Feature Inspection & measurement The myths of food industry inspection
Regional and international food industry safety guidelines are changing all the time and it is important for manufacturers to be aware of any amendments to guidelines and regulations regarding production lines. However, there are a number of myths that persist regarding food safety inspection standards that must be dispelled according to Neil Giles, marketing communications manager, Mettler-Toledo Product Inspection
y separating myths from facts, manufacturers will gain a greater understanding of the reg- ulations governing the industry, and this will help them guarantee the quality of their products while ensur- ing consumer safety, Giles says.
B
Myth 1: Compliance with one stan- dard guarantees compliance with all While a company may need to comply with any number of regional and international food safety regula- tions, the specific standards that must be met will vary depending on the manufacturer, the countries in which it operates and the retailers or cus- tomers it wants to supply. Manufacturers must carefully consider which standards they must meet to operate in their respective markets. They will need to adapt their product inspection systems and processes accordingly to adhere to required guidelines. Each safety standard of today has variations to deal with spe- cific threats to food quality and safety. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) Food Standard is now required by a majority of retailers in a number of countries for private label products and, increasingly, for branded products. The International Featured Standards (IFS) are similar to the BRC Global Standards, but are applicable chiefly to EU markets, particularly France and
Germany. However, the Food Safety System Certification (FSSC) 22000 is an international quality standard that offers both a broad food safety manage- ment system framework as well as specific criteria for controlling risks in the manufacturing process.
Myth 2: Standard inspection systems fit all products Each product and produc- tion line is different and brings with it unique challenges to com- prehensive inspection. Standard contaminant detection and check- weighing systems can be applicable in certain cases, but many production applications require a customised solu- tion. If this is the case, each machine must be designed and set up to suit the needs of the production line, the prod- ucts it is inspecting and the require- ments of each applicable food safety standard to ensure complete regulatory compliance.
Myth 3: Manual rejection by operators is as good as automated systems The fact is, automated rejection systems are far more reliable than manual systems, and increasingly safety standards are demanding the installation of automatic systems on food production lines. Alternatively, conveyors must be able to be stopped
when contamination is detected so that substandard products or foreign objects can be removed. For example, BRC Food Standard Version 6, Clause 4.10.3.3, introduced in January 2012, states that x-ray inspection systems or metal detectors should incorporate either an automatic rejection device or a belt stop system. BRC Food Standard Version 6 also requires food manufac- turers to implement traceability and other security systems to prevent contamination from occurring.
Myth 4: There is no need to test product inspection systems once installed
Manufacturers are required to regularly test the performance of their x-ray inspection, metal detection and check- weighing systems to
Mettler Toledo’s Due Diligence Enhancement system ensures contaminated packs are properly removed from the line
ensure they are all operating correctly. They must also continue to meet pre- set strict sensitivity
standards.Many new food safety standards stipulate particular procedures to make certain comprehensive testing of product inspection equipment has taken place. The BRC Food Standard Version 6 contains recommendations regarding sample materials to be used in testing, sample sizes and locations of test samples on production lines.
Mettler Toledo Garvens has introduced a Checkweighing Software
Compendium
Health monitoring for rotating equipment F
luke has introduced the Fluke 805 Vibration Meter, a portable multifunction vibration screening tool that provides quantifiable information on a bearing and the overall health of motors and other rotating equipment. The Fluke 805 is suitable for frontline mechanical trou- bleshooting teams that need reliable, repeatable measurements of rotating equipment. The Fluke 805 measures overall vibration from 10 to 1,000Hz, providing a four-level severity assessment for overall vibration and bearing condition; identifies bearing condition by detecting peaks in the vibration signal readings of roller bearings from 4,000Hz to 20,000Hz, and using a proprietary algorithm to interpret severity to determine if the bearing is going bad. It measures surface temperature using an infrared sensor which automatically measures contact temperature and displays it along with the vibration reading for a broader understanding of machine health.
The Fluke 805 Handheld Vibration Meter has a unique sensor tip design that minimises
measurement variations caused by device angle or contact pressure. Fluke
T: 0207 942 0700 Factory Equipment SEPTEMBER 2012
www.fluke.co.uk Enter 313
Myth 5: There is no need to train all employees on food safety regulations An increasing number of food safety regulatory authorities are insisting that all employees be fully trained on stan- dards compliance, correct operations and system test procedures. For exam- ple, the IFS Food Standard Version 6 states that the senior management of food companies must ensure employees are aware of their responsibilities rela- tive to food safety and quality.
15
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56