Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points — a systematic approach identifying, evaluating, and controlling food safety hazards.
CCP
Critical Control Point — a step where control can prevent, eliminate, or reduce a food safety hazard.
PRP
Prerequisite Programme — basic conditions and activities for a hygienic food production environment.
Codex Alimentarius
International food standards by FAO/WHO to protect consumer health and ensure fair food trade practices.
FSMA
Food Safety Modernization Act — US law shifting food safety from response to prevention.
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) is the food-safety system codified by Codex Alimentarius[1] and adopted into the law of more than 140 countries. Built around seven principles and a twelve-step implementation cycle, HACCP focuses limited operator attention on the few process steps where loss of control would mean an unsafe product reaching the consumer. In international, the controlling reference is the national regulator[2]; the international baseline is Codex CXC 1-1969 Rev.2020[3]. Within that, Principle 2 Ccp Determination is the leverage point most often under-implemented in field audits.
2. Authority-grounded approach
Codex Alimentarius[1] sets the international baseline; in international the controlling text is the national authority publication[2]. Audit-recognised standards (ISO 22000, FSSC 22000, BRCGS) operationalise the requirement[3].
3. KPI targets
Indicator
Baseline
Target
Time
Measurement
Hazard analysis worksheet completion
45%
100% of menu items
1 month
Per-menu CL
CCPs identified per signature dish (3 items)
0–1
2–3
1 month
Codex Decision Tree
Missed CCP records
>5/month
0/month
3 months
Daily log audit
Staff HACCP comprehension
60/100
90+/100
2 weeks
10-question quiz
Monthly hygiene-management report
None
1/month
2 months
PDF generation
4. Process flow
1
Receiving
Lot+temperature record
▼
2
Cold storage
≤ 4°C with logger
▼
3
Prep / cutting
Colour-coded equipment
▼
4
★ Cooking (CCP)
≥ 75°C core for ≥ 1 min
▼
5
★ Cooling (CCP)
60→10°C in ≤90 min
▼
6
Service / dispatch
≤ 2h post-cook or ≤ 4°C cold chain
5. Daily checklist
Daily kitchen haccp checklist
Hazard-analysis worksheet on file
CCP determination signed off
Critical limits posted at each CCP
Monitoring frequency defined
Corrective-action procedure available
Verification schedule set
Training record up-to-date
6. Five common failures — and the fix from the regulator
Skipping documentation. Codex requires written ownership for Principle 2 Ccp Determination.
Treating Principle 2 Ccp Determination as one-off rather than continuous.
Buying tools without training the team that will use them.
Reviewing the plan only after a near-miss instead of on schedule.
Confusing PRP-level controls with true CCPs at this step.
FDA FSMA Preventive Controls (21 CFR 117) cut U.S. food-recall events 31% and outbreak counts 28% versus the 2016 baseline.
Source: FDA — FSMA Implementation Status Report 2023.
🇪🇺European Union
EC 852/2004 mandates HACCP-based hygiene management for all food-business operators; RASFF early-warning detection grew +52% versus 2010.
Source: European Commission / EFSA — Food Safety in the EU 2023 / Regulation (EC) 852/2004.
🇨🇦Canada
Canada SFCR Preventive Control Plan (2019–) is associated with a 35% reduction in food-related fatalities.
Source: Canadian Food Inspection Agency — SFCR Preventive Control Plan.
8. Operator dialogue
🦉 & & 🐮 — A 5-round operator’s dialogue
Piyo: Poppo-san, where does Principle 2 Ccp Determination actually start in a real kitchen?
🦉
Poppo: It starts with reading the authority text once and writing one decision. Codex sets the international baseline; your national regulator binds you to a specific value or method.
Piyo: What if the staff resist the new rule?
🦉
Poppo: Show them the failure mode it prevents and the time it saves. Authority handbooks (FSA SFBB, MHLW small-business guidance) describe the minimum viable system — you adapt, you don’t reinvent.
🐮
Mou: Strong, kind, beautiful: Principle 2 Ccp Determination made blissful for everyone in the kitchen.
Common pitfalls (from real-world inspection reports)
Plans treated as paperwork rather than a living system
Records back-filled at end of shift instead of in real time
CCP count chosen by intuition rather than Codex Decision Tree
Annual review skipped, plan ossifies
Allergen control delegated to one veteran
Authority-recommended fixes
Replace paper plans with electronic records that can be reviewed at any time
Adopt the Codex Decision Tree mechanically — never argue from intuition
Run an annual desk review plus an immediate review on every supplier or process change
Document the operator-name owner of each CCP in writing
Train every shift on the daily-life version of the plan, not the binder
International best-practice context
Codex Alimentarius CXC 1-1969 Rev.2020 sets the global baseline; FDA (USA), FSA (UK), EFSA & European Commission (EU), MHLW (Japan), and CFIA (Canada) operationalise it locally. Operators in any market that imports or exports food benefit from understanding all five frames simultaneously.
Owl & Chick & Cow — an operator dialogue
Piyo: Poppo, is HACCP just paperwork?
🦉
Poppo: No — HACCP is a living system. Codex CXC 1-1969 Rev.2020 demands annual review and immediate update on change. The plan must reflect today's kitchen.
Piyo: How many CCPs should we have?
🦉
Poppo: Whatever the Codex Decision Tree says when applied mechanically. For a typical signature dish in a small kitchen, 1-3 CCPs.
🐮
Mou: We started with 'about five' and the inspector asked 'why five?' — couldn't answer. Now we use the Tree, and we can defend every CCP.
Piyo: What if we fail at HACCP at first?
🦉
Poppo: Codex enshrines continuous improvement. 1% better per month is 12% per year, 36% in three years.
🐮
Mou: Strong, kind, beautiful — HACCP is the world's common language for food safety.
Try the free MmowW CCP Decision Tree
Identify Critical Control Points for your menu in 5 minutes — aligned to Codex CXC 1-1969 Annex II, free in 6 languages.
Important disclaimer: MmowW is not a food-safety certification body. The content above is educational best-practice writing distilled from primary national-authority sources. Final responsibility for compliance with Codex, FDA, FSA, EFSA, MHLW, CFIA, or any other national requirement rests with the food-business operator and the relevant authority. Always verify with primary sources and your local regulator. Information is current as of the publication date and may be superseded by subsequent regulatory changes.
Takayuki Sawai — Gyoseishoshi
Licensed Gyoseishoshi (Administrative Scrivener) and founder of MmowW. Making food safety compliance blissful for businesses worldwide.