On 12 May 2026, the House of Representatives discussed the European Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus Package. The name sounds appealing. Fewer rules. Less duplication of effort. More scope for entrepreneurs.
Some of the proposals are indeed practical. Duplicate reporting can be eliminated. Procedures can be streamlined. Unnecessary reporting does not need to be retained simply because it was introduced at some point.
But anyone who reads on will also notice a different trend. Routine checks and periodic reassessments are being partly replaced by risk-based monitoring. Regulators are being given greater scope to request information. The supply chain must become more transparent. Data must be available, comparable and usable.
For large companies, this is often feasible. For SMEs, however, the same simplification can actually prove more burdensome.
The Omnibus Package affects a wide range of food and feed legislation. For businesses in the meat supply chain, the following aspects are particularly relevant:
Topic | Proposed change | Practical significance |
Food hygiene | Dual notification procedures under Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and 853/2004 are to be replaced by a single, general European procedure | Less duplication of effort for public authorities |
Animal welfare during slaughter | Duplicate reporting obligations under Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 are being reduced | Reducing red tape where regulations overlap |
BSE and TSE | The rules under Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 are being made more flexible and better aligned with the current, lower risk | Lower fixed costs, but changes to annexes remain important |
Animal feed additives | Authorisations may be valid for an indefinite period; labelling may be partly digital | Fewer routine procedures, greater emphasis on early detection |
Official inspections | Regulation (EU) 2017/625 is being amended, including in relation to import consignments and laboratories | More scope for efficient and risk-based auditing |
On paper, this looks like streamlining. Nevertheless, caution is required.
The proposed change regarding feed additives is striking. Currently, authorisations are reviewed periodically. The European Commission now wants authorisations to be valid indefinitely.
That saves time and money. But it also means there is no longer a fixed point of inspection.
A re-evaluation will only be initiated if a concern is raised. EFSA is becoming increasingly reliant on information from the market and on monitoring by public authorities. At the same time, it is not necessarily the case that companies will voluntarily report concerns that could call their commercial products into question.
The Dutch government refers to this potential shift in monitoring costs from the private sector to EFSA and the Member States themselves highly undesirable.
Therein lies the first catch: a routine check is being scrapped, but the risk remains. A better early-warning system is therefore needed.
And a better early warning system relies on information.
The Omnibus Package does not directly oblige slaughterhouses, cutting plants or meat processors to purchase a new software package. However, it would be too easy to end the discussion there.
As supervision becomes more risk-based, companies must be able to demonstrate more quickly:
That may work on paper. But as soon as data needs to be combined and assessed quickly, manual processes become unreliable. The practical solution is obvious: the government removes paper from the system, but replaces it with data.
For large companies with ERP systems, dashboards and dedicated QA staff, this is usually manageable. For SMEs, however, the situation is different. In these organisations, much of the knowledge still relies on experience, close communication and craftsmanship. Records are scattered across work orders, Excel files and folders.
Digitalisation can help. But when it quietly becomes the new gateway to surveillance, it creates an uneven playing field.
During the debate in the House of Representatives, some tough questions were asked.
Concern | The issue under discussion in The Hague |
No comprehensive impact assessment | How can the Netherlands give its approval without a clear picture of the implications for day-to-day operations, food security, the economy and oversight? |
Cost shift | Why should EFSA, Member States and, ultimately, taxpayers foot the bill for safety monitoring of commercial products? |
Pressure on the NVWA | Can the NVWA take on additional monitoring tasks when the regulator already lacks sufficient funding for all its current duties? |
Fewer scheduled reviews | Will problems still be identified in good time if regular checks are discontinued? |
Differences between Member States | Does a disparity in the level of oversight arise when countries have different capacities and priorities? |
BSE and TSE | What scope will the European Commission have to amend the rules via annexes, given that the risk of BSE is not zero? |
These are not merely theoretical concerns. The government itself acknowledges that the proposal could significantly increase the NVWA’s monitoring workload. It is also clear that the EFSA will be given greater powers to request documentation directly from companies.
On 19 May, the House of Representatives voted on the motions that had been tabled. Among other things, the House adopted motions to reject any reduction in the level of protection, to seek additional funding for EFSA capacity, and to give the House another opportunity to vote before a final decision is taken.
A motion to carry out a preliminary assessment of the additional capacity and costs the proposal would entail for the Netherlands failed to secure a majority. The latter is striking. Deciding first that simplification is desirable and only later finding out what supervision actually costs is a risky sequence of events.
The meat industry itself must also remain vigilant. The risk of BSE has fallen sharply in Europe. This is the result of robust measures: a ban on animal proteins in feed for ruminants, the removal of specified risk material, targeted monitoring and full traceability of cattle.
It is precisely because the system has been strict for many years that we can now talk about relaxing the rules. However, the government also makes it clear that the risk of BSE is not zero.
When rules become more flexible and parts of them can be amended more easily through delegated acts, companies must continue to actively monitor changes to the annexes. It is not just the main text of a regulation that matters; it is the details that determine how it is applied in practice.
The right approach isn’t to rush out and buy expensive software straight away. Start with the basics.
Question | Practical step |
Can we locate a batch quickly? | Identify which details are actually required regarding the animal, supplier, batch and customer |
Are your records spread across different systems? | First, map out the information flows |
Do we record a lot, but learn little? | Show discrepancies by supplier, product and period |
Is the knowledge mainly held by one experienced member of staff? | Make it easier to document critical decisions and exceptions |
Are we receiving more and more digital requests? | Choose a workable structure before data becomes fragmented |
Is off-the-shelf software not suited to real-world use? | Let the process remain the guiding principle and avoid registration for the sake of registration |
A simple system used consistently is better than an expensive dashboard with poor data.
Simplification is needed. Many businesses get bogged down in duplicate registrations, vague standards and rules that are poorly aligned with day-to-day practice. But fewer rules do not automatically mean less pressure.
When fixed procedures are phased out and oversight becomes more reliant on indicators, supply chain information and data, the nature of control changes. The company must be able to demonstrate more quickly where risks arise and how they are managed. This can strengthen the food chain. But only if the new approach remains feasible for both large and small businesses.
The key question is therefore not simply how many rules will be abolished. A better question is: “Which paper-based obligations will actually be abolished, which digital requirements will replace them, and who will bear the costs if, in practice, simplification turns out to be primarily a new form of control?”
Sources: https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/detail?did=2026D05987&id=2026D05987&utm and https://www.tweedekamer.nl/debat_en_vergadering/plenaire_vergaderingen/details/activiteit?id=2026A02767&utm
