20 Critical Control Point Examples for FSQA: 50 More Included

One bad thermometer reading can turn “Made in the USA” into “Recalled Nationwide.”

Let’s talk about how to stop that before it starts — with CCPs done right.

According to a publication from The Journal of Food Protection, An Analysis of Food Recalls in the United States, over 90% of food recalls are caused by contamination issues — most of which could’ve been prevented with stronger controls.

What You’ll Learn

• Real-world CCP examples across food categories
• How CCPs align with FSMA, SQF, and GFSI standards
• What CCPs are and why they matter in HACCP
• How to identify, verify, and validate CCPs
• Key differences between control points and CCPs

What Are Critical Control Points?

Critical Control Points (CCPs) are specific steps within the food production process where control can be applied to prevent, eliminate, or reduce a food safety hazard to an acceptable level. They are the most critical elements of a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system — the global framework that ensures food safety through prevention rather than reaction.

A CCP is not just another checkpoint; it’s where failure could directly result in unsafe food reaching consumers. For example, cooking poultry to 165°F (74°C) is a CCP because it destroys harmful bacteria that would otherwise survive.

Critical Control Point Examples

Save this list to help train your food safety team or to deepen your own understanding of food safety.

When food manufacturers think about audit readiness, few topics are as central — or as misunderstood — as critical control points. CCPs are where hazards must be controlled to prevent unsafe products from reaching consumers. Whether it’s ensuring poultry reaches the correct internal temperature or verifying sanitation between allergen runs, CCPs form the backbone of a compliant HACCP plan.

Below are 20 detailed critical control point examples, grouped by food type, to help your FSQA (Food Safety and Quality Assurance) team strengthen their hazard controls and maintain compliance through real-time digital monitoring.

1. Poultry: Cooking Temperature Control

Hazard: Biological — Salmonella, Campylobacter

CCP Example: Cooking step.

Cooking poultry is not only about meeting minimum temperature guidelines — it’s a controlled, validated process that ensures microbiological safety across variable load sizes and equipment types. Poultry products, especially mechanically separated or marinated ones, present a high-risk profile due to increased surface exposure and moisture retention. To destroy pathogens effectively, the entire batch must reach an internal temperature of 165°F (74°C) for at least 15 seconds. Many plants use continuous digital monitoring systems tied to control charts to confirm uniform heating.

Monitoring: Temperature probes or thermocouples are inserted into sample pieces every 30 minutes during production or every batch if the process is batch-based. Some facilities incorporate automated sensors that capture live data in real time, immediately alerting QA teams if temperatures trend toward deviation.

Corrective Action: If product fails to reach 165°F, it should be recooked immediately or discarded if unsafe. Recalibration and equipment inspection should follow, ensuring that thermometers, ovens, and conveyor systems operate within tolerance. Root cause analysis is documented to prevent recurrence.

Verification: QA teams verify through calibration logs, heat distribution studies, and microbial testing of finished product samples. Periodic validation with inoculated pack studies or third-party lab support provides an extra compliance layer.

According to the CDC, chicken is found in about 1 in every 25 packages at grocery stores and backyard poultry contact resulted in over 1,100 outbreak illnesses in 2023 alone, making robust CCP monitoring essential.

2. Ground Beef: Final Cook Step Verification

Hazard: Biological — E. coli O157:H7*

Ground beef requires extra scrutiny because grinding distributes pathogens throughout the product. Cooking to 160°F (71°C) is the validated CCP to ensure complete pathogen destruction. Since ground beef is often part of high-volume operations, time-temperature integration and uniform mixing before cooking are equally critical.

Monitoring: Thermal sensors are used continuously within cooking tunnels or kettles. Operators document start and finish temperatures, and control charts are reviewed hourly. Many facilities use automated monitoring systems that link to a central database.

Corrective Action: If data shows deviation, hold all affected product and verify through microbial analysis before release. Equipment maintenance, calibration, and retraining of staff are required to prevent recurrence.

Verification: Regular digital log audits and random microbiological verification ensure accuracy. FSMA guidelines suggest retaining records for at least 12 months or longer depending on distribution.

Recordkeeping: Records include cooking logs, probe calibration certificates, and lot traceability data tied to supplier batches.

3. Seafood: Cold Storage Control

Hazard: Biological — Listeria monocytogenes, Vibrio spp.

Cold storage is one of the most critical CCPs for seafood processors. Fresh fish and shellfish must remain below 40°F (4°C) from receiving through processing to prevent bacterial proliferation. Because seafood deteriorates quickly, continuous temperature integrity is essential to both safety and quality.

Monitoring: Install data loggers in every cold storage area and connect them to alarm systems that trigger when temperatures exceed thresholds. Record readings at least every two hours manually or automatically through the system.

Corrective Action: Move product to an alternate cooler if temperature exceeds 40°F for more than 2 hours. Conduct root cause analysis—was it door traffic, cooler malfunction, or probe drift? Adjust procedures accordingly.

Verification: Supervisors review daily temperature logs and perform monthly sensor calibration. Periodic spot checks ensure probe accuracy.

According to the Journal of Food Protection, Temperature abuse is a leading cause of seafood quality deterioration and safety concerns, underscoring why continuous cold-chain monitoring matters for preventing contamination.

4. Ready-to-Eat Deli Meats: Post-Processing Lethality Treatment

Hazard: Listeria monocytogenes

RTE deli meats face a high risk of Listeria contamination after cooking during slicing, handling, or packaging. A post-lethality treatment, such as high-pressure pasteurization (HPP) or steam surface pasteurization, is the key CCP.

Monitoring: Use automated systems that document pressure, temperature, and duration for every cycle. Operators confirm visual indicators before each run.

Corrective Action: If pressure or hold time deviates, quarantine the batch and retest for Listeria. Investigate gasket integrity or cycle interruption.

Verification: Validate the lethality process annually with third-party data. Conduct environmental monitoring to confirm no Listeria presence in post-process areas.

Recordkeeping: Maintain batch parameters, validation reports, and verification results for at least two years for regulatory review.

5. Dairy: Pasteurization Step

Hazard: Coxiella burnetii, Salmonella, Listeria

Pasteurization remains the cornerstone CCP for dairy production. Milk must be heated to 161°F (72°C) for 15 seconds (HTST method) under strict flow diversion valve control.

Monitoring: Continuous chart recorders document both time and temperature. Operators inspect gauge readings hourly and cross-verify digital and mechanical outputs.

Corrective Action: If temperature or time parameters fail, divert milk to the reject tank. Stop the line, investigate system faults, and recalibrate as needed.

Verification: Periodic calibration checks and microbial testing confirm efficacy. Validation studies should demonstrate the process consistently achieves pathogen destruction.

The CDCs page on raw milk confirms pasteurization prevents over 99% of milkborne disease outbreaks, making it one of the most essential CCPs in food safety history.

6. Cheese Production: pH Control During Curd Formation

Hazard: Biological — Listeria, Salmonella

During fermentation, pH management ensures pathogens cannot thrive. When curds form, lowering pH below 5.3 before salting inhibits Listeria and Salmonella.

Monitoring: pH meter readings at fixed intervals, with calibration checks before each production run.

Corrective Action: If pH remains above target, extend fermentation or discard affected curds. Record deviation and corrective action for review.

Verification: QA verifies daily records, calibrations, and periodic lab confirmation of pH readings. Adjust starter cultures as necessary to maintain predictable acidification.

7. Fresh Produce: Wash Water Sanitation

Hazard: Biological — E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella

Wash water used in produce processing is a potential cross-contamination source. Maintaining chlorine concentration between 50–200 ppm and pH 6.5–7.5 ensures microbial control.

Monitoring: On-line oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) sensors and manual chlorine test strips every hour.

Corrective Action: Adjust chemical dosing system or replace water immediately if parameters deviate. Document corrective actions and retrain personnel if nonconformance is repeated.

Verification: Supervisors validate readings, perform titration tests weekly, and maintain calibration records for audit readiness.

The CDC reports produce causes nearly half of U.S. foodborne illness outbreaks, emphasizing sanitation as a vital CCP.

8. Leafy Greens: Cooling Immediately After Harvest

Hazard: Biological — Listeria, E. coli

After harvest, leafy greens begin to warm rapidly. Cooling to below 41°F within two hours slows bacterial growth and preserves freshness.

Monitoring: Record cooler entry times, use temperature data loggers, and verify rapid cooling with field records.

Corrective Action: If delays exceed the time limit, discard or divert product to non-RTE channels. Investigate equipment downtime or field logistics issues.

Verification: QA reviews temperature records daily and ensures cooling systems maintain consistent airflow.

9. Eggs: Holding Temperature at Packing

Hazard: Salmonella Enteritidis

According to Food Safety Processors, eggs must be refrigerated at an ambient temperature of 45°F (7°C) or below beginning no later than 36 hours after laying to prevent bacterial growth. This CCP applies from post-wash through shipping.

Monitoring: Automated sensors log temperature continuously; operators verify twice per shift. Alarm systems alert when limits are breached.

Verification: Review logs weekly, recalibrate equipment monthly, and maintain documentation for inspection.

10. Bakery Products: Metal Detection Before Packaging

Hazard: Physical — metal fragments from mixers or slicers.

Metal detection acts as a CCP to prevent physical contamination. Detectors must identify ferrous, nonferrous, and stainless steel fragments.

Monitoring: Perform detector checks at start, mid, and end of shift. Confirm reject mechanism functions correctly.

Corrective Action: Quarantine affected product, inspect equipment, and retest after maintenance. Document results immediately.

11. Frozen Foods: Freezing Rate Control

Hazard: Biological — pathogen survival due to slow freezing.

Quick-freezing ensures uniform freezing and inhibits microbial activity.

Monitoring: Product core temperature should reach and maintain 0°F (-18°C) for proper frozen storage and quality retention. Use inline sensors and verify visually.

Verification: QA performs random temperature checks and ensures blast freezers operate at peak efficiency.

12. Canned Foods: Retort Time and Temperature

Hazard: Clostridium botulinum

Thermal processing is the defining CCP for canned goods. Each retort must achieve validated sterilization parameters for the specific food type.

Monitoring: Track time, temperature, and pressure continuously. Control charts ensure process consistency.

Corrective Action: Hold the batch, perform microbial challenge testing, and verify retort calibration before release.

According to the FDA, botulism risk is virtually eliminated with validated retort processing.

13. Beverages: Filtration and UV Treatment

Hazard: Biological — microbial contamination in juice or water.

Final filtration or UV treatment removes or deactivates microorganisms before bottling.

Monitoring: Monitor UV intensity and filter pressure drop continuously. Log filter replacement schedules.

Verification: Monthly microbial validation testing confirms effectiveness.

14. Confectionery: Allergen Control Between Production Runs

Hazard: Chemical — undeclared allergens (e.g., peanuts, milk)

Line clearance and cleaning verification are critical CCPs in confectionery manufacturing where cross-contact risk is high.

Monitoring: Conduct ATP or protein swab tests between runs; verify visually that no residue remains.

Corrective Action: Reclean equipment if swab fails. Update allergen logs and retrain staff.

15. Ready Meals: Final Product Temperature Control at Packaging

Hazard: Biological — Listeria, Bacillus cereus

In ready meals, cooling after cooking is crucial to control bacterial growth. Ensure products cool from 135°F to 70°F within 2 hours, then to 41°F or below within an additional 4 hours according to FDA Food Code requirements.

Monitoring: Use automated time-temperature recording sensors integrated with cooling tunnels or blast chillers. Review digital reports daily.

Verification: Conduct random record audits and recalibrate probes monthly. Confirm that cold rooms maintain target temperatures during storage.

16. Infant Formula: Sterile Filling and Microbiological Control

Hazard: Biological — Cronobacter sakazakii, Salmonella spp.

Infant formula production requires stringent microbial control, particularly during the filling and packaging stages. The CCP focuses on sterile filling verification and environmental monitoring within the packaging area.

Monitoring: Conduct continuous air quality testing and surface swabbing. According to the USDA, Temperature and humidity are monitored twice per shift with continuous alarm systems to maintain a validated cleanroom environment.

Corrective Action: If microbial counts exceed acceptable limits, immediately halt production, sanitize the environment, and retest before resuming.

Verification: Routine sterility testing of finished products and validation of aseptic protocols.

The FDA reports that most infant formula recalls stem from contamination risks that could be mitigated through validated CCP controls.

17. Pet Food: Thermal Processing Validation

Hazard: Biological — Salmonella, Listeria

Pet food has been a leading recall category due to microbial contamination. The CCP centers on thermal processing validation to ensure sufficient lethality during extrusion or canning.

Monitoring: Record cooking temperatures and dwell times continuously; sensors must verify that internal product temperatures reach validated kill levels.

Corrective Action: If deviation occurs, quarantine affected lots, recalibrate sensors, and verify process integrity before continuing production.

Verification: Routine microbial testing and annual process validation confirm lethality performance.

According to the FDA Pet Food Compliance Program, inadequate thermal validation is responsible for a significant portion of Salmonella-related recalls.

18. Fermented Foods: pH and Time Control for Pathogen Inhibition

Hazard: Biological — Clostridium botulinum, Listeria, Salmonella

Fermented foods rely on pH, temperature, and time control to inhibit pathogen growth. The CCP involves maintaining defined pH and fermentation time limits to ensure safety.

Monitoring: Record pH at regular intervals until the product reaches a safe level (usually below pH 4.6). Track fermentation temperature and duration.

Corrective Action: Extend fermentation if pH targets are not reached. Hold the batch until verification confirms compliance.

Verification: Regular calibration of pH meters, microbiological testing, and review of fermentation logs.

19. Canned Vegetables: Residual Sanitizer Control

Hazard: Chemical — Peracetic acid or chlorine residuals post-washing.

In vegetable canning, excessive sanitizer residue can lead to chemical hazards. This CCP focuses on controlling residual sanitizer levels after the washing stage.

Monitoring: Measure peracetic acid concentration in rinse water using test kits or sensors every 30 minutes. Ensure levels remain within EPA-approved limits, with peracetic acid allowed up to 100 ppm residue on food products.

Corrective Action: If sanitizer exceeds limits, rinse vegetables with potable water until acceptable levels are achieved. Document corrective action and review sanitizer dosing equipment.

Verification: Weekly cross-verification with chemical titration tests and calibration of dosing systems.

EPA classifies peracetic acid as having "low concern" for residues and exempts it from tolerance requirements since it breaks down into harmless byproducts, underscoring proper dosing control as important for process effectiveness.

20. Bakery and Beverage: Mycotoxin or Pesticide Residue Verification

Hazard: Chemical — Mycotoxins (e.g., aflatoxin) or pesticide residues in grains, fruits, or syrups.

Both bakery and beverage manufacturers rely on raw materials that can carry chemical contaminants. The CCP focuses on verification through supplier Certificates of Analysis (COAs) and incoming lot testing.

Monitoring: Verify supplier COAs for every batch. Conduct periodic confirmatory testing for high-risk ingredients such as nuts, corn, or fruit concentrates.

Corrective Action: If a lot fails specifications or lacks documentation, quarantine and reject it. Notify suppliers and update purchasing controls to prevent recurrence.

Verification: QA audits supplier performance annually and validates third-party laboratory testing.

The FAO reports that mycotoxins contaminate approximately 25% of the world’s food crops, making COA verification and supplier testing essential CCPs for chemical safety.

Each of these examples represents a critical link in a HACCP system — steps where control is non-negotiable for safe, compliant production. Each one directly ties back to the seven HACCP principles, which provide the foundation for identifying hazards, setting limits, and verifying that controls are effective.

Understanding and documenting these CCPs ensures that your facility not only meets regulatory expectations but also upholds the highest standards of food safety and food quality control across all production stages.

How to Identify CCPs

Determining whether a process step is a CCP requires a structured approach. Most food safety teams rely on the HACCP Decision Tree — a standardized framework recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. This helps differentiate between control points and critical control points that directly impact food safety.

Here’s a concise 6-step framework to identify CCPs:

1. Identify all hazards: Begin with a comprehensive hazard analysis covering biological, chemical, and physical risks.
2. List existing controls: Document preventive controls already in place (e.g., sanitation, temperature control, supplier programs).
3. Ask Decision Tree Questions:

• Is there a control measure for the hazard at this step?
• Does this step eliminate or reduce the hazard to an acceptable level?
• Could contamination increase to unacceptable levels at this step?
• Will subsequent steps eliminate or reduce the hazard?

1. Determine critical limits: If the hazard is not controlled elsewhere, this step becomes a CCP. Define measurable limits (time, temperature, pH, etc.).
2. Validate: Confirm through scientific data or historical records that the CCP control effectively prevents hazards. A PCQI (Preventive Controls Qualified Individual) should review and approve these validations to ensure they align with FSMA and facility requirements.
3. Document and verify: Record decision tree responses and validation evidence to show due diligence during audits.

This framework is aligned with the Codex Alimentarius General Principles of Food Hygiene and U.S. regulatory requirements under 21 CFR Part 117 Subpart C for Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls (HARPC). These standards emphasize preventive, science-based decision-making and require documented CCP validation and verification.

Auditors and food inspectors frequently focus on CCP determination, validation data, and verification logs early in an inspection — so a clear, structured identification method is both a compliance requirement and a time-saver during audits.

Understanding Validation vs. Verification

A common point of confusion in HACCP systems is the difference between validation and verification. Both are essential, but they serve distinct purposes:

• Validation proves that your control measure can work — it’s the scientific or technical evidence gathered before implementation. For example, validation confirms that cooking at 165°F for 15 seconds destroys Salmonella.
• Verification proves that your control measure is working — it’s the ongoing confirmation that operations consistently meet the validated parameters. For example, routine thermometer calibration and temperature log reviews verify that cooking remains effective in daily production.

In short, validation builds the foundation of your CCPs, while verification maintains their integrity during ongoing operations. Auditors closely review both sets of evidence — validation studies confirm your process design, while verification records demonstrate continuous compliance.

Why CCPs Matter for Food Manufacturers

For food manufacturers, CCPs are the backbone of compliance and operational safety. Identifying and maintaining CCPs ensures that every process step meets regulatory requirements such as FSMA, SQF, and GFSI standards. More importantly, CCPs protect both brand integrity and public health.

Strong CCP management delivers multiple benefits:

• Food safety audit readiness: Properly documented CCPs demonstrate control and reduce audit stress.
• Risk reduction: Prevents costly recalls and protects your company from liability.
• Efficiency: Streamlined monitoring reduces manual paperwork and corrective rework.
• Customer trust: Consistent CCP verification reinforces brand reputation for quality and safety.

Callout: According to a 2025 Journal of Food Protection analysis, over 90% of food recalls are caused by contamination issues that could be prevented with stronger controls.

How to Best Utilize CCPs to Benefit Your Food Company

Implementing CCPs effectively goes beyond identification — it’s about integration, consistency, and accountability within comprehensive food safety management systems (FSMS) that unify HACCP, supplier control, and preventive verification.

Here’s how leading food companies turn CCP management into a competitive advantage:

1. Map the process thoroughly: Conduct a detailed hazard analysis to identify potential risks at every production stage.
2. Set clear limits: Define measurable, science-based thresholds for each CCP (e.g., time, temperature, pH, or chlorine concentration).
3. Automate monitoring: Use digital tools to capture data in real-time and flag deviations instantly.
4. Train continuously: Ensure every team member understands their CCP responsibilities and corrective actions.
5. Validate and verify: Regularly review CCPs against performance data and regulatory updates.
6. Document meticulously: Keep centralized, version-controlled records for easy retrieval during audits.

Companies that make CCPs part of their culture — not just their compliance paperwork — see fewer deviations, fewer recalls, and greater operational stability. This proactive approach is especially important as FSMA 204 traceability requirements take effect, requiring more transparent and connected data across supply chains.

The CDC reports that food businesses with certified food safety managers had 34% fewer foodborne illness outbreaks compared to those without certified managers.

Conclusion

Identifying and managing critical control points is the core of every HACCP plan — but the true strength of a CCP lies in how consistently it’s monitored, documented, and verified. From thermal processing to allergen management, each CCP example above demonstrates a clear link between control, compliance, and consumer protection.

Food safety leaders who standardize CCP documentation, ensure calibration, and review records daily dramatically reduce audit risk and strengthen FSQA culture across their facilities.

Next Steps:

• Review your HACCP plan and ensure CCPs are validated annually.
• Train operators on CCP monitoring techniques and corrective actions.
• Implement automated monitoring and documentation systems to simplify verification.

Beyond these immediate steps, food manufacturers can further strengthen their HACCP systems and food traceability programs by integrating continuous improvement methods that enhance transparency across suppliers, batches, and finished products.

• Establish a cross-functional food safety team: Include production, maintenance, and quality staff to create a unified approach to CCP management.
• Leverage trend data: Use recorded CCP metrics to identify recurring issues and optimize processes before nonconformities occur.
• Schedule mock audits: Conduct internal assessments every quarter to ensure staff readiness and system robustness.
• Engage suppliers: Extend CCP awareness into your supply chain by verifying their control measures and aligning on shared safety objectives.
• Invest in technology: Adopt real-time analytics and automated alerts for temperature, pressure, or sanitation deviations.
• Prioritize culture: Recognize and reward proactive CCP management to embed accountability throughout your organization.

These advanced practices turn CCP management from a compliance requirement into a continuous performance advantage. They improve visibility, reduce risk, and help ensure that your food safety program evolves alongside changing regulations and customer expectations.

Staying proactive with CCPs isn’t just about passing audits — it’s about keeping every product, and every consumer, safe.