Your orchard may have passed audits for years.

You may have folders full of forms.

You may have checklists, policies, registers, and procedures that have been used season after season.

But that does not always mean the system is current.

For fruit and vegetable growers, GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance has moved to IFA Version 6.

Since 1 January 2025, fruit and vegetable audits must be carried out against either:

• IFA v6 Smart, or
• IFA v6 GFS

That means older checklists, wording, references, and evidence systems may no longer match the standard your orchard is being assessed against.

The problem is not always obvious.

An outdated compliance system can still look organised.

It may only become clear when an auditor asks for evidence that the old documents were never designed to provide.

Here are seven warning signs that your orchard compliance system may still be based on an older standard.

1. Your Forms Still Refer to an Older GLOBALG.A.P. Version

Start by looking at the headings and footers on your forms.

Do they mention:

• IFA v5?
• Version 5.2?
• Version 5.4-1?
• Old control point numbers?
• Old checklist names?
• A superseded programme version?

Older forms are not automatically useless.

Some of the information they collect may still be relevant.

But old references are a clear sign that the document has not been properly reviewed against the current standard.

IFA v6 uses principles and criteria rather than the older control point and compliance criteria structure.

It also uses a more streamlined and outcome-focused approach.

If your entire system still follows the old structure, it may be time for a proper review.

2. The Wording Focuses Only on Completing a Form

Older compliance systems can become heavily focused on whether a document was completed.

The form was signed.

The box was ticked.

The register exists.

But IFA v6 places more emphasis on the required outcome and whether the grower can show that it has been achieved.

That means an auditor may look beyond the form.

They may ask:

• Is the control working?
• Does the site match the record?
• Can the worker explain the process?
• Is the evidence current?
• Has the grower responded when something changed?

A completed form is useful evidence.

But it is not proof on its own.

If your system mainly measures whether paperwork exists, rather than whether the required result has been achieved, it may still be operating with an older mindset.

3. Your Records Do Not Link Clearly to Real Orchard Work

Good audit evidence should connect to what actually happened.

For example, a contractor record should help show:

• Who completed the work
• What service they provided
• When the work took place
• Which orchard or block was involved
• Whether their approval was current
• Whether related records were received

The same principle applies to:

• Spray applications
• Fertiliser applications
• Training
• Inductions
• Environmental inspections
• Corrective actions
• Worker communication

If your records exist but cannot be connected to a specific job, block, worker, contractor, or date, the evidence may be too weak.

This is one of the clearest signs that a compliance system needs updating.

The orchard story should be traceable.

4. Your Documents Have Not Been Reviewed for Several Years

Every orchard compliance document should have some form of review control.

That might include:

• A review date
• A version number
• An approval date
• The name of the person who reviewed it
• A record of what changed

If the same risk assessment, procedure, or policy has been used for years without review, ask whether it still reflects the operation.

Orchards change.

Contractors change.

Workers change.

Machinery changes.

Buyer requirements change.

Standards change.

A document written four years ago may still contain useful information, but it should not be assumed to be current.

An old review date is not just an administration issue.

It may indicate that the risks, controls, and responsibilities have not been tested against present conditions.

5. Important Evidence Is Missing From the System

Sometimes the document says the right thing, but the evidence behind it is missing.

For example:

The procedure says workers are trained.

But there is no current training record.

The contractor policy says approval is checked.

But there is no saved evidence of the check.

The environmental plan says spills are reviewed.

But no inspection or follow-up record can be found.

The complaint process says concerns are recorded.

But there is no register or outcome evidence.

IFA v6 provides flexibility in how growers demonstrate compliance.

That flexibility makes evidence more important, not less important.

The grower still needs to show that the required outcome has been achieved.

If your system tells people what should happen but does not capture proof that it did happen, there is a gap.

6. The Site and the Paperwork Tell Different Stories

This is one of the fastest ways to expose an outdated system.

The paperwork says chemical storage is controlled.

But containers are poorly organised.

The emergency plan lists an old contact.

The induction refers to an access point that is no longer used.

The environmental map does not show a newer drain or sensitive area.

The contractor process says inductions happen before work begins.

But workers cannot explain the orchard rules.

When written systems drift away from real practice, audit confidence drops.

IFA v6 checklists are designed around the producer’s actual production practices.

That means your orchard evidence should reflect the orchard as it operates today.

Not how it operated when the document was first written.

7. No One Can Confirm Whether Smart or GFS Applies

The final warning sign is uncertainty about the certification pathway itself.

IFA v6 Smart is the main pathway for most producers.

IFA v6 GFS is used where GFSI-recognised certification is required by the supply chain.

The correct pathway may depend on:

• Your buyer
• Your exporter
• Your packhouse
• Your destination market
• Your certification programme
• A recognised national scheme
• Additional customer requirements

If the orchard team cannot clearly explain which pathway applies, there is a risk that the system has been built or maintained against the wrong requirements.

New Zealand GAP – GLOBAL Version 7 has been benchmarked as equivalent to IFA v6 Smart for fruit and vegetables.

However, growers should still confirm that their chosen certification route meets their buyer and market requirements.

Do not assume.

Confirm first.

Why Older Systems Create Audit Risk

An older system does not always fail because every document is wrong.

It fails because small mismatches build up.

One form uses outdated wording.

One contractor record cannot be linked to the job.

One risk assessment has not been reviewed.

One policy describes a process that no longer happens.

One missing record makes a control difficult to prove.

Together, these gaps can make an otherwise responsible orchard look less controlled than it really is.

That is why document review matters.

The goal is not to replace every form for the sake of appearance.

The goal is to make sure the system reflects:

• The current standard
• The current orchard
• The current risks
• The current people
• The current supply-chain requirements

A Simple Warning-Sign Check

Ask yourself:

• Do our forms still refer to an old GLOBALG.A.P. version?
• Are we focused more on forms than outcomes?
• Can records be linked to actual orchard work?
• Have documents been reviewed recently?
• Can we show evidence that our procedures are being followed?
• Does the site match the paperwork?
• Do we know whether Smart or GFS applies?

If several answers are unclear, your orchard compliance system may need a structured review.

That does not always mean starting again.

Often, the foundation is already there.

The work is in identifying what is still useful, what needs updating, and what evidence is missing.

A Note for Growers Outside New Zealand

IFA v6 is used internationally.

The certification pathway, national guidance, legal setting, buyer expectations, and approved schemes may differ between countries.

But the warning signs are similar:

• Old versions
• Outdated references
• Missing proof
• Documents that do not match practice
• Unclear customer requirements
• Records that cannot be traced to real work

Growers outside New Zealand should confirm the applicable edition and align their compliance system with local law, certification rules, and buyer requirements.

Final Thought

An organised folder is not always a current system.

GLOBALG.A.P. IFA v6 asks growers to show that required outcomes are being achieved.

That means documents, records, site conditions, and worker knowledge should support each other.

If your system still relies on older forms, outdated wording, weak evidence, or documents that have not been reviewed, now is the time to check it.

At Way Safe Biz, we help orchard businesses review existing compliance systems, identify outdated or missing evidence, and turn scattered paperwork into practical audit-ready proof.

Our Way Safe Biz DIY Compliance Bundle is also being developed for growers and contractors who want editable tools and clearer structure.

You can register your expression of interest below.

Current documents.
Clear evidence.
Audit-ready confidence.

– Esther, Way Safe Biz