chef APRIL cooks up lunch.
Click to register for the Food Manufacturing 2030 conference
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Top three automation challenges facing food manufacturing
What are the top 3 automation challenges facing food manufacturers? As a company, we invest 8.2% of our turnover into R&D, so we’re keen to keep on top of the major trends in our industry. We conducted market research to establish what challenges food manufacturers are facing as they enter 2016 to ensure that our APRIL Robot Chef, a flexible fully automated processing cell, can provide the answers that manufacturers need. Here’s what we found; the top three challenges reported may not surprise you.
OAL Food Safety
1. Food safety & traceability
Unsurprisingly food safety and traceability tops the list of challenges that face food manufacturers. Food manufacturers have a duty of care to ensure that food is safe for people to eat and thus the ability of automation to ensure traceability is critical.
Through discussions with respondents, stricter regulations and complexity presented challenges to ensuring complete traceability through existing food production systems. Tracking product/ingredients through all stages of sourcing, processing and distribution with the complex nature of supply chains and sheer number of SKUs is no easy feat.
OAL has been developing solutions as part of their OAL Connected software to overcome these challenges whilst offering real-time data for both food safety and factory efficiency. A key aspect of this development is building the paperless factory. Paper systems do not offer the level of assurance to overcome the challenges highlighted and easy to use paperless control systems have been a cornerstone of OAL's work. Integrated product tracking with ERP systems through SCADA enables complete traceability of products from the first receipt of goods in, right through to dispatch.
OAL Packaging
2. Packaging
Packaging was the second most highlighted challenge and it's little surprise with the number of format changes and regulations that food manufacturers face. Packaging has always changed but 2013 saw the boom of healthy eating, and manufacturers have been under ever-increasing pressure to ensure that food packaging appeals to customers. This changing consumer landscape has raised issues in the flexibility of automated packaging systems to respond to change.
The rising number of packaging variations has heightened the risk of the wrong product being placed in the wrong packaging; a nut product with the incorrect packaging could have fatal consequences. Back in 2004, OAL was involved in the development of Autocoding with Tesco and Geest (now Bakkavor), and the introduction of 2D barcodes to ensure that every piece of product packaging is correct. This was a major step forward as 2D barcodes meant the lids, sleeves and packs could all be identified by a barcode scanner.
OAL has experienced first-hand the importance of flexibility and an ability to adapt to the changing packaging formats, working closely with customers to ensure compliance with retailers codes of practice. As the trend for packaging variations grows, they see this as a key area for continued collaboration to ensure packaging security.
3. Cost of implementation
Finally, in a very respectable 3rd position was the least surprising problem reported, Cost. The initial cost of implementing automated solutions is high but existing systems have often lacked flexibility. The flexibility of the systems is critical in allowing soft reconfiguration to accommodate evolving consumer tastes; attempts at previously achieving automation have often missed this key component resulting in costly white elephants.
APRIL the Robot Chef from OAL seeks to eliminate this issue of flexibility by using principles from Manufacturing 4.0 to deliver a truly flexible modular solution. Coupled with the cost of robotics and automation dropping because of strong adoption in other industries, OAL believes the challenge of the cost of implementing automation can be overcome.
Ready to get started? Get in touch with our team today!
About the survey
OAL contacted a wide range of food manufacturers and the results were based upon 97 respondents. Respondents varied in roles with a good cross section of line managers to business directors.
Three ways robot chefs will improve product quality in food manufacturing
Bridging the gap between chef’s table and ready to eat meals is an ongoing challenge for food manufacturers. Retailers and consumers expectations for high quality/gourmet food products is ever increasing with product quality critical to business success.
Traditionally one route to emulating a chef is the use of highly labour intensive industrial-scale kitchens but these generate food safety and operational risks. Flexible automation and robotics manufacturing cells present new opportunities to close the gap and offer restaurant quality food on an industrial scale.
The APRIL robotic chef uses state of the art cooking and material handling technologies to process ingredients with real care. Robot chefs will emulate chefs in three key ways:
Products are poured not pumped
Precise batch cooking and process control
Process flexibility
1) Products are poured not pumped
In a chef’s kitchen there are no pumps or pipework for the food to be transferred through, yet typically in food manufacturing, product will pass through many pumps and pipes before it’s packaged. Pumps and pipes cause damage to product through abrasion on the pipe wall and the pumping action itself, particulates will disintegrate and quality will be lost. The APRIL robotic chef doesn’t have pipework or pumps and simply pours product for transfer to other vessels (saucepans) and fillers, just like a chef. For example, one of the most challenging to handle ingredients are whole raspberries, when passed through pumps and pipework they break down into pieces. When using a robotic chef we can keep the integrity of the raspberry whole.
2) Process flexibility
Traditional manufacturing often faces the compromise between the desired process steps and equipment available. Desired recipes are amended to match the available cooking processes often to the products detriment. For a traditional cooking system with a steam jacket and homogeniser there is a high cost to adding new devices due to the engineering works required. Often vessels are one size fits all with limits on process flexibility.
Robotic chef systems by contrast enable the use of multiple processing devices that aren’t restricted to a specific vessel. The interoperability of the system (ability to interface with new devices) means it’s very easy to add new cooking technologies at a low cost, whilst increasing utilisation of devices by processing in parallel. For instance, a new device can be easily added to a manufacturing cell to produce more exotic products, a frothing device for manufacturing frothy soup.
3) Precise batch cooking and process control
Automated robotic chef’s offer unparalleled cooking consistency stemming from the use of PLC automation and control. Without any human interaction a products desired cooking steps can be followed precisely offering more consistent flavours and colours. A relatively small batch size of 500kg means product is cooked evenly and quickly with advanced heating and mixing technologies like Steam Infusion, effectively eliminating over processing.
Robotics chefs are coming on stream now, make sure you enjoy the benefits. If you would like to learn more about APRIL sign up for our launch event on Thursday 28th April 2015 at the National Centre for Food Manufacturing, Holbeach UK or if you would like to talk to someone please call one of the APRIL specialists at OAL.
For the latest updates, click to follow us on: