March/April 2021 - 21

RECALLS OPERATIONS
 Above, metal shards are found in sliced apples. Right, ready-to-ship product goes through a scanner
for a final inspection. Photos: Fortress
to a Harris Interactive poll, 55% of
U.S. consumers reported they would
switch brands temporarily following
a product recall, while 21% said they
would avoid purchasing any brand
made by the offending manufacturer.
Qual ity assurance often runs
deeper than the obvious. 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.
The speed at which a food company
can publicly pinpoint the source of a
contaminant is imperative and can
minimize the damage caused by a
recall. While inspection systems such
as metal detectors and X-ray are an
integral first step in quality control,
proper management with regular
testing is vital to ensure optimum
protection is achieved.
From HACCP to HARPC
Under the FSMA, the longstanding
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point (HACCP) principles have been
superseded by Hazard Analysis
and Risk-Based Preventive Controls
(HARPC). The biggest difference is
that HARPC standards extend beyond
Critical Control Points. Food processors
must document all potential product
risks, including planning for potential
terrorist acts, intentional adulteration
and food fraud.
Canada too updated its food
safety system at the start of 2019,
implementing new Safe Foods for
Canadians Regulations. As well as
affecting the Canadian food industry,
it requires companies that export to
Canada, especially the United States,
to have a SFC license. Canada's new
rules place greater emphasis on hygiene
and hazardous-based preventative
controls. This includes a new standard
on recording the chain of custody from
the start of production to point of sale.
Retail compliance
Food producers and packers clearly
need to comply with legislative
requirements. But in reality, it is
supermarkets and club stores who are
driving food safety compliance right
down the food chain - a trend that
is partly due to the power consumers
now wield through social media. In
the event of a food safety incident, an
individual may not even try to take
up the issue with the retailer or food
producer, instead going straight to
social media. As a result, supermarkets
too are taking food safety matters into
their own hands and insisting that all
suppliers install metal detection if they
are to retain shelf space.
When balancing the risks and
rewards of investing in optimized
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
codes of practice. However, short-term
thrift could be an expensive mistake
in the longer term.
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 hardwon
reputation for food safety going
up in flames. 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.
- Eric Garr is an area sales manager
for Fortress Technology.
PRODUCE PROCESS ING
21

March/April 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of March/April 2021