A serious risk decision means the authority found evidence that the finding can significantly affect consumers' health, whether at once or over time. It is the highest of the five ratings the network uses, and in this data 52% of notifications since 2020 carry it.
Who decides?
The notifying country records a risk decision on every notification, and the Commission's contact point checks it before validating the notification. The iRASFF help pages mark the risk decision as a required field that is public in RASFF Window, with a separate field for the reasoning. Version 3.3 of the network's standard operating procedures, published in April 2026, says the risk evaluation should be made as if the product were available to consumers, even when it is not.
What are the five ratings?
- Serious: evidence shows the finding can significantly affect consumers' health, acutely or chronically. Examples in the procedures include a food safety criterion exceeded for a pathogen, foreign bodies that may cause harm, and aflatoxins above the maximum level in feed for milk producing animals.
- Potentially serious: an identified risk that cannot yet be called serious for lack of evidence or consensus, but where a serious risk cannot be ruled out. The procedures give norovirus in live oysters found by PCR as an example.
- Not serious: the evaluation shows no serious risk, or safety measures were not properly taken. Examples include a missing or improper health certificate and infestation with moulds.
- Potential risk: no serious risk is suspected, but a risk cannot be ruled out, for example a novel food whose safety is not proven.
- No risk: a risk can be ruled out. The procedures say a RASFF notification should never come with this decision.
Older records in the list also use undecided, a rating the current procedures no longer list.
How often is each one used?
| Risk decision | Notifications | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Serious | 17,232 | 52% |
| Potentially serious | 3,418 | 10% |
| Potential risk | 4,043 | 12% |
| Not serious | 4,857 | 15% |
| Undecided | 3,033 | 9% |
| No risk | 460 | 1% |
Which findings are rated serious most often?
Among groups of findings with at least 300 notifications, the share rated serious ranges from 88% for mould toxins, 86% for undeclared allergens, 71% for natural plant and marine toxins, 69% for heavy metals, 59% for bacteria, viruses and parasites, 49% for pesticide residues, 46% for foreign bodies, pests and spoilage, 41% for veterinary medicine residues, 39% for process and environmental contaminants, 29% for food contact materials, 25% for additives and colours, 21% for unauthorised substances and novel food and 1 more.
The highest share is for mould toxins and the lowest for documents, controls and labelling, which fits the examples in the procedures: pathogens above a food safety criterion are serious, a missing certificate is not.
Which origins have the highest share of serious decisions?
Among origins with at least 300 notifications since 2020, the highest shares rated serious were Iran (75%), Argentina (73%) and Nigeria (72%), and the lowest were Ukraine (17%), the United Kingdom (33%) and China (35%). The share depends mostly on what is found: an origin whose notifications are mostly about Salmonella or Listeria will score higher than one whose notifications are mostly about paperwork.
What happened to undecided?
The list still holds 3,033 notifications rated undecided, a rating the current procedures no longer list. By year of validation they were 634 in 2020, 1,083 in 2021, 1,178 in 2022, 138 in 2023, 0 in 2024, 0 in 2025, 0 in 2026 to 8 Nov 2026; most of them come from 2020 and 2021.
Does serious mean the product was dangerous to eat?
Not always. A serious decision is about the hazard found, judged as if the product reached consumers. A border rejection rated serious was never on sale. The procedures also say that the actual risk is reflected in the notification type, which also takes into account where the product was distributed.
How should an importer read it?
As a signal of how the authorities rate that hazard, not as a verdict on a shipment. Repeated notifications can lead to tighter controls: Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1540 gives food safety incidents notified through RASFF as the reason for new conditions on sesame seeds from India, and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793 lists products from certain origins that get a higher share of identity and physical checks at the border.
Sources
- Standard operating procedures of the Alert and Cooperation Network, version 3.3, April 2026 (SOP 4, risk evaluation and risk decision), checked 18 October 2026
- iRASFF help: the risk decision field, checked 18 October 2026
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1715, Article 2 (definitions of each notification type), checked 18 October 2026
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793, consolidated text of 30 June 2026, Annexes I and II, checked 18 October 2026
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1540 on sesame seeds from India, recitals 3 to 7, checked 18 October 2026
- RASFF Window, European Commission: numbers computed from the list read on 8 November 2026
Last checked 18 October 2026. Numbers on this page are recomputed each time the data is read, last on 8 November 2026.