pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18593 · v1 · pith:QJ7OQHLEnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.CY

"The New Era of Tech-Enabled Traceability": Tensions between the FDA's Data Governance Vision and the Lived Realities of Food Producers

Soonho Kwon , Catherine Wieczorek , Heidi Biggs , Shellye Suttles , Tammi S. Etheridge , Annabel Rothschild , Shaowen Bardzell This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 20:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.CY
keywords food traceabilityFDA ruledata governancesupply chain stakeholderspublic commentscompliance burdensfood safety
0
0 comments X

The pith

The FDA's Food Traceability Rule burdens smaller producers by requiring them to act as data workers amid practical infeasibilities and ambiguities.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates the gap between the FDA's vision of a tech-enabled traceability system for faster food safety responses and the actual experiences of food producers and supply chain workers. Through analysis of public comments on the proposed rule, it shows how the requirements reconfigure stakeholders into data collectors, leading to three main tensions around labor costs, practical impossibilities, and unclear guidelines. A sympathetic reader would care because these burdens could prevent the rule from achieving its public health aims if smaller operations cannot comply effectively.

Core claim

The FDA envisions standardized tracking data as public health infrastructure to reduce foodborne illness risks, but the rule reconfigures agri-food stakeholders into data laborers with stringent requirements, and analysis of 1,198 comments reveals tensions in individual burdens, infeasible tracking due to limitations and practices, and flexibility causing confusion.

What carries the argument

Qualitative document analysis of 1,198 public comments identifying three tensions in data governance implementation for the food supply chain.

If this is right

  • The rule may disproportionately affect smaller, under-resourced producers lacking capacity to comply.
  • Data tracking requirements may prove impractical in certain production contexts and cultural settings.
  • Intended flexibility in the rule can instead increase confusion and burden for stakeholders.
  • Implementation starting in 2026 could face resistance or incomplete adoption due to these issues.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar data mandates in other industries might encounter comparable stakeholder pushback if they overlook resource disparities.
  • Engaging producers in rule design could mitigate some of the identified tensions.
  • Without adjustments, the rule might accelerate industry consolidation toward larger entities better equipped for data compliance.

Load-bearing premise

That the submitted public comments represent the full range of lived realities and burdens across all agri-food supply chain stakeholders.

What would settle it

Finding that a majority of small producers have successfully implemented the required tracking without significant burden by the rule's effective date would challenge the identified tensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.18593 by Annabel Rothschild, Catherine Wieczorek, Heidi Biggs, Shaowen Bardzell, Shellye Suttles, Soonho Kwon, Tammi S. Etheridge.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comment Lengths by Word Count Range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Sample Image of Highlighted Keywords in Comment Files [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Sample Excel Spreadsheet Template Provided by the FDA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Food Traceability Rule requires agri-food supply chain stakeholders (stakeholders)--including farmers, fishers, retail workers, and others--to maintain detailed tracking records beginning in January 2026. Through this Rule, the FDA envisions a "New Era of Tech-Enabled Traceability," in which standardized, harmonized tracking data serve as a foundational public health infrastructure, enabling more rapid identification and removal of potentially contaminated food and ultimately reducing the risk of foodborne illness. Despite this promising vision, we observe that the Rule reconfigures agri-food stakeholders into data laborers by mandating stringent data collection, formatting, and reporting requirements. In this paper, we examine the tensions and burdens that arise from such reconfiguration. Leveraging Data Feminism as an orientation to attend to how data-driven policy implementation disproportionately burdens smaller, under-resourced stakeholders who lack the infrastructural and financial capacity to comply, we analyze 1,198 public comments submitted to Regulations.gov in response to the proposed Rule. Our qualitative document analysis reveals three key tensions: (1) the individual labor, financial, and educational burdens stakeholders experience as they are reconfigured into data workers; (2) moments where data tracking becomes infeasible due to infrastructural limitations, cultural contexts, and situated production practices; and (3) instances where the Rule's intended flexibility instead introduces confusion and burden due to its ambiguity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the FDA's Food Traceability Rule reconfigures agri-food supply chain stakeholders into data laborers through stringent tracking requirements. Drawing on Data Feminism, the authors qualitatively analyze 1,198 public comments submitted to Regulations.gov on the proposed rule and identify three tensions: (1) individual labor, financial, and educational burdens on stakeholders; (2) infeasibility of data tracking due to infrastructural, cultural, and production constraints; and (3) confusion and added burden from the rule's intended flexibility and ambiguity. The central claim is that these tensions disproportionately affect smaller, under-resourced stakeholders lacking capacity to comply.

Significance. If the empirical analysis is robust, the work contributes to HCI and data governance scholarship by applying Data Feminism to policy implementation, surfacing how traceability mandates create uneven burdens. The use of public comments as data provides a grounded view of stakeholder responses, and the three-tension framework offers a concrete lens for evaluating similar data-driven regulations.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods (qualitative document analysis section): The headline claim that the Rule disproportionately burdens smaller, under-resourced stakeholders rests on coding of 1,198 public comments, yet the manuscript does not address selection bias. Submitting a Regulations.gov comment requires time, regulatory literacy, and internet access—the same capacities the paper argues small producers lack. No correction, weighting, or limitations discussion for this self-selection effect is described, so the three tensions may systematically under-represent the experiences of the group foregrounded by the Data Feminism orientation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: The abstract and description of the qualitative analysis provide no information on the coding process, codebook development, inter-rater reliability, or how the sample of 1,198 comments was selected and filtered from the full docket.
  2. Throughout: Some quotes from comments are presented without clear attribution to stakeholder type (e.g., small producer vs. trade association), making it difficult to assess which tensions are voiced by which groups.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback. The concern regarding selection bias in the public comments is a substantive methodological point that merits explicit treatment. We address it below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods (qualitative document analysis section): The headline claim that the Rule disproportionately burdens smaller, under-resourced stakeholders rests on coding of 1,198 public comments, yet the manuscript does not address selection bias. Submitting a Regulations.gov comment requires time, regulatory literacy, and internet access—the same capacities the paper argues small producers lack. No correction, weighting, or limitations discussion for this self-selection effect is described, so the three tensions may systematically under-represent the experiences of the group foregrounded by the Data Feminism orientation.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript should explicitly discuss selection bias. While the 1,198 comments include submissions from trade associations and advocacy organizations that represent small and mid-sized producers, as well as some individual small producers, the act of commenting does introduce self-selection. We will add a dedicated Limitations subsection to the Methods section that (1) acknowledges the resource requirements for submitting comments, (2) notes that our dataset may therefore under-represent the most resource-constrained stakeholders, and (3) discusses the implications for the Data Feminism framing. No weighting or statistical correction is feasible given the qualitative nature of the analysis, but the limitation will be stated plainly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical qualitative study grounded in external comments and stated theoretical orientation

full rationale

The paper conducts a qualitative document analysis of 1,198 public comments submitted to Regulations.gov, framed by Data Feminism to identify tensions in FDA traceability requirements. No equations, parameters, or derivations are present. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The central claims are derived from coding the external comment corpus rather than reducing to the paper's own inputs by construction. The analysis is therefore self-contained; concerns about comment-sample bias pertain to external validity, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper depends on the Data Feminism framework as an interpretive lens and on the assumption that public comments represent stakeholder realities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Data Feminism provides an appropriate orientation to analyze how data-driven policy implementation disproportionately burdens smaller, under-resourced stakeholders
    Invoked explicitly to frame the analysis of burdens on under-resourced stakeholders.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5828 in / 1232 out tokens · 42576 ms · 2026-06-26T20:09:42.194024+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    [n. d.]. Designation of High-Risk Foods for Tracing; Request for Comments and for Scientific Data and Information, All Comments on Docket. https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FDA-2014-N-0053/comments

    2014

  2. [2]

    Requirements for Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods

    2022. Requirements for Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods. 87 Fed. Reg. 70910 (Nov. 21, 2022) (codified at 21 CFR Part 1). U.S. Food and Drug Administration

    2022

  3. [3]

    Rediet Abebe, Solon Barocas, Jon Kleinberg, Karen Levy, Manish Raghavan, and David G Robinson. 2020. Roles for computing in social change. InProceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 252–260

    2020

  4. [4]

    Boniface Ushaka Adie, Mary Tate, Elizabeth Valentine, and Wonhyuk Cho. 2024. Digital Leadership Competencies for Digital Government: Insights and Implications from New Zealand Government Agencies.. InProceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. 473–480

    2024

  5. [5]

    Sara Ahmed. 2021. Complaint! InComplaint!Duke University Press

    2021

  6. [6]

    David Altheide, Michael Coyle, Katie DeVriese, and Christopher Schneider. 2008. Emergent qualitative document analysis. (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    Steven Arzt, Andreas Poller, and Gisela Vallejo. 2021. Tracing contacts with mobile phones to curb the pandemic: topics and stances in people’s online comments about the official German contact-tracing app. InExtended abstracts of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–7

    2021

  8. [8]

    Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell. 2015. The user reconfigured: on subjectivities of information. InProceedings of The Fifth Decennial Aarhus Conference on Critical Alternatives. 133–144

    2015

  9. [9]

    Jeffrey Bardzell, Guo Freeman, Shaowen Bardzell, and Pei-Ying Chen. 2020. Join. Love: A sociotechnical genealogy of the legalization of same-sex marriage. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13

    2020

  10. [10]

    Eric PS Baumer, Jenna Burrell, Morgan G Ames, Jed R Brubaker, and Paul Dourish. 2015. On the importance and implications of studying technology non-use.interactions22, 2 (2015), 52–56

    2015

  11. [11]

    Chris Bopp, Ellie Harmon, and Amy Voida. 2017. Disempowered by data: Nonprofits, social enterprises, and the consequences of data-driven work. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 3608–3619

    2017

  12. [12]

    Claus Bossen, Kathleen H Pine, Federico Cabitza, Gunnar Ellingsen, and Enrico Maria Piras. 2019. Data work in healthcare: An Introduction. 465–474 pages

    2019

  13. [13]

    Glenn A Bowen. 2009. Document analysis as a qualitative research method.Qualitative research journal9, 2 (2009), 27–40

    2009

  14. [14]

    Bowker and Susan Leigh Star

    Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star. 2008.Sorting things out: classification and its consequences(1. paperback ed.,

    2008

  15. [15]

    MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    print ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Citation Key: bowkerSortingThingsOut2008

  16. [16]

    Carey and Natalie R

    Maeve P. Carey and Natalie R. Ortiz. 2024. The Paperwork Reduction Act and Federal Collections of Information: A Brief Overview. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11837 CRS In Focus, IF11837

    2024

  17. [17]

    Elcelina Carvalho Silva and Miguel Mira da Silva. 2024. Central Bank Digital Currency Design Concepts: A Multivocal Literature Review. InProceedings of the 12th Euro American Conference on Telematics and Information Systems. 1–12

    2024

  18. [18]

    Shiva Darian, Aarjav Chauhan, Ricky Marton, Janet Ruppert, Kathleen Anderson, Ryan Clune, Madeline Cupchak, Max Gannett, Joel Holton, Elizabeth Kamas, et al. 2023. Enacting data feminism in advocacy data work.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–28

    2023

  19. [19]

    Olivia Doggett, Matt Ratto, and Priyank Chandra. 2024. Migrant Farmworkers’ Experiences of Agricultural Technologies: Implications for Worker Sociality and Desired Change. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 10, No. 6, Article CSCW164. Publication date: October 2026. CSCW164:24 Kwon et al. Co...

    2024

  20. [20]

    Charlotte Doidge, Laura Palczynski, X Zhou, Angela Bearth, G van Schaik, and Jasmeet Kaler. 2023. Exploring the data divide through a social practice lens: a qualitative study of UK cattle farmers.Preventive Veterinary Medicine220 (2023), 106030

    2023

  21. [21]

    Catherine D’Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein. 2020.Data feminism. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Citation Key: dignazioDataFeminism2020

    2020

  22. [22]

    William N Eskridge, James J Brudney, Joshua Aaron Chafetz, Philip P Frickey, and Elizabeth Garrett. 2014. Cases and materials on legislation and regulation: statutes and the creation of public policy.(No Title)(2014)

    2014

  23. [23]

    Cynthia R Farina, Mary Newhart, and Josiah Heidt. 2012. Rulemaking vs. democracy: Judging and nudging public participation that counts.Mich. J. Envtl. & Admin. L.2 (2012), 123

    2012

  24. [24]

    Swinton, Nadja El Benni, and Achim Walter

    Robert Finger, Scott M. Swinton, Nadja El Benni, and Achim Walter. 2019. Precision Farming at the Nexus of Agricultural Production and the Environment.Annual Review of Resource Economics11, Volume 11, 2019 (Oct. 2019), 313–335. doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-093929

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-093929 2019

  25. [25]

    Food and Drug Administration

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [n. d.]. FSMA final rule on requirements for additional Traceability Records. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/fsma-final-rule-requirements-additional- traceability-records-certain-foods

  26. [26]

    Food and Drug Administration

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2016. Report to Congress On Enhancing Tracking and Tracing of Food and Recordkeeping Submitted Pursuant to Section 204 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, Public Law 111-353. (2016). https://www.fda.gov/media/102784/download?attachment

    2016

  27. [27]

    Food and Drug Administration

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2022. FDA Stakeholder Webinar on the Food Traceability Final Rule. https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEF0hRk19Ho

    2022

  28. [28]

    2022.Methodological Approach to Developing a Risk-Ranking Model for Food Tracing FSMA Section 204 (21 U.S

    Center for Food Safety, Applied Nutrition Food, and Drug Administration. 2022.Methodological Approach to Developing a Risk-Ranking Model for Food Tracing FSMA Section 204 (21 U.S. Code § 2223). Technical Report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://www.fda.gov/media/142247/download. fsma, ftl, model

    2022

  29. [29]

    Jérémie Forney and Ludivine Epiney. 2022. Governing Farmers through data? Digitization and the Question of Autonomy in Agri-environmental governance.Journal of Rural Studies95 (Oct. 2022), 173–182. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud. 2022.09.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud 2022

  30. [30]

    1989.Les mots et les choses: une archéologie des sciences humaines

    Michel Foucault. 1989.Les mots et les choses: une archéologie des sciences humaines. Gallimard, Paris

    1989

  31. [31]

    Public Policy

    Ritika Gairola and Colin M Gray. 2025. How is" Public Policy" Used in HCI Scholarship?. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8

    2025

  32. [32]

    Ritwick Ghosh. 2024. Data-driven governance and performances of accountability: Critical reflections from US agri-environmental policy.Science as Culture33, 1 (2024), 70–96

    2024

  33. [33]

    2016.Industry 4.0

    Alasdair Gilchrist. 2016.Industry 4.0. Apress, Berkeley, CA. doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-2047-4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-2047-4 2016

  34. [34]

    Michele Estrin Gilman. 2022. Beyond window dressing: Public participation for marginalized communities in the datafied society.Fordham L. Rev.91 (2022), 503

    2022

  35. [35]

    Michael Goller, Carina Caruso, and Christian Harteis. 2021. Digitalisation in agriculture: knowledge and learning requirements of German dairy farmers.International journal for research in vocational education and training8, 2 (2021), 208–223

    2021

  36. [36]

    Margaret Hagan. 2019. Participatory design for innovation in access to justice.Daedalus148, 1 (2019), 120–127

    2019

  37. [37]

    Kaely Hall, Dong Whi Yoo, Wenrui Zhang, Mehrab Bin Morshed, Vedant Das Swain, Gregory D Abowd, Munmun De Choudhury, Alex Endert, John Stasko, and Jennifer G Kim. 2022. Supporting the contact tracing process with WiFi location data: opportunities and challenges. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2022

  38. [38]

    Andrea Hamm, Yuya Shibuya, Teresa Cerratto Pargman, Roy Bendor, Christoph Raetzsch, Mennatullah Hendawy, Rainer Rehak, Gwen Klerks, Ben Schouten, and Nicolai Brodersen Hansen. 2024. What Does’ Failure’Mean in Civic Tech? We Need Continued Conversations About Discontinuation.interactions31, 2 (2024), 34–38

    2024

  39. [39]

    Jean Hardy, Susan Wyche, and Tiffany Veinot. 2019. Rural HCI research: Definitions, distinctions, methods, and opportunities.Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–33

    2019

  40. [40]

    Maximilian Häring, Eva Gerlitz, Matthew Smith, and Christian Tiefenau. 2023. Less about privacy: Revisiting a survey about the German COVID-19 contact tracing app. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–16

    2023

  41. [41]

    Holzemer, Carol Randel, Sheng-Fang Hsieh, and Thomas J

    Suzanne Bakken Henry, William L. Holzemer, Carol Randel, Sheng-Fang Hsieh, and Thomas J. Miler. 1997. Comparison of Nursing Interventions Classification and Current Procedural Terminology Codes for Categorizing Nursing Activities. Image: the Journal of Nursing Scholarship29, 2 (June 1997), 133–138. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.1997.tb01545.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.1997.tb01545.x 1997

  42. [42]

    what nurses do

    Suzanne Bakken Henry and Charles N Mead. 1997. Nursing classification systems: necessary but not sufficient for representing “what nurses do” for inclusion in computer-based patient record systems.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association4, 3 (1997), 222–232. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 10, No. 6, Article CSCW164. Publication date...

    1997

  43. [43]

    Jack Jamieson, Daniel A Epstein, Yunan Chen, and Naomi Yamashita. 2022. Unpacking intention and behavior: Explaining contact tracing app adoption and hesitancy in the United States. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2022

  44. [44]

    Rebecca M Jonas and Benjamin V Hanrahan. 2022. Digital Storytelling for Developing Computer Skills in Rural Appalachia.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–22

    2022

  45. [45]

    Louis Kaplow. 2013. Rules versus standards: An economic analysis. InScientific Models of Legal Reasoning. Routledge, 11–84

    2013

  46. [46]

    Jasmin Kaur, Seyed Mehdi Hazrati Fard, Mohammad Amiri-Zarandi, and Rozita Dara. 2022. Protecting farmers’ data privacy and confidentiality: Recommendations and considerations.Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems6 (2022), 903230

    2022

  47. [47]

    Elizabeth Kaziunas, Mark S Ackerman, Silvia Lindtner, and Joyce M Lee. 2017. Caring through data: Attending to the social and emotional experiences of health datafication. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 2260–2272

    2017

  48. [48]

    2018.Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy

    Cornelius M Kerwin and Scott R Furlong. 2018.Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy. Cq Press

    2018

  49. [49]

    Tzu-Sheng Kuo, Quan Ze Chen, Amy X Zhang, Jane Hsieh, Haiyi Zhu, and Kenneth Holstein. 2025. PolicyCraft: Supporting Collaborative and Participatory Policy Design through Case-Grounded Deliberation. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–24

    2025

  50. [50]

    Seolha Lee and Paul Dourish. 2024. Reconfiguring Data Relations: Institutional Dynamics around Data in Local Governance.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW2 (2024), 1–28

    2024

  51. [51]

    Jen Liu and Phoebe Sengers. 2021. Legibility and the legacy of racialized dispossession in digital agriculture.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–21

    2021

  52. [52]

    Alex Jiahong Lu, Tawanna R Dillahunt, Gabriela Marcu, and Mark S Ackerman. 2021. Data work in education: Enacting and negotiating care and control in teachers’ use of data-driven classroom surveillance technology.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–26

    2021

  53. [53]

    Wayne G Lutters and Mark S Ackerman. 2007. Beyond boundary objects: Collaborative reuse in aircraft technical support.Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)16, 3 (2007), 341–372

    2007

  54. [54]

    Paul G Mahoney and Chris William Sanchirico. 2005. General and specific legal rules.Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft(2005), 329–346

    2005

  55. [55]

    Jennifer Manuel and Clara Crivellaro. 2020. Place-based policymaking and HCI: Opportunities and challenges for technology design. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2020

  56. [56]

    J Nathan Matias and Merry Mou. 2018. CivilServant: Community-led experiments in platform governance. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    2018

  57. [57]

    Jennifer McEntire and Tejas Bhatt. 2013. Pilot Projects for Improving Product Tracing along the Food Supply System– Final Report.Chicago, IL: Institute of Food Technologists(2013). https://www.fda.gov/media/124149/download? attachment

    2013

  58. [58]

    Amanda Meng, Carl DiSalvo, and Ellen Zegura. 2019. Collaborative data work towards a caring democracy.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–23

    2019

  59. [59]

    2025.From Surveillance to Solidarity: Reimagining Data-Driven Technologies in Home Health Care Work

    Joy Carol Ming. 2025.From Surveillance to Solidarity: Reimagining Data-Driven Technologies in Home Health Care Work. Ph. D. Dissertation. Cornell University

    2025

  60. [60]

    Michael Muller, Ingrid Lange, Dakuo Wang, David Piorkowski, Jason Tsay, Q Vera Liao, Casey Dugan, and Thomas Erickson. 2019. How data science workers work with data: Discovery, capture, curation, design, creation. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–15

    2019

  61. [61]

    Gilbert Exaud Mushi, Giovanna Di Marzo Serugendo, , and Pierre-Yves Burgi. 2023. Data management system for sustainable agriculture among smallholder farmers in Tanzania: research-in-progress.Information Technology for Development29, 4 (Oct. 2023), 558–581. doi:10.1080/02681102.2023.2215528 Publisher: Routledge

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1080/02681102.2023.2215528 2023

  62. [62]

    Beatriz Palacios Abad, Elizabeth Belding, Morgan Vigil-Hayes, and Ellen Zegura. 2024. Mending the Fabric: the Contentious, Collaborative Work of Repairing Broadband Maps.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW2 (2024), 1–24

    2024

  63. [63]

    Samir Passi and Steven Jackson. 2017. Data vision: Learning to see through algorithmic abstraction. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing. 2436–2447

    2017

  64. [64]

    Kathleen Pine, Claus Bossen, Naja Holten Møller, Milagros Miceli, Alex Jiahong Lu, Yunan Chen, Leah Horgan, Zhaoyuan Su, Gina Neff, and Melissa Mazmanian. 2022. Investigating data work across domains: new perspectives on the work of creating data. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. 1–6

    2022

  65. [65]

    Annabel Rothschild and Janne Lindqvist. 2024. Swapping 5G for 3G: Motivations, Experiences, and Implications of Contemporary Dumbphone Adoption.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–40. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 10, No. 6, Article CSCW164. Publication date: October 2026. CSCW164:26 Kwon et al

    2024

  66. [66]

    Kjeld Schmidt and Liam Bannon. 1992. Taking CSCW seriously: Supporting articulation work.Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW)1, 1 (1992), 7–40

    1992

  67. [67]

    Anne Spaa, Abigail Durrant, Chris Elsden, and John Vines. 2019. Understanding the Boundaries between Policymaking and HCI. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15

    2019

  68. [68]

    Susan Leigh Star. 1999. The ethnography of infrastructure.American behavioral scientist43, 3 (1999), 377–391

    1999

  69. [69]

    Susan Leigh Star and James R Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology,translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.Social studies of science19, 3 (1989), 387–420

    1989

  70. [70]

    Susan Leigh Star and Anselm Strauss. 1999. Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work.Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW)8, 1 (1999), 9–30

    1999

  71. [71]

    Anselm Strauss. 1985. Work and the division of labor.Sociological quarterly26, 1 (1985), 1–19

    1985

  72. [72]

    Anselm Strauss. 1988. The articulation of project work: An organizational process.Sociological Quarterly29, 2 (1988), 163–178

    1988

  73. [73]

    Lucy Suchman. 1995. Making work visible.Commun. ACM38, 9 (1995), 56–64

    1995

  74. [74]

    Cella M Sum, Caroline Shi, and Sarah E Fox. 2025. ’It’s Always a Losing Game’: How Workers Understand and Resist Surveillance Technologies on the Job.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, 2 (2025), 1–32

    2025

  75. [75]

    Yuling Sun, Xiaojuan Ma, Silvia Lindtner, and Liang He. 2023. Data work of frontline care workers: Practices, problems, and opportunities in the context of data-driven long-term care.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–28

    2023

  76. [76]

    Anh-Ton Tran, Grace Guo, Jordan Taylor, Katsuki Andrew Chan, Elora Lee Raymond, and Carl DiSalvo. 2024. Situating Datasets: Making Public Eviction Data Actionable for Housing Justice. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2024

  77. [77]

    United States Congress. 2011. FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, Public Law 111–353. https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/PLAW-111publ353/pdf/PLAW-111publ353.pdf. Enacted January 4, 2011. Accessed May 4, 2025

    2011

  78. [78]

    United States Congress. 2018. 5 U.S. Code § 553(c) — Rulemaking: Statement of Basis and Purpose. Administrative Procedure Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 553(c) (2018)

    2018

  79. [79]

    Food and Drug Administration

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2023. Small Entity Compliance Guide: Requirements for Ad- ditional Traceability Records for Certain Foods: What You Need to Know About the FDA Regula- tion. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/small-entity-compliance-guide- requirements-additional-traceability-records-certain-foods-wh...

    2023

  80. [80]

    General Services Administration

    U.S. General Services Administration. n.d.. Tips for Submitting Effective Comments. https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod- regulations-faq/pdf/Tips-For-Submitting-Effective-Comments.pdf. Accessed: 2025-05-04

    2025

Showing first 80 references.