Hi Gary,
I had a few more thoughts on yr coatings. I am slightly unclear in one aspect, as i understand, the process you run only makes the coating materials, not the final coated product.?
haccp is basically a FS system derived from risk assessment (RA) /management etc as I'm sure you know.
IMEX the haccp aspect for ingredients is usually evaluated in relation to the (BCPA) risk associated with their input to a food process. In this case the coating operation would presumably be the "process".
Generically, the typical (ingredient) RA questions are usually related to whether the ingredient introduces any significant hazard, either intrinsically or via contamination, into the food process. This analysis is often done by a preliminary decision tree approach although direct RA is equally possible.
It seems to me that initially yr requirement is to generate a specification for yr "ingredients" which would enable them to be classified as food grade. This essentially quantifies their status as being (haccp) acceptable for food use. Essentially, if Food Grade (FG), the ingredient is what you might call haccp-neutral.
The next requirement is whether yr manufacturing process achieves such a FG specification.
Do you already have (BCPA) specifications for the coatings you are referring to ? Are they classifiable as Food Grade ?
I recall previous threads here on food supplements and the like which were also attracted to similar grouping opportunities. In respect to specifications, a name change was potentially the only requirement in many cases. However the commercial, organizational, conclusion seemed to be that producing individual ingredient specifications was in practice unavoidable. I wonder if you have a similar constraint.
If I have misunderstood yr initial posts (sorry !) and the "cooking" procedure is in fact the total coated product process my apologies. i wonder what the "cooking" step is actually for ? As before, the opportunities for grouping will depend on the flowchart similarities and the CCP (if any).