Integrated Pest Management is one of the most used and least understood terms in food manufacturing. Every contractor claims to do it. Most do not. IPM is not a synonym for "we also put down bait stations as well as spraying." It is a defined hierarchy with a strict order of preference, prevention first, chemical last, and a facility either follows that order or it does not. When an auditor asks to see your IPM programme, they are checking whether the hierarchy is real on your floor or just a word in your contract.
This article sets out the full framework: the four levels of the hierarchy, the least-toxic principle that governs it, why routine blanket spraying fails modern audits, how the programme is documented, and who is responsible for each part. It is the model our food and beverage programme is built on, and the model BRCGS, FSSC 22000 and SANS 10133 all expect.
Key takeaways
- IPM is a hierarchy in strict order: exclusion, restriction, destruction, monitoring. Prevention outranks pesticide.
- The least-toxic principle means chemical control is a targeted last resort, never a routine blanket spray.
- Spray-and-pray fails audits because it treats symptoms, ignores root cause and puts unnecessary chemical near food.
- A defensible IPM programme is fully documented and has named roles for the contractor, the site and management.
The IPM hierarchy
The framework works from the outside in and from least to most intervention. Each level is exhausted before the next is relied on.
1. Exclusion: keep pests out
The first and most powerful level is physical: stop pests entering the building at all. Proofing gaps under and around doors, fitting brush strips and self-closers, sealing service penetrations where pipes and cables pass through walls, screening windows and vents, maintaining fly screens and air curtains, and repairing damaged fabric. A single 6mm gap under a warehouse door is an open invitation to Mus musculus. Exclusion is unglamorous and often structural, which is exactly why weaker programmes skip it and reach straight for chemical. Done well, it removes the problem before it starts, and it is the level auditors examine hardest during the site walk.
2. Restriction: deny food, water and harbourage
What survives exclusion is starved out. Restriction denies pests the three things they need: housekeeping and waste control remove food; drainage maintenance and leak repair remove water; and removing clutter, dead legs, redundant equipment and voids removes harbourage. This is where pest control and sanitation overlap completely, and it is why the best IPM programmes are run by people who understand food safety, not just pesticides. Spillage on a mezzanine, a dripping tap in a plant room and pallets stored against a wall are all IPM failures at the restriction level.
3. Destruction: control what gets in
Only what defeats exclusion and restriction is actively controlled, and even then by the least-toxic effective method. That means mechanical and physical control first, trapping, insect light traps, glue monitors, before chemical, and where chemical is genuinely needed, using a targeted application of a registered product against a labelled pest, not a blanket fog. Rodenticide use follows a risk-based approach, with external stations and internal break-back or monitoring devices preferred over routine internal toxic baiting near open product. Destruction is a level of the hierarchy, not the whole of it, and a programme that lives here has skipped the two levels that actually prevent the problem.
4. Monitoring: detect, record and trend
Underpinning all three is continuous monitoring: stations and devices checked on a risk-based frequency, findings recorded at station level, and activity trended over time so that a problem is caught early and the effectiveness of the other three levels is measured. Monitoring is what turns IPM from a set of good intentions into a managed, evidenced system, and it feeds directly into your trend analysis and the hazard analysis.
The least-toxic principle
Running through the whole hierarchy is a single governing rule: use the least-toxic method that will work. Prevention before control, physical and mechanical control before chemical, and targeted chemical before blanket chemical. This is not an environmental nicety; it is an explicit expectation of BRCGS, FSSC 22000 (ISO 22002-1 clause 12) and SANS 10133, and it protects the product, the staff and the integrity of the food you make. Every chemical you introduce is a hazard you have chosen to place near food, so the standard is that you justify it: what pest, why chemical was necessary, why this product, and why here. Where a pesticide is used it must be registered under the relevant requirements and Act 36 of 1947, applied only against a pest on its label, and recorded on the chemical register with its L-number and safety data sheet.
Why spray-and-pray fails audits
The old model, a monthly visit with a routine perimeter spray whether or not anything is present, is now a reliable way to collect non-conformances. It fails on every count that a modern audit checks:
| Spray-and-pray | What the audit expects instead |
|---|---|
| Treats symptoms; source remains | Root-cause analysis and correction (exclusion, restriction) |
| Calendar-based blanket chemical | Risk-based, targeted control on the least-toxic principle |
| Unnecessary chemical near food | Chemical justified per application, minimised near product |
| No data, no trend | Monitoring, station-level records, trend analysis into HACCP |
| Contractor acts alone | Defined shared roles between contractor and site |
The uncomfortable truth for many sites is that a heavily chemical-dependent programme is often a sign of failure at the exclusion and restriction levels, not diligence. Auditors know this, which is why a wall of routine spray records tends to prompt questions rather than reassurance.
Documenting the programme
An IPM programme only exists to an auditor if it is documented. The full evidence set is the same one that makes up the audit pack: a site-specific risk assessment that drives the design, a numbered station and monitor map, service records at station level, trend analysis, an approved chemical register with L-numbers, safety data sheets, PCO registration and training certificates, and corrective actions with photographic close-out. Together they must show the hierarchy in action: evidence of exclusion and proofing work, restriction and housekeeping actions, monitoring data, and chemical use that is the exception rather than the rule. Our myASConline portal captures all of this digitally and compiles it in one click, so the documentation reflects the programme instead of being reconstructed before an audit.
Roles and responsibilities
IPM is a shared programme, and the split of responsibility should be written down, not assumed.
- The pest control contractor provides the risk assessment, station design, servicing, monitoring, species identification, trend analysis, chemical registration and technical recommendations, and carries registered PCOs under Act 36 of 1947.
- The site (QA, hygiene and maintenance) owns the levels the contractor cannot control on a monthly visit: closing proofing gaps, fixing leaks, maintaining housekeeping and waste, and actioning corrective recommendations. Most exclusion and restriction failures are site responsibilities.
- Management owns resourcing, review, and the loop into the HACCP and food safety management system, ensuring pest trends and threshold breaches reach decision-makers.
An IPM checklist covering the exclusion, restriction, destruction and monitoring levels, plus a roles-and-responsibilities template, is available on our free checklists and forms page.
Frequently asked questions
What is Integrated Pest Management (IPM)?
A structured, hierarchical approach that prioritises prevention over pesticide. It works through exclusion (keep pests out), restriction (deny food, water and harbourage), destruction (control what gets in by the least-toxic effective method) and monitoring (detect and trend activity). Chemical treatment is a last resort applied to a defined target, not a routine blanket spray.
Why does spray-and-pray fail food safety audits?
Because it treats symptoms not causes, contradicts the least-toxic principle required by BRCGS, FSSC 22000 and SANS 10133, introduces unnecessary chemical near food, and generates no root-cause analysis. Auditors expect prevention through exclusion and restriction first, with targeted, justified chemical use only where monitoring shows it is needed.
How is an IPM programme documented?
Through a site-specific risk assessment, station and monitor map, station-level service records, trend analysis, an approved chemical register with Act 36 of 1947 L-numbers and safety data sheets, corrective actions with close-out, and defined roles. The documentation must show the hierarchy in action: prevention first, chemical last, every decision traceable.
