Who is being assessed and what accreditation could be verified
Consumers and industry partners use halal certification to check whether products meet religious and operational standards. When accountability information is not transparent, the public cannot independently determine whether a certifier has the competence and impartiality needed to make halal decisions.
The organization assessed here is Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc., a New York domestic business corporation registered in 1996. It provides halal certification services for food and non-food products and operates primarily from New Hyde Park / Manhasset Hills, NY.
This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization in the reviewed directories: GAC, EIAC, HAK, BPJPH, and ANAB. The assessment therefore relies entirely on direct public and operational evidence.
Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment
Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 8% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated
Moderate confidence. Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. receives an 8% Credibility Score and Grade F. This result is based on the available record, and this review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. The review found some public material about the organization, but it did not establish enough evidence about audit practices, personnel qualifications, Islamic decision-making authority, or public accountability. The public information reviewed does not provide enough support for relying on the score alone. This assessment is limited to the evidence reviewed and does not determine the religious validity of any individual certificate or product.
See the three numerical score components
- Competence assurance
- 6.7959 of 90
- Accreditation breadth
- 0.0000 of 4
- Public accountability
- 0.8593 of 6
How to read this result: The score measures what the reviewed evidence supports. Information that was missing or unclear was not treated as proof that a safeguard does not exist. This is not a ruling on every certificate, product, or facility.
USDHS Accreditation-Dominant Credibility Score version 4.1. Source cutoff September 15, 2026. Last reviewed September 15, 2026. Raw Credibility Score 7.6552 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 8%.
Category breakdown
Where this score came from
Each bar shows how much of that category the reviewed evidence supported. A short bar means important information was missing, unclear, or not independently verified; it does not prove that an internal safeguard does not exist.
- 1. Legal identity and standing 80.12%
- 2. Ownership and control 6.35%
- 3. Accountable leadership and governance 14.21%
- 4. Qualified personnel 0.00%
- 5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights 0.00%
- 6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls 0.00%
- 7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence 0.00%
- 8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope 6.79%
- 9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure 3.43%
- 10. Certificate traceability and mark control 4.41%
- 11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections 0.00%
- 12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity 27.09%
What stands out
What helps—and what gives us pause
These are the most important positive and cautionary findings in the reviewed record. They explain the score rather than creating extra bonus points or penalties.
What supports confidence
Verified New York corporate identity and operating history
Public business records verify Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. as a New York domestic business corporation, and the company’s public materials document an operating history extending to 1996.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #12
Scoring treatment: Explains the legal-identity and continuity credit already included in metrics 1 and 12; it creates no separate bonus.
Evidence boundary: The records do not establish current beneficial-ownership percentages, qualified personnel assignments, or a qualifying current comprehensive accreditation.
What needs caution
No qualifying current comprehensive independent accreditation
No current, independently verifiable accreditation from a recognized independent accreditation authority was found for Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. in the reviewed directories (GAC, EIAC, HAK, BPJPH, ANAB).
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #10, #11, #12
Scoring treatment: Limits control and operational assurance scores across all metrics.
Evidence boundary: Lack of accreditation does not prove that every certificate is invalid.
Sources:
Personnel qualifications and Islamic authority are not publicly verified
The identities, qualifications, education, sector experience, and authorization records of auditors, technical experts, reviewers, and Islamic-affairs experts making final halal decisions are not publicly verified.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #4, #5
Scoring treatment: Results in zero points for personnel competence and Islamic authority.
Evidence boundary: Unverified authority is a finding, not a conclusion about anyone's religion or intent.
Sources: [1]
How USDHS calculated the score and grade
Model B totals competence assurance from 0 to 90, proportional current exact-entity accreditation breadth from 0 to 4, and public accountability from 0 to 6. A current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation establishes competence within verified scope; affirmative contradictions reduce it requirement by requirement. Every qualifying authority contributes 0.8000 breadth points against the five-authority national benchmark, capped at four. Public accountability remains separate. The 137 requirement statuses remain visible as the evidence record. Classification bands: A, 90 to 100, strongly substantiated; B, 80 to 89, substantiated; C, 70 to 79, partially substantiated; D, 60 to 69, material gaps; F, 0 to 59, insufficiently substantiated.
Detailed evidence
Why each category received its result
1. Legal identity and standing
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the public can identify the organization behind the certificate and confirm that it is legally connected to the work. 7 checks were fully supported, and 1 check remained unverified.
80.12% 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.
4.0059 of 5 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 3.7059 of 4.5000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.3000 of 0.3000 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 4.2500 of 5 points. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 7 fulfilled, 1 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 80.12 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 3.7059 competence + 0.3000 public accountability = 4.0059 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 1.C1 — fulfilled: The certificate issuer is a resolvable legal entity.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Verified New York domestic business corporation.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 1.C2 — fulfilled: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Verified New York domestic business corporation.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 1.C3 — fulfilled: Every public operating name, DBA, division, or brand used for certification is connected to the issuer.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Verified New York domestic business corporation.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 1.C4 — not verified: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 1.O1 — fulfilled: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Operational implementation is supported by direct evidence.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 1.O2 — fulfilled: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Operational implementation is supported by direct evidence.
Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 1.P1 — fulfilled: The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Public transparency is reflected in the factor.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 1.P2 — fulfilled: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Public transparency is reflected in the factor.
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.
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. 1 check had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.
6.35% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
9 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.5082 of 8 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.5082 of 7.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Ownership and control earns 0.4800 of 8 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 8 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 6.35 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.5082 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.5082 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 2.C1 — partial: Ultimate owners or members are identified.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Ahmad Aziz is publicly associated with the organization as its owner/president.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 2.C2 — not verified: Ownership percentages or interests are established.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 2.C3 — not verified: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 2.C4 — not verified: Related entities that could affect control are identified.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 2.C5 — not verified: Ownership continuity is established or preserved through istiṣḥāb absent contrary evidence.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 2.O1 — not verified: Ownership and control records are current, maintained, and available to an authorized verifier.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 2.O2 — not verified: No current record contradicts the established owner or control structure.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 2.P1 — not verified: Consumers can identify the controlling person or organization when ownership identity is part of the public accountability standard.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 2.P2 — not verified: Private percentages, taxpayer data, signatures, and personal addresses need not be published when authoritative evidence establishes them.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
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. 1 check was fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.
14.21% 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.
1.9888 of 14 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 1.7788 of 12.6000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.2100 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 2.2050 of 14 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 1 partial, 8 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 14.21 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 1.7788 competence + 0.2100 public accountability = 1.9888 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 3.C1 — fulfilled: Senior leadership is identified.
Evidence route: Public source. Ahmad Aziz is identified as a contact and leader.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 3.C2 — not verified: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 3.C3 — not verified: Certification decision authority is assigned.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 3.C4 — not verified: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 3.C5 — not verified: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 3.O1 — not verified: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 3.O2 — not verified: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 3.O3 — not verified: Management review and internal oversight occur.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 3.P1 — partial: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. Ahmad Aziz is identified as a contact and leader, but principal governance roles are not fully detailed.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 3.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
4. Qualified personnel
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the people doing audits, reviews, and decisions are identified, qualified, authorized, and kept competent. None of the 14 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
14 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 18 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 16.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Qualified personnel earns 0.0000 of 18 points. Of 14 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 14 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 4.C1 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for technical auditors.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.C2 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.C3 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.C4 — not verified: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.C5 — not verified: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.C6 — not verified: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.C7 — not verified: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 4.O1 — not verified: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.O2 — not verified: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.O3 — not verified: Assignments match sector and scope competence.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.O4 — not verified: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 4.P1 — not verified: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.P2 — not verified: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 4.P3 — not verified: Private personnel files, degree numbers, and every assignment record need not be published when accreditation verifies competence.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights
What this means in plain English: This category asks who provides the Islamic review, what authority that person or body has, and who makes the final halal decision. None of the 11 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
11 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 18 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 16.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 0.0000 of 18 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 11 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 5.C1 — not verified: Qualified Muslim Islamic-affairs experts are appointed.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 5.C2 — not verified: Muslim decision makers are used where required.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 5.C3 — not verified: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 5.C4 — not verified: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 5.C5 — not verified: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 5.C6 — not verified: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 5.O1 — not verified: Islamic experts participate in audit, review, and decision functions as required.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 5.O2 — not verified: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 5.O3 — not verified: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 5.P1 — not verified: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls
What this means in plain English: This category asks what the certifier actually checks, what halal-specific evidence it records, and how findings lead to approval, follow-up, or withdrawal. None of the 15 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
15 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 14 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 12.6000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 0.0000 of 14 points. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 15 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 15 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 6.C1 — not verified: Application and application review are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C2 — not verified: The audit program and audit time are determined by scope, risk, complexity, sites, and prior results.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C3 — not verified: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C4 — not verified: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C5 — not verified: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C6 — not verified: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C7 — not verified: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C8 — not verified: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C9 — not verified: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.C10 — not verified: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 6.O1 — not verified: The current certification system implements each applicable control.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.O2 — not verified: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.O3 — not verified: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 6.P1 — not verified: The certification pathway and principal stages are publicly understandable.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 6.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence
What this means in plain English: This category asks how the organization prevents commercial interests, consulting work, or personal conflicts from controlling certification decisions. None of the 11 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
11 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 6 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 5.4000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.3600 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Impartiality, conflicts, and independence earns 0.0000 of 6 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 11 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 7.C1 — not verified: An impartiality policy and risk process exist.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 7.C2 — not verified: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 7.C3 — not verified: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 7.C4 — not verified: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 7.C5 — not verified: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 7.C6 — not verified: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 7.O1 — not verified: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 7.O2 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are documented.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 7.O3 — not verified: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 7.P1 — not verified: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 7.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope
What this means in plain English: This category asks which current rules govern the certification, what products and facilities they cover, and where the limits or exclusions are. 2 checks had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.
6.79% 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.
0.2038 of 3 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.1588 of 2.7000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0450 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 0.2625 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 2 partial, 8 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 6.79 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.1588 competence + 0.0450 public accountability = 0.2038 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 8.C1 — not verified: Governing standard names and versions are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 8.C2 — partial: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. The official page lists food and non-food categories whose ingredients and processes may require halal review.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 8.C3 — not verified: Exclusions and limitations are defined.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 8.C4 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 8.C5 — not verified: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 8.C6 — not verified: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 8.O1 — not verified: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 8.O2 — not verified: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 8.P1 — partial: The principal standard, version, category, and certification scope are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. The official page lists food and non-food categories whose ingredients and processes may require halal review, but does not publish a specific governing standard or version.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 8.P2 — not verified: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether an ordinary reader can find the certifier’s practical halal rules and understand the positions behind its approvals. 7 checks were fully supported, 2 checks had partial support, and 11 checks remained unverified.
3.43% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
20 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.2743 of 8 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 7.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.2743 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Public certification criteria and position disclosure earns 0.6857 of 8 points. Of 20 enumerated subrequirements, 7 fulfilled, 2 partial, 11 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 3.43 percent: 20 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.2743 public accountability = 0.2743 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 9.C1 — not verified: The public disclosure is authorized, versioned, dated, and controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.C2 — not verified: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.C3 — not verified: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 9.O1 — not verified: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.O2 — not verified: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.O3 — not verified: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 9.P1 — fulfilled: Religious or jurisprudential basis.
Evidence route: Public source. The official page identifies Qur'an and Sunnah as the religious basis.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P2 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P3 — fulfilled: Mechanical poultry slaughter.
Evidence route: Public source. The official page identifies Qur'an and Sunnah as the religious basis.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P4 — fulfilled: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.
Evidence route: Public source. The official page lists food and non-food categories whose ingredients and processes may require halal review.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P5 — partial: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.
Evidence route: Public source. The 2023 certificate requires a Muslim slaughter person and Muslim supervision for its scope.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P6 — not verified: Stunning and reversibility.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P7 — partial: Alive-at-cut control.
Evidence route: Public source. A 2023 independently hosted certificate permits a mechanical knife with stated Muslim-supervision and tasmiyyah conditions for that certificate scope.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P8 — fulfilled: Minimum vessel requirement.
Evidence route: Public source. The 2023 certificate requires Bismi-Allah-Akbar before switching on the mechanical knife and during poultry slaughter.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P9 — fulfilled: Pork and animal derivatives.
Evidence route: Public source. The 2023 certificate requires a Muslim slaughter person and Muslim supervision for its scope.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 9.P10 — fulfilled: Alcohol and ethanol.
Evidence route: Public source. The current first-party What is Haram page expressly lists alcohol and intoxicants, swine and pork meat and by-products, lard, blood and blood by-products, improperly slaughtered animals, and food contaminated by those materials.
Requirement 9.P11 — fulfilled: Processing aids and ingredient sources.
Evidence route: Public source. The current first-party What is Haram page expressly lists alcohol and intoxicants, swine and pork meat and by-products, lard, blood and blood by-products, improperly slaughtered animals, and food contaminated by those materials. It also states source requirements for animal fats, enzymes, gelatin, L-cysteine, lipids, shortening, broth, rennet, and tallow.
Requirement 9.P12 — not verified: Shared lines and cross-contact.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P13 — not verified: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 9.P14 — not verified: Certificate-level position communication.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
10. Certificate traceability and mark control
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether a certificate can be checked for its holder, site, scope, dates, and current status, and whether misuse of the mark is controlled. 1 check had partial support, and 9 checks remained unverified.
4.41% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.1324 of 3 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.1324 of 2.7000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 0.1250 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 9 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 4.41 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.1324 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.1324 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 10.C1 — not verified: Certificate templates contain required issuer, holder, site, product or activity scope, identifier, issue date, expiry date, and authorization.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 10.C2 — not verified: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 10.C3 — not verified: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 10.C4 — not verified: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 10.C5 — not verified: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 10.O1 — not verified: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 10.O2 — not verified: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 10.O3 — partial: Directory and status records are maintained.
Evidence route: Public source. Some individual certificates exist in the market (e.g., The Halal Guys).
Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 10.P1 — not verified: Consumers can verify current certificate status through a working HTTPS route, searchable directory, QR destination, or equivalent accessible mechanism.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 10.P2 — not verified: Public verification shows enough information to distinguish holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and validity.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether people can challenge a decision, report a problem, receive an independent review, and see appropriate corrective action. None of the 10 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 1 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.9000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.0600 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Complaints, appeals, and corrections earns 0.0000 of 1 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 10 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 11.C1 — not verified: Complaints and appeals have documented procedures.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 11.C2 — not verified: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 11.C3 — not verified: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 11.C4 — not verified: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 11.C5 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 11.O1 — not verified: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 11.O2 — not verified: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 11.O3 — not verified: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 11.P1 — not verified: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 11.P2 — not verified: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the organization has a verifiable operating record and enough qualified people and resources for the certification work it claims to perform. 2 checks were fully supported, 2 checks had partial support, and 5 checks remained unverified.
27.09% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
9 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.5418 of 2 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.5118 of 1.8000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0300 of 0.1200 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 0.5583 of 2 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 2 fulfilled, 2 partial, 5 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 27.09 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.5118 competence + 0.0300 public accountability = 0.5418 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 12.C1 — not verified: The HCB defines competence and resource needs for each scope.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 12.C2 — not verified: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 12.C3 — not verified: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Requirement 12.C4 — partial: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The organization has a demonstrated operating history (registered in 1996).
Public sources: Source 1
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 12.O1 — fulfilled: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.
Evidence route: Public source. Direct evidence of issuing certificates to known clients verifies active delivery capacity.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.O2 — fulfilled: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.
Evidence route: Public source. Direct evidence of current certificates demonstrates active operations.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.O3 — not verified: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 12.P1 — partial: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. Operating history is publicly identifiable.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.P2 — not verified: Confidential client volumes, payroll, and workload files need not be published when current accreditation verifies capacity.
Evidence route: Direct evidence. The record does not establish the requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
Bottom line
What you should know
What the evidence supports
- Public records provide strong support for the organization’s legal identity and operating status as a New York domestic business corporation.
- The organization’s operating history is publicly identifiable, and an independently hosted 2023 certificate provides direct evidence that it has issued certificates to a known client.
- The review found some support concerning governance and accountable leadership, but the public record remains limited in this area.
What should make you cautious
- The review could not publicly verify the identities, qualifications, education, sector experience, and authorization records of auditors, technical experts, reviewers, or Islamic-affairs experts making final halal decisions.
- The review did not establish the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, their qualifications, appointment, jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, organizational authority, or traceable participation in final halal decisions.
- The reviewed material did not establish a documented halal audit method covering application and scope review, ingredient and process evaluation, on-site work, halal-specific observations, findings, corrective actions, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
What evidence could change this view
- What current, verifiable records would clarify qualified personnel?
- What current, verifiable records would clarify islamic authority and halal decision rights?
- What current, verifiable records would clarify halal-specific audit and certification controls?
View the original requirement-level questions
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 1.C4 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 2.C1 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 2.C2 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 2.C3 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 2.C4 under the published methodology?
- What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the current finding for requirement 2.C5 under the published methodology?
Credibility Score interpretation
- Model B assigns 6.7959 of 90 competence-assurance points, 0.0000 of 4 proportional accreditation-breadth points, and 0.8593 of 6 public-accountability points.
- No qualifying current comprehensive exact-entity accreditation was applied; competence is normalized from the same control and operational requirement evidence used across the national set, and accreditation breadth is zero.
- Recognition, commercial approval, membership, affiliate credentials, expired credentials, and scope that does not cover the assessed work do not qualify as current exact-entity accreditation breadth.
- Missing public information means the reviewed public record did not establish the disclosure; it is not proof that an undisclosed internal control does not exist.
Material records are rescored under the same rules, whether they raise or lower the result. Privately share information or evidence. Evidence-source names and contact details are not exposed publicly. An authorized representative may separately claim this certification body with qualifying documents. A verified claim does not confer editorial control or automatically change an article, Credibility Score, Grade, ranking, or certification status.
Read the full legal and evidence boundary
This organizational accountability assessment measures evidence supporting identity, control, responsible people, Islamic authority, halal-specific work, standards, public certification criteria, certificate controls, correction access, and demonstrated operations. Each of 137 enumerated subrequirements is shown below. A not-verified finding means the reviewed record did not establish the item; it is not proof that the control does not exist, that wrongdoing occurred, or that every certificate is invalid. Private evidence is described only at a non-identifying level. The existing series label is editorial branding and is not itself an allegation. Flags explain evidence already scored inside the twelve fixed metrics and create no separate bonus or penalty. The assessment is not a religious ruling, legal judgment, fraud finding, guarantee, or declaration that every certificate is valid or invalid. An undisclosed item is not treated as proof that no internal control exists.
Conclusion
Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. is a verified New York domestic business corporation with a documented operating history [3]. However, this review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization, and its audit method, personnel qualifications, and Islamic decision-making authority are not publicly verified [1].
This accountability assessment uses the published USDHS methodology to review evidence. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard or make a religious ruling about every certificate or product.
What public information says about certification rules
This disclosure review asks a different question from accreditation: can an ordinary consumer identify the standard or scheme, its current version, the authority that approved it, and the material halal positions—the rules that guide this body’s certifications? The public material reviewed is fragmented, stale, hard to locate, or insufficient to identify the complete current position.
The reviewed sources provide the following information about governing documents, scope, and how certificates are communicated: the official page identifies the Qur'an, Sunnah, and prescribed Islamic slaughter, but does not name a version-controlled certification standard. It identifies the Qur'an and Sunnah as the religious basis. It also lists food and non-food categories whose ingredients and processes may need halal review. [4]
The review could not classify the following questions with confidence because they were not sufficiently disclosed: a current version or effective date, supplementary schemes, how certificate levels are communicated, and a public client-verification register. This is a limit of the public evidence; it does not prove that the body has no internal rule.
For slaughter and poultry controls, the reviewed sources show the following: a 2023 certificate hosted independently permits a mechanical knife, subject to stated Muslim-supervision and tasmiyyah conditions within that certificate’s scope. The certificate requires Bismi-Allah-Akbar before the mechanical knife is switched on and during poultry slaughter, and it requires a Muslim slaughter person and Muslim supervision for that scope. [2]
The review could not classify the following slaughter questions with confidence because they were not sufficiently disclosed: rules for stunning and reversibility, controls to confirm the animal is alive at the cut, and minimum vessel-severance requirements. This is a limit of the public evidence; it does not prove that the body has no internal rule.
For ingredients and the production environment, the official page identifies animal-origin oils, enzymes, stearates, and other ingredients as needing halal-integrity review, but it does not publish complete decision criteria. [4]
The current first-party What is Haram page expressly lists alcohol and intoxicants; swine and pork meat and by-products; lard; blood and blood by-products; improperly slaughtered animals; and food contaminated by those materials. It also states source requirements for animal fats, enzymes, gelatin, L-cysteine, lipids, shortening, broth, rennet, and tallow. These public statements show selected ingredient positions, but they do not provide a versioned, complete certification scheme or a current decision matrix for every product category. [4] [5]
This disclosure review considers whether the position is understandable to the public, not whether it is the most restrictive position. A position that is disclosed and falls within a recognized scholarly range is not treated negatively simply because another body takes a different view.
Evidence that could change the review
This section explains what evidence could support a higher score for Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. It does not mean a control is absent simply because the reviewed public record did not establish it. Any submission must match the assessed organization, identify its dates and scope, and show who was responsible for putting it into practice and making decisions.
Relevant records can be public or submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Private records can support assurance about controls or operations when they can be authenticated, but they do not create credit for public transparency unless the organization makes the material information public.
- Legal identity and operating status: A current authoritative registry or regulator record for Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. that shows its exact legal name, entity number, jurisdiction, formation date, active status, operating name, and any required certification-business registration not already established.
- Ownership and control: A current authoritative ownership filing or authenticated controlled record for Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. that identifies beneficial owners, ownership percentages, voting or governance rights, controlling persons, related entities, and conflict controls for the assessed organization.
- Governance and accountable leadership: A current governing-body roster and organization chart for Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. that identifies accountable leaders, their roles, the basis for their appointment or authority, their management responsibilities, and the organization’s accountability for certification decisions.
- Personnel qualifications and authorization: A current personnel roster or independently assessed controlled record for Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. that identifies auditors, technical experts, reviewers, contractors, their qualifications, sector experience, halal and audit training, authorization scope, assignments, monitoring, and competence review.
- Islamic authority and halal decisions: Current records from Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. that identify the Islamic-affairs experts or decision-making body, their qualifications, appointment, jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, authority within the organization, and traceable participation in final halal decisions.
- Halal audit method and facility verification: A current controlled audit procedure from Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc., with corroborating recent files, that shows application and scope review, ingredient and process evaluation, on-site work, halal-specific observations, findings, corrective actions, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
- Impartiality and separation of decisions: A current policy on impartiality and decision separation from Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc., together with implementation records, that identifies conflict review, separation from consultancy, oversight membership, and separation among audit, technical review, Islamic review, and the certification decision.
- Standards, scheme, and certification scope: A current standard or scheme record from Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. that identifies its version, effective date, covered sectors and locations, exclusions, supplementary schemes, precedence rules, certificate scope, and the responsible issuing organization.
- Public certification criteria and position disclosure: A current public declaration or equivalent methodology from Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. that covers the governing standard and version, religious basis, scope and exclusions, practical halal positions, the order of precedence for supplementary schemes, certificate communication, and a public verification route.
- Certificate traceability and mark control: A current public certificate directory or verification method from Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. that shows the certificate identifier, holder, site, products or scope, effective and expiry dates, live status, suspension or withdrawal, and enforceable controls for use and misuse of the mark.
- Complaints, appeals, and corrections: A current public procedure from Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. for complaints, appeals, and corrections that identifies ways to submit a matter, acknowledgement and response timing, independent review, records, re-examination, corrective action, and non-retaliation or equivalent fairness protections.
- Operating history and demonstrated capacity: Current independently verifiable operating records from Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. that show its timeline, active clients or certificates, sectors and locations served, workload, surveillance activity, and competent personnel capacity matched to that workload.
How to submit corrections, appeals, or a claim
Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. or another affected party can submit responsive records through the secure documentary-evidence form. Material evidence is reviewed under the same methodology whether it would raise or lower the Credibility Score.
An authorized representative can also use Claim this certification body. The claimant must document their identity, role, and authority to act for the assessed organization. That authority must be verified with qualifying documentation and an independently confirmable official contact channel. A claim remains private and pending while it is reviewed; it does not give editorial control, reveal other submissions, or automatically change an article, Credibility Score, Grade, or ranking.
A correction request should identify the assessed organization, the statement, metric, source, effective dates, scope, responsible people, and requested correction. Publication does not depend on receiving a response, and no organization has a private veto over a documented finding.
Frequently asked questions
Why does Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. receive an 8% Credibility Score and Grade F?
Most of the score depends on evidence that the certifier can do the work responsibly, including accountable leadership, qualified personnel, Islamic authority, and halal-specific audit capability. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization, and its audit method, personnel qualifications, and Islamic authority are not publicly verified.
Is Islamic Halal Food Products, Inc. currently accredited?
This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization in the reviewed directories: GAC, EIAC, HAK, BPJPH, and ANAB.
Does a low score mean that every certificate is invalid?
No. This assessment examines structural accountability, transparency, and verifiable credentials; it does not decide the religious validity of particular products.
Why are private documents not included?
The methodology relies on public records and publicly verifiable evidence, while allowing the organization to submit responsive controlled documents through the secure documentary-evidence form.
What could help the certifier improve its score?
The score can improve if the organization obtains recognized qualifying current comprehensive accreditation and publishes full ownership details, personnel authorizations, and a detailed halal audit methodology.
References
View the controlling HIPS publication