Compliance
DIN 10523 describes how pest control in food businesses is planned, carried out and documented. The point where businesses get stuck in an audit is almost always the documentation.DIN 10523 governs pest control in the food sector. In an audit, it almost always comes down to the documentation.
As of 10/2026 · sources linked directly on the page
Inspections must be verifiable: when, where, with what result. A spot check every four weeks is proof for the day of the spot check, not for the three weeks in between.
The standard requires a risk-based assessment. That takes data on where there really is activity.
Digital traps do not replace an expert. They give the expert the basis for making decisions.
What the standard requires
DIN 10523 (food hygiene, pest control in the food sector) describes pest control as a cycle of prevention, infestation detection, control and documentation, based on the risk profile of the business.
Structural and organizational measures that prevent pests from getting in and settling.
Repeated alerts at the same spot reveal entry points, such as a door or a wall opening.
Regular inspections with suitable monitoring systems at defined checkpoints.
Digital stations monitor every checkpoint around the clock, not just on inspection day.
Measures only by qualified personnel and tailored to the infestation found.
Poison is only used once an infestation is confirmed, and the expert makes the decision.
Site map of checkpoints, logs of inspections and of the measures taken.
The site map, time-stamped events and responses are kept in one history and can be exported for the audit.
The type, scope and frequency of measures depend on the risk profile of the business.
The history per area is the data basis for the expert's risk assessment.
Sources: DIN 10523 at DIN Media (fee-based) Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, Annex II
Summary in our own words, the text of the standard is authoritative.
The standard requires a history, not a snapshot. That is exactly the difference between a signed inspection list and a continuous log: one shows that someone was there. The other shows what happened between visits.
Digital stations create this history automatically: a time stamp per event, the response documented, exportable for the audit.
Frequently asked questions
No. DIN 10523 requires planning, expertise and a risk-based assessment by an expert, and no sensor replaces that. Digital monitoring delivers the part of the records that used to be the weakest: a continuous history per station instead of a spot check on inspection day.
Not necessarily. It makes sense wherever a complete history matters, for example in goods receiving, storage and production. Manual inspections remain part of the program and are recorded in the same traplinked App, so everything is in one history.
Yes. What matters is traceability: who saw and did what, and when. A digital log answers that for every day with a time stamp and response, and the IFS guideline on pest control describes digital monitoring as the new state of the art.
Read more
A conversation clears up more than three pages of text.