Shipping document
Lot traceability on a pallet of oranges
Food law obliges every business to identify who supplied it and who it supplied and to make that information available on demand. What it does not do is prescribe how a lot code looks. So the code itself is uninteresting, and the only question worth asking is whether somebody at the other end can resolve it.
The figures
| The obligation | One step back and one step forward, available to the authorities on demand (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, article 18) |
|---|---|
| If something has to come off the market | Withdrawal and notification obligations sit with the food business operator (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, article 19) |
| Lot marking on foodstuffs | Indications identifying the lot, preceded by the letter L where it is not otherwise distinguishable (Directive 2011/91/EU) |
| Code format | Not prescribed. Each packhouse designs its own |
| Our own lot prefixes | Field present on every plot record and empty. Pending with the grower |
What it changes on an order
You supply a retailer
Approval schemes ask for a withdrawal to be demonstrated, not described. The supplier who cannot resolve a code within a working day is the one who fails that exercise on your behalf.
You blend lots when packing down
One finished unit containing fruit from two incoming lots widens whatever you would have to withdraw. Where you regroup, keep the incoming codes against the outgoing ones.
You are choosing between growers
How a plot connects to a lot prefix says a lot about how a farm keeps records. Ours is the open field on every plot page, and we would rather show it empty than print a format we have not seen.
What this note does not settle
- This describes what the traceability obligation requires. It is not advice on compliance for your own business, and your customers' schemes can ask for more than the law does.
- Traceability is a record, not a quality guarantee. A code that resolves perfectly tells you where fruit came from and nothing about its condition.
- Our lot prefixes, field records and residue analysis are all pending confirmation with the grower, so we cannot show you a resolved code today.
Source: Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, articles 18 and 19, Directive 2011/91/EU on indications identifying the lot of a foodstuff
The law fixes the capability, not the format
Food law requires every business to identify who supplied it and who it supplied, one step in each direction, and to be able to do so on demand. What it does not do is prescribe how a lot code should look. So every packhouse has invented its own, none of them resembles the next, and a buyer holding codes from six suppliers is holding six private languages.
For a buyer this makes the code itself uninteresting. What matters is whether it resolves: whether someone at the other end can take that string and come back with a plot, a picking day and where the rest of the batch went.
Test it on a quiet week, not during a problem
Send a code from a delivery that went perfectly well and ask what it points to. The answer, and how long it takes to arrive, tells you what a withdrawal would look like with that supplier. It is a cheap exercise and almost nobody does it until the week they need it to work.
On our side this is honest and unfinished. The plot records carry a field for the lot prefix and it is empty, because the grower has not confirmed how his lots are coded. Until he does, our plot pages can tell you which orchards exist and not which code arrives on your pallet, and saying so seems better than printing a format we have not seen.
Talk to the grower
Tell us the variety, the sizes and the delivery week you need. You get a delivered price and what we can commit to in writing, from the person who picks the fruit.
The grower handles enquiries. Response times are still to be confirmed.