Part 2 of our discussion with Eric Schweitzer of 3-A Sanitary Standards, Inc. Read on to take a deeper dive with Eric on the value of 3-A Certification.
Eric: The 3-A Symbol program is unique in several respects.
The 3-A TPV program is a closed system. A successful Third Party Verification (TPV) inspection is the only pathway for equipment and components to earn the 3-A Symbol or RP Mark. Only 3-A SSI Certified Conformance Evaluators (CCEs) may perform a TPV. And the CCE credential is uniquely earned through 3-A SSI.
CCEs are specialized professionals with vetted expertise in hygienic design. Some other certification programs allow general food safety auditors to perform inspections. Some even rely on a self-certification system.
We have long felt that it is important for 3-A to credential inspectors, or CCEs. This helps us ensure that the 3-A Sanitary Standards and Accepted Practices are interpreted and applied consistently, fairly and that the TPV process is uniform from one inspection to the next.
Second, the TPV inspection is a hands-on specialized technical design and construction audit. It goes very deep to verify physical conformance of equipment or systems.
Whereas other audits look at how the plant is operated, the 3-A SSI TPV inspection looks at things like how the plant is maintained to ensure metals are appropriately isolated from mild steels, tools for fabricating the steels are appropriately isolated too.
To be clear, both types of audits are needed. But if the design of your equipment can’t perform the way you need it to, whether CIP or COP (Clean Out of Place) or both, no amount of attention to facility management can change that.
Finally, the 3-A Sanitary Standards and Accepted Practices are developed in a balanced industry stakeholder, and consensus-driven process. We bring processors, equipment manufacturers, and regulatory sanitarians to the table to ensure that the Standards work for everyone.
Eric: This is one of my favorite questions, because the 3-A SSI Standards-development process is something most people in the industry don't fully understand — and once they do, they often want to be part of it.
3-A Sanitary Standards are developed through a balanced, consensus-driven process that brings three distinct stakeholder groups to the table: equipment manufacturers, dairy and food processors, and regulatory sanitarians. That balance is intentional and essential. Standards that are written without processor input risk being impractical at the plant level. Standards developed without manufacturer participation risk being technically infeasible. And without regulatory input, you can end up with standards that don't align with how inspectors actually evaluate equipment in the field.
The work happens in working groups — volunteer committees that are organized around specific equipment types or topic areas. These groups review existing Standards for relevance, develop new Standards where gaps exist, and work through the technical language that ultimately defines what "sanitary design" means for a given piece of equipment. It's rigorous, consensus-based work, and it matters because these Standards are referenced in the FDA Grade 'A' Pasteurized Milk Ordinance and USDA guidelines.
As for getting involved — we actively recruit volunteers, and we're always looking for qualified professionals across all three stakeholder categories. If you're a plant engineer, quality manager, regulatory sanitarian, or equipment manufacturer with technical expertise in hygienic design, there's a meaningful role for you.
Volunteers gain something valuable in return: direct influence over the Standards that govern your industry, access to a network of peers and regulators that's genuinely difficult to replicate anywhere else, and the kind of professional development that comes from doing substantive technical work alongside the best minds in food safety and equipment design.
Anyone interested in learning more can reach out to us directly through 3-a.org. We'd welcome the conversation.
Eric: The relationship between 3-A Sanitary Standards and HACCP is more direct than many processors realize — and understanding it clarifies why equipment design functions as a prerequisite program, not just a compliance layer.
The 3‑A Sanitary Standards support HACCP requirements by establishing equipment design prerequisites that ensure product contact surfaces in both CIP and COP zones are cleanable and inspectable, enabling effective sanitation, verification, and hazard prevention.
Under the 3‑A Sanitary Standard for General Requirements (00‑02), equipment intended for COP or manual cleaning must be designed so all product contact surfaces and demountable appurtenances are readily accessible and inspectable (Clause E4.1), directly supporting HACCP sanitation prerequisite program monitoring and verification activities.
Equipment intended for CIP must be designed so all product contact surfaces are cleanable in place and inspectable, except where cleanability by CIP has been documented and accepted (Clauses E4.2, E4.2.1, E4.2.2).
This distinction aligns with HACCP principles that allow either direct observation or validated scientific evidence to verify hazard control effectiveness and reflects regulatory expectations that sanitation and hygienic design function as prerequisite programs supporting hazard analysis decisions.
By preventing soil retention, microbial harborage, and chemical residues through cleanable, drainable, and inspectable design, 3‑A requirements reduce biological, chemical, and physical hazards at the equipment level and provide objective, verifiable criteria that HACCP systems rely on to function effectively.
Eric: The compliance value is real and well-documented. But you're right to push beyond it, because that's where the business case gets compelling.
For a manufacturer like Triangle, 3-A certification is a market differentiator with staying power. It signals a level of design rigor and third-party accountability that buyers can't easily replicate through self-assessment. In a competitive marketplace, that distinction matters — particularly when you're selling into segments where food safety incidents carry significant financial and reputational consequences.
Triangle has held its 3-A Symbol since 2017 and successfully completed re-verification in 2022. That's not a one-time achievement — it represents a sustained organizational commitment to hygienic design across product development, manufacturing, and quality management. That kind of long-term investment resonates with serious buyers.
For processors, the business case is also significant, though it plays out differently. A single product recall — even a precautionary one — can cost millions in direct expenses: product withdrawal, lost production time, regulatory remediation, and legal exposure. When you look at the root cause of many food safety incidents, equipment design failures are a meaningful contributor. Equipment that can't be adequately cleaned creates harborage points for pathogens. Harborage points create risk.
3-A certified equipment is designed to eliminate those vulnerabilities before they become operational problems. That's not just a food safety benefit — it's a business continuity benefit. Processors who choose certified equipment are making a risk management decision as much as a procurement decision.
And finally — though this is harder to put a number on — there's brand value. Consumers and retail partners increasingly want to know how food is made and what safeguards exist. A processor who can point to hygienic design standards as part of their food safety story has a meaningful advantage in those conversations.
Eric: This is something we hear from processors regularly, and it's an area where we've invested a lot of effort — helping buyers understand how to use 3-A certification as a procurement tool, not just a compliance checkbox.
When a processor is evaluating packaging equipment, they're typically asking: Can this equipment be cleaned effectively? Can it be verified? Will it hold up under our sanitation protocols? And, critically, will it satisfy our regulators?
Those are exactly the questions the 3-A Third Party Verification process answers — before the equipment ever arrives on the plant floor.
A processor specifying 3-A certified equipment in their RFP language can be confident that what they're purchasing has been physically inspected by a credentialed expert, that the engineering documentation exists to support that inspection, and that the manufacturer is committed to ongoing compliance through annual renewal and five-year re-verification.
That confidence has real operational value. It reduces the internal engineering review burden on the processor's team. It simplifies interactions with FDA and USDA inspectors. And it lowers the risk of a costly discovery — finding out after installation that equipment can't be adequately cleaned or won't pass a regulatory equipment review.
We often tell processors: the 3-A Symbol is the fastest way to get from equipment evaluation to confident purchase. You can cross-reference any potential vendor against our public database of certificate holders at 3-a.org, verify which models carry the Symbol, and know that a credentialed third party has already done the technical due diligence you'd otherwise have to perform yourself.
For a procurement team that's managing dozens of equipment decisions, that's a significant time and risk reduction — and it's one of the core reasons processors who specify 3-A certified equipment tend to keep specifying it.
Eric: Absolutely, and it's something we're paying close attention to.
3-A SSI's roots are in dairy — the FDA Grade 'A' Pasteurized Milk Ordinance has long referenced 3-A Standards, and the dairy industry has a deep, decades-long relationship with our certification program. But hygienic equipment design is not a dairy-specific challenge. Anywhere you're processing food that comes into contact with equipment surfaces, the same fundamental questions apply: Can the equipment be cleaned? Can contamination harborage points be eliminated? Can sanitation effectiveness be verified?
We're seeing growing interest from the meat and poultry sector, where Listeria and Salmonella contamination risks make equipment design a critical food safety lever. The regulatory landscape in meat and poultry is evolving, and processors are increasingly asking whether 3-A standards — or standards aligned with 3-A principles — could provide the same kind of design assurance they see dairy processors relying on.
Beverage processing, prepared foods, and pharmaceutical ingredient manufacturing are other areas where we see natural alignment with 3-A Standards. In each case, the core value proposition is the same: objective, third-party verified equipment design that reduces contamination risk and supports regulatory confidence.
For a manufacturer like Triangle, with VFFS equipment that is used across multiple food categories, the 3-A Symbol communicates something important to all of those customers — not just dairy. It says that the equipment has been held to a rigorous, independently verified standard. That signal is valuable regardless of what product is running through the line.
We expect the relevance of hygienic design standards to expand as food safety regulations continue to tighten globally and as more sectors recognize the operational and liability risks of inadequate equipment design.
Still want to hear more from Eric on 3-A certification? Click here to read Part 1 of his interview as he discusses how Triangle is the world's only 3-A certified VFFS and what that means to food producers.
Ready to talk to our sanitary experts about your next hygienic vertical bagger?