What to Do If You Fail a Food Safety Audit in New Zealand

Receiving a non-conformance after a food safety audit or verification can feel stressful — especially if it is your first one, or if the finding was unexpected.

But a non-conformance is not a disaster. It is a finding that identifies a gap between what your food safety programme requires and what is actually happening in your business. Most food businesses receive findings at some point. What matters most is how you respond.

This guide explains exactly what a failed food safety audit means in New Zealand, what your obligations are, the correct process for closing out non-conformances, and the most common mistakes businesses make when responding to audit findings.

In New Zealand food safety language, you do not technically 'pass' or 'fail' a verification. Instead, a verifier assesses your food safety management and may identify findings or non-conformances where your business is not meeting requirements.

Findings can range in severity:

When a non-conformance is raised during verification, you have a legal obligation to:

•       Acknowledge the finding in writing

•       Take corrective action to fix the issue — not just the symptom, but the root cause

•       Provide close-out evidence to your verifier within the required timeframe

•       Ensure the same issue does not recur

The timeframe for close-out depends on the severity of the finding and your verifier's requirements. Critical findings may require immediate action. Major findings typically have a shorter close-out window than minor findings.

Failing to close out non-conformances within the required timeframe can lead to escalation by your verifier, referral to MPI, and, in serious cases, action against your food business registration.

Step 1 — Understand Exactly What the Finding Is

Read the non-conformance carefully. What specific requirement was not being met? What evidence did the verifier identify? If anything is unclear, ask your verifier to explain it before you start taking action.

A common mistake is assuming you know what needs to be fixed without fully understanding the finding. This leads to corrective actions that address the wrong problem.

Step 2 — Identify the Root Cause — Not Just the Symptom

The root cause is why the problem occurred — not just what the problem was. For example:

•       Finding: 'Temperature monitoring records were incomplete for the past two weeks'

–      Symptom fix (not enough): 'We completed the records'

–      Root cause fix (correct): 'We identified that the staff responsible had not been trained on record requirements and the monitoring sheet was not accessible at the relevant workstation. We have now trained all relevant staff and repositioned the monitoring sheet.'

Verifiers and auditors are looking for evidence that you have understood why the problem occurred and taken action to prevent recurrence — not just that you have filled in the missing records.

Step 3 — Take Corrective Action That Addresses the Root Cause

Based on your root cause analysis, take the appropriate corrective action. This may include:

•       Updating procedures or work instructions

•       Training staff on the correct requirement

•       Changing a physical setup, equipment or layout

•       Increasing monitoring frequency

•       Updating forms or records

•       Reviewing related parts of your food safety programme

Step 4 — Document What You Did

Record the corrective action you took, when you took it, who was responsible and what outcome was achieved. This documentation is the evidence your verifier needs to close out the finding.

Do not rely on verbal explanations. Verifiers need written evidence — records, updated procedures, training sign-off sheets, photographs where appropriate.

Step 5 — Gather Close-Out Evidence and Submit to Your Verifier

Compile your close-out evidence and submit it to your verifier within the required timeframe. Be clear about which finding each piece of evidence relates to.

The type of evidence needed depends on the nature of the finding. Common close-out evidence includes:

•       Completed records that were previously missing or incomplete — showing the issue has been corrected

•       Updated procedures or work instructions — showing the process has been changed

•       Staff training records — showing relevant staff have been trained on the requirement

•       Photographs of physical changes — equipment, signage, workstation layouts

•       Calibration records — for findings related to equipment not being in calibration

•       Corrective action record — documenting what happened, why, and what was done

•       Evidence of a review — showing you have checked related areas for similar issues

If corrective actions are not completed and evidence submitted within the required timeframe, your verifier may:

•       Issue a further finding or escalate the existing one

•       Conduct an additional verification visit to assess whether the issue has been resolved

•       Report the outstanding non-conformances to MPI

•       In serious cases, recommend action against your food business registration

It is always better to communicate with your verifier if you are having difficulty meeting the close-out timeframe. Most verifiers would rather work with you to find a solution than escalate.

•       Temperature monitoring records not completed correctly or consistently

•       Cleaning and sanitising records missing or incomplete

•       Staff practices not matching documented procedures

•       Allergen controls not adequately demonstrated — declarations, controls, cross-contact

•       Corrective action records not completed when issues were identified

•       Traceability or recall procedures not tested — no mock recall completed

•       Previous verification findings not adequately addressed

•       Food safety programme not updated to reflect changes in the business

•       Equipment calibration records missing or overdue

•       Significant business changes not notified to the registration authority

The best way to avoid repeated findings is to treat each non-conformance as an opportunity to genuinely improve your food safety management — not just a box to tick.

•       Review related areas of your food safety programme when a finding is raised — not just the specific area identified

•       Ensure all relevant staff are trained on what was found and how it has been corrected

•       Build the corrective action into your normal food safety monitoring — check it regularly

•       Review your last verification report before your next verification — know what was found previously and confirm it has been addressed

If your food business has received a non-conformance and you need help understanding the finding, developing a corrective action, or preparing close-out evidence, we can help.

We also provide audit preparation support — helping food businesses review their food safety programme, records and practices before a verification or certification audit to reduce the likelihood of non-conformances.

Contact us for free initial guidance. We can help you understand what the finding means, what corrective action is needed, and how to prepare your close-out evidence.

•       Food Safety Audit Preparation — /food-safety-audit-preparation/

•       Food Safety & Quality Consulting — /food-safety-quality-consulting/

•       HACCP Consulting — /haccp-consulting/

•       Training & Workshops — /training-workshops/

•       Contact Us for Free Initial Guidance — /contact-us/

Note: This article provides general guidance only. Non-conformance requirements and close-out processes vary depending on your verifier, plan type and specific circumstances. Contact your verifier or DKwebART for guidance specific to your situation.