17 replies to this topic

[HPG]

Dear all,

Do anyone know, beside standard in 2 documents below, the standard for metal detector's sensitivity (products: biscuit in metallized films) ?
Because our supplier said that they can't reach the standard.


Thanks,
Hadi

Attached Files

•  Metal AIB.pdf   861.35KB   389 downloads
•  COP for Metal Detection&X ray Systems.doc   653KB   324 downloads

[GMO]

There isn't a "standard" that I'm aware of and certainly with metalised film products I've only used ferrous in foil detectors before (which is nigh on useless).

There is an argument anyway that metal detection is not an automatic CCP. There are some things I would consider as the manufacturer:

What level of sensitivity is possible? Does this correspond to the levels likely to cause injury?
If injury is still possible at the levels used, can the process be redesigned to remove the likely contaminants or make them more detectable (e.g. larger?) or can systems be changed to reduce the likelihood of contamination to an acceptable level?
Can the process be redesigned?
Is investment possible? If so, have they considered x-ray detection?
Alternatively, although it's not ideal and would not rule out final stage contamination (unlikely for something to become embedded in a hard biscuit though) or malicious contamination (more likely but still possible now anyway) why not move the detector to before the packing process? As I said, not ideal but the sensitivity would be dramatically improved and if the concerns are over machine parts before the baking process, the test would still be valid IMO.

[Charles.C]

Dear hadi,

As an addendum to GMO's post, if you do a little searching on this forum you will find links to USFDA documents which (in addition to manufacturer's specs.) include critical limits of (from memory) 7mm based on FDA accumulated statistics. Some people here have stated that they have auditorily / acceptably used such values.

Rgds / Charles.C

[HPG]

Dear GMO and Charles,

Thank you for your answers.


From hazard analysis in our Manual, there isn't physical contaminant such as metal in our process. So metal detector isn't a CCP.
But we want to buy metal detectors. We consider the standards because we don't want to waste our money to buy
something that can't match the standard.

What do you suggest?
Do you think we shouldn't consider the standard and just buy it?
(our FSTL consider to buy a X-ray, beacuse our supplier said they can't guarantee that their product can match the product)


Thanks,
Hadi

[AS NUR]

Dear all,

Do anyone know, beside standard in 2 documents below, the standard for metal detector's sensitivity (products: biscuit in metallized films) ?
Because our supplier said that they can't reach the standard.


Thanks,
Hadi

dear Hadi..

IMO (in My opinion)... you can improve different method to assure that your product do not contain any metal files... one of the method is screen method.. as reguler base.. simple explanation for this method are :
1. every 1 month ( you can choose another number) you take sample products (biscuit) from your line.
2. screening your product through sifter, for example 200 mesh sifter..
3. you have to find if any metals that remain on your sifter..
4. if you find any metals in sifter, you have to paln to do some corrective and correction actions
5. And dont forget to document your verification process..

Hope make you get an new idea with this...


rgds


AS NUR

[HPG]

dear Hadi..

IMO (in My opinion)... you can improve different method to assure that your product do not contain any metal files... one of the method is screen method.. as reguler base.. simple explanation for this method are :
1. every 1 month ( you can choose another number) you take sample products (biscuit) from your line.
2. screening your product through sifter, for example 200 mesh sifter..
3. you have to find if any metals that remain on your sifter..
4. if you find any metals in sifter, you have to paln to do some corrective and correction actions
5. And dont forget to document your verification process..

Hope make you get an new idea with this...


rgds


AS NUR

Dear AS Nur,
thanks four your reply


Best regards,
Hadi

[GMO]

If the hazard isn't likely why buy metal detectors though?

If you still want to, get some samples from your line and take them to different manufacturers to see what sensitivity is possible in your product. Specifications in brochures can be very different to reality.

[Charles.C]

Dear hadi,

It often depends on yr specific situation. Some standard haccp references (for some product categories) automatically assume that certain types of equipment, eg conveyor belts) are “reasonably likely” to present a metal contamination risk. The auditor may follow this logic.

If you don’t agree, be prepared for an argument, particularly if you know that other similar factories do use detectors.The auditor may be having to cover his back. Visual checking systems are well-known to be potentially rather fallible.

I have seen similar situations to above which often resulted in the eventual purchase of a detector out of verbal weariness (and decreasing cost). Subsequent results often showed the machine not so redundant as expected.

Rgds / Charles.C

[GMO]

V good point Charles C. We've had alarmingly large pieces of metal fall off our machine and not be noticed by an operator. Had we not had inline x-ray detection, we'd be dealing with some rather anxious consumers right now and a potential recall... Prior to the incident I would not have said it was a likely occurrance and the manufacturer stated the part "would not break"!

[Tony-C]

Dear GMO and Charles,

Thank you for your answers.


From hazard analysis in our Manual, there isn't physical contaminant such as metal in our process. So metal detector isn't a CCP.
But we want to buy metal detectors. We consider the standards because we don't want to waste our money to buy
something that can't match the standard.

What do you suggest?
Do you think we shouldn't consider the standard and just buy it?
(our FSTL consider to buy a X-ray, beacuse our supplier said they can't guarantee that their product can match the product)


Thanks,
Hadi

Hi Hadi

Just to add a point to Charles & GMO's comments.

Have you reviewed your complaint data over the past say 3 years and how many metal complaints have you had?

If the answer is none then why would you be thinking of buying a metal detector?

Regards,

Tony

[Charles.C]

Dear Tony,

If the answer is none then why would you be thinking of buying a metal detector?

IMO, statistics can sometimes be deceptive, just as in the massive under-reporting of some illnesses. Plus there are some rare but catastrophic events which you know are almost guaranteed to occur for certain situations but which are equally likely to be missed. Just ask England / Germany / Argentina or your Chief Engineer.

I accept that risk analysis is obliged to look at the “big” picture but (personal intuition / possible losses / investment) is perhaps worth taking note of sometimes (somehow). One advantage of the subjective possibility in risk matrices ?.

I previously saw some (rare) average industrial statistics (in a recognised textbook but, I think, using unspecified sources) for events (metal, wood etc) categorised as “foreign objects” in food per year and the numbers were simply astounding. After that, my attitude changed somewhat. Hopefully not standard reading for auditors.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Simon]

Previous complaints are a key consideration amongst others. Just as in a health and safety risk assessment when determining "reasonably practicable" control measures one should consider previous incidents and accidents.

[Tony-C]

Dear Tony,



IMO, statistics can sometimes be deceptive, just as in the massive under-reporting of some illnesses. Plus there are some rare but catastrophic events which you know are almost guaranteed to occur for certain situations but which are equally likely to be missed. Just ask England / Germany / Argentina or your Chief Engineer.

I accept that risk analysis is obliged to look at the “big” picture but (personal intuition / possible losses / investment) is perhaps worth taking note of sometimes (somehow). One advantage of the subjective possibility in risk matrices ?.

I previously saw some (rare) average industrial statistics (in a recognised textbook but, I think, using unspecified sources) for events (metal, wood etc) categorised as “foreign objects” in food per year and the numbers were simply astounding. After that, my attitude changed somewhat. Hopefully not standard reading for auditors.

Rgds / Charles.C

I agree Charles, however Hadi stated "From hazard analysis in our Manual, there isn't physical contaminant such as metal in our process" and so if there were no historical metal complaints then I would find it difficult to justify buying a metal detector.

Regards,

Tony

[HPG]

Hi Hadi

Just to add a point to Charles & GMO's comments.

Have you reviewed your complaint data over the past say 3 years and how many metal complaints have you had?

If the answer is none then why would you be thinking of buying a metal detector?

Regards,

Tony

Dear Tony,

Yes, we have review our customers' complaints and there hasn't complaint about metal contaminant.
Last year, there was an incident that our dough got metal contaminant from moulding machine,
but the operator found it so until now there aren't any complaints about metal contaminant.
Well, fortunately until now we never found that accident again.

Our FSTL consider to buy metal detector because we use chocolate coating made from ball mill.
Do you think we should consider that?


Thanks,
Hadi

[Tony-C]

Dear Tony,

Yes, we have review our customers' complaints and there hasn't complaint about metal contaminant.
Last year, there was an incident that our dough got metal contaminant from moulding machine,
but the operator found it so until now there aren't any complaints about metal contaminant.
Well, fortunately until now we never found that accident again.

Our FSTL consider to buy metal detector because we use chocolate coating made from ball mill.
Do you think we should consider that?


Thanks,
Hadi

Dear Hadi

You stated previously that there were no metal hazards in your process, yet you have had what sounds like a potentially serious incident. It appears to me that you need to revisit your Hazard Analysis and assess the risks and if metal detection would considerably reduce these risks.

Regards,

Tony

[Charles.C]

Dear hadi,

Your incident coud be a one-off example of "Murphy's Law" but only you are in a proper position to evaluate its (current) likelihood of re-occurrence / seriousness. Based on yr product / possible target consumer I would hv guessed that the latter is not negligible with respect to safety implications ( or product value ?).

Perhaps a (relatively) small investment for peace of mind ?

Rgds / Charles.C

[HPG]

Dear Tony and Charles,

Thank you for your replies and advises.
And many thanks to others for your replies and advises.
It's very useful to me.


Well, I think our FS Team will consider this to our HACCP plan.
It's hard to convince them to consider about metal detector.
It's been 7 months for them to really interested for this issue.

Best regards,
Hadi

[AS NUR]

Dear Tony and Charles,

Thank you for your replies and advises.
And many thanks to others for your replies and advises.
It's very useful to me.


Well, I think our FS Team will consider this to our HACCP plan.
It's hard to convince them to consider about metal detector.
It's been 7 months for them to really interested for this issue.

Best regards,
Hadi

good luck Pak Hadi..

wish the best for you and your FS team

rgds

AS Nur