Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Metal detection in SQF


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

#1 DAVE84

DAVE84

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 106 posts
  • 35 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2011 - 02:40 AM

Hi everyone,



I wanted to know that if metal detection is mandatory to get sqf certification or not? we have few products which are packed in cans and also some in metalized film. Because of the nature of the packaging material we are not able to use metal detector. our whole process is dry powder blending. We do use sifters before packaging but again with few items due to consistensy of product we have to use screen which has opening size of 5.6 mm and 8.9 mm. If we want to go with SQF will we forcefully required to have metal detector?


Thanks



#2 QLD

QLD

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 59 posts
  • 10 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Australia
    Australia

Posted 15 January 2011 - 04:45 AM

there is no mandatory requirement to have metal detectors.


You should have a look a section 6.9.2 in relation to requirements for your sifters and any other FM removal devices.


I would recommend also having a look at your customer complaints to see whether people are finding metal and also look at plant failure records to see if there is any risk there. Understanding this could add weight to not having a metal detector..... or in turn highlight that you may need to look at something else.


Hope that helps.



#3 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,233 posts
  • 5113 thanks
1,112
Excellent

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

Posted 15 January 2011 - 04:30 PM

In fact, i don't think metal detectors are mandatory for ANY FSMS Standards.(???)

Although, as per previous post, an auditor may well look at yr process / results and ask why not ? eg ageing stainless steel mesh conveyor belts in visible need of continuous maintenance :smile:

(Been there, argued that :smile: )

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#4 DAVE84

DAVE84

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 106 posts
  • 35 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2011 - 06:44 PM

Yes i completely agree with your points. With the case of 5.6 mm i will be able to justify my self as FDA has published one article which says that metal upto 7 mm can not creat hazard but i am totally worried about 8.9 mm one. That will put me in great trouble and i will not be abel to defend him. I have all the monitoring process for sieve in place with good documentation. but I am totally confused with 8.9 mm sieve.



Thanks



#5 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,696 posts
  • 691 thanks
181
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 15 January 2011 - 07:55 PM

I think you should have a look at your own process and decide if you're happy with it rather than worry first of all about the auditor. Have a process you're confident is safe and you're well on the way to building evidence to prove that to an auditor anyway.

I'm always wary for people who say they don't need a metal detector in their process. I've had very expensive "unbreakable" machines break and only be picked up by the metal detector. I'd also be wary of relying solely on customer complaints to see if you need one; it's good verification that you don't but it's not something that would help me sleep at night! By using it on their own, you'd effectively be using customer complaints as validation that your processes are effective. Not the right way round IMO especially as although complaint rates vary, not all customers with a problem will tell you. Also any single find of a piece of metal (even if in your heart of hearts you know it's unlikely to be from your site) you haven't really got a leg to stand on and could be in dangerous ground legally.

How I'd go about it is I'd audit the factory. Is there anything metal missing? Any metal nuts, bolts etc? Is there anything which could fall off your machinery which could go through your sieves? Also look at equipment on the line.

Then, I'd consider renting an x-ray machine; or, be cunning and ask for a trial (after all depending on your findings you may decide to buy one). I'm not sure it would work for your tins but certainly in your metalised film it would be able to penetrate that and check for contaminants. You could use that as validation for your process (if you find nothing) or justification for a change in process if you do.

A cheaper alternative could be to look at a throat metal detector. Now, they're not perfect and it is better practice to detect in the packaging but I believe they have got a lot better:

http://www.foodproce...s/2009/214.html



Thanked by 1 Member:

#6 DAVE84

DAVE84

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 106 posts
  • 35 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 January 2011 - 01:16 PM

GMO, This metal detector seems perfect for our application. Thanks a ton for your help....



#7 tsmith7858

tsmith7858

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 262 posts
  • 52 thanks
10
Good

  • United States
    United States

Posted 17 January 2011 - 08:18 PM

Yes i completely agree with your points. With the case of 5.6 mm i will be able to justify my self as FDA has published one article which says that metal upto 7 mm can not creat hazard but i am totally worried about 8.9 mm one. That will put me in great trouble and i will not be abel to defend him. I have all the monitoring process for sieve in place with good documentation. but I am totally confused with 8.9 mm sieve.



Thanks


I am not sure what you are running or SQF requirements but AIB Standards state 600 micron (.6 mm) for finely ground powder and 1000 micron (1 mm) for others. Your 5.6 and 8.9 both seem high to me. As most have said you need to analyze your risks to determine if metal detector is needed.

You should also note that the 7 mm referenced by the FDA is related to choke hazards. Physical harm (damage to teeth in particular) can occur at smaller sizes.

#8 DAVE84

DAVE84

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 106 posts
  • 35 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 January 2011 - 02:46 AM

Hmmm



That was good to know.. Thanks tsmith....



Thanked by 1 Member:

#9 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,233 posts
  • 5113 thanks
1,112
Excellent

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

Posted 20 January 2011 - 03:43 AM

Dear tsmith,

The quoted values seem outside the capability of conventional magnetic metal detectors. I noticed one other forum mentioning Xray detection limits (product unspecified) also well outside these numbers. Are they (validatably) attainable. I tried some googling but manufacturers seemed rather "coy" on details of detection levels.? i believe this has come up on forum previously but too lazy to hunt. :smile:

I guess one further illustration of the "actual" perceived risk (presumably also lawyer-related in USA :smile: ) is the frequency of voluntary recalls due producer findings of minute particle contamination.
The specific product here is not mentioned (puppy petfood?) but I personally always find the FDA oft-quoted limits rather auditor-unbelievable although posts on this forum have claimed to successfully use them and you can find refs. in published HACCP plan documents. (Admittedly, i do use the US definition of "dangerous bone" in fish which is not much less amazing, must hv been based on a Giant's throat :smile: )

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#10 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,233 posts
  • 5113 thanks
1,112
Excellent

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

Posted 21 January 2011 - 04:18 AM

Dear All,

As an extension to previous post, the related thread previously posted here was - http://www.ifsqn.com...dpost__p__37039

However, this still lacked data on X-ray sensitivity. Eventually, the attachment below looks fairly useful. If typical, the detection capabilities are indeed impressive, as is also the price. :smile:

Attached File  X-ray specs, anritsu.pdf   1.35MB   47 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

PS these are the kind of comments which make me cautious -

While metal detectors and X-ray systems can find numerous kinds of contaminants, they also are suitable for detecting the size of foreign objects. The important thing to remember is that this specification is very application dependent. According to Lymn, perhaps “best case” today in metal detection systems may be 0.8 mm in some applications, while “worst case” may be 10 mm stainless steel in some very large aperture applications. A common requirement in a retail packaged goods application might be 1.5 mm ferrous metals, 2.0 mm most non-ferrous metals, and 2.5 mm non-magnetic stainless steel. Metal sensitivity with X-ray inspection (other than aluminum) is more consistent across metal types—1.0 – 1.2 mm is not uncommon, while other common contaminants may be detected in 2x or 3x multiples of the metal size. According to Brainard, some X-ray systems with 0.4 mm detector arrays can see contaminants down to 0.4 mm, prompting processors and vendors to raise their expectations and improve their contaminant detection goals.

http://www.foodengin...000000000691953


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#11 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,696 posts
  • 691 thanks
181
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 21 January 2011 - 08:03 AM

In a consistent product those limits would be achievable with x-ray but I doubt with metal detection. Anyway, I don't see how a certification body can state what is and isn't safe in powders when if that was in a chilled ready meal there is no hope in hell you could achieve that level. Also you're getting down to the size of iron fortification of breakfast cereals surely?????



#12 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,233 posts
  • 5113 thanks
1,112
Excellent

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

Posted 21 January 2011 - 12:48 PM

Dear All,

The numbers quoted by tsmith earlier were presumably taken from this document (pg 31)

Attached File  AIB food safety standard .pdf   562.43KB   60 downloads

Despite the title of the document, it is not clear (or mentioned) how these are related to safety. An equivalent comment can equally be applied to magnetic metal detector sensitivities of course.
Based on another previous thread, (smallish) coin swallowing by infants does not appear in general to be medically regarded as a high risk event (???). :whistle:

Perhaps the haccp (metal) risk factor with its almost universal CCP status has simply (intuitively) become equivalent to zero tolerant pathogens. If so, the choice of a minimum detection level is logical, and good news for X-ray detector manufacturers. Alternatively, with the current cost difference, why bother unless defect/packaging-driven ?

I hv never encountered an auditor querying a quoted machine spec. being allocated to the critical limit, as long as the value was validatable with a "certified sample".

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#13 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,696 posts
  • 691 thanks
181
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 21 January 2011 - 02:09 PM

I hv never encountered an auditor querying a quoted machine spec. being allocated to the critical limit, as long as the value was validatable with a "certified sample".

Rgds / Charles.C


I've had an auditor ask why we have chosen a piece size and not been satisfied with "that's what the machine can achieve" which is fair because in HACCP we should be deciding "what size contaminant is a risk" then choosing equipment to meet or exceed that.

#14 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,233 posts
  • 5113 thanks
1,112
Excellent

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

Posted 21 January 2011 - 02:50 PM

Dear GMO.

I've had an auditor ask why we have chosen a piece size and not been satisfied with "that's what the machine can achieve" which is fair because in HACCP we should be deciding "what size contaminant is a risk" then choosing equipment to meet or exceed that.


Yes, I agree.
Perhaps this extract from attachment below is a possible compromise response,(ie if in doubt, minimize [within economic reason] :smile: ) -

1.15 Foreign Material Control Devices
When used, sifters, magnets, strainers, Xray machines and metal detectors are installed at appropriate locations to prevent the inclusion of metal, wood, glass and other foreign materials.

Critical Requirements
1.15.1.1 Precautions are taken to minimize product contamination when staples or similar items are used in packaging materials.


Attached File  AIB std inspection food contact packaging manuf.facilities.pdf   7.78MB   33 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users