Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point, or HACCP, is a systematic method for controlling significant hazards within a process. It identifies where control is essential, defines the conditions that must be achieved and sets out how to detect and respond to loss of control.
HACCP is widely used in food safety for biological, chemical and physical hazards. Its central lesson is useful to other engineers: build effective control into the process and check its performance. Final-product inspection and testing alone cannot provide the same assurance.
Establish the foundations first
A food business needs effective prerequisite programmes before applying HACCP. These include the basic hygiene and operating arrangements on which the process depends. FAO guidance identifies Good Hygiene Practices as the foundation for HACCP. [1]
Assemble a team with knowledge of the product, process and relevant hazards. Describe the product, its distribution, intended use and consumers. Identify conditions that could make a hazard more important, including use by vulnerable groups.
Prepare a process flow diagram and confirm that it matches actual operations. Include material inputs, storage, processing, rework and relevant interfaces. A missing step can leave a hazard outside the analysis. FDA guidance includes these preparatory activities before application of the seven principles. [2]
Apply the seven principles
The seven principles form a connected process. The summary below includes validation of critical limits and the plan, as reflected in FAO’s HACCP Toolbox. [1]
Conduct a hazard analysis. Identify hazards, judge their significance and identify suitable control measures.
Determine the critical control points. Identify steps where control is essential for a significant hazard.
Establish validated critical limits. Define measurable or observable criteria that distinguish acceptable from unacceptable operation.
Establish monitoring. Specify how the team will detect whether each critical control point remains under control.
Establish corrective actions. Define the response to a deviation, including control of affected product.
Validate the plan and establish verification procedures. Obtain evidence that the approach can work and check that it works as intended.
Establish documentation and records. Retain the plan, its basis and evidence of its implementation.
Distinguish a critical control point from a useful check
Not every inspection or operating check is a critical control point, or CCP. The classification depends on the significant hazard, the control measure and the role of that process step. General housekeeping or supplier controls can be important without being designated CCPs.
For example, a cooking stage may control a significant microbiological hazard. The plan must establish an effective combination of process conditions for the actual food and equipment. A convenient temperature setting is not enough: the relevant conditions must be achieved where they matter to hazard control.
Define critical limits using applicable requirements and suitable scientific or technical evidence. State which product and operating conditions the validation covers. Do not transfer a limit from another process without checking that its basis applies.
Design monitoring for a timely response
For each CCP, specify what will be measured, how it will be measured, the frequency and the person responsible. Identify the equipment and competence needed. The monitoring arrangements must detect loss of control in time for the defined response.
Where continuous monitoring is not available, justify the sampling frequency and how affected production will be identified. Consider measurement uncertainty, sensor location, calibration and the consequences of a missed reading.
Operational warning limits or trend reviews can help detect deterioration before a critical limit is breached. Keep them distinct from the validated critical limit. Statistical changes need investigation where relevant; a series of readings just inside a limit does not establish that a process will remain controlled.
Plan the response before a deviation occurs
A corrective-action procedure needs to address both the process and the product. Restore control, identify and hold potentially affected product, assess its safety and determine its disposition. Record what happened and investigate the cause so that the deviation does not simply recur.
Assign responsibility and authority in advance. A line operator must know when to stop or escalate, and who can decide whether product may be released. Restarting equipment does not resolve uncertainty about material already processed.
Separate validation from verification
Validation asks whether the control measures and limits are capable of controlling the identified hazards under the specified conditions. Verification asks whether the implemented system follows the plan and performs as intended. Monitoring provides the routine observations used to control each CCP.
Verification can include record review, observation, instrument checks and appropriate testing. End-product tests can contribute evidence, but a limited sample may miss contamination in a batch. FDA guidance distinguishes routine CCP monitoring from wider verification activities. [2]
Review the plan after changes to ingredients, suppliers, equipment, process conditions or intended use. Reassess the relevant hazards and the validity of the control measures.
Case study the western US hamburger outbreak
A CDC investigation described a 1992–1993 outbreak associated with hamburgers from one restaurant chain. By the reporting period, more than 500 laboratory-confirmed E. coli O157:H7 infections and four associated deaths had occurred across four states. Investigators recovered the outbreak strain from uncooked patties and considered undercooking an important contributor. [3]
For HACCP, the lesson is to connect incoming-material hazards with an effective processing control. The cooking step needs a validated basis, appropriate monitoring and a defined response to deviations. A routine that appears consistent is insufficient if it does not reliably control the hazard.
This is a lesson drawn from the outbreak, not a claim that the investigation established the failure of a particular documented HACCP plan. The historical report is not a source of current cooking instructions.
Retain evidence that supports process control
The hazard analysis worksheet should explain each significant hazard, where it arises, why it matters and how it will be controlled. The HACCP plan should identify CCPs, critical limits, monitoring arrangements, corrective actions, validation, verification and records.
For other technical systems, the same questions can help identify where a process needs demonstrable control. Apply the relevant sector requirements and complementary analysis methods. HACCP does not replace the specialist work needed to identify unfamiliar hazards or establish that a proposed control is effective.
Hashtags
#HACCP, #HazardAnalysis, #FoodSafety, #CriticalControlPoints, #RiskManagement, #ProcessSafety, #SafetyAssurance
Sources
[1] Food and Agriculture Organization. Good Hygiene Practices and HACCP Toolbox for Food Safety. Introduction and linked implementation steps. 2023. Read source
[2] US Food and Drug Administration. HACCP Principles and Application Guidelines. National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods. Read source
[3] US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update Multistate Outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 Infections from Hamburgers Western United States 1992–1993. MMWR. 1993. Read source
