On August 14, 2026, Liangzhilong 2026 Global Food Trade Festival opened at the Guangzhou Canton Fair Complex. Focusing on export categories such as food ingredients, preservatives, natural antioxidants, and water-soluble flavor substances, the core signal released by the exhibition is: International certifications such as FDA GRAS and EU Novel Food can only indicate the qualifications at the factory or system level, and are not automatically equivalent to the access of products from the target country. Formulas, animal-derived ingredients, labels, and processing methods still need to be reviewed separately according to the importing country. This point directly affects overseas buyers' compliance assessment, product selection rhythm and order judgment on China's supply chain, so it deserves the attention of relevant companies.

Rule signals released at the exhibition

According to the public information of this event, Liangzhilong 2026 Global Food Trade Festival will be held at the Guangzhou Canton Fair Complex from August 14th to 16th, focusing on core export categories such as food ingredients, preservatives, natural antioxidants, and water-soluble flavor substances. The exhibition clearly pointed out that international certification corresponds more to factory or system qualifications, which does not mean that a certain target country has released specific products.

The same statement also emphasized that whether a product can enter the import market still depends on whether the formula, animal-derived ingredients, labeling and processing methods meet the requirements of the importing country. For buyers, this means that tradability cannot be judged based on just one certification certificate; for exporters, it also means that the compliance conclusions of the same batch of products in different markets may not be consistent.

The procurement, certification and delivery chain will be re-examined

Procurement decisions rely more on single product verification

From the perspective of the procurement process, this type of information will directly affect the screening methods of overseas buyers. After confirming the supplier's qualifications, the purchaser still needs to continue to check the specific product formula, raw material sources and label expressions, especially when there are differences in animal-derived ingredients or processing methods. The review is no longer a unified caliber, but is promoted one by one on a product-by-item basis. For buyers who rely on quick replenishment and parallel shipments to multiple markets, this will affect the pace of advance confirmation and order placement.

Export enterprises should prepare system qualifications and product access separately

For export enterprises, system certification can support factory-level credit statements, but cannot replace product-level access documents. From observation, companies need to separate and manage certification materials, formula instructions, ingredient certifications, label samples, and processing process data to avoid directly equating "certified" with "saleable" in business communications. If the preliminary preparation only covers factory qualifications, it will be easy for supplementary parts, review or re-confirmation to occur during the target market review stage.

The focus of testing and compliance services will be more detailed

For testing service agencies, certification-related enterprises and supply chain service providers, this rule means that the service focus will be more towards product-level verification, rather than staying at the system document level. From an analysis point of view, the compilation of information around formula comparison, animal source risk identification, label compliance and processing process records may be more decisive than a single certification display in determining whether customers can smoothly promote trade. Related services also need to be synchronized with the procurement plan, rather than waiting until the order is near delivery to make additional confirmations.

What links should companies focus on now?

Split the information package according to market

For similar export products, companies should separately file the review standards of different importing countries, at least to ensure that the formula, raw material source, label version and processing instructions correspond to the specific market. What deserves more attention at present is that this sub-item verification is not a formal issue, but directly related to whether the subsequent actual procurement and customs clearance links can be entered.

Change the expression of certification to "available scope"

In external communication, companies need to avoid expressing international certification as a unified pass. A more reliable way is to clarify which content belongs to the factory system certification and which content still needs to be reviewed according to the target market. For procurement documents, quotation documents and technical Q&A, this distinction can reduce misjudgments and reduce time loss caused by repeated confirmations.

Leave a compliance buffer for the delivery time

If the product involves new formulas, animal-derived raw materials, or label adjustments, the delivery time should not only be calculated based on the production schedule, but also include the target country review, supplementary information, and review time into the plan. For export companies and purchasers, this is better understood as a recalibration of the entry rhythm, rather than a simple transaction delay.

This is more like a reminder of the execution caliber

From the analysis, this information is currently more suitable to be understood as an execution signal, rather than a fully finalized unified rule conclusion. The focus it conveys is not to add a new general requirement, but to remind the market to treat "system certification" and "product access" separately, and further reduce compliance review from the factory level to the single product, formula and label level.

Therefore, what deserves continuous observation in the future is not whether certification itself is important, but whether the target market, procurement documents and execution standards will be further refined, and how companies will adjust data preparation and delivery arrangements in actual transactions. For the industry, what really needs to be followed up is how the rules are gradually implemented by the procurement end, compliance end and customs clearance end.

Current judgments that can be made

The industry significance of this information is mainly to bring market consensus back to product-level compliance verification: certification does not mean that the entire category is available, and whether the product can be traded still depends on whether the specific product meets the requirements of the importing country. At present, it is more appropriate to regard this as a clear signal that access review is becoming stricter, rather than a policy enforcement that has completed a closed loop.

For export-related businesses such as food ingredients, preservatives, natural antioxidants, and water-soluble flavor substances, subsequent competitive points will be more reflected in data completeness, compliance response speed and single product review capabilities, rather than just factory qualification display.

Public information based on this article

This article is generated based on the information title, event time and event summary provided by the user. Relevant content can usually correspond to source types such as official event information, regulatory agency releases, customs or trade authority information, industry association information, standards organization documents, and authoritative media reports. Since no specific official source link is provided in the input, this article does not introduce external links; it is still necessary to continue to verify policy details, certification enforcement standards, changes in procurement documents, industry feedback, and the actual enforcement of the company.