COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION On the overall operation of official controls carried out in Member States (2022) to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products
Date: 2024-09-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, animal welfare, audit, designation of origin, food inspection, food safety, genetically modified organism, labelling, plant health control, veterinary inspection

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 4.9.2024  SWD(2024) 208 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT    Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION On the overall operation of official controls carried out in Member States (2022) to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products {COM(2024) 388 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 
Control activities 2022 ......................................................................................... 4 
Food ........................................................................................................................ 5 
Genetically modified organisms ......................................................................... 14 
Feed ...................................................................................................................... 16 
Animal health ....................................................................................................... 20 
Animal by-products ............................................................................................. 25 
Animal welfare .................................................................................................... 28 
Plant health ......................................................................................................... 36 
Plant protection products ................................................................................... 39 
Organic production and labelling of organic products ..................................... 44 
Protected designation of origin, protected geographical indications 
and traditional specialities guaranteed ............................................................ 48 
Fraudulent and deceptive practices .................................................................. 54 

Part 2 
Other Commission control activities ................................................................. 58 
Entry of animals and goods into the EU ............................................................ 58 
Residues of veterinary medicinal products and environmental 
contaminants in animals and products of animal origin ................................. 59 

Part 3 
Support for EU countries .................................................................................... 60 
Networks .............................................................................................................. 60 
Better training for safer food ............................................................................ 62 
General legend ..................................................................................................... 63 

 
 
 
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 (“United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)”) (2). 

The 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 2022. It provides a compilation of comparable data 
into EU-wide statistics. These data will, over time, enable 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; 

(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 Windsor Framework (see Joint 
Declaration No 1/2023 of the Union and the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee 
established by 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 of 24 March 2023, OJ L 102, 17.4.2023, p.87) in conjunction with Annex 2 to 
that Framework. 

2 

 
 
 
 
● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

feed; 

animal health; 

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 
Control activities 
2022 

4 

 
 
 
 
Food 
Official controls carried out by EU countries 

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 to ensure fair practices in trade and 
protect 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 the results obtained. Some provide information across 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 of how overall compliance 
with the rules in each area was measured during the year. 

Most EU countries reported that the number of official controls carried out in 2022 
was returning to normal levels after falling 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 the reasons for non-
compliance include ignorance of legislation on the part of the business operators and, 
in some cases, intentional misconduct. The issues of non-compliance mentioned 
include food hygiene issues, following documented procedures and the self-control 
systems and labelling. 

Table 2 provides a heat map of the numbers of businesses, official controls carried 
out, non-compliance issues identified, and administrative penalties applied across the 
different parts of the food chain, in 2022. 

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

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

5 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 1 – official controls – food sectors - 2022 

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 

1 109 979 

128 751 

Non-
compliance 
issues 
24 025 

18 598 

2 178 135 

158 924 

17 774 

46 722 

24 852 

5 538 

1 467 

1 778 

11 104 

24 692 

1 008 

1 151 

200 

123 

35 

23 631 

8 592 

17 212 

4 480 

339 

10 392 

149 

42 241 

10 182 

5 388 

49 616 

8 168 

5 725 

5 447 

183 804 

60 297 

8 983 

11 901 

52 818 

84 859 

8 037 

9 475 

431 

512 

66 

79 048 

14 548 

39 833 

6 030 

471 

4 813 

242 

26 706 

7 030 

209 049 

105 875 

19 968 

80 224 

148 855 

33 475 

31 830 

403 286 

198 588 

8 555 

37 374 

90 486 

6 702 

94 418 

117 495 

72 756 

4 108 694 

1 023 659 

2 904 890 

1 245 090 

179 310 

93 776 

254 

5 188 

1 217 

538 

840 

25 521 

13 545 

1 523 

1 792 

11 225 

16 490 

667 

694 

43 

48 

10 

8 641 

1 690 

8 874 

1 179 

86 

489 

67 

4 230 

1 173 

27 020 

1 530 

4 954 

22 127 

1 011 

10 937 

8 267 

23 636 

199 986 

360 134 

15 778 

Penalties 

11 769 

180 

2 932 

320 

600 

698 

17 743 

7 663 

464 

798 

5 814 

8 458 

861 

696 

16 

19 

7 

4 519 

863 

3 377 

475 

35 

189 

53 

2 686 

759 

20 830 

949 

3 776 

12 109 

356 

6 230 

5 681 

7 198 

118 320 

176 541 

4 472 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
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, syrups, 
honey and table-top 
sweeteners 

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

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

17. Beverages 

10. Minced meat, meat 
preparations and MSM 

18. Ready-to-eat 
savouries and snacks 

11. Meat products 

12. Fish and fisheries 
products 

13. Eggs and egg 
products 

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

20. Food supplements 
as defined in point (a) 

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

21. Processed foods 
not covered by 
categories 1 to 17, 
excluding foods for 
infants and young 
children 

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

23. Food contact 
materials 

Table 2 provides an overview of the official controls in the EU countries carried out in 
2022 on the above food categories and specific topics, against the EU rules 
applicable to 10 cross-cutting areas. Belgium and the United Kingdom (Northern 
Ireland) did not provide the full information. 

Table 3 gives an overview of the number of non-compliance issues detected and the 
number of administrative penalties applied by the national authorities in the different 
sectors. Belgium did not provide the relevant data. Malta, the United Kingdom 
(Northern Ireland), and Sweden provided a very limited set of 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 

7 

 
 
 
reported here is obtained through automatic transfer from EFSA. This transfer process 
may give rise to some anomalies until it is fully refined. 

8 

 
 
 
Table 2 – official controls – topics – top 5 - 2022 

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 

Transfer  of  substances  from  food  contact 
materials, including resulting contamination 

Other 

9 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3 – non-compliance issues & penalties by topic: top 5 in 
2022 

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 penalties 

10 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Issues of non-compliance with 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 (3) and food contact materials are reported in a separate table. 
The results for 2022 across all EU countries are: 

Number of non-
compliance 
issues identified 

Number of 
administrative 
penalties applied 

Number of legal 
penalties 

labelling  of 
The 
GMOs  used  in  food 
products 

of 
use 
The 
unauthorised GMOs 
in food products 

Irradiation of food 

Food 
materials 

contact 

Novel food 

15 

7 

85 

3095 

414 

10 

4 

63 

632 

272 

8 

1 

33 

36 

Belgium, Croatia, Latvia, Slovenia and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) did not 
report any issues of non-compliance in these areas. 

(3) 

‘Novel food’ is food that humans in the EU did not consume to a significant degree 
before 15 May 1997. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission controls carried out in EU 
countries 

Countries audited: 

20 

Number of audits carried out: 

26 

3 audits in Finland, 2 in Italy, Latvia, 
Hungary, Spain, and 1 audit in the other 
countries audited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  111 

Recommendations per audit area: 

Safety of fishery products 

Audits carried out in the fisheries sector confirm that the official control systems in 
EU countries are broadly well organised, cover the entire production chain (albeit with 
some  gaps),  and  comprise  the  necessary  elements  to 
identify  and  rectify 
shortcomings.  Nonetheless,  at  the  primary  production  level,  we  continue  to  identify 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
weaknesses  in  the  registration  and  control  of  small  fishing  vessels  and  a  lack  of 
control of landing sites and related operations. In a number of instances, competent 
authorities  had  difficulties  meeting  planned  inspection  frequencies.  Specific  issues 
included  the  use  of  alternative  histamine  test  methods  for  official  samples  which 
may have implications for the reliability and/or validity of the result. The audits also 
noted a lack of controls of vessels that land in other EU countries. We are assessing 
the extent and possible impact of this weakness. 

Safety of meat of mammals, birds and products thereof 

The audits in the meat sector continued to look at slaughterhouses but we extended 
the scope from cull cows also to other species (pigs, sheep and poultry). The controls 
are generally well organised and effective, but we identified weaknesses in the 
official control systems regarding training and supervision of official veterinarians 
and the effectiveness of the controls in low-capacity slaughterhouses. 

We carried out two other audits as an on-site verification of the findings of the 
previous fully remote audits. In addition to the findings identified related to 
compliance with ante- and post-mortem inspection requirements, these two audits 
identified a number of new issues of non-compliance during the on-site visits. 

Safety of milk and dairy products 

While the EU countries visited generally had adequate controls in place for the dairy 
sector, there were some common shortcomings in relation to checking and enforcing 
food business operators’ procedures for testing raw milk for antibiotic residues and 
official controls over the compliance of operators’ procedures related to heat-
treatment verification and microbiological criteria. 

Microbiological safety of food of non-animal origin (FNAO) 

Audits on microbiological risks in primary production confirmed improvements from 
the previous audit series. However, they identified that sprouting businesses are still 
not adequately controlled. They noted that the registration of primary producers 
needs to improve so that they can all be risk-assessed and included in the control 
system at an appropriate frequency. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

11 of the reports contain a statement on the overall compliance achieved, but only 3 
of these statements are based on an assessment of objectives and results. 

As regards cultivation, 20 EU countries stated that there is no cultivation of GMOs; 
invoking exclusion from the geographical area (‘opt-out’), national legislation, no crops 
authorised or registered, or no commercial interest of farmers. Malta and the 
Netherlands reported no controls but did not provide any explanation. 

Table 4 provides an overview of the number of official controls carried out, non-
compliance issues identified, and administrative penalties applied in 2022, in relation 
to the commercial cultivation, experimental release and seeds and vegetative 
propagating materials for use in food and feed. 

Table 4 – official controls of GMOs in 2022 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries audited: 

2 

Number of audits carried out: 

2 fact-finding missions 

Total number of recommendations raised:  0 

Recommendations per audit area: 

No recommendations are made in fact-finding missions. 

EU legislation on GMOs was laid down in 2001 and 2003. New genomic techniques 
(NGTs) are techniques that have emerged or have been developed since 2001. The 
current legislation on GMO is no longer fit for purpose for some NGTs and their 
products, partly due to it being difficult or impossible to differentiate between plants 
obtained through NGTs and plants obtained through traditional breeding. NGT 
products may have minor and barely detectable, but also larger changes to its 
genome. Changes may be detectable if the necessary information is available to the 
laboratory, but for NGT products with minor changes to their genome, even when 
these changes are detectable, it may be impossible to conclude that the changes are 
not the result of natural mutation or traditional plant breeding. 

We carried out two fact-finding studies to gather information on the implementation 
of controls and relevant provisions on organisms and products, including food and 
feed containing such products, obtained through NGT. The studies also sought to 
identify good practices and common obstacles or difficulties encountered in the 
implementing these controls. The two fact-finding studies have supported the work to 
prepare the proposal by the European Commission in 2023 (4) for a Regulation on 
plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques and their food and feed. 

(4)  Proposal  of  the  European  Commission  (COM(2023) 411)  for  a  Regulation  on  plants 
obtained  by  certain  new  genomic  techniques  and  their  food  and  feed,  and  amending 
Regulation (EU) 2017/625 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Feed 
Official controls carried out by EU countries 

In this area, the information provided in the annual reports on the overall level of 
compliance is limited and not harmonised. Ten EU countries lack this statement and 
Malta provided no information. Where there are data, these are mainly related to the 
number of controls carried out and/or samples taken against the number planned. 
Other reports contain a very generic statement. The Netherlands state that most feed 
business operators are certified by a private assurance scheme. 

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

- 
registered establishments; 
-  approved establishments (5); 
-  businesses manufacturing and/or trading medicated feedstuffs; 
- 

farmers using feed. 

Table 5 gives an overview of the numbers of establishments, official controls carried 
out, non-compliance issues identified, and administrative penalties applied at EU 
level, in 2022. 

In nine reports the data provided are or seem to be incomplete. National authorities 
do not yet collect all the data required. 

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

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

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5 – official controls of feed in 2022 

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

Non-compliance issues and  penalties 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. 

Table 6 gives an overview and breakdown of the numbers of official controls carried 
out,  non-compliance  issues  identified  and  administrative  penalties  applied  for  these 
issues (6) in 2022. 

Pesticide residues in feed is the biggest focus of official controls, but most issues of 
non-compliance and administrative penalties were for feed labelling and traceability. 

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

format required. 

17 

 
 
 
 
Table 6 – official controls of feed in 2022 
Official  controls,  non-compliance  issues  and  administrative  penalties  across  11 
different topics, ranked by volume 

Official 
controls 
carried out 

Non-
compliance 
issues raised 

Penalties 
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 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries audited: 

3 

Number of audits carried out: 

3 

1 audit per country audited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  27 

Recommendations per audit area: 

Commission controls on feed hygiene 

We audited EU countries’ implementation of official controls on feed hygiene in three 
EU countries. Although the overall results of the audits were positive, showing that EU 
countries’  inspections  and  testing  of  feed  business  operators  worked  well,  several 
areas for improvement were noted. They included national authorities’ assessment of 
operators’  hazard  analysis  and  critical  control  points’  systems,  implementation  of 
appropriate sampling protocols and official controls on labelling. This series of audits 
will continue in 2023, with an expanded scope to cover medicated feed.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Animal health 
Official controls carried out by EU countries 

Only 13 EU countries’ annual reports contain a statement on the overall level of 
compliance. The reports range from providing generic statements to specifying the 
percentage of controls carried out or establishments with (non-) compliance with the 
results relative to objectives set, e.g. disease-free status. 

The updated animal health law (7) has applied since 21 April 2021. Some EU countries 
stated this as a reason for not reporting on all categories of establishments. Malta 
and Ireland provided no information in the tables. 

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

In 2022, 7.0% of all cattle (5.5% of all holdings) were subject to an official control. 
1.4% of all holdings were non-compliant. The authorities ordered movement 
restrictions for 28 209 animals (0.04%) on 1 388 holdings, for 362 holdings (20 060 
animals) this affected all animals present. The authorities ordered the destruction of 
247 animals (<0.001%) on 53 holdings (0.003%). 

Official controls were carried out on 23.9% of sheep and goats (6.2% of the 
holdings), with 1.2% of all holdings found to be non-compliant. 

The Netherlands and Spain reported a shortage of official veterinarians, which 
compromised their ability to complete the planned controls in full. 

Table 7 shows the number of official controls carried out, non-compliance issues 
identified and administrative penalties applied in 2022. 

(7)  Regulation (EU)2016/429 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  7  –  official  controls  on  animal  health  (cattle,  sheep  and 
goats) in 2022 

Other official controls 

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

Table 8 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 penalties in 2022. 

The updated Animal Health Law could be a reason why, in 24 reports, the tables lack 
some data. Though some EU countries do not have certain types of establishments in 
their territory, this is not always stated as a reason for the missing data. Most of the 
missing data is on approved dealers, assembly centres, control posts and aquaculture. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8 – official controls on animal health in 2022 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries audited: 

6 

Number of audits carried out: 

6, one in each country audited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  41 

Recommendations per audit area: 

African swine fever 

African swine fever, an animal disease that causes major social and economic 
impacts, entered into the EU in 2014 and spread to several EU countries. The 
Commission continues to audit affected EU countries with the aim of checking the 
correctness of measures applied by national authorities to control the disease. The 
2022 audits indicated that, although appropriate measures are taken to contain the 
disease, there are challenges regarding early detection of the disease, biosecurity and 
movement controls from restricted zones. The audits have an important role in 
reassuring trade partners about the reliability of the EU system for regionalisation. 

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) 

In recent years, several epizootic waves of HPAI have caused significant direct and 
indirect economical and societal costs to the EU. The two most recent waves were 
over the period 2020 – 2022. The 2020/21 epizootic started in the EU in October 
2020 and was caused mainly by an H5N8 HPAI virus subtype with numerous 
outbreaks in EU countries, until the third quarter of 2021. The 2021/22 HPAI epizootic 
started in the EU on 30 September 2021, and was caused mainly by a new H5N1 
HPAI virus subtype also affecting several EU countries. As in previous outbreaks, 
migratory wild birds were instrumental in bringing the HPAI virus to the poultry 
population.  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
We audited the measures taken by EU countries during the avian influenza epidemics 
of 2020-21 and the lessons learned and applied in their contingency plans. The audits 
indicated that, although EU countries applied measures to contain the disease, in 
most cases, there was scope to strengthen contingency planning and preparedness in 
the areas of epidemiological enquiries and depopulation arrangements. The audit 
results provided evidence for discussions of experts on the specific regulations related 
to the disease that have been developed under the Animal Health Law. 

One Health - non-food borne zoonoses - rabies 

Rabies is a deadly viral disease that affects animals and humans. It remains a priority 
to eliminate rabies from the European Union. In 2021 and 2022, the Commission 

awarded EUR 13 million and EUR 25.1 million respectively, to 12 EU countries to 
contribute to achieving no cases of rabies in wild animals in the EU. We continued to 
audit participating EU countries to assess the effective implementation of rabies 
eradication programmes. The results of these controls indicate that overall, the 
programme implementation progresses according to objectives. However, the 
persistent presence of rabies in some third countries that border the EU represents a 
constant threat of re-introduction of the disease. A spillage of infection in wild 
animals to the EU was noted also in 2021 and 2022 with new outbreaks detected in 
previously free areas. 

Other than these audits, an assessment of the animal health contingency plans was 
carried out on all EU countries through a questionnaire. The results of the project will 
be discussed during a workshop for national authorities planned to take place in the 
fourth quarter of 2023. 

24 

 
 
 
 
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 15 annual reports contain a statement on the level of compliance, mostly a 
generic one. 

Table 9 provides an overview of the number of establishments, official controls 
carried out, non-compliance issues identified and administrative penalties applied in 
2022, comparing the numbers between approved (8) 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. Italy reported an increase in veterinary control capacity, enabling controls 
on establishments working in biogas, biodiesel and fertilisers. 

Table 10 compares the numbers of non-compliance issues and administrative 
penalties between two types of product non-compliance issues: 

● 

● 

labelling and traceability of ABPs and derived products; 

safety of ABPs and derived products. 

Ireland did not complete the tables. France did not report any official controls on 
labelling and traceability. Cyprus, France, Malta and the United Kingdom (for Northern 
Ireland) did not provide a breakdown by category of issues of non-compliance. 

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

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

25 

 
 
 
 
Table 9 – official controls of ABPs in 2022 

Table 10 – product non-compliance of ABPs in 2022 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries audited: 

5 

Number of audits carried out: 

5 

1 audit per country audited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  25 

Recommendations per audit area: 

For animal by-products and derived products, we carried out five audits in 2022 with 
the focus on official controls at critical points of the animal by-products chain, 
building on the experience gained in previous audits and the specific features of the 
countries audited. The audits showed that in most EU countries control systems 
operate well, but identified several areas for improvement. In particular, these 
concern checks on ABP generated in the food sector, assessments of operators’ 
hazard analysis and critical control point systems, and verifications of validation of 
processing plants. The findings of these audits have fed into the ongoing series of 
audits of EU countries resulting in further refinements of the scope. This series of 
audits will be completed in 2024. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Animal welfare 
Official controls carried out by EU countries 

Only 10 annual reports provide a statement on the overall level of compliance. 

Animal welfare on farms 

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 in the forthcoming years (9). Only five EU countries 
provided an analysis of the most important issues detected. Eleven lacked this 
required analysis. The 12 other EU countries’ analysis are so generic that it is not 
possible to identify issues that might be common to several EU countries and/or they 
lack a root cause analysis of the issues identified.  

Only one EU country provided a sound action plan to prevent the most important 
issues detected. 16 EU countries have not included an action plan. The other 11 
action plans are either too generic, lack concrete actions and targets or do not cover 
all the important issues detected. It must be highlighted that for an action plan to 
adequately address main animal welfare issues it would first require good data and a 
proper analysis of supporting data. 

Poland noted that, since the number of official welfare checks on holdings is an 
aggregate number and it is not currently possible to break it down by individual 
animal species, the method for collecting data will change in the next reporting 
year. 

Similarly, Sweden reported that they do not currently have access to information on 
the number of production sites at which non-compliances were observed, or 
information on the number of administrative measures broken down by individual 
animal species in line with the breakdown requested in the report. Similarly, they 
cannot currently isolate data on the number of sites and controls of calves carried 
out. They have taken steps to obtain these statistics and intend to report them next 
year. 

Several Member States reported non-compliances relating to the tail docking of 
pigs, for instance Czechia, Cyprus, Latvia and Romania. As an example, Latvia 

(9)  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. 

28 

 
 
 
 
describes that on farms where pigs were subject to tail docking, a risk analysis of 
tail/ear biting was not always carried out, or it was incomplete, no action plan had 
been drawn up with further measures to improve pig welfare, there were no records 
of tail/ear biting, no corrective measures had been taken to stop tail docking, pigs did 
not have access to a sufficient supply of natural materials and straw or only had 
access to plastic items or chains. 

Table 11 provides an overview of the numbers of production sites, official controls 
carried out, sites with non-compliance issues and penalties applied in 2022 for all the 
animal species listed. 

Table 11 – official controls – animal welfare on farms - 2022 

Animal welfare during transport 

An analysis is lacking for 12 EU countries (10) 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. 20 EU countries lack an action plan. A sound action plan 
that properly tackles the main animal welfare issues would first require proper data 
and a proper analysis of the supporting data. 

Table 12 provides an overview of the number of official controls carried out and 
administrative penalties applied for all animal species, in 2022. 

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

detected and an action plan to address them. 

29 

 
 
 
 
Table 12 – official controls of animal welfare during transport in 
2022 

These official controls led to a number of administrative penalties issued. The graphs 
in Table 13 show the number of penalties for each species. The main issues were: 

● 

● 

● 

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

for sheep and goats, the means of transport; 

for horses and other animals, transport documentation. 

Table 13 – official controls of animal welfare during transport in 
2022 
Administrative penalties for different species relating to six areas 

Cattle 

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

30 

 
 
 
 
Pigs 

Sheep & 
goats 

Horses 
and 
donkeys 

Poultry 

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

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Other 

Animal welfare at the time of killing 

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

Three EU countries submitted data exclusively on depopulation activities for animal 
health reasons, which is only an optional item to include in the report. 

The quality of information provided by the other 20 EU countries varies. Countries 
that provided some detailed information focused mainly on stunning, handling, 
bleeding, non-compliance with procedures, the lack or expiry of certificates of 
competence of animal welfare officers and other slaughterhouse personnel. None 
indicated a reason for these non-compliance findings. Only Portugal included some 
information on religious slaughter. 

Germany stated that, in its opinion, reporting on official controls on animal welfare at 
slaughter is optional therefore they did not report on it. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission controls 

Countries audited: 

6 

Number of audits carried out: 

7 

2 audits in Spain,1 per country for the 
others 

Total number of recommendations raised:  19 

Recommendations per audit area: 

Animal welfare on farm 

In 2022, the Commission published an overview report based on the outcome of a 
two-year project looking at the EU countries’ approach to animal welfare on farms. 
The project explored the use of quality management systems for official controls, the 
use of animal welfare indicators to measure the extent and seriousness of animal 
welfare problems and the reliability of the data the national authorities collect and 
report. The main sources of information included Commission audits of seven EU 
countries from 2019 to 2021, responses to questionnaire surveys by EU competent 
authorities and private veterinarians and other documentary analyses. 

The project concluded that, although there are promising developments in private 
standards to identify suitable animal welfare indicators which are accepted by both 
the agri-food sector and national authorities, there is not yet a single set of 
universally used indicators to measure the state of or changes to animal welfare at 
farm level. However, it would be feasible to create such indicators for different 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
farming systems or production sectors. Authorities only used animal welfare 
indicators when they were part of the legal requirements. They are  slowly moving 
towards incorporating indicators beyond those prescribed in legislation to assess the 
welfare of animals during their official controls. We noticed that when authorities use 
indicators, their controls provide a better assessment of the real state of welfare of 
animals at farm level. 

In 2022, we also contributed to workshops delivered under the BTSF initiative on 
animal welfare at farm and at slaughter. 

Animal welfare during transport 

Road transport - unweaned calves 

We focused our attention on the transport of unweaned calves, initiating a two-year 
project that started in 2022 and includes six audits in EU countries. 

EU law regulates the transport of animals, including unweaned calves. These are 
young animals still on a milk diet, a particularly vulnerable category of livestock. In 
this context, the legislation establishes specific requirements for their transport and 
related operations. The transport of unweaned calves over long journeys is mainly 
linked to dairy farming. 

Our audits conducted in 2022 identified scope to improve compliance with welfare 
requirements for transporting unweaned calves over long journeys. The project will 
provide the Commission with an overview of the EU situation in this sector, to help 
identify possible policy action regarding the fitness check of EU animal welfare 
legislation. An overview report drawing on the findings of all audits will be published 
when the project is finished. 

Sea transport – livestock vessels 

In 2022, we initiated another project to assess the effectiveness of official controls 
on the suitability of sea transporters’ contingency plans during authorisation, and on 
livestock vessels prior to loading. The aim of these controls is to ensure livestock 
vessels have appropriate conditions during animal transport to non-EU countries and 
have made the necessary provisions to follow in the event of an emergency. The 
project included audits in four EU countries operating as ports of exit for livestock 
vessels and a desk-based analysis of sea transporters’ contingency plans. The results 
of the project will be published upon its conclusion. The findings from the four audits 
indicate some weaknesses in the authorisation of sea transporters – in particular the 

34 

 
 
 
 
suitability of contingency plans to meet the animals’ needs during emergencies at 
sea. 

In 2022, we also contributed to workshops delivered under the BTSF initiative on 
animal welfare for transport and 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. 

35 

 
 
 
 
Plant health 
Official controls carried out by EU countries 

EU countries must report on the official controls carried out on businesses authorised 
to issue plant passports (11) and businesses authorised to apply the ISPM 15 
mark (12) to wood packaging materials. 

Only 15 reports contain a (mainly generic) statement on overall compliance. 

Although the overall figures at EU level suggest compliance, based on the figures 
reported, only 11 EU countries can have carried out at least one official control on 
every operator, as required by legislation. In total 20 countries, can have achieved this 
requirement for one of the two types of operators. Some of the countries in this 
group reported a much higher number of controls than the number of operators. 

Table 14 provides an overview of the number of businesses involved, official controls 
carried out, non-compliance issues identified and administrative penalties applied in 
2022. 

Table 14 – official controls of plant health in 2022 

(11)  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. 

(12)  A mark on wood packaging materials which shows they have undergone treatment to 

remove or kill pests. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries audited: 

11 

Number of audits carried out: 

14 

2 audits in Belgium, France, Netherlands 
and 1 audit in the other countries audited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  79 

Recommendations per audit area: 

Controls of harmful pests and diseases 

Plant health is important for sustainable agriculture and horticultural production, food 
security and to protect 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 to assess the risk factors and better target national 
authorities’ control activities to eradicate or contain pests. The web-based module for 
outbreak notifications under the EUROPHYT system was further developed, helping 
national authorities swiftly report new outbreaks and updates on existing outbreaks. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Bringing in new tools for real time data analyses improved the information needed 
for rapid decision making. 

Xylella fastidiosa 

This bacterial disease was first detected in the EU in Apulia, Italy in 2013. Its 
presence was subsequently confirmed in France, Spain and Portugal. The pathogen 
has severely affected olive production in the Apulia region. It has also infected plants 
in almond production, forest areas and other natural sites. Since 2013, we have 
carried out regular audits in the affected EU countries to verify implementation of the 
evolving legal requirements. These audits made a range of recommendations on the 
implementation of control measures.  

In 2022, we carried out audits in Portugal, Italy, and France. They identified the 
obstacles that delay the required eradication measures, especially in early stages of 
outbreak controls. The containment measures applied in Corsica provide a good level 
of reassurance, and there have been positive developments to contain the disease in 
the Salento demarcated area of Apulia. However, when the areas demarcated for 
eradication measures are large, and when the bacterium is present in a broad range 
of host plants (particularly non-agricultural vegetation), the removal of affected 
plants is difficult. Full eradication of these outbreaks is unlikely. 

Audits on plant passports 

Since the end of 2019, significant changes to the EU plant health regime apply in the 
EU. The changes include issuing plant passport labels for all plants for planting 
(except seeds) traded within the EU. This has improved traceability and the controls of 
plant pest outbreaks. A new audit series, with four audits carried out in 2022, has 
supported authorities with the effective adaptation of their control systems to meet 
these new requirements. This audit series will continue until 2024. 

38 

 
 
 
 
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 12 reports contain a (generic) statement on the overall level of compliance. 

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 enable them to provide the 
data. 

Marketing plant protection products  

A range of businesses are active in the PPP distribution chain. Table 15 provides an 
overview of the number of operators, official controls carried out, non-compliance 
issues identified and administrative penalties applied by type of operators in 2022. 

Czechia and Spain report a high number of authorisation/parallel permit holders, 
which might correlate to the number of products rather than operators. 

The report from the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) states that it does not yet 
have a programme in place for official controls on the marketing of PPP 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. 

39 

 
 
 
 
Table 15 – official controls of marketing of PPP in 2022 

Use of PPP and sustainable use of pesticides 

The non-compliance issues identified included: 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

lack of training and certificate of competence in pesticide use; 

inadequate storage – lack of containment to prevent unwanted releases of 
product into the environment; 

absence of spray records; 

use of an unauthorised product; and 

use of a product that does not meet the conditions of use specified on the label. 

Table 16 provides an overview of the number of operators, official controls carried 
out, non-compliance issues identified and administrative penalties applied in 2022, 
for all 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. 

40 

 
 
 
Table 16 – official controls of use of PPP in 2022 

Coordinated monitoring of pesticide residues 

The legally defined (13) maximum residue levels of pesticides are monitored through 
an EU-coordinated multiannual control programme. Every year, 12 commodities are 
selected for sampling by the EU countries. As 30-40 products constitute the major 
                    ’               U and pesticide use shows significant changes 
over a period of three years, pesticides are monitored in those products over a series 
of three-year cycles. This enables the assessment of both consumer exposure and the 
application of EU legislation. EU countries report the results to the European Food 
Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA assesses the information and prepares an annual report. 

(13)  Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries audited: 

2 

Number of audits carried out: 

2 

1 audit per country audited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  4 

Recommendations per audit area: 

The sustainable use of pesticides 

The broad range of measures set out in the Directive on the sustainable use of 
pesticides (SUD) (14) provides the basis for reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide 
use on human health and the environment by promoting the use of integrated pest 
management and alternatives to pesticides. 

Controls on the marketing and use of PPPs and implementation of the SUD 

In 2022, we carried out two audits to evaluate official controls on the marketing and 
use of plant protection products in EU countries. Two meetings of the SUD working 

(14)  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 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
group were organised during 2022 with EU countries’ competent authorities 
responsible for implementing the SUD. Two series of Better Training for Safer Food 
courses, on integrated pest management implementation at farm level and on testing 
pesticide application equipment, continued in 2022. 

43 

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

For the 2022 reporting year, a new standard model was in place for EU countries to 
submit data on organic controls (15). These reports on official controls stem from the 
rules on organic production and labelling of organic products (16). They provide 
information on any detected issues of non-compliance and on enforcement of the 
measures contained in their national catalogue of measures. 

The Commission sent follow-up letters to 14 EU countries and to the United Kingdom 
(Northern Ireland) to ask for additional information because it was missing or 
insufficient to meet the reporting requirements. 

It asked for clarification on: 

● 

● 

● 

control rates and compliance with requirements; 

delegation of control tasks (to control body and/or control authorities); 

the supervisory work carried out by the competent authority in relation to the 
organic control bodies (audits, number of files examined, and follow-up given to 
irregularities). 

EU countries may delegate to control bodies certain official control tasks and other 
official activities (17). In most EU countries, private-sector control bodies are active in 
certification and official controls of organic businesses. The national authorities are 
required to supervise these bodies (18). 

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 work to the Commission. The supervision audits 

(15)  Section  9  of  standard  model  form  replaced  with  Implementing  Regulation  (EU) 

2021/1935 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/723. 

(16)  Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 

2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products. 

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

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

44 

 
 
 
 
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 rules governing organic production. The national 
authorities impose measures where necessary, including withdrawing the delegated 
powers of these bodies. 

Table 17 provides an overview of the number of verifications of compliance carried 
out, the number of non-compliance issues found and the number of suspended and 
withdrawn certifications in 2022. 

Table 17 – official controls of organic production in 2022 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
Commission controls of EU countries 

As the new EU organic legislation came into force only in the beginning of 2022 and 
required time to transition to the new requirements, no audits in EU countries were 
carried out in 2022. A new audit system in EU countries will be applied from 2023. 

In its farm-to-fork strategy, the Commission set a target for 25% of the EU’s 
agricultural area to be under organic farming by 2030. There has been a fast 
expansion in organic areas in the EU. Between 2012 and 2021, it increased by 6.5 
million hectares, equivalent to a rise of 68% or 9.9% of the total utilised agricultural 
area in 2021 (19).  

An increase of 2.8% of total imports of organic agri-food products in the EU in 
2021 (20) was followed by a 5.1% decrease in 2022. In 2021, total imports of organic 
agri-food products in the EU fell from 2.87 million tonnes to 2.73 million tonnes in 
2022, possibly reflecting a reduction in demand due to the sharp increase in food 
prices that year (21). 

The European Commission has a supervisory role of EU countries and aims to ensure 
the correct application of organic farming legislation across the EU. Every country in 
the European Union appoints a ‘competent authority’ who is ultimately responsible for 
making sure that EU rules are followed. Usually these are either a department of 
agriculture or a department of public health. 

This competent authority can delegate its role to control bodies, control authorities or 
create a mixed system with both private control bodies and public control authorities. 

Regardless of the system chosen, the competent authority is ultimately responsible 
for auditing the inspection system within its own area of responsibility. 

Once a year, EU countries report to the European Commission on the results of the 
controls carried out on organic operators and on the measures taken in case of non-
compliance. 

The European Commission supervises EU countries to ensure that they fulfil their 
responsibilities. 

(19)  Organic farming statistics provided by Eurostat 

(20)  EU imports of organic agri-food products - Key developments in 2021 

(21)  EU imports of organic agri-food products - Key developments in 2022 

46 

 
 
 
 
The Commission uses both the reports submitted by EU countries and regular audits 
to make sure that adequate controls are being carried out. 

47 

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

The EU geographical indications (GI) 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 GI system enables consumers to trust and distinguish traditional products with 
specific qualities, while also helping producers to market their products better. 

Currently, the EU's GI system includes over 3 500 registered names of products. In 
addition, more than 1 700 non-EU GI names are protected in the EU through 
international agreements. 

Each GI must follow a specific set of specifications laying down details of production. 
This product specification is a reference document for producers, consumers, 
certification bodies and competent authorities to ensure that the product meets the 
requirements and maintains its authenticity and reputation. 

EU regulations establish obligations and principles for a system of official controls 
that EU countries must implement. The scope of controls covers both the production 
phase and 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, they include safeguarding consumer trust and 
protecting consumers from deception; 

in Czechia, they include ensuring that the rights of GI right holders are 
guaranteed and respected. 

48 

 
 
 
Several countries, such as Italy, Germany, Estonia, Finland and Sweden, reported that 
they exceeded their annual GI control targets. Italy’s competent authority, for 
instance, conducted 143.5% of the planned control activities. The increase in controls 
can be attributed to the growing presence of GIs in e-commerce as well as the high 
incidence of judicial police activities aimed at combating fraud, which cannot be 
planned. Additionally, the cancellation of COVID-19 related measures in 2022 
contributed to the increase in control activities. 

In general, the number of official controls carried out in individual EU countries in 
2022 was higher or the same level as in 2021. 

Based on the information submitted, the Commission observes the following: 

●  Official controls of GIs in EU countries included both pre-market checks and 

conventional checks on the market. In some EU countries (e.g. Italy, Spain, 
France, Portugal, Czechia, Austria) the majority of the checks reported were pre-
market checks. Several of these EU countries also conducted a significant 
number of market controls, such as Italy (3 459), France (2 633), Portugal 
(3 070) and Spain (1 857). In other EU countries (e.g. Germany, Latvia, Sweden, 
Slovakia, Bulgaria, Finland) more emphasis was put on controls in the 
marketplace. This difference may be due to EU countries with a high number of 
GIs focusing more on verifying compliance with GI product specifications before 
products reach the market.  

● 

● 

● 

● 

In terms of market checks, these encompass both checks in the physical 
marketplaces and checks on online marketplaces. The physical market checks 
cover not only the wholesale and retail but also the hospitality sector. 

Some EU countries (e.g. Finland, Sweden) explicitly indicated that the controls in 
e-commerce had not been separately recorded. Thus, the number of controls in 
e-commerce is included in the figure of conventional controls. Finland plans to 
separate this data within two years. Estonia achieved this from 2022. 

In addition, in a number of EU countries (e.g. Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark 
and Romania) it is not clear whether e-commerce controls were carried out at all 
or they were included in the conventional controls on the market. Bulgaria and 
Hungary which were in this group in previous years, were able to provide 
separate data for conventional and e-commerce controls for 2022. 

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

49 

 
 
● 

● 

● 

● 

Some weakness in GI controls on the market were identified, such as the non-
recording and, therefore, non-reporting of GI market inspections by Denmark, 
although such inspections are reported to have been carried out by the 
designated competent authority. The Netherlands reported a high number of pre-
market controls (24 359) but no controls on the market or in e-commerce. 

Luxembourg carried out no pre-market controls and Romania also reported a 
very low number of pre-market controls (4), which does not seem proportionate 
to the number of GIs registered by Romania. Malta also appears to lack controls 
carried out of GIs. The purpose of pre-market controls is to ensure that GI 
products follow their product specification before they are put on the market. 
These controls should verify both newly registered GIs and existing GIs. 

Some EU countries indicated particularly high level of compliance (e.g. Lithuania 
– 100%, Latvia, Slovakia – around 99%, Cyprus 98%, Spain 97.5%, Czechia and 
Ireland 97%), while in others a higher level of non-compliance has been detected 
(e.g. in Italy 26%, in Romania 49%, in Greece 32%, in Denmark 75%, calculated 
as the number of non-compliances found as a share of the controls carried out). 

The types of infringements reported by the EU countries included non-
compliance with the product specification, labelling not in accordance with the 
rules (e.g. absence of EU logos or incorrect depiction of logos), cases of GIs 
misuse, imitation, and evocation. 

●  Depending on the Member State, information on infringements was reported by 
sector or product category by some EU countries (e.g. Italy or Czechia), while the 
majority of EU countries reported on the entire GI sector (covering wine, spirit 
drinks and agricultural products). 

● 

● 

● 

Some EU countries with particularly high GI awareness reported a very high 
number of official controls for all types of checks (e.g. in Portugal 24 714, in 
Spain 46 780, in France 35 425 and in Italy 196 805 checks were carried out). 

Limited (e.g. by Estonia) or, in most cases, no information was provided by the 
EU countries on checks of GIs originating in non-EU countries that are protected 
in the EU either via direct applications or on the basis of international 
agreements. 

Enforcement action by EU countries comprised both administrative and legal 
action (legal action only reported by Germany, Croatia, France, Italy, Portugal, 
Greece and Netherlands). Administrative action included fines, temporary closure 
of operators, downgrades, suspension or withdrawal of certification, seizure of 
products or orders to operators to recall and destroy the infringing products. The 
low rate of legal action compared with administrative action might indicate a 

50 

 
 
relatively low level of seriousness of the infringements identified. However it 
may also signal the need to raise awareness among all enforcement authorities 
of the need to ensure strong protection of GIs as intellectual property rights. This 
is even more relevant since GIs are increasingly becoming a target for fraud due 
to the high economic value they generate (GI 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 rise in e-commerce. 

Table 18 gives an overview of the number of businesses subject to official controls, 
the number of non-compliance issues, the number of official controls carried out, 
non-compliance issues raised and administrative penalties applied in 2022. 

Table 18 – official controls of PDO/PGI/TSG/GI in 2022 

51 

 
 
 
 
Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries audited: 

2 

Number of audits carried out: 

2 

1 audit per country audited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  5 

Recommendations per audit area: 

The Commission continued to carry out a limited annual programme of audits in EU 
countries on their control systems for GIs. In 2022, it audited two countries – Austria 
and France. 

The overall conclusion is that EU countries have well-structured official control 
systems in place for the protection of GIs, with designated competent authorities and 
well-trained staff. The identified shortcomings and, hence, the biggest challenges 
ahead for the authorities are to ensure that official controls cover both types of 
controls – verification of compliance of GIs with their product specification and 
monitoring the use of registered GI names once products are placed on the market. 
This is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the GI system and for preventing 
unauthorised or fraudulent use of GIs. Specific emphasis should be placed on the 
need to step up GI controls on the market, including markets in other Member States 
and third countries, and on surveillance of the use of GIs on the internet to 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
discourage, identify and remove any misappropriations of GIs on e-commerce 
platforms. 

Enforcement and controls are key for effective implementation of GIs at each stage 
of the value chain: from compliance with the product specification (the upstream 
market) to compliance with GIs as intellectual property rights placed on the market 
and the provision of trustworthy information to consumers (downstream market). For 
this purpose, a robust control and enforcement system must be in place across the 
EU. EU legislation provides general guidelines for this system, but it is the 
responsibility of each EU country to organise and implement it. As a result, different 
systems are being implemented across the EU. 

The most common organisation in EU countries is a central competent authority in 
charge of supervising the whole control procedure over the value chain, with some 
exceptions of regionalised organisations. The central competent authority may 
delegate parts of its responsibility to other competent authorities, and certain control 
tasks at producer level can be performed by control bodies. However, market controls 
cannot be delegated to control bodies. 

GIs are vulnerable to mis-selling, in particular in online marketplaces (e.g. Amazon, 
Alibaba, eBay, etc.) to which EU consumers have ready access. Some platforms, such 
as Amazon, have begun offering cooperation schemes with national administrations 
to identify and report breaches of GI products. In 2021, Italy became the first country 
in the world to sign a memorandum of understanding with Amazon, aiming to protect 
its GIs, consumers, and businesses, and prevent food counterfeiting. The agreement 
allows Amazon to promptly remove counterfeit products after notification from the 
competent authority in Italy. 

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. 

Enforcement is key to the GI system. It is therefore important to raise awareness 
among all enforcement authorities of the scope of GIs protection and the 
administrative and legal actions that may be taken to prevent or stop the unlawful 
use of GIs. 

53 

 
 
 
 
Fraudulent and deceptive 
practices 
Official controls carried out by EU countries 

Fraudulent and deceptive practices are practices that are intentional in nature, aim to 
achieve economic gain, are in breach 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 control programmes 

National authorities are required to carry out official controls to identify possible 
intentional breaches of the rules (22) through fraudulent or deceptive practices. They 
must assess information on these breaches shared via administrative assistance 
mechanisms and any other information indicating a possible breach. 

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

•  honey; 
•  olive oil; 

(22)  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 the basis of risk, to identify possible intentional 
breaches of the rules through fraudulent or deceptive practices. 

54 

 
 
 
 
labelling of food supplements; 

•  other oils of plant origin, e.g. sunflower oil; 
• 
•  additives in candy originating from non-EU countries; 
•  misleading consumers in restaurants; 
•  declared composition of food vs actual (meat percentage, additives, vitamins, 

water percentage of frozen fish); 
• 
labelling the country origin; 
• 
labelling as organic or a PDO/PGI/TSG product; 
• 
illegal domestic slaughter; 
• 
the use of ingredients passed their use-by date; 
•  producing food without the necessary licences; 
• 
• 

forgery of animal passports; 
the use of the ISPM15 mark on wood packaging materials without 
authorisation. 

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 action to combat counterfeited foodstuff. 

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

OLAF provided investigative support and on-the-spot checks in ‘From the hives’, an EU 
action against honey adulteration led by the European Commission’s Directorate-
General for Health and Food Safety. This involved the national authorities of 18 
countries that are part of the EU Food Fraud Network, OLAF and the European 
Commission’s Joint Research Centre. 

Honey naturally contains sugar and, according to EU legislation, must remain pure – 
meaning that it cannot have ingredients added to it. Adulteration occurs when 
ingredients such as water or inexpensive sugar syrups are artificially added to 
increase the volume of honey. 

While the risk for human health is considered as low, such practices defraud 
consumers and put honest producers in jeopardy as they face unfair competition from 
operators who can slash prices thanks to illicit, cheap ingredients. For example, the EU 
average unit value for imported honey was EUR 2.32/kg in 2021, whereas sugar 
syrups made from rice were at around EUR 0.40 – 0.60/kg. 

55 

 
 
During the EU-coordinated action, 133 businesses (70 importers and 63 exporters) 
were found to be involved in consignments of honey suspected of adulteration. 
National authorities collected 320 samples at border entry points, of which 46% of 
were found to be possibly adulterated. 

Operations coordinated by Europol 

EU countries participate in yearly operations coordinated by Europol: 

●  Operation Silver Axe VII (23), targeting the counterfeit and illicit trade of 
pesticides, led to the seizure of 1 150 tonnes of illegal pesticides; 

●  Operation OPSON XI (24), targeting the trafficking of counterfeit and substandard 
food and beverages, led to the disruption of 8 organised crime groups involved in 
food fraud and the arrests of 80 suspects. The operation included more than 
74 000 checks. As a result, about 26 800 tonnes of illegal and potentially 
harmful products were seized. 

(23)  Europol press release on Operation Silver Axe VII 

(24)  Europol press release on OPSON XI 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
Commission controls of EU countries 

Countries visited: 

2 

Number of fact-finding studies carried 
out: 

2 

One study per country visited 

Total number of recommendations raised:  0 

Recommendations per audit area: 

During fact-finding studies no recommendations are raised. 

We carried out a project between 2020 and 2022 to collect information on the 
arrangements put in place by EU countries to fight fraud in the agri-food chain. The 
project included pilot and fact-finding studies in eight EU countries. The main output 
of this project is a technical report for the national authorities. It provides examples 
of fraud risks for all sectors. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Part 2 
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 (25). 

In 2022, the Commission carried out 58 desk-based assessments related to border 
control post notifications from EU countries (including the United Kingdom (Northern 
Ireland)) of new (or amendments to existing) border control posts, including their 
inspection centres. 

Commission oversight of EU countries’ performance of official controls on imports of 
animals and goods continued in 2022, with six audits being carried out. The results of 
the audits confirmed that, overall, EU countries continue to improve their systems and 
implement controls. Audits of EU countries’ implementation of such controls will 
continue, given the importance of effective controls in providing EU citizens with 
confidence in the safety of imported food, feed, plants and animals. 

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

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

58 

 
 
 
 
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 followed (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 2022, the plans from the 27 EU countries and the plan submitted by the United 
Kingdom (Northern Ireland) were assessed as compliant and approved by the 
Commission. In parallel to this work, the Commission regularly audits EU countries to 
verify effective implementation of the plans and the follow-up of non-compliant 
results to ensure that recurrence is minimised. In 2022, seven audits to EU countries 
and one to the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) were conducted with largely 
satisfactory results. Such audits will continue given the importance of ensuring the 
chemical safety of food.  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
Part 3 
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 multiannual national control plans 
(MANCPs) and on the implementation of national audit systems (NAS) on official 
controls. During 2022, the MANCP network met twice, once remotely. The meetings 
were focused on the Commission's 2019-2020 Annual Report, the outcome of the 
first sub-working group meeting on the review of the network reference document on 
‘Risk-based planning of official controls’. The network also discussed updates to the 
country profile web portal and the electronic version of the standard model form for 
the annual reports of the EU countries, triggered by the reports submitted in 2021. 

The NAS network met twice during 2022, once remotely. The meetings continued the 
process of reviewing the network reference documents on risk-based planning for 
audits of official controls system and auditing the effectiveness of official controls, 
including discussing the outcomes of the first sub-working groups meetings on these 
documents. The NAS representatives and the Commission also exchanged experiences 
during dedicated workshops on risk-based planning practices in EU countries and 
promoting and enhancing National Audit Systems. 

60 

 
 
 
In 2022, the EU network of national contact points for the protection of animals 
during transport discussed transporters’ contingency plans, operators’ development of 
IT tools to facilitate implementation of the transport Regulation, animal exports by 
road to non-EU countries and animal welfare during air transport. 

We organised and delivered a specific BTSF event on official controls on livestock 
vessels. During this event, we also trained official veterinarians how to use the new 
vessel inspection module in the Thetis-EU database, developed with the European 
Maritime Safety Agency. This inspection module is designed to assist official controls 
on livestock vessels by recording and sharing between EU countries the records of 
previous official controls. 

61 

 
 
 
 
Better training for safer food 

Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF) is a Commission training 

initiative to improve 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 within and beyond Europe. The Commission’s 
policy priorities, EU countries’ requests, and the results of Commission audits help 
identify training needs for competent authority officials. 

In 2022, 6 890 participants received training in 146 face-to-face and 110 online 
classroom training sessions. 

The BTSF ACADEMY platform hosts online classes, eLearning courses and is the 
repository for training material on over 110 topics. 766 officials completed one of the 
eight eLearning courses. 

 See the BTSF ACADEMY 2022 annual report for more information. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
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 

63