Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Foreign body detectors in IFS and BRC


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Miroslav Suska

Miroslav Suska

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 13 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Czech Republic
    Czech Republic
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 October 2010 - 06:53 PM

Hello all,

Does anyone idea what is difference in requirements to have installed foreign body detector (metal detector or X-ray detector) in IFS and BRC (if any)?

What are acceptable justifications for absence of detectors?

Thanks,

Miroslav


  • 0

#2 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,390 posts
  • 1018 thanks
222
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 19 October 2010 - 11:24 AM

Hello all,

Does anyone idea what is difference in requirements to have installed foreign body detector (metal detector or X-ray detector) in IFS and BRC (if any)?

What are acceptable justifications for absence of detectors?

Thanks,

Miroslav

Hi Miroslav, I’m not a user of either standard, but I'm guessing that requirements to have installed foreign body detector (metal detector or X-ray detector) are not specified in BRC and IFS. In my experiences they are more likely to say you need to consider potential for contamination and ensure you have adequate control measures to minimise the risk, which may well lead the HACCP team to conclude the need for foreign body detection system.

Risk assessment - meaning the onus is on you.:whistle:




  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#3 Miroslav Suska

Miroslav Suska

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 13 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Czech Republic
    Czech Republic
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 October 2010 - 12:42 PM

Hi Simon,

Thank you. Risk assessment yes, however there must be really sound justification for not having detector for BRC (as filtering of product etc). See BRC reg. 5.3.1 Foreing body detection equipment SHALL be in place unless it can be justified as not necessary. In IFS the requirement is similar but seems to be more flexible.

Regards,
Miroslav

Hi Miroslav, I’m not a user of either standard, but I'm guessing that requirements to have installed foreign body detector (metal detector or X-ray detector) are not specified in BRC and IFS. In my experiences they are more likely to say you need to consider potential for contamination and ensure you have adequate control measures to minimise the risk, which may well lead the HACCP team to conclude the need for foreign body detection system.

Risk assessment - meaning the onus is on you.:whistle:





  • 0

#4 FLAVOUR_I

FLAVOUR_I

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Germany
    Germany

Posted 27 October 2010 - 03:57 PM

Hi Simon,

Thank you. Risk assessment yes, however there must be really sound justification for not having detector for BRC (as filtering of product etc). See BRC reg. 5.3.1 Foreing body detection equipment SHALL be in place unless it can be justified as not necessary. In IFS the requirement is similar but seems to be more flexible.

Regards,
Miroslav




Dear Miroslav,

we are both IFS and BRC certified and yes IFS is more fexible with this issue but in the end you still need a good reason not use metal detectors.

We are not using metal detectors and we are getting away with it because of following reasons:

Some of our raw materials (chemicals) have to be stored in glass so metal detection only doesn´t help
We do not have a line production and therfore have also no filling line where a metal detector are X-ray could be applied effectively
Test´s condudcted by our technical department have shown that metal dectectors don´t work with our standard packaging size which means that they start to detect parts with 2 mm.

Therefore our HACCP point 1 is the sieving of our products.

Regards

FLAVOUR_I
  • 0

#5 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,447 posts
  • 3244 thanks
346
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 28 October 2010 - 05:43 AM

^^^

Precisely. The word "shall" is almost a contradiction in terms when used with a risk assessment requirement. BRC just love these dominant words. It is noticeable how few "shalls" appear in the GFSI benchmark settings. :smile: (and maybe IFS too? :dunno:)

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#6 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,216 posts
  • 468 thanks
55
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 28 October 2010 - 06:17 AM

Ha filtering can be considered a hazard in itself; filters, which can be made of metal, what do filters do when they're blocked? They break...

It all comes down to your HACCP team and plan which is the right thing IMO. If you can prove to a BRC auditor that you have considered the risk and don't believe it to be significant and you can prove you've validated that and your verification also confirms it, what can they say? Although for the cost of a metal detector and the question that's likely to be asked "have you never lost a nut or bolt from a machine?" is it really worth it?


  • 0

#7 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,955 posts
  • 790 thanks
167
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 10 November 2010 - 03:27 PM

Ha filtering can be considered a hazard in itself; filters, which can be made of metal, what do filters do when they're blocked? They break...

It all comes down to your HACCP team and plan which is the right thing IMO. If you can prove to a BRC auditor that you have considered the risk and don't believe it to be significant and you can prove you've validated that and your verification also confirms it, what can they say? Although for the cost of a metal detector and the question that's likely to be asked "have you never lost a nut or bolt from a machine?" is it really worth it?


I agree it is down to the HACCP team to assess the risks and the best method of control. If you have a product that can be filtered then filtration is usually by far the better option. After all it removes all types of foreign bodies not just metal.

Yes it is possible they can break but I haven't seen that happen too many times. In any case they should be checked/inpsected at regular intervals not only to see if they are intact but to see if they have trapped any foreign bodies that may warrant further investigation.

Regards,

Tony
  • 0

#8 MRios

MRios

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 157 posts
  • 11 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Guatemala
    Guatemala

Posted 11 November 2010 - 05:24 PM

Our CCP is a turbosifter that is basically a cylindrical screen with paddles inside. The paddles throw the flour at the screen. Whatever goes through the 5 mm openings gets packed, anything larger (plus some flour) goes to a barrel that is later sifted to see what was rejected.
This screen is checked weekly to see if it has any damage.
However, to avoid having to reprocess a weeks worth of product, we have a magnet after the turbosifter. If the screen, which is ferrous metal, were to break, the piece(s) would be caught by the magnet, which in turn is checked once per 8 hour shift.
There is a discussion about how the magnet should be a PCC. However, we have it as a PC, more like a preventive measure. The last time the screen broke was more than 5 years ago.
Furthermore, we have our monitoring frequency as once a week, since the screen gets checked weekly. Some say that the monitoring is actually continuous, since all the product goes through there before getting packed.
What are your thoughts on this?
Thank you all beforehand.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users