AI Label Compliance Checking for Food and Pet Food

Today: FDA 21 CFR for human and pet food, AAFCO model regulations for animal feed, and EU FIC 1169/2011 for the European market. Those are the three we have built and tested against. Others are a matter of loading the text and writing the checks — CFIA and FSANZ are the usual next asks — but we would rather add a regime properly than claim coverage we have not verified.

No, and we would not sell it as that. What it replaces is the first pass — the mechanical clause-by-clause read where mistakes come from fatigue rather than judgement. The reviewer still signs off, but they start from a list of flagged items with citations attached instead of a blank page and forty labels.

By not letting it rely on memory. The rules are retrieved from the actual regulatory text at the moment of checking, and the finding quotes what was retrieved. A model asked to recall 21 CFR from training will produce something that reads correctly and cites a clause number that does not say what it claims — which is worse than no answer, because it is confidently wrong.

Print-ready PDFs are the common case and the one it handles best, because the text is real text. It also reads flattened artwork and photographs of finished packs, using the same extraction we use for other documents. Accuracy drops on a photograph of a curved bottle, and it will tell you when it is unsure rather than guess.

It gets flagged as a judgement call rather than a pass or a fail. Some requirements are mechanical — type height, mandatory statements, panel placement — and a machine should decide those. Others turn on interpretation, and the useful thing the system can do is surface the clause and the precedent and let a person decide.

That is a decision you make, not one we make for you. We can run this inside your tenancy so nothing leaves, or hosted by us if you would rather not run it. Pre-launch packaging is commercially sensitive and we treat it that way; the deployment question gets settled before any artwork moves.

Accuracy depends on which check. Mechanical requirements — is the net quantity present, is the type tall enough — are close to exact because they are measurable. Interpretive ones are lower and always will be. Rather than quote you one number that averages those together and means nothing, we run your own labels through during the assessment and give you the breakdown per check type.

For the regimes already built, days rather than months: we need your label formats, a sample set, and whatever house rules you apply on top of the regulations. Most of the setup time goes on those house rules, because every manufacturer has some, and they are usually in somebody's head rather than in a document.

It depends on volume and on whether you want it in your own environment. Every project starts with a free assessment: send a handful of labels, including ones you know have problems, and we will show you what it catches and what it misses. You will get that back within 24 hours from the engineer who would build it.