Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Foreign Material Handling for product with meat filling

Share this

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

Utama

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 73 posts
  • 13 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Indonesia
    Indonesia
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2024 - 03:55 AM

Hi Everyone

 

I have difficulty determining the CCP for a new product that we have.

 

This product is a bread filling with pieces of meat inside. So for handling foreign material, you cannot use a strainer (because the meat filling can get stuck in the strainer or filter). Currently, we also have metal detectors.

 

In your opinion, do I only need CCP on the metal detector?

 

And for foreign non-metallic materials, it will be prevented by ensuring the condition of the raw material. Is it enough? 

 

Or do you guys have another idea for fulfilling this food safety matter?

 

 

FYR, Below is our flowchart.

Raw material → emulsifying → strainer → homogenization → heating and kneading → magnet → strainer →filling→ metal detector → weight checker → cooling → carton packing → metal detector → weight checker → storage

 

 

Best regards,



jay2023

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 61 posts
  • 12 thanks
9
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 22 February 2024 - 09:05 AM

Your final metal detector would be the CCP. The previous steps seem like more than enough to control the risk.


  • G M likes this

Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 5,486 posts
  • 1511 thanks
1,550
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 22 February 2024 - 02:50 PM

whoa whoa whoa

 

The metal detection is NOT a CCP in this scenario

 

Assuming this is a RTE product and not RTC you're CCP would be time/temp for cooking

 

A PC/Control step but NOT a CCP, same goes for the sieve step


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs


G M

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 525 posts
  • 100 thanks
140
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2024 - 03:57 PM

Like Jay says, the final metal detector between carton packing and weigh checking is suitable for your physical FM CCP if all of your likely hazards are metal detectable.  The previous control points could reasonably be removing non-metal detectable hazards like bone or seasoning inclusions, and if that is a reasonably probable hazard for your ingredients you may need to count one of them as a CCP as well.

 

 

whoa whoa whoa

 

The metal detection is NOT a CCP in this scenario

 

Assuming this is a RTE product and not RTC you're CCP would be time/temp for cooking

 

A PC/Control step but NOT a CCP, same goes for the sieve step

 

 

Time/Temp isn't a FM control for most physical hazards.  It may also be a CCP for biological hazards, but not the class of hazards OP is looking at.



Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 5,486 posts
  • 1511 thanks
1,550
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 22 February 2024 - 04:13 PM

The metal detector step would NOT be a CCP in this process, regardless of weather or not your speaking of FM

 

If the process could introduce hazardous pieces post sieve step, there is a problem with the process hence the MD being a process control not a CCP as it would NOT catch pieces small enough to be caught at the sieve stage

 

There should NOT be any FM hazards introduced between straining and filling so I'm going to stand by what I said, not a CCP that should be on the straining/sieving step 


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs


jay2023

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 61 posts
  • 12 thanks
9
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 22 February 2024 - 04:22 PM

The metal detector step would NOT be a CCP in this process, regardless of weather or not your speaking of FM

 

If the process could introduce hazardous pieces post sieve step, there is a problem with the process hence the MD being a process control not a CCP as it would NOT catch pieces small enough to be caught at the sieve stage

 

There should NOT be any FM hazards introduced between straining and filling so I'm going to stand by what I said, not a CCP that should be on the straining/sieving step 

 

How can straining/sieving be a CCP?- at this stage its still open product and at risk of contamination- at the final metal detection check it is sealed, and this is the final FB check to reduce the risk to a safe level.

 

FYR, Below is our flowchart.

Raw material → emulsifying → strainer → homogenization → heating and kneading → magnet → strainer →filling→ metal detector → weight checker → cooling → carton packing → metal detector → weight checker → storage



Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 5,486 posts
  • 1511 thanks
1,550
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 22 February 2024 - 05:07 PM

A) who says you only have 1?????

 

B) what does your hazard analysis say about the steps in the process??????????  Did you not perform a detailed analysis??

 

C) Why can't sieving be a CCP???????????????

 

 

 

 

I understand your flowchart fully apparently you do not-----------------you yourself just said you're final MD is AFTER packaging         that means that that step in the process is NOT a CCP

 

"During critical control points, food undergoes preventative control measures to reduce, prevent, or eliminate food safety hazards such as contamination or bacterial growth."                

 

Explain to me HOW FM is going to get into your product between FILLING AND CHECK WEIGHER??????????   if you think there is that much risk CHANGE THE PROCESS


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs


G M

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 525 posts
  • 100 thanks
140
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2024 - 08:29 PM

How can straining/sieving be a CCP?- at this stage its still open product and at risk of contamination- at the final metal detection check it is sealed, and this is the final FB check to reduce the risk to a safe level.

 

FYR, Below is our flowchart.

Raw material → emulsifying → strainer → homogenization → heating and kneading → magnet → strainer →filling→ metal detector → weight checker → cooling → carton packing → metal detector → weight checker → storage

 

As I mentioned, not all FM is metal detectable.  The raw materials could contain bone, mineral or plant (seasoning) inclusions that a sieve could remove easily that are invisible to the metal detectors.

 

 

I understand your flowchart fully apparently you do not ----

Explain to me HOW FM is going to get into your product between FILLING AND CHECK WEIGHER??????????   if you think there is that much risk CHANGE THE PROCESS

 

Not all packaging machines or processes are the same.  OP hasn't even said in detail what the product is, or when the container is sealed (we can only presume it is before the carton or shipping container is sealed). 

 

I've seen springs and bearings in packaging machines end up places you wouldn't easily predict when they fail.  Do newer machines have better compartmentalization to prevent that?  Sure, but not everyone will drop a million bucks to replace an old packaging machine when a metal detector at a fraction of the cost will solve the same dilemma. 



MOHAMMED ZAMEERUDDIN

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 273 posts
  • 59 thanks
61
Excellent

  • India
    India
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Sharing the Knowledge

Posted 23 February 2024 - 05:39 AM

Metal detector shall be a CCP in this process.



Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 5,486 posts
  • 1511 thanks
1,550
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 February 2024 - 01:11 PM

I'm basing my opinion on the flowchart as presented (and my 20+ years of experience)


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs




Share this


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users