Templates and records · HACCP · Clause 5.2 f)
HACCP verification and validation plan
Checking that the plan really works and not just on paper: with which activities, how often and what was done with the results.
In one sentence
The HACCP verification plan sets out the activities that regularly check that the system is effective — review of monitoring and deviation records, equipment calibration, product testing, internal audits — and, since the 2020 Codex revision, prior validation that the controls are capable of controlling the hazards, as required by Article 5(2)(f) of Regulation (EC) 852/2004.
- Where the standard requires it
- HACCP · Clause 5.2 f) Clause references cite the points of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) 852/2004, which lists the HACCP principles; they are applied following Codex CXC 1-1969, revised in 2020.
- Type of information
- Mandatory record Mandatory record (Article 5(2)(f) and (g) of Regulation 852/2004)
- Who fills it in
- Person responsible for the HACCP plan Different, where possible, from whoever monitors day to day
- When
- At the frequency set in the plan And whenever anything changes that affects product safety
- How long it is kept
- An appropriate period Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) 852/2004 sets no period: it requires documents and records to be kept for an appropriate length of time. Covering at least the shelf life of the product, with a margin, lets you respond to an inspection or a complaint.
What the standard requires
What HACCP demands and what it leaves to your judgement
The Regulation requires procedures, carried out regularly, to verify that the measures under the previous principles are working effectively. The 2020 Codex revision reworded principle 6: first validate the plan — show that the limits and controls work — and then verify periodically that it is being applied.
The frequency of verification is set in proportion to the risk, and the whole plan is reviewed whenever there is a change in product, process, equipment or legislation.
BRCGS develops these requirements in more detail and asks for a full review of the plan at least once a year; that sheet covers what is specific to the standard.
Structure
Fields the template should include
- Verification activity and its frequency
- Person responsible
- Date carried out and result
- Records reviewed and deviations found
- Calibration of monitoring equipment
- Product or environmental testing and its result
- CCP validation and its evidence
- Conclusion and changes to the plan
Example
Example: quarterly verification in a fictitious kitchen
Company, people and figures are fictitious: the example only shows what a properly completed record looks like.
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Period | July to September 2026 |
| Records | Review of 92 days of CCP-1 and CCP-3 monitoring · 2 deviations with correct action |
| Calibration | Probes S-01 and S-02 checked against a reference thermometer · deviation < 0.5 °C |
| Testing | 4 microbiological tests on finished product at an external laboratory · conforming |
| Surfaces | 6 post-cleaning swabs · 1 above the criterion · cleaning of the former is stepped up |
| Validation | No process changes in the period · January's cooling validation stands |
| Conclusion | Plan effective · next verification in December |
At the audit
Mistakes auditors commonly flag
- Verification that consists only of signing the records.
- Monitoring probes and thermometers that are not calibrated.
- Product testing unrelated to the hazards in the plan.
- Critical limits that have never been validated.
- Verification results that change nothing even when they show problems.
In Kimobox
How this record is kept in Kimobox
- 1Verification activities are scheduled with their frequency and owner, and the system warns you before each one falls due.
- 2Calibration of monitoring equipment is tracked with advance warning; overdue equipment stops showing as fit for use.
- 3Laboratory results are linked to the batch and feed the certificates of analysis.
- 4Internal audits of the plan use their checklist, and their findings become actions with deadlines.
Frequently asked questions
What people ask us before getting started
What is the difference between validating and verifying?
Validating means showing, before relying on a control, that it is capable of controlling the hazard. Verifying means checking afterwards, regularly, that it is applied properly and still works.
How often should verification take place?
The Regulation says "regularly" and leaves the frequency to the operator according to risk. The usual approach is to review records daily or weekly, carry out an overall verification periodically and a full review at least once a year.
Is laboratory testing mandatory?
It depends on the hazard analysis and, for some products, on the legal microbiological criteria. As verification it is one more tool, not a substitute for monitoring.
Keep your HACCP records without loose templates
We'll show you the module running with data similar to yours.
Keep exploring
Related pages
BRCGS HACCP plan validation and review
How to document CCP validation and the annual HACCP plan review BRCGS requires: evidence, verification…
Verification
Verification covers the activities, distinct from monitoring, that confirm the HACCP plan is being followed…
HACCP product description and flow diagram
How to document the HACCP preliminary steps: team, product description, intended use, flow diagram and its…
HACCP hazard analysis table
How to fill in the HACCP hazard analysis: biological, chemical, physical and allergen hazards by step…
Sources
Where each figure comes from
References to the official text in force. If a standard is revised, this page is updated and the review date says so.
- Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (Article 5 and Annex II) EUR-Lex · 29 April 2004
- General Principles of Food Hygiene, CXC 1-1969 Codex Alimentarius (FAO/WHO) · 2020 revision