(apologies to CFP for stealing yr thread )
Thks for comments.
Out of interest, would you regard 2mm as an (Australian acceptable) (minimum) capability for ferrous sensitivity ?.
i hv never seen any Australian opinion as to what metallic dimension constitutes a significant safety hazard ?
After all the previous discussion here, it appears to me that the US requirements, although textually impeccable to the, semi-worst case, "general public" from a safety / preventive POV, have created an illogical MD operational requirement in view of the inevitable MD sensitivity limitation. The current Canadian CFIA website includes a caveat of similar meaning in their rather cool (IMO) model haccp format. Plus their safety operational interpretation of minimum "hazardous" metal size appears to conveniently match equipment capabilities (well, ferrous anyway). Similar comment perhaps for European POV although there I hv seen some medical backing data.
(I have avoided the topic of whether a CCP or not, well-done elsewhere).
So far,I rather get the impression that the US (numerical) position is a singular one.
Rgds / Charles.C