Labelling...spot the errors...

[Stiffy]

The sites safe, it's a false positive on rapports part.

Many Thanks, probably just a little cautious......better safe than sorry having been burnt by t'internet before by our friends in the east of Europe.
S

 

[Ruary]

As far I know you don't need a Lot number if you have a best before date.

Not quite true: if your best before date is day: month: year then you do not need a lot number otherwise it is required.

 

[alanf]

Not quite true: if your best before date is day: month: year then you do not need a lot number otherwise it is required.

I have seen that in several places, including the BBKA notes. However, the Food Standards Agency "Lot Marking Guidance Notes" http://www.food.gov.uk/scotland/regsscotland/regsguidscot/foodlotmarkguid * has:

Use of a date mark as a lot mark

A date mark ("best before", "best before end" or "use by") which appears on a product may be used as a lot mark whether or not the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 require the product to carry a date mark. For the date mark to qualify as a lot mark, it must be given in accordance with the requirements of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996.

In opting to use a date mark as the means also of lot marking one's products, it may be necessary to consider whether the size of the resulting batch is suitable. For example, using a "best before end" date as a form of lot mark could result in a batch consisting of at least one month's production being withdrawn. Some manufacturers may find this too large a number of units to withdraw from the "shelf" should product recall prove necessary.

"Best before end" dates are acceptable as lot marks as the indication of the day and month (as required by the Regulations) is implicit (eg "best before end October 1997" means best before 31 October 1997).

There is a warning that the batch size may be inappropriate so it may not be the best strategy but the "best before end" format is specifically permitted to act as lot mark if it is in the correct format because it is an implicit date of the longer form.

If you can find the requirement in primary legislation, then fair enough but the Food Standards Agency official guide notes say "best before end" is enough.

*I have no idea why the version that search turns up is in the Scottish section of the web site, but it's the London contact address at the bottom and the previous archived but identically worded versions were elsewhere on the site,

 

[Ruary]

I have seen that in several places, including the BBKA notes. However, the Food Standards Agency "Lot Marking Guidance Notes" http://www.food.gov.uk/scotland/regsscotland/regsguidscot/foodlotmarkguid * has:

There is a warning that the batch size may be inappropriate so it may not be the best strategy but the "best before end" format is specifically permitted to act as lot mark if it is in the correct format because it is an implicit date of the longer form.

If you can find the requirement in primary legislation, then fair enough but the Food Standards Agency official guide notes say "best before end" is enough.

*I have no idea why the version that search turns up is in the Scottish section of the web site, but it's the London contact address at the bottom and the previous archived but identically worded versions were elsewhere on the site,

I stand corrected: I was quoting from the Irish rules.
Ruary

 

[nelletap]

I thought Lot No was needed if it was sold through a 3rd party?

 

[Black Comb]

The date given was months and year therefore a lot no. is needed. If it had been 31.12.?? then the date is acceptable as a lot no. The description seems to me to conform to the 2003 Honey Regulations, it describes it as Fenland Honey and falls within the Honey Regs. allowed description. As for England, well it's a country, if it's not legal then boo.

 

[alanf]

I stand corrected: I was quoting from the Irish rules.
Ruary

Not a problem. I believe they should all be based on an EU standard but local quirks get written in.

 

[yeogi75]

could you use date backwards if you wanted a batch no and date as this is what we use for one off samples

 

[alanf]

could you use date backwards if you wanted a batch no and date as this is what we use for one off samples

You can use anything that makes sense to you. It just has to be clearly labelled and in your records when the trading standards come calling. According to the FSA Guide, the intention is

in order to facilitate the tracing and identification of products along the relevant section of the food chain (eg where a product constitutes a health risk to consumers).

If your products are found to be defective you will have to recall all the items in that lot from any customers or retailers because they may share the same fault.

It is for the producer, manufacturer, packer or first seller within the EC to determine the size of lot most appropriate to the operational pattern. When doing this, it will be necessary not only to consider the production, but also the practicality and implications of a lot mark based on a particularly large run. Large batches carrying a single lot mark could result in more products having to be recalled than is perhaps necessary

If you choose to use a best before year date that might make sense if a year's production from one hive is what you process in one go. Or it might make sense to use best before month dates to separate by season. Or best before day to separate by extraction day. Or lot numbers to separate by apiary. You could use whatever suits your size and pattern of operation.

 

[DorsetB]

To be fair to the guy, he has had someone point out in the comments section that there are mistakes in his labels: this was on May 5th, but he has not followed up with what the mistakes are, despite the website owner asking him what the errors were on the same day.

You could argue that it was up to him to get it right in the first place, but looking at this thread, it would appear that between all the bodies involved from Food to Trading Standards to the EU, combined with regional variations, the whole topic is a minefield.

But I digress... I'll say 2 to 3 depending on which label you look at.

However by next year it will be 4 if the label does not bear the words:

"Warning - contains honey".