8 replies to this topic

[Setu Rajyaguru]

Hello,

 

 We need to submit them feasibility assessment to determine if Xray will work for our product/process and if it will be a significant improvement over your current metal detector units. Metal detectors are working perfectly but Costco needs Xray.

 

Have anyone performed any risk assessment? What is the lowest size of metal wands used for metal detectors which does not require x-ray?

 

Thank you,

 

 

 

[Scampi]

I don't think you'll succeed

 

MD picks up just that, x-ray is for full foreign body detection (wood, bone, rubber, glass etc)

[nwilson]

Going through this for a second time, now with my current plant.  The best method is to reach out to an X-Ray equipment provider and have them run tests on your products at their facility.  You send them samples and see what is the lowest millimeter threshold that can be achieved with your products.  They send back the results and you can then share with the Costco Food Safety Team.  If X-ray has been determined to be feasible for your products then you will have to submit a capital expense proposal to Costco with a timeline of implementation.  There are exemptions for using only a metal detector and not an x-ray however you still need to complete a feasibility study with an X-Ray provider as a third party will be required to make the determination, not just yourself.  

 

Have anyone performed any risk assessment?  Your Food Safety Plan should have the florigen material risks determined that are likely to occur with the severity analysis in your process.  Decision matrix.   

 

What is the lowest size of metal wands used for metal detectors which does not require x-ray?  This is not a like comparison to say that a lower test size piece used on a metal detector will negate using an X-Ray.  Its not an apples to apples situation its about the feasibility of your products.  Obviously Costco has concerns with all foreign material, not just metal hence the requirement.  

[SQFconsultant]

We fortunately were able to help a client avoid this requirement abd have a "MAJOR" taken off the clients audit as well.

 

But frankly it felt like having to be David going up against the Costco Giant but they finally excepted the existing MD.

 

What Scampi said is quite true as X ray will detect everything pretty much that an MD could miss abd it really has nothing to do with the size of the metal imbedded pellet.

 

Now Costco makes it extremely hard for a company to not put an xray in.

 

Tunless they have changed the requirement in the past 6 months they want an SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT to write out the reasoning behind your facility not needing an X-Ray.

 

I could not find one so I went the old fashioned route and called into question the reasoning behind having the SQF Auditor grading  specific Costco requirement on the sqf audit itself plus the fact that the company had been selling to Costco for years without one thus setting up a grandfather clause without it being written.

 

All in all it worked - but I think you will find that you will either have to comply or see if you have a similar grandfathered situation.

 

Otherwise I'd be looking for a subject matter expert. 

 

Or just get the x ray equipment. 

[G M]

As nwilson explained above, there are ways to get an exemption, but you will need an assessment from an x-ray subject matter expert to explain that your product is unsuitable for xray inspection.

 

Without that the best approach has been to make a plan to replace equipment in the ~near future, perhaps incremental replacements, and get approval through your Costco rep.  

[GMO]

Having worked a lot with both there are benefits and downsides to x-ray.

 

Benefits are:

 

1. Very good at detecting small contaminants.

2. Better at detecting non magnetic or low magnetic metals than metal detectors and these (like SS) are often used in food factories.

3. Good at detecting stones even if it's not set up for that which is great if you're using produce.

4. You can also look at fill levels or lay out if that's useful to you.

 

Downsides are:

 

1. Can be "confused" by other dense contaminants, e.g. bone.  Even cooked bone which is harder to "see" on x-ray (see below) but a lot of it can cause a false reject (we used to have this with a ready meal with ribs in it.)

2. Small diffuse contaminants can be missed (so if you have lots of tiny pieces of iron, it might not be detected.  Advantageous in breakfast cereals, not so good if the small metal pieces aren't meant to be there.)

3. You need specific x-ray detectable plasters, pens etc.  Not all are x-ray visible.  If you do testing with a supplier, test this too, it could help your mitigation.

4. The ability to pick up other contaminants is often over stated.  It's generally poor with most plastics for example which are heavily used in food manufacturing.  Also who needs glass?  Unless you're packing in glass, you're controlling that another way.

5. It's terrible at picking up aluminium.  Great if you're packing in aluminium but lousy if you want to find it as a contaminant.  Metal detection is also poor at this but probably has a "slight" edge.

6. It's bad at picking up a small amount of cooked bone if that's a contaminant.  Also things like date "stones".  Anything which isn't a big density difference will be hard to pick up.

7. Frozen components need to be carefully set up as it can cause false rejects.

 

It's worth a risk assessment to try.  What I'd include are:

 

• Your monitoring of complaints - how many foreign matter?  If you have them returned, try them through your MD and an x-ray if you can. Would it have made a difference?
• What you are picking up in rejects, is that indicating your other systems (e.g. maintenance controls) are working well?
• The product matrix itself.  Is it easy to metal detect in?  Could it be challenging for x-rays (e.g. frozen components, intentional bones)?
• For your "typical" foreign material, would x-ray detect it any better (or even be worse), if you can test them that would be ideal, e.g.:
  • Stainless steel
  • Plastics from cleaning utensils
  • Plasters
  • Pens
  • Safety knives
  • Foreign material in raw materials.

What I think you'll find is for some the x-ray will be better, for others, the same, for plasters and pens, probably a lot worse or will need a lot of expense changing to different suppliers.  

 

Then if you can't get them to change their minds, they may be willing to allow this for now with a future change date for when it can be planned and budgeted.  So it may delay the spend. 

[JonWilliamsonBayPack]

I'm definitely familiar with this request as a product inspection rep.

 

Costco is essentially going to be looking for specific milestones to be completed to show your due diligence on the project:

 

1) Reach out to a product inspection specialist or manufacturer

2) Have a formal product test completed outlying probability of detection for specific foreign materials (Stainless Steel would achieve same results as Fe and NFe, excluding Aluminum as its less dense). You can also take it a step further and have testing done on foreign materials that are common in your plant that QA has set aside, i.e. blades, bolts, etc. Wood, hairnets, plastic gloves, etc will not be detectable. If it floats in water, its less dense than the product we would inspect.

3) Receive a formal quotation from the manufacturer 

 

We have been able to get customers out of this requirement with either a temporary exemption or full exemption if the results are not as strong as a metal detector. With the costco requirement coming from a finished packed good, you sometimes achieve less detection in x-ray as the generator beam has to penetrate through taller/denser product resulting in poorer detection compared to a larger metal detector. Alot of factors play into this, i.e. density, and the type of product. For example if a product is homogenous, it will probably provide a better detection specification than a "busy" product (big box of almonds). Also if the product is very conductive and gives off a strong product signal or phase angle, X-Ray inspection would be more ideal as it doesnt care about conductivity. 

 

This is a very sensitive topic for alot of manufacturers and if there is any additional feedback or insight i can help provide, please let me know. 

[AZuzack]

My previous company used Flexray.   They made meat products.  Flexray was able to detect bone in some of the products but not in all of the products and also struggled to detect foreign material like gaskets and pieces of box cutter safety knife.  I actually was very impressed with Flexray.  It was that the nature of our product made the detection very difficult.  

We also had Mettler Toledo bring their xray truck on site for a demo.  That was pretty cool.  

[JonWilliamsonBayPack]

@AZuzack,

 

FlexXray is great but they typically only specialize in reinspection of product. If you have product on hold you can send them product to reinspect and they can indeed find the smallest foreign material in the industry. Unfortunately how they detect foreign material isnt feasible for actual manufacturing facilities. They use image intensifiers to inspect product at an extremely slow speed, i.e. 5 meters/min. They have it pass through 1 x-ray and an operator is examining the screen for foreign material detection then it passes through another x-ray where they have another operator staring at a screen. They arent using algorithms within the x-ray to automatically reject it, which is why they are able to detect smaller. Again, its a phenomenal service for companies that have tens of thousands of products on hold but its not designed for inline inspection.