Dar seafood ppp standard

4.5.2 Lower risk seafood

The majority of seafood commodities were ranked as presenting a lower public health risk than bivalve molluscs and cold-smoked finfish. The lower risk seafood products, when grouped together, do contribute to the overall level of food-borne illness and therefore have an impact on public health and safety. Because of the continuing burden this will have on the community and the consequent costs it imposes, there is an argument for the introduction of basic measures, at low cost, across the seafood industry that would have a broad impact in improving public health and maintaining the high level of consumer confidence in the consumption of seafood.

The existing food safety provisions in the Code recognise that good hygienic practices and pre-requisite programs must apply to all food businesses (other than primary production) to ensure a basic level of food safety for all food. Codex, in its General Principles of Food Hygiene¹⁷, also takes the approach that the primary production and processing of all food must meet basic requirements of food safety. The work of both the WHO and Codex indicates that reducing the hazards introduced at the primary end of the food supply chain will minimise food safety hazards at the later stages of the food chain.¹⁸ The approach in Standards 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 of the Code that mandate minimum requirements for food safety do not apply to businesses in the primary production and processing sector - they apply to manufacturers through to retailers.
The various voluntary industry codes of practice and industry guidelines, in some cases, do pick up such requirements, but national consistency of coverage would be improved through the introduction of a single national scheme.
Therefore, there is a strong case to extend the basic food safety provisions of the Code throughout the primary production and processing supply chain to ensure there are basic food safety practices underpinning the production of all food, rather than at just one end of the supply chain. Some of the medium risk products may benefit from more specific risk management strategies; however, these may vary according to geographic/climatic and other factors, as well as existing jurisdictional and industry infrastructures. For this reason, the proposed Standard does not prescribe a documented seafood safety management system for the lower risk products as for oysters and other bivalve molluscs. Nevertheless, the Standard requires a seafood business to systematically examine all its primary production operations to identify potential seafood safety hazards and implement controls that are commensurate with the food safety risks. The extent of hazard identification, implementation of control measures and verification required should also be commensurate with the level of food safety risk involved. This is most appropriately determined by jurisdictions in consultation with industry, taking account of local environmental factors. Where possible, jurisdictions should use national forums such as the Implementation Subcommittee (ISC) of the Food Regulation Standing Committee to develop nationally consistent approaches to verification.

One example of a specific risk management strategy that is required is in relation to escolar (or rudderfish), where specific advice may be required at the retail and consumer level to advise people of the risk of consuming wax esters that are found in this fish.