Relaying: suggests deletion of the words ‘..by using the ambient environment as a treatment process..’ as remaining words convey intent. [PIRSA]
Suggests definition of ongrowing is included, such as the ASQAP definition, as this term is referred to in definition of spat. [QLD DPI & Fisheries]
Spat: suggests deletion of the words ‘..not immediately intended for human consumption..’ as remaining words convey intent. [PIRSA]
Believes mandatory requirements should include spat with the exclusion of those bivalves where only the adductor muscle is eaten. The inclusion of spat will aid in traceability of relayed spat across borders. Spat is also processed in SE QLD as bistro and bottled oysters for human consumption. [QLD Health]
The definition of oysters needs to include spat. [Safe Food QLD]
Suggests deleting the reference to pearl oyster flesh from the definition of bivalve molluscs, as there is no evidence to support this in terms of heavy metals and biotoxin safety. [PIRSA]
Suggests changing bivalve molluscs to: ‘but excludes scallops where the only part of the product consumed is the adductor muscle, and spat.’ [PIRSA]
Seeks confirmation from FSANZ that there is sufficient scientific justification for the exemption of pearl oysters from the provisions specific to bivalve molluscs such as having biotoxin management plans. [Dept Health & Human Services Tas]
Questions the exclusion of pearl oyster meat from definition of bivalve molluscs. Differs from ASQAP Operations Manual. [QLD DPI & Fisheries]
Recommends to not exclude pearl oyster adductor muscle meat from the definition of bivalve molluscs until toxin work has been done and endorsed by ASQAAC. [Dept Health & Human Services Tas]
Seeks confirmation from FSANZ that there is sufficient scientific justification to exempt pearl oysters from the provisions specific to bivalve molluscs. [NSW Food Authority]
Questions were raised over the basis for excluding pearl meat (gut removed) from the definition of bivalve molluscs. [NT *]
Supports current exclusion of pearl oyster meat from bivalve molluscs. Provides supporting heavy metal analysis and biotoxin study proposal. [Paspaley Pearling]
Supports the definition of bivalve molluscs excluding pearl oyster adductor meat. Notes that the SDC decided that the definition by ASQAP was flawed. Will put argument to ASQAAC to change definition on basis of FSANZ risk assessment. Should the definition be changed, PPA would require opportunity to consider and formally comment or take further action. [Pearl Producers Assoc]
In SA a mollusc called ‘razorfish’ is marketed for its adductor muscle only. It is not harvested for sale in SA, but product from NSW and Victoria is sold on the SA market. Suggested that the definition of bivalve mollusc might need to be changed to include razorfish as well as pearl oysters and scallops. Alternatively, the definition could altered to be less specific e.g. ‘where only the adductor muscle and not the viscera is sold and consumed’. [SA *]
The words of Clause 15 mean the bivalve molluscs are extended beyond the definition of ‘primary production of seafood’ and also conflict with the words under the table in clause 20. Suggests deletion of the following words from the definition of bivalve molluscs in Clause 15: ‘..either shucked or in the shell, fresh or frozen,…..or processed…’.[PIRSA]
The word ‘processed’ in the definition of bivalve molluscs appears unwarranted particularly where there is reference to ‘shucked’ product. Definition also seems out of context with (c) of the Editorial note, which defines ‘primary food production’. [QLD Health]
Suggests added definition to Clause 15: ‘Batches – means a quantity of food which is harvested, depurated or handled from the same lease number with the same lease date’. [Melshell Oysters] (Relates to co-mingling)
Suggests addition of definition of wet storage to aid clarity: ‘Wet storage means the temporary storage of shellfish from classified areas in containers or tanks containing natural or artificial seawater for purposes other than depuration. Wet storage may be used to purge sand.’ [PIRSA]
The SSCA will need to be reworded as QLD does not have such a body and this does impose a new agency on QLD. [Safe Food QLD]
Suggests the addition of words to indicate general criteria for judging equivalence of ‘an equivalent manual’ in the definition of Manual. [DAFF]
Typographic errors: ‘control and relaying’ should read ‘and control relaying’, and in line 4, ‘that is contaminate or has’ should read ‘that are contaminated and have’. [Aust Food & Grocery Council]
16 Harvesting bivalve molluscs for human consumption
17 Harvesting bivalve molluscs for depuration or relaying
Clause 5(2) adequately addresses the issue of harvesting seafood only from ‘safe areas’. Clauses 16 and 17 duplicate this requirement in much unnecessary detail for bivalve molluscs. [Laister Consulting]
It takes 2 years to classify an area for collection, therefore new leases will be unable to sell and wild shellfish fisheries will have to close until classified. Suggests Clauses 16 and 17 be amended by adding: ‘(d) is undergoing classification and has the approval of the appropriate authority, subject to specified conditions’ [PIRSA]
Standard requires bivalve molluscs to be harvested from areas that have been classified subject to a marine biotoxin management plan. This will impact on QLD wild oyster industry. [QLD DPI & Fisheries]
Requirement for a marine biotoxin program and classification of areas for ‘wild’ oyster harvesting areas will be too onerous and uneconomical for NQLD harvesters. [QLD Health]
Clause 5(2) adequately addresses the issue of harvesting seafood only from ‘safe areas’. Clauses 16 and 17 duplicate this requirement in much unnecessary detail for bivalve molluscs. Believe the reference to SSCA requirements may place unnecessary financial burden on small fishermen. [Laister Consulting]
The issue of the practicality of biotoxin testing at remote sites was raised. [WA *]
There is an issue with producers not being able to sell product prior to classification of the waters by WASQAP. This is particularly an issue in remote areas. [WA *]
The SSCA is a term in the ASQAP Manual. May be difficulty using SSCA as defined as legal entity in legislation. Suggests the term ‘SSCA’ is replaced with ‘appropriate authority’ or ‘controlling authority’. [PIRSA]
Believe the reference to SSCA requirements may place unnecessary financial burden on small fishermen. [Laister Consulting]
18 Wet storage of bivalve molluscs
Questions need to list this item separately given seafood businesses are required to have a food safety program based on HACCP, which will identify all hazards. Recommend the clause be deleted. [Laister Consulting]
Clause 18(b) appears unnecessary. ‘Effectively disinfected’ is a means of achieving required water quality, which is already specified in 18(a). [NSW Food Authority]
The meaning of ‘those conditions’ in Clause 18(a) is not clear and requires clarification. Questions if it means the quality parameters of water required for the area to be classified as one of the statuses referred to in Clause 16. Also questions if it was intentional to infer that water used to be actually sourced from an area that has an acceptable status rather than a quality standard. [NSW Food Authority]
Typographical error: Subclause 18(a) – the word ‘must’ should precede the word ‘continue’ at the start of the second line. [Aust Food & Grocery Council]
No wet storage of bivalve molluscs. [QLD DPI & Fisheries]
19 Co-mingling of bivalve molluscs
Questions need to list this item separately given seafood businesses are required to have a food safety program based on HACCP, which will identify all hazards. Recommends that the clause be deleted.[Laister Consulting]
Strongly supports Clause 19, and states that it will be important to have labelling requirements on the product through to the retail end. [Dept Health & Human Services Tas]
Co-mingling is a major concern for SA, as oysters from SA, Victoria and NSW are often combined and rumbled together (a form of washing). [SA *]
There was agreement on the need for the clause and the meeting noted that this did not include lower risk product. [VIC *]
Clause for co-mingling as it stands will not aid in tracing product to origin. The lease number and harvest date is critical information. Suggests definition of batches (see above clause 15). [Melshell Oysters]
Suggests changing Clause 19 to: ‘For the purposes of clause 11, each batch of bivalve molluscs harvested must be separated in a manner that prevents co-mingling of batches’. [Melshell Oysters]
Not sure how far down the supply chain Clause 19 is meant to apply as it is not in Chapter 3 of the Code i.e. is the intent for co-mingling to be permitted beyond primary production? [NSW Seafood Industry Conference]
It is not clear how far down the supply chain the prohibition on co-mingling is intended to apply, given that it is not in Chapter 3. Seeks rationale on this. Reiterates need for clear definition of ‘primary production’. [NSW Food Authority]
Standard should ensure that co-mingling is not permitted in the market place. [Tas Fishing Industry Council]
20 Specific seafood safety management systems
This Clause is in Division 3, which is specific for bivalve molluscs hence the table could be removed. Or, as the Clause and table are structured for future flexibility so that other categories could be added, then, Clause 20 should be shifted out of Division 3 and placed after Clause 15 in the General section. [PIRSA]
The Clause should be amended to refer to the ‘Export Control (Processed Food) Orders’. [DAFF]
The Editorial note provides a list of acceptable systems. Believes reference to at least 3.2.1 should be put in Clause 20 (and preferably Export Control Orders too) as the editorial notes are not enforceable. Also notes that 3.2.1 refers to ‘food safety programs’ whereas this standard refers to ‘safety management systems’. Inconsistency in terms may cause confusion. [Laister Consulting]
Suggests strengthening the Clause with the addition of words to the effect that ‘the effectiveness of the controls should be scientifically validated’. [DAFF]
This provision should relate to any and all activities or species that must be covered by the Standard and as such it should be in Division 4 rather than in Division 3, which specifically covers bivalve molluscs and so is superfluous in this division. The table should be part of defining the extent that there is a regulated need for a standard e.g. high risk foods or processes. [SA Fishing Industry Council]
Options – Supports Option 3 and/or Standard
Agrees with Option 3. [Food Tech Assoc of Vic]
Endorses Standard in its current form; recommends Option 3 be adopted. [Tas Fishing Industry Council]
Applauds introduction of nationally mandated standard for seafood industry. [Melshell Oysters]
Although AFG would prefer to see mandatory food safety programs in all areas of primary production, they support option three. [Aust Food & Grocery Council]
Strongly supports the requirement for all bivalve mollusc businesses to have food safety management systems. [Dept Health & Human Services Tas]
Supports option 3, using wording from p 8 as opposed to page 35. [QLD Health]
Supports preferred Regulatory Option 3. Agrees that higher-risk seafood should require greater level of safety management and regulation. Does not believe that lower risk products should be exempt from implementing food safety schemes. [Aust Consumers’ Assoc]
Supports draft variation of the Code as detailed in Attachment 1. [Seafood Services Aust]
Supportive of this proposal. [Dept of Health WA]
Endorses a national regulatory approach with consistency across jurisdictions to the management of seafood safety [DAFF].
The discussion after the presentation indicated support for the proposed measure. [NT *]
There is general agreement on the need for basic food safety requirements and general support for the proposed measure. [TAS *]
Options – does not support Option 3 and/or Standard
The priority should be to introduce Option 2 and apply uniformly to domestic and imported, and only when successfully implemented, move on to Option 3. [Private - Ms Halais]
SA supports only mandatory requirements for bivalve molluscs with the requirements for the remaining seafood businesses being gazetted as a voluntary standard. States that if the primary production sector supports the implementation of the standard, then SA would not opposed implementation of 4.2.1 for non-shellfish primary seafood production. [PIRSA]
Supports application of a seafood safety standard provided the standard prescribes requirements only for the management of high risk products. Proposed standard should be gazetted as voluntary code for all other seafood sectors. Preferred option is Option 2, but with the capacity to include other species/sectors if there is agreement to cover high risk products or where sectors are seeking mandatory framework at national level. [SA Fishing Industry Council]
Exclusion of mandatory fish names from the Standard
WAFIC calls for a National Fish Names List and fines for fish substitution to be included in the PPP Standard for Seafood. [WAFIC]
Believes the exclusion of the fish names from this standard misses the point with traceability. It would make sense to include reference to fish names in this primary producer’s standard. Reference could be amended if an Australian Standard is developed. [Laister Consulting]
States that clearly on the record is the agreement that Fish Names would not be included in the standard on the proviso that an acceptable method is found to ensure that Imports are controlled. Believes no such advice has been given and agreement is in jeopardy. Subject to resolution, compliance and enforcement issues will need to be addresses. [Fishy Business, Tigrey]
Recommends the adoption of common fish names either in the Food Product Standard section of the Code or within the proposed PPPS (P265). [NSW Seafood Industry Conference]
Believes in the mandating of the use of the book of Approved Fish Names, via the Seafood Standard to prevent misleading or deceptive conduct. However, if FSANZ believes matter is best dealt with under TPA, then notes the development of the Australian Standard should be supported and resourced and occur with a reasonable time frame. [Coles Myer]
Believes mandatory fish names list will meet all three of the FSANZ objectives and has a place in the Code. Prepared to accept the compromise position of the development via Standards Australia. [Aust Consumers’ Assoc]
States that standardised Fish Names should be mandatory in the Code and that this is consistent with the objectives of the FSANZ Act. Welcomes the assurance by FSANZ that once the AS process is complete, that a process for enforcing the use of fish names is implemented. [Seafood Services Aust]
The exclusion of fish names from the standard was seen as contradictory in that fish names is regarded by some as one of the biggest health issues (e.g. identification of escolar). [SA *]
Consistent implementation across the jurisdictions
Concerned that individual states will interpret the standard differently e.g. the problem of Tasmanian bivalve molluscs not being accepted by Victorian processes may arise. [Melshell Oysters]
Believes the concept of a national standard may be lost unless FSANZ and all Ministers work through the issues of interpretation of regulation, fee charging, audit strategies etc. [Fishy Business, Tigrey]
Notes that there is already evidence of the scope for inconsistent application at the State level. Asks FSANZ to be involved during implementation of the standard at state level to ensure the intended outcomes of a nationally consistent food safety standard. [Seafood Services Aust]
All regulations and standards regarding food standards in Australia must be uniform between States and Territories. [SA Freight Council]
Believes that FSANZ should carry out a survey before the standard is actioned, taking real examples, and analysing the costs. Examples should be revisited over a 3 to 5 year period to ensure success with level playing field. [Fishy Business, Tigrey]
Believes consideration should be given to applying the food safety program requirements to the entire sector around Australia in the interests of consistency and in order to overcome any internal trade barriers. [Laister Consulting]
Notes the potential for inconsistency of enforcement across the States. [DAFF]
Questions how consistent implementation of national standards is undertaken in Australia. [NZ Food Safety Authority]
There were concerns about the potential for inconsistent implementation of the standard across the States/Territories e.g. in terms of licensing fees. [SA *]
The major issue raised by industry was about the lack of consistency in implementation of the standard across states and territories and the impact this had on industry and competition. [VIC *]
The NSW Food Authority was keen to ensure that the national and NSW approaches were consistent. [NSW *]
The issue of consistent enforcement by the States and Territories was raised. [TAS *]
Concerns were raised about the cost of implementation for Victoria seafood businesses and whether those supplying to Victoria would need to meet similar licensing requirements. [WA *]
