Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Small scale - No Metal Detection, Filtration necessary?


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

#1 Teem

Teem

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 09 November 2017 - 09:39 PM

Hello Everyone,

 

Thank you all for the very useful info shared on a daily basis which has been of great use. Please I need some advice........

 

I am a very small manufacturer in fact a 1-man start-up. I haven't started producing but I have done several home trials, perfected my recipe and currently writing my QMS/HACCP plan. I am manufacturing ready meals (rice cooked in sauce). I'm no expert but I have some technical background from my past jobs. I obviously do not have metal detection in place and as such, was wondering IF I have to have a filtration step somewhere in the flow chart? My batch size is 28 packs and that's all i will be making on my first few runs. So do i need to add in that step? To be honest I'm not worried about metal contamination as i dont see that happening at this stage with the basic production equipment i have but if I HAVE to include Filtration, how do I determine the mesh size?  I would be filtering Blended pepper/Onions/Tomatoes and also Chicken stock. The only possible metal hazard i see in my process is bits from opening a tomato puree can. I currently use an electric can opener and never had issues with metal from a domestic user perspective

 

Thank you in anticipation!


  • 0

#2 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,590 posts
  • 3278 thanks
350
Excellent

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

Posted 10 November 2017 - 04:18 AM

Hello Everyone,

 

Thank you all for the very useful info shared on a daily basis which has been of great use. Please I need some advice........

 

I am a very small manufacturer in fact a 1-man start-up. I haven't started producing but I have done several home trials, perfected my recipe and currently writing my QMS/HACCP plan. I am manufacturing ready meals (rice cooked in sauce). I'm no expert but I have some technical background from my past jobs.

 

I obviously do not have metal detection in place and as such, was wondering IF I have to have a filtration step somewhere in the flow chart? My batch size is 28 packs and that's all i will be making on my first few runs.

 

So do i need to add in that step? To be honest I'm not worried about metal contamination as i dont see that happening at this stage with the basic production equipment i have but if I HAVE to include Filtration, how do I determine the mesh size?  I would be filtering Blended pepper/Onions/Tomatoes and also Chicken stock. The only possible metal hazard i see in my process is bits from opening a tomato puree can. I currently use an electric can opener and never had issues with metal from a domestic user perspective

 

Thank you in anticipation!

 

Hi teem,

 

The minimal requirements will likely depend on yr Local(?) Regulatory HACCP requirements for approval of "commercialisation" of RTE products (if any).

 

RTE consumer food products are typically regarded as "High Risk". (some exceptions, eg canned goods)

 

From a safety POV yr filter queries / mesh size are related to Risk Assessment. The usage / classification of a metal detector / sieve etc is a common topic of discussion here, often without a consensus. For example can see these old/newer threads -

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...al-risks-haccp/

http://www.ifsqn.com...ng-metal-fines/

 

One "operational"  viewpoint/decision flow is here -

 

Attached File  Kraft, haccp extraneous material.pdf   48.34KB   16 downloads

 

PS - if you wish a conservative mesh size answer, maybe seek an aperture close to what would be equivalent to a metal detector screening limit which, based on threads in this Forum, is typically in the range 1-3 mm for RTE retail packs (Fe/SS are somewhat different of course).


Edited by Charles.C, 10 November 2017 - 08:02 AM.
edited

  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

#3 melvin003

melvin003

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 8 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 10 November 2017 - 04:19 AM

Hi,

 

The best way is to have a preventive measures during the process and have control of records for metals- say monitoring the metal equipment like knife,blades ,etc at the end of the day or  a periodic inspection to observe any damage or chip of the metal parts

 

If the process doesn't involve metals there is no need to have metal detector,unless your ingredients are free from metals hazards

 

 

Thanks


  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

#4 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,590 posts
  • 3278 thanks
350
Excellent

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

Posted 10 November 2017 - 04:36 AM

Hi,

 

The best way is to have a preventive measures during the process and have control of records for metals- say monitoring the metal equipment like knife,blades ,etc at the end of the day or  a periodic inspection to observe any damage or chip of the metal parts

 

If the process doesn't involve metals there is no need to have metal detector,unless your ingredients are free from metals hazards

 

 

Thanks

 

Hi melvin,

 

The problem is that many(most?) processes do include metals, somewhere or other. :smile:

 

USFDA (seafood) actually offer a short list of metal (processing) objects where they would assume that metal is likely a significant hazard (IIRC does not include can opener though!). However, similar to yr suggestion, FDA do not automatically exclude (validatable) control measures other than metal detectors. (However BRC7 might well not fully agree their flexibility).


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#5 ganeshkashinath

ganeshkashinath

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 11 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 10 November 2017 - 09:09 AM

Hi ,

You can go through this and derive ,

 

 

https://www.fda.gov/.../ucm074554.htm 


  • 0

#6 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,590 posts
  • 3278 thanks
350
Excellent

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

Posted 10 November 2017 - 10:47 AM

Hi ,

You can go through this and derive ,

 

 

https://www.fda.gov/.../ucm074554.htm 

 

Thks but link seems broken


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#7 ganeshkashinath

ganeshkashinath

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 11 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 10 November 2017 - 10:57 AM

Sorry, probably I have not copied the whole link and posted it 

 

https://www.fda.gov/.../ucm074554.htm 


  • 0

#8 ganeshkashinath

ganeshkashinath

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 11 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 10 November 2017 - 10:58 AM

Its still not working ,

 

try googling the key word 

 

"CPG Sec. 555.425 Foods, Adulteration Involving hard or Sharp Foreign Objects" 


  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

#9 Teem

Teem

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 10 November 2017 - 03:14 PM

Thank you so much Charles C and ganeshkashinath. I'll have a read through the threads/attachments and come back if i need more clarification


  • 0

#10 Teem

Teem

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 12 November 2017 - 09:08 PM

Ganesh/Charles C I have now reviewed all articles. Thank you so much. There is more than enough to reach a reasonable conclusion.

 

Here's the link to the reference article Ganesh tried to link to in case anyone else wants to have a look. https://www.fda.gov/...l/ucm074554.htm

 

Melvin003,  following your comment, I did see a reference (can't remember where but i did take a screenshot - See attachment ) that stated monitoring potential sources of metal contamination as an alternative to MD is acceptable.

 

Thank you all once again :)

 

 

Attached Files


  • 0

#11 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,590 posts
  • 3278 thanks
350
Excellent

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

Posted 13 November 2017 - 03:46 AM

Ganesh/Charles C I have now reviewed all articles. Thank you so much. There is more than enough to reach a reasonable conclusion.

 

Here's the link to the reference article Ganesh tried to link to in case anyone else wants to have a look. https://www.fda.gov/...l/ucm074554.htm

 

Melvin003,  following your comment, I did see a reference (can't remember where but i did take a screenshot - See attachment ) that stated monitoring potential sources of metal contamination as an alternative to MD is acceptable.

 

Thank you all once again :)

 

Hi teem,

 

No wish to disillusion you but perhaps i should mention that a "definitive" general conclusion for such OPs as yours  (ie defining what the FDA actually want)  has proven elusive in several years of dicussions on this Forum. Including analyses of the FDA document linked in yr Post.

 

The "ideal" FDA objective quoted in yr attachment is clearly, qualitatively, optimum. Unfortunately it is impossible to quantitatively validate as a critical limit unless you posit  a positive "zero".

 

And then there is "adulteration".

 

Regardless, I wish you Good Luck with yr Project !.


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

#12 Teem

Teem

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 13 November 2017 - 03:35 PM

Hi teem,

 

No wish to disillusion you but perhaps i should mention that a "definitive" general conclusion for such OPs as yours  (ie defining what the FDA actually want)  has proven elusive in several years of dicussions on this Forum. Including analyses of the FDA document linked in yr Post.

 

The "ideal" FDA objective quoted in yr attachment is clearly, qualitatively, optimum. Unfortunately it is impossible to quantitatively validate as a critical limit unless you posit  a positive "zero".

 

And then there is "adulteration".

 

Regardless, I wish you Good Luck with yr Project !.

Thanks for the clarification. I've concluded it wouldnt hurt to include a filtration step. I would have loved to go with a 1mm filter but that would be too fine for the blend i'm filtering so think I would settle for a 2mm one and would definitely be monitoring the potential sources of metal contamination.  And yes i do need all the good wishes i can get on the project   :smile: Thank you! 


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users