| U.S.
Food & Drug Administration Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition FISH AND FISHERIES PRODUCTS HAZARDS AND CONTROLS GUIDANCE: Third Edition June 2001 |
(Return to table of contents.)
Metal fragments can cause injury to the consumer.
Metal-to-metal contact, especially in mechanical cutting or blending operations, other equipment with metal parts that can break loose, such as moving wire mesh belts, injection needles, screens, portion control equipment, metal ties and can openers are likely sources of metal that may enter food during processing.
FDA's Health Hazard Evaluation Board has supported regulatory action against product with metal fragments of 0.3" (7 mm) to 1.0" (25mm) in length. See FDA Compliance Policy Guide #555.425.
At each processing step, determine whether "metal inclusion" is a significant hazard. The criteria are:
1. Is it reasonably likely that metal fragments will be introduced at this processing step (e.g. does it come in with the raw material or will the process introduce it)?
For example, under ordinary circumstances, it would be reasonably likely to expect that metal fragments could enter the process from the following sources as a result of worn, damaged or broken equipment parts:
Under ordinary circumstances it would not be reasonably likely to expect that metal fragments could enter the food from the following sources:
2. Can metal fragments, which were introduced at an earlier step, be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level at this processing step? (Note: If you are not certain of the answer to this question at this time, you may answer "No." However, you may need to change this answer when you assign critical control points in Step #12.)
"Metal inclusion" should also be considered a significant hazard at any processing step where a preventive measure is or can be used to prevent or eliminate the inclusion of metal fragments, that have been introduced to the product at a previous step, or is adequate to reduce the likelihood of occurrence of the hazard to an acceptable level. Preventive measures for "metal inclusion" can include:
Visually inspecting equipment for damage or missing parts may only be feasible with relatively simple equipment, such as band saws, small orbital blenders, and wire-mesh belts. Other, more complex, equipment may contain to many parts, some of which may not be readily visible, to make such visual inspection reliable in a reasonable time period.
List such preventive measures in Column 5 of the Hazard Analysis Worksheet at the appropriate processing step(s).
If the answer to either question 1 or 2 is "Yes" the potential hazard is significant at that step in the process and you should answer "Yes" in Column 3 of the Hazard Analysis Worksheet. If neither criterion is met you should answer "No." You should record the reason for your "Yes" or "No" answer in Column 4. You need not complete Steps #12 through 18 for this hazard for those processing steps where you have recorded a "No."
It is important to note that identifying this hazard as significant at a processing step does not mean that it must be controlled at that processing step. The next step will help you determine where in the process the critical control point is located.
In determining whether a hazard is significant you should also consider the intended use of the product, which you developed in Step #4. In most cases you should assume that the product will be consumed in a way that would not eliminate any metal fragments that may be introduced during the process. In this case, you would need to identify the hazard as significant if the above criteria are met.
However, in some cases, if you have assurance that the product will be run through a metal detector, for detection of metal fragments, or through screens or a magnet, for separation of metal fragments, by a subsequent processor you may not need to identify metal fragment inclusion as a significant hazard.
Example:
A primary processor produces frozen fish blocks by mechanically heading, eviscerating, and filleting fish in-the-round. The primary processor sells exclusively to breaded fish stick processors and has been given assurance by these processors that the finished, breaded product will be subjected to a metal detector. The primary processor would not need to identify "metal inclusion" as a significant hazard.
In this case, you should enter "No" in Column 3 of the Hazard Analysis Worksheet for each of the processing steps. In addition, for each "No" entry briefly explain in column 4 that the hazard is controlled by a subsequent processor. In this case, you need not complete Steps #12 through 18 for this hazard.
For each processing step where "metal inclusion" is identified in Column 3 of the Hazard Analysis Worksheet as a significant hazard, determine whether it is necessary to exercise control at that step in order to control the hazard. Figure #A-2 (Appendix 3) is a CCP decision tree that can be used to aid you in your determination.
The following guidance will also assist you in determining whether a processing step is a CCP for "metal inclusion":
Will the product be run through a metal detector, or through a screen, magnet, flotation tank, or other equipment for separation of metal fragments, on or after the last step where metal inclusion is identified as a significant hazard?
1. If it will be, you may identify final metal detection or separation as the CCP. Processing steps prior to metal detection will then not require control and will not need to be identified as CCPs for the hazard of metal fragments.
In this case enter "Yes" in Column 6 of the Hazard Analysis Worksheet for the metal detection or separation step, and enter "No" for the other processing steps where "metal inclusion" was identified as a significant hazard. In addition, for each "No" entry, note in Column 5 that the hazard is controlled by the final metal detection or separation step. (Note: if you have not previously identified "metal inclusion" as a significant hazard at the metal detection or separation step in Column 3 of the Hazard Analysis Worksheet, you should change the entry in Column 3 to "Yes".) This control approach will be referred to as "Control Strategy Example 1" in Steps #14 through 18.
Example:
A breaded fish processor could set the critical control point for "metal inclusion" at the packaged product metal detection step, and would not need to have critical control points for this hazard at each of the steps at which there was a reasonably likelihood that metal fragments could be introduced.
You should recognize that by setting the critical control point at or near the end of the process, rather than at the point of potential metal fragment entry into the process, you are likely to have more labor and materials invested in the product before the problem is detected or prevented.
2. If the product will not be run through such a device, you should have procedures to periodically check the processing equipment for damage or lost parts at each processing step where "metal inclusion" is identified as a significant hazard. In this case you should identify those processing steps as CCPs. It would not ordinarily be necessary to identify these steps as CCPs in addition to identifying a final metal detection or separation step as a CCP.
Visually inspecting equipment for damage or missing parts may only be feasible with relatively simple equipment, such as band saws, small orbital blenders, and wire-mesh belts. Other, more complex, equipment may contain to many parts, some of which may not be readily visible, to make such visual inspection reliable in a reasonable time period.
In this case, You should enter "Yes" in column 6 of the Hazard Analysis Worksheet for each of those processing steps. This control approach will be referred to as "Control Strategy Example 2" in Steps #14 through 18.
Example:
A processor that cuts tuna steaks from whole fish has identified the band saw cutting step as the only step that is reasonably likely to introduce metal fragments to the process. The processor does not have a final metal detection or separation step. The processor checks the condition of the band saw blade every four hours to ensure that it has not been damaged. The processor identifies the band saw cutting step as the CCP for this hazard.
It is important to note that you may select a control strategy that is different from those which are suggested above, provided that it assures an equivalent degree of safety of the product.
Proceed to Step #13 (Chapter 2) or to Step #10 of the next potential hazard.
For each processing step where "metal inclusion" is identified as a significant hazard on the HACCP Plan Form identify the maximum or minimum value to which a feature of the process must be controlled in order to control the hazard.
You should set the CL at the point that if not met the safety of the product may be questionable. If you set a more restrictive CL you could, as a result, be required to take corrective action when no safety concern actually exists. On the other hand, if you set a CL that is too loose you could, as a result, allow unsafe product to reach the consumer.
As a practical matter it may be advisable to set an operating limit that is more restrictive than the CL. In this way you can adjust the process when the operating limit is triggered, but before a triggering of the CL would require you to take corrective action. You should set operating limits based on your experience with the variability of your operation and with the closeness of typical operating values to the CL.
Following is guidance on setting critical limits for the control strategy examples discussed in Step #12.
Critical Limit: No metal fragments in finished product. (Note: FDA's Health Hazard Evaluation Board has supported regulatory action against product with metal fragments of 0.3" [7 mm] to 1.0" [25mm] in length. See also FDA Compliance Policy Guide #555.425.)
Critical Limit: No broken or missing metal parts from equipment at the CCPs for "metal inclusion"
Enter the critical limit(s) in Column 3 of the HACCP Plan Form.
For each processing step where "metal inclusion" is identified as a significant hazard on the HACCP Plan Form, describe monitoring procedures that will ensure that the critical limits are consistently met.
To fully describe your monitoring program you should answer four questions: 1) What will be monitored? 2) How will it be monitored? 3) How often will it be monitored (frequency)? 4) Who will perform the monitoring?
It is important for you to keep in mind that the feature of the process that you monitor and the method of monitoring should enable you to determine whether the CL is being met. That is, the monitoring process should directly measure the feature for which you have established a CL.
You should monitor often enough so that the normal variability in the values you are measuring will be detected. This is especially true if these values are typically close to the CL. Additionally, the greater the time span between measurements the more product you are putting at risk should a measurement show that a CL has been violated.
Following is guidance on establishing monitoring procedures for the control strategy examples discussed in Step #12. Note that the monitoring frequencies that are provided are intended to be considered as minimum recommendations, and may not be adequate in all cases.
What: The presence of metal fragments in product passing the CCP.
What: The presence of broken or missing metal parts from equipment at the CCPs.
How: Use a metal detection device;
OR
Use a magnet for separating metal fragments from a product stream, where feasible (e.g. dry ingredients);
OR
Use screens for separating metal fragments from a product stream, where feasible (e.g. dry or liquid ingredients).
How: Visually check the equipment for broken or missing parts.
Frequency: Subject all product to the control. Check that device is operating or is in place at start of each production day.
Frequency: Check before starting operations each day;
AND
Check every four hours during operation;
AND
Check at the end of operations each day;
AND
Check whenever there is an equipment malfunction that could increase the likelihood that metal could be introduced into the food.
Who: Monitoring is performed by the equipment itself. A check should be made at least once per day to ensure that the device is operating or is in place. This may be performed by the equipment operator, a production supervisor, a member of the quality control staff, a member of the maintenance or engineering staff, or any other person who has an understanding of the operation of the equipment.
Who: Monitoring may be performed by the equipment operator, a production supervisor, a member of the quality control staff, a member of the maintenance or engineering staff, or any other person who has a thorough understanding of the proper condition of the equipment.
Enter the "What," "How," "Frequency," and "Who" monitoring information in Columns 4, 5, 6, and 7, respectively, of the HACCP Plan Form.
For each processing step where "metal inclusion" is identified as a significant hazard on the HACCP Plan Form, describe the procedures that you will use when your monitoring indicates that the CL has not been met.
These procedures should: 1) ensure that unsafe product does not reach the consumer; and, 2) correct the problem that caused the CL deviation. Remember that deviations from operating limits do not need to result in formal corrective actions.
Following is guidance on establishing corrective action procedures for the control strategy examples discussed in Step #12.
Corrective Action: Take the following corrective action to regain control over the operation after a CL deviation:
AND
Make adjustments to the materials, equipment, and/or process, as needed, to prevent future introduction of metal fragments;
AND
Take the following action to product involved in a CL deviation:
OR
OR
OR
AND
Take one of the following actions to the product when product is processed without a properly functioning metal detector or separation device:
OR
OR
OR
OR
AND
Corrective Action: Take one of the following corrective actions to regain control over the operation after a CL deviation:
AND
AND
Take one of the following actions to product involved in a CL deviation:
OR
OR
OR
Enter the corrective action procedures in Column 8 of the HACCP Plan Form.
For each processing step where "metal inclusion" is identified as a significant hazard on the HACCP Plan Form, list the records that will be used to document the accomplishment of the monitoring procedures discussed in Step #15. The records should clearly demonstrate that the monitoring procedures have been followed, and should contain the actual values and observations obtained during monitoring.
Following is guidance on establishing a recordkeeping system for the control strategy examples discussed in Step #12.
Records: Record documenting that the metal detection or separation device is operating or is in place, as appropriate.
Records: Record of equipment inspections.
Enter the names of the HACCP records in Column 9 of the HACCP Plan Form.
For each processing step where "metal inclusion" is identified as a significant hazard on the HACCP Plan Form, establish verification procedures that will ensure that the HACCP plan is: 1) adequate to address the hazard of metal inclusion; and, 2) consistently being followed.
Following is guidance on establishing verification procedures for the control strategy examples discussed in Step #12.
Verification: Test the effectiveness of the metal detection device, or check the condition of the magnet, screen, or other metal separation device at least once per day, before start of operations;
AND
Review monitoring, corrective action and verification records within one week of preparation.
Verification: Review monitoring and corrective action records within one week of preparation.
Enter the verification procedures in column 10 of the HACCP Plan Form.
TABLE 20-1Control Strategy Example 1 - Metal detection or separation This table is an example of a portion of a HACCP plan relating to the control of metal fragment inclusion for a processor of frozen fish sticks, using Control Strategy Example 1 - Metal detection or separation. It is provided for illustrative purposes only. Metal inclusion may be only one of several significant hazards for this product. Refer to Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 (Chapter 3) for other potential hazards (e.g. chemical contaminants and Staphylococcus aureus toxin formation in the hydrated batter mix). Example Only | |||||||||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) |
| Critical Control Point (CCP) | Significant Hazard(s) | Critical Limits for each Preventive Measure | Monitoring | Corrective Action(s) | Records | Verification | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What | How | Frequency | Who | ||||||
| Metal detection | Metal inclusion | No detectable metal fragments in finished product | Presence of detectable metal fragments in finished products | Metal detector | Every finished product package, with operation check before start-up | Production employee | Destroy any product
rejected by metal detector Identify source of metal found in product and fix damaged equipment If product is processed without metal detection hold for metal detection |
Metal detector operation log | Test metal detector
with three test units before production each day, and
recalibrate if needed Review monitoring, corrective action and verification records within one week of preparation. |
TABLE 20-2Control Strategy Example 2 - Equipment Checks This table is an example of a portion of a HACCP plan relating to the control of metal fragment inclusion for a processor of frozen tuna steaks, using Control Strategy Example 2 - Metal inclusion prevention procedures. It is provided for illustrative purposes only. Metal inclusion may be only one of several significant hazards for this product. Refer to Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 (Chapter 3) for other potential hazards (e.g. histamine and parasites). Example Only | |||||||||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) |
| Critical Control Point (CCP) | Significant Hazard(s) | Critical Limits for each Preventive Measure | Monitoring | Corrective Action(s) | Records | Verification | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What | How | Frequency | Who | ||||||
| Band saw | Metal inclusion | No damage to saw blade | Check saw blade for damage | Visual | Before start-up, every four hours during operation, at end of day, and after equipment jam | Saw operator | Stop production Adjust equipment Isolate product since last visual check Hold product until it can be run through metal detector and destroy rejects |
Equipment maintenance log | Review monitoring and corrective action records within one week of preparation |
See also:
Foodborne Pathogenic Microorganisms and Natural Toxins Handbook (Bad Bug Book)
Seafood Information and Resources
Seafood HACCP | Fish & Fisheries Products Hazards & Controls Guidance: 3rd Edition (2001)
Foods Home | FDA Home | Search/Subject Index | Disclaimers & Privacy Policy | Accessibility/Help
Hypertext updated by dav/kwg/dms 2002-JUN-14