COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION On the overall operation of official controls carried out in EU countries (2021) to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products
Date: 2023-05-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, animal welfare, food inspection, food safety, genetically modified organism, labelling, market approval, plant health control, public health, veterinary inspection

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 5.5.2023  SWD(2023) 131 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT    Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION On the overall operation of official controls carried out in EU countries (2021) to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products {COM(2023) 235 final}  
 
 
Disclaimer 

The European Commission presents this report in accordance with Article 114 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625. It 
aims to improve public availability of information on official controls carried out by EU countries, and 
Commission controls on these, in the areas of food and feed safety, animal and plant health, animal welfare, 
organic farming and quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs.  

Only the Court of Justice of the European Union is competent to interpret EU law.  

Our goal is to keep this information up to date and accurate. If errors are brought to our attention, we will try 
to correct them.  

The material used for this report: 

● 

● 

● 

is information of a general nature and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any 
particular individual or entity; 

is not necessarily comprehensive, complete, accurate or up to date; 

is partly provided by national authorities in the EU countries, over which the Commission has no control 
and for which the Commission can take no responsibility. 

Some data or information in this report may have been created or structured in files or formats that are not 
error-free

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

Introduction 

Part 1 
Background ............................................................................................................ 4 
Legal framework ................................................................................................... 4 
Annual reports ....................................................................................................... 6 
Commission controls in EU countries .................................................................. 7 
Overview reports ................................................................................................... 9 
Recommendations ................................................................................................. 9 
General follow-up audits .................................................................................... 10 
Country profiles ................................................................................................... 10 
Enforcement ......................................................................................................... 11 

Part 2 
Control activities 2021 ....................................................................................... 12 
Food ...................................................................................................................... 13 
Genetically modified organisms ......................................................................... 23 
Feed ...................................................................................................................... 25 
Animal health ....................................................................................................... 29 
Animal by-products ............................................................................................. 33 
Animal welfare .................................................................................................... 37 
Plant health ......................................................................................................... 44 
Plant protection products ................................................................................... 47 
Organic production and labelling of organic products ..................................... 53 
Protected designation of origin, protected geographical indications 
and traditional specialities guaranteed ............................................................ 56 
Fraudulent and deceptive practices .................................................................. 62 

Part 3 
Other Commission control activities ................................................................. 65 
Entry of animals and goods into the EU ............................................................ 65 
Residues of veterinary medicinal products and environmental 
contaminants in animals and products of animal origin ................................. 66 

Part 4 
Support for EU countries .................................................................................... 67 
Networks .............................................................................................................. 67 
Better training for safer food ............................................................................ 68 
General legend ..................................................................................................... 70 

 
 
 
Introduction 

The Commission publishes an annual report on the operation of official controls in EU 
countries  in  the  areas  of  food  and  feed  safety,  animal  and  plant  health,  animal 
welfare, pesticides, organic farming and quality schemes (1). For the purposes of this 
report, references to EU countries and the statistical data include the United Kingdom 
in respect of Northern Ireland (2). 

This report is based on:  

● 

the annual reports submitted by the national authorities on their official control 
activities; and   

● 

the results of Commission controls carried out. 

The  Commission’s  report  covers  the  year  2021.  It  provides  a  compilation  of 
comparable  data  into  EU-wide  statistics.  These  data  will,  over  time,  allow  trends  in 
controls and non-compliance issues to be identified.  

This  staff  working  document  accompanies  the  Commission’s  report  and  provides 
more details on  

● 

● 

the legal framework on official controls and Commission controls; and 

the controls and audits carried out by national authorities and by the 
Commission in specific areas of the food chain, as follows: 

● 

Food 

●  Genetically modified organisms 

● 

● 

Feed 

Animal health 

(1) Article 114 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625. 

(2) 

In accordance with the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy 
Community, and in particular Article 5(4) of the Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland in 
conjunction with Annex 2 to that Protocol. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                      
● 

● 

● 

● 

Animal by-products 

Animal welfare 

Plant health 

Plant protection products/Sustainable use of pesticides 

●  Organic production 

●  Geographical indications 

● 

Fraudulent and deceptive practices 

3 

 
 
 
 
Part 1 
Background 

Legal framework 

Under  the  ‘General  Food  Law’ (3),  businesses  along  the  food  chain  have  primary 
responsibility  for  ensuring  that  food  is  safe.  Specific  EU  regulations  deal  with  the 
requirements for food and feed, animal welfare, animal health, plant health, the use 
of plant protection products, organic production and the labelling of organic products 
and  for  quality  schemes  for  agricultural  products  and  foodstuffs  (protected 
designation  of  origin  (PDO),  protected  geographical  indication  (PGI),  traditional 
specialties guaranteed (TSG)) (4). 

EU  countries  are  obliged  to  verify  that  businesses  respect  the  applicable  EU 
legislation  and  enforce  this  where  necessary.  Their  multi-annual  national  control 
plans  (MANCPs)  describe  the  systems  of  official  controls  for  this  purpose.  The 
frequency  for  these  controls  is  based  on  risk,  unless  more  specific  requirements 
apply. 

Official controls carried out by EU countries 

The Official Controls Regulation sets out the requirements for these control systems, 
for  the  MANCP (5)  and  for  carrying  out  official  controls.  The  most  relevant 
requirements relating to the official control systems and the MANCP are as follows: 

● 

the scope includes: 

— 

food and food safety,  

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002. 

(4)  See our information page for more information on the requirements. 

(5)  Articles 109, 110 and 111 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625. 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
— 

the  deliberate  release  into  the  environment  of  genetically  modified  organisms 
(GMOs) for the purpose of food and feed production (6),  

— 

feed and feed safety,  

—  animal health,  

—  animal by-products,  

—  animal welfare,  

—  plant health,  

—  plant protection products,  

—  organic production and labelling of organic products, 

— 

— 

● 

the use and labelling of protected designations of origin, protected geographical 
indications and traditional specialities, and 

intentional  violations  of  the  rules  perpetrated  through  fraudulent  or  deceptive 
practices; 

national  authorities  must  describe  their  strategic  objectives  and  the  risk 
categorisation of the official controls in their MANCP; 

● 

the MANCP must be made public, with certain limited exceptions. 

The  Official  Controls  Regulation  includes  provisions  aiming  at  the  continuous 
improvement of official controls (7). Figure 1 shows how the results of official controls 
are important in supporting national authorities in assessing the effectiveness of their 
control  system  and  making  improvements  as  necessary.  In  addition,  changes  to 
legislation,  emerging  issues  and  market  information  can  result  in  changes  to  the 
control plan. 

(6) Official controls on the use and labelling of GMO are part of the official controls on food 

and feed. 

(7) Articles 5(1)(a), 6(1), 12(2), 12(3), 109, 110 and 111 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625. 

5 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 1 – official control systems - continuous improvement cycle 

• Improve
• Legal changes
• Emerging issues
• Market information

• Audit
• Analysis of results
• Verification
• Assessment of 
effectiveness

Act

Plan

Check

Do

• Objectives
• Risk based 
prioritisation
• MANCP
• Resources

• Official controls
• Samples
• Follow-up of non-
compliance
• Sanctions
• Reports

Annual reports  

EU countries have to submit an annual  report on the  results of their official  control 
systems through a standard electronic form (8). A guidance document (9) on how to fill 
in  the  form,  is  available  to  assist  national  authorities  in  meeting  their  reporting 
requirements.  

The  form  covers  information  on  amendments  to  the  MANCP,  the  results  of  official 
controls,  the  non-compliance  issues  detected,  and  measures  taken  to  ensure  the 
effective implementation of the MANCPs.  

The aim of the standardised format is to: 

● 

● 

ensure the uniform presentation of EU countries' annual reports; 

integrate other existing reporting requirements; and 

(8) Regulation (EU) 2019/723 on the standard model form to be used for the annual reports 

submitted by Member States 

(9) Commission Notice on a guidance document on how to fill in the standard model form.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
● 

facilitate the collection and transmission of comparable data, the compilation of 
these into EU-wide statistics and the preparation of Commission reports on the 
operation of official controls across the EU. 

EU countries must carry out their official controls with a high level of transparency. At 
least  once  a  year,  they  must  publish  relevant  information  on  the  organisation  and 
outcome of these controls. They may decide to do this by publishing the annual report 
submitted to the Commission.  

During  2021,  some  movement  restrictions  to  deal  with  the  COVID-19  pandemic 
remained in place. These impacted negatively on the EU countries' capacity to deploy 
staff  for  official  controls.  The  temporary  measures  adopted  in  2020 (10)  also 
remained in place, namely: 

● 

● 

● 

the authorisation of  specifically authorised natural persons to carry out official 
controls; 

the use of electronic data and acceptance of copies of certificates; 

the use of videoconferencing and other remote communication tools for official 
controls. 

Commission controls in EU 
countries 

The Official Controls Regulation requires the Commission (11) to carry out controls in 
the EU countries, which must rectify any issues identified in these (12). 

The  Directorate  for  Health  and  Food  Audits  and  Analysis  in  the  European 
Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety verifies whether the EU 
legislation  on  food  and  feed  safety,  animal  health,  animal  welfare,  plant  health, 
is  properly 
organic  farming  and  geographical  origin  schemes  (PDO/PGI/TSG) 
implemented and enforced in the EU countries. The main tool used is the audit.  

(10)  Regulation  (EU)  2020/466  on  temporary  measures  during  certain  serious  disruptions  of 

EU countries’ control systems due to coronavirus disease (COVID-19). 

(11) Article 116 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625. 

(12) Article 119 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625.  

7 

 
 
 
                                                      
We carry out these controls on a regular basis and in cooperation with the  national 
authorities. 

One  frequent  element  of  the  audits  is  on-the-spot  verification,  where  Commission 
experts  are  present  at  controls  carried  out  by  the  national  authorities.  Experts  from 
EU countries regularly assist Commission experts in this task. 

These controls aim to: 

● 

● 

verify the application of the legal framework; 

verify  the  functioning  and  organisation  of  national  control  systems  and  the 
national authorities; 

● 

investigate and collect information 

—  on official controls and enforcement practices; 

—  on important or recurring problems with applying or enforcing the rules; 

— 

in 
relation 
developments. 

to  emergency  situations,  emerging  problems  or  new 

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY 

DIRECTORATE HEALTH AND FOOD – AUDITS AND ANALYSIS 

We publish our annual work programme, and a mid-year update, 
on the Commission website. 

Watch  our  short  videos  to  see  how  we  organise  our  audit 
and analysis work and how it benefits people in the EU. 

The  Official  Controls  Regulation  requires  the  Commission  to  draw  up  an  annual  or 
multi-annual  control  programme (13)  to  verify  how  EU  agri-food  chain  legislation  is 

(13)  Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
being  implemented  in  the  EU  countries.  The  programme  for  2021-2025 (14)  was 
adopted on 23 October 2020.  

The  reports  of  the  individual  audits  are  publicly  available  on  the  Commission’s 
website. 

Overview reports 

Overview  reports  group  the  findings  and  conclusions  of  a  series  of 
Commission  controls  carried  out  in  a  specific  area  to  give  a  general  picture  at  EU 
level. These reports identify what is working, or not, in relation to the implementation 
of controls and the application of legislation. They also provide a good opportunity to 
share  examples  of  good  practices  observed  in  the  EU  countries.  These  reports  feed 
into EU policy and can also provide the basis for exchanges with EU country experts 
as  part  of  the  Better  Training  for  Safer  Food  initiative  (BTSF)  to  discuss  common 
problems and to share good practices. 

Table 1: overview reports published in 2021 

Report number 

Topic 

2018-6792 

2019-6836 

2021-7329 

Official  controls  related  to  food  contact  materials  in  EU  Member 
States 

African swine fever – preparedness 

Microbiological risks of food of non-animal origin 

Recommendations 

Our  audits  generally  lead  to  recommendations  for  corrective  action.  National 
authorities  are  required  to  take  the  necessary  actions  to  address  these (15)  and 
describe them in action plans. 

(14)  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2020/1550  on  establishing  the  multiannual  programme  of 
controls  for  the  period  2021-2025  to  be  carried  out  by  Commission  experts  in  the  EU 
countries to verify the application of Union agri-food chain legislation. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
General follow-up audits 

Through  general  follow-up  audits,  we  systematically  follow  up  the  actions  that 
national authorities committed to implement to address the recommendations made 
in audit reports. These audits cover all the open recommendations across all sectors.  

These audits can be: 

● 

● 

● 

carried out at the offices of the national authorities, or by remote means; 

carried out as a desk-based exercise from our offices (administrative follow-up); 
or 

focused on a specific topic: in a small number of cases, when the outcome of the 
audit is particularly problematic, sector-specific follow-up audits are arranged, to 
follow  up  on  actions  which  must  be  urgently  implemented  by  the  national 
authorities. 

Country profiles 

Country-specific  knowledge  is  important  when  preparing  audits  and  in  informing 
policy-making. Therefore, we maintain and publish country profiles.  

These  country  profiles  are  publicly  available  and  give  an  overview  for  each  EU 
country, including: 

● 

● 

● 

● 

the  assessment  of  the  actions  taken  by  the  country  in  response  to  audit 
recommendations; 

the organisation of official controls in the country; 

the five most recently published audit reports; 

links to relevant websites in the country. 

The  publication  of  these  country  profiles  helps  ensure  the  full  audit  cycle  is 
transparent to the public. 

(15) Articles 117(a) and 119(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625. 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                            
Enforcement 

When  an  EU  country  breaches  EU  law,  the  Commission  determines 
appropriate actions on a case-by-case basis, in line with the approach laid down in its 
Communication  ‘EU  law:  Better  results  through  better  application’ (16).  These  actions 
may range from contact with the national authorities at appropriate levels to ensure 
the  correct  application  of  EU  law,  up  to  launching  EU  Pilot  exchanges  and/or 
infringement  proceedings  as  a  last  resort,  where  all  other  avenues  to  encourage 
compliance  have  been  exhausted.  Enforcement  tools  other  than  infringements  for 
food safety also include protective or safeguarding measures. These can range from 
taking precautionary measures on the trade in and movements of animals, plants or 
food  and  feed  products  to  adopting  safeguarding  measures  in  accordance  with  the 
relevant legislation. 

If  contacts  with  EU countries  or  EU Pilot  exchanges  with  national  authorities  do  not 
result  in  the  breach  of  law  being  corrected,  the  Commission  may  start  the  pre-
litigation and litigation phases of the infringement procedure (17).  

(16)  2017/C  18/02:  Communication  from  the  Commission:  EU  law:  Better  results  through 

better application 

(17) Article 258 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Part 2 
Control activities 
2021 

12 

 
 
 
 
Food 
Official controls carried out by EU countries 

The national authorities report on the official controls carried out in the areas of food 
and food safety, integrity and wholesomeness at any stage of production, processing 
and  distribution  of  food.  This  includes  the  rules  aimed  at  ensuring  fair  practices  in 
trade  and  protecting  consumer  interests  and  information,  as  well  as  rules  on  the 
manufacture  and  use  of  materials  and  articles  intended  to  come  into  contact  with 
food.  Therefore,  data  relate  to  the  whole  food  chain,  from  farming,  fishing  and 
hunting to food production, distribution, wholesale, retail sale and food services. 

The  national  authorities  do  not  report  on  the  overall  level  of  compliance  in  a 
harmonised  way.  On  the  strategic  objectives  or  operational  targets  most  do  not 
describe  results  obtained.  Some  provide  information  across  the  different  sectors  in 
the  food  area,  others  only  provide  a  general  statement,  while  a  minority  did  not 
include  any  statement  at  all.  None  provide  a  description  on  how  the  overall 
compliance with the rules, per area, was measured during the year. 

Most EU countries report that the number of official controls carried out in 2021 was 
lower than planned due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

A minority of the annual reports contain information on the type of non-compliance 
issues  found  with  food  businesses.  Some  indicate  that  reasons  for  non-compliance 
include  ignorance  of  legislation  on  the  part  of  the  business  operators  and,  in  some 
cases, intentional misconduct. 

Table  2 provides a heat map  of the numbers of businesses, official  controls carried 
out, non-compliance issues identified, and administrative sanctions applied across the 
different parts of the food chain, in 2021. 

The highest numbers in each column have the darkest shade of colour. 

Only four  EU  countries include  all data in the  tables. The sectors mostly unreported 
are  mixed  farming,  sprouts,  fishing,  hunting,  farmed  and  wild  game  meat,  and  the 
specific types of meat products. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 2 – official controls – food sectors - 2021 

Animal production 

Aquaculture 

Growing of crops 

Mixed farming 

Hunting 

Fishing 

Meat of domestic ungulates 

Meat from poultry and lagomorphs 

Meat of farmed game 

Wild game meat 
Minced  meat,  meat  preparations  and  mechanically  separated 
meat (MSM) 
Meat products 

Treated stomach, bladders and intestines 

Rendered animal fats and greaves 

Gelatine 

Collagen 
Highly  refined  chondroitin  sulphate,  hyaluronic  acid,  other 
hydrolysed  cartilage  products,  chitosan,  glucosamine,  rennet, 
isinglass and amino acids 
Colostrum, raw milk, colostrum-based and dairy products 

Egg and egg products 

Fishery products 

Live bivalve molluscs 

Frogs' legs and snails 

Honey 

Sprouts 

Processing and preserving of fruit and vegetables 
Manufacture  of  grain  mill  products,  starches  and  starch 
products 
Manufacture of bakery and farinaceous products 

Manufacture of vegetable oils and fats 

Manufacturers of beverages 

Manufacture of other food products 

Establishments producing food contact materials 
General  activity  establishments (cold  stores,  re-wrapping  and 
re-packing establishments, wholesale markets, reefer vessels) 
Transport and storage 

Wholesale 

Retail 

Food and beverage service activities 

Others 

Businesses 

Controls 

2 014 777 

210 929 

Non-
compliance 
issues 
128 117 

15 770 

2 230 184 

243 466 

24 556 

35 663 

20 680 

5 235 

1 361 

1 624 

9 900 

19 732 

971 

1 123 

176 

101 

31 

23 685 

8 302 

15 210 

4 479 

352 

6 853 

146 

36 967 

9 976 

6 178 

49 066 

8 109 

4 852 

3 674 

168 775 

60 211 

6 934 

7 496 

48 229 

84 606 

5 122 

9 006 

369 

469 

41 

78 637 

14 610 

36 667 

5 630 

494 

3 972 

229 

25 227 

6 546 

209 658 

107 895 

17 190 

65 020 

156 354 

29 435 

29 540 

369 034 

203 782 

8 313 

39 962 

87 026 

5 515 

83 884 

96 412 

59 262 

773 

3 997 

1 093 

467 

596 

19 615 

13 437 

1 264 

1 505 

8 472 

11 450 

1 178 

519 

47 

40 

12 

8 415 

2 027 

7 363 

1 371 

132 

486 

79 

5 156 

1 065 

27 648 

1 515 

5 208 

21 312 

715 

13 608 

8 288 

9 622 

Sanctions 

17 335 

329 

2 700 

268 

416 

440 

17 831 

8 558 

522 

964 

6 458 

9 543 

1 161 

429 

35 

41 

6 

7 241 

1 499 

4 139 

889 

77 

213 

65 

3 316 

794 

20 928 

1 169 

3 921 

12 977 

391 

9 005 

6 436 

6 046 

3 515 601 

956 496 

2 830 838 

1 097 087 

212 232 

110 635 

180 221 

304 365 

21 459 

130 055 

166 515 

15 837 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
Official  controls  in  the  food  chain  cover  a  broad  range  of  food  categories  and  a 
number of specific topics: 

1. Dairy products 

2. Dairy alternatives 

3. Fats and oils, and fat 
and oil emulsions 

4. Edible ices 

5. Fruit and vegetables 

6. Confectionery 

7.  Cereals  and  cereal 
products 

8. Bakery wares 

9. Fresh meat 

14. 
Sugar, 
honey  and 
sweeteners 

syrups, 
table-top 

15. Salts, spices, soups, 
sauces, 
and 
salads 
protein products 

16.  Foods  intended  for 
particular 
nutritional 
uses  as  defined  by 
(EU)  No 
Regulation 
the 
609/2013 
of 
Parliament 
European 
and of the Council 

17. Beverages 

10.  Minced  meat,  meat 
preparations and MSM 

18. 
savouries and snacks 

Ready-to-eat 

11. Meat products 

12.  Fish  and  fisheries 
products 

19.  Desserts  excluding 
products 
in 
categories 1, 3 and 4 

covered 

13.  Eggs  and  egg 
products 

20.  Food  supplements 
as  defined  in  point  (a) 

of 

of Article 2 of Directive 
the 
2002/46/EC 
European 
Parliament 
the  Council 
and  of 
excluding 
food 
supplements for infants 
and young children 

21.  Processed 
not 
covered 
categories  1 
excluding 
infants 
children 

and 

foods 
by 
to  17, 
for 
young 

foods 

22.  Others  –  foods  not 
covered by categories 1 
to 21 

Food 

23. 
materials 

contact 

Table  3 provides an overview  of the official  controls  in the EU countries  carried  out 
during 2021 on the above food categories and specific topics, in relation to EU rules 
in  10  cross-cutting  areas.  Belgium,  Denmark,  Poland  and  the  United  Kingdom  (in 
respect of Northern Ireland) did not provide the full information. 

Table 4 gives an overview of the number of non-compliance issues detected and the 
number of administrative sanctions applied by the national authorities in the different 
sectors. Belgium and Sweden did not provide the relevant data. The data provided by 
some EU countries seem to be too low. 

Both tables list the top five food categories for the specific topics. 

To  avoid  the  need  for  EU  countries  to  report  the  same  data  separately  to  both  the 
Commission  and  to  the  European  Food  Safety  Authority  (EFSA),  some  of  the  data 
reported here is obtained through automatic transfer from EFSA. This transfer process 
may give rise to some anomalies until it is fully refined. 

15 

 
 
 
 
Table 3 – official controls – topics – top 5 - 2021 

Microbiological criteria 

Pesticides in food 

Contaminants in food 

Residues of veterinary medicinal products in food 

Labelling, nutritional and health claims 

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food 

Improvement 
flavourings, processing aids) 

agents 

(additives, 

enzymes, 

Irradiation of food 

Contamination  by/migration  of  food  contact 
materials 

Other 

16 

27811017532614915678632707669. Fresh meat11. Meat products1. Dairy products10. Minced meat, meat…21. Processed foods not…70843182748180782163245. Fruit and vegetables9. Fresh meat17. Beverages7. Cereals and cereal…1. Dairy products34319287162353421461189055. Fruit and vegetables12. Fish and fisheries…17. Beverages9. Fresh meat22. Others –foods not …703257230622240112209107459. Fresh meat22. Others –foods not …1. Dairy products13. Eggs and egg products5. Fruit and vegetables98228628855306544506396765. Fruit and vegetables17. Beverages9. Fresh meat11. Meat products21. Processed foods not…46471470135112638437. Cereals and cereal…22. Others –foods not …11. Meat products5. Fruit and vegetables18. Ready-to-eat…331231260395538744613517. Beverages11. Meat products5. Fruit and vegetables15. Salts, spices, soups,…6. Confectionery154398686977229615. Salts, spices, soups,…5. Fruit and vegetables9. Fresh meat12. Fish and fisheries…1. Dairy products10973304676070760823. Food contact…5. Fruit and vegetables21. Processed foods not…22. Others –foods not …7. Cereals and cereal…516223911081110153278569783099. Fresh meat5. Fruit and vegetables17. Beverages1. Dairy products11. Meat products 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  4  –  non-compliance  issues  &  sanctions  –  topics  –  top  5  - 
2021 

Microbiological criteria 

Pesticides in food 

Contaminants in food 

Residues of veterinary medicinal products in food 

Labelling, nutritional and health claims 

Improvement  agents  (additives,  enzymes,  flavourings, 
processing aids) 

Other topics 

Administrative sanctions 

17 

57812042160912718759. Fresh meat1. Dairy products10. Minced meat, meat…11. Meat products4. Edible ices955989588485. Fruit and vegetables12. Fish and fisheries…9. Fresh meat7. Cereals and cereal…22. Others –foods not …453150138137869. Fresh meat5. Fruit and vegetables12. Fish and fisheries…17. Beverages11. Meat products426424223229. Fresh meat1. Dairy products13. Eggs and egg products14. Sugar, syrups, honey…22. Others –foods not …787659515675490345545. Fruit and vegetables17. Beverages21. Processed foods not…22. Others –foods not …8. Bakery wares22316213412111817. Beverages10. Minced meat, meat…11. Meat products12. Fish and fisheries…8. Bakery wares9538477930382712251617. Beverages9. Fresh meat21. Processed foods not…22. Others –foods not …3. Fats and oils and fat…13509797863994565442217. Beverages5. Fruit and vegetables21. Processed foods not…9. Fresh meat8. Bakery wares 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The non-compliances on the labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) used 
in  food  products,  the  use  of  unauthorised  GMOs  in  food  products,  the  irradiation  of 
food, novel food (18) and food contact materials are reported in a separate table. The 
results for 2021 across all EU countries are: 

Number of non-
compliance issues 
identified 

Number of administrative 
sanctions applied 

The  labelling  of  GMOs 
used in food products 

The use of unauthorised 
GMOs in food products 

Irradiation of food 

Food contact materials 

Novel food 

14 

99 

18 

3976 

254 

13 

3 

12 

781 

186 

Belgium,  Croatia,  Denmark,  Latvia,  Malta  and  the  United  Kingdom  (in  respect  of 
Northern Ireland) did not report any non-compliances in these areas. 

(18) ‘Novel food’ is food that humans in the EU did not consume to a significant degree before 

15 May 1997. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries audited: 

17 

Number of audits carried out: 

26 

2  audits  in  Czechia,  Denmark,  Hungary, 
Spain,  Croatia,  Italy,  Netherlands,  Poland 
and  Romania  and  1  audit  in  the  other 
countries audited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  131 

Recommendations per audit area: 

Safety of fishery products 

In  2021,  we  carried  out,  as  part  of  an  ongoing  audit  series,  five  audits  to  assess 
arrangements  put  in  place  by  the  EU  countries’  national  authorities  to  verify 
businesses’  compliance  with  food  hygiene  requirements  that  apply  to  fishery 
products.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In broad terms, the audits established that risk based official control systems cover 
the elements set out in EU law, allowing the identification of shortcomings, and their 
correction by food business operators (FBOs). The national authorities have laboratory 
networks  which  comply  with  the  relevant  EU  legal  requirements,  and  which  can 
provide  reliable  test  results.  Arrangements  are  in  place  and  implemented  for  the 
follow-up of RASFF notifications (19). In some EU countries, acceptable controls (albeit 
at  reduced  frequencies)  were  performed  despite  challenges  faced  due  to  a  lack  of 
human resources, in some cases exacerbated by recruitment difficulties experienced 
during COVID-19. 

However, weaknesses and gaps in these controls were identified and relate mainly to: 

 
 

the registration and control of small fishing vessels; 
the lack of controls over landing sites and associated operations.  

In some EU countries we identified:  

 

 

a lack of public health controls in aquaculture farms (albeit steps are being taken 
to address this),  
some gaps in the specific official controls on fishery products (e.g. contaminants 
in smoked products),  

  weaknesses in controls over their Hazard Assessment and Critical Control Points 

 

(HACCP) plans, and,  
that, as also seen in the 2019 series on ready-to-eat (RTE) products, FBOs were 
not  consistently  obliged  to  demonstrate  that  their  RTE  food  complies  with  the 
relevant food safety criteria throughout its shelf-life. 

Safety of meat of mammals and birds and products thereof 

In 2021, we continued an audit series on the control systems in place governing the 
production  and  placing  on  the  market  of  bovine  meat,  including  traceability.  This 
series  was  initiated  in  2019  after  media  reports  alleging  the  slaughter  for  human 
consumption, in several EU countries, of unfit cows potentially in contravention of EU 
animal welfare law and food safety legislation.  

Against this background, we carried out six audits in 2021: 

(19)  RASFF – the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed enables information to be shared 
efficiently between its members (EU countries’ food safety authorities, Commission, 
EFSA, ESA, Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Switzerland) and provides a round-the-
clock service to ensure that urgent notifications are sent, received and responded to 
collectively and efficiently. Thanks to RASFF, many food safety risks have been averted 
before they could have been harmful to European consumers. 

20 

 
 
                                                      
 

 

to assess the performance of the official control systems in this particular area; 
and  
to  gather  information  on  the  ante-  and  post-mortem  arrangements  in  place 
regarding the poultry sector  following the entry into force  of new  requirements 
stemming from the Official Controls Regulation. 

The  audits  concluded  that,  in  general,  the  national  authorities  had  adequate  official 
control  systems  in  place,  underpinned  by  adequate  cooperation  between  and  within 
the authorities.  

Nonetheless, the audits identified gaps regarding: 

 
 
 

training of the officials performing the controls,  
the performance of ante-mortem inspection, and  
inadequate reasons in case of emergency slaughter at the farm. 

In one EU country there were unsuitable investigations and/or enforcement in case of 
transport for slaughter of unfit bovines.  

In 2021, we also carried out a follow up audit in Poland to assess the implementation 
of  the  action  plans  submitted  by  the  national  authorities  to  address  the 
recommendations  of  several  2019  audits  on  bovine  meat  including  traceability 
following the aforementioned allegations and also on poultry meat. 

The  audit  concluded  that  several  of  the  actions  required  to  address  the 
recommendations  contained  in  the  initial  audit  reports,  had  been  implemented,  but 
some  key  shortcomings  including  resourcing  and  remuneration  of  official  control 
staff,  the  levying  of  inspection  fees  in  line  with  EU  legislation,  and  the  control  of 
conflict of interest of official staff had not been resolved. 

Safety of milk and dairy products 

In  2021,  as  part  of  an  audit  series,  we  carried  out  audits  in  five  EU  countries  to 
assess the official controls related to the safety of milk and dairy products.  

The  audits  concluded  that  the  systems  of  official  controls,  including  the  laboratory 
network, of the EU countries audited were in general well designed and covered the 
whole dairy sector.  

The audits identified weaknesses in: 

 

 
 

the implementation of the raw milk quality control system for species other than 
bovines,  
the training in relation to milk and dairy specific controls,  
the  oversight  by  the  central  national  authorities  of  the  controls  at  lower  level, 
and  

21 

 
 
 

the adequate rating and enforcement of the shortcomings identified. 

Microbiological safety of Food of non-Animal Origin (FNAO) 

In  2021,  as  part  of  an  audit  series,  we  carried  out  audits  in  five  EU  countries  to 
assess the official controls related to microbiological risks in primary production. 

The  audits  concluded  that,  in  general,  the  awareness  and  knowledge  among  the 
national authorities concerning microbiological risks in FNAO had improved since the 
last  audit  series  resulting  in  more  robust  official  control  systems  in  the  area. 
Nonetheless, the audits identified that, overall: 

the official controls do not cover adequately seeds for sprouting, and  

 
  weaknesses in the registration systems for primary producers impact negatively 

on the risk categorisation of producers to be subject of official controls.  

22 

 
 
 
 
Genetically modified organisms 
Official controls carried out by EU countries 

National authorities must carry out official controls to monitor  the use and labelling 
of GMOs in food and feed, as well as the deliberate release into the environment of 
GMOs for the purpose of food and feed production. The use and labelling of GMOs in 
food and feed is reported in the food and feed sections. 

As  regards  cultivation,  19  EU  countries  stated  that  there  is  no  cultivation  of  GMOs; 
five  stated  to  have  excluded  it  from  the  geographical  area,  two  state  national 
legislation  does  not  allow  this  cultivation,  others  have  no  crops  authorised  or 
registered or no farmers that cultivate them. One did not state the reason. Italy and 
Malta stated not to have data to report. 

Table  5  provides  an  overview  of  the  number  of  official  controls  carried  out,  non-
compliance issues identified, and administrative sanctions applied in 2021, in relation 
to  the  commercial  cultivation,  experimental  release  and  seeds  and  vegetative 
propagating materials for use in food and feed. 

Table 5 – official controls – GMOs - 2021 

23 

CommercialcultivationExperimentalreleaseSeeds andvegetativepropagatingmaterialNumber of official controls performed2506219631Number of non-compliances detected510123Number of administrative sanctions14035020004000600080001000012000 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission controls of EU countries 

The  2021  work  programme  did  not  include  any  audits  relating  to  the  deliberate 
release of GMOs into the environment. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
Feed 
Official controls carried out by EU countries 

For  this  area  the  information  provided  in  the  annual  reports  on  the  overall  level  of 
compliance is limited and not harmonised. Seven EU countries do not include such a 
statement and Malta states this to be not applicable. Where data are present, these 
are mainly related to the number of controls carried out and/or samples taken against 
the  planned  numbers.  Other  reports  contain  a  very  generic  statement.  The 
Netherlands  and  France  state  that  most  feed  business  operators  are  certified  by  a 
private  assurance  scheme.  Only  France  reports  on  targeted  controls  carried  out, 
namely on the internet sales of petfood.  

Businesses active in the feed sector can be classified as follows: 

- 
registered establishments; 
-  approved establishments (20);  
-  businesses manufacturing and/or trading medicated feeding stuffs; 
- 

farmers using feed. 

Table 6 gives an overview of the numbers of establishments, official controls carried 
out,  non-compliance  issues  identified  and  administrative  sanctions  applied  at  EU 
level, in 2021.  

Malta did not report any official control carried out in the feed sector. In seven reports 
the  data  provided  are  or  seem  to  be  incomplete.  National  authorities  do  not  yet 
collect all data as required. 

Table 6 – official controls – feed - 2021 

(20) These businesses carry out operations involving more sensitive substances, such as 

certain feed additives, premixtures and compound feedingstuffs, requiring prior approval 
(all establishments need to at least be registered with the authorities). 

25 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Official  controls  in  the  feed  sector  cover  issues  such  as  feed  labelling,  traceability, 
additives, undesirable substances, medicated feed, pesticides and GMOs. 

Non-compliance issues and sanctions were attributed to businesses’ shortcomings in 
one or more of the following: labelling/traceability, feed safety, additives, undesirable 
substances, prohibited materials, medicated feed, pesticides, the use of unauthorised 
GMOs and the labelling of GMOs. 

The graphics in Table  7 give an overview  and breakdown of the  numbers of official 
controls  carried  out,  non-compliance  issues  identified  and  administrative  sanctions 
applied over these different aspects (21), in 2021. 

While  pesticide  residues  in  feed  is  the  biggest  focus  of  official  controls,  most  non-
compliance  issues  and  administrative  sanctions  related  to  feed  labelling  and 
traceability. 

(21) Some EU countries indicated that they are not yet able to provide these data in the 

format required. 

26 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%EstablishmentsOfficial controlsNon-compliancesAdministrative sanctionsEstablishmentsOfficial controlsNon-compliancesAdministrativesanctionsApproved establishments1119218270964573926Registered establishments115366676366121994004Farmers using feed24706015069959452306Operators manufacturing and/ortrading medicated feeding stuffs25741499711153 
 
 
                                                      
Table 7 – official controls – feed - 2021 
Official  controls,  non-compliance  issues  and  administrative  sanctions  across  11 
different topics, ranked by absolute figures 

Official 
controls 
carried out 

Non-
compliance 
issues raised 

Sanctions 
applied 

A: Labelling of feed 
B: Traceability of 
feed 
C: Safety of feed 
D: Additives in feed 
E: Medicated 
feeding stuffs 
F: GMOs in feed 
G: Labelling of 
GMO 
H: Unauthorised 
GMO in feed 
I: Pesticides in feed 
J: Undesirable 
substances in feed 
K: Prohibited 
materials in feed 

27 

K: 6327D: 21355A: 43914J: 99128I: 285290F: 6253E: 2440B: 29866E: 130I: 189C: 1196D: 1217A/B: 4432K: 68G: 52J: 376F: 27E: 68I: 171D: 300C: 944A/B: 2456G: 39K: 35J: 174F: 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries audited: 

6 

Number of audits carried out: 

6 

1 audit per country audited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  25 

Recommendations per audit area: 

Commission controls on feed hygiene 

We examined national authorities’ implementation of official controls on feed hygiene 
in six EU countries in 2021. Four audits were conducted remotely due to the  COVID-
19 pandemic and two were on-the-spot. While the overall results of the audits were 
positive,  showing  that  national  authorities’  inspections  and  testing  of  feed  business 
operators was working well, several areas for improvement were noted including  

 

 
 

national authorities' assessment of operators' hazard analysis and critical control 
points (HACCP) systems,  
the implementation of appropriate sampling protocols, and  
official controls on labelling.  

National authorities committed to implementing corrective actions accordingly. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Animal health 
Official controls carried out by EU countries 

Only 18 EU countries’ annual reports contain a statement on the overall compliance 
level,  ranging  from  generic  statements,  to  the  percentage  of  controls  or 
establishments  with  (non-)  compliance  to  results  relative  to  objectives  set,  e.g. 
disease-free status. 

The  Netherlands  refers  to  a  targeted  action  looking  into  the  concentration  of 
disinfectant  used  for  means  of  transport,  as  the  concentration  measured  during 
controls seems to deviate from what is to be expected. 

The updated animal health law (22) is applicable since 21 April 2021; this is stated by 
some EU countries as a reason for not realising all official controls as planned. 

Official  controls  on  the  identification  and  registration  of  cattle,  sheep  and 
goats 

During  2021,  6.63%  of  all  cattle  (4.76%  of  all  holdings)  were  the  subject  of  an 
official control. 1.1% of all holdings were non-compliant. For 63 185 animals (0.09%) 
on 6 671 holdings, the authorities ordered movement restrictions, for  2897 holdings 
(21 979 animals) this affected all animals present. For 104 animals (<0.001%) on 33 
holdings (0.002%), destruction was ordered. 

For sheep and goats, 6.43% of the animals (4.93% of the holdings) were subject to 
an official control, with 1.3% of all holdings found to be non-compliant. 

Belgium  and  Finland  note  that  most  sheep  and  goats  in  the  country  are  kept  as  a 
hobby, with keepers being less aware of the need for identification and registration. 
Czechia notes  that  there is a  high incidence of the loss of one or  both ear  tags  for 
grazing animals. 

Table  8  shows  the  number  of  official  controls  carried  out,  non-compliance  issues 
identified and administrative sanctions applied, in 2021. 

(22)  Regulation (EU)2016/429 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table  8  –  official  controls  –  animal  health  (cattle,  sheep  and 
goats) - 2021 

Other official controls 

In  addition  to  animal  farming,  there  is  a  broad  range  of  activities  where  controls 
relating  to  animal  health  are  vital  to  control  outbreaks  and  the  spread  of  animal 
diseases. 

Table 9 provides an overview of the number of businesses involved in these activities 
and the number of official controls carried out, non-compliance issues identified and 
administrative sanctions applied, in 2021. 

The updated Animal Health Law could be a reason why, in 20 reports, the tables do 
not  contain  all  data.  Where  some  EU  countries  do  not  have  certain  types  of 
establishments  in  their  territory,  this  is  not  always  stated  as  a  reason  for  missing 
data; most missing information concerns approved dealers, assembly centres, control 
posts  and  aquaculture.  In  some  reports  there  are  discrepancies  in  the  number  of 
establishments between the tables listing the number of official controls carried out 
and the number of non-compliances. 

30 

EstablishmentsOfficial controlsEstablishments with non-complianceAdministrative sanctionsEstablishmentsOfficialcontrolsEstablishmentswith non-complianceAdministrativesanctionsIdentification and registrationof bovine animals168827880400210499016Identification and registrationof ovine and caprine animals104175451348136706412 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9 – official controls – animal health - 2021 

31 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%EstablishmentsOfficial controlsEstablishments with non-complianceAdministrative sanctionsEstablishmentsOfficial controlsEstablishments with non-complianceAdministrative sanctionsApproved aquaculture establishments104695342314160Approved assembly centres (bovine, ovine, caprine,porcine, equine)16325277293213Approved bodies, institutes and centres (Council Directive92/65/EEC)10978511711Approved dealers (bovine, ovine, caprine, porcine)653344991048319Authorised aquaculture animals processingestablishments248071935111037Bird quarantine establishments462410Control posts (Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97)99208498Embryo collection / production teams399256383Establishments approved for EU trade of poultry andhatching eggs43286875596522Semen collection centres1319109117340Semen storage centres8556946313 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries audited: 

5 

Number of audits carried out: 

7 

2  audits  in  Poland  and  Romania;  1  audit 
in the other countries audited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  33 

Recommendations per audit area: 

Our  controls  focussed  on  African  swine  fever  (ASF)  due  to  recent  outbreaks  in  EU 
countries.  We  considered  the  results  of  our  controls  to  assess  possible  support  and 
other  measures  with  regards  to  combatting  ASF  in  these  countries  and  the  EU  in 
general. 

On  each  of  the  three  other  topics,  only  one  audit  was  carried  out  during  2021,  a 
figure too small to draw systemic conclusions from at this stage. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Animal by-products 
Official controls carried out by EU countries 

Animal by-products (ABPs) are materials of animal origin that people do not consume. 
ABPs can spread animal  diseases (e.g. Bovine Spongiform  Encephalopathy  - BSE) or 
chemical  contaminants  (e.g.  dioxins)  and  can  be  dangerous  to  animal  and  human 
health  if  not  properly  disposed  of.  EU  rules  regulate  the  movement,  processing  and 
disposal of these. 

Only  13  annual  reports  contain  a  statement  on  the  level  of  compliance,  mostly  a 
generic one. Finland focussed on on-farm ABPs. 

Table  10  provides  an  overview  of  the  numbers  of  establishments,  official  controls 
carried out, non-compliance issues identified and administrative sanctions applied, in 
2021, comparing the numbers between approved (23) and registered establishments.  

Poland stated that it cannot distinguish the registered establishments, as in its view 
the  EU  technical  specifications  do  not  distinguish  between  approved  and  registered 
operators. 

Table  11  compares  the  numbers  of  non-compliance  issues  and  administrative 
sanctions between two types of product non-compliance issue: 

● 

● 

labelling and traceability of ABPs and derived products; 

safety of ABPs and derived products. 

Ireland, Malta and Romania did not report any non-compliances on either of the two 
topics. Greece, Malta and Romania did not report any official controls on labelling and 
traceability. 

(23) These establishments process, handle or store ABPs and/or derived products (all 

establishments need to be at least registered with the authorities). 

33 

 
 
 
                                                      
Table 10 – official controls – ABPs - 2021 

Table 11 – product non-compliance – ABPs - 2021 

34 

268601934735881132705661661912063674000020000020000400006000080000EstablishmentsOfficial controlsNon-compliancesAdministrative sanctionsApproved establishments or plantsRegistered establishments or plants05001000150020002500300035004000non-compliancesadministrative sanctionsnon-compliancesadministrative sanctionsProduct non-compliance: labelling andtraceability of animal by-products/derived products25481044Product non-compliance: safety ofanimal by-products/derived products1118376 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries audited: 

5 

Number of audits carried out: 

5 

1 audit per country audited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  12 

Recommendations per audit area: 

In  2021,  we  modified  the  scope  of  our  audits  of  EU  countries,  due  in  part  to  the 
pandemic-related necessity to carry out the audits remotely (four of the five planned 
audits were conducted in this way). The audits focused on official controls at critical 
points of the animal by-products chain, taking into account the experience acquired in 
previous audits and the specificities of the countries audited.  

Having a more focused scope made the remote audits more manageable for national 
authorities and  the Commission. In addition, the audits gathered  information on  the 
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the organisation of official controls on animal 
by-products and derived products.  

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The findings of these remote audits have fed into the on-going series of audits of EU 
countries  resulting  in  further  refinements  of  the  scope.  This  series  of  audits  will  be 
completed in 2024. 

36 

 
 
 
 
Animal welfare 
Official controls carried out by EU countries 

A statement on the overall level of compliance is present in only 16 annual reports. 

Animal welfare on farm 

Only six EU countries provided consistent and complete data on the number of farms 
in their country, and the number and outcome of official controls on animal welfare 
requirements. The remaining 22 EU countries presented one or more of the following: 

● 

● 

● 

11 EU countries did not carry out official controls on welfare at farm of one or 
more  categories of animals, including  cattle (kept for  milk or  meat production), 
sheep, goats and chickens kept for meat production. 

14  EU  countries  indicated  significantly  different  total  numbers  of  ruminant 
farms (cattle, sheep and goats) in their country when indicating those numbers in 
data  for  animal  welfare  compared  to  the  data  given  in  the  section  on  animal 
health. 

Three  EU  countries  provided  incoherent  data  between  the  data  given  for  the 
number  and  outcome  of  controls  and  the  data  mentioned  in  their  analysis  of 
main issues identified. 

This  significantly  reduces  the  reliability  of  the  estimation  of  the  level  of  overall 
compliance with animal welfare rules in the EU. 

The  annual  reports  must  include  an  analysis  of  the  most  serious  findings  of  non–
compliance. These analyses should be the basis for a national action plan to prevent 
or decrease their occurrence for the forthcoming years (24). Nine EU countries did not 
include the required analysis nor provide an indication of the absence or presence of 
any  non-compliances  for  which  an  action  plan  would  be  necessary.  Other  EU 
countries’ analysis are so generic that it is not possible to identify issues that might 
be common to several EU countries. 

14 EU countries have not included this action plan. It must be highlighted that for an 
action  plan  to  adequately  address  main  animal  welfare  issues  it  would  first  require 

(24) Articles 151, 152, 156, 157 and 158 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 require an analysis of 
the most serious findings of non–compliance and a national action plan to prevent or 
decrease their occurrence. 

37 

 
 
 
                                                      
good  data  and  a  proper  analysis  of  supporting  data.  In  six  EU  countries,  the  action 
plan shows no link to the analysis of the main non-compliances identified. 

Overstocking is the more commonly identified animal welfare issue in poultry farms 
(laying  hens  and  chickens  kept  for  meat  production).  Concerning  farms  keeping 
ruminants  (cattle,  sheep  and  goats),  a  number  of  EU  countries  have  identified  a 
higher  risk  of  non-compliances  in  small-sized  farms  and  suggested  that  this  is 
potentially caused by the lack of competence of the keepers or their poor awareness 
of  legal  requirements.  In  pig  farms,  the  more  commonly  identified  issue  is  the 
inadequate  and/or  insufficient  provision  of  enrichment  material.  This  is  one  of  the 
factors  causing  tail  biting  and  leading  to  routine  tail-docking.  In  six  EU  countries, 
routine  tail-docking  or  the  multiple  factors  leading  to  tail-biting  are  not  taken  into 
account  in  the  analysis  of  non-compliances  in  pig  farms.  In  three  EU  countries, 
although  tail-docking  is  not  directly  mentioned,  one  or  more  factors  leading  to  tail-
biting are taken into consideration. 

Table  12  provides  an  overview  of  the  numbers  of  production  sites,  official  controls 
carried  out, sites  with non-compliance issues and sanctions applied, in 2021, across 
the animal species listed. 

Table 12 – official controls – animal welfare on farms - 2021 

Animal welfare during transport 

Four  EU  countries  have  not  reported  the  official  controls  that  are  carried  out  at 
slaughterhouses when this is the place of destination. 

38 

Production sitesProduction sites controlledControls performedSites with non-complianceSanctionsProduction sitesProduction sitescontrolledControls performedSites with non-complianceSanctionsPigs471724116874775143624284Laying hens3420320455195506469Chicken3598725487787678593Calves1196970217802510653526293Other198002246652695871416913699 
 
 
The  analysis  of  eight  EU  countries  is  missing (25)  or  is  of  poor  quality  and  does  not 
identify  the  presence  –  or  absence  –  of  main  non-compliances  for  which  an  action 
plan would be necessary. Ten EU countries have not included the action plan. It must 
be  highlighted  that  a  proper  action  plan  that  adequately  addresses  main  animal 
welfare issues would first require proper data and a proper analysis of the supporting 
data. 

The  most  frequent  non-compliances  are  related  to  documentation  (journey  logs, 
transporter authorisations, vehicle certificates of approval, satellite navigation system 
data).  The  transport  of  unfit  animals,  particularly  to  slaughterhouses,  is  also 
commonly reported as a main animal welfare issue. 

Table  13  provides  an  overview  of  the  number  of  official  controls  carried  out  and 
administrative sanctions applied across the different animal species, in 2021. 

Table  13 –  official  controls  –  animal  welfare  during  transport  – 
2021 

These official controls led to a number of administrative sanctions being applied. The 
graphs  in  Table  14  show  the  number  of  sanctions  applied  for  the  different  species. 
The main issues were: 

● 

● 

● 

for cattle, pigs, sheep and goats and poultry, the fitness of animals; 

for horses, problems with transport documentation; 

for all other also the fitness of animals. 

(25) Article 154 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 requires an analysis of the major deficiencies 

detected and an action plan to address them. 

39 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Official controlsSanctionsOfficial controlsSanctionsCattle2471113096Pigs2875173554Sheep/goats19959308Horses/donkeys26575202Poultry224025934Other818161165 
 
 
                                                      
Table  14  –  official  controls  –  animal  welfare  during  transport  - 
2021 
Administrative sanctions for different species relating to six areas 

Cattle 

Pigs 

Sheep & 
goats 

A: fitness of 
animals 
B: transport 
practices 
C: Means of 
transport 
D: water, feed, 
journey times 
E: documents 
F: other 

40 

F (396)C (732)B (835)E (1954)A (14091)D (353)D (2762)C (3542)B (4080)E (4246)A (27845)F (575)D (339)C (500)B (509)E (750)A (2259)F (34) 
 
 
 
 
Horses 
and 
donkeys 

Poultry 

Other 

A: fitness of 
animals 
B: transport 
practices 
C: Means of 
transport 
D: water, feed, 
journey times 
E: documents 
F: other 

Animal welfare at the time of killing 

Two EU countries did not provide any information on the outcome of official animal 
welfare controls carried out in slaughterhouses. 

Five other EU countries submitted data exclusively concerning depopulation activities 
for animal health reasons, which is only an optional item to be included in the report. 

The quality of information provided by the remaining 19 EU countries varies. In those 
that  provided  some  detailed  information,  the  main  animal  welfare  issues  concern 
poultry slaughterhouses (in particular the stunning of birds) and the lack, or expiry, of 

41 

B (44)C (46)F (92)A (156)E (379)D (26)F (146)C (259)E (527)B (913)A (177209)D (65)B (138)D (175)C (324)E (899)A (1089)F (93) 
 
 
 
 
 
certificates  of  competence  of  animal  welfare  officers  and  other  slaughterhouse 
personnel.  None  indicated  a  reason  for  such  a  non-compliance.  Three  EU  countries 
have  reported  that  official  controls  have  not  detected  any  non-compliances  in 
slaughterhouses. 

Germany stated that, in its opinion, reporting on official controls on animal welfare at 
slaughter is optional and therefore unnecessary. 

Commission controls  

Countries audited: 

11 

Number of audits carried out: 

11 

1 audit per country audited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  29 

Recommendations per audit area: 

Animal welfare on farm 

We completed a project to get an overview of the national controls on the welfare of 
laying  hens  through  audits  and  questionnaires.  This  is  an  area  well-covered  by 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
national  controls  and  where  several  EU  countries  are  implementing  national 
provisions, which are  more  stringent than the EU ones. The results  did not highlight 
important compliance issues.  

The main effect of the weaknesses in the official controls is overstocking. Due to the 
absence  of  EU  animal  welfare  requirements  specific  to  breeder  flocks  and  pullets 
(young hens) there is no consistency in the controls carried out in different countries 
and even regions.  

We  will  consider  these  results  in  the  ongoing  fitness  check  of  the  animal  welfare 
legislation and in its actions to address the ‘End the Cage Age’ citizens’ initiative. 

Animal welfare during transport 

We  delivered  training  on  retrospective  checks  (road  transport  of  animals)  to  the 
national  authorities  and  established  workshops  to  be  delivered  under  the  BTSF 
initiative in 2022 and 2023. 

We continued to work with the European Maritime Safety Agency to set up a system 
to  improve  official  controls  on  livestock  vessels  and  thus  improve  animal  welfare 
during sea transport.  

43 

 
 
 
Plant health 
Official controls carried out by EU countries 

EU  countries  have  to  report  on  the  official  controls  carried  out  on  businesses 
authorised to issue plant passports (26) and businesses authorised to apply the ISPM 
15 mark (27) to wood packaging materials. 

Only 17 reports contain a, mainly generic, statement on the overall compliance. The 
Netherlands state it is too early to define a level of compliance, as this activity was 
only recently added to the official control plan. 

Only five EU countries carried out at least  one  official  control  on every operator, as 
required by legislation, six more achieved this requirement for one of the two types of 
operators. 

Table 15 provides an overview of the number of businesses involved, official controls 
carried out, non-compliance issues identified and administrative sanctions applied, in 
2021. 

Table 15 – official controls – plant health - 2021 

(26) Plant passports are harmonised labels that must accompany all plants for planting during 
all business-to-business movements within the EU, to ensure the absence of quarantine 
pests, compliance with regulated non-quarantine restrictions and traceability. 

(27) A mark on wood packaging materials shows they have undergone treatment to remove or 

kill pests. 

44 

Operators authorised to apply the ISPM15 markOperators authorised to issue plantpassportsOperators1251445342Official controls1281666551Non-compliances15733801Sanctions3462592 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries audited: 

9 

Number of audits carried out: 

13 

3  audits  in  Italy,  2  audits  in  France  and 
in  the  other 
Portugal,  and  1  audit 
countries audited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  77 

Recommendations per audit area: 

Controls on harmful pests and diseases  

Plant health is important for sustainable agriculture and horticultural production, food 
security and protection of the natural environment. We continued to conduct a wide 
range of audit and analysis activities in the field of plant health, in EU countries (and 
non-EU countries that export plants to the EU), to verify compliance with EU rules.  

EUROPHYT-Outbreaks 

Rapid reporting by EU countries on new outbreaks of pests and diseases, and on their 
spread  in  the  EU,  is  fundamental  for  assessing  risk  factors  and  better  targeting 
national authorities’ control activities for eradication or containment of the pests. The 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
web-based  module  for  outbreak  notifications  under  the  EUROPHYT  system  was 
further  developed,  helping  national  authorities  to  timely  report  new  outbreaks  and 
updates  on  existing  outbreaks.  The  introduction  of  new  tools  for  real  time  data 
analyses improved the information needed for rapid decision making. 

Audits on import controls for plant health  

Since the end of 2019, significant changes to the EU plant health import regime apply 
in  the  EU.  Among  other  changes,  an  obligation  for  a  phytosanitary  certificate  for 
plants  and  plant  products  presented  at  import  now  applies  to  a  large  range  of  new 
commodities, and to plants brought in with passengers’ luggage. The requirements of 
the  Official  Controls  Regulation  (OCR)  apply  to  plant  health  import  controls  and 
resulted in a number of important changes. A new audit series with six audits carried 
out in 2021 has supported authorities with the swift and effective adaptation of their 
control  systems  to  meet  these  new  requirements.  The  audit  findings  are  also 
reflected  in  the  Commission  report  on  the  enforcement  and  effectiveness  of  plant 
health measures relating to imports into the Union territory (28). This audit series will 
continue until 2023. 

(28) Report on the enforcement and effectiveness of plant health measures relating to imports 

into the Union territory 

46 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Plant protection products 
Official controls carried out by EU countries 

Plant  protection  products  (PPP)  are  subject  to  official  controls  at  market  level  and 
during use. 

Only  17  reports  contain  a,  generic,  statement  on  the  level  of  compliance.  The 
Netherlands  report  that  the  motivation  for  compliance  is  low.  Bulgaria  states  that 
controls  on  farmers  need  to  be  enhanced  to  prevent  the  use  of  illegal  and 
unauthorised PPP. 

The  reports  do  not  contain  all  data  as  required.  The  national  authorities  do  not  yet 
register  all  operators  and  activities  in  a  way  that  would  allow  them  to  provide  the 
data. 

Marketing of PPP 

A range of businesses are active in the PPP distribution chain. Table 16 provides an 
overview  of  the  number  of  operators,  official  controls  carried  out,  non-compliance 
issues identified and administrative sanctions applied across the types of operators, 
in 2021. 

Czechia and  Italy report a high number  of authorisation/parallel permit holders, this 
figure might relate to the number of products rather than operators. 

The report from the United Kingdom (in respect of its controls performed in Northern 
Ireland) states that no programme for official controls on the marketing of PPP is in 
place  yet  as  the  Official  Controls  (Plant  Protection  Products)  Regulations  (Northern 
Ireland) 2020 came into operation only recently (on 31 December 2020).  

A specific non-compliance issue at this stage is the storage of PPP that are no longer 
authorised to be used.  

47 

 
 
 
 
Table 16 – official controls – marketing of PPP - 2021 

Use of PPP and sustainable use of pesticides 

Non-compliance  issues  identified  related  to  accidental  application  of  PPPs  on  areas 
where they should not have been used, exceeding the permitted dosage of PPPs, the 
use  of  PPPs  in  violation  of  the  requirements  for  the  protection  of  drinking  water 
sources,  the  use  of  PPPs  in  an  unauthorised  crop  in  violation  of  its  marking  (label), 
excess  of  the  maximum  number  of  treatments  per  crop,  failure  to  comply  with  the 
notification obligation before the application of rodenticide and a product particularly 
dangerous for bees. 

Finland found a relatively large number of shortcomings on golf courses and in real 
estate  management  companies.  Deficiencies  in  spraying  equipment  inspections  and 
compliance  with  labelling  requirements  were  common  on  golf  courses.  For  property 
maintenance  companies  the  main  deficiencies  concerned  the  product  registers  and 
the lack of qualifications of users. 

Table  17  provides  an  overview  of  the  number  of  operators,  official  controls  carried 
out,  non-compliance  issues  identified  and  administrative  sanctions  applied,  in  2021, 
across the types of operators in relation to official controls carried out on the use of 
PPP  and  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides.  Other  professional  uses  include  use  in 
forestry, around railways and roads, non-agricultural areas such as golf courses and 
other  public  areas,  seed  treatment  operators  and  spray  contractors  and/or  service 
providers.  

48 

OperatorsOffcial controlsNon-compliancesAdministrative sanctionsOperatorsOffcial controlsNon-compliancesAdministrative sanctionsPackers/re-packers/re-labellers5164822921Manufacturers/formulators3351814124Storage depots/transport operators/logisticscompanies11533165222Others7516007860Entry points29262721344227Authorisation/parallel trade permit holder2596637183149Distributors/wholesalers/retailers - professionaland/or amateur use PPPs708462180136492167 
 
 
Table 17 – official controls – use of PPP - 2021 

Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries audited: 

5 

Number of audits carried out: 

5 

1 audit per country audited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  32 

Recommendations per audit area: 

49 

OperatorsOfficial controlsNon-compliancesAdministrative sanctionsOperatorsOfficialcontrolsNon-compliancesAdministrativesanctionsAgricultural users5836779720261333410061Other professional users1772831260319261522Other3782897364223 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The sustainable use of pesticides 

The  broad  range  of  measures  set  out  in  the  Directive  on  the  sustainable  use  of 
pesticides (29) (SUD) provides the basis for reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide 
use  on  human  health  and  the  environment,  in  particular  by  promoting  the  use  of 
integrated pest management (IPM) and alternatives to pesticides.  

Evaluation of the SUD  

The evaluation and impact assessment of a possible future revision of the SUD which 
started  in  2020  continued  in  2021.  This  exercise  was  carried  out  in  line  with  the 
Commission’s guidance on Better Regulation. 

Additional  consultations,  also  with  other  relevant  stakeholders,  were  organised  in 
2021,  including  via  an  external  study  to  support  the  evaluation  and  impact 
assessment.  On  4  May  2021  a  workshop  was  organised  by  the  external  study 
contractor to discuss the findings of their evaluation work with stakeholders (30).  

On 18 January 2021, we launched an online  public consultation/(have your  say) for 
this  initiative  which  was  open  for  responses  until  12  April  2021.  A  total  of  1,697 
online responses to this consultation were received and analysed.  

A first remote stakeholder event was organised on 19 January 2021, to consult and 
receive input to the planned work. Two additional stakeholder events were organised, 
on  25  June  2021  and  5  October  2021  respectively,  to  give  an  update  on  the  work 
underway and to further consult and engage with stakeholders. 

We  also  signed  a  contract  for  a  6  month  foresight  study  in  March  2021  aiming  to 
develop future vision scenarios for the sustainable use of pesticides and, in particular, 
achieving by 2030 the pesticide use and risk reduction targets announced in the Farm 
to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies. 

On  6  October  2021  a  workshop  was  organised  by  the  external  study  contractor  to 
discuss  the  findings  of  their  evaluation  and  impact  assessment  work  with 
stakeholders (31).  

The  Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board  (RSB) reviewed the Commission’s draft 
impact assessment at its meeting of 24 November 2021. 

(29)  Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 

2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of 
pesticides 

(30)  The presentations form the workshop can be accessed here. 

(31)    The presentation from this workshop can be accessed here. 

50 

 
 
                                                      
SUD implementation 

In 2021, we carried out three audits to evaluate the implementation of measures to 
achieve the sustainable use of pesticides. They were  all carried out remotely, due to 
the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The two series of Better  Training for  Safer Food courses, i.e.  IPM implementation at 
farm level and testing of pesticide application equipment  continued in 2021. The six 
IPM sessions organised in 2021 were all online. They covered the following crops: two 
sessions  on  winter  wheat,  two  on  potatoes  and  two  on  vine  grapes.  Concerning 
pesticide application equipment, no sessions took place in 2021; most of them were 
suspended because of COVID-19 restrictions.  

Harmonised risk indicators 

In August 2021, we published  updated EU Harmonised Risk Indicators for  pesticides 
for  the  period  2011-2019.  These  indicators  show  the  trends  in  the  risks  associated 
with the use of pesticides since 2011. 

Harmonised Risk Indicator 1 (HRI 1) measuring the use and risk of pesticides, shows a 
decrease  of  21%  since  the  baseline  period  in  2011-2013,  and  a  4%  decline 
compared to 2018, which was unchanged compared to 2017.  

Harmonised  Risk  Indicator  2  (HRI  2),  which  is  based  on  the  number  of  emergency 
authorisations,  shows  an  increase  of  55%  since  the  baseline  period  in  2011-2013, 
but a 5% decrease compared to 2018. These results show continuing progress in risk 
reduction,  and  support  the achievement  of  the  Farm  to  Fork  pesticide  reduction 
targets. However, there is no room for complacency if the EU is to further reduce the 
risks associated with pesticides. 

Farm to Fork targets on PPPs - Progress 

The Commission set two key pesticide reduction targets as part to the Farm to Fork 
Strategy and Biodiversity Strategy in May 2020:  

  Target 1: to reduce by 50% the use and risk of chemical pesticides by 2030 

  Target 2: to reduce by 50% the use of more hazardous pesticides by 2030 

In  May  2021,  we  have  published  the  progress  at  European  Union  level  towards 
meeting  both  Farm  to  Fork  pesticide  targets  for  the  first  time.  Where  EU  countries 

51 

 
 
have  agreed  for  the  Commission  to  publish  this  progress,  these  trends  were  also 
published. They will be updated annually (32). 

(32) 

More details are accessible here. 

52 

 
 
 
                                                      
Organic production and labelling 
of organic products 
Official controls carried out by EU countries 

For  the  2020  reporting  year,  the  Commission  sent  follow-up  letters  to  24  EU 
countries  and  two  European  Free  Trade  Association  (EFTA)  countries,  because  their 
annual  reports  for  that  year  lacked  quality  or  accuracy  on  organic  data  or  official 
organic control topics (33). 

This allowed clarification on issues related to:  

● 

● 

● 

● 

a lack of compliance with the legal control requirements (number of annual 
inspections, additional risk-based and unannounced inspections carried out);  

a lack of information on the number and type of non-conformities detected and 
information on the relevant measures applied;  

a lack of information on the supervisory activities by the competent authority in 
relation to the organic control bodies (audits, number of files examined, 
witness/review audits, major findings and follow-up given to irregularities);  

a lack of information on actions taken by the competent authority to ensure 
compliance by the organic businesses and/or the effective operation of their 
official control services. 

The Commission’s assessment of the annual reports submitted for the 2021 reporting 
year in the organics sector is ongoing. 

EU  countries  may  delegate  to  control  bodies  certain  official  control  tasks  and  other 
official  activities (34).  In  most  EU  countries,  private  control  bodies  are  active  in 
certification  and  official  controls  of  organic  businesses.  The  national  authorities  are 
required to supervise these bodies (35).  

Under  the  rules  on  organic  production,  EU  countries’  national  authorities  for  organic 
farming supervise the control bodies to whom they delegate official control tasks and 
report  the  results  of  this  supervision  activity  to  the  Commission.  The  supervision 

(33)  Annexes XIIIc and XIIIb of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 

(34) Article 28 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625.   

(35) Article 33(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625. 

53 

 
 
 
                                                      
audits include office assessments of the control procedures, witnessed audits, where 
the  national  authority  observes  the  inspection  carried  out  by  inspectors  from  the 
control  body,  review  audits,  where  the  national  authority  directly  inspects  organic 
businesses  to  verify  compliance  with  the  organic  rules.  The  national  authorities 
impose  measures  where  necessary,  including  the  withdrawal  of  these  bodies’ 
delegations. 

Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries audited: 

Number of audits carried out: 

2 

1 audit per country audited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  19 

Recommendations per audit area: 

The recommendations in this area are not split into further topics. 

In its Farm to Fork strategy, the Commission set a target for organic farming at 25% 
of the EU’s agricultural area by 2030. In the last 10 years, there has been an increase 
of 63%, to currently 8.5% of the total utilised agricultural area (36).  

In 2020, the EU imported 2.79 million tonnes of organic agri-food products, a decline 
of 1.9% compared to the 2.85 million tonnes imported in 2019 (37).   

We continue to carry out an annual programme of audits of the control systems for 
organic products produced or imported into the EU single market.  

Private control bodies certify imports from most non-EU countries and audits of these 
bodies  are  an  important  part  of  the  Commission  audit  programme  in  the  organics 
sector,  accounting  for  two  audits  carried  out  in  2021  although  online  due  to  the 
COVID-19 pandemic.  

A main difference between the two types of controls, is that control bodies in non-EU 
countries  may  apply  group  certification  if  the  group  has  an  internal  control  system. 
This  approach  facilitates  exports  from  small  farmers  in  developing  countries  that 
cannot afford individual certification.  

(36) Organic farming statistics provided by Eurostat 

(37) EU imports of organic agri-food products – key developments in 2020 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Many  of  the  non-compliance  issues  found  in  non-EU  countries  relate  to  issues  with 
the implementation of this system.  

The most frequent adverse findings identified in the audits in EU countries related to 
the  supervision  of  control  bodies,  compliance  with  minimum  control  requirements 
from  the  control  bodies,  the  notification  to  the  competent  authorities  of  non-
compliance issues by businesses from the control bodies and the lack of enforcement 
of measures in cases of non-compliance issues. 

55 

 
 
 
 
Protected designation of origin, 
protected geographical 
indications and traditional 
specialities guaranteed 
Official controls carried out by EU countries 

The  EU  geographical  indications  (GIs)  system  protects  the  names  of  products 
originating from specific regions and having specific qualities or enjoying a reputation 
linked  to  the  geographic  area  where  they  are  produced  (protected  designations  of 
origin  (PDOs),  protected  geographical  indications  (PGIs)  and  traditional  specialities 
guaranteed  (TSGs)).  The  GIs  system  enables  consumers  to  trust  and  distinguish 
traditional  products  with  specific  qualities,  while  also  helping  producers  to  market 
their products better. 

Almost  3  500  names  of  products  are  registered  and  protected  under  the  EU  GIs 
system  and  more  than 1  700 non-EU  GI  names  are  protected  through  international 
agreements. 

Each  GI  must  adhere  to  a  specific  set  of  specifications  laying  down  details  of 
production.  The  product  specification  is  also  serving  as  a  guarantee  for  the  quality 
and authenticity of the product. 

The  EU  regulations  establish  obligations  and  principles  for  a  system  of  official 
controls  that  must  be  implemented  by  EU countries.  The  scope  of  protection  covers 
both  the  production  phase  and  the  surveillance  of  the  correct  use  of  the  protected 
name. 

The EU countries identified various objectives for the official controls of GIs: e.g.  

● 

● 

● 

in Austria and Germany, amongst others, the safeguarding of consumer trust; 

in France, to ensure the confidence of consumers of products presenting on their 
labelling one of the official GI logos; 

in Czechia, to ensure that the rights of the GI right holders were guaranteed and 
respected; 

56 

 
 
 
● 

in Estonia, to examine whether registered names, including from other countries, 
are used legitimately. 

Some  EU  countries  (e.g.  France  and  Germany)  reported  that  the  planned  number  of 
official  controls  was  impacted  by  effects  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  (e.g.  staff 
assignment,  frequency  of  checks)  and  by  avian  influenza  (reported  by  France). 
However,  in  general,  the  number  of  official  controls  undertaken  in  2021  was 
maintained at the same level as in 2020. 

On the other hand, other countries reported that they reached or even exceeded their 
GI controls target (e.g. Italy reported that its competent authority carried out 133.3% 
of  the  planned  controlling  activities;  Estonia  and  Finland  also  reported  an  increased 
number of annual GI controls). The figure is linked to the increase in controls of GIs in 
e-commerce  as  well  as  the  high  incidence  of  judicial  police  activities  aimed  at 
combating fraud, which cannot be planned. 

Based on the submitted information, the following observations are made: 

● 

● 

● 

● 

The official controls of GIs in the EU countries included both pre-market checks 
and conventional checks on the market. In some EU countries (e.g. France, Italy, 
Portugal, Greece, Czechia, Poland) the majority of the checks reported concerned 
pre-market  checks.  Nevertheless,  the  number  of  market  controls  undertaken  is 
particularly significant as well in some of those EU countries, e.g. France (3 036), 
Italy  (2  995),  Spain  (1  701)  and  Portugal  (2  251).  In  other  EU  countries  (e.g. 
Germany, Cyprus, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Finland, Sweden) more emphasis 
was  put  on  the  controls  in  the  marketplace.  The  reason  behind  the  difference 
might be that EU countries with a high number of GIs focus more on verification 
of compliance of GIs with their product specification before the product is placed 
on the market. 

As regards the checks on the market, they were further  split into checks in the 
physical  marketplace  and  checks  on  internet.  Some  EU  countries  (e.g.  Finland, 
Sweden,  Estonia)  indicated  that  the  controls  on  e-commerce  had  not  been 
separately recorded in the control system. 

In  addition,  there  is  a  number  of  EU  countries  (e.g.  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria, 
Croatia,  Denmark,  Hungary,  Netherlands  and  Romania)  where  it  is  not  clear 
whether  the  controls  on  e-commerce  were  not  carried  out  at  all  or  they  were 
included in the conventional controls on the market. 

In  the  context  of  increasing  sales  of  products  online  and  their  associated 
potential for infringements, controls of GIs in e-commerce play a more and more 
important role and thus these controls might need to be stepped up in the future. 
Some EU countries clearly declared such intention (e.g. Germany, Finland). 

57 

 
 
● 

Some weakness in the GI controls on the market were identified, such as  

■ 

■ 

■ 

the absence of market controls in Malta;  

the absence of market controls at the level of one of the regions in Belgium 
due to the absence of an enforcement cooperation agreement between the 
region  concerned  and  the  federal  competent  authority  for  GI  market 
controls;  

the non-recording and, therefore, non-reporting of GI market inspections by 
Denmark,  although  such  inspections  are  reported  to  have  been  performed 
by the designated competent authority. 

● 

Some  EU  countries  indicated  particularly  high  levels  of  compliance  (e.g. 
Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, Czechia – around 99%), while in others a higher non-
compliance  has  been  detected  (e.g.  in  Greece  33.8%,  in  Slovenia  27.6%,  in 
Denmark 69.4%, in Estonia 62% non-compliance rate, calculated as the number 
of non-compliances found in relation to the controls performed). 

● 

The types of infringements reported by the EU countries included:  

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

non-compliance with the product specification,  

labelling not in accordance with the rules,  

cases where non-GI products were labelled as GIs or  

cases of GI misuse or evocation. 

●  Depending  on  the  EU  country,  information  on  the  infringements  has  been 
reported  per  sector  or  product  category  (e.g.  Belgium,  Italy  or  Czechia),  or  per 
entire  GI  sector  (covering  wine,  spirit  drinks  and  agricultural  products)  (e.g. 
Austria, Denmark). 

● 

● 

● 

Some  EU  countries  with  particularly  high  GI  awareness  reported  a  very  high 
number of official controls for all types of checks (e.g. in Spain over 48 800, in 
France over 40 400 and in Italy over 162 800 checks took place). 

Limited information (e.g. by Estonia) or mostly no information has been provided 
by  the  EU  countries  on  the  checks  of  GIs  originating  in  non-EU  countries,  but 
which  are  protected  in  the  EU  either  via  direct  applications  or  on  the  basis  of 
international agreements. 

Enforcement  actions  by  the  EU  countries  comprised  both  administrative  and 
judicial actions (the latter only reported by France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece 

58 

 
 
and  Netherlands).  Administrative  actions  included,  among  others,  temporary 
closure  of  operators,  downgrades,  suspensions  of  accreditation;  accreditation 
withdrawals, seizure of products or orders to operators to recall and destroy the 
infringing products. The low rate of judicial actions in comparison to the number 
of  administrative  actions  might  indicate  a  relatively  low  gravity  of  identified 
infringements.  At  the  same  time,  it  may  also  signal  the  need  of  raising  the 
awareness  of  all  the  relevant  enforcement  authorities  about  the  need  of 
ensuring a strong protection of GIs as intellectual property rights. This even more 
having  in  view  that  GIs  became  more  and  more  an  important  candidate  for 
exploitation  for  fraud  purposes  due  to  the  high  economic  value  they  generate 
(the  GIs’  annual  sales  value  in  the  EU  is  estimated  at  around  EUR  75  billion, 
representing 7% of the total sales value of the EU food and drinks sectors) and 
the emergence of e-commerce. 

Table  18  provides  an  overview  of  the  number  of  businesses  subject  to  official 
controls,  the  number  of  those  with  non-compliance  issues,  the  number  of  official 
controls  carried  out,  non-compliance  issues  raised  and  administrative  sanctions 
applied, in 2021. 

Table 18 – official controls – PDO/PGI/TSG/GI - 2021 

59 

Controlled operatorsOfficial controlsControlled operators with non-compliancesNon-compliancesSanctionsControlled operatorsOfficial controlsControlled operatorswith non-compliancesNon-compliancesSanctionsPre-market212468231599469655181546026E-commerce2910446947914511288Conventional2443926769215734472407 
 
 
 
Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries audited: 

2 

Number of audits carried out: 

2 

1 audit per country audited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  8 

Recommendations per audit area: 

The recommendations in this area are not split into further topics. 

We continued to carry out a limited annual programme of audits in the EU countries 
on the control systems for GIs.  

The  overall  conclusion  is  that  EU  countries  have  well-structured  official  control 
systems  in  place  for  the  protection  of  GIs,  with  designated  national  authorities  and 
well-trained  staff.  The  shortcomings  identified  and,  hence,  the  biggest  challenges 
ahead for the national authorities concern  

● 

● 

the  strengthening  of  the  GIs’  controls  on  the  market,  including  as  regards  the 
protected GIs from other EU countries and from third countries, and  

the surveillance of the use of GIs on internet to discourage, identify and remove 
any misappropriations of GIs on e-commerce platforms. 

Enforcement is the key to the GI system, therefore awareness of all the enforcement 
authorities  needs  to  be  raised  on  the  scope  of  the  GIs  protection  and  on  the 
administrative and judicial actions that may be taken to prevent or stop the unlawful 
use of GIs. 

For  this  purpose,  a  robust  control  and  enforcement  system  must  be  in place  across 
the EU. While the general rules of such a system are set out in the EU legislation, the 
organisation  and  implementation  is  the  EU  countries’  remit.  Consequently,  various 
systems are being implemented among the EU countries. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
In  2021,  the  evaluation  support  study  on  GIs/TSGs (38)  was  carried  out  to  obtain  an 
independent evidence-based assessment of how the GI scheme works.  

Under  the  study,  an  electronic  survey  of  the  national  authorities  (27  replies)  was 
conducted. Enforcement  and  controls  of  GIs  was  one  of  the  aspects covered  by  the 
survey.  As  regards  the  types  of  non-conformity,  the  national  authorities’  survey 
suggests that most common infringements detected differ largely depending on the 
types of products covered. Main infringements reported concern:  

● 

● 

● 

the rules of production for agricultural products and foodstuffs;  

the misuse of protected names for the wines and aromatised wine products;  

the labelling requirements for spirit drinks and aromatised wine products. 

Overall,  the  study  confirmed  that  the  general  organisation  and  implementation  of 
controls  are  effective,  with  a  better  effectiveness  at  the  production  and  processing 
stages  than  in  the  downstream  sector  (wholesalers  and  retailers),  including  export 
markets and online sales. The main reasons behind are large number of businesses at 
downstream level and difficulties in carrying out efficient controls on online sales. 

The survey confirmed that the frequency of control at farm stage reaches 100% per 
year  in  several  EU  countries  for  agri-food  GI  products  (71%  in  the  wine  sector). 
However, it remains very limited in other EU countries with rates as low as 0.6% for 
agri-food GI products and 5% in the wine sector. At processing stage, the frequency 
of control ranges from 25% up to 100% per year for all products, while at wholesale 
stage and retail stage the frequency of controls ranges between 0 and 35% in most 
cases.  Only  one  EU  country  provided  data  for  online  sales,  with  a  5%  frequency  of 
control. 

Although EU law covers the misuse of protected names on the internet, it focuses on 
"commercial  use"  and  "comparative"  or  "misleading  advertising",  and  not  on  the 
registration  of  a  domain  name,  which  remains  an  issue.  Domain  names  that  are 
identical  or  similar  to  GIs  are  mostly  registered  without  any  recognition  of  prior  GI 
rights and can work to the detriment of both consumers and producers.  

(38)  Commission Staff Working Document Evaluation of Geographical Indications and 

Traditional Specialities Guaranteed protected in the EU  

61 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Fraudulent and deceptive 
practices 
Official controls carried out by EU countries  

Fraudulent  and  deceptive  practices  are  characterised  by  their  intentional  nature, 
aimed at achieving an economic gain, in violation of legal rules and at the expense of 
the immediate customer or the final consumer. 

There  are  different  types  of  fraud  in  the  agri-food  chain:  dilution,  substitution, 
concealment,  unapproved  enhancement,  counterfeit  products,  mislabelling  and 
forgery. 

National official controls programmes 

National  authorities  are  required  to  carry  out  official  controls  to  identify  possible 
intentional  violations of the rules (39), through fraudulent or  deceptive practices, and 
taking  into  account  information  regarding  such  violations  shared  through  the 
mechanisms  of  administrative  assistance  and  any  other  information  pointing  to  the 
possibility of such violations. 

EU countries reported on such official controls. Examples included official controls on: 

  honey; 
  olive oil; 
 
labelling of food supplements (declared level of vitamins); 
 
labelling the country origin; 
 
labelling as organic or a PDO/PGI/TSG product; 
 
illegal slaughter and sale of undeclared meat; 
  placing food on social media using false profiles; 
  unregistered/unauthorised sale of food;  
  presenting food supplements online, claiming they can prevent or cure disease; 
 
the  use  of  the  ISPM15  mark  on  wood  packaging  materials  without 
authorisation. 

(39) Regulation (EU) 2017/625 introduced new rules on fighting fraud in the entire agri-food 
chain. Article 9(2) requires EU countries to carry out official controls regularly, with 
appropriate frequencies determined on a risk basis, to identify possible intentional 
violations of the rules through fraudulent or deceptive practices. 

62 

 
 
 
                                                      
Coordinated control programmes 

EU countries contributed to EU control programmes coordinated by the Commission. 

The  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF)  works  together  with  the  Directorate-General 
Health  and  Food  Safety  in  joint  actions  targeting  counterfeited  foodstuff.  In  2021, 
OLAF  worked  intensely  on  cases  targeting  for  example  counterfeit  wine,  sparkling 
wine, whiskey and vodka. The exchange of intelligence and actions taken by  OLAF in 
coordination with national authorities from the EU and non-EU countries led to many 
results, including the following: 

 

 

 

421 000  bottles  of  counterfeit  wine  of  several  brands  seized  in  the  EU  and 
Moldova; 
339 696  bottles  of  counterfeit  rum  seized  in  the  EU  and  Honduras  (estimated 
value of € 4.5 million) and one illegal factory dismantled in Honduras; 
576 litres of counterfeit Prosecco seized in the EU. 

OLAF targets international  trade in counterfeit or  sub-standard  food and beverages, 
as well as food fraud and adulteration, like for example honey being adulterated with 
sugar syrups. 

Operations coordinated by Europol 

The EU countries participate in yearly operations coordinated by Europol: 

●  Operation Silver Axe VI (40), targeting the counterfeit and illicit trade of pesticides, 

led to the seizure of 1 203 tonnes of illegal pesticides; 

●  Operation OPSON X (41), targeting the trafficking of counterfeit and substandard 
food and beverages, led to the disruption of 42 organised crime groups involved 
in food fraud and the arrests of 663 suspects. The operation included more than 
68 000 checks. As a result, about 15 000 tonnes of illegal and potentially 
harmful products worth about €53 million were seized. 

(40) Europol press release on Operation Silver Axe VI.  

(41) Europol press release on OPSON X. 

63 

 
 
 
                                                      
Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries visited: 

4 

Number  of  fact-finding  studies  carried 
out: 

One study per country visited 

4 

Total number of recommendations raised:  0 

Recommendations per audit area: 

During fact-finding studies no recommendations are raised. 

To support and monitor the implementation by the EU countries of the new provisions 
in the Official Controls Regulation on controls on fraudulent and deceptive practices, 
we  launched  a  project  in  2019  including  a  desk  study  and  two  pilot  fact-finding 
studies  of  two  EU countries.  In  2021,  we  carried  out  fact-finding  studies  in  four EU 
countries  and  organised  meetings  with  several  EU  countries  to  get  a  better 
understanding  of  the  challenges  and  opportunities  to  fight  fraud  in  the  agri-food 
chain. The collected information including good practices examples are being used to 
prepare, in close cooperation with EU countries, a guidance document to assist them 
with the implementation of the legal requirements (42). 

(42)  Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU)  2017/625. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Part 3 
Other Commission 
control activities 
Entry of animals and goods into 
the EU 

EU  countries  are  required  to  carry  out  official  controls  of  animals,  goods  of  animal 
origin and some goods of non-animal origin entering the EU. They carry out most of 
these controls in border control posts designated for that purpose. The purpose of the 
controls is to ascertain that animals, food and feed meet the same high standards as 
those in place for animals and goods produced within the EU.  EU countries can only 
designate  border  control  posts  for  these  controls  after  the  Commission  has 
determined  that  the  structure  and  layout  of  the  proposed  border  control  posts  and 
the arrangements in place meet the applicable EU requirements (43).  

In  2021,  we  received  and  assessed  84  notifications  of  new  (or  amendments  to 
existing)  border  control  posts,  including  their  inspection  centres.  In  addition,  we 
received  and  assessed  27  notifications  regarding  the  extension  of  the  scope  of 
designation  of  existing  border  control  posts  to  include  organic  products  and  in-
conversion  products  as  a  result  of  the  new  legal  framework  for  organic  production 
and labelling of organic products (44). 

Our  oversight  of  performance  of  official  controls  on  imports  of  animals  and  goods 
continued  in  2021,  with  four  controls  being  carried  out  (in  Cyprus,  France,  Hungary 
and  the  United  Kingdom  (Northern  Ireland)).  The  results  of  these  confirmed  that 

(43)  Regulation (EU) 2017/625 and associated legislation such as Regulation (EU) 2019/1014, 

Regulation (EU) 2019/1012 and Regulation (EU) 2019/1081. 

(44)  Regulation  (EU)  2018/848/‘Organic  Production  Regulation’)  applicable  from  1  January 

2022 

65 

 
 
 
                                                      
Cyprus,  France,  Hungary  continue  to  improve  their  systems  and  implementation  of 
controls, while the control in Northern Ireland highlighted a failure to respect the EU 
rules.  Audits  of  national  authorities’  implementation  of  such  controls  will  continue, 
given the importance of effective controls in providing the people living in the EU with 
confidence in the safety of imported food, feed, plants, and animals. 

Residues of veterinary medicinal 
products and environmental 
contaminants in animals and 
products of animal origin 

EU countries monitor animals and animal products to detect  

 

 

residues of veterinary medicinal products which may be present in animal tissues 
following treatment and  
pesticides and environmental contaminants in food of animal origin.  

Modern laboratory methods can identify very low concentrations of such residues in 
products  like  meat,  fish,  milk  eggs  and  honey.  Safe  concentrations  in  food  – 
‘maximum residue limits’ – are set at EU level. Food containing residues at and below 
this  limit  is  deemed  safe  and  may  be  placed  on  the  market.  Compliance  with  the 
limits  indicates  that  the  principles  of  good  agricultural  and  good  veterinary  practice 
have been adhered to (medicines used in accordance with their label instructions). 

With  the  assistance  of  the  designated  European  Union  Reference  Laboratories,  we 
review every year the EU countries' residue monitoring plans to check  

 

 

that they comply with the legal requirements on the numbers of samples to be 
taken and  
that  the  appropriate  substances  are  being  tested  for  with  sufficiently  sensitive 
methods.   

In 2021, the plans from EU countries were assessed as compliant and approved.   

In  parallel  with  this  exercise,  we  regularly  audit  EU  countries  to  verify  the  effective 
implementation of the plans and the follow-up of non-compliant results with a view 
to minimising the risk of recurrence. In 2021, five audits were conducted (in Estonia, 
Germany,  Ireland,  Luxembourg  and  Slovakia)  with  largely  satisfactory  results.  Such 
audits will continue given the importance of ensuring the chemical safety of food. 

66 

 
 
 
 
Part 4 
Support for EU 
countries 
Networks 

The  Directorate  for  Health  and  Food  Audits  and  Analysis  hosts  a 
number  of  networks  and  working  groups  comprised  of  officials  from  national 
authorities of the EU countries and Iceland and Norway  to discuss and promote the 
implementation of certain aspects of EU law.  

Since  2008,  two  networks  have  met  regularly  to  exchange  experiences  on  the 
preparation, implementation, and reporting of MANCPs and on the implementation of 
national  audit  systems  (NAS)  on  official  controls.  During  2021,  the  MANCP  network 
met  three  times  remotely.  The  meetings  were  mostly  focused  on  the  future  model 
and  content  of  the  Commission’s  Annual  Report (45)  and  the  implementation  of  the 
electronic  version  of  the  standard  model  form  for  the  annual  reports  of  the  EU 
countries.  The  MANCP  network  also  discussed  the  development  of  the  new  Country 
Profile Web Portal and initiated the review of the network reference documents.  

The  NAS  network  met  twice  remotely  during  2021.  The  meetings  facilitated  the 
review  of  the  network  reference  documents  on  risk-based  planning  for  audits  of 
official  controls  system  and  auditing  effectiveness  of  official  controls.  The  NAS 
representatives  and  the  Commission  exchanged  experiences  on  classification  of 
recommendations and changes in the national authorities’ audit systems.  

(45)  Article 114 of the OCR 

67 

 
 
 
                                                      
In  2021,  the  EU  network  of  national  contact  points  for  the  protection  of  animals 
during  transport  discussed  resting  points  in  non-EU  countries,  animal  transport  in 
extreme  temperatures,  the  transport  of  end-of-career  dairy  cows,  and the  transport 
of  animals  using  livestock  vessels.  In  the  network,  we  presented  an  update  on  the 
work  with  the  European  Maritime  Safety  Agency  to  set  up  a  system  to  improve 
official controls on livestock vessels. 

The working groups on the sustainable use of pesticides (SUD) had two meetings in 
2021. The discussions at both meetings were driven by the ongoing SUD evaluation 
and impact assessment which the Commission had committed to undertake in 2021. 
The Commission updated and actively involved the group members in the process of 
the evaluation and impact assessment. This included intensive discussion of potential 
policy  options  and  for  which  the  Commission  had  sought  written  input  from  the 
working  group  members  earlier  in  the year.  This  discussion  and  the  outcome  of  the 
impact  assessment  was  helpful  in  shaping  the  Commission  proposal  for  the  new 
legislation. Other topics discussed included the new Farm to Fork indicators which the 
Commission had designed to measure progress towards the 50% pesticide reduction 
targets to be reached by 2030, and as described in the Farm to Fork Strategy and the 
Biodiversity  Strategy; the revision of the rules on statistics on agricultural  input and 
output; and the definition of pesticide data collection (46)   

Better training for safer food 

Better  Training  for  Safer  Food  (BTSF)  is  a  Commission  training 
initiative  to  improve  the  implementation  of  EU  rules  covering  food,  feed,  animal 
health and welfare, plant health  and plant protection products, organic farming and 
geographical  origin  schemes  (PDO/PGI/TSG).  It  plays  a  key  role  in  improving  the 
effectiveness  and  reliability  of  official  controls  and  spreading  knowledge  of  EU 
legislation. The Commission’s controls help identify training needs.  

The  2021  programme  delivered  training  on  retrospective  checks  (road  transport  of 
animals)  to  the  EU  countries  and  established  workshops  to  be  delivered  under  the 
BTSF initiative in 2022 and 2023. 

(46)  As required under Article 67 of Regulation (EU) No 1107/2009 

68 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
We  continued  working  in  improving  and  harmonising  official  controls  in  the  EU  by 
developing  the  BTSF  Academy.  This  is  a  platform  for  virtual  classes  and  e-learning 
courses. During 2021, more than 5 000 officials from the EU countries attended over 
140 virtual courses and around 4 000 completed one of the eight e-learning courses. 

See the BTSF 2021 annual report for more information. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
General legend 

EU countries (EU27) 

Belgium 

Greece 

Lithuania 

Portugal 

Bulgaria 

Spain 

Luxembourg 

Romania 

Czechia 

France 

Hungary 

Slovenia 

Denmark 

Croatia 

Malta 

Slovakia 

Germany 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Finland 

Estonia 

Cyprus 

Austria 

Sweden 

Ireland 

Latvia 

Poland 

70