Trade term
IFS Food, and the retailers who own it
IFS Food applies to companies that process food or pack loose food products at a site, and it sits beside separate standards for broking and for warehousing. Its governance is the part worth knowing: the standard is controlled by German and French retail associations, which explains where it is demanded and what its questions are about.
The figures
| Who controls the standard | German and French retail associations, through its management company |
|---|---|
| What falls inside | Processing, and the packing of loose food products at a site |
| What falls outside | Broking and warehousing, each with a standard of its own |
| Recognition | Version 8 recognised by the Global Food Safety Initiative since September 2024 |
| Our position | None held, with an orchard outside the scope of all three |
What it changes on an order
You buy through an importer rather than direct from a grower
An importer who handles no fruit answers to the broking standard. Asking for the processing one earns a polite refusal and costs a week.
Your specification lists this alongside its British counterpart
Both are recognised under the same global umbrella. Name the one you accept, or suppliers will quote for whichever reading of the pair costs them most.
You have wondered why an audit asks what it asks
Buyers wrote the questions. Reading the standard shows you what the purchasing teams behind it treat as non negotiable, which is useful whether or not you ever request a certificate.
What this note does not settle
- We hold nothing from this family and have applied for nothing. An orchard falls outside the scope of every standard in it.
- A certificate covers the activities written into its scope. Two companies under one standard sell you different amounts of assurance.
- Audits run against a specific version. The version belongs in your supplier record next to the certificate number.
Source: IFS Certification, GFSI recognition of IFS Food version 8
Written by buyers, for buyers
Standards tend to present themselves as neutral referees. This one does something more honest: it belongs to retail, through two national associations whose members are the very companies quoting it in their specifications. None of that is concealed. It also explains the shape of an audit, because the questions were chosen by the people who would be reading the answers.
There is a use in that for a buyer with no intention of requesting a certificate. Reading the standard shows you what large European grocers have already settled as non negotiable, which is market intelligence rather than admin. It explains geography too. A supplier aiming at Germany and France meets this one, and a supplier aiming at Britain meets the other.
Three standards, the wrong box, and our answer
The family divides by activity. Processing and packing at a site sit under one standard, trading without physical handling under a second, storage and transport under a third. An approval form that asks every supplier for the processing standard collects polite refusals from importers who hold precisely the right certificate for what they actually do.
For an orchard all three are the wrong box, and we hold none of them. Both halves of that deserve saying together, because they get muddled. A grower without one is unremarkable, and unremarkable is a long way from approvable under a policy that was written for factories. Tell us which company in the chain your rules actually need certified, and the conversation gets shorter.
Talk to the grower
Tell us the variety, the sizes and the delivery week you need. You get a delivered price and what we can commit to in writing, from the person who picks the fruit.
The grower handles enquiries. Response times are still to be confirmed.