FSA retail survey finds most sampled foods satisfactory, but labels still need scrutiny

The Food Standards Agency has published its 2025/26 Retail Surveillance Survey Programme, a targeted check of foods sold in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The report examined 845 products bought between July and October 2025: 800 samples assessed for regulatory compliance and 45 oat samples collected for research. Its headline is mixed but useful for anyone who cooks at home: 72% of the targeted compliance samples were satisfactory, while the remaining results show where label reading and product checks still matter in an everyday kitchen.

That 72% figure should not be read as a failure rate for the whole UK food supply. The Food Standards Agency’s report explains that the programme used risk-based, targeted sampling. A single sample can identify a problem that needs action, but it cannot establish that every pack in a product line or every shop has the same issue.

What the FSA checked

The samples came from a broad mix of retail settings, including online sales, and were examined through five testing laboratories. The programme looked at allergens, food authenticity, composition, contaminants, unauthorised ingredients and labelling. The FSA also carried out a separate research exercise on oats for T-2 and HT-2 toxins; all 45 oat samples were satisfactory for the regulatory limits considered, although low levels were detected in 14 samples.

The allergen results are especially relevant to home cooks. Of 205 allergen samples, 88% had no undeclared allergen of the type being tested. However, the survey found undeclared peanut or sesame in some Dubai-style chocolates, and undeclared milk or egg in South Asian bakery and snack products. The gluten screens included in this part of the work were satisfactory.

Where the weaker results appeared

Authenticity checks were satisfactory in 81% of the relevant samples. The report includes findings involving goat meat and processed meat products, showing why a familiar product name is not always enough to establish what is actually in the pack. Composition checks performed better, with 91% of samples satisfactory. Those checks covered issues such as the stated composition of slush drinks, processed meats, milk and chocolate products, and oils.

Contaminant checks were satisfactory in 90% of samples. The FSA highlights concerns involving aflatoxins and ochratoxin in some Dubai-style chocolates, ashwagandha products and mercury in two raw tuna samples. These findings do not mean that all foods in those categories are unsafe. They show that targeted surveillance is designed to find specific problems that may require follow-up, enforcement or better controls.

Labelling was the clearest weak spot: only 76% of the relevant checks were satisfactory. The report describes missing durability dates, incomplete ingredient information, undeclared or insufficiently emphasised allergens and missing importer details, particularly among some Dubai-style chocolates. Smaller and specialist food businesses also had lower compliance in this survey than large retailers: 64% of their targeted samples were satisfactory, compared with 82% for large retailers.

What shoppers can do with the findings

1. Read the physical pack, not only the product page. The FSA found 14 online instances where precautionary allergen labelling was visible only after the product had been delivered. If someone in your household has an allergy, check the label on the received item before opening or serving it.
2. Recheck ingredients every time you buy. Recipes and packaging can change, and a product that was suitable on a previous purchase may not have the same allergen statement now. Look for the full ingredient list and the required emphasis for major allergens.
3. Check the basic identity details. Before using a packaged ingredient, confirm its name, durability date, storage instructions and, where relevant, importer information. This is particularly important for products bought through unfamiliar online sellers or specialist shops.
4. Separate general caution from an official recall. The survey reports patterns found in selected samples; it is not a recall notice. If an official food-safety alert names a product in your cupboard, follow that notice exactly and do not rely on cooking, tasting or visual inspection to make the product acceptable.

A useful signal, not a reason to panic

The FSA’s results are most valuable when read as a map of where food controls need attention. Most targeted samples met the checks applied, but the gaps were not evenly distributed: allergen information, label completeness, product authenticity and certain contaminants all produced findings that can affect real kitchen decisions. The survey also shows why online photographs and familiar branding are poor substitutes for the current physical label.

For practical cooking, the takeaway is simple. Treat the label as part of your preparation routine, especially when buying imported, specialist or newly launched foods. Verify allergens and dates before cooking, keep the packaging until the food has been used, and use the relevant official alert whenever a product-specific safety issue is announced. The FSA’s full report provides the evidence behind the survey’s 72% headline and the detailed results behind it.

Sources

• Official source: science.food.gov.uk
• https://science.food.gov.uk/article/162217-retail-surveillance-survey-sampling-programme-2025-26