What this is
What is a HACCP plan?
What is a HACCP plan?
A documented system identifying food safety hazards significant enough to require control, determining the critical control points at which they are controlled, and specifying critical limits, monitoring, corrective action, verification and record keeping for each. Codex sets out twelve steps of which the last seven are the HACCP principles.
How does it relate to a FSMA food safety plan?
They overlap substantially and are not identical. The preventive controls framework recognises process, allergen, sanitation and supply chain controls, several of which are not CCPs in the classical sense. A facility subject to the preventive controls rule needs a food safety plan meeting that rule, and a HACCP plan alone may not satisfy it.
Scope
When is a haccp plan required?
This is the plan itself. The records it generates and the programmes it depends on sit separately.
Use this template when
- Documenting the hazard analysis, CCP determination, critical limits, monitoring and verification for a product or product group
- Reassessment at least annually and on any change affecting the hazard analysis
- New product, process, ingredient, supplier, equipment or packaging introduction
- Following a deviation, complaint, recall or regulatory finding indicating the analysis was incomplete
- Supporting scheme certification requirements built on HACCP principles
Do not use it for
- Prerequisite programmes, which control the general conditions the plan assumes to be in place
- Monitoring records generated under the plan, which are the evidence of its operation
- Validation studies for critical limits, which are technical work referenced by the plan
- The FSMA food safety plan, where the preventive controls rule applies and requires additional elements
- Product specifications, which the plan references rather than contains
Compliance mapping
Which Codex Alimentarius requirements does this satisfy?
HACCP is defined by Codex and adopted into regulation and scheme requirements with local variations.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| Codex CXC 1-1969 | Twelve steps including the seven HACCP principles, with prerequisite programmes as the foundation | Team and preliminaries |
| Codex principle 1 | Conduct a hazard analysis and identify control measures | Hazard analysis |
| Codex principle 2 | Determine the critical control points | CCP details |
| Codex principles 3-5 | Establish validated critical limits, monitoring, and corrective actions | CCP details |
| Codex principles 6-7 | Establish verification procedures and documentation and record keeping | Plan quality |
| 21 CFR 117 Subpart C | Food safety plan with hazard analysis and preventive controls, prepared by a PCQI | Header |
| 9 CFR 417 | HACCP for meat and poultry, including reassessment at least annually | Plan quality |
| SQF Edition 9 cl.2.4 | Food safety plan validated and verified, developed by qualified personnel | Team and preliminaries |
What it does not cover
- Prerequisite programmes, controlling the general conditions the plan assumes.
- Monitoring records, which are the evidence the plan is operating.
- Validation studies establishing that the critical limits control the hazard.
- The FSMA food safety plan, where the preventive controls rule applies and requires additional elements.
- Training records evidencing that those monitoring CCPs are competent to do so.
How to complete it
How to complete a haccp plan, step by step
Get the preliminaries right, justify every decision, and keep the number of CCPs honest.
Walk the process and confirm the diagram matches, including rework loops, holding steps, sampling points and any bypass route. Plans are routinely built on a diagram drawn when the line was installed, and rework in particular is the step most often missing and most often implicated in problems.
For each hazard at each step: likelihood, severity, and why it is or is not significant. Where a hazard is controlled elsewhere, say where. This is the field auditors examine and the one most frequently absent, and writing it forces the analysis to happen at each step rather than at the interesting ones.
A CCP is a step where control is essential and loss of control would result in an unacceptable risk. Steps that are important but where failure would be caught later, or where a prerequisite programme provides adequate control, are not CCPs. Plans with fifteen CCPs dilute monitoring attention and normalise deviation.
A limit must be measurable at the point of control, achievable by the equipment in use, and validated as sufficient to control the hazard. Limits taken from a code of practice and never tested against the actual product and equipment are assumptions, and they surface as a problem during a deviation rather than during an audit.
What auditors find
Most common haccp plan findings
HACCP findings concentrate on justification, on CCP inflation, and on reassessment.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Hazard analysis records conclusions without reasoning. | Codex principle 1 | Record likelihood, severity and why each hazard is or is not significant. |
| Flow diagram not verified on site. | Codex step 5 | Walk the process; rework loops and bypass routes are routinely absent from diagrams. |
| Excessive CCPs where prerequisite programmes provide control. | Codex principle 2 | Reserve CCPs for steps where control is essential; inflation dilutes monitoring. |
| Critical limits not validated for the actual process and equipment. | Codex principle 3 | Validate against your product and line; borrowed limits are assumptions. |
| No reassessment despite an ingredient, supplier or equipment change. | 9 CFR 417.4 | Any change affecting the hazard analysis triggers reassessment, not only the annual cycle. |
| Rework not addressed in the hazard analysis. | Codex principle 1 | Rework carries hazards and allergen profile forward; it belongs in the analysis explicitly. |
| Corrective actions not specified in advance for each CCP. | Codex principle 5 | Define before a deviation occurs, including product disposition and the extent boundary. |
| Verification confused with monitoring. | Codex principle 6 | Monitoring operates the control; verification confirms the system works. |
| HACCP plan presented as satisfying the preventive controls rule. | 21 CFR 117 | The rule requires additional elements; a HACCP plan alone may not satisfy it. |
| Team lacking the process knowledge to challenge the analysis. | SQF 2.4 | Include people who run the line; the analysis needs process reality as well as technical knowledge. |
Case in point
Case in point: the step that was not on the diagram
A ready meal producer maintained a HACCP plan with three CCPs, reviewed annually, verified and certified. The flow diagram had been drawn when the line was commissioned and had been carried forward through each review unchanged.
A complaint investigation traced a problem to a holding step that did not appear on the diagram. Trays that failed a weight check were set aside on a rack beside the line and reintroduced at the next changeover, sometimes several hours later. The practice had begun as a temporary arrangement during a busy period two years earlier.
It was not a rogue practice. Supervisors knew the rack was there, the arrangement was efficient, and nobody had raised it against the HACCP plan because the plan described a process that did not include the step.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
5 sections
- Reference
- QUA-046
- Archetype
- Plan
- Record ID
- HACCP-2026-000
- Scoring
- Not scored
- Direction
- n/a
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- Codex Alimentarius, FSMA
- Links
- Feeds CCP Monitoring, Verification
- Tags
- Food safety, Plan
- Sections
- 5
- Fields
- 61
- Follow up fields
- 4
- Repeating sections
- 2
- Links out
- 5
Header
10 fieldsHACCP ID*
Auto sequence. Format HACCP-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Plan Name*
Version*
Issue Date*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Products Covered*
Process Covered*
Next Review Due*
Team and preliminaries
9 fieldsHACCP Team Members*
Team Leader*
Team Formally Trained*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Product Description Complete*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Intended Use Defined*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Vulnerable Consumer Groups Considered*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Flow Diagram Attached*
Flow Diagram Verified On Site*
Walk the line against the diagram. Diagrams drift from reality faster than anything else in the plan.
- Yes, this year3 pts
- Over a year ago1 pt
- Never0 pts
Verification Date
Hazard analysis
Repeats11 fieldsProcess Step*
Hazard Type*
Biological, chemical, physical, allergen or radiological.
Hazard Description*
Likelihood*
- Rare3 pts
- Possible1 pt
- Likely0 pts
Severity*
- Minor3 pts
- Moderate1 pt
- Serious0 pts
Significant Hazard*
Control Measure*
Controlled By Prerequisite*
Decision Tree Applied*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Is This A CCP*
CCP Number
CCP details
Repeats15 fieldsCCP Number*
Process Step*
Hazard Controlled*
Critical Limit*
A measurable value with a defensible scientific basis, not a target.
Basis For Limit*
Validation Evidence
Monitoring What*
Monitoring How*
- Continuous automated4 pts
- Instrument reading3 pts
- Visual check1 pt
- Sample test2 pts
Monitoring Frequency*
- Quarterly or better4 pts
- Annually3 pts
- Every 2 to 3 years1 pt
- None0 pts
Monitoring Who*
Recorded Where
Links to QUA-048 Log ID
Corrective Action On Deviation*
Product Disposition Rule*
Verification Activity*
Verification Frequency*
Plan quality
16 fieldsPrerequisite Plan Referenced*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Prerequisite Plan ID
Links to QUA-049 Plan ID
Allergen Plan Referenced*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
All CCPs Have Validated Limits*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
All CCPs Have Monitoring Records*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Number Of CCPs*
Too many CCPs usually means prerequisites are being misclassified. Too few means hazards are uncontrolled.
Plan Document
Document ID
Format DOC-0000.
Links to FDN-008 Document ID
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
HACCP Team Leader*
Signature*
Site Manager*
Second Signature*
QUA-046 · record IDs look like HACCP-2026-000 · Feeds CCP Monitoring, Verification
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The plan is the food safety system's foundation. What fails is the reasoning nobody recorded and the process step that was never on the diagram.
Holds the hazard analysis with reasoning per hazard per step, links CCPs to their monitoring records, and triggers reassessment on change.
Watches ingredient, supplier, equipment and packaging changes for hazard analysis impact, rather than waiting for the annual reassessment.
Confirms that those monitoring CCPs are trained for the specific limit and reaction plan, and retrains when the plan changes.
Connects equipment used at CCPs to calibration and maintenance, since a critical limit is only as good as the instrument measuring it.
This template lives in KnowQuality — quality and food safety. HACCP, nonconformance, traceability, laboratory and customer complaints.
Meet KnowQuality→Glossary
HACCP Plan definitions and key terms
- Critical control point
- A step at which control is essential to prevent or eliminate a hazard or reduce it to an acceptable level.
- Critical limit
- A measurable criterion separating acceptable from unacceptable, validated as sufficient to control the hazard.
- Prerequisite programme
- Basic conditions and activities necessary to maintain a hygienic environment, on which the HACCP plan depends.
- Validation
- Evidence that the control measures are capable of controlling the hazard, performed before implementation and on change.
- Verification
- Confirmation that the plan is being implemented as intended and remains effective, distinct from monitoring.
- Significance decision
- The judgement that a hazard is reasonably likely to occur and severe enough to require control, requiring recorded reasoning.
- Reassessment
- Review of the plan, required at least annually and on any change that could affect the hazard analysis.
- Flow diagram verification
- On-site confirmation that the documented process matches the process as operated, a Codex step in its own right.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about haccp plan
What is the most common defect in a HACCP plan?+
A hazard analysis that records conclusions without reasoning. Listing hazards and marking significance produces a document that looks complete and cannot answer the question an auditor asks, which is why a particular hazard was judged not significant at a particular step. Recording likelihood, severity and where else the hazard is controlled is what makes the analysis defensible.
Can you have too many CCPs?+
Yes, and it is a defect rather than caution. A CCP requires monitoring, defined critical limits, corrective action, verification and records. Spreading that discipline across fifteen steps where it is genuinely needed at three dilutes attention, normalises deviation and makes the real CCPs harder to protect. Steps controlled adequately by prerequisite programmes are not CCPs.
Does a HACCP plan satisfy FSMA?+
Not necessarily. The preventive controls rule requires a food safety plan with hazard analysis and preventive controls that include process, allergen, sanitation and supply chain controls, several of which are not CCPs in the classical sense, and it must be prepared or overseen by a preventive controls qualified individual. A facility subject to the rule needs a plan meeting it.
How often must the plan be reassessed?+
At least annually, and whenever a change could affect the hazard analysis: a new ingredient, supplier, formulation, process step, item of equipment, packaging or intended use. The change trigger is the one that fails, because changes are made by people who do not think of them as food safety events.
What does flow diagram verification involve?+
Walking the process and confirming the diagram matches what happens, including rework loops, holding steps, sampling points and bypass routes. It is a distinct Codex step and it is frequently performed as a desk review, which confirms the process everyone believes is running rather than the one that is.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in HACCP and Food Safety
Unannounced Audit Readiness Check
Checks whether the site would pass an audit arriving today, covering records, standards and area condition
Product Nonconformance Report
Records product that does not meet specification
Hold and Release Record
Places suspect product on hold and records the decision to release, rework or scrap it
HACCP Verification Record
Confirms the HACCP plan is being followed and still works
CCP Monitoring Log
Records readings at a critical control point, such as cook temperature, chill time or metal detection
Prerequisite Programme Plan
Sets out the basic conditions that must be in place for HACCP to work, covering hygiene, maintenance, pest control and training
More in Food Safety
HACCP Verification Record
Confirms the HACCP plan is being followed and still works
CCP Monitoring Log
Records readings at a critical control point, such as cook temperature, chill time or metal detection
Prerequisite Programme Plan
Sets out the basic conditions that must be in place for HACCP to work, covering hygiene, maintenance, pest control and training
Allergen Control Plan
Sets out how allergens are managed from receipt through to labelling, including segregation and changeover
Allergen Changeover Check
Confirms the line is clear of the previous allergen before the next product runs
Glass and Brittle Plastic Register
Lists every item of glass or hard plastic in production areas, with its location and condition
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- Codex Alimentarius CXC 1-1969, General Principles of Food Hygiene including the HACCP system
- 21 CFR Part 117 Subpart C, hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls, FDA
- 9 CFR Part 417, hazard analysis and critical control point systems, USDA FSIS
- SQF Edition 9 clause 2.4 and BRCGS Food Safety Issue 9 section 2
- ISO 22000:2018, food safety management systems
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.