The European Commission published Recommendation (EU) 2026/1801 on 28 July 2026, replacing the mycotoxin framework that European feed businesses have used since 2006. The new recommendation covers deoxynivalenol (DON), zearalenone, ochratoxin A, T-2 and HT-2 toxins, and fumonisins B1 and B2 in feed materials and compound feed. It reflects more recent occurrence data and updated European Food Safety Authority assessments.
This is guidance for judging feed acceptability, not a new table of statutory maximum limits. That distinction matters, but it does not make the document commercially optional. The Commission recommends that feed business operators use the guidance values in their HACCP systems to define critical limits at control points.
Sourced facts: a new reference point for feed acceptability
Where a guidance value is exceeded, operators should take precautionary measures, clearly inform the buyer about the mycotoxin content and, where required, perform a risk assessment before the feed is placed on the market or used.
The recommendation also strengthens the information chain. Suppliers should provide compound-feed manufacturers with enough mycotoxin data to produce safe feed, taking account of existing contractual and non-contractual specification practices. Member States are asked to involve feed businesses in monitoring and to analyse samples simultaneously for the covered toxin groups so that co-occurrence can be assessed. Annual occurrence data for the previous year should be submitted to EFSA by 30 June.
The dates are deliberately staggered. Most guidance values should be taken into consideration from 1 July 2027. For maize, sorghum, soybean, sunflower and products derived from them, the date is 1 October 2027. The earlier 2006 and 2013 recommendations are replaced from 1 July 2027. The Commission's Animal Nutrition committee had already endorsed the updated approach and deferred its application to allow operators time to prepare.
The annex is more granular than a single pass-or-fail number. Values vary by toxin, material and animal category, all expressed relative to feed with 12% moisture. For DON, for example, the guidance value is 4.0 mg/kg for cereals and cereal products other than maize, 8.0 mg/kg for maize and maize products, 4.0 mg/kg for sugar-beet products, 2.5 mg/kg for soybean products and 0.5 mg/kg for other oilseeds and their products. Complete-feed values then differ for pigs, young ruminants, poultry, equines, aquatic animals and other categories.
The scientific basis also matters for purchasing decisions. EFSA's updated assessment lowered DON reference points for adverse animal-health effects in horses, broiler chickens and turkeys. A separate update lowered fumonisin reference points for poultry and horses. These assessments help explain why the Commission revised both material-level and species-specific guidance rather than simply carrying forward the old table.
Commercial interpretation: specifications need more than a generic statement
For buyers, the preparation task is not merely adding 'mycotoxins compliant' to a contract. A useful specification should identify the material, intended animal category, toxin panel, analytical method, reporting limit, moisture basis and the point at which the sample represents the lot. Without those details, two apparently compliant COAs may not be comparable.
Moisture normalisation is especially important. The EU values are stated at 12% moisture, while a supplier laboratory may report results on an as-received or dry-matter basis. Buyers should require the reported moisture and either receive a result already normalised to the EU basis or retain enough information to calculate it consistently. The conversion method should be agreed before a dispute arises.
The recommendation's emphasis on simultaneous analysis should also influence test panels. A certificate covering only the historically most likely toxin may miss co-occurrence that changes the practical risk for the intended ration. Testing plans should reflect origin, crop year, processing route, storage history and destination use. The appropriate panel for a wheat-bran lot may differ from the panel for maize protein, sugar-beet material or an oilseed product, but the reasoning should be documented.
Contract language should separate three outcomes: within specification, above the contractual target but still assessable, and rejected. If a result exceeds a guidance value, the next step should not be improvised. The contract should define who performs the risk assessment, which animal category and inclusion rate are used, whether mitigation or restricted use is permitted, who receives the result and whether the buyer may cancel or redirect the lot.
A practical readiness check before 2027
Procurement teams can use the transition period to complete five actions:
- Map every cereal, milling, oilseed and sugar-beet product to the relevant toxin and material categories.
- Update specifications and COA templates to state moisture basis, method, limit of quantification and lot identity.
- Align sampling instructions with loading, sealing and retained-sample procedures.
- Define escalation rules for exceedances, including buyer disclosure and species-specific risk assessment.
- Test supplier readiness well before the applicable July or October 2027 date.