Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Magnets and CCP's


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

#1 keithdd

keithdd

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 14 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • South Africa
    South Africa

Posted 25 April 2014 - 10:15 AM

Hi All, We are in the Grains business and we produce Oat Flakes, Wheat bran, Whole oat flour and Pulses. At different stages of processing we have magnets (including final product filling points). We have disagreements on deciding CCP's of metal deection (ferrous, non-ferrous and stainless steel). My question is can the magnets in the final product filling points be regarded as CCP's and why. If so how to determine critical limits. verify and validate these.



#2 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,393 posts
  • 4841 thanks
945
Excellent

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

Posted 26 April 2014 - 04:57 AM

Hi All, We are in the Grains business and we produce Oat Flakes, Wheat bran, Whole oat flour and Pulses. At different stages of processing we have magnets (including final product filling points). We have disagreements on deciding CCP's of metal deection (ferrous, non-ferrous and stainless steel). My question is can the magnets in the final product filling points be regarded as CCP's and why. If so how to determine critical limits. verify and validate these.

Dear keithdd,

 

There are several analogous threads on this forum regarding, from memory, variously wheat, corn, oats and with reference examples  included to sources like FAO. but, from memory, the result was no consensus due, for example, to specific flow chart / method of determining CCPs / subjective opinions, ie you can take yr pick as long as yr risk assessment justifies the decision and can be validated.

 

One obvious possible answer is the Codex Tree suggests that the last position over-rides the previous ones. The precise critical limits usually depend on the specifics/apparatus.

 

You might consider posting yr own process details / haccp proposal to elicit relevant comments.

 

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#3 sfrank

sfrank

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 3 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 06 May 2014 - 04:28 PM

We are also in a dry processing environment and we designate our magnet arrays as CQPs with the metal detection as the CCP.



#4 Mr. Incognito

Mr. Incognito

    "Mostly Harmless"

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,562 posts
  • 268 thanks
126
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 May 2014 - 05:11 PM

Hello Keith,

 

I also work in wheat and flour.

 

We have a CCP for our metal detector which looks for ferrous, non-ferrous, and stainless steel.  I don't think you'd want your magnets as CCPs specifically because it's well known that some metal typically makes it past magnets especially when metal is stuck to the magnet... a magnet can hold so much metal at a time.  And if you have your magnets as CCPs and you have a detection on your metal detector you'll have a CCP violation.

 

If either is going to be a CCP you'd want it to be your metal detector.  You can probably do a 2.0 standard on the SS, F, NF and be fine.  We used 2.0 at one of my former places and here we use 1.5 for two of them and 2.0 for the other.

 

We have inline metal detectors for bulk product and the incoming wheat (after it's cleaned) that drop out a section of material if metal is detected.

 

Just my thoughts.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mr. Incognito


:tardis:

Mr. Incognito is a cool frood who can travel the width and breadth of the galaxy and still know where his towel is.

Thanked by 1 Member:

#5 monkeyman

monkeyman

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 43 posts
  • 7 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 07 May 2014 - 09:50 AM

Agree with Mr Incognito it is difficult to justify as a CCP if it cannot be fully controlled. In our factory they are QCP with metal dectetion being the CCP. However in our process magnets are in place mainly to minimise the risk of dust explosions and the removal of any metal is a bonus for food safety.



#6 AS NUR

AS NUR

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 581 posts
  • 55 thanks
9
Neutral

  • Indonesia
    Indonesia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:east java, indonesia

Posted 23 May 2014 - 01:12 AM

IMO.. Depends on your hazard analysis.. if you find potential siginificant hazard on your process and your metal trap (magnet) is control measure, then your magnet is CCP. and if you are mot find any potential significant hazard, that's only OPRP or QCP.

Rgds

AS Nur



#7 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,393 posts
  • 4841 thanks
945
Excellent

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

Posted 23 May 2014 - 01:33 AM

IMO.. Depends on your hazard analysis.. if you find potential siginificant hazard on your process and your metal trap (magnet) is control measure, then your magnet is CCP. and if you are mot find any potential significant hazard, that's only OPRP or QCP.

Rgds

AS Nur

 

Dear AS NUR,

 

Hazard Analysis > no significant hazard >> control measure/program not associated with CCP or OPRP ?

 

( >> = "implies")

 

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C





1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


EV SSL Certificate