8 replies to this topic

[rajeshnath]

Hi friends,

I am new to this site, and really appreciate the promoters for developing such a wonderful site. I am from Indiaand into food industry- Spices for the last five years and prior to that I was into feed for 10 years.

For discussion..when we generally have metal detectors as CCP for metal contamination risks, what is the control/ CCP for non metal contaminants.

Cheers

Rajeshnath

[Martinblue]

Hi Rajeshnath,


Welcome to the forum. I suppose an extensive prerequisite programme could help to minimize the contamination of non metals. Like having regular Glass and Hard Plastic audit, having Wood policy. banning glass in the production area etc.

regards
Martin

[Marco]

Hi Rajeshnat,

Say if you sieve the product this would be your CCP and the mesh size (which depends on your hazard analysis) would be your critical limit. As mentioned in the other post in order to reduce the risks the pre-requisites should also be implemented.

Regards
Marco

[GMO]

Ha, this makes me chuckle. It's a fine example of the fact that metal detectors exist makes them critical control points. If they didn't exist; we would control metal in the same way we control glass and plastic, through prerequisite measures. There is an argument that x-rays could detect some non metallic contaminants but it's not reliable and heavily reliant on a reasonable density difference between the product and the proposed contaminant. Note that not all glasses and plastics are equal either so you'd have to be very careful with your test pieces to ensure they are representative of the contaminant you want to control.

[Charles.C]

Dear rajeshnath,


There is an almost equivalent question to yours being actively discussed in a parallel thread - http://www.ifsqn.com...dpost__p__41163

Basically, since HACCP requires specificity, the question comes down to -

For your product/process, what type of natural (ie product/process generated) or foreign (non-p/p generated) "contaminant" represent a significant risk ? This typically implies defining the actual hazard and it's size (or perhaps longest dimension).The parallel thread above discusses metal.

Conceptually GMO is surely unarguably correct despite HACCP, in theory, expecting you to consider "Everything". If there is no (validatable) reason for contaminant X to occur in yr system (ie no hazard), how can it's detection possibly be a CCP ??

IMO, for some cases, the presence of a metal detector producing a CCP can best be described as an auditor-required CCP and is therefore unavoidable ( ). Another thread (and a Codex document) consider it as a validation tool for preceding techniques which screen for metallic contaminants. But the above subtleties AFAIK hv not yet been extended to discussion of non-metals.

So, do you have a risk analysis for non-metals ?

Rgds / Charles.C

[faisal rafique]

Dear Friend,
Welcome to forum. It all depends upon your type of product which you are going to process, manufacture or handle.
Mostly these things are covered in PRP's or OPRP's.
It may be filters, sieves or your method depending upon product

Faisal Rafique

[rajeshnath]

Hi Friends,

Thanks for the replies. We are into spice processing and non-metallic contaminants is also a risk, which we are covering through PRP,s and a CP. The CP is a sifter, which is used to control the granulation of the ground product.

Now, some auditors specify that as we have a CCP for metal contaminanats in a Metal Detector, hence the non-metallic contaminants should also be controlled by a CCP.

Hence, the point, that if we have Metal detector as CCP for metal contaminants, then with the same reasoning, should we have a CCP for non-metal contaminants.

Thanks

Rajesh

[Charles.C]

Dear rajeshnath,

Please see my previous post, eg -

So, do you have a risk analysis for non-metals

Output requires Input.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Jomy Abraham]

Its not necessary to consider all non metallic contaminant control points as a CCP. If we can eliminate the ideintified hazard in any other steps in the process flow, its not a CCP. If its the final step to eliminate the hazard, it should be a CCP.

In spices,
1. metal detection is a CCP (as final process to identify the heavy metal contaminations)
2. Sterilization is a CCP ( as final step to eliminate micro hazards)
3. Final Sifting ( safety screening) just before packing can be considered as a CCP ( as final step to eliminate the physical hazards - So the auditor is correct).

Warm Regards
Jomy Abraham

Hi Friends,

Thanks for the replies. We are into spice processing and non-metallic contaminants is also a risk, which we are covering through PRP,s and a CP. The CP is a sifter, which is used to control the granulation of the ground product.

Now, some auditors specify that as we have a CCP for metal contaminanats in a Metal Detector, hence the non-metallic contaminants should also be controlled by a CCP.

Hence, the point, that if we have Metal detector as CCP for metal contaminants, then with the same reasoning, should we have a CCP for non-metal contaminants.

Thanks

Rajesh