PC-MAY24-PG08-09.1_Layout 1 14/05/2024 15:27 Page 8


MIXING, WEIGHING & CONVEYING


FILLING ANY HACCP INSPECTION GAPS


Phil Brown, Managing Director at Fortress Technology Europe, examines the benefits of having a longer- term strategic investment plan to ensure there are no HACCP gaps and that all essential inspection points are covered


hilled and frozen convenience foods typically have more processing phases than any other food item. Although catching contaminants at the start of any food processing line is the most cost- effective solution, it is critical to assess and regularly review production risks in full context. Ensuring there are no HACCP gaps and that all of the essential inspection points are covered. A longer-term strategic investment plan looks at the hidden and frequently overlooked risks on pre-prepared food processing lines; ways to prevent, eliminate or reduce microbiological, hygiene and physical contaminants; and how to spread machinery inspection assets out across production lines so there are no HACCP-holes.


C


“Zero brand recalls in the past does not mean immunity to future threats,” says Brown. After food safety, most food manufacturers rank ‘company reputation’ their most pressing concern. A product recall can cost upwards of £1 million, with one study finding that 55% of consumers would temporarily switch brands following a food recall. These issues can be safeguarded by being strategic when selecting high-contaminant-risk checkpoints and inspection equipment.


In the 2023 UK Food & Drink Federation State of the Industry report, changes in underlying production costs meant that over 60% of processors said they cancelled or put investments on pause. With innovation being cited as key to future competitiveness, 52% of those surveyed said developing new manufacturing processes was a top priority1


.


Adjusting these processes without performing a comprehensive survey on how this might impact current critical control points (CCPs) could potentially expose manufacturers to more recalls.


Whenever there is a change in a process or packaging, risk professionals should revisit


8 MAY 2024 | PROCESS & CONTROL


inspection protocols and hypothetical contamination scenarios to look at potential holes in the value chain. Even when there’s no significant change, food processing inspection risks should be reviewed every 12 months as part of a defined HACCP assessment. An inspection system can be integrated almost anywhere along a prepared food processing line. Most commonly, processors will choose end-of-line checkweighing and contaminant inspection technology after all the elements that make up a meal have been combined, cooked and packaged. Functioning as a final safeguard, at this phase there is virtually zero possibility of a new contaminant being introduced. However, if products are rejected, the costs incurred as a result of wasted food, labour and packaging can be exponentially higher.


With an average ready meal, there can be more than eight production steps between sourcing ingredients to packing, and more than five different product components each requiring, cleaning, peeling and inspection, slicing, cooking, quality inspection, flavouring and finally weighing and packing Contaminants, including metal, may be present in incoming raw ingredients. Metal remains the most likely contaminant in convenience food lines. This is, in part, due to high levels of automation in production plants, for example, sieving and mixing raw ingredients, rolling, cutting, scoring, trimming, mincing, and grinding flavourings. Bones in meat products may also go undetected. If processing equipment is not properly maintained, the risk of metal parts or flakes breaking off onto products is increased. The final contaminant risk is biological pathogens. For ready meals that include soft meats or gravies, it’s important to integrate hygienic, easy-to-clean inspection systems that prevent cross-contamination.


When assessing risks, consider the product application. For example, the production process of a ready-made meat pie can include preparing vegetables, cooked meats, gravies, and a pie crust. With each being individually cleaned, sliced, or weighed, leaving the inspection until the end could result in significant lost profits.


With dry ingredients, for instance uncooked rice or pasta, processors will often install a large gravity style inspection configuration upstream. Additionally, most food processors inspect incoming ingredients such as flavourings, vegetables, and meats, before the processing stage. At this CCP, a large bag metal detector is typically used. Performing supplier weight checks at this early phase of processing is also advisable. Bulk checkweighing machines can verify the weight of incoming ingredients in formats up to 50 kgs, and efficiently manage return rates. With wet raw ingredients, i.e. meat, a conveyor metal detector is often installed at the start of the processing line. This ensures that no metal is fed into the grinder where it could damage equipment and also be fragmented into smaller parts that are more difficult to detect and remove.


Although Metal Detectors inspect for the most-likely contaminant risk, X-Ray equipment may be utilised to detect non-metallic contaminants, e.g. bones.


Processed liquids, pastes, and soft meats can be passed through a pipeline Metal Detector or X-Ray prior to mixing with other ingredients. To avoid the spread of foodborne pathogens accumulating in industrial processing environments and avoid cross- contamination, a pump pipeline should be designed with minimal places where meat residue, water ingress and bacteria can build up and potentially get embedded in pipes and crevices. These should be able to


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