9 replies to this topic

[Omoware]

Hi everyone,

 

In a process flow where you have magnet and metal detector (MD) both controlling the same hazard, what should be the CCP and what should be PC? In my process flow, MD was the CCP before, but just adding magnet as an additional control and it comes after the MD. Looking forward to everyone's view on this.

 

Thanks,

[Lorem Ipsum]

Hi, just wondering why did you install the magnet? Can it pick up stainless steel or NFer metals?

[Omoware]

Hi, just wondering why did you install the magnet? Can it pick up stainless steel or NFer metals?

To pick up metal fragments that our metal detector can not detect.

[Lorem Ipsum]

It's hard to answer without understanding your product and environment. What’s the capability of your MD – Fe, NF, SS?

[Jeffrey Ort]

Also related to sjegorov's comment, what is the last step in the process, metal detection or magnet?

[Scampi]

If the magnet is physically AFTER the MD, then it is the CCP by default

[Lorem Ipsum]

Both can be CCP if they control different hazards. I had experience with contamination from rusty parts from inside old flour silo. Even small parts can be sharp and nasty. But you can't use CCP to control faults that you are aware of eg. we know the line is falling apart but it's OK because we've got a magnet. Just my guess as I can't tell without knowing what hazards you identified in your HACCP plan.

[Charles.C]

Hi everyone,

 

In a process flow where you have magnet and metal detector (MD) both controlling the same hazard, what should be the CCP and what should be PC? In my process flow, MD was the CCP before, but just adding magnet as an additional control and it comes after the MD. Looking forward to everyone's view on this.

 

Thanks,

 

IIRC, a simple answer from a safety POV is that, Based on Canadian Regulatory Guidelines for a non-vulnerable (eg not an infant) consumer, hard, sharp metal particles >=2mm in any dimension found in RTE foods are considered to create a high risk situation. If a vulnerable consumer exists the value  changes to >0 mm

 

Assuming this picture represents a typical situation -

 

 Magnet-MD combination.png   427.88KB   0 downloads

 

Seems, for both types of consumer, to support a haccp case for 2 CCPs or perhaps a "combined" CCP

 

Some scenarios, eg non-magnetic stainless steel < 3mm, would perhaps fail to be controlled.

 

Hazard analyses often tend to "avoid" discussing the "fines" aspect from a (hazardous?) haccp POV or perhaps tacitly consider such items as non-hazardous. ( But nonetheless evidence of adulteration).

 

@Omoware - I think it is uncommon to place magnet after MD.

Edited by Charles.C, 03 March 2022 - 04:36 AM.
revised

[Omoware]

It's hard to answer without understanding your product and environment. What’s the capability of your MD – Fe, NF, SS?

The product is coated choco chunks. The capability of the MD is Fe 1.5mm, NFE 1.5ss and SS 2.0mm. The process goes thus: 

1. melting in jacketed tank

2. Freezing in trays

2. dicing with dicer

3. coating in tumbler

4. screening with sitfer to get required size and get rid of dust used in coating

5. passing through the magnet to check for metal shavings

6. then MD (sensitivity are as stated above)

7. Magnet again for checking that the metal shavings has reduced or there are no more

8. Packaging

 

Although there are checks like dicer blade check, tray inspection, and screen check during the process, but there is still no 100 % assurance that metal can not be introduced in to the process from other things like ingredient that are not checked before processing. My question now is if #6 and #7 steps can be CCPs.

 

Thanks!

[Charles.C]

The product is coated choco chunks. The capability of the MD is Fe 1.5mm, NFE 1.5ss and SS 2.0mm. The process goes thus: 

1. melting in jacketed tank

2. Freezing in trays

2. dicing with dicer

3. coating in tumbler

4. screening with sitfer to get required size and get rid of dust used in coating

5. passing through the magnet to check for metal shavings

6. then MD (sensitivity are as stated above)

7. Magnet again for checking that the metal shavings has reduced or there are no more

8. Packaging

 

Although there are checks like dicer blade check, tray inspection, and screen check during the process, but there is still no 100 % assurance that metal can not be introduced in to the process from other things like ingredient that are not checked before processing. My question now is if #6 and #7 steps can be CCPs.

 

Thanks!

Hi Omoware,

 

Thks for details.

 

Product is RTE, Yes ?

 

How about the consumer ? I anticipate includes vulnerable category, eg children so >0mm objects are considered significantly hazardous.

 

How about the sensitivities of the 2 magnets ?

 

If objects  >0mm represent a significant hazard then 1st magnet and MD are presumably (at least partially) controlling different size metal hazards and may have a claim to be CCPs.

 

Obviously there is a variety of non-magnetic objects which yr system will presumably not reject, eg some  SS items < 2mm

 

A critical query is regarding the actual findings on the final magnet, ie zero implies that the 1st magnet/MD combination is well effective, non-zero may require some thought/quantitative details, eg frequency/size.

 

I suggest you study these rather detailed threads which also deal with the potentially non-simple aspect of setting a critical limit for magnets - 

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...it/#entry180406

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...ps/#entry180687

 

and also the Canadian model magnet/metal detector haccp plan in Post 6 (curiously seems to omit stating type of consumer.) From a metal hazard POV the hazard analysis is effectively a "simplified" haccp plan > MD = CCP

 

To progress further in a deeper analytical way will need to know an idea of your actual, typical, findings on the 2 magnets and MD.