Dar seafood ppp standard

Division 3 – Harvesting and other requirements for bivalve molluscs
Incorporation of ASQAP directly into the Standard – the legal issues
Two submissions suggested that the Standard should incorporate ASQAP either by reference or by incorporation of the text of ASQAP.
Division 3 now references ASQAP in a way that is legally supportable.
Discussions will also be held with ASQAAC and the ISC in regard to ASQAP and the ongoing role of ASQAAC in maintaining the manual.
Clause 15 Definitions – SSCA, spat, bivalve molluscs
‘relaying’
It was suggested in one submission to modify the definition of relaying, specifically to remove the words ‘by using the ambient temperature as a treatment process’, as the remaining words adequately convey the intent.
The drafting has been amended accordingly.
‘bivalve molluscs’
The definition of ‘bivalve molluscs’ as drafted for the DAR excluded both scallops and pearl oysters where the only part consumed is the adductor muscle. Some submissions have questioned if is valid scientific evidence to support the exclusion, and pointed out that the ASQAP Manual does not exclude pearl meat in its definition of bivalve molluscs. In other submissions, the pearl industry indicated that they supported the exclusion of the meat, and provided scientific data on heavy metal analysis to support their stance in the two submissions received. They also submitted a proposal for a study into biotoxin accumulation and indicated that they were going to approach ASQAAC to request they change their definition to exclude pearl meat. The study is yet to commence.
Further, during a jurisdiction consultation session, SA advised that another bivalve mollusc, razorfish, is marketed for its adductor muscle only. It was suggested to make the exemption more general to include all current and future scenarios where the only part of the product consumed is the adductor muscle.
Following receipt of the submissions to the draft assessment report, discussions were held between representatives of the Western Australia pearl industry, the WA Departments of Health and Fisheries and FSANZ on the issue of whether to retain the exclusion for pearl meat.
In January 2005, a meeting of the Risk Assessment Working Group for the Seafood Primary Production and Processing standard was convened to discuss the issue.  After considering the scientific issues for pearl meat, application of the risk ranking methodology to algal biotoxins in pearl meat led to a relative risk ranking of Medium on a whole-of-population  basis. It was noted that considerable levels of uncertainty surrounded the ranking for the consuming population due to the lack of scientific literature relating to prevalence, concentration and distribution of algal biotoxins in pearl oysters. It is understood that the industry is prepared to undertake a suitable scientific study to remove the major point of uncertainty. The study will be undertaken in consultation with FSANZ and biotoxin experts during the two year period leading up to the standard taking effect.
It was recommended by the Risk Assessment Working Group that the Seafood Standards Development Committee examine specific management strategies for pearl meat. It was recommended and agreed that on the basis of the relative risk ranking of Medium for pearl oyster meat, that the exclusion of pearl oyster meat from the specific requirements of the Seafood Primary Production and Processing Standard should remain.
‘spat’
It was indicated that spat is being sold in some QLD establishments as bottled oysters. Where this is the case, under the definition it would not be ‘spat’, and therefore the requirements for bivalve molluscs would apply.
For greater clarity, the definition of spat was redefined to clearly spell out that it is product taken solely for the purpose of ongrowing. In addition, an Editorial Note was added to state that if spat are sold for human consumption, then the product falls within the definition of ‘bivalve mollusc’ and the requirements of Division 3 for bivalve molluscs apply.
‘SSCA’
A number of jurisdictions commented that this definition is not appropriate, as it would require the creation of a new agency. It was noted that the agencies responsible for implementing ASQAP vary from State to State across Australia.
Legally, the definition was not acceptable because it attempted to limit the definition to those agencies that perform certain functions of a corresponding nature to those specified in the ASQAP manual. This type of definition has been held to be unenforceable (Gibbs v FCT per Barwick CJ (1966) 118 CLR 628 at 635).
The definition was changed such that it could be legally implemented. References to ‘SSCA’ were changed to ‘Authority’, and a definition of ‘Authority’ – ‘means the State, Territory or Commonwealth government agency or agencies having the legal authority to implement and enforce this Division’ – was included in Clause 15 Interpretation.
‘growing on’ and ‘wet storage’
It was noted in two submissions that these terms are used in the Division and it was suggested they need defining.
Definitions of both of these terms were included in the list of definitions in Clause 15 Interpretation.
‘batch’
Clause 19 on co-mingling referred to ‘lots’. One submission suggested this should be ‘batch’ with an appropriate definition.
A definition of ‘batch’ was added to the list of definitions in Clause 15 Interpretation.