What a North American Buyer's QA Reviewer Actually Checks北美买家的质量审核员到底在看什么

Most first-time exporters find out what a buyer’s QA team wants after the buyer asks for it, usually mid-negotiation, usually with a short deadline. The list below is not exhaustive and every buyer’s checklist looks a little different, but these are the categories that come up again and again.

FDA facility registration

Any facility outside the US that manufactures, processes, packs, or holds food intended for US consumption has to register with the FDA and renew that registration every two years. It’s a baseline check, not a certification of quality, but a buyer’s compliance team will ask for your registration number early and will not move forward without one.

The Foreign Supplier Verification Program

Under FSMA, the legal obligation to verify a foreign supplier’s food safety practices sits with the US importer of record, not with you. In practice, though, the importer’s verification work runs through your paperwork: your hazard analysis, your process controls, your testing records. A supplier who already has these organized moves through this step faster than one who has to assemble them on request.

GFSI-recognized certification

Retail and foodservice buyers increasingly ask for certification under a scheme recognized by the Global Food Safety Initiative, most commonly SQF, BRCGS, or FSSC 22000. Not every buyer requires it, but many large retail accounts treat it as a precondition rather than a nice-to-have. If you’re targeting that tier of buyer, find out which scheme they prefer before you invest in an audit.

A Certificate of Analysis that actually says something

A CoA is supposed to be batch-specific. At minimum, it should name:

• the lot number
• the test date
• the testing lab
• the actual results, measured against a stated limit

A surprising number of the CoAs that circulate in early supplier conversations are generic, undated, or carry the phrase “results on file” without attaching the file. A reviewer who has seen a few hundred of these will notice the difference in about ten seconds. It’s a fast way to lose credibility before the conversation has really started.

Contaminant and heavy-metal screening

For tea specifically, lead and cadmium levels have drawn scrutiny in the US, partly because of California’s Proposition 65 warning requirements for products containing certain chemicals above defined thresholds. This doesn’t mean every tea needs a warning label, but a buyer’s QA team will often want to see recent heavy-metal test results as part of onboarding, especially for a first order.

Labeling that matches US format, not just US language

A Nutrition Facts panel built to US FDA formatting rules is a different document from a Chinese nutrition label translated into English. This is also the single biggest reason FDA turns back a China-origin tea shipment in the first place: in our own review of FDA’s import-refusal data, mislabeling accounted for 40.0 percent of China-origin tea refusals, versus 6.9 percent for pesticide residue, the thing most suppliers worry about instead. See the full data breakdown for the methodology.

The format gaps that cause this are specific and differ by document:

• Nutrition Facts panel — serving size conventions, rounding rules, and required nutrients differ from a translated Chinese label.
• Country-of-origin marking — has its own placement and wording requirements.
• Allergen declarations — must follow the US format, not just list the same allergens.

Buyers will flag a label that reads correctly but is not built to the US template.

None of this is a reason to be intimidated. It’s a reason to have the paperwork organized before the first buyer conversation instead of during it. A supplier who can hand over a clean registration number, a real CoA, and a straight answer on certification status looks materially more ready than one who has to go find those things after being asked.