What accountability requires
A halal certificate is most useful when it can be connected to capable people, halal expertise, a halal-specific audit, an impartial decision, and records of the work performed. Publicly verifiable information matters because consumers and clients need to identify the certifier and understand what its certificate covers. It can be difficult to assess halal claims for meat, poultry, dry goods, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics when the audit method, personnel, and religious authority are not fully transparent.
Halal Food Council USA is an international halal-certifying body operating in North America and says it has operated since 1984. It is headquartered in Princess Anne, Maryland, and provides certification services across various sectors. This review assesses Halal Food Council USA. [1] [2] [3]
Which organization and accreditation this review covers
The organization says it is recognized by MUI (Indonesia) and registered with JAKIM (Malaysia). This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. It therefore relies on direct evidence and public records. The result reflects the reviewed accreditation record and reliance on first-party claims that do not have detailed public verification. [2] [6] [7]
Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment
Halal Food Council USA Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 15% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated
Moderate confidence. Halal Food Council USA receives a 15% Credibility Score (Grade F) in this assessment. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization, so the result relies on the reviewed evidence of controls and operations. The public record provides only limited support for accountability. Overall, the reviewed record does not substantiate enough evidence of competence and public accountability for someone to rely on the score alone. The result describes what the reviewed evidence established; it does not mean that undisclosed controls do not exist or that any certificate is invalid.
See the three numerical score components
- Competence assurance
- 13.0257 of 90
- Accreditation breadth
- 0.0000 of 4
- Public accountability
- 1.8729 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 14.8985 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 15%.
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 24.00%
- 2. Ownership and control 61.24%
- 3. Accountable leadership and governance 28.41%
- 4. Qualified personnel 9.08%
- 5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights 1.50%
- 6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls 9.35%
- 7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence 0.00%
- 8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope 17.38%
- 9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure 4.29%
- 10. Certificate traceability and mark control 6.35%
- 11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections 0.00%
- 12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity 27.71%
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
Documented certification process and named leadership
The organization has a documented certification process, named leadership, and a long claimed operating history (since 1984) with active certification functions.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #3, #6, #12
Scoring treatment: This flag explains evidence already reflected in metrics 3, 6, and 11 and creates no separate bonus.
Evidence boundary: The cited public process and leadership materials establish the disclosed roles and certification activity, not complete file-level assignments, competence records, or decision records.
What needs caution
No verified qualifying comprehensive exact-entity accreditation
The organization claims recognition from MUI (Indonesia) and registration with JAKIM (Malaysia). However, these claims are not current qualifying comprehensive exact-entity accreditations according to the official directories reviewed. No current recognized accreditation under Model B methodology 4.1 was independently verified.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #10, #11, #12
Scoring treatment: No separate penalty is applied. The absence of a verified qualifying credential means no accreditation-derived assurance is added; direct evidence remains scored in its applicable metrics.
Evidence boundary: This is a bounded no-match finding in the official directories reviewed through the source cutoff, not proof that no credential exists anywhere.
Personnel qualifications and impartiality structures are not independently verified
Detailed personnel competence records, exact beneficial ownership, and impartiality structures remain unverified and not publicly verified.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #2, #4, #5, #7
Scoring treatment: This flag explains the limited factors already assigned in metrics 2, 4, 5, and 7 and creates no separate deduction.
Evidence boundary: Missing public qualification, authorization, ownership, or impartiality records are treated as non-verification, not proof that the controls or people do not exist.
No accessible certificate directory or complaints procedure
There is no accessible certificate directory or published complaints and appeals procedure.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #10, #11
Scoring treatment: This flag explains evidence already scored in metric 10 and 10 and creates no separate deduction.
Evidence boundary: The reviewed public pages did not provide a complete live certificate register or formal complaint and appeal procedure; this does not establish that no internal records or process exists.
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. 4 checks had partial support, and 4 checks remained unverified.
24.00% 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.
1.2000 of 5 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
- 1.1250 of 4.5000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0750 of 0.3000 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 1.2500 of 5 points. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 4 partial, 4 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 24.00 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 1.1250 competence + 0.0750 public accountability = 1.2000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 1.C1 — partial: The certificate issuer is a resolvable legal entity.
Evidence route: Public source. Active U.S. presence and certification function confirmed through New York Department of Agriculture and Markets registration, though Maryland registration was not found.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 1.C2 — partial: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.
Evidence route: Public source. Active U.S. presence and certification function confirmed through New York Department of Agriculture and Markets registration.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 1.C3 — not verified: Every public operating name, DBA, division, or brand used for certification is connected to the issuer.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 1.C4 — not verified: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 1.O1 — not verified: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 1.O2 — partial: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.
Evidence route: Public source. Operations demonstrate a functional presence via recent certificates and state registration, and headquartered in Princess Anne, Maryland.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 1.P1 — partial: The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name.
Evidence route: Public source. The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name as Halal Food Council USA, headquartered in Princess Anne, Maryland.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 1.P2 — not verified: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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. 5 checks were fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 3 checks remained unverified.
61.24% 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.
4.8988 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
- 4.6588 of 7.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.2400 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Ownership and control earns 5.0000 of 8 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 5 fulfilled, 1 partial, 3 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 61.24 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 4.6588 competence + 0.2400 public accountability = 4.8988 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. The organization publicly identifies its board of directors as the accountable governing body.
Requirement 2.C2 — not verified: Ownership percentages or interests are established.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. Ownership percentages or member interests are not established.
Requirement 2.C3 — partial: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. A governing board is identified, while complete voting and control 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 governing-body fact continues under istiṣḥāb absent reliable contrary evidence.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 2.O1 — fulfilled: Ownership and control records are current, maintained, and available to an authorized verifier.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. The current public board page operationally corroborates the governing body.
Requirement 2.O2 — fulfilled: No current record contradicts the established owner or control structure.
Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. No reliable contrary governance 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 accountable board of directors is publicly identified.
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. 3 checks were fully supported, and 7 checks remained unverified.
28.41% 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.
3.9776 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
- 3.5576 of 12.6000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.4200 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 4.4100 of 14 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 3 fulfilled, 7 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 28.41 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 3.5576 competence + 0.4200 public accountability = 3.9776 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 3.C1 — fulfilled: Senior leadership is identified.
Evidence route: Public source. The organization publishes a list of its Board of Directors, including the President and Executive Director.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 3.C2 — not verified: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 3.C3 — not verified: Certification decision authority is assigned.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 3.C4 — not verified: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 3.C5 — fulfilled: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.
Evidence route: Public source. The organization publishes a list of its Board of Directors, including the President and Executive Director.
Public sources: Source 1
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 3.O1 — not verified: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 3.O2 — not verified: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 3.O3 — not verified: Management review and internal oversight occur.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 3.P1 — fulfilled: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. The organization publishes a list of its Board of Directors, including the President and Executive Director.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 3.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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 was fully supported, and 13 checks remained unverified.
9.08% 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.
1.6336 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
- 1.6336 of 16.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Qualified personnel earns 1.5429 of 18 points. Of 14 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 13 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 9.08 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 1.6336 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 1.6336 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 accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 4.C2 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 4.C3 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 4.C4 — fulfilled: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.
Evidence route: Public source. The website explicitly requires a Muslim slaughterman and supervisor.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 4.C5 — not verified: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 4.C6 — not verified: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 4.C7 — not verified: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 4.O1 — not verified: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 4.O2 — not verified: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 4.O3 — not verified: Assignments match sector and scope competence.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 4.O4 — not verified: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 4.P1 — not verified: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 4.P2 — not verified: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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 accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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. 1 check had partial support, and 10 checks remained unverified.
1.50% 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.
0.2700 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
- 0.2700 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 0.6750 of 18 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 10 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 1.50 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.2700 public accountability = 0.2700 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 accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 5.C2 — not verified: Muslim decision makers are used where required.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 5.C3 — not verified: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 5.C4 — not verified: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 5.C5 — not verified: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 5.C6 — not verified: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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 accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 5.O2 — not verified: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 5.O3 — not verified: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 5.P1 — partial: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. The site publicly identifies a Shariah Council and Technical Director by role, providing limited public evidence of the committee, though specific personnel are not verified.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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 were fully supported, and 13 checks remained unverified.
9.35% 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.
1.3094 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
- 0.4200 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 1.8900 of 14 points. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 2 fulfilled, 13 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 9.35 percent: 15 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.8894 competence + 0.4200 public accountability = 1.3094 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 6.C1 — fulfilled: Application and application review are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. A documented six-step certification process, including application, inspection, and post-certification monitoring, is published.
Public sources: Source 1
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 accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 6.C3 — not verified: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 6.C4 — not verified: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 6.C5 — not verified: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 6.C6 — not verified: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 6.C7 — not verified: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 6.C8 — not verified: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 6.C9 — not verified: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 6.C10 — not verified: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 6.O1 — not verified: The current certification system implements each applicable control.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 6.O2 — not verified: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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 accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 6.P1 — fulfilled: The certification pathway and principal stages are publicly understandable.
Evidence route: Public source. A documented six-step certification process, including application, inspection, and post-certification monitoring, is published, making the certification pathway publicly understandable.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 6.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 7.C2 — not verified: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 7.C3 — not verified: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 7.C4 — not verified: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 7.C5 — not verified: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 7.C6 — not verified: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 7.O1 — not verified: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 7.O2 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are documented.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 7.O3 — not verified: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 7.P1 — not verified: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 7.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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. 1 check was fully supported, 2 checks had partial support, and 7 checks remained unverified.
17.38% 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.
0.5215 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
- 0.4765 of 2.7000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0450 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 0.5625 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 2 partial, 7 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 17.38 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.4765 competence + 0.0450 public accountability = 0.5215 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 8.C1 — partial: Governing standard names and versions are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The organization states it follows Codex Alimentarius (1997) guidelines for halal.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 8.C2 — fulfilled: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. Certifies meat and poultry processing, dry goods, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and restaurants/catering.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 8.C3 — not verified: Exclusions and limitations are defined.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 8.C4 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 8.C5 — not verified: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 8.C6 — not verified: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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 accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 8.O2 — not verified: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 8.P1 — partial: The principal standard, version, category, and certification scope are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. Publicly identifies certification categories (meat, poultry, dry goods, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, restaurants) and mentions Codex Alimentarius (1997), but lacks a specific version-controlled governing standard document.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 8.P2 — not verified: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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. 10 checks were fully supported, and 10 checks remained unverified.
4.29% 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.
0.3429 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
- 0.3429 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Public certification criteria and position disclosure earns 0.8571 of 8 points. Of 20 enumerated subrequirements, 10 fulfilled, 10 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 4.29 percent: 20 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.3429 public accountability = 0.3429 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. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 9.C2 — not verified: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 9.C3 — not verified: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 9.O1 — not verified: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 9.O2 — not verified: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 9.O3 — not verified: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 9.P1 — not verified: Religious or jurisprudential basis.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 9.P2 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 9.P3 — fulfilled: Mechanical poultry slaughter.
Evidence route: Public source. Permits mechanical knife slaughter for chicken under specific conditions.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P4 — fulfilled: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.
Evidence route: Public source. Requires continuous recitation while maintaining hand on switch for mechanical slaughter, or recitation prior to switching on the mechanical knife.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P5 — fulfilled: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.
Evidence route: Public source. Requires a Muslim slaughterman and supervisor.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P6 — fulfilled: Stunning and reversibility.
Evidence route: Public source. Permits stunning (specifically mentions voltage settings for birds) provided it does not cause lasting effect or death before slaughter.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P7 — fulfilled: Alive-at-cut control.
Evidence route: Public source. Requires removing birds that are dead before being hung on the line or as a result of stunner damage.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P8 — fulfilled: Minimum vessel requirement.
Evidence route: Public source. Requires severance of the trachea, esophagus, and major blood vessels (jugular and carotid).
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P9 — fulfilled: Pork and animal derivatives.
Evidence route: Public source. Prohibits swine (pork and pork by-products) and blood.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P10 — fulfilled: Alcohol and ethanol.
Evidence route: Public source. Prohibits alcohol as it is classified as a Haram category.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P11 — fulfilled: Processing aids and ingredient sources.
Evidence route: Public source. Requires registration and checking of all raw materials and ingredients, including their sources of origin.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P12 — fulfilled: Shared lines and cross-contact.
Evidence route: Public source. Requires prevention of contamination and cross-contamination with Haram materials at every step.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P13 — not verified: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 9.P14 — not verified: Certificate-level position communication.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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. 1 check had partial support, and 9 checks remained unverified.
6.35% 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.
0.1906 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
- 0.1906 of 2.7000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 0.1800 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 9 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 6.35 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.1906 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.1906 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. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 10.C2 — not verified: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 10.C3 — partial: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Certificates are stated to be valid for one year and renewable, establishing partial control over certificate status and renewal, though suspension and withdrawal are not detailed.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 10.C4 — not verified: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 10.C5 — not verified: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 10.O1 — not verified: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 10.O2 — not verified: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 10.O3 — not verified: Directory and status records are maintained.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 11.C2 — not verified: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 11.C3 — not verified: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 11.C4 — not verified: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 11.C5 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 11.O1 — not verified: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 11.O2 — not verified: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 11.O3 — not verified: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 11.P2 — not verified: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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. 3 checks were fully supported, and 6 checks remained unverified.
27.71% 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.
0.5541 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
- 0.4941 of 1.8000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0600 of 0.1200 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 0.6167 of 2 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 3 fulfilled, 6 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 27.71 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.4941 competence + 0.0600 public accountability = 0.5541 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 12.C1 — fulfilled: The HCB defines competence and resource needs for each scope.
Evidence route: Public source. The organization claims operation since 1984 and demonstrates current activity.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.C2 — not verified: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 12.C3 — not verified: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 12.C4 — not verified: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 12.O1 — not verified: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
Requirement 12.O2 — fulfilled: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.
Evidence route: Public source. The organization demonstrates current activity through recent certificates and registration.
Requirement 12.O3 — not verified: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 12.P1 — fulfilled: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. The organization claims operation since 1984 and demonstrates current activity.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.P2 — not verified: Confidential client volumes, payroll, and workload files need not be published when current accreditation verifies capacity.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. The accepted evidence package does not independently establish this requirement.
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
- Ownership and control had the strongest support: the organization publicly identifies its board as the accountable governing body, although ownership percentages, voting rights, and related-party arrangements were not fully established.
- Leadership information is public: the Board of Directors, including the President and Executive Director, is listed. The review did not establish several governance and certification-decision details.
- Recent certificates and state registration show current activity, and the organization says it has operated since 1984. The reviewed record did not establish the wider operating evidence needed to demonstrate capacity.
What should make you cautious
- The reviewed record did not establish enough evidence about Islamic authority and halal decision rights, including qualified Islamic-affairs experts, their authority, and their documented role in final halal decisions.
- The reviewed record did not establish enough evidence about qualifications, authorization, assignments, monitoring, and continuing competence for personnel.
- The reviewed record did not establish enough evidence about the halal-specific audit method and facility verification, including recent audit files, corrective actions, surveillance, and recertification.
What evidence could change this view
- What current, verifiable records would clarify impartiality, conflicts, and independence?
- What current, verifiable records would clarify complaints, appeals, and corrections?
- What current, verifiable records would clarify islamic authority and halal decision rights?
View the original requirement-level questions
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, could materially change the current finding for 1.C1, whether the certificate issuer is a resolvable legal entity, under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, could materially change the current finding for 1.C2, whether the organization is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate, under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, could materially change the current finding for 1.C3, whether every public operating name, DBA, division, or certification brand is connected to the issuer, under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, could materially change the current finding for 1.C4, whether material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented, under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, could materially change the current finding for 1.O1, whether current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer, under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, could materially change the current finding for 1.O2, whether the operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the organization or a documented branch, under the published methodology?
Credibility Score interpretation
- Model B assigns 13.0257 of 90 competence-assurance points, 0.0000 of 4 proportional accreditation-breadth points, and 1.8729 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.
What the evidence can and cannot show
This review evaluates the organizational accountability of Halal Food Council USA. It does not draw conclusions about religion, intent, fraud, illegality, fictitious identities, or whether any certificate is valid. A mark establishes only that the mark appeared, and a certificate establishes only what the certificate says. Neither automatically establishes the audit method, personnel, motive, ownership, religious identity, or correctness of a decision. When reasonable first-party and authoritative searches did not identify particular personnel, owners, or committees, the review describes them as not independently verified or not publicly verified. A coordinated visit can keep kosher and halal work separate, but efficiency cannot replace the halal audit.
How to submit a correction
Halal Food Council USA may submit responsive evidence through the secure documentary-evidence form. The result may change if current accreditation records that meet the review requirements, or other evidence supporting the relevant control, a public certificate directory, impartiality controls, or a complaints procedure, are provided.
This review explains public evidence and organizational accountability. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard, an accreditation or certification decision, a religious ruling, or legal advice.
What the public can learn about certification rules and positions
This disclosure review asks a different question from accreditation: can an ordinary consumer identify the standard or scheme, its current version, the approving authority, and the important halal positions that guide this body’s certifications? The public material is fragmented, stale, hard to find, or not enough to determine the complete operative position.
The reviewed sources establish the following about governing documents, scope, and certificate communication: the organization certifies meat and poultry processing, dry goods, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and restaurants or catering. [4]
The remaining reviewed questions were not disclosed clearly enough to classify with confidence. The material mentions Codex Alimentarius (1997) and Asian group guidelines, but does not provide its own specific, version-controlled governing-standard document. It provides no specific version or effective date for a unified governing standard; it mentions Islamic law (Shariah) generally without naming a specific madhab or jurisprudential basis; and it mentions affiliations with MUI and JAKIM and follows Codex Alimentarius without explicitly defining the order of precedence for supplementary schemes. The review also found no public information on whether material religious positions are printed on or linked from certificates, and no public certificate register or client-verification route on the website. This is a limit of the public evidence and does not prove that the body has no internal rule.
The reviewed sources establish the following on slaughter and poultry controls: mechanical knife slaughter for chicken is permitted under specific conditions; continuous recitation is required while maintaining a hand on the switch for mechanical slaughter, or recitation is required before switching on the mechanical knife; stunning, including stated voltage settings for birds, is permitted if it does not cause lasting effect or death before slaughter; birds dead before being hung on the line or because of stunner damage must be removed; the trachea, esophagus, and major blood vessels (jugular and carotid) must be severed; and a Muslim slaughterman and supervisor are required. [4]
The reviewed sources establish the following on ingredients and the production environment: swine, including pork and pork by-products, and blood are prohibited; alcohol is prohibited because it is classified as a Haram category; all raw materials and ingredients, including their sources of origin, must be registered and checked; and contamination and cross-contamination with Haram materials must be prevented at every step. [4]
The remaining reviewed question was not disclosed clearly enough to classify with confidence. The material mentions checking cleaning and sanitizing procedures and agents, and following Islamic cleaning procedures, but does not specify exact ritual cleansing methods, such as seven-washing. This is a limit of the public evidence and does not prove that the body has no internal rule.
This part of the review considers whether the public can understand the position, not whether it is the most restrictive position. A disclosed position within a recognized scholarly range is not penalized simply because another body follows a different view.
What evidence could improve the result
This section identifies the evidence that could support a higher result for Halal Food Council USA. It does not mean that a control is absent merely because the reviewed public record did not establish it. A submission must match the exact assessed entity, state its dates and scope, and show who was responsible for implementation and decision-making.
Relevant records may be public or submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Private records may support evidence of controls or operations when they can be authenticated, but they do not provide public-transparency credit unless the organization makes the material information public.
- Metric 1 — Legal identity and operating status: A current authoritative registry or regulator record for Halal Food Council USA showing the 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: A current authoritative ownership filing or authenticated controlled record for Halal Food Council USA identifying 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: A current Halal Food Council USA governing-body roster and organization chart identifying accountable leaders, their roles, appointment or authority basis, management responsibilities, and organization-level accountability for certification decisions.
- Metric 4 — Personnel competence and authorization: A current Halal Food Council USA personnel roster or independently assessed controlled record identifying 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: Current Halal Food Council USA records identifying the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, qualifications, appointment, jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, organization-level authority, and traceable participation in final halal decisions.
- Metric 6 — Halal audit method and facility verification: A current controlled Halal Food Council USA audit procedure and corroborating recent files showing 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: A current Halal Food Council USA impartiality and decision-separation policy, plus implementation records, identifying 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: A current Halal Food Council USA standard or scheme record identifying the version, effective date, covered sectors and locations, exclusions, supplementary schemes, precedence rules, certificate scope, and responsible issuing organization.
- Metric 9 — Public certification criteria and position disclosure: A current public Halal Food Council USA declaration or equivalent methodology covering the governing standard and version, religious basis, scope and exclusions, practical halal positions, supplementary-scheme precedence, certificate communication, and public verification route.
- Metric 10 — Certificate traceability and mark control: A current public Halal Food Council USA certificate directory or verification method showing the certificate identifier, holder, site, products or scope, effective and expiry dates, live status, suspension or withdrawal, and enforceable controls for mark use and misuse.
- Metric 11 — Complaints, appeals, and corrections: A current public Halal Food Council USA complaints, appeals, and corrections procedure identifying 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: Current independently verifiable Halal Food Council USA operating records showing the 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
Halal Food Council USA 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 with qualifying documentation and an independently confirmable official contact channel. A claim remains private and pending until reviewed; it does not provide editorial control, disclose other submissions, or automatically change an article, Credibility Score, Grade, or ranking.
A correction request should identify the exact assessed 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
Can this review verify current independent accreditation for Halal Food Council USA?
This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. It recorded claims of recognition from MUI and registration with JAKIM, but did not treat those claims as qualifying under the assessment methodology 4.1 after reviewing the official directories.
Can the public check a directory of certified clients?
No publicly accessible directory of certified clients or certificate status changes was available on the organization’s website.
Does the public record show the qualifications of halal auditors and Islamic authorities?
The website mentions auditors and a Shariah Council, but the review did not independently verify specific personnel qualifications, education, halal training, or authorization records, and those details were not publicly verified.
Can the public find a complaints and appeals procedure?
No publicly verifiable procedure for complaints, appeals, or corrections was located on the organization’s website or in other public sources.
What does the review establish about how long Halal Food Council USA has operated?
The organization says it has operated since 1984 and shows current activity through recent certificates and registration, establishing a long operating history.
References
- Halal Food Council USA, Home and Current Certification Services
- Halal Food Council USA, About and Board of Directors
- Halal Food Council USA, Services
- Halal Food Council USA, Certification Guidelines and Procedures
- New York Department of Agriculture and Markets, Halal Certifier Registrations
- JAKIM, Recognised Foreign Halal Certification Bodies, August 21, 2026
- GCC Accreditation Center, Accredited Bodies Directory
- Apply - Halal Food Council USA
View the controlling HIPS publication