ISO 22000 clause 8.6: keep PRPs and hazard-control information aligned

What clause 8.6 requires in practice

Hazard control does not end when the plan is written. Once the hazard control plan is established, the organisation updates, where necessary, four groups of preliminary information: the features of raw materials, of ingredients and of materials that touch the product; the features of end products; the intended use; and the flow diagrams with the descriptions of processes and process environment. It must also make sure the hazard control plan and the prerequisite programmes themselves are current. The reason is that the decisions made in analysis, validation and planning often change what the earlier information says, for instance a tighter material specification or an altered route. The clause closes the loop between the plan and the facts it was built on, so they continue to agree.

Check the information affected by the final decision

Review characteristics of materials, ingredients and product-contact materials; end-product characteristics; intended use; and flow diagrams and process-environment descriptions. Determine whether the final control arrangement changes any of these facts or assumptions.

For example, establishing a suitable control may lead to a revised material specification or a changed process arrangement. If the preliminary information still describes the earlier condition, later reviewers may misunderstand the basis of the plan.

Update what needs changing rather than automatically rewriting every document. The useful question is whether the maintained information and the actual operating arrangement tell the same story.

Keep PRPs and the plan consistent

PRPs and hazard controls have connected roles. A change to layout, cleaning, equipment or material handling can affect both. Check the interfaces so a revised plan does not rely on a PRP arrangement that no longer exists.

Use controlled review and approval for the affected information. Ensure personnel receive the current instructions and understand relevant changes. A document update that stays within the food safety team's folder does not complete the operational change.

Where a change affects the selected control's capability, apply the relevant validation requirements. Updating a description is not a substitute for demonstrating that the changed control can achieve its intended outcome.

Make the feedback loop traceable

Connect the hazard-control decision with the information updated and the implementation action. A simple change record can help show the relationship, but clause 8.6 does not prescribe one particular format.

Distinguish a document correction from a technical change. Correcting a typographical error may have limited consequences; changing a product characteristic or control arrangement may need a broader review. Apply proportionate judgment while preserving the technical basis.

Why clause 8.6 matters to the business

When the plan and its supporting facts drift apart, the organisation ends up with a control arrangement that depends on an assumption nobody still holds. A specification that was tightened in the plan but not in purchasing, or a diagram that shows a route no longer used, can lead to the wrong materials being accepted or the wrong hazard being examined. Keeping everything aligned reduces rework in audits, avoids contradictory instructions between departments, and means that people reading any one document are not misled. It is a modest discipline that prevents some of the most avoidable errors.

How to implement clause 8.6

Make alignment a routine step whenever a control decision is made or changed, rather than an occasional clean-up. Keep this proportionate: most decisions will touch only one or two documents, and the aim is simply that nobody is left working from a description that no longer matches the plan.

1. After each control decision, list which preliminary information could be affected: materials, products, intended use, diagrams and descriptions.
2. Check each item against the decision and update only what has actually changed.
3. Review prerequisite programmes at the same time, since layout, cleaning or handling changes can affect both programmes and plan.
4. Pass the changes through review and approval, and ensure the people applying them receive the current versions.
5. Where a change alters how well a control works, return to validation before relying on it.
6. Keep a simple trace linking the decision to the documents updated and the date the work reached the operation.
7. Confirm on the next verification activity that practice follows the updated information.

Illustrative food-manufacturing example

Illustrative catering example

A caterer changes a service route following its hazard-control review. The team updates the flow diagram, relevant process description and intended-use information, then checks the instructions at both preparation and service locations.

The plan and PRPs are reviewed together because the revised route changes a handover and supporting conditions. The organisation does not leave the original diagram in place as a historical explanation for current work.

Evidence and common mistakes