On this page
Start with the certification programme your customer accepts, then check whether the proposed production site, product and activities fall within the actual certificate scope. BRCGS Food Safety, IFS Food and FSSC 22000 use different reporting systems. A letter grade, an IFS percentage and an FSSC certification decision cannot be converted into a common supplier score.
For a frozen-food order, compare each proposed route against the customer’s written rule, the evidence covering the work and any unresolved product or packing questions. A recognised programme can support supplier approval while leaving your particular specification, intended use and shipment checks to be agreed separately.
Check the applicable version dates alongside the certificate. This guide was checked on 10 September 2026. FSSC 22000 V7 had been published, but its upgrade-audit period had not begun. Treat the audit version, certificate status and transition timetable as separate fields when reviewing a proposal.
Start with the customer’s written acceptance rule
Obtain the applicable customer requirement before asking suppliers to quote against “a recognised food certificate.” Record the exact programme name, any minimum result, audit-option requirement, product category and approval conditions. Include the policy version or date and the person responsible for interpreting it. A remembered requirement from an earlier project may not apply to a new retail customer.
If the customer allows several programmes, list those alternatives explicitly. If it names one programme, establish whether alternatives can be reviewed and who may authorise an exception. Keep the written response with the inquiry. A commercial promise that another certificate is “equivalent” does not show that the customer has accepted the proposed route.
Consider two hypothetical inquiries for the same frozen vegetable. One customer names a specific programme and result; another permits several programmes but requests additional product evidence. The supplier’s document set may fit one inquiry while requiring further review for the other. The different purchasing requirements explain why the same product needs a separate review for each inquiry.
Separate mandatory conditions from preferences in the brief. This helps avoid rejecting a feasible route for an optional point or spending time developing a route that cannot meet a firm requirement. Keep product availability and certification acceptance visible together when comparing quotations, especially when several production sites are proposed.
For retail and private-label projects, connect the rule to the actual SKU, pack and intended market. Acceptance for a bulk ingredient does not by itself settle approval for a separately packed retail product. Identify which work will happen at each location before treating the project as one certified operation.
Compare the programmes without inventing an equivalent grade
The three programme names describe different certification arrangements. Use the comparison below to decide which documents to read and which questions to ask. It is not a ranking of food safety performance, and it does not establish that every customer accepts all three.
Illustrative comparison. Each proposed programme route needs a review of the customer rule, site scope and actual product brief. Equal folder sizes indicate no ranking, and the drawing does not represent certificates or an approved factory.
| Programme | What to recognise in the document set | What to compare for your order |
|---|---|---|
| BRCGS Global Standard Food Safety | Food-site certification with a reported audit grade and audit option | The customer’s required result, actual product and process scope, and relevant audit findings |
| IFS Food | Product and process assessment with an issued certification level and scored findings | The issued level and conditions, product and technology scope, and customer-specific requirements |
| FSSC 22000 | Food safety management system certification combining ISO 22000, sector prerequisite programmes and additional requirements | The actual FSSC certificate and status, applicable category and scope, audit evidence and version |
The GFSI recognition listing identifies programme versions and recognised scopes. At this guide’s review date, its Version 2020 section listed BRCGS Food Safety Issue 9, IFS Food Version 8 and FSSC 22000 Version 6, including processing of perishable plant products. GFSI does not itself audit or certify food businesses. Check the listing relevant to the actual programme rather than treating the organisation’s name as a certificate.
FSSC’s Version 6 scheme combines ISO 22000 requirements, sector-specific prerequisite programmes and FSSC additional requirements. An ISO 22000 certificate alone therefore does not establish FSSC 22000 certification. Request the document that identifies the scheme the customer actually requires.
Conceptual illustration of the combined FSSC 22000 requirements. ISO 22000, sector prerequisite programmes and additional requirements belong together. The stacked pieces explain the scheme structure; the building is not a named or certified facility.
Use the same purchasing questions for all proposed routes: customer acceptance, site and activity coverage, current status, unresolved findings and product evidence. Leave the scheme-specific result in its original form. If your internal supplier system requires a rating, document your own assessment criteria rather than presenting an invented conversion as part of the certification programme.
Check the actual product and production scope
Describe the ordered food precisely enough to connect it to the proposed operation. “Frozen vegetables” is a broad commercial category. Your inquiry may concern broccoli florets with a particular preparation state, pack format and intended use. Identify the proposed processing and packing site, and any separate storage or handling locations relevant to the supply route.
Broccoli appearance identifies the visible food form. The proposed site, preparation and packing activities must be established from the supply documents; this photograph does not demonstrate certification or suitability for an intended use.
BRCGS’s scope-design guidance explains how product, processing, packing and site circumstances appear in the certification scope, including relevant exclusions or outsourced activities. Apply the actual scope wording to the proposal. A trading company’s address or a photograph of broccoli is not evidence that a named processing activity is covered at a particular factory.
Build a short location-and-activity record if the route involves more than one site. Name the organisation doing each activity and identify the document that supports its coverage. Mark any step still being clarified. This prevents a certificate from one facility being attached to an order whose final packing has moved elsewhere.
Check any broad scope wording against the named product and activities. If the scope description leaves uncertainty about a product form or an operation, obtain clarification through the certificate holder and certification body. Save the response beside the scope rather than rewriting the certificate in your own words and assuming that interpretation is accepted.
For example, a proposal might identify a frozen fruit processor and a separate retail packing location. Even when the processor’s certificate is valid, the buyer still needs to understand how the packing activity is assessed within the proposed route. The required evidence follows the actual arrangement; it should not be inferred from a shared brand or ownership name.
Use the certificate verification guide for the detailed holder, issuing-body, status and authenticity checks. Compare each candidate route with the work your customer is asking you to approve.
Read the audit result in its own system
BRCGS Food Safety Issue 9 reports grades AA, A, B, C or D according to the number and severity of non-conformities; a plus sign identifies an unannounced audit result. Read the grade together with its audit option and report. The standard’s grading provisions also connect results to follow-up requirements. An AA or AA+ result is not a percentage of conforming product in a shipment.
IFS Food Version 8 distinguishes Higher Level, normally associated with a score of at least 95%, from Foundation Level at 75% to below 95%, subject to its certification conditions. The score alone is insufficient: major non-conformities and knockout requirements affect the outcome. A successful follow-up for one Major leads to Foundation Level even if the final score reaches 95%. Read the issued level and the associated findings.
FSSC 22000 reports conformity and grades individual non-conformities as minor, major or critical. Review the certification decision, current status and relevant corrective-action evidence. The absence of an AA-style grade is part of a different reporting system; it is not evidence that a result is missing or that the organisation performed worse.
Ask a specific follow-up when an audit finding relates to your product. Identify the issue, the affected operation and the evidence showing how it was addressed. If the full report is restricted, agree appropriate access or a relevant controlled extract with the document owner. A missing report page and an unresolved finding are different situations; record which one prevents your assessment.
Keep the customer’s minimum result visible beside the issued result. Where the requirement is not met, route the proposal to the authorised decision-maker before committing the order. Neither a strong application sample nor an attractive price changes a mandatory certification condition without an approved exception.
Keep the FSSC 22000 transition dates separate
FSSC’s official V7 upgrade requirements, issued on 1 May 2026, allow V6 audits through 30 April 2027. V7 upgrade audits run from 1 May 2027 through 30 April 2028. Publication of V7 in May 2026 therefore did not make V6 certification obsolete that month.
Audit transition dates from FSSC’s May 2026 upgrade requirements. The highlighted interval shows the V7 upgrade-audit period. This schematic is not drawn to elapsed-time scale, and these dates are not the expiry dates of an individual certificate.
At the review date of this article, a proposed site holding V6 certification needed the normal status and scope checks, together with an appropriate upgrade plan. Its certificate should not be rejected solely because the later scheme document existed. For an order extending across the transition, retain the certification body’s timetable and identify when updated evidence will be reviewed.
Keep three dates in separate fields: the last audit, the certificate’s validity dates and the planned upgrade audit. A document issue date can change without describing all three. If a supplier sends a revised certificate, compare it with the previous record and establish what changed before replacing the approval file.
Other programmes also publish clarifications between full editions. BRCGS’s Issue 9 document page lists mandatory position statements effective from 10 August 2026. IFS published an updated Food 8 doctrine in April 2026. Ask which current programme documents apply to the audit; the edition number alone may not describe every applicable clarification.
Use audit findings to ask better product questions
A certification result helps assess the organisation and activities within its scope. Assess the proposed product against its own specification and intended use. For whole frozen blueberries, that brief may include intended use, fruit form, size requirements, permitted defects, packing and the evidence needed for the agreed specification. An audit result does not provide those lot-specific measurements.
Whole blueberries have product and intended-use requirements that need their own evidence. Neither this product view nor a programme result supplies a lot test, preparation instruction or approval for consumption without further treatment.
Suppose a hypothetical customer accepts more than one programme and two proposed sites meet that rule. One proposal includes a clearly identified product specification and sample; the other leaves the packing location and preparation description open. Record the second proposal’s missing information directly. There is no need to invent a lower certification grade to explain why the product review cannot yet be completed.
Use findings to focus the next evidence request. A relevant issue concerning traceability might prompt a request for the record connecting the proposed product to its packing and dispatch identifiers. A packing-control issue might require an explanation of the affected activity and the current corrective-action evidence. The request should follow the issue and your product risk assessment, with the appropriate technical reviewer involved.
Distinguish a document request from a new test. A certificate copy may establish the programme and scope. A product specification states agreed requirements. A sample trial investigates performance under a defined method. A lot report records results for identified material. Asking for the right item makes the response useful and reduces the chance of accepting an unrelated document simply because it looks formal.
For product-result interpretation, the COA and product-specification comparison explains that distinction in detail. Keep those records connected to the certification review without letting one replace the other.
Include an explicit intended-use field in the review. A photograph of frozen fruit does not establish whether it is suitable for consumption without further treatment. Record the product’s actual instructions and the requirements of the customer’s process, then have the responsible technical team assess suitability. A recognised programme name cannot answer that product-specific question by itself.
Approve the supply route and manage later changes
Finish the comparison with a recorded decision for the proposed route. Identify the product, site, programme, issued result and evidence reviewed, then state any open condition and the person responsible for closing it. Use the customer’s own approval terminology. An incomplete review should remain identifiable when the quotation moves to another colleague.
| Hypothetical review situation | Decision that still needs to be made | Record to retain |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted programme, relevant scope and complete product evidence | Whether the customer’s authorised reviewer approves this route | Dated approval tied to the product and site |
| Valid certificate, but an alternative programme to the one requested | Whether an exception or alternative is permitted | Written customer acceptance before commitment |
| Accepted programme, but a packing activity is unclear | Which evidence covers the actual packing location and work | Scope clarification and the completed location record |
| Certificate update or proposed facility change | Which prior approval fields remain applicable | Change description, revised evidence and review outcome |
Keep the result usable for purchasing. List the approved route beside the quotation reference, SKU and pack, rather than maintaining an isolated folder of certificates with no order connection. If more than one site is approved, make the permitted choices clear and identify how the selected site will be confirmed for the order.
A later change may require more than a fresh certificate copy. Moving final packing, changing the product’s preparation, adding a new SKU or using a different storage arrangement can affect the evidence already reviewed. Describe the proposed change before deciding which documents and trials need to be repeated. Avoid automatically restarting every check when only one field changed, but do not assume that a shared programme name preserves approval.
For repeat orders, compare the proposed route with the last authorised record. Check the current evidence at the stage specified by your approval process and identify the next review point. Record who will notify whom about a change in certification status or the production arrangement. These responsibilities matter when commercial and technical contacts work in different organisations.
When several programmes are acceptable, the final choice can then consider the product evidence, practical packing route, timing and commercial terms. Record the reasons for the selection. A decision based on an approved product trial and an available packing route is more informative than calling one certification logo “best.”
Review your certification requirement with XMG Food
We supply frozen fruits, vegetables and mushrooms through long-term partner factories in China. We connect your certification requirement with the proposed product and facility route, coordinate available certificate and specification information, and align private-label product and packing approval milestones where needed.
Send the customer’s programme and minimum-result requirement, product form and intended use, packing, quantity, destination, timing and document needs. We will review the proposed supply route, available documents and approval questions that remain open.
References
Programme information was checked on 10 September 2026 against the linked GFSI listing, BRCGS Food Safety Issue 9 and scope guidance, IFS Food Version 8 and current doctrine notice, and FSSC 22000 scheme and V7 upgrade requirements. BRCGS’s primary standard is linked through a public training-provider copy. The comparison concerns the stated programmes, not every standard offered by each organisation. Customer scenarios and illustrations are hypothetical; product photographs do not establish certification, processing history or lot conformity.
