An audit in Norway has unveiled progress in the system for import controls of animal origin products, but some areas still need more attention.
Norway is part of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) monitors how the country implements the rules of the European Economic Area (EEA) for the safety and well -being of food and feed, animal health and well -being.
The ESA discovered that Norway had controls for food of animal origin that came in the honor, but three recommendations were made.
The aim of the audit in November 2024 was to verify compliance with legislation on official controls for the import of products of animal origin, composite products that are of mixed animal and vegetable origin, such as ready-made meals or cakes with cream and living animals from other countries.
However, the improvements in the Norway import control system since the last audit in 2017, however, not all corrective actions were fully implemented. In September 2021, the ESA sent a letter of formal notification to Norway for not tackling two recommendations from the Audit 2017. The case was closed in October 2023, after it was concluded that Norway had taken steps to tackle the issues addressed.
Low sampling
A new Norwegian Food Safety Authority (Mattilsynet) structure is planned to be present from May. The border control posts will, among other things, will no longer be part of regional offices, but will fall under a centralized department.
The audit team noted, based on the information provided, that sampling and laboratory tests were not always performed in accordance with the monitoring plan for 2023. The 23 samples taken were considerably under the planned quantity of 82, but there were no non-compliance. Auditors also discovered that operators were not always told about their rights for a second opinion of experts.
The monitoring plan for 2023 was intended to taste 1 percent of the shipments, which was achieved. However, the number of samples taken from food of animal origin for human consumption was lower than planned and two of the four categories were not sampled. The ESA said that this reduces the effectiveness of the plan and increases the possibility that non-compliant shipments enter the EEA market.
Two inspection centers could not store goods at the required temperatures at the same time, pending the results of laboratory analysis or the outcome of checks. The ESA said that this can lead to spoilage of temperature -sensitive goods and an increased risk of cross -contamination between shipments.
Mattilsynet said, however, that both facilities were able to store items at the required temperatures pending results of laboratory tests or official checks and there was no risk of spoilage of goods, or on cross -contamination between different shipments.
Knowledge issues
The audit team noted that for one BCP 5 percent of the earlier reports in 2024 was not reported within the required time limits. In 2023 this figure was 10 percent. One importer was responsible for 40 percent of late reports on that BCP in 2024.
When an operator does not display a shipment within the time limits, Mattilsynet writes to the company and reminds them of the requirement. As an informal deterrent, the BCP would place the non-listed shipment at the end of the list to be controlled. BCP employees, however, said that measures were not effective in force compliance with legislation and that there were no other actions available to tackle repeated non-compliants with regard to pre-notifications.
“This increases the risk that shipments will arrive at the BCP without the BCP staff having the opportunity to protect the required personnel and equipment to perform official controls in a timely and effective way,” Auditors said.
(To register for a free subscription to Food Safety News, Click here))