11.4. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 95/1 
II 
(Preparatory Acts) 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on indications or marks identifying 
the lot to which a foodstuff belongs (*) 
(88/C 95/01) 
On 23 November 1987 the Council decided, in accordance with Article 100A of the Treaty 
establishing the European Economic Community, to ask the Economic and Social Committee 
for an Opinion on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for the preparatory work, adopted its Opinion on 2 February 1988. The 
rapporteur was Mr Gardner. 
At its 253rd plenary session (meeting of 24 February 1988) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted unanimously the following Opinion. 
1. Introduction 2. General comments 
1.1. Lot or batch identification of food is already 
widely used. It serves to pinpoint batches of product 
which have become faulty or damaged for any reason, 
so that such product can be withdrawn from the market 
selectively, thus limiting the cost to the community as 
a whole. The proposal will generalize and harmonize 
batch identification. 
1.2. Problems with food can arise anywhere in the 
chain from farmer to food manufacturer, distributor, 
seller and finally householder. Their incidence is very 
low as a proportion of all food that is eaten. Virtually 
the only problems leading to illness or even death are 
due to bacteria or viruses, i.e. food-borne infection and 
intoxication. Some details of these are given in the 
appendix. 
1.3. The above problems as well as insect and rodent 
damage can arise anywhere in the chain from farmer 
to the final household. Others are specific to one part 
of the chain. A system of lot identification therefore is 
of great benefit to producer, consumer and enforcement 
authorities. 2.1. 'We welcome this proposal, which is in line with 
the demand made by the Committee in its opinion on 
the proposal for a Directive on the inspection of food (2). 
2.2. We approve that this is a regulation which is 
directly applicable in all Member States, thus avoiding 
the differences in national legislation which often result 
from differing reflections of Directives. 
2.3. We also welcome the flexible manner in which 
the information can be given. This should ensure effec­
tiveness without significant extra costs. 
2.4. Nevertheless we have certain amplifications 
which must be taken into account. 
(!) OJ No C 310, 20. 11. 1987, p. 2. (2) OJ No C 347, 22. 12. 1987, point 2.3.4. 
No C 95/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 11. 4. 88 
3. Detailed comments combination packs. We therefore propose an additional 
article. 
3.1. Article 1 
The important task is to find an adequate definition 
for a 'lot' which is effective for withdrawals, but at the 
lowest cost to the Community. 
Given the difficulty of meeting these criteria, we accept 
the Commission's definition, especially as it has inter­
national acceptance via Codex. 
3.2. Article 2 
We regret that there is no simple way of including 
unwrapped meat, fish, milk, eggs, etc. since these prod­
ucts are the ones most sensitive to bacterial infection. 'Article 4b 
Multi-packs are pre-packed items containing two 
or more similar items which are themselves units of 
sale. 
Combination packs are pre-packed items which 
contain two or more different items which are them­
selves units of sale. 
In both cases the individual items must be market 
with lot identification, but for multi-packs marking 
can be on the outer wrap if all the components are 
from the same lot of production.' 
3.5. Article 5 
We therefore ask the Commission to explore further 
the possibilities of including these. 
We also draw attention to the fact that some whole­
salers buy directly from the farmer and sell to the 
packer. To avoid linguistic confusion, months should be given 
in numerical form. The last line therefore should be 
changed to: 
'... indication is clear of the day and the month in 
that order, the month being given in numerical 
form.' 
3.3. Article 4 
The word 'legible' is not clear in all Community 
languages. Also, one very widespread code is clearly 
identifiable, but is not alphanumeric. 
Also fo' a few foods such as small individually wrapped 
sweets, chewing gum and other small individual pieces 
of confectionery or Christmas tree decorations there is 
so far no viable method of lot coding. 
Article 4 should therefore be changed to read: 
"Article 4 3.5.1. The proposal is useful in enabling the producer 
to identify a particular lot of his own product in case 
of problems. However, equally it will be useful for the 
enforcement authority in the area of, say, manufacture, 
to collaborate rapidly with an authority where a prob­
lem has shown up. 
3.5.2. For this reason, we propose that every pro­
ducer, manufacturer, packager or first seller in the 
Community, should lodge his method of lot identifi­
cation with his local food inspection authority. In case 
of need, this authority could then transmit the infor­
mation to the authority for the area where a problem 
has occurred. To do so, the authority where the prob­
lem has occurred will, of course, need to know with 
which authority it can find the method of lot identifi­
cation used. 
When the foodstuffs are prepackaged, the indi­
cations or marks referred to in Article 1(1) and 
where appropriate the letter "L" shall appear on 
the prepackaging or on a label attached thereto. 
They shall in all cases appear in a conspicuous place 
so as to be easily visible, clearly identifiable and 
indelible. 
In cases where there are severe technical problems 
in marking the individual product, lot marking will 
be confined to the immediate outer packaging.' 
3.4. The Regulation does not cover multi-packs or 3.5.3. We therefore propose that two further Articles 
are added to the Regulation after the present Article 5: 
'Article 5a 
The producer, manufacturer, packager or first seller 
established in the Community shall inform the food 
inspection authority responsible for his locality of 
the method of coding used. 
Article 5b 
Member States shall publish a list of addresses of 
the inspection authorities in their territory so that 
these can be identified by authorities or enterprises 
11. 4. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 95/3 
'This Regulation shall enter into force on 
Products not complying with this Regulation may 
not be put onto the market from plus two 
years. 
Products not complying with this Regulation may 
not be sold after plus five years. 
Done at Brussels, 24 February 1988. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
APPENDIX , 
Figures illustrating the importance of bacterial food poisoning 
Figures for this are large in all Community countries but vary widely according to dietary habits and reporting 
systems. The following UK figures therefore are merely an illustration: 
Total cases in England and Wales 
1982 to 1986: 13 576 to 22 520 per annum. 
For 1984 a detailed analysis showed, that where the causative foods could be identified, these were: 
— poultry, beef, pork and lamb, 42%, 
— raw milk, 20%. 
Of the 15 312 bacterial food poisoning cases identified for that year, there were 28 deaths due to salmonella 
poisoning. 
In a separate analysis for bacterial food poisoning in England and Wales, 1972 to 1982, Roberts showed that 
of the total for these years, contaminated processed and canned foods were responsible for 24% of the 
outbreaks. It is mainly these foods which are covered by the present proposal. in other Member States for the purpose of any 
action required with lot identification.' 
3.6. Article 6 
The operating dates should be given as follows: