Last Updated on November 19, 2025 by Melissa Lazaro

Why Knowing the Common IFS V8 Non-Conformities Matters

When teams get ready for an IFS V8 audit, the same question always comes up:
“What do companies usually get wrong?”

After supporting food manufacturers and processors across multiple sectors through IFS and GFSI audits, I’ve noticed clear patterns. The issues aren’t random. Most findings come from the same areas—documentation, traceability, allergen management, hygiene controls, and supplier approval failures.

Understanding these patterns gives you an advantage. You can focus your preparation where risk — and auditor attention — is highest.

By the end of this guide, you’ll know the most common non-conformities in IFS V8 audits, why they happen, and what you can do now to prevent them.

Food Safety Culture and Competency Gaps — One of the Most Frequent Failures in IFS V8

IFS V8 puts a stronger spotlight on food safety culture, employee awareness, and competency—not just whether a training record exists.

Typical findings look like:

• Operators unsure how their task connects to food safety
• Food safety culture goals missing or vague
• Training recorded but not evaluated for effectiveness

Here’s what I’ve seen repeatedly: teams invest in training sessions, but not in confirming understanding. Paperwork looks fine—execution doesn’t.

Practical way to avoid this:
Include 2–3 operator interview questions during internal walk-throughs. Keep it simple:
“Why is allergen changeover important?”
“Show me how you check the CCP.”

Common mistake: confusing attendance with competence.

Documentation and Record Control Issues — Outdated, Inconsistent, or Missing Evidence

Documentation is still one of the biggest sources of non-conformities—not because companies don’t have documents, but because documents don’t match reality.

Common examples include:

• SOPs not updated after a process change
• Records missing signatures or time stamps
• Different versions of the same form used in different areas
• No justification for N/A requirements

One client had excellent hygiene and process control. But because two templates were outdated, they received multiple Minors and almost lost an A-grade opportunity.

Pro Tip:
Pick one day each month to spot-check 5 random documents and ask:
“Does this reflect the way we work today?”

Allergen and Label Management Weaknesses — High-Risk and Frequently Non-Compliant

Allergen and labeling control findings have increased in IFS V8 audits. And it makes sense—label errors are one of the most common causes of food recalls globally.

Typical findings include:

• Missing or inconsistent allergen changeover validation
• Incorrect labels during packaging
• No verification step before resuming production
• Inadequate physical or procedural segregation

A simple step that prevents many findings: require a second person verification for label and allergen changes. It takes seconds — and can prevent a Major or KO.

Pitfall: assuming the supplier’s allergen declaration alone is sufficient control. In IFS V8, you must verify—not just trust.

Traceability and Recall Failures — Timing, Completeness, and Documentation Gaps

Traceability remains a major pain point, especially during simulations.

Here’s where companies struggle:

• Missing batch linkage between raw materials and final product
• Incomplete packaging trace records
• Slow recall performance (exceeding expected timeframes)
• Inconsistent digital and handwritten entries

One facility I worked with could trace materials — but not packaging — within the expected timeframe. That gap resulted in a Major.

Best practice:
Run mock recalls without warning. Don’t rehearse. Execute exactly how you would during an audit—or a real event.

Cleaning, Hygiene, and CCP Monitoring Inconsistencies — Execution vs. Written Procedure

This is where the gap between procedure and practice becomes obvious.

Common findings include:

• CCP monitoring missing entries
• Calibration overdue or undocumented
• Cleaning validation not supported by evidence
• Line-side instructions outdated or unclear

A phrase I use often:
“If it isn’t written, it didn’t happen.”

Even if the team does the task correctly every single day, missing documentation can lead to a finding.

Pro Tip:
Use visual SOPs and brief reminders at the workstation—not stored deep in a binder.

Supplier Approval and Raw Material Control — Increasing Focus in IFS V8

Supplier approval findings are growing in frequency, especially for sites with many raw materials.

Typical issues:

• Missing supplier questionnaires
• No risk assessment
• Expired certificates of analysis or approvals
• No criteria for initial or ongoing approval

One site received a Major simply because they purchased packaging from a supplier that wasn’t officially approved—even though the supplier had been used for years.

Avoid this by: creating a risk-tiered supplier list and setting automatic reminders before approvals expire.

FAQs

Do repeated Minors become a Major?
Yes. When a pattern indicates a systemic weakness, auditors escalate.

Which areas most often trigger a KO?
Label integrity, traceability, allergen control, and CCP monitoring.

Are these issues different in unannounced audits?
Not in requirement—but unannounced audits reveal inconsistencies faster.

Conclusion — Final Thoughts and Next Step

Most IFS V8 non-conformities aren’t surprises. They’re predictable—and preventable with consistent systems, engaged teams, and real-world practice instead of paper compliance.

If you want the next step, I can turn this into:

• A downloadable internal audit checklist
• A pre-audit team training module
• Or a mock audit script focused on these high-risk areas