To overcome Europe’s ‘double gateway,’ Vietnamese agricultural products must manage risks from the ground up.
Vietnamese agricultural products must change their mindset: instead of meeting standards after production is complete, the production process must be designed from the start to meet the requirements of the end market.
From individual lot inspection to whole system evaluation
The European Union (EU) is rapidly shifting from border-based document checks toward risk management across the entire supply chain. A shipment cleared at an EU border checkpoint has only passed through the first “gate.”
To secure a stable presence on retail shelves in France and Germany, Vietnamese agricultural products must also meet post-import monitoring requirements, buyers’ requirements, and the specific standards of individual retail systems.
The EU’s approach goes beyond simply checking whether a shipment has all the required documents. It also involves tracing the entire process back through production, pesticide use, preliminary processing, packaging, transportation, and the ability to recall products when an incident occurs.
Rapid alert data, sampling results, records of past violations, and the reliability of the control system in the exporting country are all used to determine the level of monitoring required. The EU reviews the list of high-risk commodities at least once every six months.
This trend has accelerated in 2026. On January 26, 2026, the EU established a task force focused on food and feed safety and pesticide residue control, while also strengthening oversight of certain key imported product groups. The objective is not only to increase inspections at border checkpoints, but also to harmonize enforcement practices among Member States and strengthen inspections in exporting countries themselves.
For Vietnam, the warning signals are already very specific. Under EU regulations updated in June 2026, fresh or chilled Vietnamese durians are subject to a 20% frequency of identity and physical checks due to the risk of pesticide residues. Okra and non-sweet peppers are subject to a 50% inspection frequency, while dragon fruit is subject to 30%. These three product groups are subject to special import conditions.
These inspection rates do more than increase testing costs and storage time. Repeated violations may lead to reinforced checks, while serious cases may result in re-export, destruction, or suspension of imports. As a result, the risk faced by a single company can quickly become a reputational risk for the entire product sector.
EU Clearance Does Not Necessarily Mean Access to France and Germany
The EU is a single market, but monitoring does not end once goods leave the border. The competent authorities of each Member State continue to conduct inspections at warehouses, importers, distribution facilities, and retail outlets.
In France, the competition, consumer affairs and anti-fraud authorities inspect the quality, origin, labeling, and accuracy of information provided for imported fruits and vegetables. In Germany, the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) coordinates the development of national control plans, while sampling, inspections, and enforcement actions are carried out through the control systems of the individual federal states.
Even more challenging is the additional “gate” imposed by importers and retail systems. IFS Food, a standard initiated by German and French retail associations, assesses manufacturers’ ability to produce food that is safe, authentic, consistent in quality, compliant with applicable laws, and aligned with specific customer requirements.
Unannounced inspections, batch-level traceability, supplier management, and fraud prevention are increasingly becoming practical commercial requirements.
Therefore, goods that comply with general EU regulations may still be rejected by a supermarket chain in France or Germany. Retailers may require certification of growing areas, labor and environmental records, stricter internal residue limits, product consistency, packaging materials, stable supply capacity, and clear responsibility in the event of a product recall.
In this competitive environment, businesses are not simply selling fruits, vegetables, or seafood. They are selling the reliability and trustworthiness of the entire supply chain.
Moving from “Fixing a Shipment” to Supply Chain Management
The response must begin at the production area. Each product sector needs to develop a risk map based on target markets, growing seasons, and active ingredients, clearly identifying permitted pesticides, pre-harvest intervals, cross-contamination risks, and EU maximum residue limits.
Technical guidelines cannot stop at a single general production process. They must be transformed into “EU market cultivation packages”, updated immediately whenever Europe adjusts maximum residue limits or changes its list of permitted active substances.
A growing-area identification code is only meaningful when it is linked to electronic farming records, input-material controls, internal monitoring, and clearly defined responsibilities for each producer. The practice of collecting products from multiple sources and completing the documentation only at the packing facility must be addressed.
Each shipment should be traceable back to the specific plot of land, pesticide application date, active ingredient used, harvest date, preliminary processing facility, and shipping container. The GlobalG.A.P. standard likewise integrates food safety, environmental protection, worker health and safety, production processes, and traceability into a unified management system.
Testing must be regarded as an integral part of export infrastructure. Vietnam needs to strengthen the capacity of its testing laboratories, with a focus on multi-residue detection, representative sampling, and data connectivity among exporters, testing laboratories, and authorities responsible for issuing certificates.
Vietnam cannot allow products to be certified as “compliant” based on domestic testing, only to be found in violation after arriving in the EU because of inappropriate sampling methods, incompatible detection limits, or testing that covers only a limited number of commonly monitored active substances.
Exporters must also change the way they negotiate and sign contracts. Instead of focusing solely on prices and product specifications, they should require buyers to provide complete technical requirements for each retail chain, including sampling plans, alert mechanisms, and procedures for handling complaints.
For France, documentation must be particularly rigorous regarding proof of origin, French-language labeling, and the accuracy and integrity of claims such as “green,” “organic,” and “sustainable.” For Germany, exporters must be prepared to meet stringent requirements for consistency, control documentation, and the ability to demonstrate effective corrective actions.
Early Warning to Protect National Reputation
At the government level, Vietnam should establish an early-warning mechanism for each commodity group, connecting data from the EU Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), SPS notifications, domestic inspection results, and feedback from Vietnamese trade offices in Europe.
When a potential risk is identified involving a particular active substance, packing facility, or growing area, containment measures should be implemented before the shipment leaves the port, rather than waiting for an EU alert before conducting a review.
A controlled system for publishing lists of violating facilities should be established, together with mandatory corrective action plans and temporary export suspensions for repeat offenders. Market discipline is necessary to protect responsible businesses and prevent a small number of underperforming facilities from damaging the reputation of an entire commodity sector.
At the same time, the government should support cooperatives and small businesses in accessing certification, testing, traceability, and product recall insurance services through shared-service centers. If every small operator is required to invest in and operate the entire compliance system independently, the cost of compliance could become a barrier that excludes them from the export value chain.
Ngo Tri Long
Economic Expert, Vietnam Financial Advisors Association
Source: https://nongnghiepmoitruong.vn/vuot-hai-lop-cua-chau-au-nong-san-viet-phai-quan-tri-rui-ro-tu-goc-d823897.html
