An AI workforce built for food & beverage brands. Eight specialists, trained on your SOPs and the rules your industry runs on. They draft, you approve — and every answer shows its citation.
A supplier reformulated and the spec changed quietly. Here's Codex Reg catching it before it ships — real engine, replayed.
Every hour your team loses to paperwork is an hour off your launch date. Every error is a recall waiting to happen. The cost compounds quietly — until something breaks.
Labels, COAs, spec sheets, supplier qualifications — every launch waits on the slowest document.
One undeclared allergen, one wrong claim, one missed state law — and the SKU comes down, brand value with it.
The bill shows up in headcount, outside fees, and last-minute expediting nobody wants to explain.
Each one is a senior role at a mid-market food brand. Each one is trained on your SOPs and shows the citation behind every answer. Chat with any of them at /try.
Reviews labels and claims. Tells you which states will let you ship and where you'd get a warning letter.
Builds audit binders. Investigates complaints. Writes CAPAs your auditor will accept.
Builds nutrition panels. Designs shelf-life studies. Keeps every formula change traceable.
Reviews ad copy, influencer posts, and packaging claims. Flags anything you can't defend.
Reads your Circana, NielsenIQ, and SPINS data. Designs surveys that don't lead the witness.
Reviews food-contact materials. Tracks state packaging laws so you don't miss a deadline.
Runs the demand-planning math. Maps your FSMA 204 traceability. Holds you to Walmart OTIF.
Runs your launch projects. Keeps you on retailer line-review windows. Nothing falls through the cracks.
Coming next: Codex Label · Codex Sales · Codex Ops · Codex Finance. See the full roadmap →
Every food company runs on internal SOPs, house spec templates, and conventions that aren't written down anywhere. We learn yours before we do any work.
Your SOPs, spec templates, brand voice, and approved-claims library go in on day one. That's what the specialists work from — not the open internet.
Never used to train anyone else. Never appears in another customer's work. We sign a data agreement before any of it lands with us.
After 30 days, the work sounds like your team. After six months, the specialist remembers things your team forgot.
Ask any general AI tool. Then ask Codex Reg. The difference is the whole product.
"Generally, FDA requires gluten-free foods to contain less than 20 ppm of gluten. Shared equipment can pose cross-contact risks, so you should implement robust allergen controls and validated cleaning procedures. Consider consulting a regulatory professional to review your specific situation."
Fluent, and not wrong. But it has never read your SOPs, doesn't know your co-packer, cites nothing, logs nothing — and hands the real work back to you.
"Yes — with two conditions met and one gap to close. §101.91 requires <20 ppm in finished product; your supplier's spec shows <10 ppm with current GFCO certification. Your own allergen SOP (SOP-FS-002, §3) requires a validated changeover with post-run swabs — your co-packer's last changeover validation is 14 months old, and your SOP requires annual. Request revalidation before the next run. VP Quality signoff required before print."
Cited to the regulation and your own documents. Gap found in your supplier file. Human signoff enforced. Full audit footer attached.
General AI tools are brilliant generalists — and they answer from memory, alone. F&B Codex answers from your SOPs, your specs, and the primary sources, keeps the receipts, and stops at the checkpoints your quality system requires. One is a conversation. The other is work you can put in front of an auditor.
A food scientist drops in a supplier's spec sheet for whole-grain sorghum. Codex R&D reads it against the company's own supplier-qualification SOP and the regulation: gluten <10 ppm with GFCO certification — comfortably inside the §101.91 threshold of 20 ppm — dedicated allergen-free facility, allergen matrix clean across the Big 9. Then the catch: the spec is version 4, effective three years ago. The recommendation lands with citations: qualified with conditions — request a current spec revision and a current-lot COA against the mycotoxin limits before first PO.
A QA manager asks on the floor, from a phone. Codex Quality answers from the company's own allergen-control SOP, section by section: documented changeover procedure in the co-packer's allergen plan, post-changeover swab testing for allergen residue, and per-lot verification — swab results or a production schedule proving no cross-contact run preceded the lot. Each requirement cited to the SOP section it comes from, ready to hand to the co-packer as a checklist. No binder hunt, no "I think it's in the shared drive."
Brand X was launching a gluten-free ancient-grain snack into 10 states. Codex Reg found a barley conflict buried in their own brand brief, three claims they couldn't defend, and a California Prop 65 plan they hadn't started. One review cycle. The reprint they avoided would have cost about $40K.
One short call. One short agreement. The specialists doing real work by week two.
Pick one workflow. Send three real examples. Leave the call with a clear scope and a draft agreement landing the next day.
Plain English. Mutual NDA. Your data stays yours. Liability cap. Exit clause. Outside counsel reviews it in twenty minutes.
Your SOPs, spec templates, and brand voice go into your private space. This is what makes the specialist yours — not a generic tool.
Send a task. A draft lands in your inbox the next business day with the citation behind every finding. You review, approve, and it's done.