Level 3 HACCP

Module 5: Developing the HACCP principles

Develop justified hazards, CCPs, limits, monitoring and corrective action, supported by documentation, validation and verification.

Video runtime: 12:53

What you will learn in this module
  • Each principle supports the next; an isolated check or record does not make an effective system.
  • Monitoring needs defined roles, methods, timing, limits and action that staff can perform reliably.
  • Validation asks whether the control can work; verification checks whether it works and is followed in practice.

Load this video from YouTube. Your browser will connect to YouTube; embedding follows your cookie preferences.

Watch on YouTube (opens a new tab)

External playback does not record on-page study progress.

Module 5: Developing the HACCP principles

Module 5: Developing the HACCP principles

Develop justified hazards, CCPs, limits, monitoring and corrective action, supported by documentation, validation and verification.

Records your study progress, not an assessment result or certificate.

Browse course modules

Key points

  • Each principle supports the next; an isolated check or record does not make an effective system.
  • Hazard analysis must consider significant real-process risks, including severe hazards that occur rarely.
  • Justify CCPs by the significant hazard and process; do not label every good-practice task as critical.
  • Use evidence-based, process-suitable limits and a reliable assessment method rather than guesswork.
  • Monitoring needs defined roles, methods, timing, limits and action that staff can perform reliably.
  • Corrective plans must address affected food, immediate control, records, escalation and prevention of repeat failures.
  • Keep procedures current and records honest, and review repeated failures or missing checks to improve the system.
  • Validation asks whether the control can work; verification checks whether it works and is followed in practice.

Lesson guide

5.1 Connect the principles

The HACCP principles organise prevention into a system: hazard analysis, CCP identification, critical limits, monitoring, corrective action, verification and suitable documentation and records. A supervisor needs to understand their relationship, not merely repeat a list.

For chicken, the significant microbiological hazard can require an effective cooking control. The business defines a suitable standard, checks it, acts if it fails and verifies the procedure and evidence. If any link is weak, a record alone cannot establish safety. Use the actual food process and resources when developing the system, and recognise that other prerequisite and operational controls continue alongside the identified CCPs.

5.2 Conduct hazard analysis

Consider microbiological, physical, chemical and allergenic hazards at every relevant process stage. Assess likelihood and severity using the actual food, equipment, handling, customers and evidence. A rare but serious allergen error can be significant even if complaints are uncommon.

Use realistic conditions: container sizes during cooling, shared equipment, supplier substitutions and rushed service can change risk. Identify what could be introduced, survive, grow or transfer and how it will be controlled. Do not copy a hazard table that ignores the real operation. Good analysis makes later CCP and limit decisions meaningful and should be reviewed when the process, evidence or ingredients change.

5.3 Determine CCPs

A CCP is an essential control at a specific stage for a significant hazard. Ask whether control is necessary here and whether a later step will remove or reduce that hazard to an acceptable level. Cooking chicken may control bacterial survival; raw preparation followed by cooking differs from ready-to-eat salad with no later kill step.

Distinguish CCPs from prerequisites such as basic hygiene and maintenance. Storage, reheating or a label/allergen control may be critical in a particular process, but classification needs justification rather than a universal list. For each identified CCP, there must be a usable limit, monitoring and a safe corrective response. Labelling every task “critical” can distract from the steps where failure directly compromises control.

5.4 Establish critical limits

A critical limit defines acceptable versus unacceptable conditions at a CCP. It must be suitable, measurable or assessable by a reliable stated method and supported by evidence. Depending on the process, criteria may involve temperature, time, pH, water activity or other justified measures.

Use relevant legal requirements, scientific information, manufacturer guidance, tested methods, industry guidance or appropriate expert advice rather than a convenient invented number. “Cook until it looks right” is not a strong generic substitute for an approved method. A limit must work for the actual food, batch and equipment. Staff need to know the standard and method, and what to do if it is not met; no new numerical threshold is supplied by this guide.

5.5 Design monitoring procedures

Define what is checked, who checks it, how and when, the frequency, equipment, limit, record and required action. A food temperature check needs the correct food location and method, not any convenient probe reading. Monitoring should detect failure in time to protect food.

Fit the procedure to risk, batch size and actual work. Staff need training, suitable equipment and enough time; an excessively complicated or impossible process encourages missed or copied checks. Realistic does not mean removing necessary controls for convenience. Provide responsibility and cover, record actual results and stop or escalate when limits fail. Monitoring is effective when the check and response happen in practice, not when forms simply look complete.

5.6 Plan corrective actions

Plan what happens to affected food, who decides, the immediate control action, records and follow-up. A cooking failure may allow further cooking and rechecking if safe; a warm fridge requires assessment of food exposure as well as the equipment. Wrong allergen information or PPDS labels may require stopping sale and escalation if food has already left the business.

Protect customers first and investigate why the control failed. Equipment, training, unclear instructions, workload or resources can be involved. Record the real failed result, food decision and action. A quick equipment adjustment without assessing affected food or a reminder without investigating repetition is not enough. Prevent recurrence through suitable changes and checks.

5.8 Documentation and records

The current source presents subsection 5.8 before 5.7; this guide keeps that actual playback order and the original numbers. Documentation describes the plan, hazards, flow, controls, limits, methods and responsibilities. Records show actual monitoring, cleaning, pest, allergen, training, calibration and corrective actions.

Keep instructions current and understandable and remove obsolete versions from active use so staff do not work to conflicting methods. Review records for patterns, such as repeated failed temperatures or missed cleaning, and use findings to improve the system. A document is a description of the required method; a record is evidence about practice. Both must match the real controlled process rather than create a perfect-looking version of events.

5.7 Validation and verification

Validation establishes whether a control is capable of controlling its intended hazard when correctly applied. Verification checks whether the system is actually followed and remains effective in practice. They are related but not interchangeable; a monitoring record alone does not prove that the chosen method is capable.

Evidence for validation may concern the particular cooking, cooling or other control. Verification can include record review, observation, calibration checks, complaints, audits, cleaning checks, staff knowledge and corrective-action review. Managers need both suitable controls and evidence that people use them correctly. Review after changes, incidents and repeated failures rather than assuming a once-written method will always remain effective.

In practice

A limit chosen for convenience

Source teaching example rewritten as a formative scenario; not a real reported incident

A manager selects a cooking standard because it shortens service, without evidence for the food and batch.

Is a written number sufficient?

Establish a justified process-suitable standard using reliable evidence and appropriate competence before relying on it.

A measurable limit still needs a sound safety basis.

Wrong PPDS labels found after sale

Source teaching example rewritten as a formative scenario; not a real reported incident

Some products have left the business with incorrect allergen information.

Is replacing labels on remaining stock enough?

Stop affected sale, assess products already supplied, escalate appropriately, record and investigate the failure.

Corrective action covers affected food and customer risk, not just future packing.

Reflect on your learning

How should a CCP be selected?

Select one answer.

What supports a critical limit?

Select one answer.

What is verification?

Select one answer.

An approved food safety procedure has changed. How should managers control the old versions in active use?

Select one answer.

For your own learning — not the certification assessment.

FAQs

Are validation and verification the same?

No. Validation establishes capability of a control; verification checks actual application and continued effectiveness.

Can a realistic monitoring system skip important checks?

No. It must fit risk and real work while retaining necessary control. Training, time, equipment and responsibility need to make the check achievable.

How do HACCP documents and records serve different purposes?

Documents describe the planned system, including hazards, controls, limits, methods and responsibilities. Records show what actually happened, including real results and corrective actions. Both need to be accurate and current, and record patterns can reveal where the system needs improvement.

Further reading

  • Food safety management systems for businesses (opens a new tab)

    Supplementary overview of HACCP-based procedures, checks and records.

    UK Government / Food Standards Agency. Applicable jurisdiction: UK overview; check the relevant national regulator and business-specific rules. Supplementary reading; checked 2026-10-07.

  • Make an HACCP plan (opens a new tab)

    Planning resources and access to MyHACCP; requires business-specific information and may require specialist advice.

    UK Government / Food Standards Agency. Applicable jurisdiction: UK overview; apply the relevant business and national requirements. Supplementary reading; checked 2026-10-07.

  • CookSafe: keeping food safety records (opens a new tab)

    Supplementary guidance on monitoring, corrective action, verification and review records.

    Food Standards Scotland. Applicable jurisdiction: Scotland; catering businesses. Supplementary reading; checked 2026-10-07.

Jump to a key moment
Transcript

[0:00] Welcome to lesson 5.1, overview of the
[0:02] HACCP principles.
[0:04] HACCP is based on a set of principles
[0:06] that help food businesses identify
[0:08] hazards and control them before unsafe
[0:10] food reaches the customer.
[0:12] At level 3, you need to understand these
[0:15] principles not only as theory, but as a
[0:17] practical management system.
[0:19] The HACCP principles include conducting
[0:21] a hazard analysis, identifying critical
[0:24] control points, setting critical limits,
[0:26] establishing monitoring procedures,
[0:28] establishing corrective actions,
[0:30] verifying that the system works, and
[0:32] keeping documentation and records.
[0:35] For example, if a business prepares
[0:37] cooked chicken, the hazard may be
[0:38] harmful bacteria.
[0:40] The critical control point may be
[0:42] cooking.
[0:43] The critical limit is the safe cooking
[0:45] standard the business must meet.
[0:47] Monitoring may involve checking the food
[0:49] according to procedure.
[0:51] Corrective action may be cooking it for
[0:53] longer or disposing of it if safety
[0:55] cannot be confirmed.
[0:57] Verification then checks whether the
[0:59] system is working overall, and records
[1:01] provide evidence that checks and actions
[1:03] were completed.
[1:05] At level 3, managers and supervisors
[1:07] should understand how each principle
[1:09] connects to real food work.
[1:11] A HACCP plan is not just a form.
[1:14] It is a structured way to manage risk.
[1:17] The key message is the HACCP principles
[1:19] guide the business from identifying
[1:21] hazards to controlling, checking,
[1:23] correcting, and proving food safety.
[1:26] Welcome to lesson 5.2, conducting a
[1:29] hazard analysis.
[1:30] Hazard analysis is the process of
[1:32] identifying what could make food unsafe
[1:34] at each step of the food process.
[1:37] At level 3, this is one of the most
[1:39] important parts of HACCP because weak
[1:41] hazard analysis can lead to weak
[1:42] controls.
[1:44] The HACCP team should look at every step
[1:46] in the process flow, such as delivery,
[1:48] storage, preparation, cooking, cooling,
[1:51] reheating, packing, display, service,
[1:54] and delivery.
[1:55] At each step, the team asks what
[1:57] microbiological, physical, chemical, or
[2:00] allergenic hazards could occur.
[2:02] For example, during chilled storage, a
[2:05] microbiological hazard may be bacteria
[2:07] growing if food is kept too warm.
[2:10] During preparation, a hazard may be raw
[2:12] food contaminating ready-to-eat food.
[2:16] During labelling, an allergenic hazard
[2:18] may be the wrong label being applied to
[2:19] a product.
[2:21] The team should also consider how likely
[2:23] the hazard is and how serious the harm
[2:25] could be.
[2:26] A rare but severe allergen risk may
[2:28] still need strong controls because the
[2:30] consequences can be serious.
[2:33] Hazard analysis should be based on real
[2:34] workplace practice, not assumptions.
[2:38] If staff cool food in large containers,
[2:40] use shared equipment, accept supplier
[2:42] substitutions, or prepare food during
[2:44] busy service, the analysis must consider
[2:46] those real conditions.
[2:49] The key message is hazard analysis
[2:51] identifies what could go wrong, where it
[2:53] could happen, how serious it could be,
[2:55] and what controls are needed to protect
[2:57] customers.
[2:58] Welcome to lesson 5.3, identifying
[3:01] critical control points.
[3:04] A critical control point, often called a
[3:06] CCP, is a step where control is
[3:08] essential to prevent, remove, or reduce
[3:11] a food safety hazard to an acceptable
[3:13] level.
[3:14] At level 3, you need to understand that
[3:16] not every control is a critical control
[3:18] point.
[3:20] Many controls are managed through
[3:21] prerequisite programmes, such as cleaning,
[3:24] pest control, personal hygiene, and
[3:26] staff training.
[3:28] A CCP is usually a point where failure
[3:30] could directly lead to unsafe food.
[3:33] For example, cooking chicken may be a
[3:35] CCP because harmful bacteria could
[3:37] survive if the chicken is not cooked
[3:39] properly.
[3:40] Reheating may also be a CCP if food must
[3:43] be made safe before service.
[3:46] Chilled storage can be critical for some
[3:47] high-risk ready-to-eat foods because
[3:49] bacteria may grow if temperature control
[3:52] fails.
[3:53] Allergen controls may also be critical
[3:55] in some processes, especially where the
[3:57] wrong label or wrong product could
[3:59] expose a customer to an undeclared
[4:01] allergen.
[4:02] When deciding whether a step is a CCP,
[4:04] the HACCP team should ask whether the
[4:06] hazard is significant, whether control
[4:08] is needed at that step, and whether
[4:10] later steps will remove or reduce the
[4:12] hazard.
[4:13] For example, raw chicken may contain
[4:15] bacteria, but if it will later be cooked
[4:17] properly, cooking may be the CCP rather
[4:19] than raw storage.
[4:21] However, raw chicken contaminating
[4:23] ready-to-eat salad may have no later
[4:25] cooking step, so separation and
[4:27] preparation controls become extremely
[4:29] important.
[4:31] The key message is identifying CCPs
[4:33] helps the business focus on the points
[4:35] where control is essential.
[4:37] CCPs must be realistic, justified, and
[4:40] properly monitored.
[4:42] Welcome to lesson 5.4, Setting Critical
[4:45] Limits.
[4:46] A critical limit is the boundary between
[4:48] acceptable and unacceptable food safety
[4:50] control at a critical control point.
[4:53] In simple terms, it tells staff whether
[4:56] the control has passed or failed.
[4:58] Critical limits may be based on
[5:00] temperature, time, pH, water activity,
[5:03] visual standards, supplier
[5:05] specifications, legal requirements, or
[5:08] other measurable food safety criteria.
[5:11] For example, a business may set a
[5:13] cooking limit for chicken to make sure
[5:14] harmful bacteria are destroyed.
[5:17] A hot holding limit may make sure cooked
[5:19] food stays hot enough during service.
[5:22] A chilled storage limit may make sure
[5:24] high-risk food is kept cold enough.
[5:27] At level three, managers and supervisors
[5:29] should understand that critical limits
[5:31] must be clear, realistic, and measurable
[5:33] where possible.
[5:35] Staff need to know exactly what standard
[5:37] must be met.
[5:38] A vague limit such as cook until it
[5:40] looks done may not be strong enough for
[5:42] high-risk food if staff could interpret
[5:44] it differently.
[5:45] A clearer procedure might include time,
[5:48] temperature, appearance, juices running
[5:50] clear, or another approved method
[5:52] depending on the business system.
[5:55] Critical limits should also be based on
[5:56] reliable information, such as legal
[5:58] guidance, industry standards, scientific
[6:01] evidence, manufacturer instructions,
[6:04] validated procedures, or business food
[6:06] safety policy.
[6:08] If a critical limit is not met, the food
[6:10] is not automatically safe.
[6:12] Corrective action must be taken.
[6:15] The key message is critical limits make
[6:17] HACCP controls clear.
[6:19] They tell staff when food safety is
[6:21] under control and when action is needed.
[6:24] Welcome to lesson 5.5, establishing
[6:27] monitoring procedures.
[6:29] Monitoring procedures explain how the
[6:31] business checks that critical control
[6:33] points and important controls are
[6:34] working.
[6:36] At level three, managers and supervisors
[6:38] need to make sure monitoring is clear,
[6:40] practical, and reliable.
[6:43] A monitoring procedure should usually
[6:44] explain what is being checked, how it is
[6:46] checked, when it is checked, who is
[6:48] responsible, what equipment is used,
[6:51] what the safe limit is, and what to do
[6:52] if the result is not acceptable.
[6:55] For example, a cooking monitoring
[6:57] procedure may explain which food must be
[6:59] checked, where the probe should be
[7:00] inserted, what result is required, how
[7:03] the result is recorded, and what action
[7:05] is needed if the food has not reached
[7:07] the required standard.
[7:09] Monitoring should happen often enough to
[7:11] control the risk.
[7:13] A fridge that stores high-risk
[7:14] ready-to-eat food may need regular
[7:16] checks.
[7:17] A cooking check may need to happen every
[7:19] batch or according to the business
[7:20] procedure.
[7:22] Monitoring must also be realistic.
[7:25] If a procedure requires checks that
[7:27] staff cannot complete during service,
[7:29] the system may fail.
[7:31] Managers should review whether staff
[7:32] have enough time, equipment, training,
[7:35] and supervision.
[7:37] Records should be completed at the time
[7:38] of the check.
[7:40] Guessing, backdating, or copying records
[7:42] undermines the whole HACCP system.
[7:45] The key message is monitoring procedures
[7:47] turn HACCP controls into daily action.
[7:50] They must be clear enough for staff to
[7:52] follow and strong enough to detect
[7:53] problems before customers are harmed.
[7:56] Welcome to lesson 5.6, establishing
[7:59] corrective actions.
[8:01] Corrective actions are the steps the
[8:03] business takes when a control fails or a
[8:05] critical limit is not met.
[8:07] At level three, corrective action should
[8:10] be planned before something goes wrong.
[8:12] Staff should not be left guessing during
[8:14] a food safety problem.
[8:16] A good corrective action procedure
[8:18] should explain what to do with the
[8:20] affected food, who to report to, what
[8:22] immediate action is needed, what records
[8:24] to complete and how to prevent the
[8:26] problem happening again.
[8:28] For example, if cooked food does not
[8:30] meet the required cooking standard, the
[8:31] corrective action may be to continue
[8:33] cooking and check again.
[8:35] If safety cannot be confirmed, the food
[8:37] should not be served.
[8:39] If a fridge is too warm, corrective
[8:41] action may include reporting the issue,
[8:44] moving food to another fridge, checking
[8:46] how long food has been affected,
[8:47] disposing of unsafe food and arranging
[8:49] repair.
[8:51] If a PPDS label has the wrong allergen
[8:53] information, corrective action may
[8:55] include stopping sale, removing affected
[8:57] products, checking labels and recipes,
[9:00] and escalating if food has already been
[9:02] sold.
[9:03] At level three, managers should also
[9:05] look beyond the immediate fix.
[9:08] They should ask why the failure
[9:09] happened.
[9:10] Was equipment faulty?
[9:12] Was training poor?
[9:14] Was the procedure unclear?
[9:17] Was the workload unrealistic?
[9:19] The key message is corrective action
[9:21] protects customers when controls fail.
[9:24] It should stop the risk immediately,
[9:26] deal with affected food, record what
[9:28] happened and prevent repeat failure.
[9:31] Welcome to lesson 5.8, documentation and
[9:34] record keeping.
[9:36] Documentation and record keeping are
[9:38] essential parts of HACCP because they
[9:40] show how food safety is managed.
[9:42] Documentation includes the HACCP plan,
[9:45] scope, product descriptions, flow
[9:47] diagrams, hazard analysis, critical
[9:49] control points, critical limits,
[9:52] monitoring procedures, corrective
[9:53] actions, verification checks, and staff
[9:56] instructions.
[9:58] Records show what actually happened.
[10:01] These may include temperature checks,
[10:03] cooking records, cooling records,
[10:05] cleaning records, delivery checks, pest
[10:08] reports, allergen records, training
[10:10] records, calibration records, and
[10:12] corrective action notes.
[10:14] At level three, managers and supervisors
[10:17] should make sure documents are accurate,
[10:19] current, and controlled.
[10:21] Staff should not be using outdated
[10:23] procedures, old forms, old allergen
[10:25] matrices, or previous versions of food
[10:27] safety records.
[10:30] Record keeping should also be honest and
[10:31] useful.
[10:33] A perfect looking record is not helpful
[10:35] if it is false.
[10:37] A record showing a problem and the
[10:38] action taken can be strong evidence that
[10:40] the system worked.
[10:42] For example, if a fridge temperature was
[10:44] too high and staff recorded the real
[10:46] result, moved the food, checked safety,
[10:49] and arranged repair, the record supports
[10:51] due diligence.
[10:53] Managers should regularly review records
[10:55] to look for trends.
[10:57] Repeated failed checks, missing records,
[10:59] or frequent corrective actions may show
[11:01] that the system needs improvement.
[11:04] The key message is HACCP documentation
[11:06] explains the system and records prove
[11:08] what happened.
[11:10] Both must be accurate, current, and used
[11:12] properly to support food safety and due
[11:14] diligence.
[11:16] Welcome to lesson 5.7, verification and
[11:19] validation.
[11:20] Verification and validation are
[11:22] important parts of HACCP, but they are
[11:24] often confused.
[11:26] Validation means proving that a control
[11:28] is capable of controlling the hazard.
[11:31] In simple terms, it asks, "Will this
[11:33] control work if we use it correctly?"
[11:36] For example, before using a cooking
[11:38] method, the business may need to be
[11:40] confident that the method can cook the
[11:41] food safely.
[11:43] Before using a cooling method, the
[11:45] business should be confident that food
[11:46] can cool quickly enough using that
[11:48] method.
[11:49] Verification means checking that the
[11:51] HACCP system is actually working in
[11:53] practice.
[11:54] It asks, "Are we following the control
[11:57] and is the system still effective?"
[11:59] Verification may include reviewing
[12:01] records, observing staff, checking
[12:03] equipment, reviewing complaints,
[12:05] checking calibration, auditing
[12:07] procedures, checking cleaning standards,
[12:09] reviewing corrective actions, and
[12:11] testing staff knowledge.
[12:13] For example, a cooking procedure may be
[12:15] validated because it is known to achieve
[12:17] safe cooking when followed.
[12:19] Verification checks whether staff are
[12:21] actually following it, recording it
[12:23] correctly, and taking action when it
[12:24] fails.
[12:26] At level three, managers and supervisors
[12:28] should understand that both are needed.
[12:31] A control may be scientifically sound,
[12:33] but if staff do not follow it, it will
[12:35] not protect customers.
[12:37] Equally, staff may follow a procedure
[12:39] carefully, but if the procedure itself
[12:42] is not suitable, the system is weak.
[12:45] The key message is validation proves the
[12:47] control can work.
[12:49] Verification proves it is working in
[12:51] real life.