Dar seafood ppp standard

Attachment 6B

Summary of Submissions by Issue at Draft Assessment

Clause	Comments made in submissions
Standard 3.2.1
Standard 3.2.1	As the intent is to have 3.2.1 sit alongside of 4.2.1, suggests the addition of the words: ‘other than the primary production of bivalve molluscs’ after ‘handling of bivalve molluscs’ in the table to 2(2)b for 3.2.1. [PIRSA] SA supports the splitting of requirements for shellfish businesses between standards 3.2.1 and 4.2.1 and the imposition of food safety programs (standard 3.2.1) on shellfish businesses up to the back door of retail. [PIRSA] The split between applications of 4.2.1 and 3.2.1 needs to be based on the definition of ‘primary food production’ in the current Food Act and then consistent with the definition of ‘primary production of seafood’ in standard 4.2.1. [PIRSA]
Standard 4.2.1
1 Application	Recommends removal of the words ‘and processing’ from the title as processing is not ordinarily associated with primary production and no definition is provided in 4.2.1 to differentiate this from the word ‘process’ in 3.2.2. [Laister Consulting] Questioned where the post-harvest requirements would commence. Identified three States that currently have post-harvest food safety requirements. [TAS *]
	The seafood standard should not apply to retail. Supports introduction of the proposed standard from harvest up to but not including retail. [Coles Myer]
	There are concerns in SA that Indigenous fishers may be entitled to higher bag limits than recreational fishers, and then may engage in trade/exchange with other groups. Although trade would be considered selling, and therefore should be covered under retail, the definition may need to be more explicit about this activity. [SA *]
2 Interpretation	Definition of FROZEN, THERMAL CENTRE, THAWED, CHILLED Suggests removal of ‘…has been changed into a different state by the reduction in temperature and...’ from the definition of frozen seafood. [PIRSA] Suggest the definitions for ‘frozen seafood’, ‘thermal centre of seafood’ and ‘thawing’ (thawed) be removed. [PIRSA] The meaning of ‘changed into a different state’ is not clear for the definition of frozen. [NSW Food Authority] Recommends the definitions for chilled seafood, frozen seafood and thermal centre of seafood be removed or replaced as editorial notes as guidance for good practice. Definitions only referred to in Clauses 6 and 7; lead to enforcement difficulties; there is conflict with 3.2.2. [Laister Consulting] The reference to thermal centre in the definition of frozen is not practical to enforce. [WA *]
	Definition of LIVE SEAFOOD Suggests the definition for live seafood premises by removed as there is no need for reference to live seafood premises. [PIRSA]
	Definition of PRIMARY PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING Concerned about definitions and interpretation where they could be inconsistent with or a duplication of Part 3 and Part 4 of the Code. [Dept of Health WA] Need to provide clear criteria for the boundary of ‘primary production’. Reference to Clause 3 requirements for a ‘seafood business’ being less stringent than those of a Chapter 3 ‘food business’, and that the editorial notes for Clauses 13 and 24 emphasise the need to comply with 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 for activities beyond primary production. [NSW Seafood Industry Conference] In the editorial note defining ‘primary food production’, there is a need for activities listed to apply to ‘on premises’ as well as ‘off site’. [QLD Health] Important to explain the term ‘substantial transformation’ in terms of the seafood industry as this is an important part of the definition of primary food production and therefore the delineation of businesses that have to comply with 4.2.1 as opposed to Chapter 3. Requirements for a ‘seafood business’ under proposed standard are less stringent than those required for a ‘food business’ in Chapter 3. Need to provide clear criteria on the boundary of primary processing. [NSW Food Authority] A clear distinction between what is primary production and what is beyond that is needed. Given that Table 20 specifies the ‘primary production of bivalve molluscs’ and that food safety plans are to be implemented ‘up to the beginning of the retail sector’ then shucking of oysters will be considered within ‘primary production’. Yet this will not be consistent with the current definition in 2(2). [NSW Food Authority] Notes the confusions between ‘primary production’ and ‘primary processing’ and the uncertainty regarding when Part 3 of the Code commences. Suggests that Part 3 of the Code apply for finfish from the filleting process and beyond. [Dept of Health WA] Include a definition of substantial transformation and/or primary production as these are critical factors in determining whether the product is considered to meet 3.1.1 or 4.2.1. [SA Fishing Industry Council] Probably mean 3.2.1 Need to expand definition of primary production to include processing. Suggests the definition from Section 11 of the Food Production (Safety) Act 2000 which in part includes: ‘the dismembering, filleting, peeling or shucking of seafood or adding brine to seafood and the boiling of crustaceans’. Could be achieved by Editorial Note. [Safe Food QLD] The definitions of seafood and seafood business should relate to the activities to be covered by the standard. A schedule defining the range of regulated activities should be provided for such, as is contained in the Table to Clause 20. [SA Fishing Industry Council] Wild oyster harvesting is not included in the definition of ‘primary food production’ as it presently appears. [QLD Health]
3 General seafood safety management	Will be difficult for regulators to verify and for small businesses to follow. Appears to be covered by subsequent Clauses 5 to 14. Suggest removal of Clause 3. May become a policy statement in the preamble to the standard. [PIRSA] There is no requirement for a business to write anything down, nor to monitor the controls. Enforcement or demonstration of compliance will be difficult. Suggests the clause needs strengthening to require documentation and ongoing monitoring of controls. [DAFF]
	The verb ‘control’ in Clause 3 Editorial note (a) needs explanation. Questions if it means prevent, eliminate, minimise, keep at such a level as to not render the seafood unsafe or unsuitable, or something else. [NSW Food Authority]
	Recommends that the words ‘and document’ be inserted in the Standard after ‘systematically examine’, or alternatively, delete Clause 3 as it would be impossible to enforce. [Laister Consulting]
	Believes the general requirements would require State s to mandate food safety programs and does not support this. Medium and low risk sectors should only be required to follow a voluntary code of practice. [SA Fishing Industry Council]
4 Requirement to prevent contamination	Will be difficult for regulators to verify in the absence of a documented program. Appears to be covered by subsequent Clauses 5 to 14. Suggests Clause 4 be deleted. [PIRSA] Requests clarification on the wording of Clause 4. Believes it is not reasonable to require businesses that wild-catch seafood to prevent seafood still in the water from contamination. [NSW Food Authority] While this principle is fundamental, it is dealt with more specifically in the subsequent clauses. [SA Fishing Industry Council]
5 Inputs and harvesting areas	Shellfish must enter cold chain with 24 hrs of harvest. Recommends a labelling amendment in terms of harvest time. [Oakley Food Advisory Services]
6 Seafood storage	Recommends the wording from 3.2.2 Clause 22 be included in 4.2.1 as it would be appropriate to have the same standard apply for storage of potentially hazardous food. Also notes that neither 4.2.1 nor 3.2.2 require temperatures to be recorded. This is not acceptable, as a business cannot demonstrate compliance without records. [Laister Consulting]
7 Seafood transportation	All perishable products including seafood must be handled within a secure cold chain environment. Regulations aimed at achieving this must be uniform between States and Territories. [SA Freight Council]
	Recommends transport of shellfish only by refrigerated vehicles (3^rd party carriers) and should only be accepted if product is less than 10C at time of collection. Refrigerated transport should not be used as the first point of cold chain management. [Oakley Food Advisory Services]
Editorial Note to Clauses 6 and 7	Editorial note for Clauses 6 and 7 indicates that temperature control means maintaining food at or above 60ºC. Not appropriate for pre-harvest seafood. Suggests the Editorial Note reflect that standard is for pre-harvest seafood. [PIRSA] The reference to temperatures at or above 60ºC should be removed. [DAFF]
8 Seafood packaging	There were no comments against this clause.
9 Seafood for disposal	Primary seafood businesses will be unable to return seafood products to a supplier, as they are the first in the food chain. Suggests Clause 9(1)(b) ‘returned to supplier’ be removed. [PIRSA] The value of option 2 – ‘return to supplier’ – is questioned as this provides a mechanism for at-risk food to be able to put back into the supply chain. The options should be re-ordered as d, c and a. [SA Fishing Industry Council] This clause requires labelling of return seafood, returned seafood or as unsafe or unsuitable. Why is this clause not the same as Chapter 3? [WA*]
	Comments that the wording in this clause implies that food must be labelled ‘returned’, ‘recalled’, or ‘unsafe’ or ‘unsuitable’. Questions need for different terms for a label, when desired outcome is that food for disposal is not accidentally used. ‘Quarantine areas’ as used by some businesses would not technically comply. [Laister Consulting]
10 Seafood receipt	Standard only applies to seafood primary production so there are no (second) businesses that will receive seafood products. Suggests Clause 10 be deleted. [PIRSA] Comments that clause implies seafood can be received by the primary seafood business, which contradicts definition of primary producer in 3.1.1. Recommends that this clause be deleted. [Laister Consulting] According to the definition of seafood, other than for transportation, if you receive seafood you would not be a primary producer. [WA *]
	Questions if ‘seafood that is protected from the likelihood of contamination’ refers to seafood that is so protected after harvest. If so, this is insufficient. There is no requirement in Clause 10 or elsewhere for a business to receive only seafood that is safe. [NSW Food Authority]
	Questions whether the provision to accept product at 60ºC or above is appropriate. Any product at that temperature would be deemed to be processed as part of a primary food production business under 3.1.1. [SA Fishing Industry Council] The reference to temperatures at or above 60ºC should be removed. [DAFF] The reference to above 60ºC means that food has been substantially transformed and therefore would not be primary produce. [WA *]
11 Seafood recall	The imposition of a written document places impost on businesses in situations where it might be difficult or impossible for a fisherman to contact sellers. Suggests Clause 11 become ‘a seafood business must have in place a system for ensuring the traceability of their products’. Suggests the current Clause 11 be moved to Division 3 and be made specific for bivalve molluscs. [PIRSA] It was noted that traceability could be the biggest challenge for QLD, but it was acknowledged as an important part of the standard and of particular relevance in terms of ciguatera control. [QLD *] There was discussion at the VIC consultation about recall and traceability of finfish and how it might work using purchase records at each step of the chain. [VIC *]
12 Skills and knowledge	Wording is in conflict with Clause 3 of 3.2.2 as it does not apply to persons supervising food handling operations. Recommends the wording be the same in both standards. [Laister Consulting]
13 Health and hygiene requirements	Questions who determines which hygiene and health practices are commensurate with the risk, especially if supervisors are not required to have skills and knowledge of food hygiene or food safety matters. Recommends the following requirements be added to the standard: Standard 3.2.2: Clauses 14, 15(1)a-g, 15(2), 15(3). [Laister Consulting] Subclause 14(1)(b) of standard 3.2.2 should be included for the specific prohibition of a person suffering from a food-borne illness. Or, if Clause 13 is deemed sufficient, then the provisions of 3.2.2 should be made generic for consistency. [Aust Food & Grocery Council]
14 Seafood premises and equipment	Submitter has previously recommended that all operations on fishing vessels should be required to have some form of (CODEX) HACCP-based food safety program in place. Standard does not reflect this. [Coles Myer]
Division 3 Harvesting and other requirements for bivalve molluscs	The consolidation of the ASQAP model into the Code will enable a national consistent application of a recognised and proven FSP. [Dept of Health WA] Suggest incorporation of ASQAP by reference or by incorporation in the text. [NZ Food Safety Authority]
	Clause 6(3) requires seafood to be stored at a temperature that will not adversely affect the safety and suitability of the seafood, and Clause 20 requires bivalve mollusc businesses to have documented seafood safety management systems. States that ASQAP has specified storage temperatures and depuration conditions for live oysters. Different types of oysters have different requirements. FSANZ’s guidance on this matter is essential for consistent implementation of the relevant provisions of the standard. [NSW Seafood Industry Conference]
15 Interpretation