Every device you rely on to prove a control is working, assessed for traceability, accuracy, frequency and what happens when one fails.
A calibration programme review assesses every measuring device a business relies on to demonstrate that a food safety control is working. It covers which devices are in scope, whether calibration is traceable to a recognised reference, whether frequencies are justified, and what happens when a device is found outside tolerance. That last point is the one most programmes have never thought through.
A device found outside tolerance calls into question every reading it produced since the last confirmed check, including readings used to release product. Businesses discover this when it happens, under pressure, with product already sold. The procedure has to be written before that.
The register, the traceability, the frequency rationale and the out of calibration decision tree, all in place before a device fails. Delivered remotely, in any language, quoted on scope.
Six device categories, each with the treatment it warrants. The test for inclusion is whether a reading supports a food safety decision.
| Category | What it covers | What it needs |
|---|---|---|
| CCP monitoring devices | Thermometers, timers, pH meters and any device measuring a critical limit. | Traceable calibration, defined frequency, in use verification between calibrations. |
| Verification devices | Reference thermometers, probes and instruments used to check monitoring devices. | Traceable calibration at higher accuracy than the devices they check. |
| Detection equipment | Metal detectors, X-ray systems, checkweighers and vision systems. | Performance verification with test pieces at defined frequency, plus calibration where applicable. |
| Environmental monitoring | Storage and chill temperature devices, data loggers, humidity sensors. | Calibration proportionate to the decision the reading supports. |
| Weighing equipment | Scales used for ingredient dosing, net quantity and recipe control. | Calibration plus routine checks with known weights. |
| Laboratory instruments | Incubators, water baths, pipettes and any instrument affecting a test result. | Calibration to the standard the test method requires. |
Eight elements, each assessed for whether it exists and whether the reasoning behind it is recorded.
Every device in scope listed, with location, unique identifier and what decision its reading supports.
Which devices support a critical limit and which support a lower level control, since treatment differs.
Calibration referenced to a recognised national or international standard, with certificates held.
The accuracy the device needs for the decision it supports, and the tolerance applied.
Intervals set with a rationale and adjusted on drift history, never fixed by habit.
Routine checks between calibrations, such as ice point and boiling point checks on thermometers.
What happens to product and process when a device is found outside tolerance.
Calibration status visible on the device, with certificates retrievable.
Eight failures, and the first is the one that turns a routine finding into a product decision nobody is ready to make.
A device is found outside tolerance and nobody has decided in advance what that means. Every reading it produced since the last check is now questionable, and that includes product released on those readings.
Thermometers bought by a department, personal probes, devices on new equipment. Anything measuring a control belongs in the register, and informal devices are consistently outside it.
Annual because it has always been annual, with no drift history behind it. Standards expect a rationale, and drift history is the evidence that supports one.
A device checked against another device that was never itself calibrated to a recognised reference. The chain has to reach a national or international standard.
Verifying a monitoring thermometer against a probe of equal or worse accuracy. It proves nothing about either.
Twelve months between checks on a device monitoring a critical limit, with nothing in between. Simple daily checks catch drift long before an annual calibration does.
Metal detectors and X-ray systems calibrated and never tested with representative test pieces at a defined frequency through the shift.
Calibration certificates filed on arrival. They routinely record as found readings outside tolerance, which is information about the period before the calibration and is regularly ignored.
The out of calibration procedure is written as a decision tree, so it can be followed by whoever is on shift when a device fails.
| Element | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Device register | Every device in scope, with location, identifier and the decision it supports. |
| Criticality assessment | Which devices support critical limits and what treatment each level warrants. |
| Traceability position | Whether each calibration chain reaches a recognised reference, with gaps listed. |
| Accuracy review | Whether each device is accurate enough for the decision its reading supports. |
| Frequency rationale | Intervals justified against drift history and criticality, documented so they can be defended. |
| Verification schedule | In use checks between calibrations, with method and acceptance criteria. |
| Out of calibration procedure | The decision tree for product and process when a device fails, written before it is needed. |
| Certificate review | As found readings examined, since they carry information about the period already passed. |
Manufacturers, processors, packers, storage operations and catering businesses. It suits any site where measured critical limits are relied on, and any business that has never decided what a failed calibration means for product already released.
You have no procedure for a device found outside tolerance.
Calibration frequencies were set by habit with no rationale.
You cannot demonstrate traceability to a recognised standard.
Devices are in use that are not on the register.
There is no verification between annual calibrations.
Detection equipment performance is not verified through the shift.
Calibration certificates are filed and never read.
An auditor has questioned your calibration programme.
Every device whose reading supports a food safety decision is listed, including informal and personally owned instruments.
Devices supporting critical limits are separated from those supporting lower level controls, since treatment differs.
Each calibration chain is checked for whether it reaches a recognised national or international standard.
Each device is assessed for whether it is accurate enough for the decision its reading supports.
Intervals are justified against drift history, and in use checks are specified with acceptance criteria.
A decision tree is written covering product and process when a device is found outside tolerance.
Performing calibration. The review assesses the programme, and calibration is carried out by your provider or by an accredited laboratory.
Calibration provider recommendations. No commission or referral arrangement exists with any laboratory or supplier.
Where certificates show historic as found readings outside tolerance, the review flags them, and the product decisions attached to that period are yours.
Every review is quoted against its own scope. Twenty devices on one site and four hundred across three are very different pieces of work. These factors set the price.
These are the primary sources this work is built on. Where a market you sell into has its own requirement, that takes precedence and we assess against it.
Every device whose reading supports a food safety decision. That includes thermometers and timers monitoring critical limits, reference instruments used to check them, metal detectors and X-ray systems, storage temperature devices and data loggers, weighing equipment, and laboratory instruments affecting test results.
It means an unbroken chain of comparisons linking your device to a recognised national or international standard. A device checked against another device that was never itself calibrated to a recognised reference has no traceability, however carefully the check was carried out.
On a frequency justified by criticality and by drift history. Annual is common and it is a convention. A device that consistently arrives within tolerance may warrant a longer interval, and one that drifts warrants a shorter one. Standards examine the rationale, not the number.
Every reading it produced since the last confirmed check becomes questionable, including readings used to release product. That means assessing affected product, deciding whether it can still be released, and recording the decision. This is why the procedure has to exist before the situation arises.
A routine check between calibrations confirming a device still reads correctly. An ice point check on a thermometer is the classic example. It catches drift long before an annual calibration does, and it is one of the cheapest controls available.
For in use verification, yes, provided the reference is traceable and more accurate than the device being checked. Formal calibration to a traceable standard normally requires an accredited laboratory or a properly traceable reference, depending on the device and your standard.
They are the device readings recorded before adjustment during calibration. They tell you how accurate the device was over the preceding period, which is exactly the period during which product was released on its readings. Certificates recording as found readings outside tolerance are regularly filed without anyone noticing.
Metal detectors and X-ray systems need performance verification with representative test pieces at a defined frequency through the shift, alongside any calibration the manufacturer specifies. Verification is what demonstrates the system would detect contamination.
Accurate enough for the decision it supports, with the tolerance set accordingly. A device monitoring a critical limit needs tighter accuracy than one monitoring an ambient store. Selecting a device without reference to the decision is a common gap.
Yes, if anyone uses them to make or record a food safety decision. Informal devices bought by a department or brought in personally are consistently outside the register, and they are still producing readings that end up in records.
A verification and validation review assesses whether your controls have been proven capable and whether verification demonstrates they keep working. This review covers the measuring devices underneath all of that. A validated limit monitored by an uncalibrated device is not controlled.
A device register, a criticality assessment, a traceability position with gaps listed, an accuracy review, a documented frequency rationale, an in use verification schedule with acceptance criteria, an out of calibration procedure and a review of your existing certificates.
Confi Food assigns work by subject. HACCP, labelling, certification standards, regulatory compliance, supplier assurance and monitoring are separate disciplines, and each piece goes to someone who works in that area. Every deliverable is reviewed internally by a second specialist before it reaches you.
Our technical positions are built from primary sources, meaning the legislation, the competent authority, Codex Alimentarius, the certification scheme owner or the relevant standards body. We set out how that works in our technical review and editorial policy, and what happens at each stage of an engagement in how Confi Food works.
A review of whether your controls have been validated as capable, and whether verification proves they keep working.
Read about Verification and Validation Review →A review of temperature control across storage, processing and distribution, including monitoring, alarms and what happens on a deviation.
Read about Cold Chain Control Review →Monitoring, measurement and inspection equipment supporting the controls a site relies on.
View equipment →Expert BRCGS Storage and Distribution consulting worldwide. Issue 4 gap assessments, temperature control systems, allergen management, certification prep and mock...
See BRCGS Storage and Distribution Consulting →Expert IFS Food consulting worldwide. Version 8 gap assessments, certification prep, mock audits, Higher Level grading and ongoing compliance for food manufacturers.
See IFS Food Consulting →Tell us how many devices and sites are in scope, and receive a written quote covering the scope, the deliverable and the price.