Scoring Changes in SQF Edition 10 and What They Mean

Safe Quality Food (SQF) has introduced changes to how the audit scoring works within SQF Edition 10. The reason for this change was to address a disconnect between the certification audit scores vs. the actual site performance. In this article, we’ll break down what these scoring changes are and why they’re worth paying attention to. It’s important to understand these scoring changes so food manufacturers and suppliers can be ready for SQF Edition 10 implementation.

Background for the Scoring Changes

An analysis of SQF pre-audit results and post-audit results showed that many sites that received high scores did not accurately (and consistently) reflect strong food safety conditions. Over time, data told a more complicated story. Some sites with impressive high scores still experienced product recalls, customer complaints, or ongoing compliance issues. This demonstrated that while receiving high ratings, sites were not really demonstrating effective food safety performance. The system was applying equal weight to all non-conformances, regardless of how serious the food safety risk actually was.

Based on this, SQF decided to change the scoring approach that reduces a bias toward high scores, and to better align results with the actual site conditions and risk.

Scoring Matrix of SQF Edition 9

Let’s consider how SQF Edition 9 scoring looked so we can understand the changes made in SQF Edition 10. Under SQF Edition 9, based on the evidence collected by the SQF food safety auditor during the audit, the scoring looked like this:

• 0-point deduction for compliance
• 1-point deduction for a minor non-conformance
• 5-point deduction for a major non-conformance
• 50-point deduction for a critical non-conformance

A site's final score was calculated as 100 minus the sum of all deductions. SQF Edition 9 seemed like a clean, simple formula, but one that treated all non-conformances with equal weight regardless of their food safety significance.

Two Fundamental Changes in SQF Edition 10 Scoring Systems

SQF Edition 10 moves away from this flat structure in favor of a risk-based approach. The basic deduction values remain (Minor = 1 point, Major = 5 points, Critical = 50 points), but SQF Edition 10 introduces two important improvements: Core Clause non-conformances and Single Rating.

Core Clause Concept

One of the biggest changes in SQF Edition 10 is the introduction of Core Clauses. SQF Edition 10 explains that a Core Clause is a designated requirement within the SQF Code that, if not effectively implemented or controlled, poses a significant risk to food safety or the integrity of the SQF System.

Core Clauses are fundamental SQF Code requirements that establish the baseline expectations for food safety. Think of them as the non-negotiables: the programs and controls whose failure poses the greatest risk to consumers and the integrity of the supply chain.

Non-conformances against Core Clauses now carry escalated point deductions compared to standard findings:

• Meets compliance: 0-point deduction
• Minor non-conformance: 1-point deduction
• Core Clause minor* non-conformance: 2-points deduction
• Major non-conformance: 5-points deduction
• Core Clause major* non-conformance: 7-points deduction
• Critical non-conformance: 50-points deduction

* A finding issued to any requirements in the following clauses would be considered a Core Clause Non-conformance.

Examples of a Core Clause are: 

• Management Commitment (2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3)
• Approved Supplier Program (2.3.4)
• Food Safety Plan (2.4.3)
• Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) (2.4.8)
• Corrections, and Corrective and Preventative Actions (2.5.3)
• Product Traceability and Crisis Management (2.6.1)
• Allergen Management (2.8.1)
• Sanitation Program (11.2.5)
• Foreign Material Control Program (11.7.3)

It’s important to note that Core Clauses are code-specific. This means that each industry sector has identified high-risk requirements that are relevant only to their operations.

For example, a facility in primary plant production may have different Core Clauses than a food manufacturer.

Non-conformances against Core Clauses are weighted more heavily in the scoring system due to their critical role in preventing food safety failures. Core Clauses are emphasized only in scoring. They are risk-based elements that, if non-compliant, significantly impact food safety and could lead to widespread contamination, product recalls, or regulatory non-compliance.

Change in Single Rating

Another key change to SQF Edition 10 is the clarification of audit outcomes. SQF Edition 9 used four qualitative ratings:

• 96–100 = Excellent | Certificate issued; 12-month re-certification audit
• 86-95 = Good | Certificate issued; 12-month audit re-certification audit
• 70–85 = Complies | 6-month surveillance audit
• 0–69 = Fail | No certificate issued; considered to have failed the SQF audit, 6-month unannounced surveillance audit

SQF Edition 10 replaces these ratings with clearer certification status categories directly tied to the score ranges.

• 80–100 = Certified | Certificate issued; twelve-(12) month audit
• 70–79 = Certified with Surveillance | Certificate issued; six-(6) month surveillance audit
• 0–69 = Fail (initial only) | No certificate issued; considered to have failed the initial SQF audit
• 0–69 = Certified with Unannounced Surveillance | Site is immediately suspended. Certificate issued upon successful site visit; six-(6) month unannounced surveillance audit required.

The change in the scoring system in SQF Edition 10 represents a step forward in accountability for food safety. By introducing Core Clauses into the scoring, this raises the bar for certification. The updated SQF Edition 10 is designed to make sure that high scores reflect a strong food safety program.

If you are looking for a ramp-up in SQF Edition 10 knowledge, check out training courses available at our training calendar or contact us for a tailored proposal that best meets your business needs.

Our certification activities are provided by independent Certification Bodies, separately from any consulting activities. Impartiality is safeguarded by Eurofins Assurance’s relevant policies to avoid conflicts of interest.

Contact us for a discussion now➜

Our certification activities are provided by independent Certification Bodies, separately from any consulting activities. Impartiality is safeguarded by Eurofins Assurance’s relevant policies to avoid conflicts of interest.