6 replies to this topic

[keithdd]

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.

[Charles.C]

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

[sfrank]

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

[Mr. Incognito]

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.

[monkeyman]

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.

[AS NUR]

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

[Charles.C]

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