A batch has to be withdrawn from the market. Six months later, in an audit, a dispute or an investigation, can you produce the exact message sent to the distributor, the documents that came with it and the time it left? With Sealway in BCC of the alert email, the message, its attachments and the recipients shown are received as it is sent and timestamped. Sealway does not prove that the distributor read the alert, nor that the procedure was compliant.
Built for
A manufacturer learns, from a laboratory result, that a batch already distributed may be contaminated. It identifies the batch number, the products concerned and the distributors that received it, then emails them asking for an immediate hold, a withdrawal and information on the quantities left.
The withdrawal is done, the recall published if needed, the crisis passes. Then comes the certification audit, the complaint of a distributor who denies having been warned in time, or the investigation after a report. It is no longer a matter of whether you reacted, but of what you wrote, to whom, with which attachments, and at what time. An email found in the “Sent” folder answers it poorly: it can be disputed, and so can the date it shows.
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 requires operators to initiate withdrawal immediately, to inform the authorities and to pass the necessary information along the chain. It does not say through which channel. When email is that channel, Sealway makes it possible to keep evidence of it: the message received as it is sent, its attachments and the recipients shown, bound to a qualified electronic timestamp.
Sealway replaces neither the withdrawal or recall procedure, nor the notification of the competent authorities, nor the information of consumers. It documents the email when email is the channel used to warn direct customers. Faced with a non-compliance:
The alert procedure defines who warns whom, about what and with which documents; it is what auditors and authorities examine. Email is most often its vehicle towards distributors: fast, written, with the useful attachments. Its weakness is evidential: nothing in a mailbox prevents a message from being re-edited or its date from being disputed.
Sealway adds this layer: a copy of the message received by a third party as it is sent, timestamped by a qualified provider, with each attachment given its own fingerprint. What you transmitted no longer depends on your word alone.
Sealway complements the procedure; it does not trigger it, does not validate it and warns nobody on your behalf.
The regulation lays down the obligations of traceability, withdrawal, information and cooperation. The French guide to food alert management and the Commission’s guidance say how the information circulates. None of these texts prescribes email; all of them assume you can show what was transmitted.
The immediate withdrawal and the information of the authorities, the paragraph’s first sentence, are quoted alongside. The second adds that, where the product may have reached the consumer, the operator “shall effectively and accurately inform the consumers of the reason for its withdrawal” and, if necessary, recall the products already supplied.
An operator responsible for retail or distribution activities shall, within the limits of its activities, initiate procedures to withdraw non-compliant products and “participate in contributing to the safety of the food by passing on relevant information necessary to trace a food, cooperating in the action taken” by producers, manufacturers or the competent authorities.
An operator “shall immediately inform the competent authorities” if it has reason to believe that a food it has placed on the market may be injurious to human health, shall inform them of the action taken and shall collaborate with them on action taken to avoid or reduce risks.
Operators “shall have in place systems and procedures to identify the other businesses to which their products have been supplied”, information made available to the authorities on demand. The Commission’s guidance (2010) suggests, failing a more precise sectoral rule, five years as a general rule, six months for highly perishable products supplied directly to the consumer, and the shelf life plus six months for other products bearing a best-before date.
The guide published by the French DGAL with the DGCCRF organises the flow of information: the operator that finds or suspects the non-compliance notifies its local authority and informs its direct customers (traceability, withdrawal measures, recall), who in turn inform their own direct customers. Recalls aimed at consumers are published on RappelConso after validation by the authorities. Other Member States have their own guidance under the same regulation.
Under French law, an email produced to prove a fact, here the sending of an alert, is admissible and freely weighed by the court (Cass. soc., 25 September 2013, no. 11-25.884). What counts is what makes it possible to establish its content, its date and its transmission; electronic writing carries the weight of paper when its author can be identified and its integrity guaranteed (art. 1366).
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 · Article 19(1)
Consolidated text of 1 July 2024
The article founds the obligation to withdraw and to inform. It prescribes no channel: the message to the distributor may be an email, a portal, a call followed by a written note. What it requires is immediate action and the passing on of information.
If a food business operator considers or has reason to believe that a food which it has imported, produced, processed, manufactured or distributed is not in compliance with the food safety requirements, it shall immediately initiate procedures to withdraw the food in question from the market where the food has left the immediate control of that initial food business operator and inform the competent authorities thereof.
What Sealway takes from it
“Immediately” has to be proven. When the alert goes by email, the copy received by Sealway as it is sent fixes what was written, with which attachments, and the latest time at which the message was transmitted to Sealway. It proves neither receipt by the distributor nor the compliance of the procedure.
Nothing changes in the way you alert: the same email, the same attachments, the same recipient. One more address in the BCC field, and a proof created as the email is sent.
Laboratory result, own check, complaint, information from a supplier: the internal procedure qualifies the non-compliance and decides the withdrawal and, if the product may have reached consumers, the recall.
Downstream traceability (art. 18): which distributors, which quantities, which dates. Each will receive its alert.
A clear message, organised by batch and by measure, with the useful attachments. The content of the message and each attachment will be part of the proof.
As usual, from your mail client: the distributor in the To field, the address of the “Alert batch L24091” collection in the BCC field. The email leaves as usual; Sealway receives the copy.
The message received and each attachment get their fingerprint, bound to a qualified electronic timestamp. The certificate states the sender, the To and Cc recipients, the subject, the declared date and the name of each attachment.
Notification of the authorities as provided, publication of the recall where applicable, follow-up of the distributors’ confirmations. A confirmation received can be kept in turn: you forward it yourself to the collection’s address, and the proof dates that forward and fixes its content.
What the proof establishes exactly, and what it leaves to the distributor’s confirmation, is detailed in the email evidence guide.
Three situations where you will be asked what was transmitted, and where a re-edited message is not enough.
The auditor wants the chronology of the alert and the documents passed to customers. The proofs give the message, the attachments and the time of transmission, verifiable without Sealway.
The distributor claims to have been warned late, or without the exact references. The proof shows what the alert addressed to it contained, with its attachments, and when it was transmitted to Sealway.
The control services ask for the elements of the alert: the proofs make it possible to produce the original message rather than a reconstruction, without prejudging the assessment of the procedure’s compliance.
The operator’s diligence is argued on dated facts. The proof fixes those that go through email; the rest of the procedure, notifications and recall, is documented by its own records.
Each recipient gets its alert, and each alert becomes a separate proof. The certificate of each states its recipient as it appeared in the message.
Create an “Alert batch L24091” collection and use its address in BCC: every email sent with that address in BCC files itself there automatically.
A batch sheet attached to three alerts has the same fingerprint in the three proofs: you show that the same document was attached to each of the three alerts as sent.
Nothing lands in the collection by itself: a hold confirmation received from a distributor enters it if you forward it yourself to the collection’s address; it is then dated from the forward and fixed in its content. It does not thereby become proof of the original sending by the distributor.
It follows its own rules, set out in the applicable guidance. Evidence of an email to the distributor does not stand in for it.
Where the product may have reached consumers, effective and accurate information and, if necessary, the recall go through the official channels: in France RappelConso, in-store notices and the other means provided.
Sealway establishes neither receipt nor reading of the alert. Ask for a written confirmation and plan the reminder; when receipt has to be proven, use a sending method that guarantees it.
The proof documents a message; it does not amount to implementation of the measures, compliance of the HACCP plan or effectiveness of the withdrawal.
A positive own check on batch L24091. Three distributors supplied. Three alert emails leave at 11:08 am, with the batch sheet and the laboratory result, Sealway in BCC. The local authority is notified right after.
Two distributors confirm the hold by email; the quality manager forwards these confirmations to the collection’s address. As the product was sold, the recall is published.
The auditor asks for the chronology. The quality manager produces the three proofs: messages, attachments, timestamps, and the confirmations as he forwarded them.
The proofs establish what was written to each distributor, with which documents, and the time each message was transmitted to Sealway. They establish neither that the distributors read the alert, nor that the withdrawal was effective on the shelves, nor that the procedure was compliant: those questions belong to the confirmations obtained, the controls and the authorities’ assessment.
Three ways of transmitting the same alert, and what is left when you are asked to produce it.
| Approach | What it brings | Its limits |
|---|---|---|
| Plain email | Fast, written, with attachments; the usual channel of alerts. | The message produced later comes from your mailbox: its content and its date can be disputed. |
| Email with Sealway in BCC | The same email, plus a copy received by a third party as it is sent and timestamped: content, attachments, recipients shown and transmission fixed. €1.99 per proof up to 9 attachments; beyond that, one credit per batch of 10 items, message included. | Proves neither receipt nor reading by the distributor; replaces neither the notification of the authorities nor the recall. |
| Qualified electronic registered delivery | Presumption of sending by the identified sender, of receipt by the identified addressee and of accuracy of the dates (eIDAS Regulation, art. 43 and 44). | A distinct service, to be planned in the procedure; less immediate than an email in a morning of alert. Can be combined with the email with Sealway. |
Email remains the channel of urgency; Sealway fixes its content and its transmission. When receipt by the distributor has to be proven, a sending method that guarantees it is added; it does not replace the speed of the alert.
The authorities, the auditor and, where it comes to that, the court assess compliance and diligence. Email evidence gives them the original message, its attachments and its date, without depending on the person producing them.
Each alert received in BCC is placed in a Sealway proof as it is sent. Six months later, it is possible to verify that the message and attachments produced are the ones bound to the timestamp created that day.
What quality managers ask before, during and after an alert.
Texts, official guidance and decision cited on this page; the French sources are in French.
Sealway provides neither legal nor regulatory advice. The compliance of a withdrawal or recall procedure is assessed against the regulation, the applicable guidance and the circumstances, by the competent authorities and, where it comes to that, the court. The French guide and decision cited illustrate the French implementation of a regulation that applies across the European Union.
A deliverable handed over by email, goods received damaged, a vehicle returned: what was transmitted or what was visible, and when, is documented the same way.
Prove what was sent to the client, with which attachment and when, by adding Sealway in BCC of the handover email.
Learn more →Crushed parcel, damaged pallet, broken product: document the condition of the goods at receipt, alongside the reservations on the delivery note.
Learn more →Photograph the vehicle at pick-up and at return, wheels, bodywork, mileage and fuel, for dated evidence of its condition.
Learn more →The message, its attachments and the recipients shown, received as it is sent and timestamped by a qualified third party. Join the waitlist to be notified at launch.
Thank you! Your registration is recorded. We will reach out shortly.