President
European Commission

 

Dear President,

Every year, thousands of lives are lost in the world due to unsafe food.^[1] This trend is likely to be accentuated in the years to come by, among other reasons, climate change.[2] Recent cases involving infant milk offer a painful reminder of the serious consequences that the circulation of unsafe food can have for families across the EU.[3] In addition, recent European citizens’ initiatives also show that citizens are concerned about food safety and are calling on the EU to enable access to healthy food for all[4].

The EU Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) is key to face these challenges and guarantee the protection of consumers in the EU. However, a number of stakeholders have raised concerns in relation to the functioning of this system. These relate in particular to potential delays in the transmission of (some) alerts,[5] possible inconsistent reporting practices among national contact points,[6] and transparency and the quality of the data available to citizens.[7]

A smooth, reliable, and effective RASFF system is relevant to several rights guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, from the right to health and consumer protection[8]  to the freedom to conduct a business[9]. I have had the opportunity to discuss this issue in the context of my recent meetings with members of the European Network of Ombudsmen (ENO).

Building on these exchanges, I have now decided to open an own-initiative inquiry into the matter. A number of questions to the Commission are set out in an Annex to this letter. I would be grateful to receive the Commission’s reply by 20 July 2026. If generating the information as regards any of the elements requires a disproportionate burden, I invite the Commission to inform the inquiry team as soon as possible.

Please note that I intend to publish this reply on my website.^[10]

In parallel, I have invited ENO members to inquire into the issue with their national authorities. I will share with the Commission the input received in that context, so that you may use it to assess the overall efficiency of the RASFF.

Should your services require any further information concerning this initiative, please do not hesitate to contact Ms Marta Hirsch-Ziembinska, who is responsible for cooperation with the Network, together with my Inquiries Officer, Ms Amandine Le Bellec, who is responsible for this initiative as well.

A copy of this letter will be published on my website on 22 April 2026.

Yours sincerely,

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 20/04/2026

Annex - List of questions for the Commission

A) When a member of the RASFF network has information relating to the existence of a serious direct or indirect risk deriving from food and feed, it must immediately notify the Commission, which, after verifying the information, communicates it to other RASFF members.[11] The Commission is invited to provide information about the following points:

• i. How it verifies the information received;
• ii. Over the past two years, how much time was needed on average for alert notifications[12] to be circulated to RASFF members after a risk has been identified; and whether the 48-hour and 24-hour timelines for, respectively, submission by contact points and verification/transmission by the Commission were ever exceeded;
• iii. Within the same timeframe, what is the average time taken by contact points to submit notifications, and for the Commission to verify and transmit them in the case of information,[13] news,[14] and reclassification notifications;[15]
• iv. Finally, what is the average time taken by network members to circulate border rejection notifications, which the Commission only verifies ex-post.[16]

For questions (ii) - (iv), the Commission is invited to provide the corresponding statistical overview.[17]

B) How does the Commission proceed if it identifies, on its own, a serious risk that has not (yet) been reported by a RASFF member? Has this ever happened, and if so, how was it handled?

C) The Commission is responsible for managing the RASFF network.[18] In addition, the Commission is also responsible for ensuring the functioning, maintenance, support, updating or development of the software and IT infrastructure underlying iRASFF.[19] In light of this, the Commission is invited to provide information to the Ombudsman as regards:

• i. Any steps it has taken to ensure the quality and consistency (reporting patterns,[20] timeliness) of contact points notifications - either alert notifications or other types of notifications;
• ii.  Whether it envisages measures to ensure that notifications take better account of monitoring of food safety by the private sector and effectively cover e-commerce;
• iii. As regards iRASSF, how it ensures the system relies on the most up-to-date technology. In replying to that question, the Ombudsman would appreciate it if the Commission could provide more information about TraceMap, including how it is concretely used in relation to the RASFF, and how human oversight and compliance with the AI Act is ensured.

D) As regards the RASFF Window (including the Consumers’ Portal), could the Commission explain whether it intends to improve its transparency, in particular the identification of the name of the recalled product, and the accessibility of the portal for vulnerable citizens such as older people or persons with disabilities? If the Commission does not intend to make the name of recalled products available, could it explain why its approach is different to that of Safety Gate for non-food products?

 

[1] WHO estimates of the global burden of foodborne diseases: foodborne diseases burden epidemiology reference group 2007-2015, available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565165

[2] EFSA, ‘Climate change and food safety’: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/climate-change-and-food-safety

[3] See in particular the following article: https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2026/01/28/laits-infantiles-rappels-de-produits-au-cas-par-cas-communication-reduite-au-minimum-une-gestion-de-crise-questionnee_6664400_3234.html

[4] For instance, the initiatives “Stop fake food: origin on label”, ECI(2024)000009: https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2024/000009_en or “Food is a Human Right for All! Guaranteeing healthy, just and sustainable food systems”, ECI(2025)000002: https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2025/000002_en

[5] See for instance recent reporting on the infant milk case, which found that unsafe products were on the shelf for months, and that system warnings may have been delayed: https://www.dairyreporter.com/Article/2026/01/23/infant-formula-recall-exposes-broken-eu-food-safety-oversight/. See also the special report of the European Court of Auditors 14/2010, which concluded that ‘The RASFF does not ensure that the relevant alerts are launched and that preventive action is always taken as quickly as required throughout the EU’ (para 88).

[6] As noted in the Special Reports 14/2010 (para 40) and 23/2024 (para 80-82) of the European Court of Auditors, as well as by the academic community. The difference in notifications is also visible in the annual reports of the Alert and Cooperation Network, such as: https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/267bd0aa-ba74-4681-8fed-1442072a4b58_en?filename=acn_report_2024_overview.pdf&prefLang=hr 

As regards academic articles, see for instance Taylor, G., Petroczi, A., Nepusz, T., and Naughton, D. P. (2013) ‘The Procrustean bed of EU food safety notifications via the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed: Does one size fit all?’, Food and Chemical Toxicology, 56, 411-418; Lüth, S., Boone, I., Kleta, S., Al Dahouk, S., (2019) ‘Analysis of RASFF notifications on food products contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes reveals options for improvement in the rapid alert system for food and feed’, Food Control, 96, 479-487.

[7] See for instance the Special Report of the European Court of Auditors 23/2024, para 95, which recommends that: ‘when updating the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed online application, improve the quality of data and increase information sharing on food labelling issues with the public’

[8] Article 35 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

[9] Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

[10] If you wish to submit documents or information that you consider to be confidential, please mark them ‘Confidential’. Encrypted emails can be sent to our dedicated mailbox. Information and documents of this kind will be deleted from the European Ombudsman’s files shortly after the inquiry has ended.

[11] Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, as well as Article 17 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1715.

[12] Article 17 of Regulation 2019/1715.

[13] Article 18 of Regulation 2019/1715.

[14] Article 19 of Regulation 2019/1715.

[15] Article 22(5) of Regulation 2019/1715.

[16] Article 20 of Regulation 2019/1715.

[17] Including at least the following information, as well as other information the Commission would find relevant to share with the Ombudsman: total number of alert notifications, number of alert notifications for which the overall 48+24 hours timeline under Article 17(1) and (3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1715 was exceeded, number of alert notifications for which the 24-hours timeline under Article 17(3) was exceeded, and, as regards this last category, the time taken by the Commission to process these delayed notifications; average time to process other notifications under Articles 17 to 20 and Article 22, and the time taken by the Commission to verify the information as regards the notifications covered by Articles 18, 19, and 22(5).

[18] Under Article 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.

[19] Article 8 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1715.

[20] The consistency of which has been identified as a possible issue in the European Court of Auditors’ Special Reports 14/2010 (para 40) and 23/2024 (para 80-82). In the annual reports of the Alert and Cooperation Network, the very different numbers of notifications sent by countries of similar market size is also visible.