{"topic_id":"RASFF_petfood_raw_BARF_recalls","category":"rasff","context":"---\ntopic_id: RASFF_petfood_raw_BARF_recalls\ncategory: rasff\ntitle: Raw pet food (BARF-style) notifications in RASFF 2019–2026 (35 records, 13.7%)\nlang: en\nsource: rasff-petfood-20260719.json\ndate_parsed: 2026-07-19\ntokens_estimated: 430\n---\n\n`Subject` substring matching on \"raw\" (catching both \"raw petfood\" and\n\"raw pet food\") identifies **35 of 255 records (13.7%)** as raw pet\nfood / BARF-style product notifications across 2019–2026. The dominant\nhazard is Salmonella at **24 of 35 (68.6%)** — far above the dataset\noverall rate of 38.8% — confirming regulatory expectation that raw meat\npet food is the highest-risk product category microbiologically.\n\nNotification volume is concentrated in one issuer country:\n**Belgium (BE) issues 21 of 35 (60.0%)**, followed by Croatia (HR) 6 and\nSlovenia (SI) 3 — small set of countries that actively inspect BARF\nimports. By classification, raw pet food is overwhelmingly handled as\n**information notification for follow-up** at **26 of 35 (74.3%)** rather\nthan as alerts (8 records) or attention (1 record).\n\nTop origins: **Netherlands (NL) 17**, Germany (DE) 4, Great Britain (GB)\n3, Belgium (BE) 2, France (FR) 2, China (CN) 2. The overrepresentation\nof NL origin reflects the dense cross-border EU pet food trade and\nDutch exporters' large raw pet food shipments. Risk-wise, most raw pet\nfood notifications are \"not serious\" but Salmonella prevalence justifies\nformal follow-up under Reg 2017/625.\n\nSource: `rasff-petfood-20260719.json` → filter `subject contains \"raw\"`\n(case-insensitive), 35 hits.\n","sources":[],"tokens_estimated":430,"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."}