CSAFI Food Defence – Cyber
Applies the PAS 96:2026 threat-assessment approach (TACCP) to cyber and operational-technology threats — the competent cyber input that BRCGS, FSSC 22000, IFS, SQF and FSMA food defence audits already ask for, but do not define.
Assessed against
- PAS 96:2026 — TACCP, applied to IT and OT
- Supports BRCGS Issue 9 clause 4.2
- Supports FSSC 22000 v6 clause 2.5.3
- Mirrors the FSMA food defense plan (21 CFR 121)
- kinds of attacker assessed — criminals, insiders, hacktivists, states
- 4
- kinds of attacker assessed — criminals, insiders, hacktivists, states
- food defence schemes it supports — BRCGS, FSSC 22000, IFS, SQF, FSMA
- 5
- food defence schemes it supports — BRCGS, FSSC 22000, IFS, SQF, FSMA
- tiers — Foundation, Verified, Advanced OT
- 3
- tiers — Foundation, Verified, Advanced OT
- certificate, with a yearly review
- 3 years
- certificate, with a yearly review
Every food site that already runs TACCP
- Food sites anywhere in the world that run a threat assessment (TACCP) for BRCGS, FSSC 22000, IFS, SQF or the US FSMA food defense rule.
- Sites that NIS2 does not reach — including UK food businesses, which are not an essential service under UK NIS rules — but whose customers still ask about cyber.
- One certificate covers one site. CSAFI membership is not required.
TACCP, with cyber and the plant floor in it
The site’s cyber threat assessment and food defence controls, step by step.
| Area | What the assessor looks for |
|---|---|
| The TACCP team | It includes a member responsible for IT and OT security. |
| The threat assessment | Ransomware criminals, insiders, hacktivists and state actors — aimed at recipes, controller setpoints, allergen and label databases, ordering systems and lab systems. |
| Critical points | Mapped to the OT behind them: dosing, pasteurisation, cleaning-in-place, metal detection, labelling. |
| Existing controls | A gap check — would today’s controls detect each threat? |
| Priorities and controls | Ranked by likelihood and impact, with proportionate controls added. |
| Response | Cyber incident response linked to product recall. |
| Review | A yearly review, tabletop exercises and a confidential reporting channel. |
Four things no certificate is issued without
Each one is where a food defence plan most often leaves cyber out.
IT/OT on the TACCP team
Somebody responsible for IT and OT security sits on the team that does the threat assessment.
OT critical points mapped
Every critical point is mapped to the controllers and systems that run it.
A recall-linked incident plan
A cyber incident that could affect the food triggers the product recall process.
Confidential reporting
Staff can raise concerns confidentially — what PAS 96:2026 now calls a confidential reporting system.
The cyber part of your food defence plan
Food defence schemes ask for a threat assessment and a food defence plan, but say little about cyber-physical controls. This certification supplies that part.
BRCGS Issue 9
Clause 4.2 asks for a threat assessment and a food defence plan.
FSSC 22000 v6
Clause 2.5.3 asks for a documented threat assessment and food defence plan, reviewed every year.
IFS
The Product and Food Defence Guideline v2 adds a cybersecurity chapter.
FSMA (US)
The Intentional Adulteration rule asks for a written food defense plan. This certification mirrors its shape: monitoring, corrective action, verification and reanalysis every three years.
It supports these requirements. It does not replace a GFSI scheme audit, or satisfy those clauses on its own.
Three tiers, from a desk review to the plant floor
Start at the tier that fits. Existing ISO/IEC 27001, IEC 62443 or similar results can be reused to cut duplicate work.
Foundation
A verified self-assessment, desk-reviewed by an approved partner firm. Renewed every year.
Verified
A remote audit by an approved partner firm, typically one to two days. Three years, with yearly surveillance.
Advanced OT
An on-site assessment with technical testing, three days or more. Passive-first: no active scanning of live controllers, written approval for anything that touches machine networks, and the plant may stop the work at any time.
Where the CSAFI mark may — and may not — appear
- On the site’s documents, website, tenders and correspondence, with the certificate number and scope beside it.
- Never on food, packaging, labels or anything a consumer could read as a statement about the food.
- Never with BSI’s name or branding — PAS 96 is BSI’s guide, and CSAFI is not affiliated with BSI.
What this certificate can — and cannot — say
It can say
- “CSAFI Food Defence – Cyber: cyber threat assessment (TACCP) aligned to PAS 96:2026.”
- Assessed against CSAFI’s requirements, which apply the PAS 96:2026 TACCP framework to cyber and OT threats.
- Supports the food defence requirements of BRCGS 4.2, FSSC 22000 2.5.3 and FSMA 21 CFR 121.
It never says
- “PAS 96 certified” or “certified to PAS 96” — PAS 96 is guidance, not a standard.
- Anything implying BSI endorsement, or using BSI branding.
- That it replaces a GFSI scheme audit or satisfies those clauses on its own.
Bring cyber into your food defence plan
Register interest and the CSAFI team will talk you through the pilot and how a site’s TACCP is assessed.
CSAFI certifications are independent industry assessments. They are not regulatory approvals, do not replace a company’s legal obligations, and are not EU conformity assessments or CE marking. CSAFI is not a notified body, and CSAFI certificates are not accredited. PAS 96 is published by BSI; CSAFI is not affiliated with BSI.