For Quality and Compliance leaders in the animal feed sector, certification is no longer just a box-ticking exercise. It is a strategic decision that affects audit predictability, market access, supplier risk, and the credibility of sustainability and non-GMO claims.
Yet across Europe, many Quality Managers face the same challenge:
too many certification schemes, overlapping requirements, and unclear decision criteria.
This article provides a practical decision framework to help you determine which feed certification (or combination of certifications) best fits your operation — based on your role, footprint, and risk profile, not marketing claims.
Why this decision has become more complex
The European feed industry operates under one of the world’s most stringent regulatory environments. Core regulations such as Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (traceability and responsibilities), Regulation (EC) No 183/2005 (feed hygiene), and Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 (labelling and marketing) apply across the EU and require consistent, auditable systems at every stage of the feed chain.
At the same time, market pressure has intensified:
- Buyers increasingly require certified feed as a condition of supply
- Non-GMO, sustainability, and responsible soy claims must be verifiable
- Multi-site operations must manage audits across countries with minimal disruption
For a Quality Manager, the real question is no longer “Which certification exists?”
It is:
“Which certification structure reduces my risk, simplifies audits, and supports long-term compliance?”
Step 1: Start with your operational reality, not the standard name
Before comparing certifications, clarify three internal factors:
1. Your position in the feed chain
Are you primarily:
- a feed manufacturer?
- a trader / distributor?
- involved in transport and storage?
- producing additives or premixes?
Different certifications apply to different roles, and choosing the wrong scope creates unnecessary audit burden.
2. Your geographic footprint
- Single-country operation?
- Multi-EU country footprint?
- Exporting outside the EU?
Some schemes are internationally recognised, while others are national but widely accepted through mutual recognition agreements — a critical distinction for multi-site Quality Managers.
3. Your risk exposure and market claims
Ask yourself:
- Do we make non-GMO claims?
- Are we sourcing soy or high-risk raw materials?
- Are customers asking for sustainability or carbon footprint data?
If the answer is yes, certification decisions must account for future audit and verification needs, not only today’s requirements.
Step 2: Understand the role of the main feed certifications
Below is a decision-oriented overview of the most relevant schemes, focusing on when they make sense — not just what they are.
GMP+ Feed Certification
Best fit when: you need international recognition and full feed-chain coverage
GMP+ is widely used across Europe and beyond and is often the default choice for companies with international customers. It covers feed safety (GMP+ FSA) and, optionally, sustainability and responsibility aspects (GMP+ FRA), including responsible soy and carbon footprint modules.
Strategic value for QMs:
- One framework covering production, trade, transport, storage, and labs
- Strong alignment with HACCP principles
- Easier acceptance by global customers
Watch-out: GMP+ alone may not satisfy national or customer-specific requirements in certain markets.
FAMI-QS
Best fit when: you produce feed additives or specialty feed ingredients
FAMI-QS is designed specifically for feed specialty ingredients and additives and is often required by downstream customers in sensitive supply chains.
Strategic value for QMs:
- Clear focus on hygiene, traceability, and risk control in additive production
- Strong customer and regulator confidence
- Reduced duplication of customer audits
FCA (Feed Chain Alliance)
Best fit when: you operate in Belgium or EU-centric supply chains with strong legal alignment needs
FCA is built on European legislation and provides a structured approach to self-control systems, HACCP, and traceability.
Strategic value for QMs:
- Strong regulatory alignment
- Often used as a gateway certification
- Increasingly required in specific EU markets
France-specific schemes: OQUALIM, CSA-GTP, QUALIMAT
Best fit when: you operate in or supply the French market
France has a well-established ecosystem of feed certifications that are deeply embedded in national supply chains. OQUALIM (including RCNA, STNO, SDNA modules), CSA-GTP, and QUALIMAT address feed manufacturing, trading, transport, and non-GMO requirements.
Strategic value for QMs:
- High acceptance by French customers and authorities
- Mutual recognition with other EU schemes reduces duplication
- Essential for maintaining audit predictability in France
Step 3: Think in certification systems, not single standards
One of the most common mistakes Quality Managers make is selecting one certification in isolation.
Resilient operations use layered certification systems, for example:
- GMP+ as the international backbone
- OQUALIM modules for French market access
- Non-GMO or responsible soy modules layered where required
This approach:
- reduces audit disruption
- avoids last-minute customer requests
- supports future sustainability and ESG verification
A practical decision shortcut
If you are a Quality Manager asking “Where do I start?”, use this logic:
- Single-country, domestic focus → start with nationally recognised schemes
- Multi-country EU operations → prioritise international schemes with mutual recognition
- Additives / premixes → assess FAMI-QS early
- Non-GMO / sustainability claims → plan certification + testing together, not separately
Why partner choice matters as much as the standard
Even the right certification can fail if:
- audits are scheduled late
- requirements are interpreted inconsistently
- testing, certification, and advisory services are fragmented
For Quality Managers, the real value lies in predictability, clarity, and coordination — not just the certificate itself.
This is why many organisations increasingly look for integrated partners that combine certification, testing, and regulatory expertise under one framework.
Final takeaway for Quality Managers
There is no “best” feed certification in abstract terms.
There is only the best-fit certification system for your operation, markets, and risk profile.
Taking the time to align certification strategy with your operational reality today will save significant effort, cost, and disruption tomorrow.
See how feed Quality Managers reduce audit effort and non-conformances.
Benchmark how integrated certification programs help reduce audit days by up to 20–30% and cut repeat non-conformances by 25%+ through better planning and scheme alignment.
Discuss your feed certification benchmark with an FCID specialist