Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

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

Share this

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

Poll: Is Metal Detection? (739 member(s) have cast votes)

Is Metal Detection a Monitoring Activity or a CCP?

  1. A Monitoring Activity (227 votes [30.72%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.72%

  2. A Critical Control Point (CCP) (512 votes [69.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 69.28%

Vote Guests cannot vote
* * * * - 3 votes

Philip Jones

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 38 posts
  • 12 thanks
5
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 November 2018 - 09:37 PM

Goodness me. Is this thread still going?

This is like a Brexit question, splitting the decision as to CCP or not.  Who is telling the truth, who is not?
 

Having looked through the comments, people have debated the academic side of this rather than the practicalities.

 

Let me give you a scenario.

A laundry uses pins in supplied laundered protective clothing. We have no alternative (not acceptable, I know, but bear with me, this is a thought exercise). 

HACCP team reviews this and decides that despite requirements that pins are removed, there is still a risk, but we have a critical control point metal detector set at 3mm stainless.  We all know that a pin in the "correct" orientation can pass through a fully functioning and correctly calibrated metal detector, so, despite the CCP status, we are not making the food safe.  This pushes the critical control point back to clothing inspection at intake a new CCP.  Everybody happy with that? Of course not.  Even if you triple passed the garments through a different metal detector, I doubt any technical person would make that offline detector a CCP, it would be a PRP (or OPRP).

We therefore have an in-line metal detection step that can't function achieve the CCP requirements of guaranteeing safe product and a completely separate metal detector that wouldn't be made a CCP despite it being a better control than the online unit.

 

Another practical element to this conundrum (but real life this time).

We have a bearing starting to break up and it is putting small fragments of sharp metal into the product flow.  Too small to be rejected, they unfortunately go out with product. The pieces get larger until eventually one is rejected and found. Unfortunately we still have no idea where it has come from, despite investigations, and production continues with more small pieces being released (unknowingly) to the consumer. Eventually after a couple more rejections, we find the source.

The metal detector has has allowed us to identify the source but has not prevented potentially unsafe product being despatched.

Does this really sound like a CCP or is the metal detector being used as a monitor (particularly in the days or weeks following the incident)?

 

To me, both scenarios sound like a monitoring exercise. 

I know big pieces would be picked up and rejected, but making a product safe under certain circumstances doesn't make the operation a CCP.  Having a metal detector doesn't make a product safe under all circumstances, few circumstances do, (such as achieving a particular Fo value in thermal processing). 

 

All that off my chest, at the end of the day, if you call it a CCP or an OPRP, the steps you take, the controls you have in place are probably the same anyway. Just remember that the responsibility is to make safe food not to argue whether controls are effective or not effective depending on the heading on the instruction sheet.



Simon

    IFSQN...it's My Life

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 12,826 posts
  • 1363 thanks
880
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Married to Michelle, Father of three boys (Oliver, Jacob and Louis). I enjoy cycling, walking and travelling, watching sport, especially football and Manchester United. Oh and I love food and beer and wine.

Posted 15 January 2019 - 02:46 PM

Goodness me. Is this thread still going?

This is like a Brexit question, splitting the decision as to CCP or not.  Who is telling the truth, who is not?
 

Having looked through the comments, people have debated the academic side of this rather than the practicalities.

 

Let me give you a scenario.

A laundry uses pins in supplied laundered protective clothing. We have no alternative (not acceptable, I know, but bear with me, this is a thought exercise). 

HACCP team reviews this and decides that despite requirements that pins are removed, there is still a risk, but we have a critical control point metal detector set at 3mm stainless.  We all know that a pin in the "correct" orientation can pass through a fully functioning and correctly calibrated metal detector, so, despite the CCP status, we are not making the food safe.  This pushes the critical control point back to clothing inspection at intake a new CCP.  Everybody happy with that? Of course not.  Even if you triple passed the garments through a different metal detector, I doubt any technical person would make that offline detector a CCP, it would be a PRP (or OPRP).

We therefore have an in-line metal detection step that can't function achieve the CCP requirements of guaranteeing safe product and a completely separate metal detector that wouldn't be made a CCP despite it being a better control than the online unit.

 

Another practical element to this conundrum (but real life this time).

We have a bearing starting to break up and it is putting small fragments of sharp metal into the product flow.  Too small to be rejected, they unfortunately go out with product. The pieces get larger until eventually one is rejected and found. Unfortunately we still have no idea where it has come from, despite investigations, and production continues with more small pieces being released (unknowingly) to the consumer. Eventually after a couple more rejections, we find the source.

The metal detector has has allowed us to identify the source but has not prevented potentially unsafe product being despatched.

Does this really sound like a CCP or is the metal detector being used as a monitor (particularly in the days or weeks following the incident)?

 

To me, both scenarios sound like a monitoring exercise. 

I know big pieces would be picked up and rejected, but making a product safe under certain circumstances doesn't make the operation a CCP.  Having a metal detector doesn't make a product safe under all circumstances, few circumstances do, (such as achieving a particular Fo value in thermal processing). 

 

All that off my chest, at the end of the day, if you call it a CCP or an OPRP, the steps you take, the controls you have in place are probably the same anyway. Just remember that the responsibility is to make safe food not to argue whether controls are effective or not effective depending on the heading on the instruction sheet.

 

Good points, well made Philip, so I guess the answer is it may or may not be a CCP depending on the circumstances.

Therefore everybody is right...and it is time for us to come together.  Just like Brexit. :smile:

 

Regards,

Simon


Get FREE bitesize education with IFSQN webinar recordings.
 
Download this handy excel for desktop access to over 180 Food Safety Friday's webinar recordings.
https://www.ifsqn.com/fsf/Free%20Food%20Safety%20Videos.xlsx

 
Check out IFSQN’s extensive library of FREE food safety videos
https://www.ifsqn.com/food_safety_videos.html


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 15 January 2019 - 04:09 PM

Hi Philip,

 

Just to note that HACCP has never claimed to guarantee zero risk.

 

Hence CCP defining words like "acceptable" and for FSMA  "significantly minimize".

 

Subjectivity Rules ! :smile:


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


PollyKBD

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 74 posts
  • 5 thanks
12
Good

  • United States
    United States

Posted 15 January 2019 - 06:49 PM

Thanks Charles - Flattery will get you everywhere french_cig.gif

For myself (as a packaging producer) - the issue of metal detectors is not a big one. We do not have them and are not considered as a CCP (subsequent step will eliminate).

DOH - Just realised I've got metal bolts as a CCP - will have to change my CCP list.

Would be interested to know - Do any packaging producers out there use metal detectors?

Regards

Richard

We recently received packaging with a screw in it that had fallen out of the equipment used producing the packaging. We found it in a container during one of our packaging runs. The packaging company added checking the tightness of bolts prior to production and accounting for all the bolts after production to their procedures after this incident. Not really an argument for or against. Just a story about something that happened. 



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 16 January 2019 - 01:48 AM

We recently received packaging with a screw in it that had fallen out of the equipment used producing the packaging. We found it in a container during one of our packaging runs. The packaging company added checking the tightness of bolts prior to production and accounting for all the bolts after production to their procedures after this incident. Not really an argument for or against. Just a story about something that happened. 

 

It's an argument as to the difficulty in preventing human error. Probability of Failure  = 1.0. Frequency = ?


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Manish Semwal

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 12 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 16 January 2019 - 12:39 PM

Hi guys,

First of all I must say this was really a good question picked with great logical intended approaches and inputs by all..

 

What I figure out about CCP in case of metal detector is Hazard severity i.e. Metal, now we all should  have consensus on this, that a metal is a Food safety hazard and has a great potential to put the food in completely unsafe condition as this could harm the consumer badly..going forward you are putting the Metal detector as an control measure which does reduces the hazard in terms of sensitivity like 1.5 mm for Ferrous in maximum food industry's (As less than 1.5mm could pass the CCP but risk level becomes low) and eliminates the same by rejecting the particular contaminated part.

 

The concept is to release the safe food only and this is sufficed by doing so, and this demands an monitoring activity at much stringent parameter without any short fall or negligence.

 

As Charles said above that if something changes the shape or formulation of the product becomes CCP, is not the perception here but elimination of food safety hazard from the process flow Is, through any activity or equipment.

 

Regards :smile:



Danielle D

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 30 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 16 January 2019 - 03:29 PM

These are all excellent points! 

 

In reply to those who said we don't have identified risks and only look at our raw materials, this is false. We do look at our equipment and history issues which are virtually none in regards to metal fragments. The issue I with it as a CCP in our company is because we have one building that is a WET operation where we make paste products and one building that is a DRY operation which is all powders. Our HACCP plan is very similar in both instances in regards to the process and the products that we use; however, for some reason we deem Metal Detection as a CCP on the DRY side. When I first started working here, they told me that they do not metal detect on the WET side unless it is a customer requirement because it's not as easy to put our products through. On the DRY side, all products already packaged through a screen and filter are ran through a stand a lone metal detector. So I get asked the question, why would you have metal detection as a CCP on the DRY side and not the WET side. That is why I am looking for arguements to reduce down from a CCP

 

I'm from the  younger generation that wants to change from the midset of "BRC told us we had to have a CCP so that's why we have it". People don't like change so I need a strong argument to support. 

 

The definition is to reduce or eliminate, to be honest, there has not been a SINGLE instance in the past 5 years of our metal detector going off and us actually finding something. It usually ends up being something wrong with our boxes. 

 

This topic usually makes my head spin! 



Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 5,444 posts
  • 1507 thanks
1,524
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 16 January 2019 - 04:42 PM

It's up to you to use the decision tree and determine if it is a CCP or not..............soooooooo in your case, use the decision tree and see what shakes out

 

http://www.inspectio...035?chap=4#s8c4

 

above is a link to a CCP decision tree..............I don't like risk assessments, too subject......decision tree use facts (you must list the other programs that control the hazards)


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 17 January 2019 - 02:01 AM

I think all the usual Decision Trees are (or include) Risk Assessments ? Just concealed ones.

 

eg "Is it likely that .........

 

(The Canadian FSEP used to have a very nice Risk Matrix also).


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 5,444 posts
  • 1507 thanks
1,524
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 15 February 2019 - 02:09 PM

Here's the link to the FSEP program in it's entirety. It has been archived as per the new SFCR but is still relevant.  (cannot find a risk matrix, nor do I remember ever seeing one from CFIA)

 

Regarding whether metal detection is a CCP or monitoring would depend completely on the use of the 12 HACCP steps.....without interpretation or bias (HAHAHAHA)

 

I personally feel that the HACCP waters have been muddied beyond recognition by GFSI to the point that everyone is dazed and confused and science has taken a back seat hence the age and length of this thread


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs


Nassu

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 14 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • South Africa
    South Africa

Posted 31 March 2019 - 10:28 PM

HI Guys

 

This is my first time actually using this platform.

 

I work for an edible oil industry where we pack oil in 10L bags and pass through the metal detector. It was identified as a CCP however during our Audit, the auditor questioned as to why it was a CCP. She looked at my hazard analysis from the start and through out the other process steps  prior to the metal detector - likelihood of any physical object including metal was low however it was a contradiction as at the metal detector process step the likelihood was identified as a high and then looking a the severity deemed it a significant risk and thereafter put through the CCP decision identified it a as a CCP but her view point made sense because the severity of metal in product is a critical  to the consumer but the likelihood of it being in the product is low and using the risk assessment table (depending on  which table is used) the risk was deemed  not critical  and therefore not a CCP- so it could just be a monitoring activity. I would not say an OPRP as it s measurable and it controlled by procedures and verification of testing at frequencies using different sensitivities/test pieces- so it is measurable  and controlled but I dont think it will fall under the category of a OPRP 

 

Regards

Nassu



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 06 April 2019 - 08:23 PM

HI Guys

 

This is my first time actually using this platform.

 

I work for an edible oil industry where we pack oil in 10L bags and pass through the metal detector. It was identified as a CCP however during our Audit, the auditor questioned as to why it was a CCP. She looked at my hazard analysis from the start and through out the other process steps  prior to the metal detector - likelihood of any physical object including metal was low however it was a contradiction as at the metal detector process step the likelihood was identified as a high and then looking a the severity deemed it a significant risk and thereafter put through the CCP decision identified it a as a CCP but her view point made sense because the severity of metal in product is a critical  to the consumer but the likelihood of it being in the product is low and using the risk assessment table (depending on  which table is used) the risk was deemed  not critical  and therefore not a CCP- so it could just be a monitoring activity. I would not say an OPRP as it s measurable and it controlled by procedures and verification of testing at frequencies using different sensitivities/test pieces- so it is measurable  and controlled but I dont think it will fall under the category of a OPRP 

 

Regards

Nassu

 

The typical traditional  haccp logic is simple. If you can justify that likelihood of occurrence is low, supports no need for a CCP..

 

But the justification is often contentious.

 

If the hazard analysis concludes no significant risk, it is IMO illogical to propose an OPRP.  However some of the various interpretations of OPRP may (and probably do) suggest otherwise.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


mgourley

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,403 posts
  • 997 thanks
274
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plant City, FL
  • Interests:Cooking, golf, firearms, food safety and sanitation.

Posted 25 October 2019 - 12:31 AM

Metal detection has become a de-facto CCP over the years, regardless the CCP decision trees. 

It's refreshing to see an auditor push back on that.

 

Marshall



Brendan Triplett

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 511 posts
  • 131 thanks
106
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Rugby, Military History, Reading

Posted 11 December 2019 - 11:10 AM

I have found that arguing CCPs and monitoring activities can get tough, especially when you mark something as a monitoring activity due to having a robust set of PRPs and GMPs.  If, after conducting a risk analysis you can make a viable argument, based on science, that this is a low level likelihood with low level possibility of harm to the public, and there are processes in place to keep it from being an issue then you might be able to say that it is a monitoring activity.  If you cannot then it is a CCP all day.

 

 

Cheers!


Vice President and SQF Practitioner in Pennsylvania
Brendan Triplett


mahantesh.micro

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 166 posts
  • 88 thanks
28
Excellent

  • India
    India
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangalore- Karnataka (India)
  • Interests:Food Safety Standards, Specification developments, Procedures
    Other interests are- cricket and indoor games

Posted 27 December 2019 - 04:06 AM

In our company, we have metal detector just before the sieve (20 mesh), that is why we have made metal detection(0.8, 1.0 & 1.2mm) step OPRP and Sieving step a CCP



zein1

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 16 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Lebanon
    Lebanon
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Riyadh - Saudi Arabia
  • Interests:Knowledge of new technologies. I have experience in consultancy for ISO9001 and HACCP as well as auditing.
    Like also to partcipitate in seminars or lectures where I can learn more about food science, technology and safety. Also like to give lectures on Quality and Food Safey where I can share my experience givem that I spent 9 yrs in working within different food industries.

Posted 01 March 2020 - 08:31 AM

Dear Sirs,

In my opinion, the metal detector step need be first analysed as a monitoring activity following packing step (intended for control of physical hazards) as to significance (based on risk severity and likelihood of occurrence). Since such step could not be significant and that relies on reason or purpose of having the metal detector installed.

In case such CM comes to be significant, then next step is to apply the two magic questions that separate CCP from OPRP (are their ant critical limits in place and whether such activity requires real time monitoring). If both comply then the activity is CCP and if not is OPRP.

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:

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" ?

Cheers :doh:

Charles Chew



AJL

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 335 posts
  • 21 thanks
38
Excellent

  • Germany
    Germany
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 January 2022 - 07:23 PM

Hi! So we have 3 lines, 2 of which have metal detectors and one does not.
Although it goes against the codex decision tree (technically they should be CCPs) I have classed the metal detection step as an OPRP

This is because I actually regard them as a monitoring step. As far I am concerned they would 'catch' a process/PRP becoming 'out of control'.
Also we had one break down for 2 months. You can't run for 2 weeks without a CCP functional right?? Plus if we say it is necessary on two lines but not the 3rd, what does that say to an auditor?
Come with some good arguments for me here ;)



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 03 January 2022 - 08:45 PM

Hi! So we have 3 lines, 2 of which have metal detectors and one does not.
Although it goes against the codex decision tree (technically they should be CCPs) I have classed the metal detection step as an OPRP

This is because I actually regard them as a monitoring step. As far I am concerned they would 'catch' a process/PRP becoming 'out of control'.
Also we had one break down for 2 months. You can't run for 2 weeks without a CCP functional right?? Plus if we say it is necessary on two lines but not the 3rd, what does that say to an auditor?
Come with some good arguments for me here ;)

Hi AnnMou,

 

I presume you mean an ISO-oprp rather than a Canadian one. If the former, iso22000(2018) changed things a bit. Or perhaps there is a Danish OPRP ?

I deduce you believe that it is OK to run without a MD as long as it's categorized as an OPRP.  Hmmm.

IMEX, people simply invest in >1 MD.

 

PS - just noticed that you are currently BRC-oriented. afaik Codex has no interest in OPRPs.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


MikeTsai

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Taiwan
    Taiwan

Posted 15 January 2022 - 12:06 PM

Hello everyone in the forum,

What we call metal detection actually includes two steps.
detect + reject
This step will differentiate between foods that contain metals and those that do not.
Similar to a sieving step.
Therefore metal detection(+reject) is a step(CP or CCP ,base on risk) in the process rather than a monitoring.

Regards,

Mike from Taiwan



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 16 January 2022 - 11:42 AM

Hello everyone in the forum,

What we call metal detection actually includes two steps.
detect + reject
This step will differentiate between foods that contain metals and those that do not.
Similar to a sieving step.
Therefore metal detection(+reject) is a step(CP or CCP ,base on risk) in the process rather than a monitoring.

Regards,

Mike from Taiwan

Hi Mike,

 

There are both haccp/semantic and haccp/interpretive issues all mixed together in this thread.

 

this Q/A IMO is a useful intro -

 

Q - I need to clarify whether the metal detector is a Critical Control Point or is it a monitoring tool for monitoring the Critical Control Point For example, there is a production line on which a critical control point has been placed, which is heating to 100 degrees C, and that point is monitored by a thermometer, so is the thermometer in this case equivalent to a metal detector

A - Metal detection is a CCP, if your HACCP determines it to be. A metal detection is a process step and the metal detector is a CCP monitoring tool.
Heat treatment to 100C can also be a CCP if your HACCP determines it to be. Cooking is the process step and the probe is a CCP monitoring tool.
https://techni-k.co....etal-detection/

 

Justification for the existence of both a CCP and a Monitoring function at the MD is illustrated in analyses by USFDA and CFIA which are extracted/attached below. Both effectively focus the hazard at this step on capability of an appropriately size-targetted Metal Detector to control hazardous metal. The nature of what defines an "appropriately size-targetted" setting/hazardous material is referred elsewhere.

 

Attached File  FDA,MD,CCP.png   513.96KB   0 downloads

Attached File  CFIA-MD-CCP.png   1.22MB   0 downloads

 

Just for comparison, a more condensed format due NZFA is added -

Attached File  NZFA,MD,CCP.png   294.38KB   0 downloads


Edited by Charles.C, 16 January 2022 - 12:10 PM.
edited

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


SQFconsultant

    SQFconsultant

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 4,632 posts
  • 1135 thanks
1,126
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Just when I thought I was out - They pulled me back in!!!

Posted 28 April 2022 - 02:25 AM

Have a client that nade the testing wands the CCP with the detector a CP and inspected a potato chip factory that had 2 detectors - one for metal pieces peior to their expensive equioment and then a standard MD prior to packaging - only the second one was the CCP.


All the Best,

 

All Rights Reserved,

Without Prejudice,

Glenn Oster.

Glenn Oster Consulting, LLC -

SQF System Development | Internal Auditor Training | eConsultant

Martha's Vineyard Island, MA - Restored Republic

http://www.GCEMVI.XYZ

http://www.GlennOster.com

 


Mthokozisi Nkosi

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 1 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • South Africa
    South Africa

Posted 29 May 2022 - 10:26 AM

According to the definition of a CCP by the FDA  a CCP is "defined as a step at which control can be applied and is essential to prevent or eliminate a food safety hazard or reduce it to an acceptable level. The potential hazards that are reasonably likely to cause illness or injury in the absence of their control must be addressed in determining CCPs", therefore, if the metal detection stage is the last control applied to remove any metal present in the food,  I would think it is a CCP. However, it would be a monitoring activity if there are other subsequent steps that can eliminate any metal present for an example; a magnet, an optic sorter or sieve. But if these steps come before the  FINAL metal detection step could be considered monitoring activities. I suppose it could be a monitoring activity if the product is intermediate and you will supply the product to your customer who will then conduct further processing/testing/metal elimination and that is accordingly documented.


Edited by Mthokozisi Nkosi, 29 May 2022 - 10:27 AM.


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

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

Posted 30 May 2022 - 03:07 AM

According to the definition of a CCP by the FDA  a CCP is "defined as a step at which control can be applied and is essential to prevent or eliminate a food safety hazard or reduce it to an acceptable level. The potential hazards that are reasonably likely to cause illness or injury in the absence of their control must be addressed in determining CCPs", therefore, if the metal detection stage is the last control applied to remove any metal present in the food,  I would think it is a CCP. However, it would be a monitoring activity if there are other subsequent steps that can eliminate any metal present for an example; a magnet, an optic sorter or sieve. But if these steps come before the  FINAL metal detection step could be considered monitoring activities. I suppose it could be a monitoring activity if the product is intermediate and you will supply the product to your customer who will then conduct further processing/testing/metal elimination and that is accordingly documented.

Historically, I believe the well-known Codex CCP Decision Tree (no longer reproduced in the current Codex Hygiene Publication) was particularly designed (ca. 1997) to ensure a CCP at a finally implemented Metal Detector.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Venkateshkini

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 37 posts
  • 3 thanks
6
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 16 November 2022 - 04:14 AM

I feel like if its at the end of the line its considered as CCP (as per decision tree). If its mid or start of the line its not even QCP.

 

We had one spice plant, where metal detector is placed at the begining of the line (Passing the whole spices). This metal detector will remove metals and avoid damaging of teeths of milling machine. This metal detector is monitored onc ein four hours just to check wether its working properly or not.

 

There is another metal detector at the end of the line, befor epacking of final powder product. This we considerd as CCP, as failure at this step may result in recahing metal contmaination directly to consumer and harm them.



SHQuality

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 317 posts
  • 46 thanks
59
Excellent

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands

Posted 30 January 2023 - 10:05 AM

As Simon said we make mainly chips and pretzels. The problem area is the dryer after the extruder in the chip area. We get small quantities of rust particles from the dryer which show up in 2 magnet spouts on conveyors.

 

What is your maintenance plan to deal with this rust? Isn't the dryer made with stainless steel?





Share this


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users