{"topic_id":"RASFF_petfood_border_rejection","category":"rasff","context":"---\ntopic_id: RASFF_petfood_border_rejection\ncategory: rasff\ntitle: Border rejection notifications in RASFF pet food 2019–2026 (46 records, 18.0%)\nlang: en\nsource: rasff-petfood-20260719.json\ndate_parsed: 2026-07-19\ntokens_estimated: 460\n---\n\n`notificationClassification == \"border rejection notification\"` gives **46\nof 255 records (18.0%)** for pet food 2019–2026. Border rejections are\nthe only classification that can carry the \"no risk\" `riskDecision`\n(7 of 46 do so, used when the product was rejected for non-safety\nreasons such as missing documentation or unauthorized composition).\n\nHazard distribution within the 46 border rejections (subject substring\ncounts):\n- Salmonella: **11** (23.9%)\n- Enterobacteriaceae: **10** (21.7%)\n- Additive (unauthorized additive): **10** (21.7%)\n\nNote: this is **not** a three-way tie at 11/11/11; Salmonella leads at\n11 while Enterobacteriaceae and Additive are tied at 10 each. Top-3\nhazards account for 31 of 46 records (67.4%).\n\nTop notifying countries: **Spain (ES) 12**, **Italy (IT) 10**, Germany\n(DE) 9 — meaning EU Mediterranean border posts intercept most pet food\nshipments. Top origin countries: **China (CN) 11**, **Turkey (TR) 11**,\nIndia (IN) 7 — high-volume third-country origins where border\ninspection density is highest. Risk decision split: not-serious 26,\nserious 9, no-risk 7, undecided 4. By year, 2022 saw the peak at 13\nborder rejections; 2020 and 2026 each at 3 (the latter is partial\nyear).\n\nSource: `rasff-petfood-20260719.json` → filter\n`notificationClassification.description == \"border rejection notification\"`,\n46 hits.\n","sources":[],"tokens_estimated":460,"generated_at":null,"tip":"Use /api/v1/topics to discover more topics. /api/v1/nutrient for precise single-point queries. /api/v1/cross_compare for 2-3 standard comparisons."}