What Has Changed
The European Commission published its 2027 food and veterinary audit programme on 3 September 2026. That is the publication date; the planned activities concern 2027, not an inspection campaign already completed this September. The programme covers food and feed safety, animal health and welfare, plant health and import controls. Commission publication page
The plan contains 144 audits and eight fact-finding visits. It includes an objective of 58 on-the-ground, export-related audits in third countries and eight audits of import controls at European border control posts. These are programme-level figures, not numbers of feed consignments to be inspected. The Commission also reserves the ability to adapt its programme as circumstances change. 2027 programme, pages 2-3
For purchasing teams, the useful response is to review the evidence behind a supply route. It is not to assume that every shipment will face a new test, that every listed country has a problem, or that a supplier outside the programme requires less scrutiny.
Read the Programme at the Right Level
Sourced context: Commission audits generally examine official control systems rather than certify individual premises. Reports can contain recommendations to the responsible authorities, followed by checks on corrective action. An audit entry is therefore different from an approval of a particular producer, product or consignment. How Commission audits work
Commercial interpretation: Use the publication as a prompt to test whether the purchasing file answers five practical questions. The checks below are procurement recommendations, not new requirements introduced by the programme.
1. Can You Define Exactly What You Are Buying?
Start with the ingredient's identity, raw-material origin, species where relevant, processing description, intended use and destination. Avoid relying on a broad commercial label such as “animal protein” when comparing quotations.
For animal-derived materials, the Commission distinguishes three animal-by-product risk categories and explains that permitted handling and use depend on the material and its intended destination in the value chain. Category 3 is the lower-risk category; that description should not be read as unrestricted permission for every feed application. Commission animal-by-products overview
A useful purchase-file template should make the buyer record the intended receiving operation and application before accepting a substitution. Keep commercial equivalence, nutritional suitability and regulatory eligibility as separate review questions.
2. Does the Evidence Match the Actual Establishment?
Ask for the producing establishment's identity and the registration or approval details relevant to the proposed trade. Where official listings apply, check the appropriate listing rather than treating a supplier's undated declaration as the final answer.
Record who checked the evidence, when it was checked and what product or activity it covers. Keep the trader, manufacturer, storage operator and dispatch location distinct. A quotation from one legal entity should not obscure which establishment will manufacture the material.
For alternative sourcing, prepare this file before negotiating a delivery rescue. A replacement that is attractive on price but still awaiting eligibility confirmation should remain an option under review, not an approved substitute.
3. Can One Lot Be Followed Across the Document Set?
Choose a representative shipment and trace its identity through the specification, certificate of analysis, packing list, commercial invoice and applicable transport or official documents. Ask whether the same lot, product description and quantities can be reconciled without relying on a verbal explanation.
A concise exception register is more useful than a folder that merely looks complete. For each mismatch, record the source, responsible person, correction needed and release decision. Preserve superseded documents as history, but clearly identify the version intended for use.
The aim is not to demand every conceivable certificate. It is to make the documents required for that specific movement coherent and retrievable.
4. Are Alerts Being Used as Evidence, Not Labels?
RASFF enables authorities to exchange information about food and feed risks. Its public database provides notification summaries, but does not disclose commercial details such as brands and business operators. Commission RASFF explanation
Commercially, use relevant notifications to frame questions about a hazard, origin or product category. Do not treat an alert concerning a country as proof against every supplier there. Equally, a search returning no matching public notification should not replace product-specific verification.
5. Is There a Clear Decision Before Dispatch?
Assign an owner to each unresolved issue and agree the decision point before the shipment moves. Separate items that require clarification from items that prevent release. Ask the technical and compliance teams to define that distinction for the actual product and destination.
For a recurring supply programme, keep a second qualified route under review and document what would trigger its use. Do not label it ready until its own specification, establishment evidence and commercial terms have been checked.