Food Alert For Information

This glossary term is part of the SG Systems Global regulatory & operations guide library.

Updated January 2026 • UK Food Safety Communications • Food Alert for Information (FAI), situational awareness, monitoring and scoping, supplier/customer checks, rapid evidence retrieval, targeted holds, incident governance, recall prevention • Food & Feed Supply Chain (manufacturing, co-packers, distributors, importers, private label, cold stores)

Food Alert for Information (FAI) is a UK public alert used to share information about a food safety issue that is being investigated or managed, where the primary purpose is awareness rather than immediate consumer action. Operationally, an FAI is a warning shot: it signals there is a developing issue in the market that may affect your products, your suppliers, your customers, or your brand portfolio. It does not automatically mean you must recall product. It means you must verify exposure fast—and be ready to act if evidence shows you are impacted.

This matters because the worst incident posture is slow surprise. An FAI gives you time to contain risk before it becomes your crisis. But only if you have a disciplined monitoring workflow: identify whether any impacted ingredients, lots, suppliers, co-packers, or customers intersect your supply chain; apply targeted holds if exposure cannot be ruled out; preserve evidence; and prepare communications. If you treat FAIs as “news,” you will miss the window where the problem can be kept small.

Tell it like it is: FAIs punish sloppy traceability. If you can’t quickly answer “did we receive this ingredient, from this supplier, in this window, and did it ship downstream?”, you are forced into conservative broad actions—holds, customer messaging, and possibly unnecessary withdrawals—because you can’t prove you’re not impacted. The business with fast genealogy and fast retrieval stays calm. The business without it scrambles and overreacts.

“FAIs don’t demand panic. They demand proof—fast enough to avoid panic later.”

1) What an FAI means for operators

An FAI means you have a credible external signal of a food safety issue. Your job is not to panic; your job is to prove whether you are exposed. That proof must be fast enough to prevent product from moving further downstream if you are impacted, and accurate enough to avoid unnecessary withdrawals if you are not.

Tell it like it is: an FAI is a time advantage. Waste it and you’ll pay later.

2) FAI vs Food Alert for Action

FAI is about awareness and monitoring. Food Alert for Action is about immediate action and consumer protection steps. Operationally, an FAI can become an action scenario if your exposure check shows you’re impacted or if evidence escalates. That’s why the internal workflow should look similar at the start: contain what you might control, then narrow scope with proof.

Tell it like it is: you should be able to pivot from FAI to action posture without rebuilding your process mid-event.

3) The first hour: exposure checks and containment posture

The first hour is about two things: (1) exposure determination, and (2) preventing accidental distribution if exposure is plausible. A disciplined workflow includes:

• Identify the alert scope (product, brand, supplier, batch/date range, hazard type)
• Run an exposure query against receiving, production, and shipment records
• Apply provisional holds if the exposure cannot be ruled out quickly
• Preserve evidence (logs, COAs, temperature data, packing records)
• Assign an owner and open a single event record

Tell it like it is: the first hour decides whether your response is narrow or expensive.

4) Scope proof: lots, suppliers, time windows, and shipments

If exposure is possible, you need scope proof. That means mapping:

• Supplier lots → internal lots (and any relabel/repack mappings)
• Internal lots → production/pack runs (what products consumed the material)
• Finished lots → consignments/customers (what shipped and what remains)
• Time windows that align to the alert’s batch/date criteria

Tell it like it is: the ability to prove “not impacted” is as valuable as proving “impacted.” Both require the same linkage discipline.

5) Targeted holds: when to hold and how to avoid over-holding

Holds are a tool, not an outcome. A targeted hold should be applied when exposure cannot be ruled out quickly, when product is still moving downstream, or when evidence suggests potential safety risk. The goal is to freeze the smallest credible universe while you gather proof.

Operationally, targeted holds require:

• Hard enforcement (holds block pick/load, not just a spreadsheet flag)
• Clear boundaries (which lots, which locations, which SKUs)
• Fast refinement as evidence clarifies scope
• Disposition workflow once scope is proven (release, withdraw, recall, destroy)

Tell it like it is: over-holding is usually a traceability failure, not a safety decision.

6) Communications: suppliers, customers, and internal alignment

FAIs create communication risk. Suppliers may be defensive. Customers may demand immediate answers. Internally, sales and operations may keep shipping unless the message is clear. Communications must be factual, consistent, and tied to scope evidence.

A mature approach includes:

• Single message owner and version-controlled updates
• Supplier queries documented with timestamps and responses
• Customer messaging only when evidence supports action or when proactive holding is required
• Internal shipment blocks communicated clearly to prevent accidental release

Tell it like it is: inconsistent messaging is how “information alerts” become reputational events.

7) Evidence pack: what to capture while it’s fresh

Even if you’re not impacted, you should keep a defensible record of how you determined that. If you are impacted, you will need a full evidence pack quickly.

Minimum contents:

• Alert details and interpreted scope criteria (product/supplier/date/hazard)
• Exposure check outputs (queries, lot lists, receiving/shipping references)
• Hold history (what was held, when, by whom, and enforcement proof)
• Genealogy maps linking supplier lots to finished lots and shipments
• Supplier communications log and any COA/traceback documents received
• Customer/consignment lists if any impacted product shipped
• Decision rationale (why released vs held vs withdrawn, based on evidence)
• Closure record including final determination and any CAPA actions

Tell it like it is: if you can’t show how you evaluated an FAI, you’re vulnerable the next time someone asks “why did you keep shipping?”

8) Closure: when you can stand down (and what to keep)

You can stand down when exposure is ruled out by traceable proof, or when impacted product is fully controlled and dispositioned. Closure must include record retention—because these events are often revisited months later in audits and customer reviews.

Tell it like it is: standing down without proof is just delaying the problem.

9) Copy/paste FAI readiness scorecard

Use this as a blunt self-check. If several answers are “no,” an FAI will force broad “just in case” actions.

The objective is simple: prove exposure status fast and keep scope narrow.

10) Common failure modes that expand scope

FAI responses fail in predictable ways:

• Slow exposure checks because data is fragmented across systems
• Soft holds that don’t prevent shipment under pressure
• Broken supplier-lot linkage due to relabeling or missing receiving discipline
• Manual customer lists that are inconsistent and incomplete
• Inconsistent communications not tied to evidence updates
• No closure record leaving you unable to defend decisions later

Tell it like it is: you don’t get punished for running an exposure check. You get punished for not being able to prove you did.

11) How this maps to V5 by SG Systems Global

V5 supports FAI response by making exposure checks and containment executable: lot genealogy that maps supplier lots to finished product, enforced hold/release states, rapid customer/consignment lists, controlled incident records, and audit trails that preserve decision integrity. The goal is to turn FAIs into routine verification events instead of panic-driven projects.

Effective support comes from connecting:

• WMS: receiving discipline, lot/location truth, quarantine holds, shipment linkage
• QMS: incident records, deviations, CAPA, supplier issues, controlled closure
• MES: execution evidence linking ingredient lots to batches and packaging runs
• Integration: supplier/ERP/logistics data unified into one evidence chain

• Platform overview: V5 Solution Overview
• Inventory + holds: Warehouse Management System (WMS)
• Quality governance: Quality Management System (QMS)
• Execution evidence: Manufacturing Execution System (MES)
• Integration layer: V5 Connect (API)

Tell it like it is: FAIs reward operators who can prove “not impacted” quickly. V5 is designed to make that proof easy.

12) Extended FAQ

Q1. Does an FAI require an immediate recall?
Not automatically. It requires monitoring and evaluation. If your exposure check shows you are impacted, action may be required.

Q2. What’s the most important first step?
Translate the alert scope into searchable criteria and run an exposure check immediately. If exposure can’t be ruled out fast, apply targeted holds.

Q3. What should we keep even if not impacted?
A closure record showing what you checked, what data you used, and why you concluded you were not exposed.

Q4. Why do FAIs cause over-holding?
Because weak traceability forces conservative action. If you can’t link supplier lots to finished lots quickly, you hold broadly “just in case.”

Q5. How do we stress-test readiness?
Pick a historical FAI scenario and run a timed drill: exposure check, targeted holds, impacted lot and customer list output, and a complete evidence pack.

Related Reading
Build monitoring discipline with Food Safety Incident Reporting, prove speed with 24-Hour Record Response, and keep scope narrow using End-to-End Lot Genealogy plus Quarantine. If exposure is confirmed, shift to Recall Readiness and validate response with Mock Recalls.