Corrective action templates for NZ food businesses

Every Food Control Plan in New Zealand requires you to document corrective actions whenever something fails — a fridge runs hot, a clean isn't completed, a delivery arrives out of temperature. The verifier will find at least one fail in your records (perfect records are suspicious), and they'll ask "what did you do about this?"

This page is a complete reference. Per module, what counts as a fail, what the corrective action should contain, with real-world examples you can adapt. Plus the §50 reportable-breach decision tree at the bottom.

Bookmark this. You'll come back when you need it.

What a corrective action must contain

Every CA in NZ FCP records must capture, at minimum:

1. What happened. "Walk-in Cooler 1 read 9.2°C at the 9am check."
2. Why it happened (if known). "Door left open overnight by closing shift staff."
3. What you did about it immediately. "Moved high-risk product to Walk-in Cooler 2. Discarded any product that had been >5°C for over 4 hours."
4. What you did to stop it happening again. "Briefed all staff on door-closing checklist. Added a 'fridge doors closed' line to the close-down list."
5. Who actioned it. "Sarah K., manager."
6. When (server time). Auto-stamped if you're using digital records; manual date+time if paper.

If you miss any of these, the verifier will mark the CA incomplete. The most common missing piece is #4 — what you did to stop it happening again. Without it, the verifier reads the record as "this will probably happen again next month."

Template by module

Cold storage — temperature out of range

Fail scenario: Walk-in Cooler 1 reads 8.5°C at the morning check (safe range 0-5°C).

CA template:

What happened: Walk-in Cooler 1 reading 8.5°C at 9:00 AM check on [date]. Safe range is 0-5°C. Likely overnight failure — door seal appears damaged.


Immediate action: Moved high-risk product (deli meats, dairy, prep ingredients) to Walk-in Cooler 2 at 9:05 AM. Discarded 2kg sliced ham and 1.5L cream that had been at >5°C for an unknown duration overnight (probable 8+ hours).

Root cause: Damaged door seal on Walk-in Cooler 1.

Follow-up: Called Cool-Tech for emergency repair, scheduled 14:00 same day. In the meantime, all chilled stock stays in Cooler 2. Briefed staff to flag any product going into Cooler 1 until repair confirmed.

Actioned by: Sarah K (manager).

Cleaning — missed clean

Fail scenario: Prep bench wasn't sanitised between raw chicken prep and salad prep.

CA template:

What happened: Cross-contamination risk identified by manager Tane M during 11:30 AM walkthrough. Prep bench was used for raw chicken breaking-down (10:15-10:45) then immediately switched to salad prep without intermediate sanitise.


Immediate action: Stopped salad prep. Discarded the in-progress salad (about 2kg of greens). Sanitised the bench with [product name] at [dilution]. Restarted salad prep from clean ingredients.

Root cause: Lunch service pressure, staff didn't follow the sanitise-between-protein-types protocol.

Follow-up: Re-trained the affected staff member on the cleaning schedule for prep benches. Added "sanitise between protein types" to the printed-on-the-wall cleaning checklist beside the prep bench.

Actioned by: Tane M (manager).

Deliveries — out-of-temperature receipt

Fail scenario: Chilled chicken delivery arrives at 8°C (should be ≤4°C).

CA template:

What happened: Hellers chilled chicken delivery on [date] arrived at 8.0°C. Threshold for chilled meat receipt is 4.0°C.


Immediate action: Rejected the entire delivery (8.4kg, batch ref HLR-2026-0521-04). Documented rejection with driver. Received signed credit note from driver on the spot. Did not accept any of the product into our cold storage.

Root cause: Delivery van temperature monitor showed 7°C internal at time of arrival per driver. Issue appears to be supplier-side.

Follow-up: Called Hellers operations within 1 hour. They confirmed van had a fault and the entire route is being re-dispatched. Logged supplier incident reference HLR-VAN-04-2026.

Actioned by: Sarah K (manager).

Note: receipt fails for chilled high-risk product where you accepted the product anyway are almost always reportable breaches. See the decision tree below.

Cooking — under-temperature

Fail scenario: Chicken thigh cooked, probed at 71°C (should be 75°C+).

CA template:

What happened: Chicken thighs cooked for service at [time], probed at 71.2°C centre. Required minimum 75°C.


Immediate action: Returned the chicken to the oven for additional 6 minutes. Re-probed at 79.4°C, confirmed cooked through. Held above 60°C until service.

Root cause: Oven was running cooler than usual — probable thermostat drift. Cook visually assessed as done before probing.

Follow-up: Oven scheduled for calibration check tomorrow morning. Until then, all protein cook times increased by 15% and probe- checking is mandatory before plating (not after).

Actioned by: Cook on shift (Hemi T).

Cooling — failed two-stage cooling

Fail scenario: Cooked rice didn't reach 21°C within 2 hours after cooking.

CA template:

What happened: 5kg bulk-cooked rice failed stage 1 cooling. After 2 hours from 60°C cook-down start, centre temp still 28°C (target ≤21°C).


Immediate action: Discarded the rice (5kg). Did not serve any portion of this batch.

Root cause: Stored in a deeper container than usual — heat couldn't escape fast enough. Standard practice is shallow pans (≤4cm depth) for cooling; this batch was 8cm deep.

Follow-up: Re-confirmed with kitchen staff: cooled foods go into shallow pans, period. Added written reminder above the rice cooker.

Actioned by: Cook on shift (Hemi T).

Calibration — thermometer out of tolerance

Fail scenario: Ice-point test reads 1.8°C (tolerance is ±1.0°C of 0°C).

CA template:

What happened: Routine calibration of probe thermometer (asset ID PT-002) on [date]. Ice-point test showed 1.8°C (expected 0.0°C, tolerance ±1.0°C). Probe is 0.8°C out of tolerance — fail.


Immediate action: Marked PT-002 out of service. Tagged with red sticker. Pulled all spot-check records from this probe in the last 7 days for review.

Root cause: Probe age — over 2 years old, regular use, expected drift.

Follow-up: Ordered replacement probe (PT-006). Until it arrives, PT-003 and PT-004 are the only in-service probes — confirmed both in tolerance today. Reviewed last 7 days of spot checks from PT-002 — no spot checks were close to safety thresholds, so no records need to be revisited.

Actioned by: Manager (Tane M).

Pest — activity observed

Fail scenario: Mouse droppings found in dry store.

CA template:

What happened: Mouse droppings found in dry-store corner during opening check on [date]. Located near the rice and flour shelf. Estimate 5-10 droppings, fresh (dark, moist).


Immediate action: Disposed of any potentially exposed dry goods (rice and flour on the lowest shelf — 8kg total). Deep-cleaned the floor and shelving with bleach solution. Sealed any gaps visible in the wall.

Root cause: Unknown entry point. We've had no activity since last visit (3 months ago).

Follow-up: Called pest controller (Rentokil) — scheduled site visit tomorrow. Until then, additional bait traps placed in dry store and at suspected entry points. All staff briefed to report any further sign. Will document outcome of pest controller visit when they come.

Reportable to MPI: NO — no contaminated product was served. Records of disposal kept.

Actioned by: Owner (Priya R).

Reportable breach decision tree (Food Act §50)

Not every CA needs to be reported to MPI. The threshold for a reportable breach is whether the fail may have caused or could cause illness in a customer who consumed the product.

Was potentially-affected product SERVED to a customer?
├─ NO ─→ Not reportable. Document CA. Move on.
└─ YES
    ├─ Was the breach high-risk (chilled high-risk food >4°C >4hrs,
    │   hot food <60°C >4hrs, raw cross-contamination, allergen)?
    │   ├─ NO ─→ Document CA. Consider voluntary notification if unsure.
    │   └─ YES ─→ REPORTABLE. Notify MPI within 24 hours.
    │            See §50 of Food Act 2014.
    └─ Are you uncertain?
        └─→ Call MPI's 0800 008 333. Operators are not penalised
            for over-reporting in good faith. They are penalised for
            failing to report.

When in doubt, lean toward reporting. The MPI position is consistent: operators acting in good faith and reporting potential breaches are not penalised. Operators who knew or should have known and did NOT report are.

How Kai Safe handles corrective actions

In Kai Safe:

• Every fail record auto-prompts for a corrective action before it can be closed
• Ora (our in-app assistant) suggests the next step based on the fail context — you can accept, edit, or write your own
• Reportable breach assessment is built into the flow — three-question wizard following §50 logic
• All CAs are linked to the original fail record and appear in the verifier portal with full context

Try the corrective action flow — 30 days free.

Further reading

• Simply Safe & Suitable (S39-0005): the complete walkthrough
• What an MPI verifier actually checks during your visit
• MPI: Notifying MPI of food safety problems — official §50 reporting guide
• Legislation: Food Act 2014 §50