The food safety gaps audits keep finding and how manufacturers can close them

Food safety standards and regulations across the globe are increasingly aligned.

Global Food Safety Initiative recognised schemes such as BRCGS, International Featured Standards (IFS), Food Safety System Certification 22000 (FSSC 22000) and Safe Quality Food (SQF) share the same core foundation.

These include Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) and a demonstrable commitment to food safety culture. Yet despite this common framework, audits continue to uncover a strikingly consistent set of non-conformities year after year.

Data highlights the scale of the challenge: in 2024 alone, more than 100,000 non-conformities were raised under BRCGS Food Safety Issue 9, with manufacturers averaging just under five findings per audit.

Around 59 per cent of these findings fell under Section 4, covering site standards such as premises, equipment condition and hygiene, while Clause 4.11.1, which requires equipment and facilities to be maintained in a clean and hygienic condition, was the single most cited non-conformity in the 2024 to 2025 reporting period. These findings highlight a persistent gap between documented food safety systems and what can be consistently demonstrated during an audit.

While audit outcomes vary by sector, product type and geography, four recurring areas sit behind a large proportion of these findings.

The first is the food safety plan itself. Many non-conformities relate to incomplete hazard analysis, poorly defined critical control points (CCPs) or inadequate monitoring of CCPs. HACCP remains the backbone of food safety management, yet audits frequently reveal confusion around its practical application, particularly when it comes to validation and verification.

Manufacturers may treat validation and verification as documentation exercises rather than as proof that controls performance effectively under real operating conditions. Clear process mapping, correctly positioned inspection points and robust data capture all help close this gap and support audit ready records across the seven principles of HACCP.

Hygienic design and GMP form the second major area of concern. Across BRCGS, IFS and SQF audits, hygiene, cleaning and sanitation consistently account for a high proportion of findings. Equipment that is difficult to clean, inspect or maintain increases both contamination risk and audit exposure. Preventive maintenance programmes are often in place, but corrective actions may not be clearly defined or verified for effectiveness.

From an audit perspective, hygienic design is not just about materials and surfaces, but about demonstrating that equipment can be cleaned effectively, maintained predictably and returned to service without introducing new risks. Inspection systems designed for washdown environments and hygienic operation support this requirement by reducing both operational and audit complexity.

Allergen management and physical contamination control represent the third recurring issue. Mislabelling remains one of the most serious risks facing food manufacturers, with incorrect or missing allergen declarations capable of triggering recalls even where the product itself is safe.

Audits also continue to flag weaknesses in foreign body detection and verification. Checkweighing, metal detection, vision and x-ray inspection are increasingly seen as complementary tools, supporting both label accuracy and physical contamination control as part of a risk-based strategy.

Food safety culture underpins all technical controls. Audit data repeatedly highlights gaps in training, competency and supplier oversight. Weak raw material controls, limited understanding of food safety responsibilities and inconsistent adherence to procedures all increase the likelihood of non-conformities. Training, supported by clear processes and measurable controls, remains essential to embedding food safety into day-to-day operations.

Ultimately, audit trends show that most non-conformities are not isolated failures. They are symptoms of food safety systems that lack integration between people, processes and technology. When inspection technologies are selected and positioned based on risk, designed for hygienic operation and supported by meaningful data, they become a core part of the food safety management system rather than a last line of defence. In this way, audits move from repeatedly identifying the same gaps to confirming that effective controls are in place and working as intended.

For more information about food safety: www.mt.com/food-safety-digital-pr