International Journal of

Environmental Research
and Public Health

Article
Pathogenic and Non-Pathogenic Microorganisms in
the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed
Marcin Pigłowski
Department of Commodity and Quality Management, Faculty of Entrepreneurship and Quality Science,
Gdynia Maritime University, Morska 81-87 Str., 81-225 Gdynia, Poland; [email protected];
Tel.: +48-58-558-6295




Received: 28 December 2018; Accepted: 3 February 2019; Published: 6 February 2019


Abstract: The most frequently notified pathogenic microorganisms in the RASFF in 1980–2017
were Salmonella sp., Listeria, Escherichia and Vibrio, whereas, among the notified non-pathogenic
microorganisms were unspecified microorganisms, Enterobacteriaceae, Salmonella sp. and Coliforms.
Microorganisms were reported mainly in poultry meat, meat, fish, molluscs, crustaceans, fruits,
vegetables, herbs, spices, nuts, milk, cereals (in food) and in feed materials and pet food (in feed).
The number of notifications decreased at the turn of 2005 and 2006, but has steadily increased
since then. The notification basis were official controls, border controls and company’s checks.
Products were notified mainly by Italy, France, United Kingdom, Germany and Netherlands.
The reported products originated from Brazil, European Union countries and India, Thailand and
Vietnam. The notification types were alerts, information and border rejections. The distribution
status was often not specified or distribution on the market was possible. The risk decision was
usually not made. Products were re-dispatched, import was not authorised or products were
withdrawn from the market, destroyed and recalled from the market. Proper cooperation within
the framework of the RASFF can contribute to shaping public health law and reducing outbreaks
associated with microorganisms.

Keywords: food safety; pathogens; European Union; RASFF; pivot tables; cluster analysis

1. Introduction
Microorganisms and substances produced by them can be present and can grow in food and
feed of animal and non-animal origin. They can cause serious diseases risk to people and animals,
threatening their health and life [1]. A pathogenic organism is an organism which is capable of causing
diseases in a host (person) [2]. The World Health Organization (WHO) listed among hazards that may
be present in food potentially harmful bacteria, viruses, toxins, parasites and chemicals. According to
the WHO, one person out of 10 people falls ill and 420,000 people die each year as a result of eating
contaminated food [1]. Foodborne diseases caused by pathogenic bacteria can be, e.g., salmonellosis,
listeriosis, campylobacteriosis and yersiniosis [3]. Organisms, which do not cause diseases are called
non-pathogenic [2].
In 1980–2017 notifications on pathogenic microorganisms (bacteria, viruses and toxins that they
produced) were about 19% of all notifications in the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)
and were preceded only by mycotoxins (21.3%) [4]. However, according to Parisi et al., in periods
1979–1990 and 2011–2014 just pathogenic microorganisms were most frequently notified [5]. Yet, also
non-pathogenic microorganisms were notified in the RASFF (about 2.5% of notifications) [4].
The RASFF was created already in 1979; however, its current legal basis is Regulation (EC)
No 178/2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and laying down procedures in matters of food safety [6,7].

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477; doi:10.3390/ijerph16030477 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 2 of 19

The implementing measures for the RASFF were laid down in Regulation (EU) No 16/2011 [8].
The RASFF enables exchanging information between its members and reacting when risks to public
health in the food and feed chain are detected. The RASSF members are 28 national food authorities of
the European Union (EU) countries, European Commission, EFSA, European Free Trade Association
Surveillance Authority (ESA), Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Switzerland. The information
exchange helps RASFF members to act rapidly and in a coordinated way in response to health hazard
in food or feed. The food or feed product can be inspected on the market or at the border, including also
laboratory examination. If the product does not meet the requirements it can be reported within the
national system. The authority decides if this product should be reported to the national RASFF contact
point. This point verifies and completes the notification and submits it to the European Commission.
The Commission is responsible for the RASFF management and it checks notifications before making
them available to all the network members. The European Commission also informs the country, from
which the notified product comes or to which it is to be exported [7].
In the RASFF alert notifications (the notification type sent already since 1979) are used when
food or feed presenting a serious risk is on the market and rapid action is required (e.g., product
withdrawal). Information notifications (sent since 1989) are used when a risk in food or feed has been
identified, but rapid action is not needed. Information notifications are divided into information for
follow-up (since 2010) and information for attention (since 2011). Border rejections (sent since 2008)
are used when food or feed consignments have been tested and rejected at the EU (or the European
Economic Area) external border post [7].
Research including notifications related to microorganisms in the RASFF can be used by European
and national institutions to ensure food and feed safety (eliminating or limiting the spread of hazards)
and to improve the RASFF. Data on the most frequently notified hazards can be useful for business
operators, who can take appropriate preventive actions and thus shape their image and avoid economic
losses. In turn, consumers can enhance their awareness of possible hazards. However, only in RASFF
annual reports for 2016 and 2017 notifications on microorganisms were widely discussed, yet this
discussion related generally only to the year in question. In previous annual reports these hazards
were discussed only in a general way. Moreover, each annual RASFF report was released only in
the middle of the next year (or even later), so many months after the year it concerned. Therefore,
it is necessary to analyse in detail the data from the RASFF database and take into consideration the
largest possible number of variables available. The goal of the study was to examine similarities in
notifications regarding pathogenic and non-pathogenic microorganisms in food and feed taking into
account: year, product category, notifying country, origin country, notification basis, notification type,
distribution status, risk decision and action taken.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data and Methods Used

The data originated from the RASFF database from 1980–2017 and concerned 11,031 notifications.
They related to two hazard categories: pathogenic microorganisms (9729 notifications) and
non-pathogenic microorganisms (1302 notifications). The data was transferred to Excel and ordered in
pivot tables, separately for different product type (food and feed). The data collected in tables included
microorganisms and the following variables: year, product category, notifying country, origin country,
notification basis, notification type, distribution status, risk decision and action taken.
The data gathered in pivot tables was next transferred to Statistica 12 (Tulsa, OK, USA), where
the cluster analysis based on each table was carried out. The purpose of this analysis was to identify
similarities in notifications of microorganisms within particular variables. There were two methods of
the cluster analysis used: first joining (tree clustering) and then two-way joining.
In the case of joining the Euclidean distance as the distance measure was adopted and a Ward’s
method as a linkage rule. The results were presented in tree diagrams. The Euclidean distance is a
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 3 of 19

geometric distance in the multidimensional space and it is the most commonly used distance measure.
The Ward’s method uses a variance analysis to evaluate a distance between clusters, attempting
to minimize the sum of squares of deviations within clusters. This method is considered to be
very efficient, but it tends to form clusters of small size. The use of joining was intended to examine
notifications, in which microorganisms were similar, considering particular variables mentioned above.
In contrast, in the case of two-way joining figures were presented with contours, which changed
colours (from green, through yellow, orange, red to brown) and thickened in the clusters. The two-way
joining was used to uncover which notifications created clusters (i.e., which notifications were similar)
if we took into consideration simultaneously: microorganisms and values of other, particular variables.

2.2. Remarks on Processing of Some Data

If the microorganism name in the RASFF database was not given, the phrase “unspecified” was
adopted. Similarly, if the data related to the notification basis, distribution status and action taken
was not given, the phrase “not specified” or “(not specified)” was used. In the early years of the
RASFF, species of microorganisms were not reported in notifications. In later years, in turn, species
were often very diverse. Therefore, in the case of Salmonella the phrase “Salmonella sp.” was used
and in other cases only the microorganism genus was adopted. If notification related to more than
one microorganism or more than one origin country, only the first microorganism or the first origin
country from the mentioned ones was adopted. All these actions were necessary to prepare the data
for statistical calculations.
In order to make figures more readable, the names of some values were shortened and the
full names were given below the figures. Moreover, before the two-way joining cluster analysis the
number of microorganisms and values of other variables were limited to twenty most often notified.
The disadvantage of the two-way joining was on the one hand—reducing clusters and excluding
brown and red colour (if the data was more scattered) and on the other hand—quenching clusters with
a smaller number of notifications.

3. Results

3.1. Pathogenic Microorganisms

Notifications on pathogenic microorganisms in the RASFF, considering all product types (food,
feed and food contact material), were about 19% of all notifications (9729 notifications) in 1980–2017.
The vast majority were notifications on food (8322; 85.5%), there were also 1406 notifications on feed
(14.5%) and one notification on food contact material. Notifications concerned mainly bacteria and
viruses (in very rare cases their presence was only suspected). In particular, notifications concerned:
Salmonella sp. (6202 notifications; 63.7% of all notifications), Listeria (1390; 14.3%), Escherichia (859;
8.8%), Vibrio (341; 3.5%), Norovirus (226; 2.3%), Bacillus (185; 1.9%), Campylobacter (153; 1.6%) and
also Clostridium, unspecified microorganisms, Staphylococcus, Hepatitis A, Pseudomonas, Coliforms,
Cronobacter, Hyphomycetes, Shigella, Brucella, Yersinia, Calicivirus, Mycobacterium and others (below 1%).
The results of the joining cluster analysis taking into account particular variables were presented
in Supplementary Materials, in Figures S1–S9 for food and in Figures S10–S18 for feed. Within
notifications on food, notifications on Salmonella sp. created a one-element cluster in the case of each
variable. However, similar character had notifications on Listeria and Escherichia, which formed a
two-element cluster in the case of year (Figure S1), product category (Figure S2), notifying country
(Figure S3), origin country (Figure S4), notification basis (Figure S5) and risk decision (Figure S8).
Whereas, notifications on Listeria, Escherichia and Vibrio created a cluster in the case of distribution
status (Figure S7) and action taken (Figure S9). Notifications within feed related mainly to Salmonella
sp. and they created a one-element cluster in the case of each considered variable (Figures S10–S18).
Notifications on microorganisms mentioned above exceeded the mean value. In the case of food
these were: Salmonella sp. (4809 notifications; 57.8%), Listeria (1388; 16.7%), Escherichia (857; 10.3%) and
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 4 of 19

Vibrio (341; 4.1%). In the case of feed it was only Salmonella sp. (1406; about 99%). Figure 1 presents the
numbers of notifications on these pathogenic microorganisms taking into account particular variables.
The results are supported by the two-way joining cluster analysis (Supplementary Materials, Figures
S19–S27 for food and Figures S28–S36 for feed).

3.1.1. Pathogenic Microorganisms in Food

Values of variables concerning origin country and action taken were most diverse, particularly in
the case of Salmonella sp. The number of notifications on Salmonella sp. in food increased from 1998 to
2005. After a decrease in 2006 one can observe a mild increase in the number of these notifications and
then a sharp increase in 2017 (Figure 1a). The highest number of notifications on Salmonella sp., Listeria
and Escherichia was in 2015–2017 (Figure S19). Whereas, the highest numbers of notifications on Vibrio
occurred in 2003 and 2004. The most frequent notifications concerned poultry meat (Salmonella sp.
and Listeria), meat (Salmonella sp., Listeria and Escherichia) or aquaculture products, i.e., fish (Listeria),
bivalve molluscs (Escherichia) and crustaceans (Vibrio). Notifications concerned also fruits, vegetables
(Salmonella sp.), herbs, spices (Salmonella sp. and Escherichia), nuts (Salmonella sp.) and milk (Listeria
and Escherichia) (Figure 1b, Figure S20).
Products with pathogenic microorganisms were notified mainly by Italy, then by France,
Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom (Figure 1c), Denmark and Norway (Figure S21). The largest
number of notifications concerned products originating from Brazil. The notified products originated
also from EU countries, i.e., Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands and Poland. Furthermore,
notifications concerned products from Far Eastern countries, i.e., India, Thailand and Vietnam
(Figure 1d, Figure S22). The notification basis was usually official control and border control, after
which the consignment was detained, and company’s own check (Figure 1e, Figure S23). The most
common notification type was alert, then information and border rejection (Figure 1f, Figure S24).
Distribution status was most often not specified. Distribution on the market could be possible,
restricted to the notifying country or the product was not (yet) placed on the market (Figure 1g,
Figure S25). In most notifications the risk decision was not made or risk was serious (Figure 1h,
Figure S26). Products with pathogenic microorganisms were usually withdrawn from the market and
re-dispatched (Figure 1i, Figure S27).

3.1.2. Pathogenic Microorganisms in Feed

The number of notifications on Salmonella sp. in feed in the RASFF increased from 2002 to 2014 and
afterwards decreased and stabilisation occurred in 2015–2017 (Figure 1a). The number of notifications
above the mean value occurred in 2008 and then in 2010–2017 (Figure S28). The notifications concerned
mainly feed materials and pet food (Figure 1b, Figure S29). They were reported by Sweden, Belgium,
Finland, Germany and Austria (Figure 1c, Figure S30). The notified products originated from
Germany, then from Netherlands, Argentina, Brazil and Italy (Figure 1d, Figure S31). The notified
basis was mainly company’s own check and official control, then border control, after which the
consignment was detained or released (Figure 1e, Figure S32). The notification type was information
for follow-up, information or border rejection (Figure 1f, Figure S33). Distribution was restricted
to the notifying country, distribution on the market was possible or products were not distributed
(Figure 1g, Figure S34). The risk decision was not made or risk was not serious (Figure 1h, Figure S35).
The notified products were usually physically or chemically treated and also re-dispatched (Figure 1i,
Figure S36).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 5 of 19
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 14, x 5 of 19

Year
700

600
Number of notifications

500

400

300

200

100

0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017
S almonella sp. (food)
Salmonella Listeria
Listeria (food) Escherichia
Escherichia (food) Vibrio
Vibrio (food) S almonella sp. (feed)
Salmonella

(a)
Product categories
1 800 1 664
Number of notifications

1 600
1 400
1 200
1 000 946 841
800
600 550 448 572
371 352 320 304 240 255
400 247
200 87 80 74 45
0

materials
meat

meat

meat
fish

milk

milk
poultry

poultry

pet food
nuts, seeds

crustaceans
molluscs

molluscs
herbs,

herbs,
spices

spices
vegetables
meat

meat

bivalve
fruits,

S almonella sp. (food)

Salmonella Listeria (food)
Listeria Escherichia
Escherichia (food) Vibrio
Vibrio feed
S almonella
Salmonella
(food) sp. (feed)

bivalve molluscs—bivalve molluscs and products thereof; crustaceans—crustaceans and products thereof; fish—fish and
fish products; fruits, vegetables—fruits and vegetables; herbs, spices—herbs and spices; meat—meat and meat products
(other than poultry); milk—milk and milk products; molluscs—molluscs and products thereof—(obsolete); nuts, seeds—
nuts, nut products and seeds; poultry meat—poultry meat and poultry meat products
(b)
Notifying country
700
630
593
600 552
Number of notifications

500 450 371

386 339
400 279
288 158 311 286 185
300
188 232 167
102
200 152
107 90 80 110 100 127 131
64 51 71 89 96 84 57
100 53
35 34 33 27 21
0
Austria

Austria
Italy

Italy

Italy

Italy

Italy
Finland

Finland
United K.

United K.
Spain

Spain

Spain

Spain
Denmark

Denmark
Poland
Netherlands

Netherlands

Netherlands
Belgium

Belgium

Belgium
France

France

France
Germany

Norway

Germany

Germany
Norway

Norway

Germany
Sweden

Sweden
Sweden
Greece

S almonella sp. (food)

Salmonella Listeria (food)
Listeria Escherichia
Escherichia (food) Vibrio
Vibrio S almonella sp. (feed)
Salmonella
(food)

(c)

Figure 1. Cont.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 6 of 19
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 14, x 6 of 19

Origin country
800
699
Number of notifications

700
600 459
500 470
341
400 348
298 236
300 142
212 124 186 102
200 163
127
81 72 100 95 67 65 64 106 99 91 77 63
100 46 32 59 48 40 35 26 23 22
0
Thailand

Thailand

Thailand
India

India

India
Italy

Italy

Italy
Spain

Spain

Spain

Bangladesh
Brazil

Brazil

Brazil
Denmark
Poland

Poland

Poland
Vietnam

China

Netherlands
Malaysia

Indonesia
Belgium

Argentina

Argentina
France

France

France

Turkey
Germany

Germany

Germany
S almonella sp. (food) /
Salmonella Listeria (food) /
Listeria Escherichia (food) /
Escherichia Vibrio
Vibrio (food) / S almonella sp. (feed) /
Salmonella
other countries 1100 other countries 199 other countries 256 other countries 27 other countries 110

(d)
Notification basis
1 800
1 692
1 600 1 491
Number of notifications

1 400
1 200
1 000
742
800
609
600
429 430 438 432
348
400
194 197 116 191 96 156
200
0
official

official

official

official
specified)

specified)
company's

company's

company's

company's
border c. -

border c. -

border c. -

border c. -

border c. -
control

control

control

control
detained

detained

detained

detained

released
(not

(not
check

check

check

check

S almonella sp. (food)

Salmonella Listeria (food)
Listeria Esc heric hia (food)
Escherichia Vibrio
Vibrio (food) S almonella sp. (feed)
Salmonella

border c.-detained: border control-consignment detained; border c.-released: border control-consignment released;
company’s own check: company’s check; official control: official control on the market.
(e)

Notification type
1 800
1 662
1 600
Number of notifications

1 292
1 400
1 120
1 200
1 000
818
800
600 424
325 350 318
400 292
197 177 250
200
0
information

information

information

information
inform. for

inform. for
alert

alert

alert

follow-up
rejection

attention

rejection

rejection
border

border

border

S almonella sp. (food)

Salmonella Listeria (food)
Listeria Escherichia
Escherichia (food) Vibrio
Vibrio S almonella sp. (feed)
Salmonella
(food)

inform. for attention—information for attention; inform. for follow-up—information for follow-up.
(f)

Figure 1. Cont.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 7 of 19
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 14, x 7 of 19

Distribution status
993
1 000

900

800 755
Number of notifications

662
700

600 541
500 456 454

400 323
306
283 277 275
300
229 229 179 158
200 165
132 146 137 141 108
103 97
100

information not available

distribution restricted

distribution restricted

distribution restricted

distribution restricted
no distribution

no distribution
distribution (possible)

distribution (possible)

distribution (possible)

distribution (possible)
not placed on market

not placed on market

not placed on market

no distr. from n. country
distr. to countries
(not specified)

(not specified)

(not specified)
distr. to other countries

distr. to other countries

distr. to other countries

no longer on market
S almonella sp. (food)
Salmonella Listeria (food)
Listeria Escherichia
Esc heric hia (food) Vibrio
Vibrio S almonella sp. (feed)
Salmonella
(food)

distribution (possible)—distribution on the market (possible); distribution restricted—distribution restricted to notifying

country; distr. to countries—distribution to other member countries; information not available—information on
distribution not (yet) available; no distr. from n. country—no distribution from notifying country; no longer on market—
product (presumably) no longer on the market; not placed on market—product not (yet) placed on the market.
(g)
2 635 Risk decision
3 000
1 940
2 000
980 740 555
1 000 413 382 327
0
notifications
Number of

undec ided serious undec ided undec ided serious undec ided undec ided not serious

S almonella sp. (food)

Salmonella Listeria
Listeria (food) Esc heric hia (food)
Escherichia Vibrio
Vibrio (food) S almonella sp. (feed)
Salmonella

(h)
659 Action taken
Number of notifications

700
613 590
600
476 509
500
400 336 257
317 285
300 238
141 163
200 143 143
96 79 70 106 82 79 57 55 47 67 36 29 112 84 78 71 58 50
100
0
import not auth.

import not auth.

import not auth.

ph. treat. - heat

withdrawal

withdrawal

withdrawal
re-dispatch

re-dispatch

re-dispatch

re-dispatch

re-dispatch
recall/withdrawal

informing auth.

informing auth.
ph./ch. treatment
destruction

destruction

destruction

destruction

destruction
official detention

official detention
(not specified)

(not specified)

(not specified)

(not specified)

(not specified)
seizure
recall

recall

recall

S almonella sp. (food) /

Salmonella Listeria (food) /
Listeria Esc heric hia (food) /
Escherichia Vibrio
Vibrio (food) Salmonella
S almonella sp. (feed) /
other ac tions 695 other ac tions 61 other ac tions 109 other ac tions 144

informing auth.—informing authorities; import not auth.—import not authorised; ph. treat.-heat—physical treatment-heat
treatment; ph./ch. Treatment—physical/chemical treatment; recall—recall from consumers; recall/withdrawal—product
recall or withdrawal; withdrawal—withdrawal from the market
(i)
Figure
Figure 1. 1.
TheThe numbers
numbers of of RASFF
RASFF notifications
notifications of pathogenic
of pathogenic microorganisms
microorganisms in in food
food andand feed:
feed: (a) (a)
Year;
Year; (b) Product categories; (c) Notifying country; (d) Origin country; (e) Notification basis;
(b) Product categories; (c) Notifying country; (d) Origin country; (e) Notification basis; (f) Notification (f)
Notification
type; type; (g)status;
(g) Distribution Distribution status;
(h) Risk (h) Risk
decision; decision;
(i) Action (i) Action
taken. taken.
Source: own Source:
studyown study
on the on of
basis the[4].
basis of [4].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 8 of 19

3.2. Non-Pathogenic Microorganisms

Notifications on non-pathogenic microorganisms, considering all product types, were over 2.5%
(1302 notifications) of all the notifications in the RASFF in 1980–2017. The majority were notifications
on food (1077; 82.7%), on feed there were 224 notifications (17.2%) and only one notification related to
food contact material. The name of the non-pathogenic microorganism was usually not indicated or
was too general (e.g., mesophiles) and it related to as many as 768 notifications (about 59%). In these
cases the phrase “unspecified” was adopted. However, in the description of this kind of notifications
very often moulds were given as a hazard or in rare cases—yeasts. The other notifications were
related to: Enterobacteriaceae (277; 21.3%), Salmonella sp. (99; 7.6%), Coliforms (68; 5.2%), Bacillus (19;
1.5%), Streptococcus (19; 1.5%) and also Escherichia, Listeria, Staphylococcus, Hyphomycetes, Penicillium,
Pseudomonas, Aspergillus, Fusarium, Clostridium, Vibrio, Aureobasidium, Campylobacter and Enterococcus
(below 1%).
The results of the cluster analysis using joining and taking into account individual variables
were presented in Supplementary Materials, in Figures S37–S45 for food and in Figures S46–S54
for feed. Notifications on food had similar character in the case of unspecified microorganisms and
Enterobacteriaceae, and also Salmonella sp. and Coliforms. They formed two separate two-element
clusters in the case of year (Figure S37), product category (Figure S38), notification basis (Figure S41),
notification type (Figure S42) and risk decision (Figure S44). The cluster consisting of unspecified
microorganisms and Enterobacteriaceae was formed also in the case of notifying country (Figure S39)
and action taken (Figure S45). Two one-element clusters (concerned notifications on unspecified
microorganisms and Enterobacteriaceae, respectively) were created in the case of origin country
(Figure S40). Whereas, notifications on Salmonella sp., Coliforms and Streptococcus had also similar
character in the case of notifying country (Figure S39), origin country (Figure S40) and distribution
status (Figure S43). Within notifications on feed mainly unspecified microorganisms were reported
and they created a one-element cluster in the case of all the considered variables (Figures S46–S54).
Notifications on Enterobacteriaceae, Salmonella sp. and Bacillus were similar in the case of year
(Figure S46) and product category (Figure S47). In turn, notifications on Enterobacteriaceae, Coliforms,
Salmonella sp. and Bacillus had similar character in the case of distribution status (Figure S52) and risk
decision (Figure S53). However, notifications on Enterobacteriaceae and Salmonella sp. were similar in
the case of action taken (Figure S54).
The mean value was exceeded by notifications on: unspecified microorganisms (597 notifications;
55.4%), Enterobacteriaceae (258; 24.0%), Salmonella sp. (86; 8.0%) and Coliforms (61; 5.7%) in food
and only unspecified microorganisms (170; 75.9%) in feed. The numbers of notifications on these
microorganisms taking into account particular variables were presented in Figure 2. These results
were supported by the two-way joining cluster analysis (Supplementary Materials, Figures S55–S63
for food and Figures S64–S72 for feed).

3.2.1. Non-Pathogenic Microorganisms in Food

The number of notifications of non-pathogenic microorganisms in food decreased after 2005. It
can be particularly observed in the case of unspecified microorganisms and Enterobacteriaceae, but
also Salmonella sp. Then, an increase continued to 2012, after which a decrease could be observed
again and in the last years (2013–2017) the number of notifications stabilised (Figure 2a, Figure
S55). The highest numbers of notifications on Coliforms occurred in 2002 and 2003. Notifications
on fruits and vegetables were most frequently reported and related to unspecified microorganisms,
Enterobacteriaceae and Salmonella sp. These microorganisms were also notified in nuts and seeds.
In fish unspecified microorganisms, Enterobacteriaceae, Salmonella sp. and Coliforms were notified.
In other aquaculture products, like molluscs, unspecified microorganisms, Enterobacteriaceae and
Coliforms were notified and in crustaceans—Enterobacteriaceae. Notifications concerned also herbs
and spices (unspecified microorganisms and Enterobacteriaceae), milk (unspecified microorganisms,
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 9 of 19

Salmonella sp. and Coliforms), cereals (unspecified microorganisms and Salmonella sp.) and meat
(Salmonella sp. and Coliforms) (Figure 2b, Figure S56).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 14, x 9 of 19

Year
80

70

60
Number of notifications

50

40

30

20

10

0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017
unspe cifie d (food) Ente robacte riace ae (food) Salmonella
Salmone lla sp. (food) Coliforms (food) unspe cifie d (fe e d)

(a)
Product categories
120
108

100
86
83 83
Number of notifications

80
70
60
58
60
52 49
49
40
40
31 30
25 25
22
14 20
20
12 11 10 10 9
8 8 8

0
feed materials
meat

meat
fish

fish

fish

fish
milk

milk

milk

pet food
nuts, seeds

nuts, seeds

crustaceans

nuts, seeds
molluscs

molluscs

molluscs
fruits, vegetables

fruits, vegetables

fruits, vegetables
cereals

cereals
herbs, spices

herbs, spices
beverages

unspec ified (food) Enterobac teriac eae (food) S almonella sp. (food)
Salmonella Coliforms (food)unspec ified
(feed)

Beverages—non-alcoholic beverages; cereals—cereals and bakery products; crustaceans—crustaceans and products

thereof; fish—fish and fish products; fruits, vegetables—fruits and vegetables; herbs, spices—herbs and spices; meat—meat
and meat products (other than poultry); milk—milk and milk products; molluscs—molluscs and products thereof—
(obsolete); nuts, seeds—nuts, nut products and seeds.
(b)

Figure 2. Cont.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 10 of 19
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 14, x 10 of 19

Number of notifications
Notifying country
160 142
140
120
100 91
80 68 67
55 46
60 39 35 32 29 22 23 23 38 32
40 20 20 19 13
15 13 10 8 6 4 4 12
20
0

Austria
Italy

Italy

Italy

Italy
United K.

United K.
Spain

Spain

Spain
Spain

Spain
Denmark

Denmark

Denmark
Poland

Poland

Poland
Netherlands

Belgium
France
Germany

Germany

Slovakia
Czech Rep.

Czech Rep.
Greece
unspecified (food) Enterobacteriaceae S almonella sp. (food)
Salmonella Coliforms unspecified (feed)
(food) (food)

(c)
Origin country
Number of notifications

120
96
100
80
60 46
43 40 30 40 29 33
40 30
20 19 19 12 11 7 20 15 10 10
7 5 4 4 18 16 11 11 11 10
20 5 4
0

Mauritania
Thailand
India

India

Namibia

Namibia
Italy

Spain

Spain
Ukraine

Brazil

Brazil
Poland
Vietnam

Netherlands
China

China
Peru
Argentina
France

France

Chile
Turkey

Turkey
Germany

Germany
Sweden
Greece
Morocco

Morocco

Morocco
unspec ified (food) / Enterobac teriac eae (food) SSalmonella
almonella Coliforms (food) unspec ified (feed) /
other c ountries 164 / other c ountries 14 sp. (food) other c ountries 14

(d)
Notification basis
Number of notifications

350
289
300
250
200
150 127
107 102
100 67 72
25 22 19 14 25 24 49 45
50
0
complaint
official

official

official
specified)

specified)
consumer
company's

company's
border c. -

border c. -

border c. -

border c. -

border c. -

border c. -
control

control

control
detained

detained

detained

detained

detained

released
(not

(not
check

check

unspecified (food) Enterobacteriaceae S almonella sp. (food)

Salmonella Coliforms unspecified (feed)
(food) (food)

border c.-detained: border control-consignment detained; border c.-released: border control-consignment released;
company’s check—company’s own check; official control—official control on the market.
(e)
Notification type
Number of notifications

300
249
250
182
200 158
150
65 70
100
32 28 41 36
50
0
information border information border information inform. for information border inform. for
rejec tion rejec tion follow-up rejec tion follow-up

unspec ified (food) Enterobac teriac eae (food) S almonella sp. (food)
Salmonella Coliforms unspec ified (feed)
(food)

inform. for follow-up: information for follow-up

(f)

Figure 2. Cont.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 11 of 19
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 14, x 11 of 19

Distribution status
200
Number of notifications
180 174
160
140 123
120
100 94
78 82 81 74
80
60 45 31
40 22 22 20
16 14 12 12 10 8
20
0
distribution

distribution

distribution

distribution

distribution
distribution

distribution
distribution

distribution
distribution
not placed

not placed

consumed
specified)

specified)

specified)

specified)
on market

on market
countries
distr. to

restricted

restricted
(possible)

(possible)
product

(possible)
(not

(not

(not

(not
no

no

no

no

no
unspec ified (food) Enterobac teriac eae S almonella sp. (food)
Salmonella Coliforms (food) unspec ified
(food) (feed)

distr. to countries—distribution to other member countries; distribution (possible)—distribution on the market (possible);
distribution restricted—distribution restricted to notifying country; not placed on market—product not (yet) placed on the
market; product consumed—product already consumed
(g)
Risk decision
Number of notifications

500 450
400
300
191
200
49 59 130
100
0
undecided undecided undecided undecided undecided

unspecified (food) Enterobacteriaceae S almonella sp. (food)

Salmonella Coliforms (food) unspecified (feed)
(food)

(h)

Action taken
180 171
Number of notifications

160
140
120
95
100
65 74
80 56 46 49 48
60
37 30 25 35 33
40
14 9 7 6 6 6 10 8 7 7 6 4 21 19 15 15 11 10 10
20
0
import not auth.

import not auth.

import not auth.

withdrawal

withdrawal

re-dispatch/destr.
re-dispatch

re-dispatch

re-dispatch

re-dispatch

re-dispatch
recall/withdrawal

recall/withdrawal

recall/withdrawal
informing auth.
ph./ch. treatment

ph./ch. treatment
destruction

official detention

destruction

destruction

official detention

destruction
official detention
no action taken
(not specified)

(not specified)

(not specified)

(not specified)

(not specified)
recall

recall

unspec ified (food) Enterobac teriac eaeSalmonella

S almonella sp. (food) Coliforms (food) unspec ified (feed)
(food)

import not auth.—import not authorised; informing auth.—informing authorities; ph./ch. treatment—physical/chemical
treatment; recall—recall from consumers; recall/withdrawal—product recall or withdrawal; re-dispatch/destr.—re-
dispatch or destruction; withdrawal—withdrawal from the market.
(i)
Figure
Figure 2. 2.
The The numbersofofRASFF
numbers RASFFnotifications
notifications of
of non-pathogenic
non-pathogenicmicroorganisms
microorganisms ininfood
foodand
andfeed:
feed:
(a) Year; (b) Product categories; (c) Notifying country; (d) Origin country; (e) Notification
(a) Year; (b) Product categories; (c) Notifying country; (d) Origin country; (e) Notification basis; basis; (f) (f)
Notification
Notification type;
type; (g)(g)Distribution
Distributionstatus;
status;(h)
(h)Risk
Risk decision;
decision; (i)
(i) Action
Actiontaken.
taken.Source:
Source:own
ownstudy
studyononthethe
basis of
basis of [4].[4].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 12 of 19

The products were notified mainly by Italy and Spain, then by Poland, Denmark, Greece,
Germany, United Kingdom, Czech Republic and France (Figure 2c, Figure S57). Products with
non-pathogenic microorganisms originated mainly from Asian countries, i.e., China, India, Turkey,
Vietnam and Thailand, and from EU countries, i.e., Italy, Germany and France and Poland and
Spain (Figure 2d, Figure S22). The notification basis were usually: border control, after which the
consignment was detained or official control; however, it could be also not specified (Figure 1e,
Figure S59). The notification type were mainly information and border rejection (Figure 1f, Figure S60).
Products were usually not distributed or their distribution status was not specified (Figure 2g,
Figure S61). The risk decision was mainly not made (Figure 2h, Figure S62). The notified products
were re-dispatched, withdrawn from the market or import was not authorised (Figure 2i, Figure S63).

3.2.2. Non-Pathogenic Microorganisms in Feed

In the case of notifications of non-pathogenic microorganisms in feed only notifications on
unspecified microorganisms exceeded the mean value. The greatest number of notifications occurred
in 2009 and 2014 (Figure 2a, Figure S64). The notifications related to feed materials and pet food
(Figure 2b, Figure S65). These products were notified mainly by Belgium and Spain (Figure 2c,
Figure S66) and originated from China and Peru (Figure 2d, Figure S67). The notification basis were
border control, after which the consignment was detained or released, then official control on the
market (Figure 2e, Figure S68). Therefore, the notification type was mainly border rejection, but also
information for follow-up (Figure 2f, Figure S69). Products were usually not distributed, however,
distribution on the market was also possible (Figure 2g, Figure S70). The risk decision was usually
not made (Figure 2h, Figure S35). The notified products were mainly re-dispatched, destroyed or
withdrawn from the market (Figure 2i, Figure S36).

4. Discussion

4.1. Legal Conditions for Notifications of Microorganisms in the RASFF

The basis for food safety in the European Union is Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 laying down
the general principles and requirements of food law (in force from 2002 and 2005). However, both in
the case of pathogenic (particularly Salmonella sp. and Listeria) and non-pathogenic microorganisms
a significant increase in the number of notifications can be observed at the turn of 2004 and 2005
(Figures 1a and 2a, respectively). This can be connected with two law acts that came into force
in 2003: Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 on the control of Salmonella and other specified food-born
zoonotic agents [9] and Directive 2003/99/EC on the monitoring of zoonoses and zoonotic agents [10].
The purpose of Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 was to ensure measures to detect and to control
Salmonella sp. and other zoonotic agents at all stages of production (particularly primary production),
processing and distribution in order to reduce their prevalence and the risk to public health. It required
designating a competent authority in each country and establishing relevant community targets,
control programmes and methods [9]. The purpose of Directive 2003/99/EC was to ensure that
zoonoses and zoonotic agents are monitored and food-borne outbreaks are investigated to evaluate
relevant trends and sources [10]. Thus, these two legal acts obliged EU countries to create a system
for tracking hazards related to microorganisms, which initially contributed to an increasing number
of notifications.
In turn, in 2004 and 2006 hygiene package came into force. It consisted of: Regulation (EC) No
852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs [11], Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 laying down specific hygiene
rules for food of animal origin [12] and Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 laying down specific rules
for organising official controls of products of animal origin intended for human consumption [13].
The official controls on the market were most often the notification basis in the case of pathogenic
microorganisms (Figure 1e). However, they were also the basis for notifying non-pathogenic
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 13 of 19

microorganisms (Figure 2e). The results of official controls were then alerts or information notifications
(Figures 1f and 2f).
Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 was amended by Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on official controls
performed to ensure verification in compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal
welfare rules [14]. In 2005 and 2006 Regulation (EC) No 183/2005 laying down requirements for feed
hygiene came into force [15]. The important fact was that in 2004 ten countries joined the European
Union. This resulted in an increase in trade in the field of food and feed within the enlarged EU,
as well as between EU and non-EU countries. At the same time the supervisory authorities from newly
accessed countries were fully included in the RASFF.
In 2006 Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 laying down microbiological criteria for foodstuffs
came into force and in this year an important decrease in RASFF notifications could be observed.
This regulation obliged food operators to ensure that foodstuff meets relevant microbiological criteria
and to take measures based on the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles at
each stage of food production, processing and distribution, including retail. In the annex to this
Regulation food safety criteria for Salmonella sp., Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli for various
food categories were given. The annex included also process hygiene criteria for meat and products
thereof (Salmonella sp., Escherichia coli, Enterobacteriaceae), milk and dairy products (Escherichia
coli, Enterobacteriaceae), egg products (Enterobacteriaceae), fishery products (Escherichia coli) and
vegetables, fruits and products thereof (Escherichia coli). In the European law, attention was therefore
drawn to the most frequently notified product categories (Figures 1b and 2b). When the results of
testing were unsatisfactory, food operators were obliged to take relevant measures, e.g., withdrawal,
recall, further processing by treatment eliminating the hazard in question. These actions were most
frequently taken with regard to notified products (Figures 1i and 2i). Food operators were also
obliged to analyse trends in the test results and take the appropriate actions to prevent occurrence of
microbiological risks [16].
In 2009 and 2010 Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 came into force. It implemented Regulation
(EC) No 882/2004 (related to hygiene package) as regards the increased level of official controls
on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin [17]. Border controls were often the
notification basis (Figures 1e and 2e) and they resulted in border rejections or information notifications
(Figures 1f and 2f). In turn, in 2011 Regulation (EU) No 16/2011 came into force. It laid down the
implementing measures for the RASFF. In these years, a further increase in the number of notifications
could be observed, but it was more related to non-pathogenic microorganisms. Currently, further
changes in law are introduced, and Regulations No 854/2004 and No 882/2004 will be repealed by
Regulation (EU) 2017/625 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the
application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection
products (date of effect: 14.12.2019) [18].

4.2. Microorganisms in the RASFF and Other Warning Systems Reports

In RASFF annual reports prevalence of pathogenic microorganisms in individual products was
observed only from 2005. Usually, these reports indicated presence of Salmonella sp. in poultry meat,
meat, fruits, vegetables, herbs and spices. Salmonella sp. was also indicted in feed materials and
pet food. This data confirms a dominant share of Salmonella sp. in RASFF notifications (Figure 1b).
The annual reports mentioned also Listeria monocytogenes in milk, meat and fish, Escherichia coli in
bivalve molluscs, herbs and spices and Vibrio in crustaceans. It is important that RASFF annual reports
often highlighted a growing trend in the number of Salmonella sp. notifications [19]. In turn, an increase
in the number of notifications regarding presence of Listeria monocytogenes in meat, poultry, seafood
and dairy products in 2000–2012 was noticed by Allerberger [20].
However, a more detailed analysis related to pathogenic microorganisms was presented only
in RASFF annual reports for 2016 and 2017. Pathogenic microorganisms were the most frequently
notified hazard category in products originating from the EU countries in these years. If we take into
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 14 of 19

account non-EU countries, it was the second category in 2016, and the first in 2017. In the case of EU
countries the reports indicated notifications on Salmonella spp. and Salmonella enteritidis in poultry meat
and meat, Salmonella enteritidis in egg products, Listeria monocytogenes in fish (smoked salmon), meat,
cheese and Escherichia coli in bivalve molluscs. The products with Salmonella sp. originated mainly
from Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. In the case of products with
Listeria the countries of origin were mainly France, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Poland and
Spain, whereas, in the case of Escherichia, the products originated predominantly from France, Spain,
Italy, Germany and United Kingdom. Recurrent notifications were notifications on Salmonella enteritidis
in fresh poultry from Poland, Listeria monocytogenes in cheese from France and Escherichia coli in live
mussels from Spain. In turn, in the case of products originated from non-EU countries notifications
on Salmonella spp. in fruits, vegetables, poultry meat, herbs, spices and nuts had dominant share.
Escherichia coli was notified in meat, herbs and spices. Recurrent notifications were on Salmonella sp. in
betel leaves from India, chicken meat from Thailand and turkey and chicken meat from Brazil. A rapid
increase of these notifications in 2017 was related to a fraud of certification (Figure 1a,b,d) [19].
Studies covering several-year periods carried out by other authors confirm that pathogenic
microorganisms notified in the RASFF were characteristic for given products. Considering years
2003–2007 Kleter et al. indicated notifications on Salmonella sp. in meat, poultry and animal feed,
Listeria monocytogenes in dairy, meat, poultry and seafood products, Escherichia coli in seafood, spices,
condiments and Vibrio in seafood [21]. Notifications on Salmonella sp. in poultry meat and Escherichia
coli in meat in 2008–2013 were also noticed by Jansen et al. [22]. In turn, Van Asselt et al. noted
RASFF notifications on Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli in cheese and milk in
2009–2014 [23]. D.’Amico et al. analysed RASFF notifications on seafood in 2011–2015. They stated that
Salmonella spp. was reported in bivalve molluscs and crustaceans, Listeria monocytogenes in fish and
crustaceans, Escherichia coli in bivalve molluscs and Vibrio in crustaceans [24]. However, notifications
related to pathogenic microorganisms in seafood were also signaled by other authors: Salmonella spp.,
Listeria monocytogenes and Vibrio in frozen fish in 2005–2010 [25], Salmonella sp. and Listeria in pangasius
in 2005, 2009 and 2010 [26], Vibrio in shrimps in 2005 and 2008 [27], Salmonella sp. and Escherichia coli in
bivalve molluscs in 2009–2011 [28].
These microorganisms were also often notified in similar products in other warning systems.
Salmonella sp. and Listeria monocytogenes were the most frequently reported hazards in 2009–2014
in the Reportable Food Registry maintained by the United States Food and Drug Administration.
They accounted for over 56% of all so-called primary entries. Salmonella sp. was reported mainly
in animal food/feed, nuts/nut products/seed products, raw agriculture commodities, spices and
seasonings. In turn, Listeria monocytogenes was notified in dairy products, prepared foods, fresh cut
and raw agriculture commodities and also seafood [29]. These hazards were also often reported in
2014–2015 in the International Food Safety Authorities Network managed by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization. Salmonella enterica spp.
was notified mainly in eggs and nuts, Listeria monocytogenes in meat and fruits and Escherichia coli in
meat [30].

4.3. Food Poisoning Caused by Microorganisms Based on RASFF Reports

Data for foodborne outbreaks in the United States in 1998–2008 indicated that food, mainly poultry,
beef, leafy vegetables, fruits and nuts, was identified as a vehicle of 60% of outbreaks [31]. Among
different microorganisms Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli were listed as
responsible for the majority of foodborne illnesses outbreaks [32,33]. It is important that Hoagland et al.
noticed that almost half of outbreaks in the United States were linked to consumption of fresh fruits and
vegetables [34]. In turn, Esbelin et al. noted that the number of food-borne bacterial outbreaks raised
over the past decade due to an increasing role of fruits and vegetables as pathogen transmission [35].
Cases of food poisoning including also (suspected) foodborne outbreaks have been identified
in the RASFF since 2008. Most of them concerned poisoning with norovirus, histamine or hepatitis
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 15 of 19

A [19]. However, it is worth paying particular attention to notifications related to the discussed
microorganisms, i.e., Salmonella sp., Listeria and Escherichia, reported as alert notifications with more
than one person affected (Table 1). In the annual reports for 2016 and 2017 the data concerned only
selected cases of food poisoning.

Table 1. Selected cases of food poisoning notified in the RASFF in 2008–2017.

Origin
Year Microorganism Product Notifying Country Persons Affected
Country
Salmonella enteritidis frozen whole hens Estonia Lithuania 83
Salmonella agona cooked beef steak Ireland Ireland n/a (large outbreak)
2008
Salmonella kedougou infant formula Spain Spain 23 (outbreak)
Salmonella enteritidis eggs France Spain 6 (outbreak)
Salmonella bovismorbificans alfalfa seeds Finland Italy 20 (outbreak)
Salmonella enteritidis eggs France Spain 30 (outbreak)
2009
Salmonella enteritidis,
eggs France Spain 8
Salmonella typhimurium
Salmonella enteritidis eggs Great Britain Spain n/a (large outbreak)
Listeria monocytogenes cheese Austria Austria 24
Salmonella spp. salami Italy Italy n/a
Escherichia coli cheese Romania Bulgaria 7
2010
Salmonella typhimurium dried sausages France France 88 (outbreak)
Salmonella typhimurium frozen beef burgers France Italy 554
Listeria monocytogenes ham sausages Czech Republic Czech Republic 2
Escherichia coli (shigatoxin) organic sprouts Germany Germany n/a (large outbreak)
Salmonella frozen seafood mix Sweden Vietnam 58
Escherichia coli (verotoxin) fenugreek seeds France Egypt n/a (large outbreak)
2011 Escherichia coli sugar peas Denmark Kenya 87 (outbreak)
Salmonella enteritidis frozen duck breasts Iceland Netherlands 8
Salmonella Strathcona datterino tomatoes Denmark Italy 40 (outbreak)
Salmonella monophasic serovar dried sausages France France n/a (outbreak)
Salmonella Oranienburg dried milk formula Belgium Belgium 16 (outbreak)
Salmonella spp. chilled stuffed meat Italy Romania 3
2012
Salmonella Dublin raw milk cheese France France n/a (large outbreak)
Salmonella Bredeney peanut products Commission services United States 41 (outbreak)
Escherichia coli (shigatoxin) frozen hamburgers Sweden Sweden 2
2013
Salmonella enteritidis eggs France Spain 49 (outbreak)
Salmonella kedougou raw milk cheese France France 25
Salmonella enteritidis frozen pork Slovakia Hungary 164 (outbreak)
Salmonella enteritidis eggs France Germany 9 (outbreak)
2014 Salmonella enteritidis eggs Austria Germany 20 (outbreak)
Salmonella enteritidis eggs France Germany 3 (outbreak)
Listeria monocytogenes lamb-roll sausages Denmark Denmark 20 (outbreak)
Salmonella spp. liquid egg whites United Kingdom France 2
Salmonella enteritidis frozen minced beef France Poland 49
Salmonella enteritidis frozen minced beef France Poland 22
Salmonella Rissen frozen minces meat France Italy 11
2015
Escherichia coli (shigatoxin) raw milk cheese Ireland Ireland 2
Salmonella enteritidis raw milk France France 15
Salmonella typhimurium beef Netherlands Netherlands 44
Escherichia coli (shigatoxin) fermented cheese Italy Romania 25 (outbreak)
2016
Salmonella enteritidis eggs n/a Poland n/a (outbreak)
Salmonella enteritidis eggs n/a Poland n/a (outbreak)
2017 Salmonella typhimurium salami Sweden Spain n/a (outbreak)
Salmonella agona infant formula France France n/a (outbreak)
Source: own study on the basis of [19].

Therefore, the cases presented in Table 1 mainly referred to Salmonella sp. in food of animal origin
(meat and poultry—see Figure 1b, eggs and milk). The products usually originated from EU countries,
which indirectly indicated effectiveness of border controls. On the other hand, it is worrying that there
was a possibility of spreading hazards (multi-country outbreaks) due to the free food flow within
the internal market. However, in many cases, the notifying country was the country from which
the notified product originated. It proved responsibility of the national surveillance authorities in
ensuring safety for European consumers. It worth noting, however, that according to the data from
Eurostat within the Broad Economic Categories (BEC) the intra food (and beverage) flow (including
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 16 of 19

all 28 countries) increased almost twice in the period 2000–2017 and in 2017 it was three times higher
than the extra food flow [36]. Therefore, there is a necessity to increase efficiency of work of the bodies
supervising food safety as well as cooperation between them.
The occurrence of outbreaks in Europe or other regions caused by the discussed microorganisms
in similar products was also noticed by other authors, presenting summaries covering multiannual
periods. Yoon et al. drew attention to global outbreaks related to Salmonella sp., Listeria monocytogenes
and Escherichia coli in raw (in 1983–2010) or pasteurised milk cheese (1994–2014) [37]. Similarly, Verraes
et al. presented outbreaks in Europe, United States and Canada in 1982–2010 referring to Salmonella sp.,
Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli due to consumption of dairy products made from raw
milk [38]. In turn, outbreaks caused by these microorganisms in fresh products were noticed by
Alegbeleye et al. (in period 1997–2017) [39], Mukhopadhyay and Ukuku (2011–2013) [40] and Olaimat
and Holley (2005–2011) [41]. Whereas, Zweifel and Stephan pointed out to selected Salmonella-related
outbreaks caused by spices and herbs in 1993–2010 [42]. Therefore, Hoagland et al. proposed measures
to reduce the number of outbreaks associated with horticultural products, e.g., installing barriers,
appropriate managing manure, soil, water and seeds, ensuring clean equipment and hygiene of
employees, developing new varieties and optimizing technologies [34].

5. Conclusions
Notifications regarding pathogenic microorganisms in the RASFF mainly concerned Salmonella
sp., Listeria, Escherichia and Vibrio (in food) and Salmonella sp. (in feed). In the case of
non-pathogenic microorganisms notifications related to unspecified microorganisms (mainly moulds),
Enterobacteriaceae, Salmonella sp. and Coliforms (in food) and also unspecified microorganisms
(in feed). These were mostly products of animal origin, i.e., meat, poultry meat, milk, seafood
(fish, crustaceans and molluscs), but also non-animal origin: fruits, vegetables, herbs, spices and
nuts. The number of notifications decreased in 2005–2006 after introducing hygiene package and
microbiological criteria, but has significantly increased since then. Notifications were reported usually
on the basis of official controls, border controls and company’s own checks. The notifying countries
were mainly: Italy, France, United Kingdom, Germany and Netherlands and notified products
originated mostly from Brazil, East Asian countries (India, Thailand and Vietnam) and EU countries
(Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Spain and Netherlands). The largest number of notifications were
alerts, followed by information notifications and border rejections. Distribution status of notified
products was often not specified, however, distribution was also indicated as possible, restricted to the
notifying country, the product could be also not placed on the market or not distributed. The decision
on risk was usually not made. The notified products were re-dispatched, withdrawn from the market,
import was not authorised, products were also destroyed or recalled from the market. Although the
role of the RASFF seems to be only reactive, it significantly contributes to ensuring public health related
to microorganisms on the common, European market with the free flow of products. The analysis of
trends in notifications can be helpful in shaping law binding in all EU countries. Besides, the obligation
to notify hazards to the European Commission allows not only minimizing their effects, but also
limiting a possibility of spread of potential outbreaks. The activity of individual members in the RASFF
can depend on the size of the domestic market, as well as the structure and experience of supervisors.
Nevertheless, cooperation between EU countries and the European Commission within notifications
concerning microorganisms should be based on mutual trust. However, it is also important to pay
attention to proper reporting of notifications in the RASFF, because some data in the database is
missing or it is incomplete or inconclusive.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/3/477/s1,

Figures S1–S9. Similarities of RASFF notifications on pathogenic microorganisms and year (S1); product category
(S2); notifying country (S3); origin country (S4); notification basis (S5); notification type (S6); distribution status
(S7); risk decision (S8); action taken (S9) within food using joining; Figures S10–S18. Similarities of RASFF
notifications on pathogenic microorganisms and year (S10); product category (S11); notifying country (S12);
origin country (S13); notification basis (S14); notification type (S15); distribution status (S16); risk decision (S17);
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 17 of 19

action taken (S18) within feed using joining; Figures S19–S27. Similarities of RASFF notifications on pathogenic
microorganisms and year (S19); product category (S20); notifying country (S21); origin country (S22); notification
basis (S23); notification type (S24); distribution status (S25); risk decision (S26); action taken (S27) within food
using two-way joining; Figures S28–S36. Similarities of RASFF notifications on pathogenic microorganisms
and year (S28); product category (S29); notifying country (S30); origin country (S31); notification basis (S32);
notification type (S33); distribution status (S34); risk decision (S35); action taken (S36) within feed using two-way
joining. Figures S37–S45. Similarities of RASFF notifications on non-pathogenic microorganisms and year (S37);
product category (S38); notifying country (S39); origin country (S40); notification basis (S41); notification type
(S42); distribution status (S43); risk decision (S44); action taken (S45) within food using joining; Figures S46–S54.
Similarities of RASFF notifications on non-pathogenic microorganisms and year (S46); product category (S47);
notifying country (S48); origin country (S49); notification basis (S50); notification type (S51); distribution status
(S52); risk decision (S53); action taken (S54) within feed using joining; Figures S55–S63. Similarities of RASFF
notifications on non-pathogenic microorganisms and year (S55); product category (S56); notifying country (S57);
origin country (S58); notification basis (S59); notification type (S60); distribution status (S61); risk decision (S62);
action taken (S63) within food using two-way joining; Figures S64–S72. Similarities of RASFF notifications on
non-pathogenic microorganisms and year (S64); product category (S65); notifying country (S66); origin country
(S67); notification basis (S68); notification type (S69); distribution status (S70); risk decision (S71); action taken
(S72) within feed using two-way joining.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Food Safety. Available online: http://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/food-safety
(accessed on 7 August 2018).
2. Glossary: Pathogenic Organisms. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/
opinions_layman/triclosan/en/glossary/pqrs/pathogenic-organisms.htm (accessed on 26 October 2018).
3. Chlebicz, A.; Śliżewska, K. Campylobacteriosis, Salmonellosis, Yersiniosis, and Listeriosis as Zoonotic
Foodborne Diseases: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 863. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. RASFF Portal. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/ (accessed on 29 May
2018).
5. Parisi, S.; Barone, C.; Sharma, R.K. RASFF Alert and Information Notifications. A Statistical Review.
In Chemistry and Food Safety in the EU. The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF); Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2016; pp. 19–46. ISBN 978-3-319-33393-9.
6. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 28 January 2002 Laying Down the General Principles and Requirements of Food Law, Establishing
the European Food Safety Authority and Laying Down Procedures in Matters of Food Safety; OJ L 31, 1.02.2002;
European Parliament and Council of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2002; pp. 1–24.
7. RASFF—Food and Feed Safety Alerts. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/rasff_en
(accessed on 25 July 2018).
8. European Commission. Commission Regulation (EU) No. 16/2011 of 10 January 2011 Laying Down Implementing
Measures for the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (Text with EEA Relevance); OJ L 6, 11.01.2011; European
Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2002; pp. 7–10.
9. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No. 2160/2003 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the Control of Salmonella and Other Specified Food-Borne
Zoonotic Agents; OJ L 325, 12.12.2003; European Parliament and Council of the European Union: Brussels,
Belgium, 2003; pp. 1–15.
10. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. Directive 2003/99/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 17 November 2003 on the Monitoring of Zoonoses and Zoonotic Agents, Amending Council Decision
90/424/EEC and Repealing Council Directive 92/117/EEC; OJ L 325, 12.12.2003; European Parliament and
Council of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2003; pp. 31–40.
11. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Hygiene of Foodstuffs; OJ L 139, 30.4.2004; European Parliament and
Council of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2004; pp. 1–54.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 18 of 19

12. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 29 April 2004 Laying Down Specific Hygiene Rules for Food of Animal Origin; OJ L 139,
30.04.2004; European Parliament and Council of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2004; pp. 55–205.
13. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No. 854/2004 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 29 April 2004 Laying Down Specific Rules for the Organisation of Official Controls on Products
of Animal Origin Intended for Human Consumption; OJ L 139, 30.4.2004; European Parliament and Council of
the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2004; pp. 206–320.
14. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on Official Controls Performed to Ensure the Verification of Compliance with Feed
and Food Law, Animal Health and Animal Welfare Rules; OJ L 165, 30.04.2004; European Parliament and Council
of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2004; pp. 1–141.
15. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No. 183/2005 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 12 January 2005 Laying Down Requirements for Feed Hygiene (Text with EEA Relevance); OJ L
35, 8.2.2005; European Parliament; Council of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2005; pp. 1–22.
16. European Commission. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on Microbiological
Criteria for Foodstuffs (Text with EEA Relevance); OJ L 338, 22.12.2005; European Commission: Brussels,
Belgium, 2005; pp. 1–26.
17. European Commission. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 669/2009 of 24 July 2009 Implementing Regulation
(EC) No. 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as Regards the Increased Level of Official Controls
on Imports of Certain Feed and Food of Non-Animal Origin and Amending Decision 2006/504/EC (Text with EEA
Relevance); OJ L 194, 25.07.2009; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2009; pp. 11–21.
18. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on Official Controls and Other Official Activities Performed to Ensure the
Application of Food and Feed Law, Rules on Animal Health and Welfare, Plant Health and Plant Protection Products,
Amending Regulations (EC) No. 999/2001, (EC) No. 396/2005, (EC) No. 1069/2009, (EC) No. 1107/2009, (EU) No.
1151/2012, (EU) No. 652/2014, (EU) 2016/429 and (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council,
Council Regulations (EC) No. 1/2005 and (EC) No. 1099/2009 and Council Directives 98/58/EC, 1999/74/EC,
2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC and 2008/120/EC, and repealing Regulations (EC) No. 854/2004 and (EC) No. 882/2004 of
the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 89/608/EEC, 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 91/496/EEC,
96/23/EC, 96/93/EC and 97/78/EC and Council Decision 92/438/EEC (Official Controls Regulation) Text with EEA
Relevance; OJ L 95, 7.04.2017; European Parliament and Council of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium,
2017; pp. 1–142.
19. RASFF—Food and Feed Safety Alerts. Reports and Publications. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/
food/safety/rasff/reports_publications_en (accessed on 11 November 2018).
20. Allerberger, F.; Bagó, Z.; Huhulescu, S.; Pietzka, A. Listeriosis: The Dark Side of Refrigeration and Ensiling.
In Zoonoses—Infections Affecting Humans and Animals. Focus on Public Health Aspects; Sing, A., Ed.; Springer:
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 249–286. ISBN 978-94-017-9457-2.
21. Kleter, G.A.; Prandini, A.; Filippi, L.; Marvin, H.J.P. Identification of potentially emerging food safety issues
by analysis of reports published by the European Community’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed
(RASFF) during a four-year period. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2009, 47, 932–950. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Jansen, W.; Grabowski, N.; Gerulat, B.; Klein, G. Food Safety Hazards and Microbiological Zoonoses in
European Meat Imports Detected in Border Inspection in the Period 2008–2013. Zoonoses Public Health 2016,
63, 53–61. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Van Asselt, E.D.; Der Fels-Klerx, H.J.; Marvin, H.J.P.; Bokhorst-Van De Veen, H.; Nierop Groot, M. Overview
of Food Safety Hazards in the European Dairy Supply Chain. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food 2017, 16, 59–75.
[CrossRef]
24. D.’Amico, P.; Nucera, D.; Guardone, L.; Mariotti, M.; Nuvoloni, R.; Armani, A. Seafood products notifications
in the EU Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) database: Data analysis during the period
2011–2015. Food Control 2018, 93, 241–250. [CrossRef]
25. Noseda, B.; Tong Thi, A.N.; Rosseel, L.; Devlieghere, F.; Jacxsens, L. Dynamics of microbiological quality
and safety of Vietnamese Pangasianodon hypophthalmus during processing. Aquac. Int. 2013, 21, 709–727.
[CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 477 19 of 19

26. Little, D.C.; Bush, S.R.; Belton, B.; Thanh Phuong, N.; Young, J.A.; Murray, F.J. Whitefish wars: Pangasius,
politics and consumer confusion in Europe. Mar. Policy 2012, 36, 738–745. [CrossRef]
27. Madhusudana, R.B.; Surendran, P.K. Detection of ctx gene positive non-O1/non-O139 V. cholerae in shrimp
aquaculture environments. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 50, 496–504. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Karunasagar, I. Recent International Efforts to Improve Bivalve Molluscan Shellfish Safety. In Molluscan
Shellfish Safety; Sauvé, G., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 1–12. ISBN 978-94-007-6588-7.
29. Food and Drug Administration. The Reportable Food Registry: A Five Year Overview of Targeting Inspection
Resources and Identifying Patterns of Adulteration. 8 September 2009–7 September 2014; Food and Drug
Administration: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2016; pp. 10–12.
30. Food and Agriculture of Organization of the United Nations; World Health Organization. INFOSAN Activity
Report 2014/2015; World Health Organization Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 13, 26–36.
31. Kalyoussef, S.; Feja, K.N. Foodborne Illnesses. Adv. Pediatr. 2014, 61, 287–312. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Besser, J.M. Salmonella epidemiology: A whirlwind of change. Food Microbiol. 2018, 71, 55–59. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
33. Weng, X.; Neethirajan, S. Ensuring food safety: Quality monitoring using microfluidics. Trends Food Sci.
Technol. 2017, 65, 10–22. [CrossRef]
34. Hoagland, L.; Ximenes, E.; Ku, S.; Ladisch, M. Foodborne pathogens in horticultural production systems:
Ecology and mitigation. Sci. Hortic. Amst. 2018, 236, 192–206. [CrossRef]
35. Esbelin, J.; Santos, T.; Hébraud, M. Desiccation: An environmental and food industry stress that bacteria
commonly face. Food Microbiol. 2018, 69, 82–88. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Eurostat—EU Trade Since 1988 by BEC (The Broad Economic Categories) (DS-032655). Available online:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (accessed on 30 November 2018).
37. Yoon, Y.; Lee, S.; Choi, K.-H. Microbial benefits and risks of raw milk cheese. Food Control 2016, 63, 201–215.
[CrossRef]
38. Verraes, C.; Vlaemynck, G.; Van Weyenberg, S.; De Zutter, L.; Daube, G.; Sindic, M.; Uyttendaele, M.;
Herman, L. A review of the microbiological hazards of dairy products made from raw milk. Int. Dairy J.
2015, 50, 32–44. [CrossRef]
39. Alegbeleye, O.O.; Singleton, I.; Sant’Ana, A.S. Sources and contamination routes of microbial pathogens to
fresh produce during field cultivation: A review. Food Microbiol. 2018, 73, 177–208. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Mukhopadhyay, S.; Ukuku, D.O. The role of emerging technologies to ensure the microbial safety of fresh
produce, milk and eggs. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2018, 19, 145–154. [CrossRef]
41. Olaimat, A.N.; Holley, R.A. Factors influencing the microbial safety of fresh produce: A review. Food Microbiol.
2012, 32, 1–19. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Zweifel, C.; Stephan, R. Spices and herbs as source of Salmonella-related foodborne diseases. Food Res. Int.
2012, 45, 765–769. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).