Different feed certification schemes are used across Europe by feed manufacturers, farmers, and companies involved in trading, transport, storage, and handling. While some schemes, such as GMP+, are internationally recognised, others are country specific. Regardless of their scope, they all aim to ensure the production of safe, high-quality feed and food products. Compliance is verified through audits carried out by accredited certification bodies, such as FoodChain ID, which are approved by the relevant certification scheme (for example, GMP+, VLOG, or FCA).
Accreditation standards continue to evolve
Increasing legislation around feed (and food) safety in the European Union has led companies to adopt a stronger feed safety culture, with more effective HACCP systems, more frequent analytical testing, and improved supplier qualification processes. Most feed producers and farmers, particularly those with an experienced quality manager, have a good understanding of a scheme’s requirements. “However, for companies implementing a certification scheme for the first time, interpreting and applying certain requirements can be challenging and requires keeping up to date on certification standards, in response to these new regulations, as well as emerging risks, and revisions to certification schemes. Even though scheme owners communicate these changes through newsletters, website updates, and official guidance documents, compliance in the animal feed sector has become increasingly complex over the years, including for schemes such as GMP+,” explains Marie-Paule Doguet, Operational Manager for the Feed & Agronomic sector at FoodChain ID.
Doguet, who is involved in audit planning, auditor training, and conducting audits for several certification schemes explains: “From an auditor’s perspective, the main challenge is keeping pace with legislative changes and the frequent updates to certification standards. At the same time, accreditation bodies are introducing stricter requirements for audit methodologies, evidence collection, reporting, and auditor competence. For feed manufacturers, compliance has become more demanding, with requirements covering raw material approval, feed safety systems, HACCP, traceability, sustainability, and extensive documentation. Traders also face increasing obligations related to documentation, product segregation, traceability, and demonstrating compliance throughout the supply chain. More recently, sustainability and environmental requirements have added another layer of complexity to certification schemes, while evolving accreditation standards continue to raise expectations for certification bodies and auditors alike.”
Increasing paperwork, especially for family farms
Tom Geldhof is Operational Manager Farming at FoodChain ID and oversees certification activities for crop and livestock farms in Belgium, France, and Luxembourg. His role includes managing a team of auditors, communicating with farmers, certification scheme owners and national authorities, as well as reviewing audit files before certification decisions are made. He also sees that certification has become more complex for farmers. “I cannot think of a single certification standard that has become simpler,” he says. According to Geldhof almost every scheme is updated regularly, and many change every year. He explains: “For certification bodies and farmers alike, it is challenging to keep up with these continuous revisions. The challenge is not only the frequency of changes, but also the growing overlap between different certification schemes. Many scheme owners ask for similar information, but each uses its own format and requirements. As a result, farmers often must provide the same information several times for different audits.”
Scheme owners recognise this issue and are exploring ways to simplify the process, although progress is gradual. “In Belgium, for example, there are initiatives to centralise certain farm data, so it can be shared across different schemes. These projects are still in their initial stages, but they show there is awareness that the current system could become more efficient.” Geldhof sees that the increased complexity of certification and regulation is particularly a complicated issue to manage for many family-run farms, which are still common in Belgium, the Netherlands and northern France. Geldhof: “Farmers are spending much more time on paperwork, not only for certification but also to comply with environmental legislation and other regulatory requirements. Many of them need additional guidance to navigate these obligations.”
What happens when non-conformities are identified during an audit?
When an audit identifies non-conformities within an animal feed certification scheme, the consequences depend on their nature and severity. In most certification schemes, non-conformities are classified as either minor or major, depending on the context of the situation of the company and the audit done.
Minor non-conformities generally allow a company to retain its certification, provided corrective actions are implemented within the specified timeframe and evidence is submitted to demonstrate compliance. Major non-conformities have more serious implications. If they pose a significant feed safety risk or represent a serious breach of the certification requirements, the certification body may suspend or, in severe cases, withdraw the certificate. The company must then implement effective corrective actions and demonstrate that the issues have been fully resolved.
Depending on the rules of the certification scheme and the certification body’s assessment, a follow-up audit or other verification activity may be required to confirm that the corrective actions have been properly implemented and are effective. While this is not always mandatory, it is commonly required following major non-conformities. Audits in the feed sector are done once a year but can also sometimes be done un-announced (for feed producers), depending on the scheme.
Effect on the day-to-day work of quality managers
The expansion of feed safety requirements within different schemes has significantly changed the day-to-day responsibilities of quality managers. Today, they must monitor a broader range of contaminants, including mycotoxins, dioxins, heavy metals, pesticide residues, and GMOs. They also need to adapt sampling and testing programmes, conduct more comprehensive risk assessments, and maintain closer oversight of suppliers and raw materials. Doguet explains: “This evolution has also increased the administrative workload. Quality managers are responsible for updating documentation, reviewing analytical results, managing non-conformities, keeping up with regulatory changes, and preparing for audits. As a result, they spend more time on documentation and compliance while continuing to manage their day-to-day operational responsibilities.”
According to Doguet, the certification schemes themselves are, however, not the main challenge. While they set high standards, these requirements address real risks and help safeguard feed and food safety. “The real challenge lies in the accumulation of requirements. Many companies are expected to comply with multiple certification schemes simultaneously, such as GMP+, VLOG, FCA, and QS, each with its own specific requirements, in addition to regulatory obligations. This overlap can become complex and time-consuming, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises with limited quality management resources.”
FoodChain ID: your trusted guide for GMO testing
The workload of quality managers has undoubtedly increased over the years. At the same time, this reflects stronger risk management practices and the continued professionalisation of the feed industry. The challenge is to maintain high feed safety standards while ensuring that certification systems remain practical, harmonised, and free from unnecessary administrative burden. Successfully navigating this increasingly complex regulatory and certification landscape requires a knowledgeable and trusted partner.
FoodChain ID supports feed businesses with certification and testing services that help demonstrate compliance with leading feed assurance schemes, including Feed Chain Alliance (Ovocom), Autocontrol (Belgium only), GMP+, Oqualim (RCNA, STNO, STNE, RCF and SNDA), Qualimat Transport, and FAMI-QS. Geldhof addresses the importance of selecting a certification body with the right scope of accreditation. “Not every certification body can certify every activity on a mixed farm. A farmer may find that one body can audit the crop production but not the livestock (e.g. pig) operation, meaning they need multiple certification providers. At FoodChain ID, we aim to offer one of the broadest portfolios possible, allowing many farmers to work with a single certification partner across all their activities.”