FEATURE PACKAGING MAKE FOOD SAFETY YOUR NUMBER 1 PRIORITY


X-ray detection and inspection specialist Sparc Systems identifies the common culprits that may cause contamination in food products and shows how to improve identification to avoid a costly recall


T


he first duty of any food manufacturer is to supply its customers with a


product that is safe. By removing contaminants found in food products, a supplier can ensure consumer safety, comply with regulatory standards and offset the risk of waste and recalls. The most common culprits include


metal, for example fragments that break off during mechanical cutting and blending operations, glass, from storage or packaging, and hard plastics introduced by fatigued tools and equipment1


. But despite


recent legislation focusing on prevention rather than control, identifying physical contaminants isn’t always as straightforward as it may seem. In the raw ingredient phase, food is


exposed to different processes - from cutting meat, filleting fish, grinding spice or mixing dry and wet baking ingredients. Later down the line, larger quantities may be cut into more convenient single serve- portions or ready-cut vegetables prepared - potentially leading to foreign fragments in the food supply chain. Each sector comes with its own set of


risks. With convenience meals, there can be more than eight production steps between sourcing ingredients to packing, and more than five different product components. As a result, metal and plastic contamination risks are increased. Intrinsic contaminants are common in


protein ingredients, such as bones or teeth from fish, meat and poultry. They can also occur in fresh produce, for example fruit and vegetable pips or egg shells. In the dairy and bakery sectors, physical hazards may occur through ingredients used during processing (stones, sticks, glass and feathers etc.) and could even be introduced from packaging material, for example paper, plastic and glass. Additional objects include those accidentally exposed by the workforce, for example fingernails and jewellery or processing tools. The threat of ignoring these risks is


significant. In one study, the FDA found that approximately one quarter of all food related complaints it received over the course of a year involved the presence of a visible foreign contaminant. This same study indicated that nearly 15% of the complainants had reportedly suffered an injury or illness, which they attributed to the foreign material2


. 8 JUNE 2020 | PROCESS & CONTROL As the global food supply chain grows


increasingly complex, the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) has shifted focus from response to prevention and is driving the adoption of track-and- trace technologies in all sectors. Over the past year, multiple high-profile


cases have gained traction in the US media. Tyson Foods recalled 69,000 pounds of frozen, ready-to-eat chicken strips that may have been contaminated with metal. More recently, Chicago-based meat processing giant Amity Packing Company Inc. underwent a similar situation, recalling approximately 2,020 pounds of raw ground beef products over the presence of clear, thin, pliable plastic. The rising prevalence of recall cases


implies regulations and current systems for food safety aren’t totally aligned with changes in food production. Cutting corners on safety could be an expensive mistake in the long term. Many equipment manufacturers - Sparc Systems included - highlight the significance of strategic planning when selecting critical control points to optimise inspection lines. Before selecting the type of inspection


equipment, buyers should first determine the potential sources of contamination on the particular product line and manufacturing process. Take a step back and look at each processing point, the equipment that’s being used, and every possible contamination scenario. If the most common contaminant is


metal, it is advisable to consider a highly sensitive metal detector as a first option. But if your production line involves


Hard plastics are a common cause of food contamination incidents


multiple processes and ingredients, or if you use metal foil for packaging, an x-ray system provides a ‘catch-all’ solution. X-ray might cost more upfront, but


https://www.fda.gov/me dia/99558/download


1


https://www.raglandjone s.com/food-foreign- object-injury.html


2


consider the practicalities of dealing with a product recall and the costs it incurs. There’s the issue of assembling a crisis team and notifying regulatory bodies and relevant members of your supply chain, not to mention retrieving and destroying the product and investigating the cause of the contamination. Of far greater significance in the long


For greater traceability, Sparc x-ray units have a protective high-density acrylic window with doors, enabling operatives to see 200 packs per minute travelling through the system


term is the damage to the business’s reputation. News of a recall spreads fast on social media, and often leads to a reduction in sales and a loss of confidence in your brand. The key benefit of X-ray is that it is


non-destructive, non-selective and can be used to detect a larger range of materials with high resolution. With optional integrated data collection software, the latest models give food manufacturers the tools to detect metal, glass, mineral stone, rubber compounds and calcified bones while disclosing any product defects and process and packaging problems with 100% accuracy. Together, the benefits translate into cost savings. Look for additional details that can save


you money in the long run. All Sparc inspection systems - including the Apollo x-ray and Iris Pipeline x-ray - use electro drives rather than compressed air to facilitate faster inspection. These electric drives are proven to save food factories £4,000 annually per line. The benefits of x-ray technology are


made all the more prevalent when working in conjunction with streamlined inspection machinery. Beyond finding physical contaminants, factory food waste is a large and continually growing issue for





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