Ask most factories to see their pest control risk assessment and you get one of two documents. Either there is no separate assessment at all, just a station map and a monthly service schedule, or there is a generic template with the contractor's letterhead swapped in, the same three paragraphs used on every site from a spice packer to a dairy. Both fail the same clause for the same reason: the risk assessment is meant to be the document that decides how many stations you have and how often you are serviced, and a copied template decides nothing.
This is the document auditors increasingly open first, because everything downstream flows from it. Get the risk assessment right and the station density, the service frequency and the scope all have a defensible justification. Get it wrong and every other finding traces back to a programme that was never actually designed for your building.
Key takeaways
- The risk assessment drives station density, service frequency and scope; it is not paperwork bolted on afterwards.
- BRCGS Food Safety clause 4.14.2 requires frequency to be set by risk assessment, documented, and reviewed after building changes or significant pest issues.
- A real assessment is site-specific: your zones, commodities, history, neighbours and environmental pressures, each linked to a named control.
- Generic templates fail because they cannot show why the programme is the size and shape it is.
Why the risk assessment drives everything
A pest control programme is a set of decisions: where to place stations, what type of station, how many, how often to service, which pests to actively monitor and which to control on sight. Every one of those decisions should have a reason, and the risk assessment is where the reasons live. A high-risk open-product zone next to a raw intake dock justifies denser insect monitoring and more frequent servicing. A sealed, low-traffic dry-goods store on the opposite side of the site justifies less. When the assessment is generic, both zones get the same treatment, which means one is over-serviced and the other is under-protected, and neither decision can be defended.
This is why the risk assessment sits upstream of the station map, the service level agreement and the audit pack. An auditor reading a well-built file can start at the assessment and trace a straight line to every station on the floor. That traceability is the whole point.
What BRCGS 4.14.2 actually requires
BRCGS Food Safety is explicit. Clause 4.14.2 requires that the company have a documented pest management programme, and that its scope and frequency be based on risk assessment. Crucially, the risk assessment is not a one-time exercise: it must be reviewed regularly, at minimum annually, and specifically after any change to the site (an extension, a new line, altered drainage or layout) or after a significant pest issue. A default monthly visit applied uniformly to every client, with no assessment behind it, does not satisfy the clause, and experienced auditors will say so.
The related standards line up. FSSC 22000 through ISO 22002-1 clause 12 expects pest management procedures built on assessed risk, and the South African framework, SANS 10133 and the food premises requirements, expects the same risk-based logic. If you certify to more than one scheme, a single robust site-specific assessment satisfies all of them. Our BRCGS pest control requirements guide covers the wider clause 4.14 in detail.
What a real site-specific assessment contains
A genuine assessment is a working document, not a certificate. It should contain, at a minimum:
The building and its zones
A description of the site broken into zones by risk, typically external and perimeter, goods receiving, raw material and dry stores, processing and open-product areas, packing, finished goods and dispatch, and ancillary areas such as staff facilities and waste. Each zone carries a different pest pressure and a different consequence if control fails.
Commodities and process
What you handle changes what you attract. Flour and cereals invite stored-product beetles and moths; sugars and syrups draw ants and flies; proteins and fats draw rodents and blowflies. The assessment names the commodities and links them to the pests they attract.
Pest pressures and site history
The specific pests reasonably expected on this site, informed by the actual history of activity from your service records and trend data, not a generic list. If Blattella germanica has recurred near the wash bay, that history belongs in the assessment.
Neighbouring and environmental risks
What surrounds the building matters as much as the building. A grain silo, an informal waste site, a river or wetland, open veld, a neighbouring food business, overgrown boundaries and standing water all raise pressure. In Gauteng and the Eastern Cape we routinely factor in adjacent agricultural land and seasonal rodent migration. Neighbours you cannot control still change the controls you need.
Controls linked to each risk
The output: for each identified risk, the specific control. Station types and density, service frequency by zone, monitoring devices, exclusion and proofing requirements, and the standard the programme is designed against. This is the section that turns a description of risk into a designed programme, and it is the section most templates leave blank.
From assessment to station density and frequency
Station density and service frequency are outputs of the assessment, not fixed numbers. External rodent stations are typically spaced around the perimeter and at entry points at intervals informed by pressure; internal monitors are placed to intercept, not to fill a quota. A high-risk open-product zone adjacent to a high-pressure neighbour may justify weekly or fortnightly attention, while a sealed low-risk store may be monthly. What matters for the audit is that whatever the numbers are, the assessment explains them. If someone asks why there are eighteen external stations rather than twelve, or why processing is serviced fortnightly rather than monthly, the assessment answers.
Reviewing the assessment
The assessment is a living document. Review it at least annually, and additionally whenever the building or process changes or a significant pest issue occurs. Each review is dated and signed, and any resulting change, more stations in a new extension, increased frequency after a trend spike, reduced frequency in a zone that has been quiet for a year, traces back to the review that justified it. A persistent adverse trend in your trend analysis is itself a trigger for review, which is why the two documents feed each other.
A template to start from
You can download a site-specific pest control risk assessment template, along with a zoning worksheet and review log, from our free checklists and forms page. Use it as a structure to complete for your own building rather than a document to sign as-is. If you would rather have it built for you by people who audit these files for a living, our food and beverage programme includes a full site-specific assessment as standard.
Frequently asked questions
What should a pest control risk assessment for a food facility contain?
A description of the building and its zones, the commodities handled, the pest pressures present, neighbouring and environmental risks, the history of activity on site, and the resulting controls: station types, density, service frequency and monitoring. Each risk is linked to a specific control so an auditor can trace why the programme is built the way it is.
Does BRCGS require service frequency to be based on a risk assessment?
Yes. BRCGS Food Safety clause 4.14.2 requires the scope and frequency of the pest management programme to be determined by risk assessment, documented, and reviewed at least annually and after any building or process change or significant pest issue. A fixed monthly visit applied to every site regardless of risk does not meet the clause.
How often should a pest control risk assessment be reviewed?
At minimum annually, and additionally after a building change, a process or commodity change, a significant pest issue, or a persistent adverse trend. Each review is dated, signed and retained, and any change in layout or frequency traces back to the assessment that justified it.
