Validating Critical Control Points vs. Prerequisite Programme Effectiveness

[Lily]

This Level 4 course emphasises advanced HACCP system design, Codex-aligned hazard analysis and CCP validation, along with food safety culture and legislation requirements.

When conducting validation studies for each CCP, how do you ensure that the outcomes meaningfully differentiate between a real CCP and a process step that is better managed under a prerequisite programme (PRP)?

 

[Marzena STC & QTC]

Good question- this is something a lot of people struggle with in real life, not just on courses.
For me, the key thing during validation is asking “what actually controls the hazard here?” If removing or weakening that step would immediately put food safety at risk, then it’s probably a real CCP. If the hazard is already controlled by basic hygiene, supplier approval, cleaning, segregation, or maintenance, then it usually sits better as a PRP.

When validating, I look at evidence, not just theory. That might be challenge studies, historical data, monitoring results, or even “what has gone wrong before.” If a step needs tight limits, constant monitoring, and immediate corrective action to keep the product safe, that’s a strong sign it’s a CCP. If it’s more about doing things consistently right (like cleaning, training, or allergen controls), then a PRP normally makes more sense.

I would also check it by asking:" would calling this a CCP actually improve control, or just add paperwork?" If it’s just creating forms without adding safety, it’s probably not a CCP.
So in short: CCPs are for critical, measurable, hazard-killing steps, where PRPs are for the everyday controls that stop problems happening in the first place.

 

[Cathy Gladwin]

These are great points for discussion and I just wanted to step in here and share a couple videos we have on the subject of validation:

with deals with clause 2.12.1 in the BRCGS Food Standard and

covering the subeject of validation and verification with a broader scope.