Aflatoxin, Salmonella and residue limits for sesame.

Is there an EU aflatoxin limit specifically for sesame?

No, and this is the single most common error in published guidance. Sesame is regulated under Regulation (EU) 2023/915 as "other oilseeds"; the word "sesame" does not appear anywhere in the regulation. Annex I defines oilseeds by reference to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, which places sesame seed in group 0401.

That gives two tiers, and which one applies to your consignment depends entirely on what happens to it next:

The crushing exemption is real, and conditional

Oilseeds destined for crushing into refined vegetable oil are excepted from those levels. Buyers sometimes treat this as a general softening for crushing-grade seed. It is not. Article 6(3) allows the exemption only where the consignment is clearly labelled with its intended use, carries the words "Product to be subject to crushing for the production of refined vegetable oil" on every package and on the accompanying document, and has a crushing plant as its final destination.

Article 6(2) closes the gap: absent clear information that the intended use is not food, the Annex I levels apply. The sorting route under Article 5 works the same way: the consignment must be labelled as destined for sorting, carry an indelible batch identification code, and must not have been mixed with food destined for the final consumer beforehand.

Two technical points that change results at the margin: the sum-of-aflatoxins level is assessed on lower-bound concentrations, meaning results below the limit of quantification count as zero; and the sum levels also apply to processed products consisting of 80% or more of the product concerned.

Which Salmonella rule applies to Nigerian sesame?

Not the one usually cited. Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005, the microbiological criteria regulation that guidance routinely points to, does not set a criterion for sesame seeds; the only seed category it names is sprouted seeds.

The rule that actually binds imported sesame is Regulation (EU) 2019/1793, Article 3(e) and Annex III point 1(a). It is stricter than a generic criterion, because it specifies the sampling plan:

Nigerian sesame is on the EU's increased-controls list at 50%

Under Regulation (EU) 2019/1793, sesame seeds from Nigeria (CN code 1207 40 90) are listed in Annex II for Salmonella, at a 50% frequency of identity and physical checks at the border control post. That position was re-checked against the consolidated text applicable from 30 June 2026 and is unchanged.

Annex II is the stricter of the two tiers, and the distinction governs what you must arrange before the vessel sails rather than after it arrives. An Annex I listing means increased checks at the border and nothing more. An Annex II listing additionally requires an official certificate issued in the country of origin, accompanied by the results of sampling and analysis, alongside the Common Health Entry Document. For Nigerian sesame that means the testing is not merely prudent: the paperwork evidencing it travels with the consignment as a condition of entry.

It is worth seeing the whole sesame picture, because buyers routinely compare origins on frequency alone and the frequency is the less important half of the entry:

Two things in that table that catch buyers out

Ethiopia and Nigeria are both at 50%, and buyers reasonably read that as the same treatment. It is not. Ethiopia sits in Annex I, where 50% describes how often a consignment is pulled for checks at the border. Nigeria sits in Annex II, where the same 50% sits on top of a certificate that is a condition of entry. An Annex I consignment with no paperwork problem simply passes; an Annex II consignment without its certificate does not enter, whether or not it was selected for a check. Same number, different question.

The second is new, and it is the first time the regulation has listed a sesame derivative rather than the seed. From June 2026, tahini and halva from Syria are in Annex I for Salmonella at 50%, added by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/1206. If you manufacture tahini, the border risk you have been managing on your raw material now attaches to finished product from at least one origin — which is a reason to hold your seed supplier to a documented Salmonella regime rather than an assurance, since your own output is what carries the consequence downstream.

One further note for buyers of more than one Nigerian line: dried beans from Nigeria are under suspension of entry altogether for pesticide residues, under Annex IIa. That is a different commodity under a different regime, and it does not read across to sesame in either direction.

Currency matters here more than anywhere else on this page. Article 12 requires the Commission to review the annexes at intervals not exceeding six months, and that review has just run: the version we published against in July 2026 was superseded on 30 June 2026, with the next revision due around the end of the year. Treat both the annex and the frequency as figures to confirm at each shipment cycle rather than constants, because origins move between tiers, and Nigeria's own listing has moved before.

What actually goes wrong with Nigerian sesame at the EU border

It is worth being concrete about the failure modes, because they are not evenly distributed and most guidance implies otherwise. A query of the European Commission's RASFF Window public database on 31 July 2026, covering notifications from 2019 onward that name sesame with Nigeria among the countries of origin, returns 267 records. Their distribution is lopsided:

Read that table before you design your QA programme

Two conclusions follow, and they should shape where a buyer spends attention. First, the risk on Nigerian sesame entering the EU is overwhelmingly microbiological, not chemical. Salmonella is not one hazard among many here; it is the hazard. Second, and this surprises people, the second-largest category is not a contaminant at all. Around one in six notifications concerns documentation and certificates: the wrong certificate, a missing analytical report, a mismatch between the paperwork and the consignment. On an Annex II listing, where the certificate is a condition of entry, administrative failure detains cargo exactly as effectively as a positive test does.

Ethylene oxide, by contrast, accounts for three notifications in six years. It dominates the trade press because of what happened to Indian sesame in 2020, but for Nigerian-origin seed it is background risk rather than the live one. A QA programme built around the headline story would be aimed at the wrong target.

The practical reading: contract the Salmonella sampling plan properly, and treat your document set with the same seriousness as your laboratory results. Those two things address roughly nine-tenths of what actually stops Nigerian sesame at the border.

Pesticide residues: the default limit does most of the work

Under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, Article 18(1)(b), where no specific maximum residue level is set for a substance on a commodity, a default of 0.01 mg/kg applies. For sesame (Annex I commodity code 0401040) that default governs most substances, which is why residue compliance is usually about what was never applied rather than about hitting a generous ceiling.

Ethylene oxide is the exception worth understanding properly, because it sits in neither of the places people assume. It is not an ordinary Annex II maximum residue level, and it does not fall to the 0.01 default either. Regulation (EU) 2015/868 removed ethylene oxide from Annex II and placed it in Annex V, the annex Article 18(1)(b) reserves for substance-specific default values fixed because of what analytical methods can actually detect. For oilseeds, including sesame, that value is 0.05 mg/kg, set at the limit of quantification.

The residue definition is the part that catches people out: the sum of ethylene oxide and 2-chloro-ethanol, expressed as ethylene oxide. That second compound persists far longer than ethylene oxide itself, so a lot fumigated well before shipment can still fail on a residue nobody applied deliberately. The 2020–21 crisis that reshaped this market concerned sesame from India, not Nigeria: RASFF notifications from September 2020 reported levels exceeding the maximum residue level more than a thousandfold, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1540 responded by adding pesticide residues, tested on 50% of consignments, to India's existing Annex II sesame entry for Salmonella, then at 20%. Both rates have since moved: pesticide residues down to 20% and Salmonella up to 30% in the consolidated text, which is a useful reminder that these figures are managed, not fixed.

The second, and it is live right now: Regulation (EU) 2023/334 cut clothianidin and thiamethoxam to the limit of quantification on pollinator grounds, and those levels apply from 7 March 2026. For oilseeds not individually listed, which includes sesame, the level fell from 0.02 to 0.01 mg/kg. The Commission stated its intent plainly, that imported products be free of both substances, and expressly declined to use Codex levels as a basis. Any residue data older than March 2026 should be re-read against the new figure.

Japan: the uniform limit, and a screening flag that names Nigeria

Japan's Positive List System sets a uniform limit of 0.01 ppm for any agricultural chemical with no specific maximum residue level, the same practical discipline as the EU default, reached by a different route. For aflatoxins, Japan applies a total aflatoxin standard (B1, B2, G1 and G2 combined) of 10 µg/kg to food generally, so sesame is covered. There is no averaging: if one specimen exceeds, the lot is non-compliant.

Buyers shipping to Japan should know one thing that rarely appears in supplier guidance. Japan's imported-foods monitoring plan for FY2025 names "Nigeria — sesame seeds — imidacloprid" in its list of items subject to enhanced monitoring inspection. Nigerian sesame is being actively screened for that specific residue.

The escalation mechanic is what makes this commercially significant: where violations recur from one origin within a twelve-month window, Japan can move the commodity to an inspection order, under which every consignment is held pending test results. That converts a residue question into a cash-flow question. If Japan is your destination, test for imidacloprid on the pre-shipment sample and keep the certificate. This is not a hypothetical parameter for Nigerian-origin seed.

China: what changed on 1 June 2026

Most published guidance on exporting food to China still cites GACC Decree 248. It has been replaced. Decree 280 was promulgated in October 2025 and came into force on 1 June 2026, so any guide describing 248 as current law is out of date.

For raw sesame the route is different again, and this is where guidance most often misleads. Decree 280 carves primary edible agricultural products out of the food-facility regime, and raw edible sesame is handled instead under the entry animal and plant quarantine registration regime, declared under a different customs licence category than the food-facility registrations most consultancies describe. The practical consequence for any Nigerian exporter is significant: registration requires official recommendation by Nigeria's competent authority. It cannot be self-applied for.

On aflatoxin, China's GB 2761-2017 sets 5.0 µg/kg for prepared (that is, cooked or roasted) nuts and seeds, and 10 µg/kg for vegetable oils other than peanut and corn oil. Raw sesame seed sits in the raw oilseed category, for which no numerical aflatoxin level is set, and the standard regulates aflatoxin B1 only, with no total-aflatoxin indicator at all. The widely repeated claim that Chinese law sets 5 µg/kg B1 and 10 µg/kg total for sesame is therefore wrong twice over. In practice this changes little for a serious buyer: the standard still requires producers to keep mycotoxins as low as achievable, buyers impose limits contractually, and any seed crushed into oil in China must yield oil meeting the 10 µg/kg oil level.

Codex offers almost no cover — and one myth to retire

There is no Codex commodity standard for sesame seed. Sesame appears in the Codex system only as an oil, within the standard for named vegetable oils. The general standard for contaminants sets no aflatoxin maximum level for sesame seed and none for oilseeds as a class; its aflatoxin schedule covers tree nuts and peanuts. There is also no Codex code of practice for mycotoxins in oilseeds, which is a real gap for a crop with genuine aflatoxin risk.

So retire this line if you have seen it: "Codex sets 15 µg/kg for groundnuts and other oilseeds." That construction is the European Union's, not Codex's, and the misattribution circulates widely. Codex has exactly one pesticide maximum residue level for sesame seed.

The commercial reading is simple. Codex gives Nigerian sesame almost nothing to stand on, so the binding numbers are always the destination market's. Specify against the destination, not against an international baseline that does not exist.

What to put in the contract

Compliance failures in this trade are rarely mysteries. They are almost always a parameter nobody named in writing. This is the checklist we would want a buyer to hold us to:

1. 01Name the destination market in the contract — the limits above differ enough that "food grade" means nothing without it
2. 02State the intended use, because the EU aflatoxin tier depends on it: sorting, direct consumption, or crushing, with the labelling that the crushing and sorting routes require
3. 03Specify aflatoxin as both B1 and the sum of B1, B2, G1 and G2, with the levels for your tier — not a single unqualified number
4. 04Contract Salmonella testing to EN ISO 6579-1 on the correct number of separately tested 100 g units for your consignment size, and require the laboratory report before shipment rather than after arrival
5. 05Name the residues that matter for your destination — including imidacloprid for Japan and, since March 2026, clothianidin and thiamethoxam at the tightened level for the EU
6. 06Require a pre-shipment sample and a sealed retention sample, so any dispute is settled against the lot that actually shipped
7. 07Name your inspection agency and make shipment subject to its certificate of weight and quality

How we handle this at AgroMax

Every lot is tested at independent laboratories before it is offered or shipped, against the parameters written into the contract for your destination rather than a house default. Certificates of analysis travel with the shipment, and we courier a pre-shipment sample so your own laboratory can verify the numbers before the vessel sails. Pre-shipment inspection by SGS, Intertek or Cotecna is at your option and named in the contract.

On which analysis binds: we contract on FOSFA terms, under which the goods are warranted to meet the agreed specification at the time and place of shipment, with samples drawn and sealed at loading by FOSFA member superintendents, analysed by FOSFA member analysts, and sealed sets retained on both sides for three months against arbitration. Our earlier testing at aggregation is commercial discipline rather than a contractual promise. What binds is drawn from the parcel that actually loads. FOSFA leaves the precise basis to the parties, so we agree it in writing before quoting rather than leaving it to be discovered in a dispute.

The prevention work matters more than the testing, because aflatoxin cannot be tested out of a lot once it is there. That is why moisture is checked at the point of aggregation rather than at the warehouse gate, why drying discipline is a sourcing condition rather than an afterthought, and why lots are cleaned and de-stoned before they are offered. Testing confirms a result; handling produces it.

Send us the specification you buy against today, with your destination market, and we will quote against it, including the parameters above, written into the contract.

How current is this page?

Every figure on this page was verified against its primary instrument on 31 July 2026, and the EU increased-controls entries were re-verified on 13 August 2026 against the consolidated text applicable from 30 June 2026 rather than the original publication, because several figures have moved since. Each instrument is named so you can check us: Regulation (EU) 2023/915 for aflatoxins, Regulation (EU) 2019/1793 (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1206) for Salmonella and increased controls, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 and Regulation (EU) 2023/334 for residues, GACC Decree 280 and GB 2761-2017 for China, and Japan's Positive List and its 2011 aflatoxin notification.

That re-check found Nigeria's entry unchanged, and corrected one of our own errors. The 31 July version of this page stated that Nigerian melon (Egusi) seeds were listed for aflatoxins at 50%. They are not: Nigeria appears exactly twice in the regulation, at sesame seeds in Annex II and dried beans in Annex IIa, and there is no melon-seed entry for Nigeria in any annex. That claim came from secondary sources and we did not check it against the consolidated text before publishing. It has been removed, and we are recording the correction here rather than quietly deleting it, because a page that asks you to check our numbers should show what happened when we checked our own.

Two items move faster than the rest and should be confirmed rather than assumed: the EU increased-controls frequency, which is reviewed at intervals of no more than six months and was last revised on 30 June 2026, and Japan's monitoring plan, which is republished annually. Where we could not verify something to our own satisfaction (China's registration mechanics for raw sesame being the clearest case), we have said so rather than filled the gap. A confident wrong number is worse than an acknowledged open question, particularly on a page a procurement team may act on.