Dear All,
Re-histamine. An analysis could involve an interesting combination of, for example, Product, Process, Location, Risk Assessment, Scope of HACCP Plan, Standard, terminologies, COAs. You name it.
Theory
Clearly histamine is a potential hazard for some input seafood species. Does the Receiver have any control over a particular lot of incoming Raw Material, potentially with unsafe levels of histamine ? If frozen RM, yes - time would permit an accept / reject sampling/analysis. So a possible CCP.
However, many (but not all) haccp methodologies have nowadays adopted a Prerequisite approach which includes “Receiving” by definition (as against a “pure” Hygiene concept). So the control then, nominally, becomes more like a part of QA, ie excluded from CCP status. This convenience IMO was not entirely accidental. 
But, just as an example, the USA (at least in their 2011 Seafood Guideline manual) seems to be a possible exception since they specify histamine CCPs for receiving frozen input.
For UK I’m unsure regarding their use of Prerequisites but, from memory, I seem to recall an FSA “official” example for some random (non-frozen?) inputs which implied COAs for Received Goods could anyway self-justify raw material had “no significant hazard” > no CCP (a semi-zigzag perhaps).
Life was not made to be easy.
Rgds / Charles.C
PS – Presumably repeated failure of a histamine PRP would justify a re-evaluation of its status. Elevation to a home-made OPRP perhaps.