Jump to content

283Online Users

  •  
Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

Metal Detection - is it a Monitoring Activity or a CCP?

metal detection

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

Poll: Is Metal Detection? (299 member(s) have cast votes)

Is Metal Detection a Monitoring Activity or a CCP?

  1. A Monitoring Activity (93 votes [31.10%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.10%

  2. A Critical Control Point (CCP) (206 votes [68.90%])

    Percentage of vote: 68.90%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 Cathy

Cathy

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 238 posts
  • 24 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Louisiana

Posted 04 June 2008 - 01:31 AM

Just another opinion on metal detectors. I don't think it is possible or correct to ask if they are CCPs in general. Every process must consider if the hazard is likely or if the metal detector is just a customer requirement of some sort. HACCP just can't be one size fits all.

Secondly, I really enjoyed the attention to detail in asking if it is truly a control point. If the detector only identifies metal - it is not the control point. Control is where you can reduce the hazard by removing it and doing something about it. The rejection mechanism is the control. Often it's all part of the same equipment and so the whole thing is named a CCP....the point where the mechanism is there to identify the hazard and exert control. I have seen cases where the metal detector rejection system is not working properly and only a light or other indicator is available to show when metal is present. At this point - I suppose a human being is the control.

Just my two cents....or Euros - or whatever you think it's worth.


  • 0
Cathy Crawford, HACCP Consulting Group
http://haccpcg.com/

#62 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,709 posts
  • 268 thanks
20
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 04 June 2008 - 07:00 AM

In every HACCP I've ever written it's the detection and rejection which is the control and this is tested along with the failsafe mechanisms. If a metal detector just alerts a member of staff; I agree, it's a waste of time.


  • 0

#63 walabies

walabies

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 36 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stuck at some Manufacturing factory...

Posted 19 June 2008 - 05:13 AM

I voted it as critical control point. The metal detector functions as detecting the metal content in the product. Without it, the metal hazard remains, and once detection, rejection is done and thus valids as a CCP. Monitoring to me is to observe the changes within the product, and once you monitor, you don't do anything to the hazard.


Edited by walabies, 19 June 2008 - 05:14 AM.

  • 0

#64 Erasmo

Erasmo

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 135 posts
  • 7 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 22 June 2008 - 09:16 PM

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. :dunno:

What is the general consensus? A "Critical Monitoring Step / Quality Control Point"" or a "Critical Control Point" ?

Cheers :doh:

Charles Chew


Hi Charles,
by definition ALL CCP's has to be monitored. So, both answers are valid.
  • 0

#65 Cathy

Cathy

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 238 posts
  • 24 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Louisiana

Posted 25 June 2008 - 06:48 PM

Hopefully this is better late than never. I had been hunting for a document about foreign objects - finally found it. In an FDA document of 1999 (yes, a bit old!). It discussed the 7-25mm understanding. Regulatory action is not advised unless a foreign object is hard or sharp and between 7 and 25mm in size. However - what we often ignore is that it continues with more information... If a hard or sharp foreign object is less than 7mm AND the intended use includes special risk groups such as children or elderly is is considered a hazard. We should not generalize the 7-25 mm size as a rule for all products.


  • 0
Cathy Crawford, HACCP Consulting Group
http://haccpcg.com/

#66 Erasmo

Erasmo

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 135 posts
  • 7 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 25 June 2008 - 08:53 PM

Hi Charles

Are they detectors? Or magnets? Is a separate rejection system included?
My opinion...


CCP - Detector
Critical Limit - >0 count. Detector sensitivity 0.5mm Fe/non-Fe/St-St
Monitoring Procedure - Audible & visual alarm at detection
Records - Detection count record. Functionality check record
Verification Procedure & Frequency - Detector functionality check every hour
Corrective Action - Quarantine materials packed since last acceptable check. Investigation, and implementation of preventative action.



:tired:



Hi Edwina,
Mi Opinion:
CCP - Detector
Critical Limit
- >0 count. Detector sensitivity 0.5mm Fe/non-Fe/St-St (That is "acceptable level")
Monitoring Procedure - Audible & visual alarm at detection (see below)
Records - Detection count record. Functionality check record - agree.
Verification Procedure & Frequency - Detector functionality check every hour (that is monitoring. - see definition 3.12 ISO-22000)
Corrective Action - Quarantine materials packed since last acceptable check. Investigation, and implementation of preventative action. (This a "correction" see definition 3.13 & 3.14).

Every CCP has to be monitored so, both answers are correct (principle 4)
  • 0

#67 wamamili

wamamili

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 15 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Kenya
    Kenya
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:kenya
  • Interests:auditing

Posted 30 September 2008 - 06:38 AM

do we have a situation whereby a series of steps make a ccp. Then in such a situation ,critical limits should be result of the hazard presence after going through these steps. i hope you meant this Charles.


  • 0

#68 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 40 thanks
4
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 07 October 2008 - 06:36 AM

Hi Wama
I have restrained from participating in the forum due to certain professional reasons which Simon is fully aware of. However, as this subject was initiated by me, its only fair that I pen my opinion.

do we have a situation whereby a series of steps make a ccp. Then in such a situation ,critical limits should be result of the hazard presence after going through these steps

There can be a series of control measures along the process environment that are designed to monitor an identified hazard or a series of control measures acting simultaneously and in concert to specifically monitor an identified hazard. Whether this individual step or these integrated steps become part of your HACCP Plan or the Food Safety Control System, you have to make that risk management decision under the prevailing circumstance.

However, if there is a CCP step to control / monitor an identified hazard (such as a wire mesh shifter to trap ferrous and other non-ferrous impediments ahead of a metal detector - MT) then it is up to you to decide whether the MT is a CCP or just an OPRP.

Whichever way you wish to take it, they are both correct but as an auditor, I would also accept, provided objective evidences are available that the MT is as a continuous validation to confirm that the shifter (CCP) remains effective and efficient as intended.

Or you may place the MT under your OPRP Plan with the level of stringency equivalent to the design of a CCP but remains only an OPRP.

In my opinion, an FSCS is always dynamic in nature, therefore, there is no right or wrong answer or approach but rather objective evidences must prevail at all circumstance.
  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#69 olivewhippet

olivewhippet

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 3 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Australia
    Australia
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Colac
  • Interests:The Australian dairy industry, HACCP, ISO 9001:2000, SQF 2000 Level 3 (hate this with a passion!), WQA (Woolworths standard), risk management, general food safety and quality, a bit of environmental management - I need to get a life!

Posted 24 October 2008 - 01:09 AM

Metal detectors have always been a thorn in my side when developing HACCP plans, because I've never been confident in their sensitivity. There are so many variables that influence the performance of the MD -size, density and conductivity of the product, shape and orientation of any metal contaminant, environmental conditions, etc. Based on my experiences, I honestly don't believe they reduce hazards to an acceptable level. Trying to successfully detect fragments of 304 stainless in 10Kg blocks of hard cheese during validation was not always successful. It works ok for the test pieces, but when simulating the kind of non-uniform fragment you might find in a product (drill swarf or sheared pieces of metal) there was not 100% detection.
I also think they give manufacturers a false sense of security - "hey, we lost a bolt! Oh well, the metal detector will pick it up". At the end of the day, we are stuck with them and just have to make the best of it - they are still better than nothing. For most manufacturers, alternatives are too expensive and x-ray machines have their own issues. Technically it's hard to avoid treating them as a CCP if you have them in place, but I just don't think they are reliable enough to be effective.
My 2 cents, anyway


  • 0

#70 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 40 thanks
4
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 30 January 2009 - 04:01 AM

There are so many variables that influence the performance of the MD -size, density and conductivity of the product, shape and orientation of any metal contaminant, environmental conditions, etc.


Uncertainty in detection - how does a food auditor view this comment and what sort of impact does it have to an audit conclusion / report. (Personally, I have observed numerous failures in metal detecting steps carried out in very hgh profile organizations. Its frightening but yet appears to give a false sense of confidence amongst food processors)
  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#71 Salamony

Salamony

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 15 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Egypt
    Egypt

Posted 31 March 2009 - 09:18 PM

we have to clarify if the position of metal detector on the line and the combination with other control measures. that's means:
1- does the metal detector is the last defense line on the production line? if there's 2 defense lines we cannot consider both as a CCP, 1st may be OPRP and other willbe CCP.
2- we cannot consider all control measures are CCPs
3- we can use Foreign bodies prevention checklist
4- we have to consider the frequency of likelihood of occurrence against the severity of hazard to maintain the true risk.
5- Many CCPs refelct a weak HACCP Plan


  • 0

#72 nicolejee

nicolejee

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 1 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Australia
    Australia

Posted 29 April 2009 - 11:24 AM

Hi all,

I need some help from you guys

I have just joined a food company that has a new factory built for their cheese and antipasto products. The building is brand new and the process is mainly just cutting and packing for cheese + marinating and packing tomatoes. As per standard GMP and SOP, we get products from approved suppliers and no loose items in factory and all our machinery is intact as they are pretty new. In this case is it necessary to have metal detection set as a CCP? How should i justify that metal is a risk to the product when our machineries generally will not pose a physical hazard to the finish goods?

Nicole


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: metal, detection

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users