Official controls compliance · Regulation (EU) 2017/625
Your readiness for official controls, measured against Regulation 2017/625 and turned into an action plan.
10 themes, a 5-level scale. And the action that moves each level to the next.
The framework’s 10 themes, already written from L1 to L5. One company, one business unit, or 300 at once.
Official controls compliance · Regulation (EU) 2017/625
10 themes, 5-level scale.
Nordhavn Industries
53 / 100
They measure their maturity with Datamensio
An example
This could be your situation.
Take one company as an example: three sites, three spreadsheets, no shared answer.
Nobody can consolidate.
Nordhavn Industries, 2,400 people in Hamburg, Lyon and Porto. A client asks where the group stands. Each site answers in its own spreadsheet, with its own scales.
Three weeks, a single base.
One Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of 15 March 2017, applicable since 14 December 2019 assessment launched across all three sites at once, from the managers’ interview notes. The framework was already written, its 10 themes and levels L1 to L5 too.
Two costs avoided before being committed.
A score of 53 out of 100, with the gap concentrated on three themes. The AI companion spotted that two actions duplicated those of another audit. The committee report took one sentence to request.
What it saved them
- 3sites measured on the same base, instead of three questionnaires to reconcile
- 2duplicate actions caught before the spend
- 1committee report, with no manual rework
These figures are an example. They could be yours.
The standard imposes processes. Datamensio says where you stand.
01
The framework is already written
Themes, questions and levels L1 to L5, all written. You do not start from an empty spreadsheet.
02
The score lands the same day
Online, by self-assessment link or in interview. Theme by theme, comparable over time.
03
The gap becomes a costed plan
Every step up carries its action. The AI prioritises on expected effect, not on the order of the standard.
04
Progress can be demonstrated
Campaign after campaign, against your target and against your own past. That is what your board asks for.
The maturity scale
One level, the next, and the action that links the two.
It is this mechanism, one level, the next level up, and the action linking the two, that turns a finding into a trajectory.
Is the follow-up given to competent authorities’ findings tracked through to verification of effectiveness?
- N1
Inspection reports are archived. No structured follow-up of actions is kept after the response sent to the authority.
- N2
Actions are listed and assigned, but their closure relies on people’s memory. No proof of effectiveness is required.
- N3
Each finding is logged with an owner, a deadline and proof of completion. Closure is validated by the quality manager.
- N4
Effectiveness is checked some time after closure, through on-site verification or analysis. Recurrences are identified and addressed at the root cause.
- N5
Findings and their follow-up are consolidated across sites, analysed for trends, and feed into the revision of procedures and control plans.
Action to move from L2 to L3
Set up a single register of official findings, with an owner, a deadline and the supporting evidence expected for each action, and make it a standing item on the site’s monthly quality review.
« With Datamensio, we meet our objectives far more efficiently. The ERDF inspection services and our supervising ministry particularly appreciated an approach that gives them reliable data. »
Director, CCI 94CCI Île-de-France
« We believe this is the most suitable solution to scale our transformation project and measure impact according to our needs. »
Maja SucekChief Operating Officer, Interreg Danube
Rarely on its own
Frameworks combine. Put several together to cover your business, or have the AI write yours.
Take your first measurement
What this framework covers
Regulation (EU) 2017/625 is the framework text for official controls across the Union’s food chain. It covers food, feed, animal health, animal welfare, plant health and plant protection products. It sets out how competent authorities plan risk-based controls, carry out sampling and analysis, and apply measures in cases of non-compliance. On the operator’s side, it establishes direct obligations: giving access to premises, equipment, animals and documents, cooperating with officers, and bearing control fees. It also governs import controls through border control posts and the TRACES system.
In practice, these obligations are hard to manage because they do not sit within a single department. Documentary access depends on quality, upstream traceability on procurement, health certificates on logistics, and follow-up on control outcomes on site management. Three questions keep coming up in review meetings: who greets the inspector if the quality manager is away that day, where are the reports from the last three controls with the status of corrective actions, and can we demonstrate that non-compliances raised a year ago have not recurred.
One common confusion is worth clearing up: 2017/625 is not another food safety framework alongside IFS, BRCGS or your HACCP plan. It governs the action of public authorities, not the design of your control system. Its consequence for the operator is indirect but significant: it concerns the ability to be inspection-ready at any time, across cross-functional scopes. The regulation also repealed and merged several earlier texts, including Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, which broadened the scope of official controls to plant health and animal by-products.
The maturity assessment does not answer the same question as an inspection. An inspection ends with a finding: compliant, non-compliant, with measures. The assessment places each practice on a progressive scale and points to the specific action that moves it up a level. A site may have passed its last control without major findings and still sit at a low maturity level, because its success depended on one person rather than on a documented, repeatable system.
In Datamensio, the framework is ready to use and adaptable. The AI adjusts the themes, questions and levels to your activity, slaughterhouse, processing plant, bonded warehouse or importer, or builds a variant from your existing procedures and inspection reports. Assessments run across several sites can be compared with each other and consolidated into a single cross-site roadmap.
Reference standard: Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of 15 March 2017, applicable since 14 December 2019
The themes assessed
Knowledge of the framework and controlled scopes
Identification of competent authorities, the areas covered by the regulation relevant to the activity, associated sectoral texts, monitoring of delegated and implementing acts.
Operator cooperation obligations
Access to premises, equipment, means of transport, animals and computerised systems, provision of documents, appointment and availability of a point of contact.
Preparing for and conducting inspections
Procedure for receiving officers, behaviour during an unannounced control, cover in case of absence, support during the visit, review and sign-off of findings.
Documentation and available evidence
Availability of HACCP records, upstream and downstream traceability, control plans, analysis results, turnaround time for producing documents on the inspector’s request.
Sampling, analysis and counter-expertise
Governance of official sampling, awareness of the right to a second expert opinion, sample retention, relationship with official and private laboratories.
Handling non-compliances and follow-up
Handling of findings, measures ordered by the authority, corrective actions, verification of effectiveness, prevention of recurrence, monitoring of imposed deadlines.
Import controls and cross-border flows
Prior notification, common health entry documents, use of TRACES, passage through border control posts, management of held or rejected consignments.
Official certification and attestations
Requesting and obtaining official certificates, accuracy of declared information, archiving, consistency between accompanying documents and actual flows.
Fees, sanctions and relationship with the authority
Monitoring of control fees, awareness of applicable sanctions, appeal routes, documented history of exchanges with competent authorities.
Governance, oversight and improvement
Assignment of responsibilities, escalation of findings to management, readiness indicators, periodic reviews, lessons learned shared across sites.
A short version of the framework is available for the online self-assessment.
Frequently asked questions
Can Regulation 2017/625 be certified?
No. It is a regulation that organises the action of competent authorities and imposes direct obligations on operators. No body issues a 2017/625 certificate. The assessment measures your maturity and prepares you for the visit of official services, it does not issue anything.
What is the difference between this assessment and an official control?
An official control ends with a binding finding and, where applicable, measures. The assessment places your practices on a maturity scale and points to the path for progressing. The two are complementary: the assessment anticipates what the inspection will come to check.
How long does the assessment take?
The individual self-assessment is completed in one working session. In collaborative mode, involving quality, logistics, regulatory affairs and site management, data gathering usually spans one to two weeks, most of the time spent assembling supporting documents.
Can the framework be adapted to our activity?
Yes. The themes, questions and levels can all be changed. The AI generates a variant suited to a slaughterhouse, a processing plant, an importer or a feed establishment, and can start from your existing procedures and inspection reports.
How do we compare several sites with each other?
Each site answers the same framework and gets a score per theme. The benchmark compares business units against each other and also compares each site with its own previous assessments. Gaps are consolidated into a single cross-site roadmap rather than into separate action plans.
How does this assessment fit with IFS, BRCGS or our HACCP plan?
Those frameworks cover the design and control of your system. 2017/625 covers your ability to be inspected by the public authority. The evidence largely overlaps: the assessment identifies what can be reused and what is specifically missing for the official control.
What happens to a gap once it is identified?
Each gap feeds into the action plan, with the target level and the action that leads to it. The service catalogue offers a solution against each item of the plan, with its cost, timeframe and expected impact on the score. The AI groups everything into a prioritised roadmap.
Where is the data hosted?
In France, with OVH, with backup at Scaleway. No transfer outside the European Union. The AI models used can be selected, including from European providers.