Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Metal finds - destruction of product


Best Answer , 04 April 2018 - 02:01 PM

 

"Product that was contaminated or could potentially have been contaminated must be destroyed" 

That is mainly where my question lies - what would define "potentially have been contaminated?" If you have full confidence in your MD sensitivity then shouldn't you only destroy product that did in fact have metal in it?

 

That's why, in my opinion, root cause is so important.  If you determine that the metal came from a supplier, for example, maybe it's an agricultural product and there was a metal machine piece from the field - that's not necessarily likely to be an ongoing food safety risk or contain many pieces.  So then maybe it's just throw away the bag / product that was rejected by the metal detector.

 

But what if it's metal on metal wear on your line.  In that case it's not appropriate to say 'oh well, our metal detector will catch it' because you can't guarantee that some of the metal shavings will not be below your detection threshold, not to mention taking an insane risk that your metal detectors will not fail.  

 

Imagine that your kids or family members choked on / got cut on a piece of metal in something they ate and you wrote the company and they responded "we knew there was metal, but our metal detector should've isolated it all".  How is that going to make you feel?

 

I'm personally not comfortable saying anything less than "I did everything I could to ensure only safe product went out" and if that means throwing away the upstream product until the step that introduced the metal, so be it.


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

PH728

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 02 April 2018 - 08:47 PM

Hey folks,

 

I've searched around the forum for some answers on this topic, but haven't really found any clear guidance. 

 

At what point would destruction of product be warranted based on metal reject finds? 

 

Assuming all metal detector verifications pass, would there be reason to destroy back to last passing MD check or even a complete lot of product?

 

Product that is in a reject bin, would of course be inspected and disposed of if any metal is found.

 

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

 



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 19,504 posts
  • 5408 thanks
1,342
Excellent

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

Posted 03 April 2018 - 04:56 AM

Hey folks,

 

I've searched around the forum for some answers on this topic, but haven't really found any clear guidance. 

 

At what point would destruction of product be warranted based on metal reject finds? 

 

Assuming all metal detector verifications pass, would there be reason to destroy back to last passing MD check or even a complete lot of product?

 

Product that is in a reject bin, would of course be inspected and disposed of if any metal is found.

 

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

 

Hi PH,

 

I'm not sure i fully understand yr query.

 

I assume yr query relates to a haccp plan.

 

The (haccp) decision is typically based on an event/corrective action.

 

In the event of a MD rejected item,  afaik, the corrective action usually demands a re-scan to verify whether all the time-related segment of lot is acceptable.

 

I guess the "intensity" of rescan might relate to the product/process/location also.


Edited by Charles.C, 03 April 2018 - 05:22 AM.
edited

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 4,331 posts
  • 1188 thanks
914
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 03 April 2018 - 01:07 PM

I would add that your CCP should clearly explain what should occur in the case of a deviation;

 

recalibration

use another metal detector

service by the manufacturer

then rescan since last good check all the product

 

then it would be up to the company if they feel the product is safe for release

 

I would write in to the program that they metal detector has to reject all the test bars repeatedly with known good product prior to running ANY product through it. 

 

If you trust the metal detector, then I wouldn't destroy all the product, but I would probably hold and test again to be sure


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs


Thanked by 1 Member:

PH728

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 03 April 2018 - 02:23 PM

Perhaps my first post was a little convoluted. 

 

To be more specific: what is standard protocol when product is rejected by the metal detector?

 

e.g. - Inspect rejected product for metal - dispose of rejected product 



Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 4,331 posts
  • 1188 thanks
914
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 03 April 2018 - 02:39 PM

Depending on your finished product, run small portions through until you are able to actually find the metal pieces, then you can hopefully be able to trace them back to where they came from....obviously the food stuff that was rejected by the detector should be destroyed as it may contain metal fragments smaller than the threshold on the detector

 

i/e cheese bar---break in half, set on packaging, run through detector----it doesn't go off, bin that half    repeat with other half breaking into smaller and smaller pieces until you find the metal

 

Then you can start figuring out where it came from as part of the corrective actions and preventative measures you should have in place for a deviation on this CCP


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs


Thanked by 1 Member:

jcieslowski

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 173 posts
  • 57 thanks
25
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 April 2018 - 03:35 PM

Ok, so I'm assuming that your metal detector DID IT'S JOB and found metal, I think that's what we're saying here.

 

you have to come up with your own course of action, based on your operation, etc. etc. but here's what I would look for.

 

 

1. Stop production

2. Examine the metal and determine the root cause

3. Inspect lines and metal to metal points in the operation that could've contributed to the metal (sort of part of the root cause)

4.  IF the root cause shows no breakdown or ALL METAL from that breakdown was accounted for, empty the line of any 'in process' product, perform a sanitation step, and continue production

5.  IF the root cause shows there's an ongoing safety risk (metal rubbing against the line causing shavings), perform maintenance (including accounting for all tools, debris, and parts), empty the 'in process line', sanitize, and then resume.

 

In either event, all implicated product, that is product that was contaminated or could potentially have been contaminated must be destroyed.



Thanked by 1 Member:

PH728

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 03 April 2018 - 03:54 PM

Ok, so I'm assuming that your metal detector DID IT'S JOB and found metal, I think that's what we're saying here.

 

you have to come up with your own course of action, based on your operation, etc. etc. but here's what I would look for.

 

 

1. Stop production

2. Examine the metal and determine the root cause

3. Inspect lines and metal to metal points in the operation that could've contributed to the metal (sort of part of the root cause)

4.  IF the root cause shows no breakdown or ALL METAL from that breakdown was accounted for, empty the line of any 'in process' product, perform a sanitation step, and continue production

5.  IF the root cause shows there's an ongoing safety risk (metal rubbing against the line causing shavings), perform maintenance (including accounting for all tools, debris, and parts), empty the 'in process line', sanitize, and then resume.

 

In either event, all implicated product, that is product that was contaminated or could potentially have been contaminated must be destroyed.

 

JCieslowski,

 

"Product that was contaminated or could potentially have been contaminated must be destroyed" 

That is mainly where my question lies - what would define "potentially have been contaminated?" If you have full confidence in your MD sensitivity then shouldn't you only destroy product that did in fact have metal in it?



FurFarmandFork

    Food Safety Consultant, Production Supervisor

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,264 posts
  • 586 thanks
194
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

Posted 03 April 2018 - 04:32 PM

JCieslowski,

 

"Product that was contaminated or could potentially have been contaminated must be destroyed" 

That is mainly where my question lies - what would define "potentially have been contaminated?" If you have full confidence in your MD sensitivity then shouldn't you only destroy product that did in fact have metal in it?

 

Thats where your own risk analysis comes into place. We used to have a couple action limits. Your MD has a limit on the smallest pieces it can detect, if it's firing off every 2 minutes on a bad production run and you're finding metal, odds on that some of it is making it through, it's up to you if that's acceptable or not, and at what point that potential becomes unacceptable. It's also a sign of contamination if you pull out 50 screws from your product, frankly the supplier owes you a refund at that point depending on the material.

 

Is your metal detector there to catch known and expected metal like rocks and such from raw agricultural products, or is it a prevention item to catch problems such as your slicing equipment kicking off metal upstream. It's complicated and it depends.


Austin Bouck
Owner/Consultant at Fur, Farm, and Fork.
Consulting for companies needing effective, lean food safety systems and solutions.

Subscribe to the blog at furfarmandfork.com for food safety research, insights, and analysis.

redfox

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 481 posts
  • 162 thanks
24
Excellent

  • Philippines
    Philippines

Posted 04 April 2018 - 05:14 AM

Hello PH728,

 

First, refer to your procedure in metal detecting step. Next, your procedure on how to dispose of properly of the product contaminated with metal. You must also see the economic side of your business. Will whole batch be discarded (costly) or only the the portion of the batch you identify that it is contaminated, of if it can be reworked as long the the safety of your product in not compromised.

 

regards,

redfox



jcieslowski

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 173 posts
  • 57 thanks
25
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 April 2018 - 02:01 PM   Best Answer

 

"Product that was contaminated or could potentially have been contaminated must be destroyed" 

That is mainly where my question lies - what would define "potentially have been contaminated?" If you have full confidence in your MD sensitivity then shouldn't you only destroy product that did in fact have metal in it?

 

That's why, in my opinion, root cause is so important.  If you determine that the metal came from a supplier, for example, maybe it's an agricultural product and there was a metal machine piece from the field - that's not necessarily likely to be an ongoing food safety risk or contain many pieces.  So then maybe it's just throw away the bag / product that was rejected by the metal detector.

 

But what if it's metal on metal wear on your line.  In that case it's not appropriate to say 'oh well, our metal detector will catch it' because you can't guarantee that some of the metal shavings will not be below your detection threshold, not to mention taking an insane risk that your metal detectors will not fail.  

 

Imagine that your kids or family members choked on / got cut on a piece of metal in something they ate and you wrote the company and they responded "we knew there was metal, but our metal detector should've isolated it all".  How is that going to make you feel?

 

I'm personally not comfortable saying anything less than "I did everything I could to ensure only safe product went out" and if that means throwing away the upstream product until the step that introduced the metal, so be it.



Thanked by 1 Member:

PH728

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 04 April 2018 - 04:12 PM

That's why, in my opinion, root cause is so important.  If you determine that the metal came from a supplier, for example, maybe it's an agricultural product and there was a metal machine piece from the field - that's not necessarily likely to be an ongoing food safety risk or contain many pieces.  So then maybe it's just throw away the bag / product that was rejected by the metal detector.

 

But what if it's metal on metal wear on your line.  In that case it's not appropriate to say 'oh well, our metal detector will catch it' because you can't guarantee that some of the metal shavings will not be below your detection threshold, not to mention taking an insane risk that your metal detectors will not fail.  

 

Imagine that your kids or family members choked on / got cut on a piece of metal in something they ate and you wrote the company and they responded "we knew there was metal, but our metal detector should've isolated it all".  How is that going to make you feel?

 

I'm personally not comfortable saying anything less than "I did everything I could to ensure only safe product went out" and if that means throwing away the upstream product until the step that introduced the metal, so be it.

 

Absolutely agree with everything mentioned here; I completely understand it from an equipment breakage perspective and the food safety risk involved. 

 

It all depends on the circumstances of course - and I was referring more to the occasional metal findings which are not sourced back to equipment but are rather likely coming from raw materials. 

 

Appreciate all the great feedback here!



Jim E.

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 157 posts
  • 23 thanks
8
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta, Canada
  • Interests:Sports of course.
    Food safety for all things eaten not just what we make.
    Being able to see my kids grow up in healthy environment.

Posted 08 May 2018 - 09:54 PM

Agree with what is being discussed.  We have limits, if only one metal material is rejected an investigation is to be performed.  But only that one package of finished product is destroyed.  If we get 4 or more similar metal rejects in an hour we will put product on hold back to last good check and management make disposition and the investigation intensifies.  If we get more than 4 then corporate gets involved and destruction is highly probable, line shut down all product dumped and inch by inch inspection is completed.  Are we being to generous?  We have a huge production line with many points for metal on metal, plus the million or more pounds of raw material a day that is processed sourcing is VERY difficult some times for that small sliver. :shutup:  :shutup:  :shutup:  






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users