Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Looking for industry references on metal standards to use as a guide in RTE snack manufacturing


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

mp42

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 14 posts
  • 1 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 11 February 2020 - 07:18 PM

Hello, looking for industry standards on metal standards to use as guide in RTE snack manufacturing. Products are dry(fried,oven,extruded) and packaged in aluminum foil bags.

Previous management increased standards but left no documentation or guides as to why. BRC audit near and would like guidance on recent increase.

 

increase from (1.5mm F - 1.8mm F),  (1.8mmNF - 2.0mmNF),  (2.0mmSS - 2.5mmSS). 

 

Thank you all. 



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,874 posts
  • 5254 thanks
1,232
Excellent

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

Posted 11 February 2020 - 07:39 PM

Hello, looking for industry standards on metal standards to use as guide in RTE snack manufacturing. Products are dry(fried,oven,extruded) and packaged in aluminum foil bags.

Previous management increased standards but left no documentation or guides as to why. BRC audit near and would like guidance on recent increase.

 

increase from (1.5mm F - 1.8mm F),  (1.8mmNF - 2.0mmNF),  (2.0mmSS - 2.5mmSS). 

 

Thank you all. 

 

Hi mp42,

 

There should be no detectable metallic contamination in the product.

 

I think your data refers to the "Sensitivity" of detection of the relevant testing equipment.

 

There is no global consensus or, afaik, BRC standard for "sensitivity" since it depends on the MD equipment design, aperture, product, etc.

 

afaik a normal MD will not work with aluminium packaging. Do yr data refer to a "customised", Al compatible  metal detector ? or ?

 

Can you clarify how the sensitivity data you quote was obtained ? (BRC will likely also want to know :smile:)


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

mahantesh.micro

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 166 posts
  • 87 thanks
28
Excellent

  • India
    India
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangalore- Karnataka (India)
  • Interests:Food Safety Standards, Specification developments, Procedures
    Other interests are- cricket and indoor games

Posted 12 February 2020 - 07:34 AM

HI,

Metal detect-ability is dependent on product package height, width, composition of ingredients, liquid or dry. Refer to your Country's regulation for allowable metal contaminant size. As per USFDA up to 7mm is harmless and as per Canadian regulation it is 2mm (also dependent on product category intended age group). Some metal detectors also compatible with aluminum foil package also. check with your metal detector manufacturer. 



Thanked by 1 Member:

QAGB

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 671 posts
  • 255 thanks
107
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 12 February 2020 - 02:20 PM

I agree with both posts above. Some metal detectors may be able to work with aluminum foil and some may not. It sounds as though this is a specialized metal detector, if it can work with aluminum foil (or an adjustment was made to exclude the frequency of detection to foil). 

 

I would suggest you talk to your metal detector manufacturer and perhaps have a technician come out to your site to ensure that the critical limit sizes chosen are appropriate for your product. Given changes were made to your critical limits, you need to understand the justifications. Having your metal detector manufacturer assist you with that will help you understand those justifications. 



Jonco

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 11 posts
  • 0 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 12 February 2020 - 03:14 PM

I have gone through the exact same change in standards that your company did.  That is very frustrating that no documentation of rationale or justification was left.

 

What I did was conduct and document a study showing that:

 1) Metal detectors set for the slightly larger standards were still capturing 100% of the metal foreign material detected utilizing the original standard settings. We tested live production on select lines and samples of previous metal detector findings as well as samples of metal detectable bandages, gloves, pens, etc that are used in the facility.  -This should have been done before implementing the change, but you can still collect this data. The biggest challenge will most likely be getting a large enough data set before the audit. Expert advice from your MD manufacturer will bolster your conclusion that the current standards meet your needs.

 2) Changing the settings for the larger standards produced the desired effect of reducing the number of false positives. -This might not be possible if no one still at the company was aware of what initiated the change or the desired outcome, but talk to people, someone might know more than you'd expect.

 

1 is definitely more important than 2.



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,874 posts
  • 5254 thanks
1,232
Excellent

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

Posted 12 February 2020 - 04:04 PM

Hi mp42,

 

The enclosed may answer yr requirements -

 

Attached File  metal detector sensitivities.pdf   36.62KB   21 downloads


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

mp42

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 14 posts
  • 1 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 12 February 2020 - 04:35 PM

I have gone through the exact same change in standards that your company did.  That is very frustrating that no documentation of rationale or justification was left.

 

What I did was conduct and document a study showing that:

 1) Metal detectors set for the slightly larger standards were still capturing 100% of the metal foreign material detected utilizing the original standard settings. We tested live production on select lines and samples of previous metal detector findings as well as samples of metal detectable bandages, gloves, pens, etc that are used in the facility.  -This should have been done before implementing the change, but you can still collect this data. The biggest challenge will most likely be getting a large enough data set before the audit. Expert advice from your MD manufacturer will bolster your conclusion that the current standards meet your needs.

 2) Changing the settings for the larger standards produced the desired effect of reducing the number of false positives. -This might not be possible if no one still at the company was aware of what initiated the change or the desired outcome, but talk to people, someone might know more than you'd expect.

 

1 is definitely more important than 2.

Thank you Jonco, yes bandages, pens,zip ties still tested as previously and detected. The information I gathered was indeed to reduce the false hits.

Currently MD's are in annual calibration and tech will assist with a letter stating recommended standards, which align with other snack and pharmaceutical companies.

 

Thank you



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,874 posts
  • 5254 thanks
1,232
Excellent

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

Posted 12 February 2020 - 05:20 PM

Thank you Jonco, yes bandages, pens,zip ties still tested as previously and detected. The information I gathered was indeed to reduce the false hits.

Currently MD's are in annual calibration and tech will assist with a letter stating recommended standards, which align with other snack and pharmaceutical companies.

 

Thank you

 

Assuming you have the metal detector as a CCP, one (obvious) comment is that any auditor will expect to see appropriate evidence of (a) validation and (b) verification of yr MD critical limit during a processing run.

 

The data in Post 6 was ex-Tesco Guidelines and yr values in OP look likely to be "compliant" as far as "ferrous" involved..


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


PennyQAManger

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 19 posts
  • 13 thanks
5
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 12 February 2020 - 10:37 PM

Here is another link you might like to have: https://www.fda.gov/.../80342/download


Edited by PennyQCManager, 12 February 2020 - 10:38 PM.


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,874 posts
  • 5254 thanks
1,232
Excellent

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

Posted 13 February 2020 - 12:54 AM

Here is another link you might like to have: https://www.fda.gov/.../80342/download

 

Hi Penny,

 

Thks for the link although I'm not sure that the OP wishes to be even more depressed. :smile:

 

Personally I find a critical limit of either 7 or 8mm equally ridiculous from a safety POV.


Edited by Charles.C, 13 February 2020 - 01:32 AM.
edited

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users