Grounded in supplier evidence and official sources.
For food manufacturers managing products, suppliers and labelling across multiple markets.
FoodQA connects recipes, supplier documents, ingredient structures, calculations and QA decisions in one guided workflow — helping food manufacturers prepare, review and maintain product labelling with a clear evidence trail.
Findings are connected to the relevant official legislation, guidance or authority source, so QA can open and review the basis behind the assessment. Regulatory agents keep watch on relevant official developments and food-safety alerts.
FoodQA needs your baking loss to finalise the order of ingredients. One question is waiting.
The specification mentions mustard on the same line. Decide whether a cross-contact statement applies.
Upload the salt specification to close this gap. Everything else is documented.
Recipes, specifications, calculations and decisions remain connected instead of being spread across emails, folders and spreadsheets.
Colleagues can understand what a product record was built from and what was decided previously.
Regulatory developments, supplier information and food-safety alerts can enter a structured QA review process.
FoodQA follows the same path a labelling specialist would. It keeps a record of every step — and asks where the record runs out.
Add or connect the recipe, BOM, existing label and relevant product information.
Link every relevant raw material to the correct supplier specification, document version and supporting evidence.
FoodQA follows documented compound ingredients through their ingredient hierarchy and brings the documented contributions together.
Missing, ambiguous or conflicting information becomes a focused review item rather than an invented assumption.
Ingredient information, supporting calculations, sources, open questions and QA decisions are brought together in a documented working foundation.
The product record retains what was used, what was missing and what was decided, so later review does not begin from zero.
A compound ingredient is an ingredient made of other ingredients — and those can be made of others again. FoodQA follows documented compositions through several levels and brings the ingredient contributions together.
Consider a seeded crispbread. The recipe lists a sourdough. The sourdough specification lists flour and water. The flour specification lists a single cereal. Three documents, three levels, one line on the finished label.
FoodQA follows that chain as far as the documents reach, brings the contributions together, and shows which document each level came from. Where a level is not documented, it says so rather than closing the gap with a guess.
Unfolding a hierarchy is not the same as producing a finished declaration. The structure is the input to your review, not a substitute for it.
Illustrative example. Fictional data.
An ingredient list is the easy part. These are the questions that take an experienced colleague an afternoon, a spreadsheet and three phone calls.
One formulation. Different national limits.
A water-based caffeinated drink containing 25 mg of inositol per 100 ml may fall within the relevant Danish general permission of 30 mg per 100 ml, while exceeding the German maximum of 20 mg per 100 ml for energy drinks.
FoodQA applies the selected market profile, checks the relevant product category and connects the finding directly to the official source.
This simplified example assumes that the product falls within the relevant category in each market. Notification, mutual-recognition and other market requirements may also require review.
General permission for the relevant categories of water-based non-alcoholic beverages, with and without added caffeine. §3(2)–(3): the quantity applies to the product’s total content of the substance, regardless of source or purpose of addition. §4: notification no later than first placing on the Danish market.
Open official source§4 defines an energy drink as a caffeinated soft drink containing one or more substances listed in Anlage 8 Teil B. §5(2) requires the finished energy drink not to exceed those maxima. Anlage 8 Teil B: inositol 200 mg/l = 20 mg/100 ml.
Open official sourceA fictional compound fruit preparation contains potassium sorbate, E202. Finding the E-number is where the work starts, not where it ends.
FoodQA traces additives through compound ingredients, brings the documented contributions together and identifies the questions required for a carry-over assessment.
FoodQA cannot infer technological function from an additive name, and an additive arriving through a raw material is not automatically exempt from declaration. Carry-over assessment needs source legality, final-food category, finished-product level, technological function, applicable exceptions, supplier evidence and a QA decision.
Illustrative states. Fictional product and supplier material.
For cooked and concentrated products, FoodQA calculates against the documented finished yield — not merely the ingredient weight before processing.
The version that looks right and is not
Ignores the documented evaporation loss. Ten grams per hundred, on a label.
What the record retains
Different nutrients need different treatment. FoodQA does not assume complete retention of vitamins, volatile components, drained components or process-sensitive nutrients — those require documented retention factors, laboratory analysis, supplier evidence, or an open QA item.
Annex V of Directive 2001/112/EC sets minimum Brix levels for reconstituted fruit juice and reconstituted fruit purée. Apple is 11.2 °Brix. Tomato is 5.0 °Brix.
These are minimum levels for reconstituted juice or purée. They are not universal fruit-percentage conversion factors.
Annex V minimum Brix levels for reconstituted fruit juice and reconstituted fruit purée.
Simplified documented mass-balance example
What the calculation must disclose
The calculation remains a documented QA review basis, not automatic legal approval. A refractometer reading of the finished product does not prove fruit percentage. Tomato works the same way — measured soluble solids, corrected for other added soluble solids, against the Annex V reference — never a universal raw-fruit formula.
Open official sourceYour company defines when each type of specification should be reviewed.
FoodQA holds the interval you set and shows where each document stands against it. There is no universal renewal rule, and we do not invent one.
A one-year interval is a company policy example, not an IFS rule. IFS does not require every supplier specification to be renewed annually.
Bring recipe data, supplier documentation and QA questions together when preparing the product’s labelling foundation.
Use the documented product record to understand which facts, calculations and labelling areas may require review.
Regulatory agents and food-safety monitoring flag potentially relevant developments for structured QA review.
A colleague can find the source documents, calculations, open questions and previous decisions without reconstructing the full history.
A working foundation, not a verdict: ingredient information and documented contributions, supplier references, allergen information from source documents, QUID review questions, additive information, nutritional source data, the calculations, the open QA items, the decisions and the evidence behind them.
Fullkornsrågmjöl 62 %, vatten, rågsurdeg 6 % (fullkornsrågmjöl, vatten), sesamfrön 3 %, havssalt.
Compound ingredient shown with its components. Allergen emphasised. Order calculated at time of use.
Four of five raw materials are backed by a specification. Sea salt is still open.
FoodQA raises possible QUID questions from the words on your pack. Whether a quantity is required is your company’s decision.
Energi1 480 kJ / 350 kcal
Fett2.4 g
— varav mättat fett0.4 g
Kolhydrater58 g
— varav sockerarter1.1 g
Fiber15 g
Protein9.2 g
Salt? — awaiting specification
This is a preliminary nutrition profile calculated from specifications. It is not an analysis result.
Everything above is collected into a Label Evidence Report — product and recipe versions, specification versions, sources, quotations, open questions, and the rule-profile and engine versions used for the run.
FoodQA also shows the other direction: when a supplier document changes — which finished products use the raw material, which label versions may require review, and which markets are involved.
Raw material · item number
RM-2271
Preservative blend
Synthetic demonstration data — invented item numbers and records. FoodQA presents the documented change and the potentially affected records; your QA team reviews and decides.
One file that holds the whole basis: which recipe and which specification versions were read, what was proposed, what was quoted, what stayed open, and which rule profile and engine produced the numbers. Written to be read by a colleague, a customer or an auditor — a year from now.
FoodQA supports documented controls that are relevant to GFSI-recognised food safety certification programmes.
IFS states that labelling is among the five most frequently identified findings in IFS Food audits.
IFS Food News & Notifications — Managing labelling requirementsThree requirements worth knowing by number
The product-development procedure must ensure that labelling complies with current legislation in the destination countries and with customer requirements.
IFS Food v8 treats raw-material specification control as a KO requirement. Specifications must be documented, implemented, current, unambiguous and aligned with legal and defined customer requirements.
A D rating on a KO requirement prevents certification.
Senior management must maintain a system keeping the company informed of relevant legislation and scientific or technical developments.
FoodQA provides a structured way to monitor, retain and review relevant regulatory developments. Implementing FoodQA alone does not fulfil the requirement.
FoodQA workflow → example audit evidence
This is not a certificate and not an audit result. GFSI does not certify food manufacturers — manufacturers are audited against GFSI-recognised programmes such as IFS Food, BRCGS, FSSC 22000 or SQF. FoodQA provides structured evidence that can support the company’s implementation of relevant IFS Food requirements.
Traditional external label review often begins with reconstruction. The company first collects recipes, supplier specifications, previous artwork, market information and earlier decisions. The consultant then spends time understanding which information is complete and current before the specialist assessment can begin.
FoodQA keeps that foundation structured inside the company. Recipes, specification versions, calculations, official sources, open questions and QA decisions remain connected to the product.
External specialists can still be used for difficult interpretations, but their time can be focused on specialist decisions rather than repeatedly rebuilding the company’s own product information.
Use specialists for specialist decisions — not for repeatedly reconstructing your own product information.
In many food businesses, the detail of recipes, supplier specifications and labelling sits with very few people. That is not a failure of organisation. It is what happens when the work is intricate and the people who do it are good at it.
The difficulty comes later. When an experienced colleague is absent or has moved on, working out which documents, which versions and which decisions a label was actually built on can take significant time. The underlying information may be spread across inboxes, shared folders and private spreadsheets.
FoodQA brings recipe versions, specification references, open QA items and QA decisions together in one structured evidence trail. A colleague opening it sees the result, what it was built from, and what was decided along the way.
What that changes day to day
A colleague can see the result, what it was built from, what remained unresolved, what was decided, who recorded the decision, and which source documents were used.
Labelling knowledge should belong to the company — not only to the person who created it.
Food regulations do not stand still after a label has been prepared. A rule adopted this month may apply in two years; a proposal may never apply at all. Somebody has to keep track of the difference.
FoodQA uses specialised regulatory agents designed to monitor relevant official European and national sources — and to bring what they find into the same documented QA workflow as the rest of your product record.
What the agents watch for
What is kept with each development
A proposal is not law. A consultation is not law. The agents record status precisely, because the difference between adopted and proposed is the difference between a deadline and a rumour.
FoodQA monitors the change. Your QA team retains the decision.
The point is not to show you every alert. Nobody reads every alert. The point is to filter the wider alert landscape through your own materials, origins, markets and products.
FoodQA’s agents are designed to monitor relevant official food-safety alerts, including relevant notifications from RASFF — the EU Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed — and other official recall or warning sources.
The agents compare an alert against your documented profile, where that information is available:
Hypothetical example
For example, an official alert concerning Salmonella in sesame seeds from a specified country of origin could be matched against products that use the same documented commodity and origin.
A match indicates possible relevance only. It does not prove that the same supplier is involved. It does not prove that the same batch is affected. It does not prove that your product is unsafe. QA must verify suppliers, batches, certificates and traceability evidence.
Monitoring does not replace supplier contact, traceability checks, certificates of analysis, laboratory testing or QA review — and FoodQA does not start a recall or withdrawal. It puts the alert in front of the people who decide.
Not a platform migration. One representative product, the documents you already have, and a conversation about what came out.
Choose a product with a recipe, existing label and relevant supplier documentation.
Provide the recipe or BOM, current label and supplier specifications. You can start without a complete ERP integration.
FoodQA brings the material together and identifies missing, unclear or conflicting information.
The documented foundation and open questions are reviewed with your QA team.
Based on the first product, decide whether to expand to more products, markets or monitoring areas.
FoodQA was founded by Jens Wilsby, who works day to day as managing director and co-owner of a Danish food company, where he holds overall responsibility for quality and food safety.
Through the work of helping build and maintain the company’s quality management system and reach IFS Food Higher Level, it became clear how time-consuming and error-prone the work with recipes, supplier specifications, document versions and food labelling can be.
A change in a single supplier specification can affect several products, ingredient lists, allergens, additives, nutritional calculations and labels. At the same time, much of this is still handled manually, or with expensive external advice.
FoodQA was developed as an independent project to structure that work, catch changes earlier, and make it easier to produce and maintain a documented labelling basis.
The aim is to save food companies time, reduce the risk of errors, and make it easier to use professional advice where it creates the most value.
Built by a food manufacturer — for food manufacturers.
FoodQA follows the regulatory sources and terminology relevant to the markets selected for the company. English is a website language, not a regulatory market.
Danish terminology, Danish customary product names, and the national requirements that sit on top of the EU core.
Swedish terminology and the national requirements that sit on top of the EU core.
German terminology and the national requirements that sit on top of the EU core.
10 articles · free to read
In-depth guides in the Knowledge Centre
Label versions, supplier specifications, open items and the evidence QA teams record before an audit.
Read the article Supplier evidenceWhat to register, when to review, and how to link specifications to products and labels.
Read the article Audit preparationWhat GFSI-scheme audits typically expect, and how QA teams prepare a documented evidence trail.
Read the article Label reviewA repeatable review flow any QA team can run — evidence, checkpoints, pitfalls and the recorded decision.
Read the articleEvery food manufacturer arrives with a different portfolio, a different pile of supplier documents and a different set of markets. A price list that ignores that would be a fiction. So we start with scope.
Scope and pricing agreed per companyWhat scope depends on
Bring one product and the supplier documents you already have. Half an hour is usually enough to see what can be documented, what needs clarification, and what the work would actually involve for your portfolio.
Discuss your first productOpens your mail app. No form, no tracking, no waiting list.
No. FoodQA structures evidence, calculations and review points. Your QA team retains the final decision.
Yes. The initial workflow can begin with available recipes, BOM exports, spreadsheets, labels and supplier documents.
FoodQA identifies the missing or conflicting information and creates a focused QA review point rather than silently guessing.
The initial regulatory-market focus is Denmark, Sweden and Germany. English is a website language, not an additional regulatory market.
FoodQA’s regulatory agents are designed to monitor relevant official developments, including adopted legislation, proposals, guidance and future effective dates.
No. A potential match indicates that the commodity, origin or hazard may be relevant. Suppliers, batches, traceability and evidence must still be verified.
No. Laboratory analysis or specialist advice may still be required depending on the product and the available evidence.
Start with one representative product, its recipe, current label and available supplier documentation.
Recipes and supplier documentation are treated as controlled company information, kept per company and not pooled with other customers’ material. Hosting and retention details are agreed in writing before any real document is shared.
Bring one product, its recipe and supplier documentation. We will review how a documented FoodQA workflow could be structured around it.
FoodQA is currently onboarding selected food manufacturers through an early-access programme. Product scope is introduced progressively as part of the rollout.
We onboard a small number of companies at a time, so early access starts with a conversation rather than a queue. Send an email and you will get a reply from a person.
Worth including
Opens your mail app with the subject already filled in.
No form, no tracking, no waiting list.