Dar seafood ppp standard

Consultation on the Draft Assessment Report

8.1 Consultation on the Draft Assessment Report.

FSANZ conducted face to face consultations in each State and the Northern Territory on the Draft Assessment Report to explain the draft assessment report and its implications to stakeholders and to receive feedback on the proposed Standard.

Twenty nine public submissions were received in response to the Draft Assessment Report.
The issues raised in the public submissions and at the face-to-face consultations at the Draft Assessment stage are detailed at Attachments 5 (Summary of each Submission) and Attachment 6 (Summary of Submissions by Issue Raised).
The SDC met on October 2004 to consider the issues raised during the public consultation process and responses to these issues, including modifications to the drafting of the Standard. FSANZ also undertook further targeted discussions with State and Territory governments and industry on a number of issues following the October SDC meeting.
Given the concerns of industry members on the SDC in relation to consistent implementation of the Standard, FSANZ raised these matters at the ISC meeting held in October 2004. ISC agreed to a process to engage with members of the group to address these issues as well as discuss issues related to guidelines to support the Standard.
A further meeting of the SDC was held in January 2005 attended by the Chair of ISC, to resolve the remaining issues to enable finalisation of the Standard. The meeting was also to agree on a process for further consideration of implementation issues.
The main issues at Draft Assessment included:

• 
  drafting issues, including:
  

- the divide between Chapter 3 and Chapter 4

- the scope of the Standard for seafood

- definitions such as ‘frozen’, ‘chilled’, ‘thermal centre’, ‘thawed’ ‘live seafood’ and the exclusion in the definition for bivalve molluscs

- the definition of ‘primary production and processing’

• 
  consistent implementation across the jurisdictions
  
• 
  audit costs and third party audit arrangements
  
• 
  the exclusion of mandatory fish marketing names from the Standard
  
• 
  labelling of imported product
  
• 
  enforcement of the Standard at the border
  
• 
  the risk ranking report
  

In response to the issues raised at the Draft Assessment stage, the drafting of the Standard has been reconsidered. In summary, the Standard has been amended as follows:

• 
  to clarify the issues around the scope and application of the Standard, including the division between Chapters 3 and 4 of the Code. This has been achieved through amendments to the definition of primary production and the processing of seafood, the purpose and commentary section and additional editorial notes;
  

• 
  a number of definitions within the Standard have been amended or removed to address issues identified through the consultation process;
  

• 
  other amendments to clauses to simplify the legal drafting, clarify the intent of the Standard or rectify other identified issues.
  

A number of issues relating to implementation of the Standard have been raised by industry. A process has been established with the Implementation Sub-Committee of the Food Regulation Committee and representatives of the SDC to consider implementation issues raised and assist with consistent implementation of the Standard. This matter is discussed further in the next section of this report.

Further details on the issues raised and their consideration are outlined at Attachment 4B of this Report.

8.1 World Trade Organization Notification

As members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Australia and New Zealand are obligated to notify WTO member nations where proposed mandatory regulatory measures are inconsistent with any existing or imminent international standards and the proposed measure may have a significant effect on trade.

The proposed regulatory measures, the inclusion of a primary production and processing Standard for seafood in Chapter 4 of the Code is likely to have an effect on trade for sanitary or phytosanitary reasons. Therefore a notification to the WTO under the SPS Agreement has been made by FSANZ. No responses to this notification were received.

9. Conclusions

The existing system, as described in Option 1, includes regulation across the food chain for seafood in the two smaller jurisdictions, requirements in the Code, the current general obligation in Food Acts to produce safe food and a strong lead by the seafood industry to develop a voluntary food safety standard. However, it is clear that this approach can be further improved to minimise food safety risks and that arrangements under the status quo do not fully meet the objective of this proposal, to effectively address the public health and safety risks associated with seafood. Food-borne illness imposes costs on consumers, industry and governments, and while the current arrangements only partially manage the burden of food-borne illness estimated for seafood, they still contribute a net-benefit to the economy.

Option 2 will provide more benefits than the status quo by targeting businesses in the high risk bivalve mollusc sector, and requiring these businesses to manage their food safety risks through compliance with certain pre-harvest requirements and documented food safety programs for specified post-harvest activities. Consumers will benefit, in comparison with the status quo, from a greater assurance of the safety of these products and a reduction in incidents of severe food-borne illness. Industry also benefits because outbreaks of food-borne illness, which reduce sales of the high risk products and have flow on effects of reducing sales of other seafood products, will be minimised under this option. Additional industry compliance costs from this option are expected to be small. The impact of the targeted arrangements will be minimal on the sector because it must already comply with a comprehensive program and will require little change to satisfy the requirements of a food safety management plan program. However, it is expected to have an impact on food safety by ensuring that no opt-out of the current system is possible and that food safety portfolios are empowered to audit the sectors. In comparison with the status quo, Option 2 will more effectively achieve the objective of this Proposal.
Option 3 will provide all the benefits of the previous option but will also deliver additional higher value benefits because it will provide a single, consistent, national regulatory arrangement to manage seafood safety and the impost will be commensurate with the risks posed. The estimated benefits of introducing Option 2 (before costs) is $26.4 million per year, while benefits of introducing Option 3 are estimated between $30 million to $75 million per year.
For the primary production and primary processing segment of the seafood industry, it will mandate basic food safety provisions and a requirement for businesses to systematically examine their operations to identify potential seafood safety hazards and implement controls that are commensurate with the food safety risks. It will also specifically address identified higher risk activities. It will deliver a material reduction in public health and safety risks and a greater net benefit by reducing food-borne illness in Australia, because it will require those businesses currently not adequately managing basic food safety to do so.
Consumers will benefit from the lower risk of food-borne illness and industry will minimise the periodic losses of sales revenues that have occurred following food-borne illness outbreaks. For the government sector, data on the new seafood regulations in NSW indicate that the introduction of food safety regulation into the seafood industry may be accomplished with minimal additional resources. However how jurisdictions implement the Standard and the related costs incurred will vary.
Option 3 will impose new costs on businesses only where they do not currently manage food safety adequately. Note that it is expected that a significant majority of seafood businesses will meet or exceed these basic requirements and the new Standard will, therefore, not affect their operating costs.
Overall, Option 3 will most effectively meet the objective of this proposal. It is superior to the previous option in that it has the capacity to deliver greater reductions in food-borne illness, as it will address a greater range of public health and safety risks in the seafood sector in comparison to Option 2. Additional compliance costs for industry appear to be small and, in comparison to the previous two options, Option 3 will provide superior net-benefits to the economy.
On a practical issue, one possible risk to achieving the potential benefits of Option 3 (as well as Option 2) is inconsistent implementation. SDC industry representatives have voiced concerns about the need for consistent implementation of the Standard across States and Territories and the resulting costs and uncertainty for industry of inconsistent implementation. The differing costs between States and Territories for licensing and registration are also of concern. Industry has also emphasised the need for collaboration between industry and government to provide the necessary guidance to industry to support the Standard. In response to these issues, ISC has agreed that once the standard-setting process is completed a process will commence with an ISC representative, members of the SDC and ASQAAC representatives to consider implementation issues and to progress issues in relation to the guidelines.
The preferred option is Option 3 (a Primary Production and Processing Standard - targeting higher risk activities and requiring minimum food safety requirements for lower risk activities/sectors), which combines general and specific provisions for seafood production and processing based on risk. This option is preferred because:

• 
  it is consistent with the findings and conclusions of the scientific evaluation of public health and safety risk;
  
  
  
• 
  the risk management strategy is commensurate with the level of public health risk identified in the risk ranking document and is in harmony with the approach agreed to by the Ministerial Council;
  
• 
  the need for basic food safety and hygiene requirement is consistent with the requirement for the manufacturing and retail sectors to meet good hygienic practice as defined in Chapter 3 of the Code – Food Safety Standards 3.2.2 and 3.2.3;
  
  
  
• 
  it represents a minimum effective standard with the highest net benefit, and the risk management approaches and their verification are commensurate with the risks posed; and
  
  
  
• 
  it is consistent with Codex in requiring that all food production meet basic requirements of good hygienic practice.
  

In conclusion, Option 3 is preferred because it achieves the objectives of:

• 
  effectively addressing public health and safety risks, and demonstrates the highest net-benefits to the Australian community;
  
  
  
• 
  improving national consistency in the management of seafood safety;
  
  
  
• 
  improving food safety management across the seafood supply chain;
  
  
  
• 
  providing a preventive approach to the management of food safety;
  
  
  
• 
  providing outcomes-based standards to allow maximum flexibility for business; and
  
  
  
• 
  being cost-effective as demonstrated in the regulatory impact assessment.
  
  
  

A draft of the proposed Primary Production and Processing Standard for Seafood, consistent with Option 3 is located in Attachment 1.