A halal mark should explain the rules behind the approval
For food producers and consumers, independent halal certification is intended to help show that meat products meet strict religious standards and are handled with operational integrity. Without transparent governance, clear certification standards, and public accountability, people affected by a certification cannot check whether an organization’s claims are independently monitored or applied consistently.
Ben-issa LLC, operating as Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions, is a Colorado-based company that offers halal harvesting and certification services. It provides on-site audits and issues certification documents, but accredited oversight, detailed public standards, and independent governance have not been publicly verified. Missing public information is not proof that these elements do not exist.
Who Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions is
Ben-issa LLC is a registered Colorado Limited Liability Company. Its principal address is in Fort Collins, and it operates in Severance [1] [2]. The business uses the name Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions. Malik Issa (Abdelmalik Issa) owns the company and serves as its registered agent [1] [2]. The company says it provides on-site halal harvesting to Islamic standards, including a swift cut by a Muslim operator, invocation of the name of God, full bleed-out, and complete USDA coordination [3] [4].
The organization says its certified products are distributed through meat-processing facilities across the East Coast and Midwest [3]. However, the public record does not establish a formal governance board, an independent Islamic scholar board, or a documented framework for halal decisions [3] [5]. It also does not publicly establish the qualifications, appointments, or role assignments of its practicing halal operators [4].
Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment
Ben-issa LLC, operating as Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 18% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated
Moderate confidence. Ben-issa LLC, operating as Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions, received an 18% Credibility Score (Grade F) in this review. The score reflects the evidence available about legal identity, ownership, governance, staff qualifications, halal decision-making, audit controls, public standards, certificate checks, and routes for complaints or corrections. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. The public record establishes some basic organizational information, but it does not provide enough verified detail about competence or public accountability for readers to rely on the score alone. Missing information is not proof that an internal control does not exist.
See the three numerical score components
- Competence assurance
- 16.8077 of 90
- Accreditation breadth
- 0.0000 of 4
- Public accountability
- 0.9450 of 6
How to read this result: The score measures what the reviewed evidence supports. Information that was missing or unclear was not treated as proof that a safeguard does not exist. This is not a ruling on every certificate, product, or facility.
USDHS Accreditation-Dominant Credibility Score version 4.1. Source cutoff September 15, 2026. Last reviewed September 15, 2026. Raw Credibility Score 17.7527 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 18%.
Category breakdown
Where this score came from
Each bar shows how much of that category the reviewed evidence supported. A short bar means important information was missing, unclear, or not independently verified; it does not prove that an internal safeguard does not exist.
- 1. Legal identity and standing 79.94%
- 2. Ownership and control 54.62%
- 3. Accountable leadership and governance 48.00%
- 4. Qualified personnel 4.54%
- 5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights 0.00%
- 6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls 6.35%
- 7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence 0.00%
- 8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope 0.00%
- 9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure 0.00%
- 10. Certificate traceability and mark control 0.00%
- 11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections 0.00%
- 12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity 48.00%
What stands out
What helps—and what gives us pause
These are the most important positive and cautionary findings in the reviewed record. They explain the score rather than creating extra bonus points or penalties.
What supports confidence
Legal Registration
The entity is a registered LLC in Colorado with clear ownership information.
What needs caution
Missing Governance Transparency
No broader governance or independent certification authority structure is publicly documented.
Lack of Public Standards and Traceability
No coherent public certification criteria, certificate directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #8, #9, #10
Scoring treatment: Score reduced due to insufficient public transparency and traceability.
Evidence boundary: Based on the organization's public website.
Sources: [3]
How USDHS calculated the score and grade
Model B totals competence assurance from 0 to 90, proportional current exact-entity accreditation breadth from 0 to 4, and public accountability from 0 to 6. A current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation establishes competence within verified scope; affirmative contradictions reduce it requirement by requirement. Every qualifying authority contributes 0.8000 breadth points against the five-authority national benchmark, capped at four. Public accountability remains separate. The 137 requirement statuses remain visible as the evidence record. Classification bands: A, 90 to 100, strongly substantiated; B, 80 to 89, substantiated; C, 70 to 79, partially substantiated; D, 60 to 69, material gaps; F, 0 to 59, insufficiently substantiated.
Detailed evidence
Why each category received its result
1. Legal identity and standing
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the public can identify the organization behind the certificate and confirm that it is legally connected to the work. 5 checks were fully supported, and 3 checks had partial support.
79.94% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
8 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
3.9971 of 5 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 3.7721 of 4.5000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.2250 of 0.3000 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 4.1250 of 5 points. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 5 fulfilled, 3 partial.
Why this metric earned 79.94 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 3.7721 competence + 0.2250 public accountability = 3.9971 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 1.C1 — fulfilled: The certificate issuer is a resolvable legal entity.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Colorado records identify the LLC and certification service.
Requirement 1.C2 — fulfilled: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Colorado records identify the LLC and certification service.
Requirement 1.C3 — fulfilled: Every public operating name, DBA, division, or brand used for certification is connected to the issuer.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Colorado records identify the LLC and certification service.
Requirement 1.C4 — partial: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Partially verified from public records.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 1.O1 — partial: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Partially verified from public records.
Requirement 1.O2 — fulfilled: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.
Evidence route: Authoritative source. Colorado state records confirm the principal address in Fort Collins and operations in Severance.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 1.P1 — fulfilled: The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Colorado records identify the LLC and certification service.
Requirement 1.P2 — partial: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Partially verified from public records.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
2. Ownership and control
What this means in plain English: This category asks who ultimately owns or controls the organization and whether related interests are clearly identified. 4 checks were fully supported, 2 checks had partial support, and 3 checks remained unverified.
54.62% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
9 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
4.3694 of 8 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 4.1294 of 7.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.2400 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Ownership and control earns 4.5000 of 8 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 4 fulfilled, 2 partial, 3 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 54.62 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 4.1294 competence + 0.2400 public accountability = 4.3694 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 2.C1 — fulfilled: Ultimate owners or members are identified.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. Public records identify the owner and registered agent for the exact LLC.
Requirement 2.C2 — not verified: Ownership percentages or interests are established.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. Complete ownership percentages and member interests are not established.
Requirement 2.C3 — partial: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. Owner and registered-agent roles establish consequential control, while complete voting and decision rights remain unverified.
Requirement 2.C4 — not verified: Related entities that could affect control are identified.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. Complete related-party ownership or control arrangements are not established.
Requirement 2.C5 — fulfilled: Ownership continuity is established or preserved through istiṣḥāb absent contrary evidence.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. The specifically established ownership fact continues under istiṣḥāb absent reliable contrary evidence.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 2.O1 — partial: Ownership and control records are current, maintained, and available to an authorized verifier.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. Public business records corroborate the owner and registered-agent roles, but do not disclose the complete operating control file.
Requirement 2.O2 — fulfilled: No current record contradicts the established owner or control structure.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. No reliable contrary ownership or control evidence was identified after the affirmative baseline was established.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 2.P1 — fulfilled: Consumers can identify the controlling person or organization when ownership identity is part of the public accountability standard.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. The owner identity is available in the cited public records.
Requirement 2.P2 — not verified: Private percentages, taxpayer data, signatures, and personal addresses need not be published when authoritative evidence establishes them.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. Complete ownership percentages, voting rights, and related-party controls are not established and therefore cannot receive publication credit.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
3. Accountable leadership and governance
What this means in plain English: This category asks who is responsible for the certification program, how authority is assigned, and who is accountable for its decisions. 10 checks had partial support
48.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
6.7200 of 14 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 6.3000 of 12.6000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.4200 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 7.0000 of 14 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 10 partial.
Why this metric earned 48.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 6.3000 competence + 0.4200 public accountability = 6.7200 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 3.C1 — partial: Senior leadership is identified.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable, but no broader governance structure is documented.
Requirement 3.C2 — partial: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but no broader governance or certification authority structure is documented.
Requirement 3.C3 — partial: Certification decision authority is assigned.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but no broader governance or certification authority structure is documented.
Requirement 3.C4 — partial: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but no broader governance or certification authority structure is documented.
Requirement 3.C5 — partial: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but no broader governance or certification authority structure is documented.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 3.O1 — partial: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but no broader governance or certification authority structure is documented.
Requirement 3.O2 — partial: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but no broader governance or certification authority structure is documented.
Requirement 3.O3 — partial: Management review and internal oversight occur.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but no broader governance or certification authority structure is documented.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 3.P1 — partial: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable, but no broader governance structure is documented.
Requirement 3.P2 — partial: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but no broader governance or certification authority structure is documented.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
4. Qualified personnel
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the people doing audits, reviews, and decisions are identified, qualified, authorized, and kept competent. 1 check had partial support, and 13 checks remained unverified.
4.54% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
14 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.8168 of 18 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.8168 of 16.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Qualified personnel earns 0.7714 of 18 points. Of 14 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 13 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 4.54 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.8168 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.8168 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 4.C1 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for technical auditors.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Requirement 4.C2 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Requirement 4.C3 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Requirement 4.C4 — partial: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.
Evidence route: Public source. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 4.C5 — not verified: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Requirement 4.C6 — not verified: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Requirement 4.C7 — not verified: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 4.O1 — not verified: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Requirement 4.O2 — not verified: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Requirement 4.O3 — not verified: Assignments match sector and scope competence.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Requirement 4.O4 — not verified: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 4.P1 — not verified: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Requirement 4.P2 — not verified: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Requirement 4.P3 — not verified: Private personnel files, degree numbers, and every assignment record need not be published when accreditation verifies competence.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site refers to a practicing Muslim operator without publishing qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights
What this means in plain English: This category asks who provides the Islamic review, what authority that person or body has, and who makes the final halal decision. None of the 11 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
11 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 18 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 16.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 0.0000 of 18 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 11 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 5.C1 — not verified: Qualified Muslim Islamic-affairs experts are appointed.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Requirement 5.C2 — not verified: Muslim decision makers are used where required.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Requirement 5.C3 — not verified: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Requirement 5.C4 — not verified: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Requirement 5.C5 — not verified: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Requirement 5.C6 — not verified: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 5.O1 — not verified: Islamic experts participate in audit, review, and decision functions as required.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Requirement 5.O2 — not verified: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Requirement 5.O3 — not verified: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 5.P1 — not verified: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Requirement 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site states basic Islamic slaughter requirements but does not identify a qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls
What this means in plain English: This category asks what the certifier actually checks, what halal-specific evidence it records, and how findings lead to approval, follow-up, or withdrawal. 2 checks had partial support, and 13 checks remained unverified.
6.35% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
15 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.8894 of 14 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.8894 of 12.6000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 0.8400 of 14 points. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 2 partial, 13 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 6.35 percent: 15 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.8894 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.8894 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 6.C1 — not verified: Application and application review are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Requirement 6.C2 — not verified: The audit program and audit time are determined by scope, risk, complexity, sites, and prior results.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Requirement 6.C3 — partial: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.
Evidence route: Public source. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 6.C4 — partial: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.
Evidence route: Public source. The site describes providing tailored certification documentation.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 6.C5 — not verified: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Requirement 6.C6 — not verified: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Requirement 6.C7 — not verified: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Requirement 6.C8 — not verified: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Requirement 6.C9 — not verified: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Requirement 6.C10 — not verified: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 6.O1 — not verified: The current certification system implements each applicable control.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Requirement 6.O2 — not verified: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Requirement 6.O3 — not verified: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 6.P1 — not verified: The certification pathway and principal stages are publicly understandable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Requirement 6.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site describes a one-shift on-site audit and tailored paperwork, but no current certificate or complete controlled lifecycle demonstrates implementation.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence
What this means in plain English: This category asks how the organization prevents commercial interests, consulting work, or personal conflicts from controlling certification decisions. None of the 11 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
11 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 6 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 5.4000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.3600 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Impartiality, conflicts, and independence earns 0.0000 of 6 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 11 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 7.C1 — not verified: An impartiality policy and risk process exist.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Requirement 7.C2 — not verified: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Requirement 7.C3 — not verified: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Requirement 7.C4 — not verified: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Requirement 7.C5 — not verified: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Requirement 7.C6 — not verified: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 7.O1 — not verified: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Requirement 7.O2 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are documented.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Requirement 7.O3 — not verified: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 7.P1 — not verified: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Requirement 7.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public conflict, review independence, or audit-to-decision separation controls were located.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope
What this means in plain English: This category asks which current rules govern the certification, what products and facilities they cover, and where the limits or exclusions are. None of the 10 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 3 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 2.7000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 0.0000 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 10 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 8.C1 — not verified: Governing standard names and versions are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Requirement 8.C2 — not verified: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Requirement 8.C3 — not verified: Exclusions and limitations are defined.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Requirement 8.C4 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Requirement 8.C5 — not verified: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Requirement 8.C6 — not verified: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 8.O1 — not verified: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Requirement 8.O2 — not verified: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 8.P1 — not verified: The principal standard, version, category, and certification scope are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Requirement 8.P2 — not verified: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The site makes general Islamic and ISO-alignment references without a named, versioned certification scheme or complete scope rules.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether an ordinary reader can find the certifier’s practical halal rules and understand the positions behind its approvals. None of the 20 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
20 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 8 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 7.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Public certification criteria and position disclosure earns 0.0000 of 8 points. Of 20 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 20 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 20 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 9.C1 — not verified: The public disclosure is authorized, versioned, dated, and controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.C2 — not verified: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.C3 — not verified: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 9.O1 — not verified: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.O2 — not verified: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.O3 — not verified: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 9.P1 — not verified: Religious or jurisprudential basis.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.P2 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.P3 — not verified: Mechanical poultry slaughter.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.P4 — not verified: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.P5 — not verified: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.P6 — not verified: Stunning and reversibility.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.P7 — not verified: Alive-at-cut control.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.P8 — not verified: Minimum vessel requirement.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.P9 — not verified: Pork and animal derivatives.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.P10 — not verified: Alcohol and ethanol.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.P11 — not verified: Processing aids and ingredient sources.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.P12 — not verified: Shared lines and cross-contact.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.P13 — not verified: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Requirement 9.P14 — not verified: Certificate-level position communication.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No coherent public certification criteria set was located.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
10. Certificate traceability and mark control
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether a certificate can be checked for its holder, site, scope, dates, and current status, and whether misuse of the mark is controlled. None of the 10 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 3 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 2.7000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 0.0000 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 10 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 10.C1 — not verified: Certificate templates contain required issuer, holder, site, product or activity scope, identifier, issue date, expiry date, and authorization.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Requirement 10.C2 — not verified: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Requirement 10.C3 — not verified: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Requirement 10.C4 — not verified: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Requirement 10.C5 — not verified: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 10.O1 — not verified: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Requirement 10.O2 — not verified: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Requirement 10.O3 — not verified: Directory and status records are maintained.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 10.P1 — not verified: Consumers can verify current certificate status through a working HTTPS route, searchable directory, QR destination, or equivalent accessible mechanism.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Requirement 10.P2 — not verified: Public verification shows enough information to distinguish holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and validity.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public certificate example, status directory, or mark-control procedure was located.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether people can challenge a decision, report a problem, receive an independent review, and see appropriate corrective action. None of the 10 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 1 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.9000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.0600 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Complaints, appeals, and corrections earns 0.0000 of 1 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 10 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 11.C1 — not verified: Complaints and appeals have documented procedures.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Requirement 11.C2 — not verified: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Requirement 11.C3 — not verified: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Requirement 11.C4 — not verified: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Requirement 11.C5 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 11.O1 — not verified: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Requirement 11.O2 — not verified: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Requirement 11.O3 — not verified: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 11.P1 — not verified: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Requirement 11.P2 — not verified: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. No public complaint, appeal, or correction procedure was located.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the organization has a verifiable operating record and enough qualified people and resources for the certification work it claims to perform. 9 checks had partial support
48.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
9 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.9600 of 2 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.9000 of 1.8000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0600 of 0.1200 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 1.0000 of 2 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 9 partial.
Why this metric earned 48.00 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.9000 competence + 0.0600 public accountability = 0.9600 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 12.C1 — partial: The HCB defines competence and resource needs for each scope.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.C2 — partial: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.C3 — partial: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.C4 — partial: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 12.O1 — partial: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.O2 — partial: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.O3 — partial: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 12.P1 — partial: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.P2 — partial: Confidential client volumes, payroll, and workload files need not be published when current accreditation verifies capacity.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The site reports long industry experience and active regional service, but recent certification output and resource capacity are not independently established.
Public sources: Source 1
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
Bottom line
What you should know
What the evidence supports
- The review established substantial information about the organization’s legal identity and standing.
- Public records identify the owner and registered agent, although some ownership and control details remain unclear.
- The owner is publicly accountable for the operating service, but a broader governance structure has not been documented.
What should make you cautious
- The review could not independently verify who holds Islamic authority or how final halal decisions are made.
- The public record does not independently establish personnel qualifications, authorization, assignments, monitoring, or continuing competence.
- The review could not independently verify the halal-specific audit and certification controls; the requirement table identifies the affected items and evidence routes.
What evidence could change this view
- What current, verifiable records would clarify islamic authority and halal decision rights?
- What current, verifiable records would clarify impartiality, conflicts, and independence?
- What current, verifiable records would clarify standards, scheme, and certification scope?
View the original requirement-level questions
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 1.C4 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 1.O1 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 1.P2 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 2.C2 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 2.C3 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 2.C4 under the published methodology?
Credibility Score interpretation
- Model B assigns 16.8077 of 90 competence-assurance points, 0.0000 of 4 proportional accreditation-breadth points, and 0.9450 of 6 public-accountability points.
- No qualifying current comprehensive exact-entity accreditation was applied; competence is normalized from the same control and operational requirement evidence used across the national set, and accreditation breadth is zero.
- Recognition, commercial approval, membership, affiliate credentials, expired credentials, and scope that does not cover the assessed work do not qualify as current exact-entity accreditation breadth.
- Missing public information means the reviewed public record did not establish the disclosure; it is not proof that an undisclosed internal control does not exist.
Material records are rescored under the same rules, whether they raise or lower the result. Privately share information or evidence. Evidence-source names and contact details are not exposed publicly. An authorized representative may separately claim this certification body with qualifying documents. A verified claim does not confer editorial control or automatically change an article, Credibility Score, Grade, ranking, or certification status.
Read the full legal and evidence boundary
This organizational accountability assessment measures evidence supporting identity, control, responsible people, Islamic authority, halal-specific work, standards, public certification criteria, certificate controls, correction access, and demonstrated operations. Each of 137 enumerated subrequirements is shown below. A not-verified finding means the reviewed record did not establish the item; it is not proof that the control does not exist, that wrongdoing occurred, or that every certificate is invalid. Private evidence is described only at a non-identifying level. The existing series label is editorial branding and is not itself an allegation. Flags explain evidence already scored inside the twelve fixed metrics and create no separate bonus or penalty. The assessment is not a religious ruling, legal judgment, fraud finding, guarantee, or declaration that every certificate is valid or invalid. An undisclosed item is not treated as proof that no internal control exists.
Organization, accreditation, and review scope
This assessment concerns Ben-issa LLC, operating as Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions, a Colorado Limited Liability Company [1] [2]. It covers the organization’s public halal certification and harvesting services [3].
This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization [3]. The organization’s internal structures, including any potential affiliates or independent certification decision boards, have not been independently verified [3].
This accountability assessment uses the published USDHS methodology to review evidence. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard or make a religious ruling about every certificate or product.
Public certification rules and stated positions
Ben-issa LLC says that harvesting is performed by a practicing Muslim operator using a swift cut, invoking the name of God, and ensuring full bleed-out [4]. The organization says it conducts one-shift, on-site audits and provides tailored certification documentation [3] [3].
The organization’s public positions are not established for mechanical poultry slaughter; tasmiyyah (blessing) procedures beyond the general invocation; stunning; controls to ensure an animal is alive at the cut; and management of shared lines, sanitation, ingredients, and alcohol [3].
Detailed certification standards, a versioned scheme, and comprehensive scope rules are also not publicly available [3]. The missing evidence about these operational controls has not been independently verified and does not necessarily mean the controls are absent.
No public certificate directory, system for controlling certificate status, or documented route for complaints, appeals, and corrections was located [3]. Without those transparency and accountability mechanisms, outsiders have limited ability to verify ongoing certification activities.
Score and conclusion based on the evidence reviewed
Ben-issa LLC provides localized halal harvesting and certification services, but the reviewed public record does not verify independent oversight, detailed certification standards, or transparent governance structures [3]. General operational claims, without a public certificate directory or documented accountability mechanisms, substantially limit what can be verified about the organization’s credibility [3].
The organization therefore receives an 18% Credibility Score (Grade F). To meet baseline accountability standards, the public record would need substantially better transparency, documented governance, and accessible certification criteria.
What evidence would change the remaining deductions
This section describes the evidence that could support a higher score for Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions. It does not mean that a control is absent simply because the reviewed public record did not establish it. Any submission must match the exact assessed entity, identify its dates and scope, and show who was responsible for implementation and decision-making.
Records may be public or submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Authenticated private records may support evidence that controls or operations are in place, but they do not count toward public-transparency credit unless the organization makes the material information public.
- Metric 1 — Legal identity and operating status: To fully document legal identity and operating status, a current authoritative registry or regulator record for Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions would need to show the exact legal name, entity number, jurisdiction, formation date, active status, operating name, and any required certification-business registration not already established.
- Metric 2 — Ownership and control: To clarify who controls the organization, a current authoritative ownership filing or authenticated controlled record for Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions would need to identify beneficial owners, ownership percentages, voting or governance rights, controlling persons, related entities, and conflict controls for the exact assessed entity.
- Metric 3 — Governance and accountable leadership: To show who is responsible for certification decisions, a current Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions governing-body roster and organogram, or chart of reporting lines, would need to identify accountable leaders, their roles, the basis for their appointment or authority, management responsibilities, and entity-level accountability for certification decisions.
- Metric 4 — Personnel competence and authorization: To show that personnel are qualified and authorized, a current Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions personnel roster or independently assessed controlled record would need to identify auditors, technical experts, reviewers, contractors, qualifications, sector experience, halal and audit training, authorization scope, assignments, monitoring, and competence review.
- Metric 5 — Islamic authority and halal decision: To show who makes halal decisions, current Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions records would need to identify the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, their qualifications and appointment, jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, entity-level authority, and traceable participation in final halal decisions.
- Metric 6 — Halal audit method and facility verification: To show how facilities are assessed, a current controlled Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions audit procedure and corroborating recent files would need to show application and scope review, ingredient and process evaluation, on-site work, halal-specific observations, findings, corrective actions, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
- Metric 7 — Impartiality and decision separation: To show that certification decisions are impartial, a current Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions policy on impartiality and separation of decisions, plus implementation records, would need to identify conflict review, separation from consultancy, oversight membership, and separation among audit, technical review, Islamic review, and certification decision.
- Metric 8 — Standards, scheme, and certification scope: To make the certification rules clear, a current Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions standard or scheme record would need to identify its version, effective date, covered sectors and locations, exclusions, supplementary schemes, precedence rules, certificate scope, and responsible issuing entity.
- Metric 9 — Public certification criteria and position disclosure: To explain the public basis for certification, a current public Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions declaration or equivalent methodology would need to cover the governing standard and version, religious basis, scope and exclusions, practical halal positions, supplementary-scheme precedence, certificate communication, and a public route for verification.
- Metric 10 — Certificate traceability and mark control: To let people verify certificates and use of the mark, a current public Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions certificate directory or verification method would need to show the certificate identifier, holder, site, products or scope, effective and expiry dates, live status, suspension or withdrawal, and enforceable controls on mark use and misuse.
- Metric 11 — Complaints, appeals, and corrections: To show how concerns are handled fairly, a current public Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions procedure for complaints, appeals, and corrections would need to identify submission routes, acknowledgement and response timing, independent review, records, re-examination, corrective action, and non-retaliation or equivalent fairness protections.
- Metric 12 — Operating history and demonstrated capacity: To show the organization’s operating history and capacity, current independently verifiable Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions operating records would need to show its timeline, active clients or certificates, sectors and locations served, workload, surveillance activity, and competent personnel capacity matched to that workload.
Corrections, appeals, and claiming this certification body
Ben-issa LLC, operating as Ben Issa Halal Meat Solutions, or another affected party may submit responsive records through the secure documentary-evidence form. Material evidence is evaluated under the same methodology whether it raises or lowers the Credibility Score.
An authorized representative may also use Claim this certification body. The claimant must document their identity, role, and authority to act for the exact assessed entity. That authority must be verified through qualifying documentation and an independently confirmable official contact channel. A claim remains private and pending until it is reviewed; it does not provide editorial control, reveal other submissions, or automatically change an article, Credibility Score, Grade, or ranking.
A correction request should identify the exact entity, statement, metric, source, effective dates, scope, responsible people, and requested correction. Publication does not depend on a response, and no organization has a private veto over a documented finding.
Frequently asked questions
Does Ben-issa LLC have accredited halal-certifier status?
This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization.
Who is listed as the owner of Ben-issa LLC?
Public records indicate that Malik Issa (Abdelmalik Issa) is the owner and registered agent of Ben-issa LLC.
What halal standards does Ben-issa LLC say it follows?
The organization says its harvesting follows Islamic standards: a swift cut by a Muslim operator, invocation of the name of God, and full bleed-out. However, a detailed, versioned certification scheme has not been publicly established.
Can a certificate from Ben-issa LLC be verified online?
No public certificate directory or online system for controlling certificate status has been verified for the organization.
What was Ben-issa LLC’s accountability-assessment score?
The organization earned an 18% Credibility Score (Grade F) because the public record provides limited transparency about its governance, detailed standards, and independent oversight.
References
View the controlling HIPS publication