IN Brief:
- US peanuts and specified groundnut products remain subject to enhanced EU controls for aflatoxins.
- A March audit found improvements in US controls, although contamination concerns have not disappeared.
- European processors still face testing, traceability, documentation, and potential border-delay exposure.
European Commission auditors have found that controls applied to US peanuts destined for Europe have improved, although aflatoxin contamination continues to trigger concern. The assessment follows a DG SANTE audit carried out in the United States in March 2026 against a background of recurring Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed notifications involving aflatoxins in American peanut consignments.
US groundnuts and specified derived products remain subject to enhanced EU import controls. Current European rules list peanuts, peanut butter, groundnut flour, groundnut paste, and other specified groundnut products from the United States for identity and physical checks at a frequency of 20%, with aflatoxins identified as the relevant hazard. The regime adds testing, documentation, and border-control requirements to an ingredient stream used widely across bakery, confectionery, snacks, sauces, and prepared foods.
Aflatoxins are naturally occurring mycotoxins associated with moulds that can contaminate crops including peanuts before or after harvest, particularly where temperature, moisture, drying, or storage conditions allow fungal growth. Control starts well before material reaches a European factory, spanning agronomy, harvest handling, drying, storage, segregation, sampling, laboratory analysis, and traceability through successive lots.
The United States already operates mandatory inspection and testing arrangements for peanuts entering domestic food channels. USDA and FDA arrangements require lots of raw peanuts intended for human consumption to be sampled and tested, while US research programmes continue to examine agronomic, genetic, and post-harvest methods for reducing aflatoxin contamination. European compliance is governed separately by EU limits and sampling rules, so exporters can face additional requirements even when a lot has passed domestic controls.
The Commission has long treated pre-export verification as a possible way to reduce friction where an exporting country’s controls can demonstrate equivalent protection. US pre-export checks on peanuts and derived products have European approval for aflatoxin controls, but that approval does not prevent EU authorities from carrying out official checks at entry. The continuing 20% control frequency shows that border performance and alert history still carry substantial weight in the risk regime.
Stronger controls at origin should reduce the likelihood of rejected consignments, re-testing, storage delays, and emergency sourcing, but the underlying biological risk remains. European buyers are still exposed to the operational consequences of sampling outcomes, including delayed ingredient release, shortened planning windows, and the possibility that a rejected lot forces production schedules or formulations to change.
Supplier approval alone cannot manage that exposure. Peanut ingredients may move through shellers, processors, exporters, importers, laboratories, warehouses, and manufacturing sites before appearing in a finished product, with each handover adding documentation and traceability requirements. Misalignment between sampling plans, certificates, batch identities, and test results can create a compliance problem before the question of contamination itself is settled.
The wider European control framework also changes as risk profiles move. EU controls on a range of higher-risk food and feed imports were amended in June 2026 after officials reviewed RASFF notifications and control data, adjusting requirements where non-compliance justified closer scrutiny. Inspection frequencies can therefore tighten when problems persist and ease only when evidence supports a lower-risk assessment.
The latest audit gives US exporters evidence of progress without providing an exit from heightened scrutiny. Specifications still need to match the intended use of the material, suppliers must understand European requirements, and manufacturers need sufficient lead-time resilience to absorb a held or rejected consignment without destabilising production.
Those controls carry a commercial cost, but so does a failed contaminant regime. Aflatoxin findings can strand inventory, create replacement purchases at short notice, and trigger further investigation through the chain, particularly where a lot has already been split or incorporated into intermediate materials. Traceability quality therefore has a direct bearing on how quickly affected stock can be isolated and how much unaffected production can continue.
Sourcing diversification does not remove the issue. Peanuts can be procured from several origins, but the compliance burden varies by country and can change as surveillance evidence changes, making regulatory status part of purchasing strategy rather than a fixed background condition. Until inspection frequencies change, importers still need laboratory, documentation, inventory, and contingency arrangements built around the possibility that a consignment will be held. The March audit indicates that US controls are improving; the continuing enhanced-check regime shows that European authorities still expect those improvements to prove durable in trade.
