IFANCA Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 89% Credibility Score, Grade B

A halal mark should explain how approval was reached

The halal-conscious consumer has more options than ever. A plethora of halal restaurants are opening across the country, transforming communities where halal dining options were once scarce. Products that used to be found mainly in small neighborhood markets now appear in university dining halls, mainstream grocery stores, airport cases, and prepared-food counters. That growth should make Muslim consumers feel seen. It should also make halal choices easier.

But an expanding market creates a new problem: the label can spread faster than the public evidence behind it. A halal mark tells the shopper that an organization approved the product, but it does not, by itself, explain how that approval was reached or who was accountable for it. The label alone does not disclose the method, evidence, qualifications, halal-specific assessment, religious review, or certification authority behind the decision.

The starting rule must be absolute. A kosher certificate is not a halal certificate. A kosher audit is not a halal audit. A kosher audit cannot satisfy or replace the halal-specific audit, religious review, and accountable certification decision required before a product is called halal. The two systems overlap in selected areas, but kosher wine alone disproves blanket equivalence: wine can be kosher while alcohol remains prohibited in halal.

This accountability assessment applies the published USDHS methodology as an evidence-review framework; it does not replace the controlling HIPS standard or make a religious ruling on every certificate or product.

Who IFANCA is

The Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America (IFANCA) is an identifiable Illinois nonprofit with a public operating history dating to 1982 [1]. Its 2024 Form 990 reports an eight-member independent voting board, fifty employees, named senior leadership, and substantial financial resources [2]. It operates a detailed halal-certification workflow and maintains public directories of certified products and companies.

IFANCA’s strongest independent assurance comes from multiple current exact-entity accreditations issued by recognized authorities, including ANAB, GAC, EIAC, HAK, PNAC, and BPJPH, as well as recognition by JAKIM [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. These credentials do not simply confirm that IFANCA wrote procedures. Within their exact scopes, they substantiate that personnel competence, Islamic-affairs participation, audit capability, review and decision controls, impartiality, complaints handling, surveillance, and corrective action were independently assessed in operation.

The public record, however, preserves meaningful transparency gaps. IFANCA’s public website names only its president on the current team page, even though IRS and BPJPH records identify a much larger governing and technical structure [1] [8]. The public record does not connect specific auditors, reviewers, Islamic-affairs experts, or decision makers to sampled client files. Its company and product directories are not complete certificate-status registers, and its public complaint route does not explain timing, appeal stages, independent handling, non-retaliation, or outcomes.

Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment

Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 89% Credibility Score · Grade B · Substantiated

Moderate confidence. Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America receives a Credibility Score of 89%, Grade B. The score applies the same twelve-metric methodology to the identity, control, responsible people, Islamic authority, halal-specific work, public certification criteria, certificate controls, correction access, and demonstrated operations substantiated by the reviewed record.

This organizational accountability assessment measures the evidence supporting identity, control, responsible people, Islamic authority, halal-specific work, standards, public certification criteria, certificate controls, correction access, and demonstrated operations. 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.

Halal Certification Body Accountability Assessment version 2.5. Source cutoff September 14, 2026. Last reviewed September 14, 2026. Raw Credibility Score 88.9000 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 89%.

How USDHS calculates the Credibility Score

Each metric is 60 percent control assurance, 25 percent operational evidence, and 15 percent public evidence. Government records and other authoritative public sources count even when the certifier does not reproduce them on its own website. A recognized accreditation of the exact entity and scope can support the control layer and part of operational evidence; it never creates public-evidence credit or transfers across entities without the required bridge. 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.

Part 2

Numbered assessment metrics

1. 1. Legal identity and operating status

   Legal entity, jurisdiction, operating identity, formation, status, address, and required registrations.

   100.00% of this metric; 5.00 of 5 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Tier A accreditations independently match the operating entity and headquarters.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 3.00 points. IRS records identify the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America, EIN 36-3193649, at 2004 Miner Street in Des Plaines, Illinois.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 1.25 points. The 2024 filing reports Illinois legal domicile and formation in 1982. The IRS organization record shows active tax-exempt status.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 0.75 points. ANAB, GAC, EIAC, HAK, PNAC, and BPJPH independently match the operating entity and headquarters.

   Metric conclusion: The legal identity and operating status are fully verified by authoritative public records and multiple accreditations.

2. 2. Ownership and control

   Beneficial ownership, governing structure, board independence, and related-party controls.

   96.25% of this metric; 7.70 of 8 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Accreditation and authoritative tax filings establish substantial governance and control accountability.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 4.80 points. The 2024 Form 990 reports eight voting members of the governing body and states that all eight are independent.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 2.00 points. Seven directors and officers are named. It also reports a conflict-of-interest policy, a whistleblower policy, and governing-body review of the Form 990 before filing.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   75 percent evidence factor; 0.90 points. Public evidence remains 0.75 because bylaws, election rights, committee delegations, related-party controls, and meeting records were not located.

   Metric conclusion: Substantial governance accountability is established, though complete internal governing documents are not public.

3. 3. Governance and accountable leadership

   Executive leadership, management review, and accountability for certification decisions.

   93.75% of this metric; 13.13 of 14 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Tier A accreditations provide full control assurance for organizational responsibility and management review.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 8.40 points. The Form 990 names IFANCA’s board and executive officers, including Muhammad Munir Chaudry as director and president.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   90 percent evidence factor; 3.15 points. Current governance and management are independently assessed by accreditors, supporting the 0.90 portfolio band.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   75 percent evidence factor; 1.57 points. The public record does not show management-review records, full role descriptions, or how governing oversight connects to individual certification decisions.

   Metric conclusion: Accountable leadership is identified, but the public record lacks detailed internal management review connections.

4. 4. Personnel competence and authorization

   Qualifications, training, monitoring, and authorization of auditors and technical reviewers.

   93.75% of this metric; 16.88 of 18 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Current accreditations provide strong implementation assurance that qualifications and competence records are assessed.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 10.80 points. BPJPH’s signed accreditation annex names nineteen IFANCA halal auditors and lists relevant scientific fields.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   90 percent evidence factor; 4.05 points. Multiple Tier A accreditations support the 0.90 operational portfolio band for competence and authorization.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   75 percent evidence factor; 2.02 points. The public record does not provide the complete current personnel roster, individual sector authorizations, or file-level audit and review assignments.

   Metric conclusion: Personnel competence is strongly supported by accreditation annexes, though individual file assignments remain private.

5. 5. Islamic authority and halal decision

   Islamic-affairs participation, religious review, and final certification decision authority.

   93.75% of this metric; 16.88 of 18 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Accreditation schemes require qualified Islamic-affairs participation in audit, review, and certification decisions.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 10.80 points. IFANCA’s certification process states that an Islamic Affairs expert participates in the onsite audit and that the Halal Certification Committee conducts final review.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   90 percent evidence factor; 4.05 points. BPJPH’s annex names a four-person Sharia Board and publishes qualifications spanning Islamic sciences. The 0.90 operational portfolio band applies.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   75 percent evidence factor; 2.02 points. The organization does not publish committee appointments, decision rules, current case assignments, or meeting records.

   Metric conclusion: Islamic authority is established and accredited, but specific decision-makers for sampled files are not publicly disclosed.

6. 6. Halal audit method and facility verification

   Audit planning, onsite assessment, findings, remediation, and facility verification.

   96.25% of this metric; 13.47 of 14 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Tier A witness and surveillance controls support full operational evidence.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 8.40 points. IFANCA publishes a five-step process covering application, agreement, technical review, onsite audit, findings, committee review, and decision.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 3.50 points. Three current independently hosted certificates cover separate facilities and identify client and plant addresses, products, and supervision.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   75 percent evidence factor; 1.57 points. The sampled audit plans, assigned personnel, audit dates, reports, findings, and corrective actions are not published.

   Metric conclusion: The audit method is detailed and supported by certificates, but file-level audit reports and personnel assignments are not public.

7. 7. Impartiality and decision separation

   Conflict controls, independent review, and separation between evaluation and decision.

   90.00% of this metric; 5.40 of 6 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Tier A surveillance supports implemented impartiality and decision separation.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 3.60 points. The reviewed accreditation schemes require conflict controls and separation between evaluation and certification decision. The Form 990 reports a conflict-of-interest policy.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   90 percent evidence factor; 1.35 points. IFANCA’s workflow separates technical review and onsite audit from the Halal Certification Committee’s final review. The 0.90 operational portfolio band applies.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   50 percent evidence factor; 0.45 points. The public record does not identify an impartiality committee, publish member independence declarations, or show recusal records.

   Metric conclusion: Impartiality controls are accredited, but public visibility into the impartiality committee and conflict records is limited.

8. 8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope

   Governing standards, certification schemes, industry coverage, and scope limits.

   100.00% of this metric; 3.00 of 3 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Accreditors publish the exact IFANCA entity, governing standards, certification activities, and covered categories.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 1.80 points. IFANCA publishes its certification process, industry coverage, product directory, and halal positions.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 0.75 points. GAC’s withdrawn category CV receives no GAC credit. The score applies full credit only within each verified scope.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   100 percent evidence factor; 0.45 points. The record provides unusually clear current scheme and scope evidence, including exact-entity scopes from multiple authorities.

   Metric conclusion: Standards and scopes are clearly defined and publicly verifiable through multiple accreditation directories.

9. 9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure

   A current, intelligible public account of the governing standard, decision criteria, religious positions, scope, exclusions, authority, versioning, and change control.

   25.00% of this metric; 2.00 of 8 weighted points. unverified.

   Accreditation effect: Accreditation may corroborate that an internal scheme exists, but it does not create public-disclosure credit for criteria the assessed body has not made public.

   A. Control assurance, 60 percent

   25 percent evidence factor; 1.20 points. Only isolated or fragmented public criteria were verified; no coherent complete disclosure could be reconstructed.

   B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

   25 percent evidence factor; 0.50 points. Operational evidence is isolated, stale, incomplete, or difficult to match to the complete criteria set.

   C. Public evidence, 15 percent

   25 percent evidence factor; 0.30 points. Public material is fragmented, stale, difficult to locate, or insufficient to determine the complete operative position.

   Metric conclusion: A still-accessible 2011 first-party resource discloses meaningful criteria and process, but no current unified version-controlled standard or complete practical-position set was located.

10. 10. Certificate traceability and mark control

    Certificate content, public status verification, and mark usage controls.

    88.75% of this metric; 2.66 of 3 weighted points. verified.

    Accreditation effect: Exact-entity accreditation requires certificate and mark controls.

    A. Control assurance, 60 percent

    100 percent evidence factor; 1.80 points. The three current certificate samples provide document numbers, client and plant identities, product schedules, and validity dates.

    B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

    85 percent evidence factor; 0.64 points. IFANCA operates public product and certified-company directories, providing substantial product and company reach.

    C. Public evidence, 15 percent

    50 percent evidence factor; 0.23 points. The directories do not function as a complete certificate-status register and do not consistently expose explicit active, suspended, withdrawn, and expired states.

    Metric conclusion: Certificates are traceable, but the public directories lack complete explicit status information for every listing.

11. 11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections

    Public complaint procedures, independent investigation, appeals, and outcomes.

    86.25% of this metric; 0.86 of 1 weighted points. verified.

    Accreditation effect: Tier A accreditation supports full control assurance that complaint and appeal procedures are implemented within scope.

    A. Control assurance, 60 percent

    100 percent evidence factor; 0.60 points. IFANCA’s public contact form expressly accepts complaints.

    B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

    90 percent evidence factor; 0.23 points. Accreditation supports the 0.90 operational portfolio band for implemented complaint and corrective-action procedures.

    C. Public evidence, 15 percent

    25 percent evidence factor; 0.04 points. The reviewed public pages do not describe response targets, acknowledgement, investigation independence, appeal stages, or non-retaliation.

    Metric conclusion: A contact route exists and procedures are accredited, but detailed public procedures for complaints and appeals are lacking.

12. 12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity

    Historical continuity, resources, and capacity to deliver the certified scope.

    96.25% of this metric; 1.93 of 2 weighted points. verified.

    Accreditation effect: Multiple current accreditations demonstrate substantial ongoing activity across sectors and markets.

    A. Control assurance, 60 percent

    100 percent evidence factor; 1.20 points. IFANCA and its 2024 Form 990 report formation or operation from 1982.

    B. Operational evidence, 25 percent

    100 percent evidence factor; 0.50 points. The IRS filing reports fifty employees, significant revenue, and substantial assets. Public directories and certificates demonstrate activity.

    C. Public evidence, 15 percent

    75 percent evidence factor; 0.23 points. The public record does not publish a workload denominator matched to qualified personnel or a complete continuity record for every claimed activity.

    Metric conclusion: Substantial operating history and capacity are demonstrated, though exact workload-to-personnel models are not public.

Credibility Score interpretation

• The raw Credibility Score is 88.9000 out of 100 and is ordinarily rounded to 89%.
• The four responsible-person and core halal-control metrics earned 60.3500 of 64 points, or 94.30%.
• The Grade and evidence confidence are separate: the Grade follows the rounded Credibility Score, while confidence describes how firmly the available record supports that result.
• Methodology 2.5 changes the prior v2.4 raw score of 94.3750 to 88.9000 by adding the separately audited eight-point public-criteria disclosure metric and reallocating supporting-accountability weights; Metrics 3–6 and their 64-point total remain unchanged.
• Red and green flags summarize evidence already reflected in the twelve metric factors; they do not add or subtract separate points.

Material records are rescored under the same rules, whether they raise or lower the result. Submit documentary evidence through the secure evidence and correction form. An authorized representative may 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.

What the recognized-authority search found

IFANCA holds multiple Tier A accreditations that corroborate its exact entity and extend its verified scope. ANAB’s official product-certification directory identifies IFANCA at its Des Plaines headquarters with accreditation ID 8889 for various food, chemical, and personal-care scopes [3]. GAC identifies IFANCA under HPC 0029, though animal slaughtering category CV is recorded as withdrawn and receives no current GAC scope credit [4]. EIAC, HAK, and PNAC provide active scopes for various food, chemical, and biochemical categories [5] [6] [7]. BPJPH lists IFANCA as an accredited foreign halal body for the United States [8].

JAKIM’s official list, effective August 21, 2026, recognizes IFANCA in the United States section [9]. This source is a recognition record under Malaysian law and market controls; it is not relabeled as an ISO/IEC 17065 accreditation.

Each record applies only to the legal entity, location, dates, standards, and activities stated by the issuing authority. Multiple Tier A accreditations do not produce points above 1.00 in any layer, but they increase confidence and establish additional covered scopes. GAC’s withdrawn slaughter category remains excluded from GAC-derived credit [4], and any slaughter reliance requires verification against a different current exact-entity accreditation or recognition scope.

Public certification criteria and position disclosure

The disclosure review asks a separate question from accreditation: can an ordinary consumer identify the standard or scheme, its current version, the approving authority, and the material halal positions that govern this body’s certifications? Public material is fragmented, stale, difficult to locate, or insufficient to determine the complete operative position.

On governing documents, scope, and certificate communication, the reviewed sources establish the following: A first-party resource describes criteria and certification steps, but no current named, version-controlled comprehensive IFANCA standard was located; The resource identifies Islamic dietary guidelines and combined scientific and religious expertise without a specific madhab or current adjudication framework; The resource lists meat, poultry, dairy, prepared foods, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, supplements, and packaging among certifiable categories; The resource distinguishes site, annual, batch, and shipment certificates and describes mark use, but does not show current material-position fields on certificates. [19]

The remaining reviewed questions were not sufficiently disclosed to classify with confidence: The reviewed resource is dated 2011; no current comprehensive standard version or effective date was located; No specific supplementary schemes and precedence are publicly disclosed; No specific public certificate or client verification route is publicly disclosed. This records a public-evidence limit and does not prove that the body has no internal rule.

The remaining reviewed questions were not sufficiently disclosed to classify with confidence: No current first-party mechanical-poultry position was located; third-party descriptions were excluded; The resource requires God's name for slaughtered animals but does not disclose a current mechanical-line rule; The resource says slaughter audits review stunning but does not disclose IFANCA's exact permitted parameters; No responsive public criteria were located after required searches; No specific minimum vessel requirement is publicly disclosed; A 2011 first-party resource describes trained Muslim slaughter personnel, but a current universal rule was not verified. This records a public-evidence limit and does not prove that the body has no internal rule.

On ingredients and the production environment, the reviewed sources establish the following: The first-party resource excludes swine and all by-products; The first-party resource lists alcohol among excluded sources; The resource requires review of ingredient sources, processes, and machinery and identifies numerous risk categories; The resource requires elimination of contamination with non-halal ingredients and review of cleaning and cross-contamination; The resource requires clean equipment and sanitation review but does not publish a complete sanitation or ritual-cleansing method. [19]

The disclosure metric evaluates whether the position is publicly intelligible, not whether it is the most restrictive position. A disclosed position within a recognized scholarly range is not penalized merely because another body follows a different view.

What evidence would change the remaining deductions

This section states what evidence would support a higher score for IFANCA. It does not imply that a control is absent merely because the reviewed public record did not establish it. A submission must match the exact assessed entity, identify its dates and scope, and show who was responsible for implementation and decision-making.

Qualifying records may be public or may be submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Private records may support control or operational assurance when they can be authenticated, but they do not create public-transparency credit unless the organization makes the material information public.

• Metric 2 — Ownership and control: A current authoritative ownership filing or authenticated controlled record for IFANCA 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 IFANCA governing-body roster and organogram identifying accountable leaders, their roles, appointment or authority basis, management responsibilities, and entity-level accountability for certification decisions.
• Metric 4 — Personnel competence and authorization: A current IFANCA 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 IFANCA records identifying the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, qualifications, appointment, jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, entity-level authority, and traceable participation in final halal decisions.
• Metric 6 — Halal audit method and facility verification: A current controlled IFANCA audit procedure and corroborating recent files showing application and scope review, ingredients and process evaluation, on-site work, halal-specific observations, findings, corrective actions, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
• Metric 7 — Impartiality and decision separation: A current IFANCA impartiality and decision-separation policy plus implementation records identifying conflict review, consultancy separation, oversight membership, and separation among audit, technical review, Islamic review, and certification decision.
• Metric 9 — Public certification criteria and position disclosure: A current public IFANCA 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 IFANCA certificate directory or verification method showing certificate identifier, holder, site, products or scope, effective and expiry dates, live status, suspension or withdrawal, and enforceable mark-use and misuse controls.
• Metric 11 — Complaints, appeals, and corrections: A current public IFANCA 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 IFANCA operating records showing timeline, active clients or certificates, sectors and locations served, workload, surveillance activity, and competent personnel capacity matched to that workload.

Equal-treatment re-audit and correction record

On September 14, 2026, USDHS reopened this assessment under the same equal-treatment correction protocol applied across the national series. The review retested all twelve metrics, all eighteen consumer-disclosure fields, source links, exact-entity boundaries, accreditation credit, arithmetic, and legal and privacy safeguards. The verified record did not support a change to the 88.9000 raw score, 89% Credibility Score, Grade B. The score was re-audited and retained.

The assessment remains appealable. The certifier or another affected party may submit qualifying records through the correction form, and an authorized representative may use the verified claim pathway. Evidence is reviewed under the same rules whether it raises, lowers, or preserves the score; submission does not create a private veto or automatic editorial control.

Corrections, appeals, and claiming this certification body

Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America or another affected party may submit responsive records through the [secure documentary-evidence form](/submit-evidence?subject=Islamic%20Food%20and%20Nutrition%20Council%20of%20America&article=https%3A%2F%2Fhalalstandards.org%2Finsights%2Fifanca-accountability-assessment). 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](/submit-evidence?submissionType=certifier_claim&subject=Islamic%20Food%20and%20Nutrition%20Council%20of%20America&article=https%3A%2F%2Fhalalstandards.org%2Finsights%2Fifanca-accountability-assessment). The claimant must document their identity, role, and authority to act for the exact assessed entity, and that authority must be verified through qualifying documentation and an independently confirmable official contact channel. A claim remains private and pending until reviewed; it does not confer editorial control, disclose 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 is not conditional on a response, and no organization has a private veto over a documented finding.

Frequently asked questions

Does this assessment mean every IFANCA certificate is valid?

No. This is an organizational accountability assessment of IFANCA’s controls, transparency, and accreditation. It is not a ruling on the validity of individual certificates, which depend on specific scopes, dates, and products.

Why is GAC category CV excluded?

GAC’s official scope schedule records category CV (animal slaughtering) as withdrawn for IFANCA. This assessment relies on exact current records, so no GAC-derived credit is awarded for that specific category.

Does IFANCA have accredited Islamic decision authority?

Yes. IFANCA’s certification process requires Islamic Affairs expert participation and Halal Certification Committee review. Accreditation schemes subject these controls to continuing oversight, and BPJPH names a qualified Sharia Board.

Are IFANCA’s public directories complete certificate registers?

No. While they provide substantial product and company reach, they do not consistently expose certificate documents, facility addresses, dates, certificate numbers, or explicit active, suspended, withdrawn, and expired states for every listing.

Can IFANCA submit evidence to change the score?

Yes. IFANCA may submit responsive evidence, such as a complete certificate-status directory, detailed complaint procedures, or file-level decision assignments, through the secure correction pathway. Material evidence is rescored under the same methodology.

References

1. ProPublica. IRS-derived organization and Form 990 records, Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America, EIN 36-3193649
2. IRS. Form 990 XML archive, object 202532699349300318, fiscal year 2024
3. ANAB. Product-certification directory, Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America, accreditation ID 8889
4. GAC. Scope of Accreditation, IFANCA, HPC 0029
5. EIAC. Directory, IFANCA
6. HAK. Halal Accreditation Certificate, IFANCA, 2023-029
7. PNAC. Active Halal Certification Bodies, IFANCA HCB-011
8. BPJPH. Accreditation Certificate and Annex, Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America
9. JAKIM. The Recognized Foreign Halal Certification Bodies & Authorities
10. USDA FAS. Indonesia Accredits Five US Halal Certifying Bodies
11. Certification SIMPLIFIED
12. We are IFANCA
13. The Standard
14. IFANCA Halal Slaughter
15. IFANCA Halal Certification Requirements + How to Develop the Management System
16. Halal Quality Manual Development Guide
17. IFANCA vs ISA vs AHF: What Each Halal Logo Means
18. The Complete Guide to Halal Slaughter (Dhabīḥah): Every Standard Compared
19. Halal Certification 101 For Entrepreneurs