METAL DETECTOR: A Monitoring Activity or a CCP?
Generally, most companies in the food industries today have Metal Detectors in their process lines designed for the purpose of detecting metal hazards. Often this step of the process is considered significantly risky to be classified as a CCP (Critical Control Point) - most food auditors insist it is anyway.
The issue that I am arguing here is that a Metal Detector does not "change the product or ingredients" in shape, by improvements, in aroma, or product enhancement or alterations of any sorts". Instead, all that it does is to alert any presence of ferrous hazards in the product when detected.
And, when ferrous hazards are detected, it is often at the end of the procees line meaning it is way too late hence, rendering the product not safe for public consumption.
The argument here is if a Metal Detector is deemed a CCP, where and what is the CONTROL POINT that support the process step in making food safe or to be safe?
Unlike a sieve which does change the shape of the product or ingredients, why then should we classify a Metal Detector as a Critical Control Point when itself is NOT a Control Point in the Process at all.
If we agree to this line of argument, shouldn't we correctly classify the Metal Detector as simply a monitoring function and as important as it is, be termed as a "Critical Monitoring Step" instead of a "Critical Contol Point / Step" or as I like to term it "Quality Control Point"
As a "Critical Monitoring Step" it would just be a record keeping procedure whilst categorising it as a CCP would certainly attract the auditor's attention and viewed from a more serious angle. (Mind you, calibration remains a requirement anyay you take it)
What is the general consensus? A "Critical Monitoring Step / Quality Control Point"" or a "Critical Control Point" ?