Templates and records · ISO 22000 · Clause 8.8

ISO 22000 PRP and HACCP plan verification record template

Checking that what was planned is done and works: record reviews, product testing, calibrations, PRP audits. And analysing the results as a whole, not one by one.

In one sentence

The verification record shows that the PRPs are implemented and effective, that the control plan is followed, that hazard levels are within acceptable levels and that the preliminary information is up to date; clause 8.8 of ISO 22000 requires it to be retained, prohibits it being done by whoever monitors that activity and asks for its results to be analysed.

Content reviewed on 17 October 2026

Where the standard requires it: ISO 22000 · Clause 8.8 Clauses are cited using the numbering of ISO 22000:2018, the current edition. ISO is preparing a third edition that may renumber them; when it is published it will have its own transition period.
Type of information: Mandatory record Evidence of verification to be retained (8.8.1)
Who fills it in: Quality or the food safety team Never the same person who monitors the activity being verified
When: According to the verification plan Daily for reviewing CCP records; weekly, monthly or annually for testing and audits
How long it is kept: Set by the organisation ISO 22000 only sets a minimum for traceability (8.3: the shelf life of the product). Covering the shelf life plus the three-year certification cycle lets you show the history at recertification.

What the standard requires

What ISO 22000 demands and what it leaves to your judgement

Verification must be planned — purpose, methods, frequency and responsibilities — to confirm that the PRPs are implemented and effective, that the control plan is implemented and effective, that hazards are below acceptable levels, that the preliminary information for the analysis is up to date and that the other procedures are working.

Verification activities cannot be the responsibility of the person monitoring those same activities. If a sample of end product gives a result above the acceptable level, the affected batches are handled as potentially unsafe.

The food safety team analyses the verification results (8.8.2) and uses them as an input to evaluate the performance of the system (9.1.2) and to update it.

Read it in context: Hazard control and the HACCP/OPRP plan, in the ISO 22000 Academy

Structure

Fields the template should include

Item verified: PRP, CCP, OPRP or preliminary information
Verification activity and method
Planned frequency and date carried out
Person responsible, other than whoever monitors
Result and acceptance criterion
Conforming or nonconforming and resulting action
Batches affected if the result exceeds the acceptable level
Periodic trend analysis and conclusion

Example

Example: monthly verification for March 2026

Company, people and figures are fictitious: the example only shows what a properly completed record looks like.

Field	Content
CCP-1 heat treatment	Daily record review by quality: 22 of 22 conforming
CCP-2 metal detector	Record review and manufacturer verification · one deviation with corrective action CA-26-014
OPRP-1 cooling	Weekly record review: two trolleys outside the criterion, evaluated and released after testing
PRP-04 cleaning	Weekly ATP at five points: 19 of 20 conforming; the failed point was recleaned and retested
End product	Microbiological testing of three batches by an external laboratory: conforming
Preliminary information	Supplier technical data sheets reviewed: one out of date, requested
Responsible	Quality technician (does not monitor any of these points)
Trend	Cooling is approaching the limit with full trolleys: a review of the blast chiller load is proposed

At the audit

Mistakes auditors commonly flag

The operator who monitors the CCP also signs its verification.
Verification is done, but the results are not analysed together and no trends are spotted.
A product result above the acceptable level does not lead to the affected batches being held.
Verification of the preliminary information (technical data sheets, diagrams) is not planned.
The verification plan exists, but nobody measures whether it is being carried out.

In Kimobox

How this record is kept in Kimobox

1Verification activities are scheduled with an owner other than whoever monitors.
2If a verification falls behind, the system alerts the person responsible.
3Results feed indicators that calculate themselves and reach management review.
4A result outside the criterion opens a nonconformity with a mandatory root cause.

Frequently asked questions

What people ask us before getting started

What is the difference between monitoring and verification?

Monitoring checks in real time that a CCP or OPRP is under control. Verification confirms afterwards, by other means and by another person, that monitoring was done properly and that the control works.

Is internal audit a form of verification?

It contributes, but they are different things: internal audit (9.2) reviews the whole system, while verification under 8.8 focuses on the PRPs, the control plan and the preliminary information, and is more frequent.

Keep your ISO 22000 records without loose templates

We'll show you the module running with data similar to yours.

Request a demo

Keep exploring

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.

ISO 22000:2018 — Food safety management systems. Requirements for any organization in the food chain ISO · 2018 ed., with Amd 1:2024
General Principles of Food Hygiene, CXC 1-1969 Codex Alimentarius (FAO/WHO) · 2020 revision