Foodwatch International has criticized European food monitoring mechanisms after potentially contaminated infant formula products remained on shelves for a year.
The watchdog is targeting Nestlé and Lactalis with a lawsuit over alleged regulatory breaches linked to a wide-scale infant formula recall. EU food safety regulators also owe answers about why consumers aren’t being informed sooner about potentially tainted products, says the non-profit.
In January, Nestlé recalled infant formula in several global markets including the EU after an ingredient tested positive for cereulide, a toxin that causes vomiting and nausea.
Formula brands from companies including Lactalis and Danone are now being scrutinized over worries that the tainted ingredient could be present in their products.
Some of the recalled batches had been on sale for months: according to details published by French food safety authorities, Nestlé formula was on shelves for months before being pulled, while Lactalis products had been on the French market since January 2025.
And while no illnesses had been officially linked with the recalls, investigations are afoot in France, the UK, and Brazil among others.
A fragmented recall and broken EU oversight
The crisis has highlighted vulnerabilities in the bloc’s food monitoring system and lax enforcement of traceability rules, according to Foodwatch.
In Nestlé’s case, Dutch authorities knew about the problem in early December, but did not immediately inform other EU member states, the NGO told us.
“The Dutch authorities confirmed to us they had been informed about Nestlé on December 9, yet they did not inform the other member states or the European Commission, nor did they issue any recalls,” Ingrid Kragl of Foodwatch International, told us. ”That is unacceptable.”
Nestlé had alerted the Dutch authorities after ARA oil, an additive used in formula, came back positive for cereulide during routine testing at the company’s factory in the Netherlands.
Based on EU food safety laws, manufacturers are required to inform the authorities about serious risks ‘immediately’, while member states’ regulators must log this information into the EU Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) system to inform other EU nations.
According to the NGO however, the first entry on the RASFF system was only logged on December 12, 2025, by Italy.
More notices only followed in January 2026, logged by Austria, Spain, Switzerland and France among others; with the first major recalls also launched in January.
Preventive approach is needed, but lacking
Asked how manufacturers and regulators typically handle recalls of sensitive products, Kragl said reaction has been ‘always too late’.
“Companies are required to inform the authorities as soon as there is a problem in the production chain or a health risk, but they do not necessarily do so immediately.
“And there are no consequences, except when investigations or complaints are launched. By the time scandals are uncovered, it is often too late: the products have been consumed and people have fallen ill.
“Consumer information is at the heart of many European regulations. A preventive approach is needed – but we are far from it."
This lack of focus on prevention and sluggish responses to contamination alerts point to under-resourced EU regulators and ineffective monitoring systems.
“It is clear that EU member states are not dedicating sufficient resources to these controls across Europe and that too much reliance is placed on companies’ self-monitoring,” Kragl said.
Traceability on paper, not in practice
The scandal also highlights EU traceability legislation under the General Food Law is not being properly enforced.
For example, Nestlé and European national authorities handled the recall in a fragmented and delayed manner, with early warnings circulating through internal channels and the EU alert system weeks before coordinated public recalls were issued.
“Traceability is a key principle, mentioned six times in Regulation 178/2002, the General Food Law,” Foodwatch’s Kragl said.
“Manufacturers must know the ‘one step back, one step forward’ principle concerning ingredients and food. Traceability must be immediate, precisely to avoid any health scandal or consequences for consumer health, especially when it comes to babies.
“We are dealing here with multi-national companies that are well aware of this principle.
“The law is there; it’s clear. But manufacturers seem to do as they please, and that’s problematic.”
What EU law says
According to EU food safety legislation, food businesses must take ‘immediate’ action if they believe a product is found to be unsafe.
This means halting distribution and informing the relevant authorities, but also immediately disclosing the issue to consumers and recalling any products already on the market.
Member states meanwhile must log information related to “a direct or indirect risk to human health deriving from food” into the RASFF system.
As for why EU-wide recalls happen gradually (on a country-by-country basis), this is because even though the EU has common food safety rules, market enforcement, product distribution and supply chains are managed by each nation’s respective authorities.
In other words, it’s down to each member state to enforce a recall, which could lead to delays in pulling potentially contaminated products off the market.
ARA oil in the spotlight
As for the specialized nutrition industry, preventing future contamination and minimizing risk may hinge on re-classifying ARA oil, the tainted ingredient at the heart of the global formula recalls.
ARA oil is classed as a ‘low-risk’ ingredient, meaning that it is only subject to routine testing, unlike ‘high-risk’ ingredients such raw milk which are scrutinized more closely.
But ARA oil could be upgraded to ‘high-risk’: which is the typical approach adopted by the specialized nutrition industry when it seeks to minimize risk following such incidents.
One thing is clear: as manufacturers face legal action, the scandal intensifies scrutiny over whether EU food safety rules are fit for purpose – or merely sound on paper.
