A South African food exporter rarely holds just one certificate. A single beverage plant might carry FSSC 22000 for the base, BRCGS because a UK retailer insists, and SQF because an American buyer wants it. A citrus packhouse runs GLOBALG.A.P. and might add BRCGS. Each scheme has its own auditor, its own clause numbers, and its own way of scoring, and the natural instinct is to build a separate pest control file for each. That is wasted effort. Underneath the different numbers, these schemes want almost exactly the same pest management programme.
This is the side-by-side you need: what each of the five major standards requires for pest control, the clause that governs it, how it is scored, and where they genuinely differ. If you hold two or more of these, read the comparison table and then build once, to the strongest specification.
Key takeaways
- All five schemes demand the same core: a risk-based programme, mapped devices, competent application, records, trend analysis and corrective action.
- The differences are the clause number, the scoring model, and how explicitly trend data must feed the hazard analysis.
- BRCGS is the most prescriptive on documentation and trending; AIB is a physical inspection that punishes visible pest evidence; GLOBALG.A.P. applies only to post-harvest handling in the packhouse.
- Build pest control once to the strongest spec and one file carries every audit.
What every scheme demands (the common core)
Four of the five (BRCGS, FSSC 22000, SQF, IFS) are GFSI-benchmarked, which means they were written against the same benchmarking requirements. GLOBALG.A.P. shares the same logic for its handling scope. Strip away the clause numbers and every one of them expects:
- A site-specific pest risk assessment that drives the programme.
- A numbered device map: rodent stations, insect light traps, pheromone monitors, bird measures, reconciling to the floor.
- Competent application of approved products. In South Africa: registered pest control operators using products registered under Act 36 of 1947, on a register with L-numbers and safety data sheets.
- Records at device level, typically 12 months continuous.
- Trend analysis of activity, with action on spikes.
- Corrective actions with owner, deadline and close-out evidence.
If your programme delivers those six things well, you are compliant with the substance of all of them. What follows is where the packaging changes.
The comparison table
Read this as a mapping exercise, not a ranking. The same evidence pack answers every column.
| Requirement | BRCGS | FSSC 22000 | SQF | IFS Food | GLOBALG.A.P. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pest clause | 4.14 | ISO 22002-1 cl. 12 | GMP, ~11.2.x | 4.13 | Product Handling module |
| Scope | Whole site + surroundings | Whole site + surroundings | Whole site | Premises + surroundings | Post-harvest handling area |
| Risk-based programme | Required | Required | Required | Required | Required |
| Mapped devices | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Competent / licensed applicator | Yes | Yes | Yes (licensed) | Yes (expert) | Yes (competent) |
| Trend analysis | Explicit, into HACCP | Required | Explicit | Required | Required |
| Corrective action | Required | Required | Explicit CAPA | Required | Required |
| Scoring / grading | AA-D by NC count | Conformity + NC | Points, pass threshold | A/B/C/D %, KO, major | Major/minor Must + Recommended |
| Style | Announced/unannounced option | Certification audit | Certification audit | Certification audit | Certification audit |
Note on AIB: it does not appear as a column because it is not a GFSI certification but a physical inspection scheme scored out of 1000 with pest management as one category. It demands the same programme but tests it by walking the plant. See our AIB pest control guide for how that changes the emphasis.
Where they genuinely differ
BRCGS is the documentation hawk
BRCGS, clause 4.14, is the most explicit that pest activity trends must feed back into the hazard analysis and that the programme is reviewed for effectiveness. Its AA-to-D grading is driven by counting non-conformities, so scattered small findings add up. If you build for BRCGS, you tend to over-satisfy the others. See the BRCGS pest control guide.
FSSC 22000 leans on ISO 22002-1 clause 12
FSSC does not write its own pest clause; it adopts the prerequisite programme requirements of ISO/TS 22002-1, where clause 12 is pest management. It sits inside the wider ISO 22000 management system, so the emphasis is on the programme being part of a controlled, verified system. See the FSSC 22000 pest management guide.
SQF is US-facing and licence-focused
SQF sits in the GMP module and is the scheme American buyers request. It is explicit about licensed application and about corrective and preventive action, and it dovetails with FDA FSMA. See the SQF pest control guide.
IFS punishes with percentages
IFS Food uses section 4.13 scored A to D, feeding a percentage that sets Foundation or Higher level. A weak programme bleeds C scores across pest and hygiene requirements and can drop a grade. See the IFS Food pest control guide.
GLOBALG.A.P. is packhouse-only
GLOBALG.A.P. applies its pest requirements through the Product Handling module, so it governs the packhouse, cold store and dispatch, not the field. For fresh-produce and citrus exporters it is the baseline. See the GLOBALG.A.P. post-harvest guide.
One programme, every audit
The reason exporters end up with five pest files is that five different contractors, or one contractor with five different templates, produce them. The fix is a single programme, held on one system, that carries every clause. When your pest control is run by practising food safety auditors, the file is built to the strongest specification by default and the same evidence pack answers BRCGS, FSSC, SQF, IFS and GLOBALG.A.P. in turn. Our food and beverage pest control service is designed for multi-certified sites, and the free checklists and forms include a cross-standard pre-audit self-check.
If you want to get the species behind your findings right before mapping clauses, the pest species guide covers the rodents, stored-product insects and birds that drive audit deductions across all five schemes.
Frequently asked questions
Which food safety standard has the strictest pest control requirements?
No single scheme is dramatically stricter; all are GFSI-benchmarked and demand the same core. BRCGS is the most explicit on trending into the hazard analysis and documentation depth. AIB can feel strictest on the day because it is a physical, often unannounced inspection. GLOBALG.A.P. applies only to post-harvest handling.
If I build pest control for BRCGS, does it satisfy the other standards?
Largely yes. A programme built to BRCGS clause 4.14 already contains the risk assessment, map, register, records, trend analysis and corrective actions the others require. The remaining work is mapping the same evidence to different clause numbers and scoring models.
Which pest control clause applies in each standard?
BRCGS: clause 4.14. FSSC 22000: ISO 22002-1 clause 12. SQF: the GMP module, commonly 11.2.x. IFS Food: section 4.13. GLOBALG.A.P.: the Product Handling module. The requirements are similar; only numbering and scoring differ.
