Strategic differences: why an agrifood laboratory cannot rely on generic management software
Table of contents
The mistake agrifood laboratories make when choosing software
There is a conversation that keeps coming up at sector trade shows and on LinkedIn groups for laboratory managers: “We use the same software as the factory’s quality department. At the end of the day, it’s all document management, isn’t it?”
No. It is not. And the difference becomes visible, with real consequences, at the worst possible moment: during a BRC certification audit or a food safety authority inspection.
A generic management tool, however powerful it may be at document handling or production process control, was not designed to manage the specific logic of an analytical laboratory. It does not understand what a sample chain of custody is. It cannot calculate measurement uncertainty. It cannot generate a test report with the structure required by ISO 17025.
What makes an agrifood laboratory so special?
The agrifood testing laboratory is one of the most demanding analytical environments. Its work covers multiple matrices (solid foods, liquids, process water, agricultural soils), multiple regulatory frameworks (food safety, drinking water, organic production) and multiple client types with different requirements (industries, cooperatives, public administrations).
Five particularities that set an agrifood laboratory apart
| Particularity | Why it matters for management | What the software must deliver |
|---|---|---|
| Traceability down to the production batch | A non-conformity must be traceable to a specific agricultural or industrial batch | Sample-batch-producer linkage with full history |
| Multiple matrices with specific methods | A solid food is analysed differently from process water or soil | Method configuration per matrix, with no type limitations |
| Food certifications (BRC, IFS, FSSC 22000) | Certification audits demand very specific documentary evidence | Automated generation of scheme-required documentation |
| Pesticide residues and contaminants | Multi-residue analysis with hundreds of simultaneous compounds | Handling of extensive parameter lists with thresholds per regulation |
| Process water control under food-industry water rules | Food companies use water in contact with food and must monitor it | Parameterisation aligned with applicable national regulation and reporting formats |
Water regulations in the food industry: a growing demand driver
Modern water quality regulations (such as the EU Drinking Water Directive 2020/2184, transposed nationally in Spain as Royal Decree 3/2023, and equivalent frameworks in the UK and the US) do not just affect water supply operators. They also directly impact food-sector companies that use water in their production processes: washing vegetables, preparing food, cleaning equipment in contact with food, or producing beverages.
These companies are obliged to perform self-monitoring of process water with updated parameters, including the newly incorporated contaminants: PFAS, bisphenol A, chlorites, chlorates and watch-list parameters.
A laboratory analysing process water for a food industry client must be accredited (ISO/IEC 17025) for the relevant analyses and generate reports with full traceability that the client can present during certification audits.
National reporting systems: the Spanish SINAC case
In Spain, food-industry laboratories analysing water for human consumption must upload results to SINAC (the national information system on drinking water). A specialised LIMS automates the export of compliant XML files. In the UK (DWI returns), the US (SDWIS) and other jurisdictions, equivalent reporting obligations apply. The underlying capability is the same: structured export to the national regulator in the required format.
This creates a scenario where the agrifood laboratory must simultaneously manage: food analysis, process water analysis and agricultural soil analysis, all within a single system that understands the differences between each matrix type.
Why generic software fails in this environment
It does not understand the sample as the unit of work: In a standard ERP, the basic unit of work is the order or the production job. In a laboratory, the basic unit is the sample: it has an origin, a matrix, a chain of custody, a set of associated analyses and a result that must be validated before release. An ERP can handle the billing of that service, but not the analytical workflow that generates it.
It cannot calculate measurement uncertainty: ISO/IEC 17025 requires accredited laboratories to report the uncertainty of their results. Calculating the expanded uncertainty of a pesticide residue analysis in complex matrices requires metrological logic that no generic ERP or document manager incorporates. A specialised LIMS calculates it automatically and includes it in the test report.
It does not generate compliant certification documentation: A test report for a BRC or IFS audit must follow a specific format and content: header with accreditation data, accredited scope number, reference methods used, measurement uncertainty, technical director signature. A generic document manager can store that document, but it cannot generate it in a structured and automated way from the analytical data.
It does not interoperate with laboratory instruments: A triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer for PFAS analysis by LC-MS/MS does not speak to SAP. It speaks to a LIMS through standard communication protocols (ASTM, RS-232, TCP/IP). The LIMS captures results, validates them against analytical quality criteria and integrates them into the workflow. An ERP simply does not do this.
The specialised LIMS as a competitive advantage
An agrifood laboratory working with a specialised LIMS has concrete advantages over competitors using generic solutions:
Shorter turnaround times: Automation of the analytical workflow reduces the time from sample reception to report issuance.
Lower error rate: Instrument integration eliminates manual transcription, the main source of non-conformities.
Audit preparation in minutes: All traceability documentation is immediately available.
Scalability for new parameters: When regulation adds new analytes (as happened with the 20 PFAS under EU Directive 2020/2184), the system adapts without reimplementation.
Integrated customer portal: The client can check results in real time, without waiting for the report email.
How to choose the right LIMS for an agrifood laboratory
Not all LIMS are created equal. When evaluating options for an agrifood laboratory, these are the differentiating criteria that matter most:
| Evaluation criterion | Concrete question to ask the vendor |
|---|---|
| Multi-matrix support | Can it simultaneously handle food, water and soil with different methods per matrix? |
| Uncertainty calculation | Does the system automatically calculate expanded uncertainty per GUM/EURACHEM? |
| Certification documentation | Does it generate reports compatible with BRC, IFS and FSSC 22000 directly from the data? |
| Accredited scope on the report | Does it automatically include the accredited scope number and reference methods? |
| LC-MS/MS integration for PFAS | Does it have proven integration with the most common chromatography equipment on the market? |
| Regulatory reporting export | Does it generate the XML file compatible with SINAC (Spain), DWI (UK), SDWIS (US) or equivalent? |
| Customer portal | Can the client consult results in real time from their own access? |
| Pesticide residues | Can it handle multi-residue analysis with hundreds of compounds and thresholds per destination regulation? |
Key facts
▶ Modern drinking-water regulations oblige food industries that use water in contact with food to perform self-monitoring with updated parameters, including PFAS.
▶ Food certification schemes BRC, IFS and FSSC 22000 require documentary traceability that must be generated from the laboratory management system.
▶ ISO/IEC 17025 requires reporting measurement uncertainty in test reports. EURACHEM guides establish the calculation methodology.
▶ Agrifood laboratories must verify the accredited scope of their analytical provider in the national accreditation body’s scope search before contracting PFAS analyses.
▶ ENAC-accredited LC-MS/MS methodologies (and equivalent accreditations under UKAS, A2LA, NELAP) are the current standard for PFAS analysis in drinking water and food-industry process water.
Does your laboratory handle agrifood matrices? Discover how Zendo LIMS manages food, process water and soils from a single platform. Specialised demo available.
Susana Martín Castaño
International Sales Consultant
With over 20 years of experience in the UK and Spain, she is a laboratory IT expert specialising in Zendo LIMS implementations. As the current head of international sales, she has optimized operations for around 40 laboratories in nearly 50 countries.
