Food Safety

Food safety: why the EU needs an exporter blacklist

August 4, 2025

474

Europe’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) is a vital tool, yet it reveals a critical flaw: the EU lacks a centralized, publicly accessible blacklist targeting repeat-offender food exporters from third countries. While RASFF flags individual contaminated consignments, systematic violators evade meaningful consequences. This reactive approach burdens Member State authorities, fails to deter negligence, and leaves consumers exposed. To close this gap, the EU should look east to China’s rigorously enforced exporter blacklist system and west to the US FDA’s Import Alerts as blueprints for transformative reform.

Table of Contents

The EU’s own success story: learning from high-risk food controls

The EU already demonstrates the effectiveness of targeted import controls through its regulation of high-risk foods of non-animal origin under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793. This regulation applies increased official controls and special conditions to specific food products from certain third countries where risks have been identified, and its success provides a foundation for expanding to an exporter-focused approach.

The regulation has demonstrated measurable success in enhancing food safety while enabling legitimate trade to continue. For example:

instant noodles from South Korea (containing spices and seasonings) saw their control frequency reduced from 20% to 10% of consignments, following improved compliance with ethylene oxide standards;

guar gum from India, previously subject to 50% inspection rates due to contamination risks from pentachlorophenol and dioxins, had its control frequency lowered to 30% after demonstrating sustained compliance improvements.

The Commission regularly reviews these controls every six months, adjusting frequencies based on compliance data and removing products from enhanced controls when risks are adequately managed. This dynamic, evidence-based approach proves that targeted controls can both protect consumers and reward compliant operators, while the transparency of the system provides clear incentives for improvement.

However, the current system focuses on products and countries rather than exporters. When a country shows repeated non-compliance, it may lead to stricter import conditions or even suspension of imports from that country, but these conditions usually apply broadly rather than targeting specific non-compliant entities. This geographic approach can unfairly penalize compliant businesses within a country while failing to address the root cause of non-compliance at the specific exporter level.

China’s model: transparency, deterrence, and enforcement

China’s General Administration of Customs (GACC) enforces a robust regulatory framework — set out in the Measures for the Registration and Administration of Overseas Manufacturers of Imported Food (Decree 248) and the Administrative Measures on Import and Export Food Safety (Decree 249) — which requires all overseas food manufacturers, processors, and storage facilities to register with GACC prior to exporting to China.

The system operates through a clear process. GACC establishes evidence or conducts risk assessments when safety risks of specific food categories change, allowing adjustments to registration pathways and documentation requirements. When repeated non-compliance is traced to a specific overseas manufacturer or exporter, whether involving contaminants, fraud, or labeling violations, GACC conducts investigations evaluating the severity and pattern of violations.

Non-compliant entities are then subject to enhanced scrutiny through GACC’s publicly searchable registration system, which categorizes food and agri-food products as either ‘high risk’, ‘medium risk’, or ‘low risk’ based on factors including sources of food ingredients, production technologies, previous food safety records, consumer groups, and modes of consumption. The consequence is automatic 100% detention and enhanced inspection of all future shipments from listed entities, often leading to de facto suspension of market access.

This approach works for several reasons. The fear of being blacklisted and losing market access compels global exporters to comply with Chinese standards. The system enables efficient resource allocation as border authorities focus enhanced checks on high-risk actors, while transparency through public naming alerts importers, consumers, and other regulators globally. Most importantly, it targets the source — the specific exporter or manufacturer — rather than applying broad geographic restrictions.

The US FDA model: precision targeting with due process

The US complements China’s approach with its FDA Import Alert System under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which applies controls to certain foodstuffs from certain countries to protect public health. When evidence links violations such as pathogens or pesticide residues to specific firms or regions, the FDA implements ‘Detention Without Physical Examination’ (DWPE) procedures.

Listed firms face automatic detention of shipments at borders, with firms under DWPE published in specific Import Alerts. The system includes clear procedures for firms to petition for removal by proving sustained compliance. The strengths of this approach lie in its proven deterrence effect through decades of operation and its clear due process procedures for remediation and delisting, which enhance the system’s legitimacy.

The EU’s critical gap: reactive, opaque, and inconsistent

While Regulation (EU) 2017/625 sets out the framework for official controls carried out by competent authorities, it lacks a mandatory, centralized exporter blacklist. This absence remains a key weakness in the current control system.

The system remains incident-focused, with RASFF notifications triggering single consignment rejections rather than systematic sanctions against exporters, despite recording 5,250 notifications in 2024, representing a 12% increase from the previous year. The most commonly implicated product category is fruits and vegetables, with 1,479 notifications in 2024 (representing 16% of all notifications), where border rejections — approximately one-third of all RASFF notifications — primarily involved pesticide residues in fruit and vegetable imports from non-EU countries, which accounted for 84% of notifications in this category.

Fragmentation creates enforcement loopholes as Member States maintain disparate national lists, if any, leading to inconsistent responses to the same violators across different entry points. The lack of transparency means no EU-wide public database names habitual violator exporters, while competent authorities waste resources reinspecting known bad actors without systematic coordination.

Proposed EU model: learning from global best practices

Building on global best practices and the EU’s own success with high-risk food controls, the European Commission must establish a Mandatory EU Non-Compliant Exporter List (NCE List). This system would be grounded in amendments to Regulation (EU) 2017/625 or through a new Commission Implementing Regulation, providing the necessary legal basis for comprehensive reform.

The trigger mechanism would activate when repeated serious RASFF notifications or border rejections are traced to a specific non-EU exporter or manufacturer, with a minimum threshold of three violations within 24 months serving as an objective criterion. DG SANTE would lead investigations working with Member State authorities where rejections occurred, while EFSA and ECDC would provide scientific risk assessments to ensure evidence-based decision-making.

The Commission would adopt listing decisions based on comprehensive evidence, creating a publicly accessible NCE List hosted by the Commission that details the exporter, specific violations, and country of origin. Enforcement would mandate 100% identity and physical checks at all EU Border Inspection Posts for all consignments from listed entities, with the possibility of suspending existing approvals where warranted.

The system would include robust delisting procedures allowing exporters to demonstrate corrective actions through audits and testing records. Member State authorities would verify these improvements, with the Commission approving removals from the list, similar to the US ‘Green List’ approach. This due process component ensures fairness while maintaining strong incentives for compliance.

The benefits for Europe would be substantial. Stronger consumer protection would systematically block unsafe food at its source, building on the success already demonstrated with high-risk food controls. Efficient resource use would enable Member State authorities to target checks effectively, learning from the positive experience of reducing control frequencies for compliant supplies under Regulation (EU) 2019/1793.

The system would create a level playing field that rewards compliant importers and exporters while establishing EU global leadership in food safety governance. Most importantly, it would transform the current reactive system into a proactive framework that prevents harm rather than merely responding to it.

Call to action

The Chinese model proves that a transparent, exporter-centric blacklist is feasible and effective in safeguarding consumers, while the EU’s own experience with targeted controls on high-risk foods demonstrates the approach’s viability within European legal and administrative frameworks. Combined with the US commitment to due process, these examples offer the EU a roadmap to transform its reactive food safety system into a proactive global benchmark.

We urge the European Commission and the relevant Commissioners for Health and Food Safety to initiate an impact assessment for establishing an EU Non-Compliant Exporter List. Legislative amendments to Regulation (EU) 2017/625 should be proposed within 18 months, creating a mandatory, centralized, and publicly accessible NCE List. Robust collaboration must be ensured with Member State competent authorities for investigation, enforcement, and delisting verification, building on existing cooperation mechanisms established under the current regulatory framework.

The success of Regulation (EU) 2019/1793 in adapting control frequencies based on compliance data provides a proven foundation for implementing similar dynamic approaches at the exporter level. Adopting this model represents more than regulatory improvement — it embodies a commitment to preventing harm rather than merely reacting to it. By learning from global pioneers while building on its own regulatory successes, the EU can lead in food safety for the 21st century, protecting consumers while maintaining the principles of fair trade and due process that define European values.

Dario Dongo

References

European Commission. (2019). Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793 of 22 October 2019 on the temporary increase of official controls and emergency measures governing the entry into the Union of certain goods from certain third countries implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/625 and (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Regulations (EC) No 669/2009, (EU) No 884/2014, (EU) 2015/175, (EU) 2017/186 and (EU) 2018/1660. Consolidated text: 08/01/2025 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2019/1793/2025-01-08

European Commission. (2025). Health and food safety 2024 annual report: Alert & cooperation network. Publications Office of the European Union. ISBN 978-92-68-27532-0. https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-safety/index_en.htm

European Commission. (2024). 2023 Annual Report on food safety alerts and agri-food fraud investigations. Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety. https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/sante/items/847722/en

European Commission. (2023). 2022 Annual Report of the Alert and Cooperation Network (RASFF, AAC and FFN). Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety. https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-10/acn_annual-report_2022.pdf

General Administration of Customs of China (GACC). (2021a). Decree 248: Measures for the Registration and Administration of Overseas Manufacturers of Imported Food. http://english.customs.gov.cn/

General Administration of Customs of China (GACC). (2021b). Decree 249: Administrative Measures on Import and Export Food Safety. http://english.customs.gov.cn/

Kirezieva, K., Jacxsens, L., Hagelaar, G. J. L. F., van Boekel, M. A. J. S., & Luning, P. A. (2015). Exploring the influence of context on food safety management: Case studies of leafy greens production in Europe. Food Policy, 51, 158–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.01.005

Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products. Consolidated text: 05/01/2025 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/625/2025-01-05

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2023). Import alerts. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/ialist.html