| Course | NS305 Food Safety |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | HACCP plan |
| Length | About 990 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Nutrition Science |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NS305 Unit 5
Three Control Points for One Turkey Breast: A Unit 5 HACCP Plan for House-Roasted Turkey at a 70-Seat Cafe
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NS305: Food Safety
Unit 5 HACCP Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Wabash Street Cafe, its team, equipment and times are composite; the HACCP guidelines, Food Code limits, cooling study and outbreak data cited are real.
Preliminary Tasks
1. Team. Dana Ruiz, general manager; Luis Ortega, kitchen manager; and the NS305 student as shift lead. All three hold food protection manager certificates.
2. Product description. Raw frozen boneless turkey breast, about 8 pounds each, roasted in-house, cooled, sliced and served cold in sandwiches and salads.
3. Intended use. Served to the general public; the cafe does not serve a highly susceptible population, but it does serve pregnant guests and older adults from the clinic across the street.
4. Flow diagram. Receiving; frozen storage; thawing in the walk-in; seasoning; roasting; cooling; cold storage; slicing; cold holding on the line; assembly and service.
5. On-site confirmation. The team walked the process on a Tuesday and found one difference from the draft: roasted breasts were cooling on a sheet pan on the counter before going into the walk-in. The diagram was corrected to show that step.
Principle 1: Hazard Analysis
Each step was checked for biological, chemical and physical hazards, and each hazard was judged significant or not with a reason.
Receiving: Salmonella and Campylobacter on raw poultry are expected and are controlled later by cooking, so they are not significant here. Thawing: growth on the outer surface if thawed at room temperature; controlled by a prerequisite program requiring thawing in the walk-in. Roasting: survival of Salmonella and Campylobacter if undercooked; significant. Cooling: germination of Clostridium perfringens spores, which survive cooking, and growth of the bacteria if cooling is slow; significant. Meat and poultry account for most perfringens outbreaks with a single food identified, poultry for 30 percent of them (Grass et al., 2013). Cold storage and holding: slow growth of Listeria monocytogenes from recontamination; significant because the turkey is eaten without further cooking. Slicing: recontamination from the slicer or hands; controlled by prerequisite cleaning and glove programs. Physical and chemical hazards were not judged significant at any step.
Principle 2: Critical Control Points
Three steps were named critical control points: roasting, cooling and cold holding. Each is the last point at which a significant hazard can be prevented or reduced to a safe level. Receiving and thawing were not chosen because roasting controls their hazards later. Slicing was not chosen because no measurable limit can be monitored there; cleaning and glove use are better managed as prerequisites. Choosing every step as a control point would dilute attention, which the HACCP guidelines warn against (National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods [NACMCF], 1998).
A step becomes a critical control point only when it is the last chance to control a significant hazard and it can be measured against a limit, which is why slicing, a risky step, is managed as a prerequisite instead.
Principles 3 to 5: Limits, Monitoring and Corrective Actions
CCP 1, roasting. Critical limit: 165°F internal temperature, held for an instant, in the thickest part of every breast (U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA], 2022). Monitoring: the cook checks each breast with a calibrated probe and records the time and temperature. Corrective action: continue roasting until 165°F is reached.
CCP 2, cooling. Critical limits: from 135°F to 70°F within 2 hours, then to 41°F within a total of 6 hours (FDA, 2022). Monitoring: the cook records the time and temperature when cooling starts, at 2 hours and at 6 hours. Breasts are sliced in half lengthwise and cooled uncovered in a single layer in the walk-in. A study of restaurant cooling found that 41 percent of managers did not monitor time or temperature during cooling (Brown et al., 2012). Corrective action: if 70°F is not reached in 2 hours, reheat to 165°F and restart cooling once; if 41°F is not reached in 6 hours, discard.
CCP 3, cold holding. Critical limit: 41°F or below, and discard seven days after cooking (FDA, 2022). Monitoring: the shift lead takes a probe reading in a sentinel pan every four hours and checks date labels at opening. Corrective action: if above 41°F for less than four hours since the last reading, chill at once and record; if unknown or longer, discard.
Corrective actions name a decision, not just a task, and they name who makes it: the cook at the first two control points, the shift lead at the third.
Prerequisite Programs the Plan Relies On
Four steps that carry hazards were left out of the control points because written prerequisite programs manage them better.
1. Thawing. Breasts thaw on sheet pans on the bottom shelf of the walk-in for two days, never on the counter or in the sink.
2. Slicer cleaning. The slicer is taken apart, washed, rinsed and sanitized after each turkey run and at least every four hours of use.
3. Glove and hand practice. Cooked turkey is never touched with bare hands; workers wash hands before putting on gloves and change gloves after any raw product.
4. Employee health. Workers report vomiting, diarrhea, jaundice or a sore throat with fever before a shift, and the manager excludes or restricts them as the Food Code directs.
If a prerequisite fails, the control points do not catch it, which is why the weekly verification review covers these records too.
Principle 6: Verification
The kitchen manager reviews and signs the cooking, cooling and holding records each week, and checks thermometer calibration in ice water every Monday. Verification is kept separate from monitoring: the person who records a temperature never signs off the same record.
Principle 7: Records
The plan keeps the hazard analysis, the cooking log, the two-stage cooling log, the cold-holding log, corrective action records and calibration records for one year.
References
Brown, L. G., Ripley, D., Blade, H., Reimann, D., Everstine, K., Nicholas, D., Egan, J., Koktavy, N., & Quilliam, D. N. (2012). Restaurant food cooling practices. Journal of Food Protection, 75(12), 2172-2178. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-256
Grass, J. E., Gould, L. H., & Mahon, B. E. (2013). Epidemiology of foodborne disease outbreaks caused by Clostridium perfringens, United States, 1998-2010. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, 10(2), 131-136. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2012.1316
National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods. (1998). Hazard analysis and critical control point principles and application guidelines. Journal of Food Protection, 61(9), 1246-1259. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-61.9.1246
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2022). Food Code 2022. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.fda.gov/food/fda-food-code/food-code-2022
Reading the NS 305 Unit 5 instructions
The HACCP assignment asks students to build a plan for one food product using the five preliminary tasks and seven principles. Prompts usually require a product description, flow diagram, hazard analysis, critical control points, limits, monitoring, corrective actions, verification and records. Choose a single product with a clear process. Walk the process on site, or describe how the flow would be confirmed. Justify every judgment of significance in the hazard analysis. Explain why each control point was chosen and why other risky steps were not. Use Food Code limits for cooking, cooling and holding. Keep monitoring and verification separate. Most plans run five to seven pages, often with tables.
How this NS305 Unit 5 example is built
The plan starts with a team of three, a product description and intended use that notes pregnant guests and older adults. The flow diagram lists ten steps, and the walk-through adds a counter-cooling step the draft had missed. The hazard analysis covers Salmonella and Campylobacter at roasting, Clostridium perfringens at cooling and Listeria at holding. The highlighted sentence states the rule for choosing control points. Limits, monitoring and corrective actions are set out for each of the three, with the two-stage cooling clock spelled out. A restaurant cooling study is cited to show why cooling monitoring matters. Four prerequisite programs are listed with a reason for each. Verification names the kitchen manager and a weekly calibration check, and the records section closes the plan.
NS305 Unit 5 rubric: what earns full points
HACCP plans are usually graded against the seven principles, with points for each one applied correctly. The hazard analysis earns the most when each judgment of significance is explained. Choosing a sensible number of control points, with reasons, is often credited as understanding. Limits should be measurable and match the Food Code. Monitoring must say who checks what, how and how often. Corrective actions should name a decision about the food, not only a task. Separating verification from monitoring is a frequent marker of quality. Format and citations count as well. Plans that make every step a control point usually lose credit for judgment. Naming the person responsible at each step often lifts a plan.
NS305 Unit 5 help from the desk
HACCP plans often list principles as headings without applying them to the product. Another weakness is a hazard analysis that marks everything significant. Some plans choose too many control points, making the plan unworkable. Limits are sometimes vague, such as cook thoroughly. Corrective actions often say fix the problem without saying what happens to the food. Verification is frequently confused with monitoring. Prerequisite programs are left out, so the plan seems to ignore cleaning and hygiene. If you have a product but are unsure which steps should be control points, ask which step is the last chance to control each hazard. A writer can build the plan from that answer, step by step.
Get an NS305 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
A salad, a soup or a cooked and chilled entree: whatever product NS305 sets for Unit 5, the plan reshapes around its process. Include the flow or menu details you were given, any template, and the rubric. Every principle arrives worked and every limit sourced, in a free first custom sample delivered within 24-48 hours. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More NS305 papers and BS in Nutrition Science samples
- NS305 Unit 1: Incubation Clock Post
- NS305 Unit 2: Listeria Profile
- NS305 Unit 3: Rental Kitchen Audit
- NS305 Unit 4: Cooler Log Memo
- NS305 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- NS305 Unit 7: Outbreak Investigation
- NS305 Unit 8: Allergen Control Plan
- NS305 Unit 9: Recall Communication
- NS305 Unit 10: Food Safety Training Module
- NS235 Unit 5: Deficiency Case Study
- NS230 Unit 5: Lipid Metabolism Case Study
- NS106 Unit 5: Informational Interview Report
- NS105 Unit 5: Fat and Protein Comparison
NS305 Unit 5 questions, answered
How many critical control points should a HACCP plan have?
As many as the process needs and no more. Most single-product retail plans land between two and four. Adding CCPs does not make a plan safer; it makes it harder to run and suggests the writer has not separated critical steps from good practice. The example keeps three and lists its prerequisite programs separately, with a sentence explaining each exclusion.
What separates monitoring from verification?
Monitoring is the routine check at the step, done by the person doing the work, such as probing each batch. Verification is the separate check that the system itself works: a manager reviewing logs, thermometers calibrated, records audited, the plan reassessed. Graders watch this distinction closely, since blending the two ranks among the commonest slips in student plans.
Is a decision tree required for choosing control points?
Many sections accept either the Codex or the NACMCF decision tree, and some require one. Where it is used, it belongs in an appendix with each step's answers shown. The tree supports judgment rather than replacing it, so the plan should still explain in a sentence why each CCP was chosen and why the obvious candidates were not.
Where can I find a free NS305 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page has a complete Unit 5 HACCP plan for house-roasted turkey breast, with five preliminary tasks, a hazard analysis and three control points.
What are the cooling limits for cooked food in a HACCP plan?
The Food Code requires cooked food to cool from 135°F to 70°F within 2 hours and to 41°F within 6 hours in total. Cooling must be monitored at the start, at 2 hours and at 6 hours.