In 2024, there were hundreds of product recalls in both Belgium and the Netherlands. Although both countries show the same commitment, the numbers, causes and the way enforcers act differ. In this article, the numbers as well as the differences for companies and regulators.
Belgium recorded 283 product recalls and 66 warnings in 2024, totalling 349 notifications, according to the FASFC. The Netherlands reported 192 product recalls and 41 warnings, together 233 notifications, according to the NVWA annual report. This means that Belgium reported about 50 % more notifications than the Netherlands, despite its smaller population.
In Belgium, chemical risks, such as too many additives or residues of plant protection products, accounted for 42 % of product recalls. Microbiological hazards (Listeria, Salmonella, STEC) caused 33 %. Foreign particles (glass, metal) led to 25 % of actions.
In the Netherlands, the distribution was different: microbiological hazards were the biggest cause with 39 %, chemical hazards accounted for 27 % and physical contamination for 18 %.
Warnings in both countries mainly involved missing or incorrect allergen information (BE: 95 %, NL: 90 %).
The Belgian approach is strict and low-key: the FASFC requires a product recall or warning as soon as a legal standard is exceeded, even if there is no immediate health risk. Companies therefore have to take action earlier and are bound by a tight notification regime. This leads to more notifications, higher recall costs and sometimes product recalls where the risk is limited. Enforcers in Belgium adhere tightly to fixed standards and tolerate little customisation.
In the Netherlands, the NVWA is more restrained: the emphasis is on assessing the actual hazard. It looks more often at the context, the severity of the violation and the actual risk to consumers. This gives companies more space, but also more responsibility to make their own proper risk assessment. At the same time, this approach leads to uncertainty: companies sometimes do not know how strict the NVWA will judge in an individual case.
The different approach of enforcers has a big impact on companies. Belgian companies operate in a tight framework with predictable but sometimes disproportionate product recalls. Dutch companies have more room for risk-driven decisions, but run the risk that their assessment will still be rejected upon inspection. For companies operating in both countries, the advice is clear: work structurally according to the strictest requirements and ensure thorough internal procedures, so as not to be surprised by the divergent supervision styles. Critical point: wouldn't a harmonised European product recall approach do more justice to both food safety and workability for companies?
Sources:
