How we write, review and update technical content, which sources we use, and who is responsible for what we publish.
Confi Food is the author and publisher of everything on this site. Technical work is assigned by subject, reviewed internally before it goes out, and revisited whenever the law, a standard or a scheme changes. This page sets out how that works, so you can judge the content on its process and not on our word for it.
We publish as a company because that is how the work is done. Food safety is too wide for one person to cover credibly, so different specialists handle different areas and a second person reviews before anything goes out.
Confi Food is the author and publisher. Work is assigned by subject, sourced from primary requirements, reviewed internally, and revisited whenever the underlying rule changes.
These govern everything technical we publish, including our service pages.
Confi Food is the author and the publisher. Our content carries our name, and we stand behind it as a company. That is why our structured data names Confi Food as author throughout.
Food safety is too wide for one person. HACCP, labelling, certification standards, regulatory compliance, supplier assurance and monitoring are separate disciplines, and we assign each piece to someone who works in that area.
The person who reviews a hazard analysis is not always the person who reviews a nutrition panel. Our team covers these areas between them, and the assignment follows the subject.
Where a statement rests on a requirement, we go to the requirement. Legislation, the competent authority, Codex Alimentarius, the scheme owner or the standards body, in that order.
No technical content goes out on one person's judgement. A second person with relevant knowledge reviews it before publication.
A change to legislation, a new issue of a standard, a scheme requirement update or a regulatory position we disagree with all send the affected content back for review.
Some of our work is confidential and some contributors prefer not to be named. Where we do not name someone, the responsibility does not move. It stays with Confi Food.
Where we get something wrong, we change it and we do not quietly remove it. Our content carries a review date so you can see how current it is.
We work down this list. Where a statement rests on a requirement, we cite the requirement and not a summary of it.
| Level | What it is | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Legislation | The binding requirement itself, in the market concerned. | Food hygiene regulations, food information law, additive and contaminant rules. |
| 2. Competent authorities | The bodies enforcing that legislation and publishing official guidance. | National food agencies, regulators and inspection bodies. |
| 3. Codex Alimentarius | International reference standards, used where a market has no specific rule. | General Principles of Food Hygiene, HACCP principles, commodity standards. |
| 4. Certification scheme owners | The published requirements of the scheme itself. | BRCGS, IFS, FSSC 22000, SQF. |
| 5. Standards bodies | Recognised standards where they apply. | ISO 22000, ISO 17025, ISO 17065. |
| 6. Peer reviewed science | Used where a technical position depends on evidence and not on a rule. | Growth models, validation data, survival studies. |
| 7. Our own practice | What we see across the businesses we work with, described as our experience. | Common findings, recurring failures, what auditors ask for. |
The work goes to someone who works in that area, whether HACCP, labelling, standards, regulatory, supplier assurance or monitoring.
The requirement behind the subject is identified before anything is written, working down the source hierarchy.
The content is written against the source, with the market or standard it applies to named explicitly.
A second person with relevant knowledge reviews it, checking the technical position and the sources behind it.
The page goes out under the Confi Food name, carrying a review date.
Legislation, standards and scheme requirements are watched, and a change sends the affected content back to review.
Legal advice. Our content is technical food safety content. Where a question turns on legal interpretation, that needs a lawyer.
Guarantees of regulatory outcome. We describe what requirements say and what auditors look for. Decisions remain with the authority or the certification body.
Content written by anyone outside our team. We do not publish guest or sponsored technical content.
Confi Food does, as an organisation. Technical work is assigned by subject to someone who works in that area, and reviewed internally by a second person before it goes out. Our structured data names Confi Food as author and publisher throughout, because that is accurate.
Some of our work is confidential and some contributors prefer not to be named publicly. Naming one person on every page would also misrepresent how the work is done, since different specialists cover different areas. Responsibility stays with Confi Food either way.
We work down a hierarchy. Legislation first, then the competent authority, then Codex Alimentarius, then the certification scheme owner, then standards bodies, then peer reviewed science where the question is evidential. Our own practice is cited as our experience and never dressed up as a requirement.
No, where a primary source exists. A summary can be wrong, can be out of date, and cannot be checked. If a statement rests on a requirement, we cite the requirement.
On a cycle, and immediately when something changes. A new issue of a standard, a change to legislation, a scheme requirement update or a shift in a regulator's position all send the affected content back for review.
We identify the content affected, review it, and update it. Where a change is significant enough that the old wording could mislead, we say what changed instead of editing silently.
We say so. Requirements diverge between markets in both directions, and a page that presents one market's position as universal is wrong for everyone else. Where a position differs, we name the market it applies to.
No. It is technical food safety content written by food safety specialists. Where a question turns on legal interpretation or enforcement is in prospect, that needs a lawyer, and we say so at the point it becomes relevant.
We correct it. Content carries a review date so you can see how current it is. Where a correction is material, we change the page and never remove it quietly.
Yes. Cite Confi Food as the author and include the review date from the page. Where a page cites a primary source, going to that source directly is usually the stronger citation.
Confi Food OÜ. That does not change according to who wrote a given page or whether an individual is named on it.
The same way. A service page describing what a review covers is technical content, assigned by subject, reviewed internally and updated when the underlying requirement changes.
What happens from your first enquiry through to the deliverable and any follow up.
Read about How Confi Food works →What our recognition and accreditation cover, and what our certificates mean.
Read about Recognition and compliance →Purchasing optionsFresh graduatesReviews, audits and assessments, priced on scope and delivered worldwide.
View services →If you want to know what a statement on this site rests on, write to us and we will tell you.