Physical hazards assessed by process step, with detection capability established for your product and reject handling tested as part of the control.
A foreign body control review assesses how a business prevents, detects and removes physical contamination. It covers the hazard at each process step, the controls preventing entry, the capability of any detection equipment, whether that capability has been validated, how it is verified through the shift, and what happens to product the system rejects. Detection attracts the attention and prevention does most of the work.
Detection is the fourth level of the control hierarchy and it receives most of the investment. A detector only finds what prevention already failed to stop, and only within a capability that is usually assumed and never established. Both are worth correcting before buying a better machine.
Hazards by process step, control positioned as high in the hierarchy as it can go, capability established for your product, and reject handling assessed as part of the control. Delivered on site, quoted on scope.
Control positioned higher in this list is cheaper, more reliable and easier to evidence. Most sites concentrate on level four.
| Level | What it does | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Eliminate | Remove the source entirely. | Replacing glass instruments, removing wooden pallets from production, banning personal items. |
| 2. Prevent entry | Stop the hazard reaching product. | Sieving, filtering, magnets at intake, guarding, packaging inspection, supplier controls. |
| 3. Contain | Limit spread if the hazard occurs. | Shatterproof coatings, blade control, tool registers, breakage procedures. |
| 4. Detect and remove | Find and reject contaminated product. | Metal detection, X-ray, optical sorting, checkweighing, visual inspection. |
| 5. Verify | Confirm detection continues to work. | Test piece checks through the shift, with defined frequency and reject confirmation. |
Capability is specific to the method, the product and the packaging. Assuming coverage that does not exist is the most consequential error on this page.
| Method | Detects | What determines capability | Key limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Metal detection | Ferrous, non ferrous and stainless steel. | Sensitivity varies with product effect, packaging and orientation. | Stainless is the hardest to detect and the most common contaminant from equipment. |
| X-ray inspection | Dense contaminants including glass, stone, bone and some plastics. | Detection depends on density difference and thickness, not on material type alone. | Low density plastics and thin materials frequently remain undetectable. |
| Optical sorting | Colour and shape anomalies in loose product. | Requires product to be presented in a single layer. | Unsuited to packed product or dense flow. |
| Magnets | Ferrous material in flowing product. | Strength, placement and cleaning frequency all determine effectiveness. | Cleaning records regularly missing, so retention is unknown. |
| Sieves and filters | Oversize material in powders and liquids. | Aperture size sets the capability, and integrity checks are essential. | A damaged sieve passes everything and looks identical. |
| Visual inspection | Gross contamination on visible surfaces. | Effectiveness falls quickly with line speed and fatigue. | Relied on far more heavily than its actual capability supports. |
Eight failures, and the fourth turns a detection system into an alarm.
A metal detector installed and the hazard considered controlled. Detection is the fourth level of the hierarchy, and it only finds what prevention already failed to stop.
Test pieces taken from the manufacturer's specification, never established for your product, packaging and orientation. Product effect changes achievable sensitivity substantially.
Passed through the centre of the aperture at the strongest point of the field. Validation should establish the weakest position and verification should use it.
A detector that identifies contamination and fails to remove it consistently. Reject confirmation, bin locks and fail safe behaviour on air failure are all part of the control.
A check fails mid shift and nobody has decided what happens to product since the last successful check. That product has to be identified, held and assessed.
A register created at implementation and never updated after new equipment, replaced light fittings or a new instrument arriving.
A written procedure for glass breakage that is too slow or too disruptive to be used under production pressure, so breakages are cleaned up informally.
Foreign body complaints handled individually with no analysis of source, material or process step. The complaints are the best available data on where the system is failing.
The failed check decision tree is written in advance, because that decision made under production pressure is usually the wrong one.
| Element | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Hazard assessment by step | Physical hazards identified at every process step, by material and by source. |
| Hierarchy position | Where each hazard is controlled, and where control sits lower in the hierarchy than it could. |
| Detection capability | What each piece of equipment can detect for your product, packaging and orientation. |
| Validation position | Whether sensitivity has been established for your product under worst case conditions. |
| Verification schedule | Test piece frequency, positions, acceptance criteria and reject confirmation. |
| Reject handling review | Whether rejected product is reliably removed, secured and assessed. |
| Failed check procedure | The decision tree for product produced since the last successful check. |
| Register and procedure review | Glass and hard plastic registers, breakage procedures and complaint feedback. |
Food manufacturers, processors and packers. It suits any site relying on detection equipment whose real capability has never been established, and any business receiving foreign body complaints without knowing where they originate.
Detection sensitivity has never been established for your product.
Test pieces are run through the easiest position.
No procedure exists for a failed test piece check.
Reject handling has never been tested for reliability.
You are relying on visual inspection for a significant hazard.
Your glass and hard plastic register is out of date.
Foreign body complaints are closed individually with no analysis.
New equipment has been installed and the hazard analysis was not revisited.
Physical hazards are identified at every process step, by material and by source, including packaging and people.
Where each hazard is controlled is established, along with where control could sit higher and cost less.
What each detection system can find for your product, packaging and orientation is examined.
Whether sensitivity was established under worst case conditions is determined, and gaps are specified.
Test piece frequency, positions, acceptance criteria and reject confirmation are set.
Reject handling reliability is assessed and a failed check decision tree is written.
Equipment servicing, engineering calibration and repair, which sit with your equipment provider.
Equipment recommendations. No commission or referral arrangement exists with any detection equipment manufacturer.
Where the review concludes that better prevention would remove the need for a detection upgrade, it says so, and that is frequently the cheaper answer.
Every review is quoted against its own scope. One line with a single metal detector and a four line site with X-ray, optical sorting and magnets are very different pieces of work. These factors set the price.
These are the primary sources this work is built on. Where a market you sell into has its own requirement, that takes precedence and we assess against it.
It is the combination of controls preventing, detecting and removing physical contamination. It covers eliminating sources, preventing entry, containing hazards if they occur, detecting and rejecting contaminated product, and verifying that detection continues to work. Detection is one layer, and it is the one most businesses concentrate on.
No. A metal detector finds what prevention already failed to stop, and only within its capability. Stainless steel is the hardest metal to detect and the most common contaminant from equipment, and no metal detector finds glass, stone, bone or most plastics.
It is the influence of a product's own properties, such as moisture, salt content and temperature, on detection equipment. Product effect reduces achievable sensitivity, sometimes substantially, which is why sensitivity has to be established for your own product, not taken from a manufacturer's specification.
In the weakest position, which validation should establish. Running them through the centre of the aperture at the strongest point of the field demonstrates the best case and verifies nothing about the conditions where contamination would be missed.
Product produced since the last successful check has to be identified, held and assessed. That decision has to be defined in advance, because deciding it under production pressure produces the wrong answer. It is one of the most commonly missing procedures.
No. X-ray detects on density difference and thickness, which covers glass, stone, bone and dense plastics well. Low density plastics, thin materials and some bone remain difficult or undetectable, so X-ray extends capability without removing the need for prevention.
Because a detector that identifies contamination and fails to remove it consistently is not a control. Reject confirmation, secured reject bins and fail safe behaviour on loss of air or power are all part of what turns detection from an alarm into a control.
Most standards require one, covering every glass and brittle plastic item in production areas with checks at defined intervals. The common failure is a register created at implementation and never updated after new equipment or replaced fittings.
Considerably less reliable than businesses assume. Effectiveness falls quickly with line speed and operator fatigue, and it detects only gross contamination on visible surfaces. It has a place, and it should not be the primary control for a significant hazard.
Where ferrous contamination is a hazard in flowing product, yes. Strength, placement and cleaning frequency all determine effectiveness, and cleaning records are regularly missing, which means what the magnet retained is unknown.
More than most businesses extract from them. Analysed by material, source and process step, they are the best available data on where the control system is failing. Handled individually and closed, they tell you nothing.
A hazard assessment by process step, a hierarchy position showing where control could sit higher, detection capability for your product, a validation position, a verification schedule with positions and acceptance criteria, a reject handling review, a failed check decision tree and a review of your registers and procedures.
Confi Food assigns work by subject. HACCP, labelling, certification standards, regulatory compliance, supplier assurance and monitoring are separate disciplines, and each piece goes to someone who works in that area. Every deliverable is reviewed internally by a second specialist before it reaches you.
Our technical positions are built from primary sources, meaning the legislation, the competent authority, Codex Alimentarius, the certification scheme owner or the relevant standards body. We set out how that works in our technical review and editorial policy, and what happens at each stage of an engagement in how Confi Food works.
A structured walk of the facility assessing hygienic design, zoning, flows, fabrication and housekeeping against prerequisite programme requirements.
Read about Facility Hygiene Assessment →A review of whether your controls have been validated as capable, and whether verification proves they keep working.
Read about Verification and Validation Review →Inspection, detection and monitoring equipment supporting the controls a site relies on.
View equipment →Expert Halal certification consulting worldwide. OIC/SMIIC standards, navigating fragmented national requirements across Malaysia, Indonesia, the GCC and beyond,...
See Halal Certification Consulting →Tell us the lines, the detection equipment installed and the product types, and receive a written quote covering the scope, the deliverable and the price.