in an article published in L & C No.369 (January 2014), in which the legislator's pragmatism in formulating the criteria used was also praised. These criteria effectively integrate statistical considerations which are necessary for reconciling the inevitable variability in the industrial processes with the protection of the final customer who must obtain the quantity paid for. The subject is once again topical, because several months ago the European Commission launched consultations on the appropriateness of 3 texts concerning prepackaging, as part of an overall review of European regulations as a whole.

Application of the first two directives is optional. They define the conditions that allow the manufacturer of glass bottles used as measuring containers to apply the "?" symbol and the prepackage packer to apply the "e" symbol beside the weight or nominal volume indication.
However, a glance at the products on shop shelves will confirm that, despite being optional, these two marks are in common use. Although this regulation dates back some 40 years, it is clearly appropriate on the whole. Here again, we can praise the wisdom of the EU authorities of the time who instituted this legislation when the tendency nowadays is to call into question the European bureaucratic machine.

An online public inquiry, closed since 7 April, to which some L & C readers may have responded, and a report produced by a consultant, which was still under preparation at the time of writing this article. The consultant contacts identified players to answer his own inquiry form which is more complete. Cetie is among the identified players and the very large majority of its members believe that this legislation should not be changed.
 
One difficulty has been reported, however. Directive 75/107/EEC on measuring containers is in principle consistent with Directive 76/211/EEC on filling capacities, the statistical tolerances on the volume of the former being 2/3 those of the latter. The measuring container bottles simplify the bottling operations for the filler by ensuring that by filling to the indicated height, the nominal volume will be compliant within the limits of the variability of the filler's process, allowing for the fact that the bottle manufacturer in effect "takes" a portion of the overall tolerance.

Although the two texts aim at the same overall objective, there is nevertheless a difference in their positions. In practice, the filler has to aim for an average filling volume that is slightly above the nominal volume to ensure compliance with the criteria of Directive 76/211/EEC, whereas the measuring container per Directive 75/107/EEC is required, like a measuring instrument, to be at precisely the nominal volume on average. It is clearly easier for the filler to ensure that the measuring containers have an average volume that corresponds to the targeted average filling volume, therefore slightly more than the nominal volume. This is not provided for by Directive 75/107/EEC, which considers in effect that the tolerances accepted by the system, on the whole, take sufficient account of this difference. There is however another difference of positioning in that the supply of measuring containers to the filler is governed by a customer-supplier relationship. The customer is entitled to dictate its specifications, including - if the effectiveness of the filling process so requires - that the measuring container bottles be calibrated at the same targeted volume slightly above the nominal volume.

It would be difficult to propose an adjustment to the regulations that would make it possible to accept measuring containers that are not on average at the nominal volume. The level of overfilling practised obviously depends on the value of the product for the cost of controlling the variability (frequency of checks, etc.) and, in the case of alcohols, the tolerances concerning the excise duty. Application of the Directive is nevertheless optional and only concerns the fact of applying the "?" symbol. Consequently, there is in principle complete latitude for envisaging a recognised parallel system, taking up the criteria of Directive 75/107/EEC but accepting an average volume offset from the nominal, to be specified by the filler. Discussions are in principle going to continue at Cetie to clarify how the measuring container bottle suppliers can satisfy their filler customers in this respect.
 
As for the third Directive in the series, it has abolished all constraints concerning the standard sizes of prepackaging, except for wines and spirits. This is therefore not a technical question but a question of principle, with an underlying trust, that the market mechanisms will adjust things in the general interest. Whatever the case, the reasons that protected wines and spirits from this deregulation still exist, and here again, the general wish seems to be to maintain the status quo.
 
In short, let's not change European Directives that work!

By N. Harris Cetie General Secretary