Olive oil control systems in the EU: progress, challenges and recommendations

1. Regulatory framework
2. Main shortcomings
3. Conformity checks: strengths and weaknesses
4. Contaminant control: progress and challenges
5. Traceability: an outstanding challenge
6. Recommendations to strengthen the system
7. Conclusion

The European Court of Auditors has published Special Report 1/2026, “Olive oil control systems in the EU. A comprehensive framework, but unevenly applied”, which reviews the current situation of official controls for olive oil in the EU. In this article, we analyse the report’s main findings, the shortcomings identified and the recommendations to strengthen the integrity of the system. Olive oil is one of the EU’s most emblematic products, both for its economic relevance and its cultural and nutritional value. The EU accounts for 61% of global production and 45% of consumption, and it is also the world’s leading exporter. The official control system aims to ensure the authenticity, safety and traceability of olive oil placed on the market.

A robust regulatory framework, but uneven implementation

EU legislation regulates olive oil through three regulations:

• Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, which defines olive oil categories.
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2104, on marketing standards, labelling and traceability.
• Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2105, on conformity checks and methods of analysis.

The controls established are risk-based and include physico-chemical analyses and organoleptic assessments, as well as effective and dissuasive sanctioning systems. In addition, a minimum number of checks is required in proportion to the volume marketed (one check per 1,000 tonnes).

Main shortcomings

The report finds that not all Member States meet the minimum requirements:

• Spain and Greece have carried out fewer category checks than required in recent years.
• Laboratory analyses are incomplete in several countries, which may facilitate fraud.
• Some Member States exclude parts of the market (online sales, imports) without a risk-based justification.

These gaps undermine the effectiveness of the system and create risks for the authenticity and quality of olive oil.

Conformity checks: strengths and weaknesses

Conformity checks are essential to verify that the oil matches the declared category. They include:

• Physico-chemical analyses (15 mandatory parameters).
• Organoleptic assessment by recognised panels.

While 93% of physico-chemical analyses meet the requirements, only 68% of organoleptic assessments are compliant. This gap is explained by the inherent subjectivity of sensory analysis and by oil degradation over time, exacerbated by practices such as excessively long best-before dates. The report also points to a lack of regulatory clarity on issues such as:

• Blending oils from different harvest years.
• The possibility of marketing blends of virgin and extra virgin olive oil as extra virgin.

These loopholes lead to divergent interpretations across Member States and can affect product quality.

Contaminant control: progress and challenges

From a food safety perspective, olive oil is subject to controls to detect contaminants. The system works well for pesticide residues, thanks to a clear legal framework and coordinated monitoring programmes. Between 2018 and 2023, only a few cases were detected above the established MRL. However, controls for other contaminants (mineral oil hydrocarbons, plasticisers, dioxins, heavy metals) are less developed:

• There are no maximum levels in the EU for some contaminants.
• Member States apply different criteria and do not always document their risk analyses.
• Imported olive oil from third countries is not systematically controlled, which is a critical point given that imports represent 9% of European consumption.

Traceability: an outstanding challenge

Traceability is key to ensuring authenticity and managing risks in the event of contamination. Although legislation requires the origin to be stated on the label and records to be kept, it does not define how or when these elements should be verified. The report describes different scenarios across the countries analysed:

• Spain and Italy have developed advanced systems with mandatory electronic records and mass-balance exercises.
• Greece and Belgium apply limited controls, focused on the “one step back” approach.

Recommendations to strengthen the system

The European Court of Auditors sets out five strategic recommendations:

1. Strengthen the European Commission’s oversight of national control systems, encouraging transparency and adopting corrective measures when necessary.
2. Clarify the rules on blending virgin oils and on harvest campaigns.
3. Improve guidance on contaminant controls, including imported oil in risk analyses.
4. Define clear criteria for traceability checks and standardise the reporting of results.
5. Promote electronic registers and interoperability between national systems to enable cross-border traceability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the regulatory framework applicable to olive oil is solid, although it would benefit from more consistent implementation and from clarifying certain aspects that may create uncertainty. The European Commission has an opportunity to improve the framework by taking into account the report’s recommendations.