Your audit is clean. Your line runs. No surprises.
Food manufacturing runs on tight margins, high throughput, and the constant pressure of certification audits. Engineering decisions made at the design stage determine whether your HACCP plan works, whether your allergen controls hold, and whether your CIP system really cleans what it's supposed to. We make those decisions correctly the first time.
Food safety failures almost always have an engineering root cause. Here is where we intervene — and how.
| ⚠️ Issue | Root cause | ✅ Our response | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|
| HACCP not in the engineering | HACCP plans developed separately from facility design — CCPs reconciled after installation | HACCP integrated into P&IDs from first design review — engineering and food safety tell the same story | FSSC 22000 |
| Hygienic design gaps | Dead-legs, pooling surfaces, and inaccessible equipment — EHEDG principles applied after the fact | Equipment spec and layout verified against EHEDG before anything is ordered — drainability and cleanability confirmed at design stage | EHEDG |
| Allergen segregation failures | Shared pipework and air handling create cross-contamination pathways — procedures can't compensate for engineering gaps | Engineering controls designed first — zone boundaries, dedicated circuits, and air handling specified to contain allergens physically | BRC / IFS |
| CIP/SIP that doesn't clean | Flow velocity not calculated, spray coverage not mapped, dead-legs not designed out — residues found at inspection | CIP circuits designed and validated during commissioning — allergen cleaning validation in SAT scope before first production run | FSSC 22000 |
| Expansion without HACCP review | New lines, changed formulations, new ingredients — HACCP not updated to reflect engineering changes | Change-managed systems built into the engineering scope — HACCP plan evolves with the facility, not after a finding | BRC / FSSC |
| FAT/SAT not fit for food | Acceptance tests check machine function only — hygienic performance, CIP coverage, and allergen cleaning absent from scope | Food-sector FAT/SAT programmes covering hygiene, CIP, and allergen cleaning validation — what your certification body will look for | FSSC / BRC |
The Netherlands is the world's second-largest agricultural exporter. Every processing facility in that chain has CAPEX needs, certification pressures, and engineering decisions that affect food safety. These are the client types we work with most.
CIP, spray dryers, filling lines, FSSC 22000 compliance
Allergen segregation, hygienic design, HACCP for slaughter and processing
Frying, blanching, CCP control, capacity expansion EPCM
CIP/SIP, filling line FAT/SAT, line extension EPCM, BRC compliance
New UHT line in an operating dairy factory. Zero unplanned production stops. FSSC 22000 first time. €340K under budget.
Brownfield expansion with MEP and precision machining. Zero unplanned production interruptions in adjacent areas.
HACCP is a food safety management system. But most of the controls it depends on are engineering controls. Temperature, pressure, flow rates, physical separation, surface cleanability. If the engineering isn't right, the HACCP plan is a document that describes what should happen, not what does.
The most common HACCP findings we see in food facilities trace back to three engineering failures: a CCP that can't be adequately monitored by the installed instrumentation, a preventive measure that the physical layout makes inconsistent, or a CIP programme that doesn't reach the surfaces it's supposed to clean.
We treat HACCP as an engineering discipline, not a food safety management system that engineering has to accommodate. The difference shows up at your next audit.