26 May 2026, EU: Food safety is a cornerstone of the European food system. Consumers expect high levels of protection and EU rules are designed to ensure that food placed on the market is safe, regardless of where it is produced.
That objective should remain non-negotiable. But strong standards are only part of the picture. Rules also need to be designed and applied in a way that is proportionate, coherent and focused on their core purpose. When trade measures go beyond that purpose without delivering a clear consumer-safety benefit, they can create disruption without added value.
[uam_ad id="80259"]
What MRLs are, and what they are not
Maximum Residue Levels, or MRLs, are a good example.
MRLs are science-based standards to facilitate trade. They are not consumer safety standards. They are used to verify compliance and support enforcement. They apply equally to food produced in the EU and to imported food. They are often misunderstood. An MRL is not a direct measure of consumer risk and the presence of a residue at or below an MRL does not indicate danger. MRLs are part of a wider regulatory framework that ensures safe use, supports monitoring and provides legal certainty for trade.
Each year, monitoring across the EU shows that over 95% of food on the market complies with EU requirements. That matters because it demonstrates that the system already delivers a high level of consumer protection.
When rules stop being smart
Problems arise when measures no longer remain closely tied to their intended risk-management purpose.
Approaches such as setting residue limits at technical zero, or removing import tolerances without a demonstrated safety benefit, can prevent products from reaching the European market even where consumer exposure is negligible. In such cases, the result is not necessarily safer food. It is more likely to be reduced availability, greater uncertainty and higher costs along the supply chain. For products such as tea, coffee or spices, which Europe does not produce at scale, these barriers can have immediate consequences. Supply becomes harder to maintain, prices can rise and consumer choice may narrow, without any corresponding improvement in health protection.
Why this matters in the simplification debate
The Food and Feed Safety Omnibus is framed around simplification. That should mean rules that are clearer, more coherent and more effective, not rules that create uncertainty while doing little to improve outcomes.
Simplification works when regulation remains science-based, proportionate and focused. If trade measures begin to restrict access to already safe food without improving consumer protection, the system becomes harder to navigate rather than easier to trust.
Safe food needs smart rules. Smart rules should protect consumers without creating unnecessary disruption.
Global Agriculture is an independent international media platform covering agri-business, policy, technology, and sustainability. For editorial collaborations, thought leadership, and strategic communications, write to pr@global-agriculture.com
