IFS Food is the scheme German, French and Italian retailers ask for. If you are a South African manufacturer selling private label into Continental Europe, IFS is often on the requirements list next to, or instead of, BRCGS. The two schemes are close cousins, but they score differently, and pest control is one of the requirements where the scoring model changes how an auditor treats a weak spot. A finding that costs you a single non-conformity under BRCGS becomes a C score that drags your whole percentage under IFS.
This guide explains how IFS Food version 8 handles pest control: the clause, the scoring, what the auditor expects to see, and where it diverges from BRCGS.
Key takeaways
- Pest control sits in IFS Food chapter 4, section 4.13, titled pest monitoring and control.
- It requires a risk-based, documented programme covering the whole premises and surroundings, expert application, mapped devices, records, trending and corrective action.
- It is scored A to D like most requirements, not a KO, but weak pest control commonly lands a C score or a major that pulls down the overall percentage and grade.
- Substance is close to BRCGS 4.14; the difference is the percentage-based scoring model rather than the requirement itself.
The pest control clause: IFS Food 4.13
IFS Food version 8 is the current edition, structured into six chapters. Chapter 4 covers operational processes, and pest control lives in section 4.13 pest monitoring and control. The requirement is that the company has a pest monitoring and control system in place, based on a risk assessment, appropriate to the site and its surroundings, and that measures are applied by competent personnel. The sub-requirements cover mapping of monitoring devices, inspection frequency, documentation, analysis of trends, and action on findings.
What the clause is really testing is whether pest control at the site is a designed, evidenced system or a monthly visit with a clipboard. IFS wants the risk assessment to drive the layout and frequency, the records to prove the visits happened, and the trend analysis to prove someone is thinking about what the records say.
What 4.13 requires in practice
Risk-based programme covering premises and surroundings
The programme has to be built from a site-specific risk assessment and extend beyond the four walls to the external areas and immediate surroundings. Loading yards, waste areas, external walls and the site boundary all count. A programme that stops at the production door is incomplete. Our commercial pest control programmes are scoped to the boundary fence for exactly this reason.
Mapped and inspected monitoring devices
Rodent stations, insect light traps, pheromone monitors and any bird measures, numbered and shown on a current plan, inspected on a frequency the risk assessment justifies. The auditor reconciles the map against the floor.
Expert application
Measures applied by competent, qualified people using approved products. In South Africa that means registered pest control operators using products registered under Act 36 of 1947, on a chemical register with L-numbers, target pests, application areas and safety data sheets.
Records and trend analysis
Dated service records at device level, and analysis of pest activity trends. IFS is explicit that the system must be reviewed and that findings feed action. A binder of slips with no trend is a C score waiting to happen.
Corrective action
Findings drive documented corrective actions with ownership, deadlines and close-out. Recurring activity should trigger a preventive fix to the building or housekeeping, not just repeated treatment.
Scoring: how 4.13 hits your result
IFS grades each requirement A, B, C or D, and separately flags KO (knock-out) requirements and majors. Pest control is not a KO, but understanding the scoring is the point, because IFS is percentage-based and a poor pest score costs real points.
| Score | Meaning | Effect on total |
|---|---|---|
| A | Full compliance | Full points |
| B | Almost full, minor deviation | Small deduction |
| C | Small part of requirement implemented | Significant deduction |
| D | Requirement not implemented | Heavy deduction |
| Major | Substantial failure against a requirement | Fixed heavy deduction, can fail the audit |
A site needs a minimum overall percentage to reach IFS Foundation or Higher level. Because pest management touches documentation, hygiene and building fabric, a genuinely weak programme rarely costs one score. It bleeds C scores across 4.13 and into related hygiene requirements, and can attract a major if there is evident, uncontrolled activity. That is how a pest problem that looks small on the day quietly moves a site down a grade.
How IFS differs from BRCGS
The requirements are close because both are GFSI-benchmarked. The differences are structural and worth knowing if you hold both.
| Aspect | IFS Food | BRCGS |
|---|---|---|
| Pest clause | 4.13 pest monitoring and control | 4.14 pest management |
| Grading model | Percentage from A/B/C/D scores | AA to D from counting non-conformities |
| Trend into HACCP | Required, less prescriptive wording | Explicitly feeds the hazard analysis |
| Fundamental status | Pest control scored, not a KO | Not a fundamental clause, but heavily weighted |
The practical takeaway: a programme built to pass BRCGS 4.14 passes IFS 4.13, and vice versa, because the underlying evidence is the same. What changes is the arithmetic of how a shortfall hurts you. For a full side-by-side across all five major schemes, see our standards comparison, and for the BRCGS detail see the BRCGS pest control guide.
If you are unsure which species drive your findings, the pest species guide covers the rodents and stored-product insects behind most European audit deductions, and our free checklists and forms include a pre-audit self-check that maps to both 4.13 and 4.14.
Frequently asked questions
Which IFS Food clause covers pest control?
In IFS Food version 8 it is chapter 4, section 4.13, pest monitoring and control. It requires a risk-based documented system covering premises and surroundings, expert application, mapped devices, records, trend analysis and corrective action. It is scored A to D, not a KO.
How is pest control scored in an IFS Food audit?
Each requirement is scored A, B, C or D, feeding a percentage that sets Foundation or Higher level, with separate KO and major flags. Pest control under 4.13 is scored A to D; weak documentation or effectiveness usually lands a C or a major, pulling the overall percentage down.
How does IFS Food pest control differ from BRCGS?
The substance is very similar because both are GFSI schemes. The differences are structural: IFS uses section 4.13 scored A to D in a percentage model, BRCGS uses clause 4.14 in an AA to D model based on counting non-conformities, and BRCGS is more explicit about feeding trend data into the hazard analysis.
