Part II Appendices4.9.4.2Systems shall be in place to manage container breakages between the container-cleaning/
4.10 Foreign-body detection and removal equipment
The risk of product contamination shall be reduced or eliminated by the effective use of equipment to remove or detect foreign bodies.
Interpretation
The risk of foreign-body contamination must be minimised using food industry best practice, such as X-ray inspection, metal detection, sieves, magnets or scanner technology.
BRCGS has produced a guideline to foreign-body detection which may be purchased from the BRCGS Store or viewed online at BRCGS Participate.
4.10.1 Selection and operation of foreign-body detection and removal equipment
Clause Requirements
4.10.1.1 A documented assessment in association with the food safety plan (see section 2 – The food safety plan) shall be carried out on each production process to identify the potential use of equipment to detect or remove foreign-body contamination. Typical equipment to be considered may include:
• filters and sieves
• metal detection and X-ray detection equipment
• magnets
• optical sorting equipment
• other physical separation equipment (e.g. gravity separation, fluid bed technology).
Interpretation Documented assessment
The food safety plan should be the starting point for implementing an effective foreign- body control programme. Potential hazards and their sources must be identified so that appropriate control procedures can be put in place to minimise the likelihood of product contamination. The Standard lists some of the most common forms of equipment used.
4.10.1.2 The type, location and sensitivity of the detection and/or removal method shall be specified as part of the site’s documented system. Industry best practice shall be applied with regard to the nature of the ingredient, material, product and/or packed product. The location of the equipment or any other factors influencing the sensitivity of the equipment shall be validated and justified.
Part II Appendic es
Interpretation Type, location and sensitivity
The choice of location for foreign-body detection equipment is vital for its effective use.
Equipment should be placed as close to the end of the production process as is practical, so that the whole process (including packing lines) is protected.
When selecting equipment and determining the best location for it, the potential
environmental effects (e.g. temperature, moisture or speed of line) should be considered and discussed with the equipment supplier.
The sensitivity of detectors must be specified and best practice applied, taking into account the nature of the food, contamination characteristics, and the location and aperture size of the detector. For example, it is likely that metal detectors will be sensitive to ferrous, non- ferrous and stainless steel test pieces, using test sizes according to industry best practice for the particular product type or customer requirements. Good practice is for foreign-body detectors to have adequate security settings so that only authorised personnel can alter them.
The Standard expects the detector and its location to be validated at set-up; for example, by adjusting the machine’s sensitivity using a range of typical products to establish the most sensitive practical setting which gives rise to consistent rejection without false rejects.
The established settings must be recorded and verified through regular checks of the equipment; these checks are generally undertaken using test pieces of a size just above the limit of detection.
4.10.1.3 The site shall ensure that the frequency of the testing of the foreign-body detection and/or removal equipment is defined and takes into consideration:
• specific customer requirements
• the site’s ability to identify, hold and prevent the release of any affected materials, should the equipment fail.
The site shall establish and implement corrective action and reporting procedures in the event of a failure of the foreign-body detector and/or removal equipment. Action shall include a combination of isolation, quarantining and re-inspection of all products produced since the last successful test or inspection.
Interpretation System monitoring and corrective action
The frequency of testing of the monitoring equipment must be assessed and defined in procedures. The frequency of routine tests should consider:
• the need for additional checks at start-up and finish of shifts
• product changeovers
• the need for regular checks throughout production (hourly testing is expected for many detection systems)
• changes in machine settings or following downtime
• any specific customer requirements
• the site’s ability to recover and retest product in the event of a failure.
In the event that equipment is discovered not to be working, all of the product that has passed through the detector since it was last verified to be working must be rechecked.
Interpretation
continued There must be procedures in place specifying the action required in the event of the detector failing a routine test (e.g. failing to detect or reject a test piece).
The people responsible for completing the tests must also be trained in this procedure (clause 7.1.1). The procedures must include a combination of isolation, quarantining and re-inspection of all products produced since the last successful test.
If the cause of the failure is a system fault, the fault should be repaired before recommencing production on the implicated line.
4.10.1.4 Where foreign material is detected or removed by the equipment, the source of any
unexpected material shall be investigated. Information on rejected materials shall be used to identify trends and, where possible, instigate preventive action to reduce the occurrence of contamination by the foreign material.
Interpretation Investigation of rejected material
Products rejected or retained by detection systems can provide valuable information about possible problems arising from raw materials or the production process, and provide an early warning of potential issues.
Rejected products should therefore be examined to identify the cause of rejection.
Identified causes should be investigated and recorded.
The data on rejected and retained product must also be used as the basis for analysing trends. This trend analysis may be used to establish preventive actions to reduce future contamination. Information about false rejects should also be recorded, because this may suggest an error with the detector or indicate that the settings are too sensitive for a particular product and require adjustment.
4.10.2 Filters and sieves
Clause Requirements
4.10.2.1 Filters and sieves used for foreign-body control shall be of a specified mesh size or gauge and designed to provide the maximum practical protection for the product.
Interpretation Mesh and gauge size
To ensure the system provides maximum protection, consideration must be given to mesh and gauge size. The smallest practical size should be used.
The size will be documented and details made easily available to staff using the equipment.
4.10.2.2 Filters and sieves shall be regularly inspected or tested for damage at a documented frequency based on risk. Records shall be maintained of the checks. Where defective filters or sieves are identified, this shall be recorded and the potential for contamination of products investigated and appropriate action taken.
Part II Appendic es
Interpretation Routine inspection
Filters and sieves must be monitored to ensure they themselves do not pose a foreign-body hazard and are working effectively. There must be a documented procedure which includes:
• the frequency of checks – this should be based on the nature of the sieve (e.g. a
perforated-drum sieve is less likely to fail than a wire-mesh sieve), historical evidence of performance, risk to finished product, and the site’s ability to recover product in the event of a failure. Sieves are typically inspected at least once per week. The results of sieve monitoring must be recorded
• staff responsibilities
• the action to be taken when issues are identified.
The material from which sieves and filters are manufactured should be considered, to minimise the potential for breakages that lead to foreign-body issues (e.g. where sieves or filters are used as part of a justification for not requiring metal detection, they should be made of non-metallic mesh).
Where defective filters or sieves are identified, this must be recorded, the potential for contamination of products investigated, and appropriate action taken.
Depending on the type of sieve or filter used, the site may choose to use visual inspection or a sieve analysis which compares results of the sample for particle size retention. This is often useful for quality control purposes.
4.10.3 Metal detectors and X-ray equipment
Clause Requirements
4.10.3.1 Metal detection equipment shall be in place unless risk assessment demonstrates that this does not improve food safety. Where metal detectors are not used, justification shall be documented. The absence of metal detection would only normally be based on the use of an alternative, more effective method of protection (e.g. use of X-ray, fine sieves or filtration of products).
Interpretation Requirement for metal detection
The Standard presumes that metal detection provides improved food safety and protection for customers and should form part of the food protection system of a site. Its absence would normally only be based on the use of an alternative, more effective, method of protection (e.g. the use of X-ray, fine sieves or filtration). There will, however, be situations where metal detection does not, on the basis of risk assessment, provide any significant additional protection to the consumer; for example, where whole pieces of fresh produce (e.g. potatoes) are being washed and packed, and any metal contamination would be obvious to the consumer prior to consumption.
Where metal detectors are not used, a risk assessment must be available to justify the reasons why. While complaint levels are a factor in making a decision on the necessity for a metal detector, this evidence alone will not be sufficient justification for not using one.
(For example, there may be instances of contamination which have not been reported by consumers.) Any justification for the absence of metal detection should be based on the nature of the product, the risk to the consumer, and alternative controls in place at the site
Interpretation
continued In all circumstances where products are manufactured to a customer’s specification, sites must comply with any customer requirement for metal detection of their products. The decision tree in Figure 18 provides further guidance on the need for metal detection equipment for products not packed into metallic containers.
Where the product is packed into metal packaging, an effective alternative test method must be developed (e.g. X-ray or metal-detecting the product at the stage prior to packing, or the use of magnets and product inspection).
Failsafes or alarms should be implemented to notify production staff when failure of equipment is likely. It is vital to know when equipment designed to remove contaminated product is not functioning.
Further guidance
No Metal detection required Metal detection
not compulsory Yes
No Metal detection required Yes Metal detection
required Does a customer contract specify that metal
detection is required?
No
Metal detection not compulsory
Does the product pass through a foreign- body removal process capable of detecting
or removing material smaller than can be detected by a metal detector? (e.g. X-ray or filtration/fine non-metallic mesh sieve at
the last stage where contamination is possible prior to packing)
No Yes
Are there robust, effective systems of product inspection or controls of likely
sources of metal? (e.g. knife controls in place that prevent the risk of contamination and this is supported by the absence of metal complaints)
Yes
Is the product of a nature or usage such that any metal contamination would immediately and always be apparent to the customer and would consequently be removed before
usage of the product? (e.g. unprocessed whole fruit and vegetables or primary cuts,
carcasses of raw meat)
Figure 18 Decision tree for metal detection