FSSC 22000 vs SQF vs BRCGS: which GFSI scheme goes on this RFQ

This page is a buying comparison. It is for operations, quality, and food-safety leads at mid-market food, beverage, ingredient, and food-contact packaging manufacturers who already know a customer wants a GFSI-benchmarked scheme, and cannot agree whether FSSC 22000, SQF, or BRCGS belongs on the request.

Those names are not one product. Each scheme has its own owner, its own documents, and its own rules for who may issue a certificate. A portal that says "GFSI" has not finished the sentence. Sales conversations will offer to "cover GFSI inside the quality quote." The useful question is a procurement question: which scheme does this customer accept, and can you show the system behind it.

Quality versus a food safety management system, when the fork is still ISO 9001 or ISO 22000, is ISO 9001 vs ISO 22000. That page stops on purpose when the customer names a GFSI-benchmarked programme. This page starts there, for three programmes only. IFS and every other name on GFSI's list are outside this comparison. After you pick the scheme, the request still uses one outbound scope pack. You still verify accreditation for the legal entity that will sign. Who writes the system versus who certifies it is consultant vs certification body. This page does not invent prices, audit-day counts, pass rates, retailer mandates, or a ranking of schemes.

The decision here is narrower: the scheme the customer accepts, in the version or issue they accept, for the sites and categories you can walk. Then one honest request.

1. Who owns each scheme

Say the owner in the owner's words. A brand on a certificate is not a guess about a parent company.

Foundation FSSC manages FSSC 22000. The scheme page says the scheme is managed by Foundation FSSC and governed by an independent Board of Stakeholders. The Version 7 scheme document (May 2026) carries a Foundation FSSC copyright and describes the scheme as governed by a non-profit foundation. The audit is done by a certification body that holds a licence from the Foundation. ISO publishes ISO 22000. ISO does not issue an FSSC 22000 certificate.

SQFI publishes the SQF codes. SQFI's What is SQF page says the Safe Quality Food Institute is a division of FMI, The Food Industry Association, established to administer the SQF Program. The same page says FMI purchased the SQF Program on 1 September 2003 from the Western Australia Department of Agriculture and established SQFI to manage it. The certificate is an SQF certificate, issued by an SQFI-licensed certification body. FMI's role, on that page, is ownership of the institute. It is not a statement that a given retailer requires SQF.

BRCGS publishes the Global Standards. A 24 November 2016 release on brcgs.com says LGC completed the acquisition of BRC Global Standards, and that the British Retail Consortium remained a minority shareholder at that time. This page does not update a 2016 share sentence into a 2026 register. What the current site does say is that the footer on the about page reads "LGC, c/o BRC Trading Ltd," and a 2021 notice describes BRCGS as sitting with other LGC brands. The BRCGS Directory uses the same LGC footer. You contract with a BRCGS-approved certification body, not with LGC as if LGC were the auditor.

2. How each scheme is built

Skip the clause lecture. Buy the document the customer named, then read the system you can walk.

FSSC 22000 is three layers, not a reprint of ISO 22000. Foundation FSSC's scheme page says the scheme uses international standards such as ISO 22000 and the ISO 22002 series for sector-specific prerequisite programmes (PRPs). The steps toward certification say an organization has to meet ISO 22000, the ISO 22002 series for prerequisite programmes, and the FSSC 22000 scheme requirements. Version 7 states the normative documents as ISO 22000:2018, the relevant sector PRPs based on the ISO 22002-x series, and FSSC 22000 additional requirements. It says the food-chain categories follow ISO 22003-1:2022. Meeting ISO 22000 alone is the first element, not the certificate. A PRP specification is not a certificate you hold on its own.

SQF is a family of codes, split by industry, plus a quality code. SQFI's What is SQF page describes industry-specific food safety codes rather than one code you bend to every plant. Inside a code, the structure is modules. The Edition 9 Food Manufacturing code says Part A is how you implement and maintain certification, and Part B is the auditable standard: system elements (module 2) and the good manufacturing practices for that industry (module 11 in the food manufacturing code). A packaging plant does not borrow module 11 from a food plant. SQFI's guide to the codes, published with Edition 9, lists separate food safety codes, including food manufacturing and manufacture of food packaging, and it also lists primary production, animal feed, pet food, dietary supplements, and storage and distribution. That brochure marks retail, foodservice, and the quality code as still on an earlier edition. Confirm the file you will audit in the current code library. Do not treat the brochure's edition note as the rule for an audit after the transition date in section 3. Name the products. Let the certification body name the code and the food sector categories. Do not guess the category number.

The SQF Quality Code is a second document. SQFI's Quality Code, Edition 10 page says the quality code builds on the system elements in the food safety codes, and that a site seeking it must be certified to the applicable SQF Food Safety Code for its industry. The same text says the quality code does not apply to sites certified to the SQF food safety codes for retail or foodservice. It also says Edition 10 can be applied as a food quality certification to a food or feed manufacturing or storage site that is certified to a GFSI-recognized programme, a programme SQFI calls technically equivalent, or another food safety management standard, including ISO 22000:2018. That sentence is SQFI's rule for who may seek the quality code. It is not a statement that the quality code replaces a scheme the customer already named, and it is not ISO 9001. The same code says there is no score or rating on a quality-code audit.

BRCGS publishes separate Global Standards, not one manual with a packaging chapter. The certification listing names Food Safety, Packaging Materials, Agents and Brokers, Consumer Products, Plant-Based, Gluten-Free, Retail, and Start. Storage and Distribution is published as its own standard. The about page says the portfolio includes 10 certification standards. Read the listing before you treat that count, or this sentence, as the full set. For this audience the split that matters is food manufacturing versus packaging.

The Food Safety standard (issue 9) says it specifies the safety, quality, and operational criteria for a food manufacturing organisation, so a competent third party can assess premises, operational systems, and procedures. A beverage plant and an ingredient plant read this standard when the customer named BRCGS food safety. They do not read it as a packaging certificate.

The Packaging Materials standard is the packaging document. BRCGS's guide to that standard says it is for manufacturers of packaging and packaging materials for food and non-food applications, including organisations that produce packaging for conversion or printing, supply packaging materials, or manufacture raw materials used in packaging. A food-contact packaging plant starts here when the customer named BRCGS packaging. Food contact is not a separate BRCGS title this page will invent. Ask the customer which standard, and which issue.

Question	FSSC 22000	SQF	BRCGS
Owner	Foundation FSSC	SQFI, a division of FMI, The Food Industry Association	BRCGS, which its site places with LGC
What you implement	ISO 22000, sector PRPs from the ISO 22002 series, and FSSC additional requirements	The food safety code for that industry (system elements plus the industry module), and the quality code only if you are seeking it	The Global Standard the customer named, such as Food Safety or Packaging Materials
Who may issue it	An FSSC-licensed certification body	An SQFI-licensed certification body	A BRCGS-approved certification body
What it is not	A plain ISO 22000 certificate, or an SQF or BRCGS certificate	An FSSC or BRCGS certificate. The quality code is not ISO 9001	An FSSC or SQF certificate, and not an ISO 9001 certificate

3. What GFSI lists, and why you recheck it

GFSI recognizes certification programmes. It does not certify plants. GFSI's page of recognized certification programme owners says the benchmarking requirements were first created in 2001 by a group of retailers in order to harmonise food safety standards. The same page says those requirements are not a food safety standard, and that food businesses are not audited or certified against them. Recognized programme owners do that work. A sentence that says "GFSI benchmarked" is a sentence about a programme. It is not a certificate with your plant's name on it.

This section records what that page, and the programmes undergoing benchmarking page, showed on 23 October 2026. Open both pages in the week you send the request. A later recognition decision is not something this guide can freeze.

Against Version 2020 of the benchmarking requirements, the recognized page listed:

• FSSC 22000 version 6. The scopes named on that entry include pre-process handling of plant products, animal primary conversion, processing of perishable animal products, perishable plant products, mixed products, and ambient stable products, production of feed, storage and distribution, production of food packaging, and production of (bio)chemicals and bio-cultures used as food ingredients or processing aids. Read the scope letters on the page. Do not guess which letter your plant is.
• SQF food safety codes, edition 9 (level 2). The entry, as retrieved, names farming of animals for meat, milk, eggs, or honey, farming of plants other than grains and pulses, pre-process handling of plant products, animal primary conversion, the processing scopes for perishable animal products, perishable plant products, mixed products, and ambient stable products, production of feed, storage and distribution, production of food packaging, and production of (bio)chemicals. If your products are fish farming or grains and pulses, do not assume those letters are on this entry. Read the page.
• BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety, issue 9, with the audit programmes named there: announced, blended announced, unannounced voluntary, and unannounced mandatory 1 in 3 years. The scopes named on that entry include pre-process handling of plant products, animal conversion, the processing scopes, production of feed, and production of (bio)chemicals. Production of food packaging is not a scope on that Food Safety entry.
• BRCGS Global Standard for Packaging Materials, issue 6, with announced, unannounced, and blended announced audit programmes, for scope I, production of food packaging. The recognized page says issue 6. It does not say issue 7.

The same Version 2020 block also lists other BRCGS standards, including Agents and Brokers issue 3 and Storage and Distribution issue 4, and it lists other owners, including IFS. This page does not compare those.

Against Version 2024, the recognized block on that page did not name Foundation FSSC, SQFI, or BRCGS. The programmes named in that block on this reading were CanadaGAP and JFS-C. Do not tell a customer that a Version 2024 recognition is what you are buying unless their name is in that block when you look.

Undergoing benchmarking is not recognition. On the same date, GFSI's undergoing-benchmarking page listed FSSC 22000 version 7, and listed BRCGS Food Safety issue 9, Agents and Brokers issue 3, Packaging Materials issue 7, and Storage and Distribution issue 4. Food Safety issue 9 can sit on the Version 2020 recognized list and on the Version 2024 undergoing list at the same time. Being in the second list does not, by itself, remove the first. Packaging Materials issue 7 on the undergoing page is not the issue 6 line on the recognized page.

SQF Code Edition 10 was not a line this retrieval found on the undergoing page. It is the subject of a separate GFSI notice, public stakeholder consultation for SQFI Edition 10, dated 29 September 2026, against Version 2024. The notice describes a consultation running into late October 2026 and prints more than one end date. Use the date on the live notice. A consultation is a step in benchmarking. It is not a line on the recognized-programme page. SQFI's own which edition page says audits are expected to start on the Edition 10 food safety and quality codes on 2 January 2027, and that this date is contingent on the GFSI benchmarking application process. Any change, SQFI says, will be communicated. Until Edition 10 appears on the recognized page, do not tell a customer that an Edition 10 certificate is the GFSI-recognized edition.

The same caution applies to FSSC 22000 version 7. GFSI's consultation notice for that version says the public consultation step closed. A closed consultation is not the final recognition vote. Version 7's own introduction says one reason for the update was aligning the scheme with the GFSI benchmarking requirements of 2024. Alignment language is not a recognition announcement. Until version 7 appears on the recognized-programme page, do not describe a version 7 certificate as the GFSI-recognized version.

4. How each owner describes the audit and the result

State the grading model the owner publishes. Do not import a pass rate, a typical day count, or a nonconformity tally from a blog.

FSSC 22000 does not publish a letter grade in the Version 7 scheme. Findings are minor, major, and critical nonconformities. The scheme says it does not allow "opportunities for improvement." Part 3 of Version 7 says that at least one surveillance audit shall be unannounced after the initial certification audit and within each three-year period after that. It says the initial certification audit, stage 1 and stage 2, cannot be performed unannounced. It says a certified organization can choose to have all surveillance and recertification audits unannounced. FSSC's certification steps page describes annual surveillance and a recertification audit once every three years, after an FSSC-licensed certification body conducts the initial audit. That is the cycle the owner describes. It is not a fee, and it is not a day count. Close-out rules for each grade of nonconformity are in the scheme. Read them there. Do not shorten them into a promise that a minor finding cannot affect a certificate.

SQF food safety audits are scored. In the Edition 9 Food Manufacturing code, each applicable clause is scored, and the site rating is 100 minus the sum of the deductions. The code assigns 1 point to a minor non-conformance, 5 to a major, and 50 to a critical. The rating table in that code is:

Score	Rating	What the code says follows
96 to 100	E, Excellent	Certificate issued. 12-monthly recertification audit
86 to 95	G, Good	Certificate issued. 12-monthly recertification audit
70 to 85	C, Complies	Certificate issued. 6-monthly surveillance audit
0 to 69	F, Fails to comply	No certificate issued. Considered to have failed the SQF audit

That table is the Food Manufacturing code's table. If you are on another industry code, read that code's rating section before you copy these bands onto the request. SQFI's which-edition page restates the Edition 9 deductions and says Edition 10 keeps the 100-minus-deduction model, with higher deductions for core-clause minors (2 points) and core-clause majors (7 points). Critical remains 50. Those core clauses are identified in the relevant code. They are not a new rating table this page will invent.

The same Edition 9 Food Manufacturing code says the certification body conducts an unannounced audit once every three years: one unannounced audit within the first three years of certification, and an unannounced audit every three years after that. A site may instead elect annual unannounced recertification audits. The code says sites that do so are recognized on the certificate as an "SQFI Select Site." The Quality Code, Edition 10, says there is no specific requirement for an unannounced quality-code audit. If the quality audit is combined with an unannounced food safety audit, the quality audit is unannounced as well. The quality code also says the food safety score does not extend to the quality audit.

BRCGS uses letter grades. The current protocol for unannounced audits, BRCGS079 version 6.1 (6 October 2026), refers to grades C and D as the example of a six-month audit schedule for Global Standard Food Safety, and says a site that has an unannounced audit receives an unannounced grade, with examples such as AA+ or A+. This page does not copy a table of how many minors or majors produce each letter. That count lives in the standard you are being audited to. Read the issue the customer named.

The same protocol says it applies to Food Safety issue 9, Packaging Materials issue 7, and Storage and Distribution issue 4, and that it supersedes details in those standards. It says Agents and Brokers and Consumer Products are not covered by that position statement. It says sites on an announced programme have at least one unannounced audit every three years, and that for an annual certificate this is at least every third audit. The first BRCGS audit at a site should be announced, unless the site has specifically requested an unannounced audit. Sites that have opted into a fully unannounced programme follow the unannounced protocol in their standard instead. The protocol also says the certification body, not the site, sets the unannounced date, and that the site is told which year the unannounced audit will fall, not the date.

Two BRCGS facts have to stay apart. The site grade (the letters above) is the result of the site audit. The certification body page describes a separate performance rating of the certification body, from 1 star to 5 stars, based on how that body's head office runs the scheme. A star rating on a certification body is not your plant's grade. This page does not use those stars to rank firms.

One packaging mismatch is easy to miss. GFSI's recognized page, on this reading, lists Packaging Materials issue 6. BRCGS079 version 6.1 names Packaging Materials issue 7. The undergoing-benchmarking page also names issue 7. Ask the customer which issue they accept. Do not tell them issue 7 is the GFSI-recognized issue while the recognized page still says issue 6.

5. The customer decides the scheme

Start from the sentence in the supplier manual, the portal, or the specification. GFSI's history, a group of retailers in 2001, does not tell you what this customer accepts. This page does not publish a list of retailers, brands, or grocers, and it does not claim that any of them require one of these schemes. Ask your customer which schemes they accept.

Read the noun.

The field names one scheme and a version or issue. That is the document. If it says FSSC 22000 version 6, do not quote version 7 because the Foundation has published it. If it says SQF Edition 9, do not quote Edition 10 because a transition date is on SQFI's website. If it says BRCGS Packaging Materials issue 6, do not quote issue 7 because the protocol has moved on. Get a silent portal answered in writing before you book.

The field says GFSI, "GFSI benchmarked," or "a GFSI-recognized scheme," and does not name a programme. Ask which recognized programme they accept, which version or issue, and which scope. FSSC 22000 version 6, SQF food safety codes edition 9 (level 2), BRCGS Food Safety issue 9, and BRCGS Packaging Materials issue 6 were all on the Version 2020 recognized list on the date above. They are not interchangeable. A customer who accepts one has not accepted the others until they say so.

The field names two schemes, or says "SQF or BRCGS." Ask which one this cycle has to produce. Quoting both, when you can walk only one system, is two requests. If they truly accept either, write that in their words, pick the system you can show, and say which certificate you are asking the body to issue.

The field says ISO 22000 and does not name a GFSI programme. Stay on the 9001 vs 22000 comparison. Do not upgrade the request because a homepage said a benchmarked scheme is what buyers want.

The field says ISO 9001, or "a quality certificate," and nobody has named a food scheme. The product this cycle is ISO 9001. The SQF Quality Code and a BRCGS clause that mentions quality are not that certificate. Section 6 is where a real request for both belongs.

Put the named scheme on this cycle when most of these are true:

• A named customer requires that scheme, on a version or issue you can point at.
• You can describe the products, the sites that make or handle them, and whether the work is food manufacturing, ingredients, beverage, or food-contact packaging.
• Someone owns the system the scheme actually audits: for FSSC, the ISO 22000 system, the sector PRPs, and the additional requirements; for SQF, the code for that industry; for BRCGS, the Global Standard they named.
• You are not offering a different scheme, or a plain ISO 22000 certificate, as a stand-in.

If that system does not exist, do not send. Build it, or hire an implementer who will not also certify you, then send the request.

6. How to scope the RFQ

One narrative, so the facts do not drift. The request uses the scope pack. The scheme changes specific rows. It does not replace the pack with a letter that says "please include GFSI."

Confirm the licence and the accreditation. They are two doors.

Foundation FSSC's certification body page is the overview of FSSC-licensed certification bodies. The page says it is prohibited to promote or sell FSSC services without a signed licence agreement with FSSC. GFSI's description of FSSC 22000 says certification is accredited to ISO/IEC 17021-1 and ISO 22003-1. Ask the body to show the licence for the version and the food-chain category you will claim, and the accreditation schedule that names that scheme.

SQFI's certification body page says SQFI licenses certification bodies to conduct SQF audits and issue the SQF certificate, and that those bodies must be accredited to ISO/IEC 17065:2012 (or a subsequent version, as applicable) and assessed by SQFI-licensed accreditation bodies. The same page says a body that wants a licence must be accredited by an accreditation body that is a member of the International Accreditation Forum and approved by SQFI. The list to open is the Certification Body Directory. Ask which codes and food sector categories are inside that body's accreditation, not only whether the logo is on the letterhead.

BRCGS's certification body page says a body must be recognised by a national accreditation body and accredited to ISO/IEC 17065:2012, and that accreditation bodies recognised by BRCGS must be signatories to the Global ACI multilateral recognition arrangement. The BRCGS Directory says an entity that is not listed is not a BRCGS-approved certification body and is not authorised to issue a certificate that references BRCGS standards. Search the standard you need. Approval for Food Safety is not approval for Packaging Materials unless the directory says so.

An ISO 9001 accreditation does not include any of the three. A 17065 food-scheme accreditation does not include ISO 9001. The method for reading a live schedule, legal entity first, is how to verify accreditation. Use it for the ISO line. Use the scheme owner's list for the licence. Both have to match the entity that will sign.

Sites and categories go on the pack in your words, and the body maps them.

Name producing sites, packaging lines, and warehouses that handle the product. Name what is outside, including a sales office that does not handle product. FSSC's scheme says head-office functions that control the certified system, such as procurement or supplier approval, are audited when they sit off the plant. Write that address if it is real. Do not invent a category code. For FSSC, ask which ISO 22003-1 food-chain category the body will print. For SQF, ask which code and which food sector categories. For BRCGS, ask which Global Standard and which issue. A food-contact packaging plant should expect the packaging document (FSSC scope for production of food packaging, the SQF food packaging code, or BRCGS Packaging Materials), not the food manufacturing standard, unless the customer wrote the food standard and you also make food.

ISO 9001 is a separate certificate when the customer also wants it.

Foundation FSSC's Version 7 scheme says the scheme allows integration with ISO-based management system standards such as those for quality, environment, and health and safety. That sentence is about audit design. It does not put ISO 9001 on this request, and it does not turn the FSSC licence into ISO 9001 accreditation. Name ISO 9001 only when you will claim it. Name the edition. The 9001 vs 22000 comparison records ISO's withdrawal of ISO 9001:2015 on 16 September 2026 and the question to ask the body about the edition on its schedule.

The SQF Quality Code is not that edition. If the customer wants the quality code, say so, and say whether it is an extension of the SQF food safety audit or a standalone quality audit. SQFI's code says the scope of the quality certificate follows the food safety certificate when the site holds an SQF food safety code. If the customer wants ISO 9001 instead, or as well, write ISO 9001. Do not translate one into the other.

A BRCGS standard that mentions quality criteria is still a BRCGS standard. If the customer also wants ISO 9001, the body needs an accreditation for that ISO edition in addition to BRCGS approval. Shared processes can be described once. They do not collapse two certificates into one logo.

This site's directory tags ISO 9001. It does not tag FSSC 22000, SQF, or BRCGS. A 9001 tag is not a scheme licence.

Eagle Certification Group is the profile already in the directory that publishes a food-company scope you can read before you shortlist. The profile says EAGLE Food Registrations Inc. is a different issuer from EAGLE Registrations Inc., at the same Dayton address. It says the food company's ANAB scope, issue date 24 April 2026, lists ISO 22000:2018 and FSSC 22000 (version 6 as of 31 March 2024), plus ISO 9001:2015 only for food products, paper, pulp and paper, chemicals, rubber and plastic products, and transport, storage and communication. The profile does not name SQF or BRCGS. That silence is not a licence, and it is not a finding that the firm is unlicensed. If the customer named FSSC 22000 version 7, the issue recorded in the profile does not show version 7. For any of the three schemes, confirm the legal entity on the scheme owner's list and on the live accreditation schedule. The profile restates documents the firm publishes. It does not replace those lists.

Fact	What to write
Scheme	FSSC 22000, the SQF code, or the BRCGS Global Standard. Not "GFSI"
Version or issue	The one the customer accepts. Note if that text is on GFSI's recognized page or only on the undergoing or consultation page
Licence	The scheme owner's list, for this legal entity, this version or issue, and these categories
Accreditation	The live schedule, for the standard the scheme owner names (ISO/IEC 17021-1 and ISO 22003-1 for FSSC, ISO/IEC 17065 for SQF and for BRCGS), plus ISO 9001 only if that certificate is in the request
Sites	Producing sites and any head office that controls the system. Name what is outside
Categories	Products in the customer's words. Ask the body which category it will print
ISO 9001	In, only with an edition, or out. The SQF Quality Code is its own row if they asked for that code
Out of scope	Schemes, issues, sites, and products you will not claim

Headcount is a band per location. A night shift still counts when the line runs at night. Ask the questions in what a quote includes. This page does not publish a fee or a day count.

7. Send one request

Make the call in one sitting. Put one sentence at the top of the request.

1. Write the requirement in their words. If the field says GFSI and nothing else, stop and ask which schemes they accept. If it names a version or issue, copy that text. If two fields name two schemes, note which deal is blocked this cycle.
2. Match it to a system you can show. FSSC needs ISO 22000, the sector PRPs, and the additional requirements. SQF needs the industry code. BRCGS needs the Global Standard they named. If that system does not exist, do not send.
3. Check the GFSI page if they also said "GFSI-recognized." Use section 3. A version that is only on the undergoing page, or only in a consultation notice, is not the same sentence as a version on the recognized list.
4. Check the signer before you invite them. Scheme-owner list, then the accreditation schedule, for the legal entity, the scheme, and the categories. ISO 9001 is an extra line, not a substitute.
5. Pick one design. The named scheme only, or that scheme and ISO 9001 together, or the SQF food safety code and the SQF Quality Code when the customer asked for both. Combined designs need both the evidence and a live line for every document on the page.

When a certificate is the artifact, send one registrar request. The Get quotes form does not list FSSC 22000, SQF, or BRCGS. In Scope notes, name the scheme, the version or issue, the sites, the product categories, and whether ISO 9001 is part of this cycle. Tick ISO 9001 only when that certificate is part of the request. Put any certificate you already hold in Existing certificates. Submit once.