This is great information. Thank you! If the thermoforming process were to eliminate the micros would the thermoformer be the CCP? What if the thermoformer does not eliminate the presumptive micro? Is there a process authority who can come in and validate the process?
I'm not a Packaging person but I anticipate the answer to yr query / hazard analysis will depend on -
(1) Standard involved,eg whether traditional Codex-type haccp or iso22000-type haccp
(2) The detailed process/hazard analysis including after thermoforming.
The need for a micro. control measure / CCP at the thermoformer will logically depend on the likelihood of Salmonella (or any other pathogenic micro hazard) being present in the input materials entering the thermoformer. (either intrinsic to original input or from subsequent cross-contamination). Presumably depends on source/supplier.
If a need exists, the ability for a thermoformer to eliminate the hazard (eg > CCP) will relate to the (validatable) time/temperature profile of materials in the thermoformer and the subsequently generated process lethality. For example, approximately, in a routine food matrix pasteurization, achievance of temperatures > 75degC at the slowest heating point of item would typically ensure a targetted 6D microbial reduction of all vegetative species having heat resistance <= L.monocytogenes which is often (for food) regarded as the reference species to "remove".
I anticipate that thermoformers provide much higher temperatures/associated lethalities than the above. Typical, validatory, operational data/requirements hopefully exist in the Literature as a precursor to observations such as mentioned in Post 4. (example packaging haccp plans certainly exist).
afaik, Cardboard-based packaging is customarily regarded as non-hazardous from a microbial POV due to the high temperatures involved in its process and assuming subsequent hygienic handling procedures.
@Glenn - thks for Process comments, prior this thread I had never heard of a Pulper Tank. 
