Dear Mick,
Welcome to the forum !
Thks yr comments.
I deduce you are only recommending one
CCP (first magnet) while the 2nd magnet essentially monitors / validates / verifies the first. A similar opinion is recently offered in a long(est) running popular thread here on implementation / interpretation of metal detectors.
One other variable of course is whether the size constitutes a hazard, which involves the product utilisation also.
I think I hv now seen at least 4 alternatives, all presumably validatable –
1. the first metal remover as
CCP (here, also promoted in above mentioned thread by Charles Chew from memory, thirdly by Codex in their published validation document )
2. Both magnet and
metal detector as
CCPs ( not 100% sure but justified from memory in a current, popular
HACCP book on the grounds of minimising potential material losses at earlier stages [safety/economic]).
3. magnet +
metal detector regarded as a combined unit giving one
CCP (presumably unavoidable if routinely positive results in both locations [unless data on 2nd one complies with a FSO/PO perhaps?)
4. last (usually metal) detector only, my guess the standard choice (unless current authors are changing) for minimising auditorial difficulties ??
Hopefully auditors will readily accept this range of possibilities.
Rgds / Charles.C