In food production, a knife isn’t just a tool. It’s a foreign body risk (broken tips, missing blades, lost parts) and a health & safety risk (lacerations, unsafe blade changes, sharps disposal failures).

That’s why robust knife control systems tend to look the same across well-run sites:
unique IDs, controlled issue/return, controlled blade changes, routine reconciliation, and a clear “missing knife/blade” response.

If you’re searching for a metal detector verification check log template (or an X-ray verification check sheet) you’re probably in one of two situations:

1. You’re tightening controls ahead of an audit, or
2. Something went wrong on the line and you don’t want a repeat.

Either way, the goal is the same: prove your detection step is working today, on this product, on this line, with records that hold up under scrutiny.

“Detectable” is one of the most misunderstood words in food safety. This post strips the jargon away and explains  how metal-detectable and X-ray-detectable polymers actually work, where each one helps, where they don’t, and how QA teams should specify and validate them without creating false confidence.

If you’re approving pens, scrapers, seals, gaskets, O-rings, cable ties, or PPE made from “detectable plastic”, this is the bit you want to get right.

Foreign body control usually fixates on the obvious culprits: pens, blades, hairnets, clipboards. Fair. They’re visible, portable, and easy to police.

But the nastier failures often come from the quiet stuff: seals, gaskets and O-rings - the engineering consumables that sit inside valves, pumps, fillers and connectors, get hammered by heat/chemicals/pressure, and then shed fragments when nobody’s looking.

Foreign body control usually fails in the most boring way possible: a small item goes missing, nobody knows when, and the evidence trail is vibes. BRCGS Issue 9 tightened expectations around portable handheld items in open product areas (Clause 4.9.6.2) - not just pens, but the wider universe of “stuff that can fall into product.”

Cable ties are the ultimate “tiny part, big consequence” item. They live inside panels, around guards, on conveyors, and in maintenance pockets—exactly where vibration, washdown, and human nature conspire to turn them into surprise foreign bodies. This guide is a practical playbook for food and pharma sites that want fewer near-misses, fewer line stops, and cleaner audit outcomes.

Food safety challenges don’t stop at national borders – and neither do we.

If you’ve landed on the Detectamet Australia website, you might assume we only supply within Australia. In reality, our Sydney-based team supports food and pharmaceutical manufacturers right across the Asia Pacific region with metal detectable and X-ray visible products that help reduce contamination risks and support audit compliance.

Food-safety failures rarely happen because a standard was missing or a procedure didn’t exist. They happen because people didn’t follow the process consistently, often under pressure, fatigue, or time constraints. Regulations, certifications, and audits set the framework — but food-safety culture determines whether that framework holds up on a busy production floor. This article explores how training, digital audits, and small behavioural reinforcements work together to build a food-safety culture that’s resilient, audit-ready, and practical in real-world operations.

Food traceability is no longer about whether you can trace a product — it’s about how fast, how accurately, and how confidently you can prove it. With the FDA’s Food Traceability Final Rule (FSMA Section 204) and similar global initiatives, manufacturers, processors, and distributors handling high-risk foods are being asked to raise their game. Regulators want faster traceback, retailers want transparency, and consumers want reassurance. The challenge is that traceability doesn’t live in software alone. It lives on real products, in real factories, under real conditions.

Under BRCGS Food Safety Issue 9, foreign body contamination controls are concentrated in Clause 4.9 (control of foreign materials) and Clause 4.10 (detection and removal equipment). In the US, FSMA’s Preventive Controls for Human Food (21 CFR 117) requires a documented hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls for physical hazards, with training and records to prove effectiveness. Together, these frameworks expect a risk-based programme/program backed by validated equipment checks, verified at defined frequencies, and trended over time.