FEATURE PACKAGING REAPING THE REWARDS OF MITIGATING RISK


Any food recall incident is a crisis situation that requires quick action to mitigate long-term financial and reputational damage. Phil Brown, European managing director at Fortress Technology, examines the potential causes of contamination, and outlines the methods to overcome them


T


he temptation to cut corners on equipment and the connection


between compromising on food safety standards was recently highlighted by global insurance broker Lockton International. Virtually all (98%) of the manufacturers


surveyed for the Lockton Food & Beverage Report1


agreed that continued price


pressures would influence the final product on the retail shelves, with 42% believing that cost cutting is to blame for the recent rise in the number of recalls. The study also points to a significant


increase in food recalls by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA), with the number doubling in the last five years, and a sharp rise in those with physical contaminants, including metal. Most food suppliers that face a recall will


almost certainly have product inspection equipment in place, so what causes a metal contaminant to slip through the HACCP safety net? The answer is no system is entirely infallible. When it comes to quality assurance,


rather than considering the ‘if,’ it can be prudent to think instead about the ‘when’. To mitigate future contaminant risks means you are not looking for patterns but future potential holes in the security chain. From a practical perspective, food processing inspection risks should be reviewed every 12 months as part of a defined HACCP assessment. Run mock recalls – It can be advisable


to run several dress rehearsals for different product scenarios. Make sure you involve everyone that would be connected to a recall. Testing your process regularly in this way helps to clarify everyone’s role. Know your metals – The use of


stainless steel within the food industry is widespread, and it is more difficult to detect than ferrous metals such as iron or non-ferrous metals such as copper or zinc. Stainless steel, specifically the 300 series,


is non-magnetic and a poor electrical conductor compared to other metal types. In practice, this means that a sphere of stainless steel hidden in a dry product typically needs to be 50% larger than a ferrous sphere to generate similar signal strength. That disparity can rise from 200 to 300% when inspecting wet products.


20 SEPTEMBER 2018 | PROCESS & CONTROL Consider product flow and shape –


Since size, shape, orientation and position of metal contaminants cannot be controlled, operating a metal detector at the highest possible sensitivity is generally viewed as the best method to detect the smallest possible contaminants. It’s equally important to remember that


metal detector performance is usually measured using spheres. However, metal contamination may not be spherical, thus the signal generated by said contaminant can vary in amplitude quite drastically in some cases. It’s important to optimise the performance of the detector to cope with the worst-case scenario. An improvement in sphere size from


3mm to 2.5mm may not sound like much, but it can be the difference between success and failure when trying to spot an irregular fragment. Test and record – It’s vital to check that


any metal detection system is failsafe. For example, if a fault with the reject system means that a contaminant is detected but not rejected, the line should stop automatically until the situation is resolved. Testing should take place regularly, with


results kept on record to support traceability. Major retailers will typically have their own codes of practice that specify their testing and reporting requirements, but what happens in theory can be harder to implement in practice, especially if the record keeping is done manually on paper. Metal detector equipment from


manufacturers such as Fortress Technology, integrate secure, automatic logging of all such information into their systems. This is something where a


By weighing the cost of equipment versus the cost of a product recall, the decision to invest in good quality inspection equipment should be a simple one


modest investment up front can lead to savings later on by narrowing the time window during which a problem can go undetected. Size does matter – Because sensitivity


1


https://www.lockton international.com/ articles/why-food- manufacturers-safety- standards-are-under- threat


is measured at the geometric centre of the aperture, the ratio of the aperture to the size of the product is an essential consideration. Maximum sensitivity occurs when the belt and food item is closest to the edge of the metal detector opening, making sense that the smaller the aperture, the more capable it is of detecting the smallest possible contaminants. Users could optimise performance by using several smaller detectors positioned at critical control points throughout the process, rather than a single, big ‘catch-all’ detector at the end of the line. Utilising upstream metal detection can


Understanding how to optimise metal detection systems forms a critical part of the planning for a recall process and is good business practice. The ratio of the aperture to the size of the product is an essential consideration as sensitivity is measured at the geometric centre of the aperture


also identify smaller contaminants, which may not be possible at the end of the line system. Detecting any contaminant at the upstream phase means that the rejected product will be a small amount of raw material/unfinished product versus finished/packaged product. This method will also help identify possible sources of the contaminant. Mitigating the risks –When balancing


the risks and rewards of investing in optimised metal detectors systems, many users don’t perceive them as generating value for their business beyond the need to comply with customer demands, such as retailer codes of practice. However, any food manufacturer should look at this from a risk management perspective. Think of it like fire insurance. No one intends to allow metal to contaminate their food products any more than they intend to burn down their factory, but that doesn’t stop them from investing in fire protection and insurance. In the same way, investing in metal detection reduces the risk of a company’s hard-won reputation for food safety going up in flames.


Fortress Technology www.fortresstechnology.co.uk


/ PROCESS&CONTROL


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