Published: May 2026 | Last Updated: May 2026
Reviewed by: Goway Chemical Procurement & Quality Assurance Team | Reading time: ~14 min
Audit frameworks referenced:
๐ EU Reg. (EC) No 1333/2008 ย |ย ๐ ISO 22000:2018 ย |ย ๐ BRC Global Standard Food Safety v9 ย |ย ๐ SQF Edition 9 ย |ย ๐ FSSC 22000 v6
The difference between a capable phosphate supplier and a compliant EU supplier is not chemistry โ it is documentation, process discipline, and the ability to respond to your audit questions in writing within 5 business days.
This checklist gives you 20 audit questions with a scoring framework, a risk tier decision matrix, and three anonymised case studies from real supplier qualification scenarios. Use it to score every new STPP supplier before your first purchase order, and every existing supplier at annual re-qualification.
Who This Tool Is For
This audit checklist is designed for professionals who are actively evaluating or re-qualifying a specific STPP (Sodium Tripolyphosphate / E451) supplier against EU food additive compliance requirements. Specifically:
- Procurement managers and QA leads at EU food manufacturers who source STPP for meat, seafood, bakery, or dairy applications
- Supplier development engineers conducting pre-qualification remote audits or desk reviews
- Food safety auditors preparing or reviewing supplier files ahead of a BRC, SQF, IFS, or FSSC 22000 audit
- Export compliance managers at STPP manufacturers who want to self-audit their EU compliance readiness
This checklist assumes you already understand:
- The EU regulatory framework for E451 (Regulation EC 1333/2008, MPLs, REACH obligations)
- What each required document is for
If you need that background first, read: E451 EU Food Additive Import Compliance: The Complete Regulatory Guide โ
How to Use This Audit Checklist
Scoring system:
Each of the 20 questions is worth a maximum of 5 points. Total maximum score: 100 points.
| Score per Question | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 5 | Fully compliant โ documentation provided, correct format, within validity |
| 3โ4 | Partially compliant โ documentation exists but has minor gaps (e.g., expiring within 3 months, test methods not cited) |
| 1โ2 | Marginal โ documentation exists but has significant gaps or is non-standard |
| 0 | Non-compliant โ document absent, refused, or critical deficiency identified |
Supplier risk tier decision matrix:
| Total Score | Risk Tier | Recommended Action |
|---|---|---|
| 90โ100 | โ Tier 1 โ Preferred | Approve; schedule annual review |
| 75โ89 | ๐ก Tier 2 โ Conditional | Approve with remediation plan; re-audit within 6 months |
| 60โ74 | ๐ Tier 3 โ Provisional | Pilot order only; issue formal NCR; re-qualify before volume orders |
| Below 60 | ๐ด Tier 4 โ Disqualify | Do not place order; document disqualification reason |
Audit delivery method: This checklist can be conducted as:
- Desk audit (documentation review only, conducted remotely via email)
- Remote audit (video call with supplier QA/technical team, documents shared live)
- On-site audit (recommended for suppliers above USD 200,000/year or FSSC 22000 suppliers that require on-site verification)
The 20-Question STPP EU Supplier Compliance Audit
Domain 1 โ Food Safety Management System (Questions 1โ4)
Validates the quality management infrastructure that produces your product
Question 1: Does the supplier hold a valid ISO 22000 or FSSC 22000 certificate that explicitly covers sodium tripolyphosphate / food-grade phosphate production?
What to request: Physical copy of the current certificate.
What to verify:
- Certificate is current (not expired)
- Certificate scope text explicitly references STPP, food-grade phosphates, or food additives โ not just the facility address
- Certification body is IAF-accredited (check IAFcertSearch)
- Certificate issued by a third party โ not self-declared
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| Valid certificate, scope explicit, CB IAF-accredited | 5 |
| Valid certificate, scope vague (“chemical production”), CB accredited | 3 |
| Certificate present but expired or within 60 days of expiry | 2 |
| HACCP self-declaration only, no third-party ISO 22000 | 1 |
| No food safety management certificate at all | 0 |
Case Study 1 (Anonymised): A European meat processor was sourcing STPP from a Chinese manufacturer whose ISO 22000 certificate listed scope as “production of chemicals for industrial use.” During a BRC v9 audit, the auditor flagged this as non-conforming because the certificate scope did not cover food-grade production. The supplier took 3 months to obtain a re-scoped certificate, causing a sourcing disruption. Lesson: Always read the certificate scope text, not just the issue date.
Question 2: Can the supplier provide the last internal HACCP review or FSMA/FSSC hazard analysis for phosphate production, dated within the past 12 months?
What to request: Summary of HACCP plan for phosphate production line.
What to verify:
- Hazard analysis covers chemical contamination (heavy metals from raw material phosphoric acid)
- Critical Control Points (CCPs) are identified with monitoring frequencies
- Corrective action procedures exist for CCP deviations
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| Current HACCP summary with CCPs and monitoring frequencies | 5 |
| HACCP plan exists but is more than 18 months old (not reviewed) | 3 |
| Generic HACCP plan not specific to phosphate production | 2 |
| HACCP plan exists but supplier refuses to share summary | 1 |
| No HACCP programme | 0 |
Question 3: What is the supplier’s documented process for handling non-conforming product (NCR procedure)?
What to request: Brief description or written NCR procedure summary.
What to verify:
- NCR procedure exists and is documented
- Supplier can describe what happens when a COA parameter is out-of-spec
- Root cause analysis (RCA) is part of the NCR process
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| Written NCR procedure with RCA requirement, documented examples available | 5 |
| NCR procedure exists, verbal description consistent and credible | 4 |
| Supplier describes informal practice without documentation | 2 |
| No NCR procedure โ non-conforming product simply retested until in-spec | 0 |
Question 4: Has the supplier undergone any external food safety audit (customer-conducted or third-party) in the past 24 months? Can they provide a summary or audit score?
What to request: Most recent external audit report or summary score.
What to verify:
- Audit was conducted by a credible auditor (customer QA, third-party food safety body)
- No major or critical non-conformances are open and unresolved
- Corrective action plan exists for any raised findings
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| Audit report from credible body, no open majors, CAPA documented | 5 |
| Audit completed, minor non-conformances with closed CAPA | 4 |
| Audit completed but open majors or CAPA in progress | 2 |
| No external audit in past 24 months | 1 |
| Refuses to disclose audit history | 0 |
Domain 2 โ Product Documentation Quality (Questions 5โ9)
Validates the quality and completeness of shipment-level documents
Question 5: Is the Certificate of Analysis (COA) batch-specific, and does it include all EU-required parameters with test methods cited?
What to request: Sample COA from a recent shipment (may anonymise commercial details).
What to verify:
- Unique lot/batch number is present
- Assay โฅ 95.0% (FCC food-grade)
- PโOโ content, pH, insoluble matter, heavy metals (Pb, As, Hg, Cd), fluoride all declared
- Test method is cited for each parameter (especially ICP-MS or ICP-OES for heavy metals)
- Heavy metal limits reference EU 2023/915 or state numerical values with detection limits
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| All parameters present, test methods cited, EU 2023/915 limit referenced, lot number present | 5 |
| All parameters present, lot number present, but test methods not all cited | 3โ4 |
| Some parameters missing (e.g., no individual heavy metals) | 2 |
| COA shows “Conforms” without numerical values | 1 |
| No batch-specific COA โ only generic typical values sheet | 0 |
Question 6: Does the supplier’s Safety Data Sheet (SDS) comply with EU REACH Annex II format (16-section, Regulation EU 2020/878), and is it dated within the past 3 years?
What to request: Current SDS for food-grade STPP.
What to verify:
- 16 sections present in correct order
- Section 1 identifies CAS No. 7758-29-4
- Section 3 (Composition) lists food-grade STPP as the substance
- Section 15 (Regulatory information) references E451 authorisation under Reg. 1333/2008 and current REACH status
- Date of revision within 3 years
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| 16-section REACH format, CAS confirmed, Section 15 EU reference, dated within 3 years | 5 |
| 16-section format but Section 15 lacks EU specifics | 3โ4 |
| SDS present but 3โ5 years old | 2 |
| Single-page simplified safety sheet โ not REACH compliant | 1 |
| No SDS provided | 0 |
Question 7: Can the supplier provide an EU Food Additive Declaration specifically confirming E451 authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008?
What to request: A written declaration letter or template on supplier letterhead.
What to verify:
- Document cites Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 by name
- States the substance is authorised as E451 (Pentasodium Triphosphate)
- Specifies applicable food use categories (not a blanket “all food uses” statement)
- Signed by quality manager or regulatory affairs function (not sales)
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| Written declaration with specific regulation citation, categories listed, signed by QA | 5 |
| Declaration present but signed by sales, or uses generic language | 3 |
| Supplier can produce this but needs >2 weeks to prepare | 2 |
| Supplier unfamiliar with EU Food Additive Declaration concept | 0 |
Case Study 2 (Anonymised): A UK-based food distributor (pre-Brexit) was importing STPP from a new Chinese supplier. The compliance team requested an EU Food Additive Declaration and the supplier responded with a “quality guarantee letter” stating the product “complies with all international food safety standards.” During a retailer audit, the auditor required the specific regulation reference โ which the letter lacked โ and the batch was flagged as undocumented for a full 8 weeks while the supplier prepared the correct declaration. Lesson: Request the correct document type by name during supplier qualification, not at audit time.
Question 8: Does the supplier’s product specification sheet explicitly state “food-grade” designation and reference a recognised food-grade standard (FCC, BP, or equivalent)?
What to request: Current product specification sheet.
What to verify:
- “Food grade” is explicitly stated (not just “meets customer requirements”)
- Specific reference to FCC (Food Chemicals Codex), BP (British Pharmacopoeia food additive grade), or EU purity criteria
- Specification distinguishes from industrial-grade variant
- Specification shows the same numerical limits as the COA (internal consistency check)
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| Food grade explicitly stated, FCC/BP reference, consistent with COA values | 5 |
| Food grade stated, no specific grade standard cited | 3 |
| Specification sheet is generic โ covers both food and industrial grade without distinction | 2 |
| Industrial grade specification presented as food grade | 0 |
Question 9: Does the lot number on the COA match the lot number on the physical bag/drum labels AND the shipping documents (packing list, invoice)?
What to request: Copy of packing list alongside COA; physical label photo acceptable.
What to verify:
- Three-way lot number match: COA โ Packing List โ Physical Label
- If any of the three do not match, the COA is not traceable to the physical shipment
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| Three-way match confirmed, supplier provides lot correlation log | 5 |
| Two-way match only (COA โ Packing List, no physical label available) | 3 |
| COA and packing list lot numbers differ; supplier says “they use different numbering systems” | 1 |
| No lot number on physical packaging | 0 |
Domain 3 โ Regulatory Compliance Credentials (Questions 10โ14)
Validates market-specific authorisations and registrations
Question 10: Has the supplier confirmed EU REACH registration status for STPP (CAS 7758-29-4), and can they provide the REACH registration number or proof of Only Representative (OR) appointment?
What to request: Written confirmation of REACH registration number or OR appointment letter.
What to verify:
- Registration number is for CAS 7758-29-4 (not a different substance)
- If using OR route: OR name, address, and REACH registration number are stated
- Import tonnage band is consistent with actual import volumes
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| REACH registration confirmed in writing with registration number | 5 |
| OR appointment confirmed with OR details, registration number available | 5 |
| Supplier confirms REACH compliance but cannot provide registration number | 2 |
| Supplier claims “STPP is exempt from REACH” without documentation | 1 |
| No REACH documentation; supplier unaware of importer obligations | 0 |
Question 11: Can the supplier provide an SVHC (Substances of Very High Concern) Declaration confirming STPP does not contain SVHC above 0.1% w/w?
What to request: Standard REACH SVHC declaration letter.
What to verify:
- SVHC declaration is dated within the past 2 years
- Explicitly states CAS 7758-29-4
- References ECHA Candidate List review date
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| SVHC declaration present, dated, CAS cited, references current Candidate List | 5 |
| SVHC declaration present but more than 2 years old | 3 |
| Generic SVHC declaration not specific to STPP | 2 |
| No SVHC declaration available | 0 |
Question 12: If your target market includes Middle Eastern, Southeast Asian, or Muslim-majority markets โ does the supplier hold a Halal certificate from a recognised certifying body, currently valid, with scope explicitly covering food-grade STPP production?
What to request: Current Halal certificate.
What to verify:
- Certifying body is recognised in target market: JAKIM (Malaysia), MUI (Indonesia), ESMA (UAE), SASO (Saudi Arabia)
- Certificate scope names the specific facility and product line
- Validity date confirmed (typically 1-year certificates)
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| Valid certificate, recognised body in target market, scope explicit, expiry >3 months | 5 |
| Valid certificate but body recognition in specific target market unconfirmed | 3 |
| Certificate present but expiring within 3 months | 2 |
| Halal certificate from unrecognised local body | 1 |
| No Halal certificate (where required for target market) | 0 |
Question 13: Does the supplier provide a market-specific regulatory approval document for EU trade (e.g., Certificate of Free Sale from Chinese GACC, or manufacturer’s EU compliance letter)?
What to request: Certificate of Free Sale (CFS) from origin country authority, or equivalent EU compliance letter.
What to verify:
- CFS issued by a recognised national authority (China: GACC; others: equivalent)
- Covers sodium tripolyphosphate explicitly
- For EU-specific compliance: letter confirms substance meets Annex II of Reg. 1333/2008
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| CFS from GACC or EU compliance letter with specific regulation reference | 5 |
| Compliance letter present but generic (“meets all applicable regulations”) | 2 |
| No CFS or EU-specific compliance documentation | 0 |
Question 14: Has the supplier conducted or can they present an independent (third-party) heavy metal test report for STPP from an accredited laboratory within the past 12 months?
What to request: Third-party lab report for heavy metal panel.
What to verify:
- Testing conducted by CNAS, A2LA, UKAS, DAkkS, or equivalent ISO 17025-accredited laboratory
- Test covers at minimum: Pb, As, Hg, Cd โ individual numerical values stated
- Results are within EU 2023/915 limits (Pb โค 4 mg/kg)
- Report is dated within 12 months
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| Third-party report from ISO 17025 lab, all four metals, within 12 months, EU limits met | 5 |
| Third-party report present but only Pb tested, or older than 12 months | 3 |
| In-house COA only โ no independent third-party verification | 1 |
| Refuses to provide third-party testing data | 0 |
Case Study 3 (Anonymised): A Nordic seafood processor was sourcing STPP for frozen prawn treatment. The supplier provided COAs showing heavy metals consistently below FCC limits. In an annual supplier audit, the processor requested a third-party ICP-MS report โ the supplier disclosed that their in-house testing used flame-AAS (less sensitive than ICP-MS), and that they had not commissioned independent testing in 2 years. When an independent test was finally commissioned, lead was found at 3.6 mg/kg โ within the EU 4 mg/kg limit but significantly above their own COA “< 2 ppm” claim. Lesson: In-house COA figures cannot substitute for third-party verification, particularly for heavy metals where test methodology sensitivity materially affects the result.
Domain 4 โ Traceability and Batch Management (Questions 15โ17)
Validates the traceability system that enables recall capability
Question 15: Can the supplier demonstrate batch traceability โ the ability to link any delivered lot to its production date, raw material source (phosphoric acid batch), and any co-packed shipments from the same production run?
What to request: Traceability record example (may be anonymised).
What to verify:
- Lot number links back to production batch record
- Production batch record includes phosphoric acid supplier and lot number
- Traceability query can be completed within 24 hours
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| Full lot-to-raw-material traceability within 24-hour response window, documented | 5 |
| Lot-to-production-date traceability, raw material trace takes >3 days | 3 |
| Production date exists but raw material traceability is not maintained | 2 |
| Lot number is marketing batch, not linked to production records | 0 |
Question 16: Does the supplier have a documented product recall procedure, and have they conducted a recall simulation or traceability exercise in the past 24 months?
What to request: Recall procedure summary; evidence of simulation (date, result).
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| Documented recall procedure, simulation conducted within 24 months, >98% product located | 5 |
| Recall procedure exists, no recent simulation documented | 3 |
| Informal recall capability described verbally | 2 |
| No recall procedure | 0 |
Question 17: Can the supplier confirm that your delivered lot is not co-mingled with product destined for non-food uses (industrial-grade mixing risk)?
What to request: Confirmation of dedicated food-grade production lines or segregation controls.
What to verify:
- Physical or procedural segregation between food-grade and industrial-grade production runs
- Dedicated storage areas for food-grade materials
- Cleaning verification records if production lines are shared
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| Dedicated food-grade production line, no co-mingling, documented procedures | 5 |
| Shared line with documented cleaning and verification records | 4 |
| Shared line, cleaning practice described verbally | 2 |
| Food-grade and industrial-grade stored in same warehouse without documented segregation | 0 |
Domain 5 โ Commercial and Logistics Reliability (Questions 18โ20)
Validates operational reliability and transparency
Question 18: What is the supplier’s documented process for communicating formulation or specification changes (change notification)?
What to request: Written change notification procedure or policy.
What to verify:
- Specification changes require customer approval before implementation
- Lead time for change notification: minimum 30 days
- Change notification covers: raw material source change, production process change, facility relocation
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| Written change notification policy, โฅ30 days lead time, covers raw material and process changes | 5 |
| Informal practice โ supplier says “we would tell you” | 2 |
| No formal change notification process; customers find out at delivery | 0 |
Question 19: Has the supplier had any product recalls, regulatory enforcement actions, import refusals, or EU border rejections in the past 3 years? If yes, what was the root cause and corrective action?
What to request: Verbal or written disclosure.
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| No incidents in past 3 years (documented declaration) | 5 |
| One minor incident (documentation error, not product safety), CAPA completed | 3 |
| Product safety incident in past 3 years with completed CAPA and no recurrence | 2 |
| Regulatory enforcement action or EU import refusal, CAPA in progress or incomplete | 0 |
Question 20: Can the supplier confirm that the manufacturing facility producing your STPP is the same facility named on all certificates (ISO 22000, Halal, Kosher), and that no subcontracting or outsourced production is involved without prior notification?
What to request: Facility confirmation statement (may be included in ISO 22000 certificate scope or as a separate declaration).
What to verify:
- Facility address on ISO 22000 matches facility on COA letterhead
- No undisclosed subcontracting to third-party production sites
| Evidence | Score |
|---|---|
| Confirmed single-facility, all certificates reference same address, no subcontracting | 5 |
| Two facilities โ both covered by ISO 22000, both disclosed | 3 |
| Supplier discloses blending from another facility not covered by food-grade certification | 1 |
| Certificates reference different facility from COA letterhead โ undisclosed subcontracting suspected | 0 |
Audit Scoring Summary Sheet
STPP EU COMPLIANCE AUDIT SCORING SHEET
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Supplier name: ________________________________
Audit date: ________________________________
Auditor: ________________________________
Audit method: โก Desk โก Remote โก On-site
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
DOMAIN 1 โ Food Safety Management System
Q1 ISO 22000 / FSSC 22000 certificate (scope and validity) __/5
Q2 HACCP plan current and specific to phosphate production __/5
Q3 NCR procedure and root cause analysis capability __/5
Q4 External audit in past 24 months __/5
DOMAIN 2 โ Product Documentation Quality
Q5 Batch-specific COA (parameters, test methods, lot) __/5
Q6 SDS (REACH Annex II, CAS, revision date) __/5
Q7 EU Food Additive Declaration (Reg. 1333/2008 cited) __/5
Q8 Product spec (food-grade designation, FCC/BP reference) __/5
Q9 Lot number three-way match (COA/packing list/label) __/5
DOMAIN 3 โ Regulatory Compliance Credentials
Q10 REACH registration or Only Representative confirmation __/5
Q11 SVHC declaration (current, CAS cited) __/5
Q12 Halal certificate (body, scope, validity) __/5
Q13 CFS or EU compliance letter __/5
Q14 Third-party heavy metal lab report (ISO 17025) __/5
DOMAIN 4 โ Traceability and Batch Management
Q15 Lot-to-raw-material traceability capability __/5
Q16 Recall procedure and simulation evidence __/5
Q17 Food-grade / industrial-grade segregation __/5
DOMAIN 5 โ Commercial and Logistics Reliability
Q18 Change notification procedure (specification changes) __/5
Q19 No incidents / CAPA for past incidents __/5
Q20 Facility consistency across all certificates __/5
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
TOTAL SCORE: _____ / 100
RISK TIER:
โก Tier 1 (90โ100): Preferred โ Approve, annual review
โก Tier 2 (75โ89): Conditional โ Approve + remediation plan
โก Tier 3 (60โ74): Provisional โ Pilot only + formal NCR
โก Tier 4 (<60): Disqualify โ Do not place order
OPEN ITEMS (must be resolved before Tier 1 approval):
1. ________________________________________________
2. ________________________________________________
3. ________________________________________________
AUDITOR NOTES:
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโInterpreting Your Audit Results: Three Common Profiles
Profile A โ The Capable Industrial Supplier Transitioning to Food Grade (Typical Score: 55โ70)
Pattern: High scores on Domain 1 (has ISO 9001 or even ISO 14001), but low scores on Domain 2 and 3. COAs exist but lack test method citations. No EU Food Additive Declaration. REACH documentation absent.
What this means: The supplier has manufacturing capability but has not invested in food-grade regulatory infrastructure. With 3โ6 months of remediation, they may reach Tier 2.
Buyer action: Issue formal remediation requirements with a 90-day deadline. Revisit at Tier 3 (provisional) if they meet 12 of 20 questions at โฅ3 points each.
Profile B โ The Established Food-Grade Supplier with Documentation Gaps (Typical Score: 72โ85)
Pattern: High scores on Domain 1 and parts of Domain 2, but REACH documentation is informal, third-party lab report is outdated (18 months), and change notification procedure is verbal only.
What this means: Core food safety infrastructure is solid, but EU-specific compliance infrastructure needs formalisation. These gaps are fixable within 1โ2 months.
Buyer action: Tier 2 approval โ place order conditional on receiving REACH confirmation and updated third-party lab report within 45 days.
Profile C โ The Full-Compliance Supplier (Typical Score: 90+)
Pattern: Strong scores across all five domains. Traceability query responded to within 4 hours during audit simulation. EU Food Additive Declaration is a templated document issued on demand.
What this means: This supplier has invested in EU compliance infrastructure and likely serves multiple EU food manufacturers. Price may be higher โ but total cost of compliance is significantly lower.
Buyer action: Tier 1 approval โ annual re-qualification. Consider preferred supplier designation for food-critical volumes.
From Audit Approval to Ongoing Management
A one-time audit score does not sustain compliance โ it opens the door. Once a supplier achieves Tier 1 or Tier 2 approval, maintain compliance through:
| Action | Frequency |
|---|---|
| COA review (batch-specific, lot number match) | Every shipment |
| ISO 22000 / Halal / Kosher certificate validity check | Annually |
| Third-party lab report verification | Annually |
| Full re-audit (all 20 questions) | Every 2โ3 years, or after any supplier incident |
| REACH SVHC declaration update | When ECHA updates Candidate List (typically 2x/year) |
For per-batch documentation management at the production facility level, refer to: STPP Supplier Compliance File Checklist for Meat & Seafood Processors โ
Goway Chemical: How We Score Against This Checklist
We apply this same framework to our own quality documentation as a self-audit. Our current baseline:
| Domain | Goway Status |
|---|---|
| ISO 22000 certificate (food-grade STPP scope, IAF-accredited CB) | โ Valid, explicitly scoped |
| HACCP plan for phosphate production | โ Current, reviewed annually |
| NCR procedure | โ Documented, RCA requirement |
| Batch-specific COA (ICP-MS, EU 2023/915 reference, lot number) | โ Provided every shipment |
| SDS (REACH Annex II, 16-section, within 3 years) | โ Current version |
| EU Food Additive Declaration | โ Template available on request |
| REACH documentation / SVHC declaration | โ Available |
| Halal certificate (JAKIM, MUI, GCC-recognised) | โ Current, explicitly scoped |
| Kosher certificate | โ Current |
| Third-party ICP-MS report (ISO 17025 laboratory) | โ Annual, available on written request |
| Three-way lot number match capability | โ Confirmed |
We welcome prospective customers to conduct a desk audit or remote audit using this exact checklist before placing a first order.
โ Schedule a Supplier Qualification Call with Goway’s QA Team
Related Resources
- E451 EU Food Additive Import Compliance: The Complete Regulatory Guide โ โ understand the EU framework this checklist is based on
- STPP Supplier Compliance File Checklist for Meat & Seafood Processors โ โ manage per-batch documentation at the production facility
- How to Choose a Reliable Phosphate Supplier: A 6-Criteria Framework โ โ broader supplier evaluation framework beyond EU compliance
This checklist was developed by the Goway Chemical Procurement & QA Team based on BRC v9, SQF Edition 9, FSSC 22000 v6 supplier audit requirements, and the EU food additive regulatory framework (Regulation EC 1333/2008 and related legislation). It is intended as a practical B2B procurement reference and does not constitute legal advice. Audit conclusions should be reviewed by a qualified food safety or regulatory professional.
