9 replies to this topic

[madhuauthan]

Dear members,

is there any standard to follow for deciding the metal detection limit to be set for retail food packages. Our package size is 10 g sachet and 150 g Jar. The product is ready to consume food, without any further processing at consumer end. Kindly help.

[Charles.C]

Dear members,

is there any standard to follow for deciding the metal detection limit to be set for retail food packages. Our package size is 10 g sachet and 150 g Jar. The product is ready to consume food, without any further processing at consumer end. Kindly help.

 

Dear madhuathan,

 

i predict there will be an Indian standard but unfortunately  I don't know what it is.

 

if not, I guess you can choose from many on this forum, eg > zero, > 2mm, 7-25mm and others, possibly also depending on yr perceived customer type, machine capability, etc.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[mapry2]

Please have a look at this FDA guideline in the attachment

 

" SECTION 555.425 -Foods - Adulteration Involving Hard or Sharp Foreign Objects"

 

Attached Files

•  FDA Compliance Policy Guides _ CPG Sec. 555.pdf   157.58KB   82 downloads

Edited by mapry2, 09 May 2014 - 04:38 PM.

[Snookie]

It will also be dependent on the capabilities of your machine.  You may want to have the company that services your machine help you determine what the smallest sizes your machine is capable of without significant false rejects. 

[Taste Maker]

Hello,

Having studied foreign material in food going back to I believe around 1970, the statistics show that the majority of injuries reported were involving 7-25mm contaminants and are especially hazardous for very young children who may not know what a food is supposed to taste and feel like in the mouth. The size below the 7-25mm level pass thru and the size above is easily seen or felt as something that is not food. I use between 2.5-3.5mm for the ferrous (iron), stainless and brass detection wands for a lower control limit (meta detector is a CCP) so that I can see if my process is still in control and to warn of a hazardous condition in the process.So, as a rule of thumb, if your equipment is sensitive enough go a little below the regulations and be sure to do a hazard analysis of the process and reduce or eliminate all possible opportunities.

 

Regards,

 

Taste Maker

Memphis, TN

[Charles.C]

Please have a look at this FDA guideline in the attachment

 

" SECTION 555.425 -Foods - Adulteration Involving Hard or Sharp Foreign Objects"

 

I suspect the American manouevre of "adulteration" is unique. It neatly enables obfuscation of the core FS aspect.

 

@Tastemaker -  considerable debate occurred over the appropriate legislative interpretation of the classic injury data.  Some of the requirements initially issued were subsequently modified. From a purely practical POV,  metal detectors can unfortunately be susceptible to various geometric limitations, i daresay such factors were less well-known at the time.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[qmatty]

FDA Guideline should be of help. "Section 555.425 Foods-Adulteration Involving Hard or Sharp Foreign objects"

[Charles.C]

FDA Guideline should be of help. "Section 555.425 Foods-Adulteration Involving Hard or Sharp Foreign objects"

 

Identical to post #3 ??

 

Thks anyway.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[Cahaya]

Hi All,

 

My current co that I work using metal detector as CCP whereby we put the limitation max of 3.5mm for SS and 2.1mm for Fe. We have 2 type of metal detector : 1) for frozen product 2) chill product. as we produce further processing poultry products. the different condition of the product give the different sensitivity.  the metal detector we bought designed from germany where it has 3 detect makanisem 1) conveyor stop 2) alarm 3) lamp. We received some arguement with the auditor whereby the maximum limit of the metal fragment should be less than 7mm but according to her there is no standard of the limit. I've showed her the attachment above. But then again we decide that the limit we set is depending on the environment, raw material and the products condition.

But we still have a problem with the verification procedure whereby currently we only use the metal test piece as the standard to calibrate the metal detector machine. Anyone can have suggestion whether should we send the test piece to confirm the size of the metal or send the machine to confirm the competency and performance to ensure the detection is correct? If it is so, how frequency should it be?

 

thanks :)

[Charles.C]

Dear cahaya,

 

Normally each test piece (usually an encased sphere) is supplied with a certificate of conformance (or equivalent title) at time of purchase. Also this document is usually requested to see by an auditor.

 

If you don't have one, may well be cheaper to acquire a new test piece(s).

 

Regarding the limit, many countries have their own legislatory standard(s), albeit often borrowed from elsewhere. Malaysia i I don't know. ? Legislative limits may also depend on the product / intended consumer, eg similar to USFDA.

 

The MD should also come with a manual containing  (minimum) detection specification for a given standard test piece. If it complies with yr test, this presumably implies that MD working effectively. Some people regardless have their MD "officially" serviced / calibrated at least annually so as to generate documentation. May also depend on yr audited standard. Previous frequency is unrelated to the frequency of usage of test pieces when MD is in routine inline operation.

 

Rgds / Charles.C