This article discusses EFSA Supporting Publication 2026:EN-10271, DOI 10.2903/sp.efsa.2026.EN-10271, and the food-safety duties arising under Regulations (EC) No 852/2004, 178/2002 and 2073/2005. It covers plant-based meat and dairy alternatives. The report does not justify transferring one subcategory's results to every alternative product.
What the EFSA study supports — and what it does not
The relevant source is EFSA Supporting Publication 2026:EN-10271, published in 2026. Where an EFSA question number is used, it should be identified as EFSA-Q-2026-00361; an earlier mandate or working-task number should not be presented as the final output. The coordinated retail study covered RTE products in 15 countries. Sample totals and pathogen percentages should only be quoted when they can be checked in the report's results tables or annexes.
The defensible high-level conclusion is cautious: Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella were detected rarely, the overall microbiological quality of most samples was satisfactory, and isolated non-compliances occurred. Bacillus cereus sensu lato was more frequent than Listeria and Salmonella. These findings support risk-based HACCP controls; they do not establish a universal risk profile for every formulation.
- Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella: rare findings must not be converted into unsupported percentages or generalised from one national component to the whole European study.
- Bacillus cereus sensu lato: the frequency reported in the study makes it a relevant HACCP hazard, especially where raw materials, processing and shelf life can support persistence or growth.
- Mycotoxins: the risk assessment may cover oats, rice, maize, soy, peas, nuts, seeds and plant oils, depending on the raw material, process and final food category.
Listeria monocytogenes: the two-part model from 1 July 2026
A chilled fermented cheese alternative may be an RTE food capable of supporting Listeria growth, but that classification cannot be inferred from the product name or its plant origin. The operator must assess pH, water activity, formulation, preservatives and protective cultures, packaging, storage temperature and the intended shelf life. pH and water activity are important, but they are not a substitute for a complete product assessment.
For category 1.2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2895 with application from 1 July 2026, the operator may demonstrate that Listeria monocytogenes will not exceed 100 CFU/g throughout the shelf life. If that demonstration is not available, the criterion of “not detected in 25 g” applies before the product leaves the operator's immediate control. This is not the same as saying that “absence in 25 g always applies” at every stage of the supply chain.
- Depending on the product, evidence may include shelf-life studies, challenge tests, predictive modelling and a documented rationale for cold-chain assumptions.
- The current practical reference is the EURL Listeria monocytogenes Technical Guidance Document, version 4 (2021), with the February 2026 amendment.
- SANCO/1628/2008 may be cited as a historical document, but it should not be the primary practical reference.
Bacillus cereus: hazard assessment without an invented legal limit
Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 does not create a general 10³ CFU/g safety limit for oat, rice, meat, cheese or fish alternatives. Its specific Bacillus cereus criterion is not a horizontal criterion for the plant-based RTE products discussed here. A value of 10³ CFU/g may appear in scientific literature, national guidance, commercial specifications or internal alert systems. Its source and legal status must be stated clearly.
The correct legal starting point is Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004: the operator must identify, control and verify relevant hazards through its HACCP-based procedures. Bacillus cereus may therefore require raw-material controls, process controls, environmental monitoring, shelf-life verification or an internal alert value — but none of these should be labelled as a statutory category 2.2 limit under Regulation 2073/2005 unless a specific legal basis actually applies.
Mycotoxins and contaminants
Regulation (EU) 2023/915 is the current regulation on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealed Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. For oats, rice, maize, soy, peas, nuts, seeds and plant oils, the assessment may include mycotoxins and other contaminants depending on the raw material and final category. A legal maximum level, a supplier certificate, a verification test and an internal acceptance value are different things. A possible hazard does not by itself prove a legal exceedance.
Novel food and formulation status
Some ingredients or production processes used in plant-based alternatives may fall within Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 on novel foods. The operator should check whether the ingredient was consumed to a significant degree in the EU before 15 May 1997, whether a novel production process changes its characteristics, and whether an existing authorisation covers the proposed food category and use level. The Commission's novel-food catalogue is a starting point, not a substitute for checking the applicable Union list and authorisation conditions.
Labelling and non-misleading product names
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 prohibits food information that misleads consumers about the nature, identity, composition or method of production. The CJEU judgment in case C-422/16, TofuTown, is also relevant when a plant-based product uses a legally reserved dairy name. The assessment must concern the complete presentation — name, imagery, claims and prominence of information — rather than one isolated word. Allergens and nutrition claims must be checked against the applicable rules before packaging is approved.
RASFF and traceability
The RASFF database illustrates real contamination scenarios involving plant foods and raw materials, but a notification does not replace an operator's assessment of the specific lot. The operator should maintain one-step-back and one-step-forward traceability under Article 18 of Regulation 178/2002 and be able to identify affected lots and customers promptly. Article 19 duties arise when there is reason to believe that food is unsafe; they are not an automatic testing schedule.
What the food business operator should document
- HACCP hazard analysis covering biological, chemical and physical hazards relevant to the actual product.
- Supplier approval and specifications proportionate to the risk of the raw materials.
- Storage, packaging and cold-chain conditions, with a reasoned shelf-life justification.
- Environmental monitoring for RTE production where justified by the risk assessment.
- Product and process verification testing based on the product, applicable criteria and HACCP — not an automatic assumption that every batch must be tested under Article 19.
- Traceability under Article 18 of Regulation 178/2002 and a documented withdrawal/recall procedure.
- Action under Article 19 where the operator has reason to believe that food does not meet safety requirements: withdrawal or recall and notification of the competent authorities.
Supplier certification does not transfer responsibility for the finished food. At the same time, Article 19 is primarily a reactive provision; it should not be presented as a universal obligation to test every batch.
Sources and scope
Primary sources: EFSA EN-10271; Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2895; Regulation (EU) 2023/915; and the EURL Listeria guidance. Check the current legal text and the actual product data before applying these principles to a specific product. This article is informational and is not a substitute for an individual legal or technological assessment.