Cancellation of the moratorium on food safety inspections: new rules for business and consumers

Reasons for lifting the moratorium
The main argument of those supporting the return of inspections is the need for transparent market control, especially in the dairy and meat industries, which are most sensitive to safety issues. A permanent moratorium, as noted by the State Service of Ukraine on Food Safety and Consumer Protection (SSUFSCP), creates risks for public health since it can allow low-quality products to reach the end consumer.

According to EU law, candidate countries must maintain strict control standards for food products—from production to export. Lifting the moratorium will also promote open dialogue with the European Commission on food trade.

Business arguments against lifting
At the same time, the European Business Association, some sectoral organizations, and most entrepreneurs urge the government not to rush in resuming scheduled and unscheduled inspections. Their key points:

• During the war, business faces increased strain: logistics issues, staff shortages, destruction of infrastructure, and falling purchasing power.
• Resuming inspections may result in higher administrative and financial pressure and greater corruption risks.
• Statistics show violations in the food sector have decreased: in 2024, over 9,000 unscheduled inspections were initiated by producers themselves, with violations found in only 20% of cases—evidence of stronger internal controls.

Regulatory and legal basis for changes
The process details are governed by Cabinet Resolution No. 303 and proposed amendments permitting the full restoration of government control. SSUFSCP has already unveiled a development strategy through 2028, focused on transparent business dialogue and gradual rather than abrupt inspections. Particular emphasis is placed on objective grounds for state control—consumer complaints, suspected threats to health, as well as export needs.

Experts’ view on market impact
Food safety experts believe a moratorium, on the one hand, reduces the risk of uncontrolled activity, but may also negatively affect Ukraine’s reputation as a food exporter. Growing inquiries from EU partners and the prospect of “industrial visa-free” trade require deeper control and the highest quality standards.

Meanwhile, legal specialists recommend the state develop transparent audit algorithms, set criteria for regular inspections, and minimize risks for small and medium businesses—such as via process digitalization and the use of mobile audits and modern technology.

Possible effects for consumers and producers

• For consumers: improved guarantees of product quality, ability to respond quickly to violations by contacting SSUFSCP.
• For exporters: reduced risk of losing external markets, retention of reliable partner status with the EU.
• For small business: potential risk of administrative burden, need to adapt to new standards and recordkeeping.

Conclusions and recommendations
Restoring government control over the food sector means balancing safety requirements, business interests, and wartime restrictions. Authorities should follow the principle of “reasonable sufficiency,” make inspections preventive rather than punitive, and establish transparent rules for all market participants.

Recommendations for business:

• Update internal quality control policies.
• Maintain documentation and clear response algorithms for inspections.
• Monitor changes in regulations and participate in consultations with SSUFSCP.

For consumers: contact control agencies online if needed and actively use consumer protection mechanisms.

The ongoing debate over ending the moratorium is an example of seeking compromise between state, business, and citizen interests in uncertain times—one that will shape the standards of Ukraine’s food market for years ahead.

Author — Yulia Popadyn, attorney of the tax and customs law practice at WINNER Law Firm.