Every programme checked for coverage, for evidence that it works, and for hazards sitting at the wrong level.
A prerequisite programme review assesses the basic conditions and activities that maintain a hygienic environment across an operation, and checks whether each is documented, performed and verified. Prerequisites carry most of the hazard control in any food business, and the most common finding is a programme that is performed diligently with nothing recorded to prove it.
The hazard analysis leans on these programmes constantly. Hazards are dismissed as controlled by cleaning, by pest control, by hygiene. Each dismissal is only as good as the programme behind it, and the programme is only as good as the evidence that it works.
Coverage, verification evidence and the boundary between prerequisite and control point, assessed together. Delivered remotely or on site, in any language, quoted on scope.
Getting this boundary wrong in either direction is serious, and both errors are common.
| Level | What it controls | Typical examples | What it needs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prerequisite programme | Controls hazards across the operation generally. | Cleaning, pest control, personal hygiene, maintenance, waste, utilities. | Verified on a schedule, no critical limit, corrective action on the programme. |
| Operational prerequisite | Controls a significant hazard where a critical limit is not practical. | Zoning controls, air handling in high care, glass control on a specific line. | Action criteria, planned monitoring, corrective action on product where relevant. |
| Critical control point | Controls a significant hazard at a specific step. | Cook temperature, metal detection, pH at a defined step. | Measurable critical limit, monitoring every batch, immediate product decision. |
Eight programme areas, each checked for coverage and for the evidence behind it.
Fabrication, zoning, flows and the physical suitability of the building for what is made in it.
Schedule, chemicals, method, validation of effectiveness and routine verification.
Device mapping, frequency, trend analysis, proofing and contractor performance.
Health screening, hand washing, clothing, jewellery, and movement between areas.
Planned maintenance, hygienic release after work, temporary repairs and contractor control.
Water quality and testing, compressed air, steam and ventilation, each verified against its use.
Segregation, storage, removal frequency and the condition of external waste areas.
Segregation, stock rotation, temperature control and the condition of vehicles.
Eight failures, and the first is a frequent source of findings in this clause area.
The programme runs, the work is done well, and no record proves it happened. An unverified programme is treated as an absent one, and this is one of the most common prerequisite finding by a wide margin.
A checklist confirming the task was performed, offered as verification that it worked. Monitoring asks whether it was done. Verification asks whether it achieved anything.
Cleaning or hygiene designated critical control points, producing critical limits nobody can measure and corrective actions that make no sense against a batch.
The opposite error and the more serious one. A hazard needing a control point managed inside a general programme, so nothing monitors it batch by batch.
A programme belonging to a department drifts. Nobody revises it, nobody notices when the verification stops, and nobody is answerable at audit.
Weekly because it has always been weekly. Standards expect a risk based frequency with the reasoning recorded, and the reasoning is what gets asked for.
The hazard analysis dismisses hazards on the basis of prerequisite control, and the prerequisite documentation never references the hazards it is carrying.
Pest control, hygiene, laundry and maintenance delivered by contractors whose records and competence evidence live somewhere else.
The verification position states plainly where a programme runs well and nothing proves it.
| Element | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Programme inventory | Every prerequisite programme your operation needs, with gaps identified. |
| Coverage assessment | Each programme checked against your standard and against your process. |
| Verification position | What proves each programme works, and where nothing does. |
| Boundary findings | Hazards sitting at the wrong level, in either direction. |
| Frequency rationale | Risk based intervals with the reasoning recorded so they can be defended. |
| Hazard analysis link | Which hazards each programme carries, cross referenced to the analysis. |
| Ownership and records | A named owner and a record design for every programme. |
| Priority plan | Findings sequenced by consequence at audit and by risk to product. |
Food manufacturers, processors, packers and catering businesses. It suits operations whose hazard analysis dismisses hazards on the basis of prerequisite control, which is almost all of them.
Prerequisite findings were raised at your last audit.
Programmes are performed well and nothing records that they work.
You have more CCPs than your process warrants.
A significant hazard is being managed inside a general programme.
Frequencies were set by convention with no rationale.
Programmes have no named owner.
Contractors run programmes and their records sit elsewhere.
Your hazard analysis references prerequisites that are not documented.
The programmes your operation needs are established from your process, your products and your standard.
Each existing programme is assessed for whether it covers what it claims and what your standard requires.
What proves each programme works is examined, separately from what proves it was performed.
Hazards are checked for whether they sit correctly as a prerequisite, an operational prerequisite or a control point.
Intervals are justified against risk, and a named owner is assigned to each programme.
Findings are sequenced by audit consequence and by risk to product, with record designs supplied.
Writing the programmes. Where a programme is missing entirely, documentation development covers building it.
Validation studies. Where a programme needs evidence it achieves what it claims, the review states what study is needed.
The plan itself. Hazard analysis, CCPs and critical limits are covered by a HACCP plan review.
Every review is quoted against its own scope. A single unit catering operation and a multi zone manufacturing site 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.
It is a basic condition or activity necessary to maintain a hygienic environment suitable for producing safe food. Cleaning, pest control, personal hygiene, maintenance, waste and utilities are the usual programmes. They control hazards across the operation generally instead of at one specific step.
A prerequisite programme controls hazards across the operation and is verified on a schedule. An operational prerequisite controls a significant hazard identified by hazard analysis where a measurable critical limit is not practical, using action criteria and planned monitoring. A critical control point controls a significant hazard at a step, with a measurable critical limit and an immediate product decision when it is breached.
Most often because they are performed and not evidenced. The work is done, done well, and nothing records that it happened or that it achieved anything. An unverified programme is treated as an absent one, however diligently it runs.
Monitoring asks whether the task was done. Verification asks whether it achieved what it was supposed to achieve. A completed cleaning checklist is monitoring. Swab results demonstrating the surface is clean are verification, and standards ask for both.
Designating cleaning or hygiene as a critical control point produces critical limits nobody can measure and corrective actions that make no sense against a batch. Where a prerequisite is carrying a significant hazard, an operational prerequisite is usually the right answer, and occasionally the hazard genuinely needs a control point at a step.
As many as your operation and your standard require. Most standards list the areas expected. What matters more than the count is that each programme covers what it claims to, has a named owner, and produces verification evidence.
On risk, with the reasoning recorded. Weekly because it has always been weekly attracts a finding even where weekly is the right interval, because standards examine the rationale and not the number.
They should, in both directions. The hazard analysis dismisses hazards on the basis of prerequisite control, so the prerequisite documentation needs to state which hazards it carries. Where that link is missing, neither document supports the other.
Pest control, hygiene, laundry and maintenance delivered by contractors are still your programmes. Records, competence evidence and the specification behind the service all have to be available to you, and contractor run programmes sitting outside the system is a frequent finding.
A named person, close enough to the work to know when it changes. Ownership by a department drifts and nobody is answerable when the verification quietly stops.
A HACCP plan review covers hazard analysis, CCPs, limits, monitoring and verification within the plan. This review covers the programmes underneath it, which is where most hazard control really sits and where most findings are raised.
A programme inventory with gaps, a coverage assessment against your standard, a verification position stating where nothing proves a programme works, boundary findings in both directions, a documented frequency rationale, the link to your hazard analysis, ownership and record design, and a priority plan.
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 structured walk of the facility assessing hygienic design, zoning, flows, fabrication and housekeeping against prerequisite programme requirements.
Read about Facility Hygiene Assessment →A review of your cleaning programme and whether it has been validated as effective, not merely performed.
Read about Cleaning and Sanitation Review →A review of the pest control programme and your contractor's performance against it, which auditors examine closely.
Read about Pest Control Programme Review →Certificated course covering hazard analysis, prerequisites and CCP determination.
View Certified HACCP Manager →Expert HACCP consulting worldwide. HACCP plan development, hazard analysis, CCP determination, validation, internal audits and training for food businesses of all sizes.
See HACCP Consulting →Expert ISO 22000 consulting worldwide. Gap assessments, FSMS design, internal audits, mock certification audits and ongoing compliance support for food businesses of...
See ISO 22000 Consulting →Expert FSSC 22000 consulting worldwide. Gap assessments, certification prep, Version 7 transition support, internal audits and ongoing compliance for food...
See FSSC 22000 Consulting →Tell us the site, the process and the standard you work to, and receive a written quote covering the scope, the deliverable and the price.