Preliminary Annual Report

2015

1. The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)

The RASFF was put in place to provide food and feed control authorities with an effective tool to exchange
information about measures taken responding to serious risks detected in relation to food or feed. This
exchange of information helps Member States to act more rapidly and in a coordinated manner in response
to a health threat caused by food or feed. Its effectiveness is ensured by keeping its structure simple: it
consists essentially of clearly identified contact points in the Commission, EFSA1, EEA2 and at national level in
member countries, exchanging information in a clear and structured way by means of templates.

The legal basis

The legal basis of the RASFF is Regulation (EC) N 178/2002. Article 50 of this Regulation establishes the rapid
alert system for food and feed as a network involving the Member States, the Commission as member and
manager of the system and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Also the EEA countries: Norway,
Liechtenstein and Iceland, are longstanding members of the RASFF.
Whenever a member of the network has any information relating to the existence of a serious direct or
indirect risk to human health deriving from food or feed, this information is immediately notified to the
Commission under the RASFF. The Commission immediately transmits this information to the members of
the network.
Article 50.3 of the Regulation lays down additional criteria for when a RASFF notification is required.
Without prejudice to other Community legislation, the Member States shall immediately notify the
Commission under the rapid alert system of:
(a) any measure they adopt which is aimed at restricting the placing on the market or forcing the
withdrawal from the market or the recall of food or feed in order to protect human health and
requiring rapid action;
(b) any recommendation or agreement with professional operators which is aimed, on a voluntary or
obligatory basis, at preventing, limiting or imposing specific conditions on the placing on the market
or the eventual use of food or feed on account of a serious risk to human health requiring rapid
action;
(c) any rejection, related to a direct or indirect risk to human health, of a batch, container or cargo of
food or feed by a competent authority at a border post within the European Union.
Regulation (EC) N 16/2011 lays down implementing rules for the RASFF. It entered into force on 31 January
2011. The Regulation lays down requirements for members of the network and the procedure for
transmission of the different types of notifications. A difference is made between notifications requiring
rapid action (alert notifications) and other notifications (information notifications and border rejection
notifications). Therefore definitions of these different types of notifications are added. In addition the role of
the Commission as manager of the network is detailed.

1
2

European Food Safety Authority, www.efsa.europa.eu

EFTA Surveillance Authority, http://www.eftasurv.int

The members:
All members of the system have out-of-hours arrangements (7 days/7, 24 hour/24) to ensure that in case of
an urgent notification being made outside of office hours, on-duty officers can be warned, acknowledge the
urgent information and take appropriate action. All member organisations of the RASFF where contact
points are identified are listed and their home pages can be consulted on the internet from the following
RASFF web page:
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/food/food/rapidalert/members_en.htm.

The system
RASFF notifications
RASFF notifications usually report on risks identified in food, feed or food contact materials that are placed
on the market in the notifying country or detained at an EU point of entry at the border with an EU
neighbouring country. The notifying country reports on the risks it has identified, the product and its
traceability and the measures it has taken.
According to the seriousness of the risks identified and the distribution of the product on the market, the
RASFF notification is classified after verification by the Commission contact point as alert, information or
border rejection notification before the Commission contact point transmits it to all network members.

alert notifications
An alert notification or alert is sent when a food, feed or food contact material presenting a serious
risk is on the market and when rapid action is or might be required in another country than the notifying
country. Alerts are triggered by the member of the network that detects the problem and has initiated
the relevant measures, such as withdrawal or recall. The notification aims at giving all the members of
the network the information to verify whether the concerned product is on their market, so that they can
take the necessary measures.
Products subject to an alert notification have been withdrawn or are in the process of being withdrawn
from the market. Member States have their own mechanisms to carry out such actions, including the
provision of detailed information through the media if necessary.

information notifications
An information notification concerns a food, feed or food contact material for which a risk has been
identified that does not require rapid action either because the risk is not considered serious or the
product is not on the market at the time of notification.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 16/2011 has added two new sub-types of information notification to the
family of notifications:

information notifications for follow-up are related to a product that is or may be placed on the
market in another member country

information notifications for attention are related to a product that:

(i) is present only in the notifying member country; or
(ii) has not been placed on the market; or
(iii) is no longer on the market

border rejection notifications

3

A 'border rejection notification' concerns a consignment of food, feed or food contact material that was
refused entry into the Community for reason of a risk to human health and also to animal health or to
the environment if it concerns feed.

original notifications and follow-up notifications

A RASFF notification referring to one or more consignments of a food, feed or food contact material that
were not previously notified to the RASFF is an 'original' notification, classified as alert, information or
border rejection notification. In reaction to such notification, members of the network can transmit
'follow-up' notifications which refer to the same consignments and which add information to the original
notification such as information on hazards, product traceability or measures taken.

rejected and withdrawn notifications

An original notification sent by a member of the RASFF can be rejected from transmission through the
RASFF system, as proposed by the Commission after verification and in agreement with the notifying
country, if the criteria for notification are not met or if the information transmitted is insufficient.
An original notification that was transmitted through the RASFF can be withdrawn by the Commission in
agreement with the notifying country if the information, upon which the measures taken are based,
turns out to be unfounded or if the transmission of the notification was made erroneously.

RASFF news
A RASFF news concerns any type of information related to the safety of food or feed which has not been
communicated as an alert, information or border rejection notification, but which is judged interesting for
the food and feed control authorities in member countries.
RASFF news are often based on information picked up in the media or forwarded by colleagues in food or
feed authorities in third countries, EC delegations or international organisations, after having been verified
with any member countries concerned.
Schematic representation of the information flow of the RASFF:

2. RASFF notifications in 2015

In 2015, a total of 3049 original notifications were transmitted through the RASFF, of which 775 were
classified as alert, 392 as information for follow-up, 495 as information for attention and 1387 as border
rejection notification. These original notifications gave rise to 6204 follow-up notifications, representing an
average of 2 follow-ups per original notification. For alert notifications this average rises to an impressive 5.2
follow-ups per original notification.
The overall figures present a 3.4% decrease in original notifications compared to 2014 but a 14.6% increase
in follow-up notifications, resulting in an overall increase of 5%.
Details of these trends are given on page 7. For original notifications, the focus is shifting to alert
notifications. The number of border rejections, declining since 2011, has slightly increased in 2015. For
follow-ups the increase for alerts is significant for the second year in a row. This demonstrates that members
of the network are progressively focusing their efforts on cases where serious risks with products placed on
the market require rapid action to be taken, thereby increasing the efficiency of the network.
The RASFF news transmitted internally in the network are not counted in the above figures nor represented
in the charts in this report. There have been 41 RASFF news sent together with 72 follow-ups. Due to a
significant decrease in follow-ups, this means that information transmitted as RASFF news decreased by 69%
compared to 2014.

After receipt of follow-up information, 25 alert, 33 information and 7 border rejection notifications were
withdrawn. Notifications that were withdrawn are further excluded from statistics and charts.
The European Commission decided, after consulting the notifying countries, not to upload 89 notifications
onto the system because, after evaluation, they were found not to satisfy the criteria for a RASFF notification
(rejected notifications). This represents a 20% decrease compared to 2014.

RASFF notifications are triggered by a variety of things. Just over half of the total number of notifications
concern controls at the outer EEA borders1 in points of entry or border inspection posts when the
consignment was not accepted for import (border control consignment detained). In some cases, a
sample was taken for analysis at the border but the consignment was not held there but was forwarded to
its destination under customs' seals ("border control consignment under customs"). This means that it
should remain stored there until the result of the analysis is available. In other cases the consignment was
released (border control - consignment released) without awaiting the analytical result, which means that
the consignment would need to be retraced if the result is unfavourable and the product needs to be
withdrawn from the market.
The second largest category of notifications concerns official controls on the internal market 2. Three special
types of notifications are identified: when a consumer complaint, a company notifying the outcome of an
own-check, or a food poisoning was at the basis of the notification.
A small number of notifications are triggered by an official control in a non-member country. If a nonmember country informs a RASFF member of a risk found during its official controls concerning a product
that may be on the market in one of the member countries, the RASFF member may notify this to the
Commission for transmission to the RASFF network. In 2015 there were four RASFF notifications and four
RASFF news transmitted on incidents that took place in third countries. A little context regarding some of the
notifications and news transmitted:

RASFF news 15-768 - unauthorised colour methyl yellow in raw materials and food products from
Taiwan: on 5 January the ECCP received an email from the Taiwan Food and Drug Administration
(TFDA) reporting on a food incident concerning illegal use of dimethyl yellow in foods from Taiwan.
Information was given on distribution of products to German and Swedish FBO. In the days that
followed Germany tracked distribution from Germany to Austria and Denmark. On 27 January, the
Netherland notified an alert based on information given by the Dutch importer of various products of
bean curd having been adulterated with methyl yellow. Distribution of these products had taken
place to 11 other Member States plus Switzerland. With further details provided by the TFDA,
products could be withdrawn from the market, for many even before they reached the retailers.

RASFF news 15-774 On 21 January the United Kingdom contact point sent a RASFF news about a
number food product recalls in US and Canada of ground cumin and products containing ground
cumin, due to contamination with peanut protein and almond protein. The country of origin or cause
of the contamination was unknown. The UK requested the ECCP to inform INFOSAN, which it did.
After investigation the incidents in the US and in Canada could not be connected to any products on
the market in Europe but they did trigger a series of notifications indicating that also in Europe there
were worrying issues relating to allergens in spices.

RASFF alert 2015.0785 in June, the Japanese authorities informed the Italian authorities of very high
levels of Listeria monocytogenes in gorgonzola cheese from Italy. Despite a lack of detailed analytical
data, the Italian authorities decided to transmit an alert through the RASFF informing 12 countries
having received the product. Unfortunately Italy received no further details from the Japanese
authorities about the results of their investigation.

There were two RASFF news made with information from the Russian authorities on 2 consignments
with false bill of lading describing a different load than the frozen pork back fat that was found in the
containers. A criminal investigation was started.

1
2

Since 2009, including Switzerland.

Products placed on the market in one of the member countries including the EEA countries Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/rapidalert/index_en.htm
All information on the RASFF can be found on the website at:

3 Charts and figures

Evolution of the number of notifications since 2011:
- by notification classification

Original notifications
year

alert

border rejection

information for attention

information for follow-up

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
% in/decrease

617
523
584
725
750
+3.4

1820
1712
1438
1357
1380
+1.7

720
679
679
605
476
-21.3

551
507
429
402
378
-6.0

Follow-up notifications
year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
% in/decrease

alert

border
rejection

information

information
for attention

information
for follow-up

2265
2312
2376
3280
4030
+22.9

1053
906
525
581
417
-28.2

421
74
1
2
0
-100.0

480
664
763
670
538
-19.7

1126
1325
1493
1377
1219
-11.5

Original notifications with follow-up

These are original notifications to which at least one follow-up was given.

The chart shows that although the number of follow-ups as a whole significantly rose in 2015, there are still a
significant number of notifications that were not followed up at all. Especially in the category alert, the
objective is to reach 100%. The numbers for 2015 will end somewhat higher than shown here considering
that follow-ups are still coming in to 2015 notifications.

- by notifying country

Original notifications
Evolution of original notifications by notifying country

country
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Commission
Services
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

2007
62
98
10
8

2008
87
107
22
6

52
73
130
17
82
124
376
170
29
4
24
501
13
40
10
38
156
68
123
25
7
61
47
169
55

65
55
127
11
93
137
438
106
17
1
27
470
32
50
11
30
247
50
156
14
13
56
76
142
50

361

348

2009
110
117
26
23

53
68
122
13
141
157
412
161
10
1
30
467
14
33
16
18
212
30
141
8
18
52
73
255
60
4
335

2010
89
95
34
12

52
90
131
18
130
171
398
158
20
2
35
543
21
48
23
12
215
23
140
18
25
56
56
285
74
7
320

2011
65
129
116
4

77
96
151
9
111
199
419
129
13
6
49
549
17
40
25
27
204
51
226
22
21
35
45
302
72
6
512

2012
49
143
75
1

2013
46
164
54
1

2014
46
198
87

2015
57
180
99

48
71
130
17
107
275
363
65
10
3
54
518
26
51
8
11
173
62
180
29
14
35
43
240
96
20
521

8
44
70
112
32
88
250
331
65
3
1
40
528
27
28
17
12
264
45
120
40
14
35
34
201
91
41
327

11
55
70
99
12
98
266
330
60
15
1
42
504
20
37
12
8
252
44
132
38
17
38
30
189
67
34
281

20
39
56
94
17
56
236
276
64
9
4
58
512
42
30
13
13
259
32
91
30
23
34
39
174
74
24
337

10

Follow-up notifications
Evolution of follow-up notifications by notifying country

country
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Commission Services
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
European Food Safety
Authority
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 %

change
60
52
197 71
118 79
80
117 188 61
94
135 178 117 158 210 240 297 262 -12
28
28
44
57
56
60
106 147 143 -3
158 177 196 307 346 340 421 424 426 0
3
1
3
2
15
31
31
0
59
72
57
68
47
76
73
62
78
26
175 105 194 185 199 163 210 232 190 -18
122 110 118 95
160 131 179 207 198 -4
5
7
4
17
24
23
46
60
65
8
2
-100
17
364
337
80
67
2
36
341
32
1
17
16
33
152
27
118
51
19
59
44
1259
38
42
121

13
272
423
60
51
2
46
321
16

25
256
489
132
95
1
27
413
30

21
33
33
180
22
137
31
27
49
35
911
54
49
118

26
11
44
149
41
154
28
40
44
93
999
60
51
168

23
556
452
113
85
1
43
520
32

19
361
519
118
103
5
60
654
40

23
283
409
98
120
72
486
36

64
242
376
66
91

154
439
43
3
51
55
72
69
15
16
8
30
43
24
32
43
155 135 180 222
44
49
58
44
154 202 313 415
42
25
74
85
48
63
85
76
68
69
76
59
42
47
86
44
1288 1077 1058 706
83
84
95
161
70
62
87
85
125 152 182 141

97
325
512
74
143
4
130
433
68
70
37
42
265
58
420
109
137
70
68
719
155
105
109

94
359
483
91
90
6
115
587
58
1
59
37
77
364
67
343
138
127
74
76
648
200
138
219

-3
10
-6
23
-37
50
-12
36
-15
-16
0
83
37
16
-18
27
-7
6
12
-10
29
31
101

11

2015 notifications by hazard category and by classification

hazard category

adulteration / fraud
allergens
biocontaminants
biotoxins (other)
chemical contamination (other)
composition
food additives and flavourings
foreign bodies
GMO / novel food
heavy metals
industrial contaminants
labelling absent/incomplete/incorrect
migration
mycotoxins
non-pathogenic micro-organisms
not determined / other
organoleptic aspects
packaging defective / incorrect
parasitic infestation
pathogenic micro-organisms
pesticide residues
poor or insufficient controls
radiation
residues of veterinary medicinal
products
TSEs
adulteration / fraud

alert

1
114
23
12
2
51
17
43
4
73
21
6
14
74
2
5
5
261
24
2
10

border information
rejection for attention
89
3
2

3
18
18
5
2
22
32
14
3
57
14
3
12
29
7
1
3

information
for followup

total

6
2
1
1
4
26
36
30
20
16
15
9
13
4
32

99
137
44
18
8
118
140
110
45
219
53
26
77
495
65
11
38
17
11
745
405
88
26
60
21
99

19
55
23
18
73
3
8
38
388
24
5
25
6
1
265
292
70
7
14

3
136
71
7
6
23

10
6
7
83
18
9
13
13

89

2
3

19
6

12

2015 notifications by product category and by classification

product category

alcoholic beverages
bivalve molluscs and products thereof
cephalopods and products thereof
cereals and bakery products
cocoa and cocoa preparations, coffee and tea
compound feeds
confectionery
crustaceans and products thereof
dietetic foods, food supplements, fortified foods
eggs and egg products
fats and oils
feed additives
feed materials
feed premixtures
fish and fish products
food additives and flavourings
food contact materials
fruits and vegetables
gastropods
herbs and spices
honey and royal jelly
ices and desserts
meat and meat products (other than poultry)
milk and milk products
non-alcoholic beverages
nuts, nut products and seeds
other food product / mixed
pet food
poultry meat and poultry meat products
prepared dishes and snacks
soups, broths, sauces and condiments
wine

alert

border
rejection

information
for
attention

information
for followup

total

4
23
1
65
12
1
12
5
46
7
5

1
7
15
28
32

1
28
2
9
7
2
4
19
16
2
6

6
3

12
61
18
122
58
21
33
59
122
14
23
2
151
2
297
7
152
634
3
150
7
5
159
59
26
477
34
30
176
30
35
5

12
104
1
24
81
40
1
3
83
48
7
46
11
6
62
17
20
3

10
26
22
3
6
1
55

13

67

88

83
424

23
104

74

30
4

24

33
2

10
403
16
6
59
5
3

19
2
11
43
3
3
2

20
7
18
7
9
38
2
6
1
71
2
38
6
22
25
3
6
2
2
19
9
9
9
5
7
12
5
9

13

2015 - top 10 number of notifications

Number of notifications counted for each combination of hazard/product category/country.

- by origin
hazard

product category

origin

notifications

aflatoxins
Salmonella
Salmonella
mercury
aflatoxins
aflatoxins
aflatoxins
aflatoxins
Salmonella
migration of chromium

nuts, nut products and seeds

fruits and vegetables
nuts, nut products and seeds
fish and fish products
nuts, nut products and seeds
nuts, nut products and seeds
fruits and vegetables
nuts, nut products and seeds
poultry meat and poultry meat products
food contact materials

China
India
India
Spain
Iran
Turkey
Turkey
United States
Brazil
China

97
78
65
58
55
53
48
37
37
33

notifications

- by notifying country
hazard

product category

notifying country

Salmonella
mercury
Salmonella
aflatoxins
aflatoxins
aflatoxins
migration of chromium
aflatoxins
aflatoxins
aflatoxins

fruits and vegetables

fish and fish products
poultry meat and poultry meat products
nuts, nut products and seeds
nuts, nut products and seeds
nuts, nut products and seeds
food contact materials
nuts, nut products and seeds
nuts, nut products and seeds
nuts, nut products and seeds

United Kingdom
Italy
Netherlands
Netherlands
Germany
Italy
Italy
Belgium
Spain
United Kingdom

81
66
58
41
39
39
36
36
30
26

14

Notifications country of origin

2014-2015 Notifications by country type (origin)

2000-2015 notifications by world region

15

2013-2015 notifications by country of origin

Microsoft Excel
Worksheet

The Excel worksheet document can be opened from the file attachments of this PDF document.

2013-2015 notifications by product category

Microsoft Excel
Worksheet

The Excel worksheet document can be opened from the file attachments of this PDF document.

2015 notifications by week and by type

Microsoft Excel
Worksheet

The Excel worksheet document can be opened from the file attachments of this PDF document.

2012-2015 Notifications by hazard category

Microsoft Excel
Worksheet

The Excel worksheet document can be opened from the file attachments of this PDF document.

2015 notifications by hazard category and notifying country

Microsoft Excel
Worksheet

The Excel worksheet document can be opened from the file attachments of this PDF document.
The coloured cells indicate the country with the highest number of notifications for a given hazard
category.

2015 notifications by product category and notifying country

Microsoft Excel
Worksheet

The Excel worksheet document can be opened from the file attachments of this PDF document.
The coloured cells indicate the country with the highest number of notifications for a given product
category.

16

2015 notifications by product category and type of control

Microsoft Excel
Worksheet

The Excel worksheet document can be opened from the file attachments of this PDF document.

2015 non-member countries having provided follow-up

Microsoft Excel
Worksheet

The Excel worksheet document can be opened from the file attachments of this PDF document.
The first column "distribution" shows the number of 2015 notifications for each country to which the
Commission's Services notified distribution of a product. The second column "origin" shows the
number of 2015 notifications for each country to which the Commission's Services notified a product
originating from it. The third column other gives the number of notifications for which the country
was notified for another reason than origin or distribution e.g. if the product transited through the
country. The fourth column "follow-ups" shows the number of follow-ups received from each country
in 2015.

2015 notifications by hazard category and risk decision

Microsoft Excel
Worksheet

The Excel worksheet document can be opened from the file attachments of this PDF document.
There are three worksheets splitting up the data between FCM, food and feed. Categories coloured red
have predominantly notifications with risk decision serious, whereas categories coloured green have
mostly notifications concerning a non-serious risk.

17