IFANCA Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 96% Credibility Score, Grade A

A halal mark should explain how approval was reached

Halal-conscious consumers have more choices than ever. Halal restaurants are opening across the country and changing communities where halal dining was once hard to find. Products once found mainly in small neighborhood markets are now available in university dining halls, mainstream grocery stores, airport cases, and prepared-food counters. This growth should help Muslim consumers feel seen and should make halal choices easier.

But as the market expands, labels can spread faster than the public evidence behind them. A halal mark tells a shopper that an organization approved a product, but it does not by itself show how that approval was reached or who was accountable. The mark alone does not reveal the method, evidence, qualifications, halal-specific assessment, religious review, or certification authority behind the decision.

The starting rule is clear: a kosher certificate is not a halal certificate, and a kosher audit is not a halal audit. A kosher audit cannot meet or replace the halal-specific audit, religious review, and accountable certification decision required before a product is called halal. The two systems overlap in some areas, but kosher wine shows why they cannot be treated as automatically equivalent: wine can be kosher while alcohol remains prohibited in halal.

This accountability assessment uses the published USDHS methodology to review evidence. 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 runs a detailed halal-certification process and maintains public directories of certified products and companies.

IFANCA’s strongest independent support comes from five verified, current accreditations: ANAB 8889, EIAC HBN-CB-019, HAK 2023-029, PNAC HCB-011, and BPJPH’s 2024–2028 foreign-HCB credential [3] [5] [6] [7] [8]. These independent accreditors have vetted IFANCA within verified scopes. JAKIM separately recognizes IFANCA for Malaysian market acceptance [9]. Within those scopes, accreditation independently supports the controls and implementation expressly examined under the governing criteria; the review does not count the same requirement twice simply because several authorities assess it.

Important transparency gaps remain in the public record. IFANCA’s current team page names only its president, although IRS and BPJPH records identify a much larger governing and technical structure [1] [8]. Public materials do not link 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: 96% Credibility Score · Grade A · Strongly substantiated

High for accreditation and institutional controls; moderate for public criteria disclosure confidence. IFANCA receives a 96% Credibility Score and Grade A. The reviewed evidence strongly supports its organizational capability: five current independent accreditations have vetted IFANCA within their stated scopes, and its public record supports its identity and operating history. The review recognizes the broader independent scrutiny while treating public disclosure separately from accreditation. The remaining deductions arise from limits on the scope of some accreditations and from gaps in public information. These findings do not mean that undisclosed internal controls are absent; they identify what the reviewed record could not establish.

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 96.3593 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 96%.

Detailed evidence

Why each category received its result

1. 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. 6 checks were fully supported, and 2 checks remained unverified.

   96.00% 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.

   4.8000 of 5 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 3 subrequirements: 1.C1, 1.O1, 1.O2.

   Competence contribution

   4.5000 of 4.5000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.3000 of 0.3000 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 3.5000 of 5 points. Of 8 applicable subrequirements, 6 fulfilled, 0 partial, 2 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 96.00 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 4.5000 competence + 0.3000 public accountability = 4.8000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 1.C1 — fulfilled: The certificate issuer is a resolvable legal entity.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   2. Requirement 1.C2 — fulfilled: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.

      Evidence route: Authoritative source. IRS organization record shows active tax-exempt status and the 2024 filing reports Illinois legal domicile.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   3. 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. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   4. Requirement 1.C4 — not verified: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 1.O1 — fulfilled: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   2. Requirement 1.O2 — fulfilled: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 1.P1 — fulfilled: 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 IFANCA is an identifiable Illinois nonprofit with a public operating history.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 1.P2 — fulfilled: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.

      Evidence route: Public source. Multiple accreditations independently match the operating entity and headquarters, showing no materially conflicting issuer identities.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   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. 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, and 2 checks had partial support. 2 checks did not apply.

   96.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.

   View the detailed evidence and calculation

   7 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

   7.6800 of 8 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.

   Competence contribution

   7.2000 of 7.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.4800 of 0.4800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Ownership and control earns 6.8000 of 8 points. Of 7 applicable subrequirements, 5 fulfilled, 2 partial, 0 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 96.00 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 7.2000 competence + 0.4800 public accountability = 7.6800 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 2.C1 — fulfilled: Ultimate owners or members are identified.

      Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. The current Form 990 identifies the nonprofit governing body and named directors and officers.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 2.C2 — not applicable: Ownership percentages or interests are established.

      Evidence route: Not applicable. Equity ownership percentages are not applicable to the verified nonprofit structure.

   3. Requirement 2.C3 — partial: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.

      Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. The independent voting body and officer roles are established, while complete election rights and committee delegations remain unverified.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   4. Requirement 2.C4 — partial: Related entities that could affect control are identified.

      Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. A conflict-of-interest policy and independent voting body are reported, while complete related-party controls and governing records remain unavailable.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   5. Requirement 2.C5 — fulfilled: Ownership continuity is established or preserved through istiṣḥāb absent contrary evidence.

      Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. The specifically established governing structure continues under istiṣḥāb absent reliable contrary evidence.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 2.O1 — fulfilled: Ownership and control records are current, maintained, and available to an authorized verifier.

      Evidence route: Authoritative ownership record. The current Form 990 operationally corroborates the governing body and officer structure.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. 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.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. 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 governing body and named directors and officers are available through public Form 990 records.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 2.P2 — not applicable: Private percentages, taxpayer data, signatures, and personal addresses need not be published when authoritative evidence establishes them.

      Evidence route: Not applicable. Private equity percentages are not applicable to the verified nonprofit structure.

   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. 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. 8 checks were fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 1 check remained unverified.

   91.50% 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.

   12.8100 of 14 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 7 subrequirements: 3.C1, 3.C2, 3.C3, 3.C5, 3.O1, 3.O2, 3.O3.

   Competence contribution

   12.6000 of 12.6000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.2100 of 0.8400 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 12.4250 of 14 points. Of 10 applicable subrequirements, 8 fulfilled, 1 partial, 1 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 91.50 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 12.6000 competence + 0.2100 public accountability = 12.8100 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 3.C1 — fulfilled: Senior leadership is identified.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   2. Requirement 3.C2 — fulfilled: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   3. Requirement 3.C3 — fulfilled: Certification decision authority is assigned.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   4. Requirement 3.C4 — fulfilled: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   5. Requirement 3.C5 — fulfilled: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 3.O1 — fulfilled: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   2. Requirement 3.O2 — fulfilled: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   3. Requirement 3.O3 — fulfilled: Management review and internal oversight occur.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 3.P1 — partial: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Public source. The accepted assessment confirms IFANCA's public website names its president, though it lacks the full governing structure.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 3.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   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. 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. 11 checks were fully supported, and 2 checks had partial support. 1 check did not apply.

   93.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.

   View the detailed evidence and calculation

   13 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

   16.7400 of 18 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 8 subrequirements: 4.C1, 4.C3, 4.C5, 4.C6, 4.C7, 4.O1, 4.O3, 4.O4.

   Competence contribution

   16.2000 of 16.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.5400 of 1.0800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Qualified personnel earns 16.6500 of 18 points. Of 13 applicable subrequirements, 11 fulfilled, 2 partial, 0 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 93.00 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 16.2000 competence + 0.5400 public accountability = 16.7400 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 4.C1 — fulfilled: Competence criteria exist for technical auditors.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   2. Requirement 4.C2 — fulfilled: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   3. Requirement 4.C3 — fulfilled: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   4. Requirement 4.C4 — fulfilled: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   5. Requirement 4.C5 — fulfilled: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   6. Requirement 4.C6 — fulfilled: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   7. Requirement 4.C7 — fulfilled: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 4.O1 — fulfilled: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   2. Requirement 4.O2 — fulfilled: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   3. Requirement 4.O3 — fulfilled: Assignments match sector and scope competence.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   4. Requirement 4.O4 — fulfilled: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 4.P1 — partial: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Public source. BPJPH's signed accreditation annex publicly names nineteen IFANCA halal auditors.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 4.P2 — partial: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.

      Evidence route: Public source. BPJPH's signed accreditation annex publicly lists relevant scientific fields for nineteen IFANCA halal auditors.

      Public sources: Source 1

   3. Requirement 4.P3 — not applicable: Private personnel files, degree numbers, and every assignment record need not be published when accreditation verifies competence.

      Evidence route: Not applicable. This is a confidentiality boundary rather than a demand to publish private personnel files, degree numbers, or every assignment record; current exact-entity accreditation verifies the applicable competence controls.

   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. 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. 9 checks were fully supported, and 2 checks remained unverified.

   90.00% 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.

   16.2000 of 18 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

   16.2000 of 16.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 1.0800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 15.3000 of 18 points. Of 11 applicable subrequirements, 9 fulfilled, 0 partial, 2 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 90.00 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 16.2000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 16.2000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 5.C1 — fulfilled: Qualified Muslim Islamic-affairs experts are appointed.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   2. Requirement 5.C2 — fulfilled: Muslim decision makers are used where required.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   3. Requirement 5.C3 — fulfilled: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   4. Requirement 5.C4 — fulfilled: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   5. Requirement 5.C5 — fulfilled: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   6. Requirement 5.C6 — fulfilled: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 5.O1 — fulfilled: Islamic experts participate in audit, review, and decision functions as required.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   2. Requirement 5.O2 — fulfilled: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   3. Requirement 5.O3 — fulfilled: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 5.P1 — not verified: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   2. Requirement 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   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. 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. 14 checks were fully supported, and 1 check remained unverified.

   93.00% 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.

   13.0200 of 14 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 12 subrequirements: 6.C1, 6.C2, 6.C4, 6.C5, 6.C6, 6.C7, 6.C8, 6.C9, 6.C10, 6.O1, 6.O2, 6.O3.

   Competence contribution

   12.6000 of 12.6000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.4200 of 0.8400 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 12.9500 of 14 points. Of 15 applicable subrequirements, 14 fulfilled, 0 partial, 1 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 93.00 percent: 15 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 12.6000 competence + 0.4200 public accountability = 13.0200 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 6.C1 — fulfilled: Application and application review are controlled.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   2. Requirement 6.C2 — fulfilled: The audit program and audit time are determined by scope, risk, complexity, sites, and prior results.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   3. Requirement 6.C3 — fulfilled: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   4. Requirement 6.C4 — fulfilled: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   5. Requirement 6.C5 — fulfilled: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   6. Requirement 6.C6 — fulfilled: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   7. Requirement 6.C7 — fulfilled: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   8. Requirement 6.C8 — fulfilled: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   9. Requirement 6.C9 — fulfilled: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   10. Requirement 6.C10 — fulfilled: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 6.O1 — fulfilled: The current certification system implements each applicable control.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   2. Requirement 6.O2 — fulfilled: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   3. Requirement 6.O3 — fulfilled: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 6.P1 — fulfilled: The certification pathway and principal stages are publicly understandable.

      Evidence route: Public source. The accepted assessment confirms IFANCA publishes a five-step certification process covering application through final decision.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 6.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   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. 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. 9 checks were fully supported, and 2 checks remained unverified.

   90.00% 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.

   5.4000 of 6 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 9 subrequirements: 7.C1, 7.C2, 7.C3, 7.C4, 7.C5, 7.C6, 7.O1, 7.O2, 7.O3.

   Competence contribution

   5.4000 of 5.4000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 0.3600 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Impartiality, conflicts, and independence earns 5.1000 of 6 points. Of 11 applicable subrequirements, 9 fulfilled, 0 partial, 2 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 90.00 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 5.4000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 5.4000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 7.C1 — fulfilled: An impartiality policy and risk process exist.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   2. Requirement 7.C2 — fulfilled: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   3. Requirement 7.C3 — fulfilled: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   4. Requirement 7.C4 — fulfilled: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   5. Requirement 7.C5 — fulfilled: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   6. Requirement 7.C6 — fulfilled: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 7.O1 — fulfilled: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   2. Requirement 7.O2 — fulfilled: Conflicts and recusals are documented.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   3. Requirement 7.O3 — fulfilled: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 7.P1 — not verified: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   2. Requirement 7.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   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. 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. 6 checks were fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 3 checks remained unverified.

   91.50% 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.

   2.7450 of 3 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 6 subrequirements: 8.C1, 8.C2, 8.C3, 8.C6, 8.O1, 8.O2.

   Competence contribution

   2.7000 of 2.7000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0450 of 0.1800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 2.0625 of 3 points. Of 10 applicable subrequirements, 6 fulfilled, 1 partial, 3 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 91.50 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 2.7000 competence + 0.0450 public accountability = 2.7450 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 8.C1 — fulfilled: Governing standard names and versions are controlled.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   2. Requirement 8.C2 — fulfilled: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   3. Requirement 8.C3 — fulfilled: Exclusions and limitations are defined.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   4. Requirement 8.C4 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   5. Requirement 8.C5 — not verified: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   6. Requirement 8.C6 — fulfilled: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 8.O1 — fulfilled: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   2. Requirement 8.O2 — fulfilled: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 8.P1 — partial: The principal standard, version, category, and certification scope are publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Public source. The accepted assessment confirms a first-party resource describes criteria and certification steps, but lacks a current version-controlled comprehensive standard.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 8.P2 — not verified: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   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. 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. 4 checks were fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 15 checks remained unverified.

   91.93% 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.

   7.3543 of 8 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.

   Competence contribution

   7.2000 of 7.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.1543 of 0.4800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Public certification criteria and position disclosure earns 0.3857 of 8 points. Of 20 applicable subrequirements, 4 fulfilled, 1 partial, 15 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 91.93 percent: 20 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 7.2000 competence + 0.1543 public accountability = 7.3543 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 9.C1 — not verified: The public disclosure is authorized, versioned, dated, and controlled.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   2. Requirement 9.C2 — not verified: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   3. Requirement 9.C3 — not verified: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 9.O1 — not verified: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   2. Requirement 9.O2 — not verified: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   3. Requirement 9.O3 — not verified: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 9.P1 — not verified: Religious or jurisprudential basis.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   2. Requirement 9.P2 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   3. Requirement 9.P3 — not verified: Mechanical poultry slaughter.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   4. Requirement 9.P4 — not verified: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   5. Requirement 9.P5 — not verified: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   6. Requirement 9.P6 — not verified: Stunning and reversibility.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   7. Requirement 9.P7 — not verified: Alive-at-cut control.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   8. Requirement 9.P8 — not verified: Minimum vessel requirement.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   9. Requirement 9.P9 — fulfilled: Pork and animal derivatives.

      Evidence route: Public source. The accepted assessment verifies that the first-party resource excludes swine and all by-products.

      Public sources: Source 1

   10. Requirement 9.P10 — fulfilled: Alcohol and ethanol.

       Evidence route: Public source. The accepted assessment verifies that the first-party resource lists alcohol among excluded sources.

       Public sources: Source 1

   11. Requirement 9.P11 — fulfilled: Processing aids and ingredient sources.

       Evidence route: Public source. The accepted assessment verifies that the resource requires review of ingredient sources, processes, and machinery.

       Public sources: Source 1

   12. Requirement 9.P12 — fulfilled: Shared lines and cross-contact.

       Evidence route: Public source. The accepted assessment verifies that the resource requires elimination of contamination and review of cross-contamination.

       Public sources: Source 1

   13. Requirement 9.P13 — partial: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.

       Evidence route: Public source. The accepted assessment verifies that the resource requires clean equipment and sanitation review, though it lacks a complete method.

       Public sources: Source 1

   14. Requirement 9.P14 — not verified: Certificate-level position communication.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. No explicit evidence found in the record.

   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. 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. 8 checks were fully supported, and 2 checks had partial support.

    93.00% 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.

    2.7900 of 3 weighted points. verified.

    Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 8 subrequirements: 10.C1, 10.C2, 10.C3, 10.C4, 10.C5, 10.O1, 10.O2, 10.O3.

    Competence contribution

    2.7000 of 2.7000 points.

    Public-accountability contribution

    0.0900 of 0.1800 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 2.7750 of 3 points. Of 10 applicable subrequirements, 8 fulfilled, 2 partial, 0 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 93.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

    Arithmetic: 2.7000 competence + 0.0900 public accountability = 2.7900 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

    A. Control assurance · 60 percent

    1. Requirement 10.C1 — fulfilled: Certificate templates contain required issuer, holder, site, product or activity scope, identifier, issue date, expiry date, and authorization.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    2. Requirement 10.C2 — fulfilled: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    3. Requirement 10.C3 — fulfilled: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    4. Requirement 10.C4 — fulfilled: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    5. Requirement 10.C5 — fulfilled: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

    1. Requirement 10.O1 — fulfilled: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    2. Requirement 10.O2 — fulfilled: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    3. Requirement 10.O3 — fulfilled: Directory and status records are maintained.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    C. Public evidence · 15 percent

    1. Requirement 10.P1 — partial: Consumers can verify current certificate status through a working HTTPS route, searchable directory, QR destination, or equivalent accessible mechanism.

       Evidence route: Public source. The accepted assessment confirms IFANCA operates public product and certified-company directories, though they do not function as a complete certificate-status register.

       Public sources: Source 1

    2. Requirement 10.P2 — partial: Public verification shows enough information to distinguish holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and validity.

       Evidence route: Public source. The accepted assessment confirms public directories provide substantial product and company reach, but lack complete explicit status information.

       Public sources: Source 1

    Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.

11. 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. All 10 checks were supported by the reviewed evidence.

    96.00% 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.

    0.9600 of 1 weighted points. verified.

    Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 7 subrequirements: 11.C1, 11.C2, 11.C4, 11.C5, 11.O1, 11.O2, 11.O3.

    Competence contribution

    0.9000 of 0.9000 points.

    Public-accountability contribution

    0.0600 of 0.0600 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Complaints, appeals, and corrections earns 1.0000 of 1 points. Of 10 applicable subrequirements, 10 fulfilled, 0 partial, 0 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 96.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

    Arithmetic: 0.9000 competence + 0.0600 public accountability = 0.9600 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

    A. Control assurance · 60 percent

    1. Requirement 11.C1 — fulfilled: Complaints and appeals have documented procedures.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    2. Requirement 11.C2 — fulfilled: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    3. Requirement 11.C3 — fulfilled: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    4. Requirement 11.C4 — fulfilled: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    5. Requirement 11.C5 — fulfilled: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

    1. Requirement 11.O1 — fulfilled: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    2. Requirement 11.O2 — fulfilled: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    3. Requirement 11.O3 — fulfilled: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    C. Public evidence · 15 percent

    1. Requirement 11.P1 — fulfilled: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.

       Evidence route: Public source. The accepted assessment verifies that IFANCA's public contact form expressly accepts complaints.

       Public sources: Source 1

    2. Requirement 11.P2 — fulfilled: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.

       Evidence route: Public source. The accepted assessment confirms IFANCA's public contact form expressly accepts complaints, establishing a clear submission pathway and responsible organization.

       Public sources: Source 1

    Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.

12. 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. 7 checks were fully supported, and 1 check had partial support. 1 check did not apply.

    93.00% 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.

    1.8600 of 2 weighted points. verified.

    Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 5 subrequirements: 12.C1, 12.C3, 12.C4, 12.O1, 12.O3.

    Competence contribution

    1.8000 of 1.8000 points.

    Public-accountability contribution

    0.0600 of 0.1200 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 1.8500 of 2 points. Of 8 applicable subrequirements, 7 fulfilled, 1 partial, 0 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 93.00 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

    Arithmetic: 1.8000 competence + 0.0600 public accountability = 1.8600 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

    A. Control assurance · 60 percent

    1. Requirement 12.C1 — fulfilled: The HCB defines competence and resource needs for each scope.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    2. Requirement 12.C2 — fulfilled: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    3. Requirement 12.C3 — fulfilled: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    4. Requirement 12.C4 — fulfilled: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

    1. Requirement 12.O1 — fulfilled: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    2. Requirement 12.O2 — fulfilled: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.

       Evidence route: Public source. Public directories and certificates demonstrate activity, as noted in the accepted dimension and article.

       Public sources: Source 1

    3. Requirement 12.O3 — fulfilled: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-019 is assessed against GSO 2055-2:2021, whose official assessment checklist expressly examines this requirement within IFANCA’s active accredited scope.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4

    C. Public evidence · 15 percent

    1. Requirement 12.P1 — partial: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.

       Evidence route: Public source. Operating history is publicly identifiable dating to 1982, and the president is named as a contact, though the full team is not disclosed.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    2. Requirement 12.P2 — not applicable: Confidential client volumes, payroll, and workload files need not be published when current accreditation verifies capacity.

       Evidence route: Not applicable. This is a confidentiality boundary rather than a demand to publish client volumes, payroll, or workload files; current exact-entity accreditation verifies capacity within its active scope.

    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.

Credibility Score interpretation

• Model B assigns 90.0000 of 90 competence-assurance points, 4.0000 of 4 proportional accreditation-breadth points, and 2.3593 of 6 public-accountability points.
• Every qualifying current independent exact-entity accreditation authority contributes proportionally against the five-authority national benchmark. 5 qualifying authorities contribute 4.0000 breadth points; overlapping requirements are not counted twice.
• 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.

What the recognized-authority search found

ANAB’s current product-certification directory lists IFANCA at its Des Plaines headquarters under accreditation 8889 [3]. EIAC’s HBN-CB-019 certificate is current through November 18, 2026 and assesses IFANCA against GSO 2055-2:2021 in the active CI, CII, CIV, biochemical K, and cosmetics scopes [5] [20]. The official GSO assessment checklist specifically examines legal responsibility, governance, personnel competence, Islamic-affairs controls, audit and decision procedures, impartiality, complaints, certificate controls, surveillance, records, internal audit, management review, corrective action, and demonstrated operating capacity [21].

HAK 2023-029, PNAC HCB-011, and BPJPH’s 2024–2028 credential are also current accreditations issued to IFANCA [6] [7] [8] [22]. Their number and scope materially increase confidence, but they add no automatic additional credit beyond what the reviewed ANAB and EIAC criteria already establish unless an authoritative, clause-by-clause mapping shows an additional requirement. JAKIM is still classified as recognition rather than accreditation [9].

The review also considered a historical GAC HPC 0029 scope schedule [4]. Because the current GAC directory does not return an IFANCA listing, that record is not described as current and provides no current GAC-derived credit. Several current accreditations do not raise support above the maximum for any one requirement, and voluntarily removed or excluded scopes—including slaughtering where stated—receive no transferred credit.

What IFANCA publicly says about its certification rules and positions

This part of the 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 govern this body’s certifications? The public material is fragmented, outdated, hard to find, or insufficient to determine the complete rules now in effect.

For governing documents, scope, and certificate communication, the reviewed sources show the following. A first-party resource describes criteria and certification steps, but no current, named, version-controlled, comprehensive IFANCA standard was found. The resource identifies Islamic dietary guidelines and combined scientific and religious expertise, but it does not name a specific madhab or a current framework for deciding disputed questions. It lists meat, poultry, dairy, prepared foods, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, supplements, and packaging as certifiable categories. It also distinguishes site, annual, batch, and shipment certificates and describes mark use, but it does not show current fields on certificates that state important positions. [19]

Other questions could not be answered confidently from the published material. The reviewed resource is dated 2011, and no current comprehensive standard version or effective date was found. No specific supplementary schemes or which one takes priority are publicly disclosed, and no specific public route for verifying a certificate or client is publicly disclosed. This is a limit of the public evidence; it does not prove that the body has no internal rule.

The public record also does not allow confident answers to several slaughter-related questions. No current first-party position on mechanical poultry was found, and third-party descriptions were excluded. The resource requires God’s name for slaughtered animals but does not disclose a current rule for mechanical lines. It says slaughter audits review stunning but does not state IFANCA’s exact permitted parameters. The required searches found no responsive public criteria, and 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 is a limit of the public evidence; it does not prove that the body has no internal rule.

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

The review considers whether the position is understandable to the public, not whether it is the most restrictive position. A publicly disclosed position within a recognized scholarly range is not penalized simply because another body follows a different view.

What evidence would change the remaining deductions

This section explains what evidence could support a higher score for IFANCA. A point not established in the reviewed public record does not mean that the control is absent. Any submission must apply to IFANCA itself, state its dates and scope, and show who was responsible for implementation and decision-making.

Records can be public or submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Authenticated private records can support evidence of controls or operations, but they do not earn public-transparency credit unless IFANCA makes the important information public.

• Metric 2 — Ownership and control: IFANCA could provide a current authoritative ownership filing or an authenticated record kept under formal controls. It would need to identify beneficial owners, ownership percentages, voting or governance rights, controlling persons, related entities, and conflict controls for IFANCA itself.
• Metric 3 — Governance and accountable leadership: IFANCA could provide a current governing-body roster and organogram that identifies accountable leaders, their roles, how they were appointed or authorized, their management responsibilities, and organizational accountability for certification decisions.
• Metric 4 — Personnel competence and authorization: IFANCA could provide a current personnel roster or an independently assessed record kept under formal controls. It would need to identify auditors, technical experts, reviewers, contractors, their qualifications, sector experience, halal and audit training, authorization scope, assignments, monitoring, and checks of continued competence.
• Metric 5 — Islamic authority and halal decision: IFANCA could provide current records identifying the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, their qualifications and appointment, jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, authority at the organizational level, and traceable participation in final halal decisions.
• Metric 6 — Halal audit method and facility verification: IFANCA could provide a current audit procedure kept under formal controls and corroborating recent files. They would need to show application and scope review, evaluation of ingredients and processes, on-site work, halal-specific observations, findings, corrective actions, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
• Metric 7 — Impartiality and decision separation: IFANCA could provide a current policy and implementation records on impartiality and keeping decision roles separate. They would need to identify conflict review, separation from consultancy, oversight membership, and separation among audit, technical review, Islamic review, and the certification decision.
• Metric 9 — Public certification criteria and position disclosure: IFANCA could publish a current declaration or equivalent methodology covering the governing standard and version, religious basis, scope and exclusions, practical halal positions, which supplementary scheme takes priority, certificate communication, and a public verification route.
• Metric 10 — Certificate traceability and mark control: IFANCA could provide a current public certificate directory or verification method that shows the certificate identifier, holder, site, products or scope, effective and expiry dates, current status, suspension or withdrawal, and enforceable controls on mark use and misuse.
• Metric 11 — Complaints, appeals, and corrections: IFANCA could publish a current process for complaints, appeals, and corrections that states submission routes, acknowledgement and response timing, independent review, records, re-examination, corrective action, and non-retaliation or comparable fairness protections.
• Metric 12 — Operating history and demonstrated capacity: IFANCA could provide current, independently verifiable operating records showing its timeline, active clients or certificates, sectors and locations served, workload, surveillance activity, and competent personnel capacity matched to that workload.

Corrections, appeals, and claiming this certification body

Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America 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 identity, role, and authority to act for IFANCA itself. That authority must be verified through qualifying documents and an official contact channel that can be independently confirmed. A claim stays private and pending until review; it does not give the claimant editorial control, reveal other submissions, or automatically change an article, Credibility Score, Grade, or ranking.

A correction request should identify IFANCA itself, the statement, metric, source, effective dates, scope, responsible people, and the requested correction. Publication does not depend on receiving a response, and no organization has a private veto over a documented finding.

Frequently asked questions

Does this mean every IFANCA certificate is valid?

No. This is an organizational accountability assessment of IFANCA’s controls, transparency, and accreditation. It does not rule on the validity of individual certificates, which depends on the specific scope, date, and product.

Why does the historical GAC record not count as current accreditation?

The reviewed 2023 GAC scope schedule is historical, and the current GAC directory does not return an IFANCA listing. The assessment therefore relies on IFANCA’s five separately verified current accreditations and gives no current GAC-derived credit.

Is IFANCA’s Islamic decision process covered by accreditation?

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

Do IFANCA’s public directories show every certificate’s full status?

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

Can IFANCA send evidence that could 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, organization record
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
20. EIAC. Certificate and Scope of Accreditation, IFANCA, HBN-CB-019
21. Philippine Accreditation Bureau. Assessment Checklist for GSO 2055-2:2021 (Halal Product)
22. PNAC. Scope of Accreditation, IFANCA, HCB-011
23. JAKIM. Recognized Foreign Halal Certification Bodies and Authorities, August 21, 2026

Related audit-readiness guidance

• How USDHS Calculates a Halal Certification Body Credibility Score
• 2026 U.S. Halal Certification Bodies Ranked by Credibility Score
• American Halal Foundation Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 96% Credibility Score, Grade A

Browse all USDHS Insights