I liked the intro. And the haccp plan. However I did notice a few interesting points.
All decisions for CCPs are NO due to either “Not Applicable” or “FDA policy”. I could not find any explanation of these 2 terms.
There are 2 analogous plans in thread below – posts 2,4 respectively. First one is probably EC, the other US oriented. Post 2 uses a similar micro-hazard terminology to yourself, notably “contamination” whereas IMO the hazard is more accurately described as “growth”. Post 4 states “biological” and avoids clarity altogether.
(1) the receiving frozen goods/micro is indicated as not CCP due “not applicable” . In comparison, the 2 haccp plans in thread above score this NO-YES respectively. Some other systems, eg ISO, would probably have classified these stages as Prerequisites.
(2) the storage frozen goods/micro is indicated as not CCP due “not applicable”. In comparison, the 2 haccp plans in thread above score this YES-YES respectively.
(3) allergens are stated to be not an “issue” (m-vi), the details listed in haccp plan/receiving, storage, etc suggested otherwise (to me) ? No mention of segregation per se is suggested for receiving frozen goods/allergens. As I understand, the situation, per se, for non-frozen goods, but perhaps depending on the specific goods, would typically be different. The reason for any distinction is unclear to myself.
Post 2 indicates that segregation is implemented, post 4 has no mention of allergens.
I deduce some/all of the CCP conclusions may well relate to specific USDA/FDA Product/Regulatory directives which I won’t be familiar with. If so, interested to know how .
In the absence of Prerequisites/Regulatory requirements, for certain products, I would have used YES (BCPA)/(A)/(out of scope).