HACCP software built by an operator who runs a CFIA-licensed plant.

I am Andrew Langevin. I run a CFIA-licensed (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) mushroom production facility in Brantford, Ontario under the SFCR (Safe Food for Canadians Regulations), and a private-label division that ships product under multiple client brand names from one kitchen. I built HACCPlan's HACCP software starting from my own facility's needs in 2023 — the year I went through a Preventive Control Plan (PCP) build, paid a consultant for a draft that didn't match my process, and rewrote it myself. Here is what the software does, who it is for, and where it is genuinely not the right answer.

01What it is

HACCP software, in one paragraph.

HACCP stands for Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points. It is a system codified by the United Nations' Codex Alimentarius standard CXC 1-1969 (revised 2023) and adopted by the FDA, the USDA, and the CFIA as the floor for what a food business has to do to prove it controls the hazards in its product. A HACCP plan is the written document. HACCP software is the tool that helps you build the plan, run the daily monitoring it requires, prove the records exist at audit time, and re-do the analysis when something in the process changes. HACCPlan is HACCP software built around the 2023 Codex revision, FDA Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls (HARPC) under 21 CFR Part 117, USDA-FSIS Part 417, FDA seafood (Part 123) and juice (Part 120) HACCP, and the Canadian SFCR Section 86 PCP framework.

The honest line is this. Software does not replace the team meeting where you decide which steps are CCPs (Critical Control Points). It does not replace the floor walk where you verify your process flow matches reality. It does not replace the Process Authority letter for an acidified product. What it does is take the documentation burden — the 7 Codex principles, the monitoring logs, the verification calendar, the reassessment trigger, the audit export — and make it the cheapest, most defensible part of your day.

02The build story

Why I built this in the first place.

In 2023 I was deep in a CFIA licence application for Nature Lion's Brantford facility. I had already paid a consultant for a draft PCP. It was 40 pages. It cited the right sections of SFCR. It looked professional. It did not reflect my actual process. The first inspector who opened it asked three questions the plan could not answer: how do I verify my pre-operational sanitation, where is the validation evidence for my critical limits, and what is my trigger for reassessment when I change a substrate supplier.

I rewrote the whole thing in two weeks in a spreadsheet. The rewrite worked because it described what my facility actually did, not what a generic template assumed. Then I rebuilt the spreadsheet in code, because the spreadsheet broke the third time I had to clone it for a new private-label client. That code is HACCPlan.

The reason this matters for you as a buyer: most HACCP software is founded by software engineers who hired a food safety consultant as an advisor. The product reflects the advisor's slide deck. HACCPlan is founded by a licensed food operator who failed his own first PCP draft and rewrote it. The product reflects what survives an inspection.

“

How do you verify your pre-op sanitation is being done? Show me the record from last Tuesday.

”

The first CFIA inspection at my Brantford facility, 2023

That single question is the reason HACCPlan has a verification calendar with auto-scheduled record reviews. It is the reason every log is time-stamped from the device clock, not back-fillable. It is the reason the audit export can produce the last 30 days of any record in two taps.

03The 7 principles

What the software actually walks you through.

The 2023 Codex revision specifies 7 HACCP principles and 12 preliminary tasks. The principles are what every regulator, every customer auditor, and every GFSI scheme asks for. HACCPlan structures the plan generator around them in the order auditors read them, so the document you produce does not require restructuring when SQF (Safe Quality Food) Edition 9 or BRCGS (Brand Reputation Compliance Global Standards) Issue 9 shows up.

1. 01

   Principle 1: Conduct a hazard analysis

   For every step in your process flow, you list biological, chemical (including allergens), and physical hazards. You rate likelihood and severity. You decide which hazards are significant. HACCPlan's hazard library is seeded per-vertical (bakery, dairy, meat, seafood, juice, RTE, beverage, pet food, acidified, specialty) with citations to the FDA Fish and Fishery Products Hazards Guide (4th edition), USDA-FSIS compliance guidelines for lethality and stabilization, and the FDA Juice HACCP Hazards Guide. You can add your own hazards. You cannot skip the step.

2. 02

   Principle 2: Determine the Critical Control Points

   A CCP is a step where you can apply control and where control is essential to prevent or eliminate a hazard. The 2023 Codex CCP decision tree is four sequential questions. HACCPlan runs the 2023 tree (not the 2003 version still used by many tools), including the first question that asks whether the hazard can be controlled by prerequisite programs alone — the question that prevents over-CCP-ing.

3. 03

   Principle 3: Establish critical limits

   A critical limit is a measurable boundary that separates safe from unsafe at a CCP. 165 degrees Fahrenheit for poultry. pH at or below 4.6 for acidified foods. Water activity at or below 0.85 for jerky. HACCPlan's critical limits library is cited — every value carries a source link (FSIS-GD-2021-0014 for cooking, the Fish Hazards Guide for cold smoke, peer-reviewed challenge studies where they exist). You can override, but the override has to be documented.

4. 04

   Principle 4: Establish monitoring procedures

   What you measure, how often, who measures it, who signs off. HACCPlan generates the actual monitoring log (PDF for print, digital form for tablet) from your CCP definitions. The frequency is configurable; the log is locked to the CCP so a deviation cannot be hidden by editing the form.

5. 05

   Principle 5: Establish corrective actions

   When monitoring shows a deviation, what you do. Hold the product. Determine disposition. Find the root cause. Prevent recurrence. HACCPlan's deviation workflow links the corrective action record back to the original CCP monitoring entry, so the audit trail is one click for the inspector.

6. 06

   Principle 6: Establish verification procedures

   Verification is the step most operators underbuild. Calibrating thermometers. Reviewing monitoring records weekly. Running calibration checks on the sanitation pre-op. Reassessing the plan annually. HACCPlan's verification calendar auto-schedules each of these and notifies the responsible person. The FDA-required PCQI (Preventive Controls Qualified Individual) 7-day review window under Part 117 Section 117.315 is built in.

7. 07

   Principle 7: Establish recordkeeping procedures

   Every monitoring entry, every verification, every corrective action, every reassessment. Retained for 2 years (FDA Part 117 Section 117.330; CFIA SFCR Section 87). HACCPlan stores everything with version control, immutable audit trail, and electronic signatures. We do not force 21 CFR Part 11 mode on every customer — most food HACCP records are not subject to Part 11, per FDA's 2003 Scope and Application guidance, and forcing it would add cost you do not need.

04The 2023 decision tree

Why the 2023 CCP decision tree changes the answer.

The CCP decision tree was removed from the 2020 release of CXC 1-1969 and re-added in the 2023 revision after operators and competent authorities complained that the system needed it. The 2023 four-question tree is now the current international standard. Many software tools still run the 2003 version, which produces a different answer.

The biggest change is question 1. The 2023 tree asks first: can the significant hazard be controlled to an acceptable level at this step by prerequisite programs alone — sanitation SOPs, employee hygiene, pest control, supplier verification, training? If yes, the step is not a CCP. The hazard exits the tree at question 1.

This is the exit that prevents over-CCP-ing. A consultant draft I saw labeled six steps in a mushroom-growing process as CCPs. After running the 2023 tree with the question 1 exit, four of those steps dropped out — the hazards were already controlled by sanitation and supplier verification. The monitoring burden went from a 2-hour-per-shift checklist to a 20-minute one. Same hazards, same control, fewer fake CCPs. The plan got more defensible, not less.

If you are comparing HACCP tools, ask which version of the decision tree they implement. It is the single fastest sanity check on whether the vendor has kept current with the standard.

05What is inside

The 11 features the product page has to actually do.

None of this is generic software with a "HACCP" label glued on. Each piece exists because a real operator needed it and asked.

1. 01

   Free HACCP plan generator at app.haccplan.com

   Anonymous wizard. No email gate to use it. The 12 preliminary tasks plus the 7 principles, in order. Pick your vertical, walk the steps, pick your CCPs through the 2023 decision tree, set critical limits from the cited library, choose monitoring frequencies, get the full plan PDF. Email gate only at the download step. This is the lead magnet; most operators run on the free generator for several days before deciding whether the paid platform fits.

2. 02

   2023 Codex CCP decision tree, wizard form

   The four 2023 questions presented in order, with the prerequisite-programs exit at question 1. Plain-language explanation of what each question is asking. Answer changes update the plan in real time; you can see how the CCP list shrinks or grows as you reclassify hazards.

3. 03

   Critical limits library with source citations

   Every value carries a citation. Cooking 165 degrees Fahrenheit for poultry — cites USDA-FSIS-GD-2021-0014 (Appendix A revised). Cold-smoke salt at or above 3.5 percent water-phase — cites the FDA Fish and Fishery Products Hazards Guide chapter 13. pH at or below 4.6 for acidified foods — cites 21 CFR Part 114. Water activity at or below 0.85 for jerky — cites FSIS-GD-2014-0008. Override is allowed; the override is logged.

4. 04

   Monitoring schedule builder with the actual log forms

   From your CCP definitions, the system generates the monitoring log as both a PDF you can print to a clipboard and a digital form you can run on a tablet. The form knows what is being monitored, the critical limit, the frequency, the responsible person, the escalation path. Auto-timestamp from the device clock. Photo capture for probe readings.

5. 05

   Corrective action workflows linked to the CCP record

   A deviation triggers a corrective action form pre-populated with the CCP, the critical limit, the actual reading, and the time. Immediate action, product disposition, root cause, preventive action. The corrective action stays linked to the original monitoring entry forever; an auditor pulling the CCP history sees the deviation and the resolution in the same view.

6. 06

   Verification calendar with auto-scheduling

   PCQI 7-day record review per 21 CFR Part 117 Section 117.315. Calibration checks on thermometers, probes, pH meters. CCP validation reviews. Annual full plan reassessment per Section 117.170 (and the parallel sections in 9 CFR 417.4, 21 CFR 120.11, 21 CFR 123.8). Push notifications to the responsible person at the right cadence.

7. 07

   Recordkeeping with 2-year retention enforced

   Version control. Immutable audit trail. Electronic signatures. 2-year retention auto-enforced (FDA Section 117.330 and CFIA SFCR Section 87). Records are exportable as PDF for the inspector or as CSV for your own analysis. Part 11 mode available for the small fraction of operators who genuinely need it — not the default, because FDA's 2003 Scope and Application guidance confirms Part 11 does not apply to most food HACCP records.

8. 08

   Validation studies storage

   Pasteurization curves. Cold-smoke challenge studies. Supplier letters of guarantee. Allergen statements. Certificates of analysis. Specs. Uploaded once, referenced from any plan and any CCP. The document scanner reads structured fields out of supplier paperwork (pH, water activity, allergen statement, certifications) and populates the supplier verification record and the relevant CCPs at the same time, instead of you typing the same numbers into three places.

9. 09

   Per-vertical templates

   Bakery (allergen control, bake-step lethality for Salmonella in flour, finished-product water activity). Dairy (pasteurization CCP per the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, post-pasteurization Listeria controls). Meat and poultry (FSIS lethality, stabilization, the FSIS-GD-2021-0014 Appendix A cooking thresholds). Seafood (Part 123, the Fish Hazards Guide, histamine for scombroid species). Juice (Part 120, validated 5-log pathogen reduction). RTE (ready-to-eat) (Listeria environmental monitoring). Beverage (acidification, pasteurization). Pet food (Part 507, Salmonella as primary biological hazard). Acidified and fermented (Part 114, Process Authority letter required). Specialty including mushroom and cottage-scale (drawn from my own Brantford facility). Each template seeded with regulation-aligned hazards, typical CCPs, and critical-limits starting points.

10. 10

    Reassessment trigger calendar

    Annual reassessment auto-scheduled, the floor the regulation requires. Triggered reassessments fired by raw material changes, formulation changes, equipment changes, packaging changes, distribution changes, intended use changes — the explicit triggers in 9 CFR 417.4, 21 CFR 117.170, 120.11, and 123.8. The trigger fires the reassessment workflow; you cannot file the change without completing the reassessment.

11. 11

    Multi-tenant for co-packers, private label, and multi-location

    A co-packer with eight clients has eight HACCP plans, eight allergen matrices, eight supplier lists, and one set of recordkeeping discipline. HACCPlan's multi-tenant model came directly from my Nature Lion private-label division, which produces under several client brand names from one kitchen. Per-client isolation. Shared records where it makes sense (sanitation, training). Audit export per client without dragging the other clients' data with it. The same model adapts cleanly to multi-location restaurant operations and to multi-plant manufacturers.

06Day-to-day

What running on HACCPlan looks like during a normal week.

The plan is the document. The discipline is the daily monitoring. A real food operation lives in the monitoring and the verification, not in the plan PDF that sits in a binder. Here is what the typical operator's week on HACCPlan looks like, in operator terms.

1. 01

   Shift open

   The PIC (Person In Charge, the manager on duty) signs into the tablet, confirms the team illness check (the Big 6 reportable conditions per the FDA Food Code Section 2-201.11 framework, even if you are a manufacturer and not a restaurant — the discipline is the same), and reviews any overnight exception alerts.

2. 02

   During production

   Each CCP monitoring entry is a single-task screen with large tap targets. Probe the chicken; the cooking log knows the target from your CCP definition and flags an under-temp before the product leaves the line. Probe the cooling rail at hour 2; the cooling log knows the 135-to-70-in-2-hours, 70-to-41-in-the-next-4 thresholds from Section 3-501.14 of the FDA Food Code or from your validated stabilization procedure under FSIS-GD-2014-0007.

3. 03

   Deviation, mid-shift

   The under-temp triggers a corrective action workflow. The product is on hold. The disposition decision is logged with the reason. The CCP record and the corrective action are now linked forever; pulling the monitoring history shows the deviation and the resolution in the same view.

4. 04

   Verification, weekly

   The PCQI (or in Canada the responsible person) runs the 7-day record review per Section 117.315. The verification calendar tells them what is due — record review, calibration, observation. The completed verification is logged with the reviewer's electronic signature.

5. 05

   Reassessment trigger, occasional

   A supplier change. A new menu item. A new piece of equipment. The trigger fires; the reassessment workflow walks the team through the hazards, the CCPs, and the critical limits for the affected scope. The plan version increments. The previous version is archived.

6. 06

   Inspection day

   The inspector arrives. You open the audit-day binder export. The current HACCP plan, the last 30 days of monitoring records, the verification log, the corrective action history, the calibration records, the training log, the recall plan, the supplier verification records. One PDF, in the order most inspectors work through it, exportable in under a minute. You hand them the tablet or you hand them the printed packet; either way, the retrieval is fast.

07Audit-day binder

The audit export — the feature most operators wait too long to use.

If you remember nothing else from this page, remember this. The audit-day binder export is the single highest-leverage feature in any HACCP software. It is what your inspector or your customer auditor or your SQF certification body will spend the most time looking at. It is the feature that is easiest to underbuild.

HACCPlan's audit export produces a single PDF containing the current HACCP plan, the validation evidence for every critical limit, the monitoring records for a configurable time window (default 30 days), the verification log including PCQI signatures, the corrective action history with disposition decisions, the calibration records, the training log, the recall plan and most recent mock recall, the supplier verification records (Letters of Guarantee, COAs, certifications scanned in), and the allergen control program. The PDF is bookmarked. The pages are numbered. The bookmark tree matches the order a typical FDA, USDA-FSIS, CFIA, or third-party auditor will work through.

The reason this matters: HACCP records do exist in most facilities. The problem is rarely that the records are missing; the problem is that the records are scattered. A binder for the plan. A Dropbox for the validation studies. A handwritten log on the walk-in door. A spreadsheet on the QA manager's laptop. The inspector asks a question, the operator goes hunting, the 90-minute audit becomes a 4-hour archaeology dig, and the citations stack up not because the controls failed but because the documentation could not keep pace.

08Vertical fit

Who HACCPlan is for, and who it is not.

The honest version. There are food operations where HACCPlan is the right answer and food operations where a different tool fits better. I am going to tell you both, because I would rather you pick correctly than spend three months on the wrong platform.

“

Is this going to be enterprise-grade overkill or a glorified PDF generator? Because the last two tools I evaluated were one of those two things.

”

Common operator question I get on a sales call

The middle is where HACCPlan sits. Cheaper than enterprise. Deeper than a PDF builder. Public pricing. Free generator that produces a real plan, not a 14-day demo that times out before you finish the hazard analysis.

09Pricing

Pricing — published, no demo gate.

Most HACCP software vendors hide pricing behind a sales call. The reasoning is that custom-quoting lets them charge what the market will bear. The honest version is that it also lets them avoid being compared on a feature-for-dollar basis.

HACCPlan's pricing is on the public pricing page. Summary: there is a free tier that runs the plan generator and stores one plan. There is a Pro tier at a published monthly rate that covers unlimited plans, the monitoring schedule builder, the verification calendar, the validation studies storage, the document scanner, every per-vertical template, and the audit-day export. There is an Enterprise tier for multi-plant operations that need single sign-on (SSO), data residency selection, custom audit-export formats, or a dedicated implementation manager.

No per-user markup at the Pro tier. No per-site markup at the Pro tier. The reason: my Nature Lion division ships under several brands from one kitchen, and per-site pricing would have killed the model. I am not going to charge you for the same structural problem I solved for myself.

10What you do this week

The cheapest way to find out if HACCPlan fits.

Two paths, depending on what stage you are at.

If you are evaluating HACCP software and you want to see whether HACCPlan generates a defensible plan for your vertical, run the free plan generator. No account needed to start. Pick your vertical, walk the 12 preliminary tasks and the 7 principles, get the PDF emailed to you at the end. Spend a couple of hours on it. Compare the output to whatever consultant draft or competitor demo you already have. The plan generator is the same engine the Pro tier uses; what you see is what you get.

If you are already past evaluation and you want to see how the monitoring and verification side runs in a real workflow, start the Pro tier and load one product into the platform. Set up the CCPs. Generate the monitoring logs. Run the verification calendar against one week of actual production. The trial period is long enough to produce a real audit-export practice run before the conversion decision.

Either way, start with the plan. The plan is what tells you whether the software speaks your vertical's language. The monitoring and verification matter, but they matter on top of a plan that is right.

Footnotes

1.Codex Alimentarius CXC 1-1969 (2023 revision) — General Principles of Food Hygiene, including the HACCP Annex with the four-question CCP decision tree — openknowledge.fao.org

2.21 CFR Part 117 — Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food (HARPC) — ecfr.gov

3.21 CFR Part 120 — Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems for Juice — ecfr.gov

4.21 CFR Part 123 — Fish and Fishery Products HACCP — ecfr.gov

5.9 CFR Part 417 — USDA-FSIS Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems — ecfr.gov

6.FDA — Application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Principles to Retail and Food Service — fda.gov

7.FDA Guidance — Part 11, Electronic Records, Electronic Signatures, Scope and Application (2003) — fda.gov

8.CFIA — Regulatory requirements: Preventive Control Plan under SFCR Section 86 — inspection.canada.ca

9.USDA-FSIS — Compliance Guideline for Meat and Poultry Jerky Produced by Small and Very Small Establishments (FSIS-GD-2014-0008) — fsis.usda.gov

10.USDA-FSIS — Revised Appendix A: Cooking Compliance Guideline (FSIS-GD-2021-0014) — fsis.usda.gov

Andrew Langevin·CFIA-licensed facility, Brantford ON· Published 2026-06-04· 12 min read· Wikidata Q139112497