Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Is there a specific requirement on the size of metal test piece?


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

maddox

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 17 posts
  • 1 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Philippines
    Philippines

Posted 24 February 2014 - 09:22 AM

A little help here please....



monkeyman

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 43 posts
  • 7 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 24 February 2014 - 10:24 AM

Hi Maddox, there is no specificed test piece size because it depends on your product, packaging, pack size and aperture size of the metal detector. Let us know these and we could comment.



maddox

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 17 posts
  • 1 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Philippines
    Philippines

Posted 25 February 2014 - 04:26 AM

Thank you Monkeyman. We are into canned tuna and pouched tuna production.



Madam A. D-tor

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 615 posts
  • 219 thanks
37
Excellent

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:meat, meat products, ready to eat, food safety, QMS, audits, hazard analyses, IFS, BRC, SQF, HACCP, ISO 9001, ISO 22000

Posted 25 February 2014 - 05:56 AM

Dear Maddox,

 

Canned Tuna seems to me hard to detect. Do you use X-ray or metal detector? On what point of the line is the foreign body detector installed?

 

If you are producing food for consumer consumption, you should have the smallest test piece that is possible on your equipment/ process.

 

For foreign body hazards there is always a reference to the FDA document, regarding this issue. I believe it states 2 mm for infant food and 7 mm for adults. I do no think tuna is fit fot children, so you will be fine with 7 mm. However I think this is rather big related to the test pieces, I find during audits. In the Netherlands I find mostly 2,5 - 4,5 mm. Depending on process, equipment, product and test metal.

 

There might be legislation regarding metal detectors in your region. I am not aware of that.


Kind Regards,

Madam A. D-tor

Thanked by 1 Member:

Topaz

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands

Posted 25 February 2014 - 09:10 AM

Agree with Madam A. D-tor.

 

On canned product the X-ray is in principle the best way as it has the best capabilities to "neglect"  the tin can and scan the inner on moreign bodies.

Optionally, control meaures just prior canning also does the trick. Difficultuy is that a metal detector placed here does not control tuna  bones if this is a risk for you. So doing your risk assessment you would probably ed up again with the X-ray, which is than best placed after canning to include the risk of your empty canns



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 19,080 posts
  • 5312 thanks
1,273
Excellent

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

Posted 25 February 2014 - 11:55 PM

Dear maddox,

 

There is a thread here started by  a user in the Phillipines on a similar topic (but not I think for canned). Your local (metal) legislatory requirements seem to be complex.

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...7mm/#entry63606

 

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

maddox

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 17 posts
  • 1 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Philippines
    Philippines

Posted 26 February 2014 - 08:06 AM

Thanks Guys! We do conduct metal detection process prior canning/seaming of the cans. Actually our argument is on what size we are going to use. Is there no requirement from BRC/IFS on the size? 



Madam A. D-tor

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 615 posts
  • 219 thanks
37
Excellent

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:meat, meat products, ready to eat, food safety, QMS, audits, hazard analyses, IFS, BRC, SQF, HACCP, ISO 9001, ISO 22000

Posted 26 February 2014 - 03:18 PM

Requirements from BRC/IFS issues 6 are summarised:

 

the smallest test piece that is possible on your equipment/ process.

the best practice possible.


Kind Regards,

Madam A. D-tor

Thanked by 1 Member:

Taste Maker

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 42 posts
  • 10 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN

Posted 26 February 2014 - 10:17 PM

Maddox,

 

Good afternoon from the home of rock n roll and Elvis Presley. A contaminant represents a physical hazard if it will result in injury to the end consumer. Normally, insect fragments, hair, sand are examples of objectionable but not harmful contaminants. Hard, sharp objects between 7-25 are considered to be harmful. Less than 7 mm are not considered to be harmful. FSIS Directive 7310.5 provides guidance but does not provide size limitations.

 

Taste Maker

Memphis, TN



Thanked by 1 Member:

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,397 posts
  • 1027 thanks
291
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:23 AM

A little help here please....

 

Hi Maddox,

 

Some requirements from GFSI benchmarked standards:

 

BRC 4.10.1.2 Industry Best Practice for the particular product shall be applied

IFS 4.12.3 Where metal- and/or other foreign material detectors are required, they shall be installed to ensure maximum efficiency of detection

SQF 11.7.6.2 Metal detectors or other physical contaminant detection technologies shall be routinely monitored, validated and verified for operational effectiveness


The maximum is 7mm although you will need to consider the intended consumer.

FDA Gudielines: The Board found that foreign objects that are less than 7 mm, maximum dimension, rarely cause trauma or serious injury except in special risk groups such as infants, surgery patients, and the elderly. The scientific and clinical literature supports this conclusion.

 

Normally I would expect to see a sensitivity much less than 7mm.

You should consult industry accepted 'norm' for your type of product from codes of practice and keep these as evidence. In conjunction with the metal detector supplier you should agree test piece sizes for your products that the detector can reject effectively and after validation use these test pieces at regular intervals to ensure that the detector is working as it should be.
 

Regards,

 

Tony



Thanked by 2 Members:

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 19,080 posts
  • 5312 thanks
1,273
Excellent

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

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:27 AM

Thanks Guys! We do conduct metal detection process prior canning/seaming of the cans. Actually our argument is on what size we are going to use. Is there no requirement from BRC/IFS on the size? 

Dear maddox,

 

Simple answer - No, probably No, but local legislatory probably Yes. Why don't you investigate ? :smile: The Phillipines appears to "attempt" to apply the USFDA Guidelines particularly with respect to intended consumer. Europe apparently disagrees. The devil is in the details.

 

@Tony - It might usefully be noted that AFAIK the FDA logic principally derives from one study whose conclusions were (probably) "adjusted" shortly after publication. The FDA implementation which attempts to correspond to their published guidelines seems to be a semantic minefield.

 

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