Top BRCGS Food Safety non-conformities
2025-2026
Resource description
Built on insight from more than 72,000 audits, this datasheet reveals the patterns shaping BRCGS Food Safety performance across global sites. It distils where non-conformities persist, why they continue to surface and what they signal about operational discipline, site standards and evolving expectations under Issue 10.
Designed for food safety leaders, it offers a sharp, data-led perspective to help you anticipate risk and strengthen everyday control before the next audit.
-
What’s changed in the latest version of BRCGS Food Safety (Issue 10)?
Issue 10 sharpens expectations rather than reinventing them – with greater emphasis on food safety culture, environmental monitoring, and clearly defined site controls. It also reflects a stronger focus on consistency in application, ensuring requirements are not just documented but demonstrably embedded in day-to-day operations.
-
Why do the same non-conformities continue to appear across audits?
Because most are not caused by system failure, but by inconsistency. Controls that rely on routine human action – cleaning, maintenance, checks – are vulnerable to drift over time. Small lapses accumulate, becoming visible patterns during audits.
-
What is the difference between a minor, major and critical non-conformity?
- Minor: A lapse that does not immediately compromise food safety but indicates a gap in compliance. - Major: A significant failure that could impact product safety or legality if not addressed. - Critical: A breakdown that presents a direct risk to consumer safety or product integrity, often leading to immediate certification consequences.
-
How can sites reduce recurring non-conformities without adding complexity?
By returning to fundamentals. Strengthening routine discipline, focusing on root cause rather than quick fixes, and using internal audits as active management tools typically delivers more impact than layering additional procedures.
