219 Journal homepage: www.fia.usv.ro/fiajournal Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania Volume XIX, Issue 3 - 2020, pag. 219 - 227 OCCURRENCE AND ASSESSMENT OF PHYSICAL CONTAMINANTS BASED ON FOOD RECALLS IN CANADA *Mohd Taufiq Mohd KHAIRI 1 , Sallehuddin IBRAHIM 1 , Mohd Amri Md YUNUS 1 , Mahdi FARAMARZI 1 , Jaysuman PUSPPANATHAN 2 , Azwad ABID 1 1School of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia. 2Sport Innovation and Technology Centre (SITC), Institute of Human Centred Engineering (IHCE), School of Biomedical Engineering & Health Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia. taufiq_khairi@yahoo.com *corresponding author Received 25th March 2020, accepted 14th September 2020 Abstract: This paper investigates the association between types of food products, physical contaminants and year using food recalls dataset obtained from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) between 2014 and 2019. In the period of studies, a total of 269 foods under the category of physical hazards were recalled. Chi-square per cell test was used to deeply analyse the contingency table of the investigated topic categories. The results show that there is no association between the year and the number of food recalls by food products and year by physical contaminants type. However, the results indicated that there is an association between the food products and physical contaminants type. In particular, there were significant numbers of insects being found in grain and fruits/vegetables products with 15 and 53 cases, respectively. Plastic and bone fragments were significantly found in dairy and meat, poultry and seafood products, respectively with 9 and 15 cases. Glass was significantly found in wine and beverage (6 cases) and other food product (9 cases). Plastic material was highly detected in candy and confectionery product with 9 cases. The sources of the physical contaminants have been analysed, together with the precautionary measures that must be taken. Findings from this study provide the food industry with essential information. An understanding and analysis of physical hazards is critical for companies in order to restructure their food safety policies and technologies. Keywords: Physical contaminants, food recall, food safety, foreign bodies 1. Introduction Food contaminated by hazardous agents may endanger the consumer’s safety. Among the classifications of hazards there are chemical, biological and physical ones [1]. Chemical hazards include water, pesticides and food additives. Viruses (Hepatitis A and Rotavirus), parasites (e.g. Trichinella spiralis and Cryptosporidium parvum) and harmful bacteria (Bacillus cereus and Salmonella) are biological hazards [2]. On the other hand, physical hazard in food may refer to a foreign body that existed in a food product [3,4]. Objects such as metal fragments, glass, plastic pieces, stones, insects and wood debris are among frequent type of objects that have been found in food [5,6]. The existence of a foreign body may harm the consumer if it is accidentally being consumed. It can cause choking and internal injuries especially in the abdomen and intestines when it is ingested. As a consequent, surgery needs to be carried out to remove the foreign body [7]. A foreign body might accidentally enter food at any stage of the food chain such as processing, http://www.fia.usv.ro/fiajournal mailto:taufiq_khairi@yahoo.com Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XIX, Issue 3 – 2020 Mohd Taufiq Mohd KHAIRI, Sallehuddin IBRAHIM, Mohd Amri Md YUNUS, Mahdi FARAMARZI, Jaysuman PUSPPANATHAN, Azwad ABID, Occurrence and assessment of physical contaminants based on food recalls in Canada, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XIX, Issue 3 – 2020, pag. 219 – 227 220 packaging and distribution of food. Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) has regulated that the unwanted object in food that has a length of 7 mm to 25 mm is considered as a foreign body [8]. The food industry makes numerous efforts to avoid unwanted foreign objects in food. Several technologies and techniques have been applied to detect foreign bodies such as a metal detector, magnet, X-ray, ultrasound, near-infrared, terahertz and surface penetrating radar [9–11]. Although these methods are available, there are still cases of food recalls by food agencies. Some manufacturers do not use these technologies due to cost constrain. In addition, the weaknesses of each technique have restricted their applications and abilities to detect all types of foreign bodies. Recall notifications have to be made when the foods are believed to be contaminated and may harm the consumers. The food recalls were usually conducted by the food manufacturer or distributor. It also can be requested by government authorities or agencies around the world. The food recalls statistics is annually published based on the data collected from reports or complaints from a variety of sources such as manufacturers, retailers, government agencies and consumers. Several authors used the database in their research primarily for analysis of microbial and chemical hazard [12–15]. Although there have been numerous studies conducted on high-risk pathogenic threats such as Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria, to our knowledge still there is a lack of research in food recalls focusing on physical hazards which are equally important to address. Food recalls analysis in food industry was performed in recent studies by Potter et al. [16] and Page [17] where the results revealed that the number of recalls regarding the physical hazard is less frequent than biological and chemical hazards. Therefore, the study and analysis on physical hazard is important, rendering possible the use as references for manufacturers to implement the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) program in order to predict the causes and implement preventive measures related to type of particular physical hazards and a particular type of food. Food recalls can cause significant economic losses in food industry and consumers also could lose their confidence in that product [18–20]. In this sense, the aim of this study is to provide a descriptive statistics of food recalls cases based on physical contamination occurring in Canada from the year 2014 to 2019. 2. Matherials and methods 2.1 Sampling The data were collected from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) website (http://www.inspection.gc.ca). The website showed that the food that had been recalled was due to biological, chemical and physical hazards. All notifications that were recorded in the website under the physical hazard category were extracted for the period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019. Within the records, the year, the food product category and type of foreign bodies were classified and tabulated in tables. All the degree classes of health risk which are class I, class II and class III are considered in the sampling data. 2.2 Statistical analysis The association between the year and the number of food recalls by product category and types of foreign bodies were evaluated using the global chi-square test and chi- http://www.inspection.gc.ca/ Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XIX, Issue 3 – 2020 Mohd Taufiq Mohd KHAIRI, Sallehuddin IBRAHIM, Mohd Amri Md YUNUS, Mahdi FARAMARZI, Jaysuman PUSPPANATHAN, Azwad ABID, Occurrence and assessment of physical contaminants based on food recalls in Canada, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XIX, Issue 3 – 2020, pag. 219 – 227 221 square per cell test [21]. The tests had been used in previous food safety studies for dairy foods [22] and moldy foods [23]. In this study, the test has been carried out to determine whether there are statistically significant differences between different types of food products, different types of foreign objects and year. The statistical processing was performed using XLSTAT 2019.2 software (Adinsoft, Paris, France) and the statistical level significance was set at α = 0.05. 3. Results and discussion In the period of 2014 - 2019, a total of 269 foods from CFIA under the category of physical hazard were recalled where the distribution by year is shown in Figure 1. The data show that the year 2016 has the highest number of food recalls with 58 cases. The trend of graph also revealed that the number of recalls have increased from the year 2014 to 2016 before it fell consecutively in 2017 and 2018. In 2019, the recalls number increased with 43 cases. The total of food recalls has been sorted into food categories as shown in the Figure 2. The statistic shows that the fruit and vegetable products have the highest number of recall notifications with 82 cases, followed by meat, poultry and seafood products (50 cases), other food products (35 cases), grain and cereals (29 cases) as well as candy and confectionary (20 cases). Other food products comprise foods such as soup, sauce, vinegar and baby food. Fig. 1: Number of foods recalls due to physical hazards from the year 2014 to 2019 Table 1 and Table 2 show the quantitative data from 2014 to 2019 for types of food products and types of foreign bodies, respectively. As computed with global chi- square test, there was no association between the year and the type of food product (observed χ2 = 47.909; critical χ2 = 72.153; p = 0.707) as well as types of foreign bodies (observed χ2 = 56.453; critical χ2 = 72.153; p = 0.383). The results show that the p-value for both tables are greater than the significance level α = 0.05. In Table 1, the chi-square test per cell shows similar citations for all types of food products except nut and bakery products throughout the years of study. A lower citation was observed in 2015 for breads/bakery products. In 2018 and 2019, lower citation was demonstrated for nut. High citations were revealed for breads and bakery with 7 cases in 2019. Overall, there was no significant difference in citations for all food products except for nut and breads/bakery products. Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XIX, Issue 3 – 2020 Mohd Taufiq Mohd KHAIRI, Sallehuddin IBRAHIM, Mohd Amri Md YUNUS, Mahdi FARAMARZI, Jaysuman PUSPPANATHAN, Azwad ABID, Occurrence and assessment of physical contaminants based on food recalls in Canada, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XIX, Issue 3 – 2020, pag. 219 – 227 222 Fig. 2: Number of foods recalls due to physical hazards for different food products The results of chi-square test per cell for the types of foreign bodies from 2014 to 2019 are shown in Table 2. Metal item indicated that it was the most significantly cited in 2014 and has a lower frequency of citation in 2015. It can also be observed that the item plastic did not reveal any significant differences of citations during the period of study. Glass and insects are noticeably less cited in 2017 and 2015, respectively. Fewer citations are also observed for bone in 2018 and rubber items in 2014 and 2019. Wood item indicated that it was significantly less cited in 2017 and 2018, while stone item shows the same results in 2014, 2016 and 2017. Finally, there was no significant difference in citations for unknown object throughout the years of study. Overall, food recalls caused by insects had shown the highest notification in 5 years with 81 cases, followed by metal (56 cases), plastic (50 cases), unknown object (25 cases) and glass (22 cases). The unknown object is considered as a solid object whose material cannot be identified. Table 1 Distribution of foreign bodies based on product type from the year 2014 to 2019 Product type Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Grain and cereals 2 7 10 3 3 4 29 Fruit and vegetables 13 8 18 20 14 9 82 Dairy 1 5 2 7 3 3 19 Meat, poultry and seafood 9 11 6 10 5 9 50 Nut 1 1 1 2 0(-)* 0(-)* 7 Breads and bakery 2 0(-)* 5 2 1 7(+)* 17 Wine and beverages 1 2 2 2 2 1 10 Candy and confectionery 1 3 2 7 3 2 20 Other food products 5 4 12 4 4 8 35 Total 35 41 58 57 35 43 269 * The effect of the chi-square per cell. (+) or (-) indicates that the observed value is higher or lower than the expected theoretical value. Significance level, α < 0.05. 29 82 19 50 7 17 10 20 35 0 20 40 60 80 100 N u m b e r o f fo o d r e c a ll s Food products Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XIX, Issue 3 – 2020 Mohd Taufiq Mohd KHAIRI, Sallehuddin IBRAHIM, Mohd Amri Md YUNUS, Mahdi FARAMARZI, Jaysuman PUSPPANATHAN, Azwad ABID, Occurrence and assessment of physical contaminants based on food recalls in Canada, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XIX, Issue 3 – 2020, pag. 219 – 227 223 Table 2 Distribution of types of foreign bodies from the year 2014 to 2019 Foreign bodies Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Metal 13(+)* 4(-)* 14 7 8 10 56 Plastic 8 11 8 14 4 5 50 Glass 3 4 5 1(-)* 5 4 22 Insects 6 7(-)* 20 23 13 12 81 Bone 1 3 2 5 0(-)* 6 17 Rubber 0(-)* 3 2 1 1 0(-)* 7 Wood 1 2 2 0(-)* 0(-)* 1 6 Stone 0(-)* 1 0(-)* 0(-)* 1 3 5 Unknown 3 6 5 6 3 2 25 Total 35 41 58 57 35 43 269 * The effect of the chi-square per cell. (+) or (-) indicates that the observed value is higher or lower than the expected theoretical value. Significance level, α < 0.05 In Table 3, a global chi-square test revealed that there is an association between food products and types of foreign bodies (observed χ2 = 190.512; critical χ2 = 103.010; p < 0.0001). As computed, the p-value is lower than the significance level α = 0.05. The results of chi-square per cell test for product and foreign body types are demonstrated in Table 3. The statistics revealed that grain and cereal products have low citation for wood item with no recall notification. Concerning fruits and vegetables, it is observed that insects are significantly more cited, and the other items show fewer citations except rubber and the unknown object. Dairy product presented a higher frequency of citation for plastic item and fewer citations for insects, bone, rubber, wood and stone. The citations for meat, poultry and seafood product are significantly higher for bone and significantly lower for glass, insects and stone. There is no recall notification regarding nut product for metal, glass, bone, rubber, wood, stone and unknown objects. For breads and bakery products, lower citations are observed for bone, rubber, wood, stone and unknown objects. Wine and beverages are markedly significantly higher for glass item and there are no complaints regarding plastic, bone, rubber, wood and stone. Candy and confectionery show low citation for glass, insects, bone and stone items. Finally, other food products exhibited a higher frequency of citations for glass items and fewer citations for bone and rubber items. The correlation between food products and the types of foreign bodies is interesting to analyse. Overall, insect items have the most recall notifications among food products, followed by metal and plastic items with 69, 46 and 45 cases, respectively. All types of foreign bodies have been reported in the period of studies except for wood in grain and cereals products. Insects such as ant, flies and larvae show the most recalls in the fruit and vegetable products with 47 cases. This is not surprising because insects are usually attracted to this kind of products. Sometimes, there are hidden or trapped in the product which is difficult to detect. Visual inspection systems such as Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XIX, Issue 3 – 2020 Mohd Taufiq Mohd KHAIRI, Sallehuddin IBRAHIM, Mohd Amri Md YUNUS, Mahdi FARAMARZI, Jaysuman PUSPPANATHAN, Azwad ABID, Occurrence and assessment of physical contaminants based on food recalls in Canada, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XIX, Issue 3 – 2020, pag. 219 – 227 224 conventional X-ray has difficulty in detecting insects because it cannot distinguish the difference between the density of the product and insects [24]. Terahertz and near-infrared techniques could be utilized to detect insects as reported in [25–27]. This kind of contamination has to be prevented and removed since it may bring along pathogens and germs. Table 3 Distribution of physical hazards incidence according to product and foreign bodies types Product Types Foreign bodies Metal Plastic Glass Insects Bone Rubber Wood Stone Unknown Total Grain and cereals 6 2 2 10 2 1 0(-)* 1 1 25 Fruits and vegetables 7(-)* 5(-)* 2(-)* 47(+)* 0(-)* 3 0(-)* 0(-)* 9 73 Dairy 5 8(+)* 1 1(-)* 0(-)* 0(-)* 0(-)* 0(-)* 3 18 Meat, poultry and seafood 13 10 0(-)* 1(-)* 9(+)* 2 2 0(-)* 4 41 Nut 0(-)* 3 0(-)* 2 0(-)* 0(-)* 0(-)* 0(-)* 0(-)* 5 Breads and bakery 3 5 1 1 0(-)* 0(-)* 0(-)* 0(-)* 0(-)* 10 Wine and beverages 1 0(-)* 5(+)* 1 0(-)* 0(-)* 0(-)* 0(-)* 2 9 Candy and confectionery 6 7 0(-)* 0(-)* 0(-)* 1 1 0(-)* 1 16 Other food products 5 5 7(+)* 6 0(-)* 0(-)* 2 1 3 29 Total 46 45 18 69 11 7 5 2 23 226 * The effect of the chi-square per cell. (+) or (-) indicates that the observed value is higher or lower than the expected theoretical value. Significance level, α < 0.05. For dairy products, plastic is the most frequent foreign body that leads to recall notifications with 8 cases, followed by metal with 5 cases. Plastic fragments may exist through packing debris, equipment and pallets. Several techniques that can be used to detect plastic materials are the filtering method [28], ultrasound [29] and hyperspectral imaging [30]. The conventional X-ray may not be appropriate to utilize since X-ray has a limitation in detecting low-density materials like insects and plastic. However, Li et al. [24] and Einarsdóttir et al. [31] have proposed a solution on this issue by introducing the polycapillary X-ray lens and grating-based multimodal X-ray imaging. Metal has been mostly found in meat, poultry and seafood products which subsequently lead to recall warning. The existence of metal might be due to fragments from chopping tools and machine equipment parts [32]. Bone had been observably getting more citations in this type of food product where the source might come from the raw materials itself such as bones in fish or meat. It may due to the imperfect separation process between fish/meat and bone. Metal and bone items could be distinguished using visual inspection such as Near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy [33] and hyperspectral imaging (HSI) technique [34]. The presence of metal also can be prevented by utilizing low cost techniques such as metal or magnet detection system [35]. The food recalls for nut and bakery products is mostly due to plastic debris with 3 and 5 Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XIX, Issue 3 – 2020 Mohd Taufiq Mohd KHAIRI, Sallehuddin IBRAHIM, Mohd Amri Md YUNUS, Mahdi FARAMARZI, Jaysuman PUSPPANATHAN, Azwad ABID, Occurrence and assessment of physical contaminants based on food recalls in Canada, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XIX, Issue 3 – 2020, pag. 219 – 227 225 cases have been reported, respectively. Whereas, broken glass was frequently found in wine and beverages as well as other food products. It may be due to broken containers and jars that are used to fill up the product [36]. Imaging techniques such as thermal imaging [37], ultrasound [38] and terahertz [39] are suitable to be applied for monitoring this kind of products since it is non-invasive and suitable be use in the production line. With regard to candy and confectionery product, plastic and metal materials had contributed to the food recall with 7 and 6 cases, respectively. These items probably originated from the packaging material and machinery parts. Early detection and removal of foreign bodies are important to maintain good manufacturing practice. Preventive measures for the presence of foreign bodies can be divided into three main categories stages; plant/raw material, processing and final product. Pest control implementation can prevent pesticides from attacking the raw materials [40]. The use of technology such as sieving and filtration system to detect foreign bodies can be applied in food plant and food processing environment. Periodic training should be given to employees in handling the process of food production and monitor by supervisors [41]. Employees must be always reminded to practice good personal hygiene such as keep hand’s clean, short fingernails, avoid wearing jewellery and wearing clean clothes. Food products are usually packed and located in the final production line. Therefore, visual inspection technologies such as X-ray, hyperspectral and ultrasound imaging systems are best suited to be utilized to ensure food is completely free from foreign materials [42]. The imaging systems have several advantages such as non-invasive and non-destructive, able to operate in real-time and provide high imaging resolution. However, not all companies especially in small scale industry are afforded to utilize it due to the high cost [43]. 4. Conclusion The findings show that food recalls due to the incidence of physical contaminants is relatively small compared to biological and chemical contaminants; still, it should not be neglected. Food recall is a vital action to ensure that all the affected products are removed from the market as soon as possible. Detection techniques especially visual inspection play important role in ensuring the highest safety and quality level regardless of the food product type. Authorities need to make periodic inspections to ensure that the manufacturers comply with the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for handling food. The food adulteration due to foreign bodies can be avoided with the cooperation and endeavour of all the parties involved. 5. Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia under the MyBrain15 program and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia for providing the research grants 15H85 and 4J255 which enabled this research to be carried out. Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XIX, Issue 3 – 2020 Mohd Taufiq Mohd KHAIRI, Sallehuddin IBRAHIM, Mohd Amri Md YUNUS, Mahdi FARAMARZI, Jaysuman PUSPPANATHAN, Azwad ABID, Occurrence and assessment of physical contaminants based on food recalls in Canada, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XIX, Issue 3 – 2020, pag. 219 – 227 226 6. References [1] A. LIU, L. SHEN, Y. TAN, Z. ZENG, Y. LIU, C. LI, Food integrity in China: Insights from the national food spot check data in 2016, Food Control, 84: 403–407, (2018). [2] N.A. ABDUL-MUTALIB, A.N. SYAFINAZ, K. SAKAI, Y. SHIRAI, An overview of foodborne illness and food safety in Malaysia, Int. Food Res. J, 22(3): 896–901, (2015). [3] M.C. EDWARDS, M.F. STRINGER, T.B. IN F.S. GROUP, Observations on patterns in foreign material investigations, Food Control, 18(7): 773– 782, (2007). [4] C.A. BATT, Chemical and physical hazards in food, Ref. Modul. Food Sci, 1–2, (2016). [5] I. DJEKIC, D. JANKOVIC, A. RAJKOVIC, ANALYSIS OF FOREIGN BODIES PRESENT IN EUROPEAN FOOD USING DATA FROM RAPID ALERT SYSTEM FOR FOOD AND FEED (RASFF), Food Control, 79: 143–149, (2017). [6] E.C. MATTOS, V.S.M.G. DAROS, R. DAL COL, A.L. NASCIMENTO, Occurrence of foreign matter in food: Applied identification method- association of official agricultural Chemists (AOAC) and food and Drug Administration (FDA), Int. J. Biol. Biomol. Agric. Food Biotechnol. Eng, 10(3): 101–105, (2016). [7] A.R. OLSEN, Regulatory action criteria for filth and other extraneous materials. I. Review of hard or sharp foreign objects as physical hazards in food., Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 28(3): 181–189, (1998). [8] FDA COMPLIANCE POLICY GUIDANCE, CPG Sec. 555.425 Foods, Adulteration Involving hard or Sharp Foreign Objects, 1–3, (2005). [9] M. GRAVES, A. SMITH, B. BATCHELOR, Approaches to foreign body detection in foods, Trends Food Sci. Technol, 9: 21–27, (1998). [10] D. PEARISO, Preventing foreign material contamination of foods, Blackwell Publishing, Iowa, USA, 2006. [11] M.T.M. KHAIRI, S. IBRAHIM, M.A.M. YUNUS, M. FARAMARZI, Noninvasive techniques for detection of foreign bodies in food: A review, J. Food Process Eng, 41(6): 1–20, (2018). [12] S. WONG, D. STREET, S.I. DELGADO, K.C. KLONTZ, Recalls of foods and cosmetics due to microbial contamination reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, J. Food Prot, 63(8): 1113–1116, (2000). [13] X. SHANG, G.T. TONSOR, Food safety recall effects across meat products and regions, Food Policy. 69: 145–153, (2017). [14] R. TERATANAVAT, N.H. HOOKER, Understanding the characteristics of US meat and poultry recalls: 1994-2002, Food Control, 15(5): 359–367, (2004). [15] S. PARAMITHIOTIS, E.H. DROSINOS, P.N. SKANDAMIS, Food recalls and warnings due to the presence of foodborne pathogens — a focus on fresh fruits, vegetables, dairy and eggs, Curr. Opin. Food Sci, 18: 71–75, (2017). [16] A. POTTER, J. MURRAY, B. LAWSON, S. GRAHAM, Trends in product recalls within the agri-food industry: Empirical evidence from the USA, UK and the Republic of Ireland, Trends Food Sci. Technol, 28(2): 77–86, (2012). [17] E.T. PAGE, Trends in Food Recalls: 2004-13, EIB-191, U.S. Dep. Agric. Econ. Res. Serv. (2018). [18] V.F. POZO, T.C. SCHROEDER, Evaluating the costs of meat and poultry recalls to food firms using stock returns, Food Policy, 59: 66–77, (2016). [19] O. UNSAL, M.K. HASSAN, D. ZIREK, Product recalls and security prices: New evidence from the US market, J. Econ. Bus. 93: 62–79, (2017). [20] D. KONG, L. SHI, Z. YANG, Product recalls, corporate social responsibility, and firm value: Evidence from the Chinese food industry, Food Policy, 83: 60–69, (2018). [21] R. SYMONEAUX, M. V. GALMARINI, E. MEHINAGIC, Comment analysis of consumer’s likes and dislikes as an alternative tool to preference mapping. A case study on apples, Food Qual. Prefer, 24(1): 59–66, (2012). [22] R.S. AGUIAR, E.A. ESMERINO, R.S. ROCHA, T.C. PIMENTEL, V.O. ALVARENGA, M.Q. FREITAS, M.C. SILVA, A.S. SANT’ANA, A.C.O. SILVA, A.G. CRUZ, Physical hazards in dairy products: Incidence in a consumer complaint website in Brazil, Food Control, 86: 66–70, (2018). [23] J.G. LEMOS, M.V. GARCIA, R. DE O. MELLO, M.V. COPETTI, Consumers complaints about moldy foods in a Brazilian website, Food Control, 92: 380–385, (2018). [24] F. LI, Z. LIU, T. SUN, Y. MA, X. DING, Confocal three-dimensional micro X-ray scatter imaging for non-destructive detecting foreign bodies with low density and low-Z materials in food products, Food Control, 54: 120–125, (2015). [25] G.J. KIM, J.-I. KIM, S.-G. JEON, J. KIM, K.- K. PARK, C.-H. OH, Enhanced continuous-wave terahertz imaging with a horn antenna for food Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefan cel Mare University - Suceava Volume XIX, Issue 3 – 2020 Mohd Taufiq Mohd KHAIRI, Sallehuddin IBRAHIM, Mohd Amri Md YUNUS, Mahdi FARAMARZI, Jaysuman PUSPPANATHAN, Azwad ABID, Occurrence and assessment of physical contaminants based on food recalls in Canada, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XIX, Issue 3 – 2020, pag. 219 – 227 227 inspection, J. Infrared, Millimeter, Terahertz Waves, 33(6): 657–664, (2012). [26] G. OK, H.J. KIM, H.S. CHUN, S.W. CHOI, Foreign-body detection in dry food using continuous sub-terahertz wave imaging, Food Control, 42: 284–289, (2014). [27] K. BHUVANESWARI, P.G. FIELDS, N.D.G. WHITE, A.K. SARKAR, C.B. SINGH, D.S. JAYAS, Image analysis for detecting insect fragments in semolina, J. Stored Prod. Res, 47(1): 20–24, (2011). [28] FDA ADMINISTRATION, HAZARDS & CONTROLS GUIDE FOR DAIRY FOODS HACCP, (2007). [29] M.T.M. KHAIRI, S. IBRAHIM, M.A.M. YUNUS, M. FARAMARZI, Ultrasonic tomography for detecting foreign objects in refrigerated milk cartons, Int. J. Dairy Technol, 71(4): 1–7, (2018). [30] A.A. GOWEN, C.P. O’DONNELL, P.J. CULLEN, G. DOWNEY, J.M. FRIAS, Hyperspectral imaging - an emerging process analytical tool for food quality and safety control, Trends Food Sci. Technol, 18(12): 590–598, (2007). [31] H. EINARSDÓTTIR, M.J. EMERSON, L.H. CLEMMENSEN, K. SCHERER, K. WILLER, M. BECH, R. LARSEN, B.K. ERSBØLL, F. PFEIFFER, Novelty detection of foreign objects in food using multi-modal X-ray imaging, Food Control, 67: 39–47, (2016). [32] E.D. VAN ASSELT, H.J. VAN DER FELS- KLERX, H.J.P. MARVIN, H. VAN BOKHORST- VAN DE VEEN, M.N. GROOT, Overview of food safety hazards in the european dairy supply chain, Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf, 16: 59–75, (2017). [33] P. PALLAV, G.G. DIAMOND, D.A. HUTCHINS, R.J. GREEN, T.H. GAN, A near- infrared (NIR) technique for imaging food materials, J. Food Sci, 74(1): 23–33, (2009). [34] S.C. YOON, K.C. LAWRENCE, D.P. SMITH, B. PARK, W.R. WINDHAM, Bone fragment detection in chicken breast fillets using transmittance image enhancement, Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 51(1): 331–339, (2008). [35] M.C. EDWARDS, Detecting foreign bodies in food, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, England, (2004). [36] E. HAEGGSTROM, M. LUUKKALA, Ultrasound detection and identification of foreign bodies in food products, Food Control, 12: 37–45, (2001). [37] L. SENNI, M. RICCI, A. PALAZZI, P. BURRASCANO, P. PENNISI, F. GHIRELLI, On- line automatic detection of foreign bodies in biscuits by infrared thermography and image processing, J. Food Eng, 128: 146–156, (2014). [38] P. PALLAV, D.A. HUTCHINS, T.H. GAN, Air-coupled ultrasonic evaluation of food materials, Ultrasonics, 49: 244–253, (2009). [39] C. JÖRDENS, M. KOCH, Detection of foreign bodies in chocolate with pulsed terahertz spectroscopy, Opt. Eng, 47(3): 37003, (2008). [40] K. V. KOTSANOPOULOS, I.S. ARVANITOYANNIS, The role of auditing, food safety, and food quality standards in the food industry: A review, Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf, 00: 1–16, (2017). [41] M. NEIO DEMIRCI, J.M. SOON, C.A. WALLACE, Positioning food safety in Halal assurance, Food Control, 70: 257–270, (2016). [42] Q. CHEN, C. ZHANG, J. ZHAO, Q. OUYANG, Recent advances in emerging imaging techniques for non-destructive detection of food quality and safety, Trends Anal. Chem, 52: 261– 274, (2013). [43] M. EDWARDS, Other Significant Hazards: Physical Hazards in Foods, in: Encycl. Food Saf., Elsevier Ltd., 117–123, (2014). 1. Introduction 4. Conclusion