IFS and BRCGS Pest Control Requirements

ARZÉN Kft.
  • IFS
  • BRCGS
  • Food industry
  • Audit

Both IFS Food and BRCGS expect a risk-based, documented pest control programme, not merely a contract with a service provider. The practical difference is one of emphasis: BRCGS places stronger weight on inspection, trend analysis and root cause investigation, while IFS focuses on the risk-based justification of the monitoring plan and proof of its effectiveness.

Same logic, different emphasis

IFS Food and BRCGS Food Safety are both GFSI-recognised standards, and on pest control they both start from the same principle: the facility must prove that it knows its pest pressure, manages it, and measures the effect of its interventions.

What differs is where the emphasis of the evidence lies. This is worth knowing, because it decides where to put the most attention when preparing for audit.

What both expect

  • A risk-based programme. A generic schedule is not enough: the frequency and technology used per zone must be justified in writing.
  • A site plan with numbered points, with the points actually located where the plan says they should be.
  • Retrospective inspection records, in an unbroken series.
  • A qualified technician: valid qualification and licence, documented.
  • Action taken on findings. This is the most commonly underestimated element – a problem found is not itself a non-conformity; the missing follow-up action is.

Where BRCGS asks for more

BRCGS typically asks for more detail on regular inspection and its written outcome, as well as root cause investigation. It is not enough to record that point 12 caught something: the auditor asks why, and what was done so it would not happen again. A documented repair of a structural defect – a door that does not close properly, a damaged skirting strip – is stronger evidence than simply placing another trap.

This connects to trend analysis: the data series must show whether pressure has risen or fallen, and whether the interventions have worked.

Where IFS asks for more

IFS puts more weight on why the monitoring plan looks the way it does. The number and placement of points and the frequency of inspection must follow from a risk assessment, and that reasoning must be recorded in writing. The second question is proof of effectiveness: does the programme work, and what shows it?

What to prioritise in preparation

  1. Check that the record series is complete. A missing month stands out more than a bad result.
  2. Walk the facility with the site plan in hand. Whatever is on the plan should be in place, numbered and undamaged.
  3. Find the highest catch figure from the past year and check whether it has documented action attached. If it doesn’t, this will be the first question raised.
  4. Check that products’ authorisations and safety data sheets are valid.

We set out the itemised documentation package in our HACCP pest control guide. The ongoing data collection that trend analysis is built from is provided by our pest monitoring service.

A note on clause numbers

Clause and point numbering changes between editions of the standards. This guide therefore names requirements by their content, not by their number. It is worth doing the same in your own programme description, or referencing the current edition explicitly – an outdated clause number can itself be a source of non-conformity.

Frequently asked questions

Which standard is stricter on pest control?

In general, neither is stricter than the other – they simply place the emphasis differently. BRCGS asks for more detail on inspection, trend analysis and root cause investigation; IFS focuses on the risk-based justification of the monitoring plan and proof of its effectiveness. A well-built programme satisfies both, because it rests on the same chain of evidence.

Is it enough to contract an outside provider, or does the facility need its own specialist too?

A facility can be compliant with an outside provider, but responsibility cannot be outsourced. Both standards expect the facility to have a designated responsible person who understands the programme, reads the inspection records and acts on the findings. The auditor typically questions that person, not the provider.

Can our programme reference the standard's clause numbers?

With caution: clause numbering changes between editions, so it is better to reference the current edition or to name the requirement by its content. A programme description that cites an outdated clause number can itself result in a non-conformity.

More articles

HACCP Pest Control: What Auditors Expect

A documentation checklist for food-industry audits – what the folder needs to contain, and where most facilities fall short.

Pest Identification Guide for Facilities

Recognising the most common facility pests from their signs, and what a finding reveals about the extent of an infestation.

Designing a Rodent Monitoring Point Network

How to build a rodent monitoring network for a facility that will hold up at audit – layers, density, numbering, and where audits tend to catch people out.