Dar seafood ppp standard

Attachment 5B

Summary of Submissions at Draft Assessment

A public consultation period occurred from 26 May through to 6 August 2004 for comment on the Draft Assessment Report. During this period, 29 separate submissions were received by FSANZ.

The list of the submitters and a summary of their submissions is provided in the table below.

Organisation / Author	Summary / Major Points
Dr Christine Halais	Comments that whilst it is clear that Option 3 would provide maximum public health protection, she understood that there were no plans to impose similar standards on imported seafood. Remarks that if this were indeed the case, seafood in Australia would fall into two safety categories with the onus being on the consumer to distinguish between these – ‘a poor public health strategy’. The DAR identifies bi-valve molluscs, with some exceptions, as high risk product, internationally. The priority is to introduce higher standards for this category of seafood (e.g. Option 2) and to apply these uniformly to domestic and imported products. Comments that only after this measure has been successfully implemented should we move on to Option 3, with similar restrictions on all imported seafood products.
Mike Oakley Manager Oakley Food Advisory Services	Provides comments under two main headings: RE: Subdivision 3 Health and Hygiene Requirements Comments that the Editorial Note states that seafood businesses must comply with Div 4 of Std 3.2.2. References Division 6 of 3.2.2 regarding not permitting live animals in areas in which food is handled, other than seafood or other fish or shellfish. Seeks a rewording of this clause to have guard dogs in seafood processing areas under controlled circumstances and not while processing is going on, but in remote areas where security is required in the seafood, other fish and shellfish industry. Shellfish (oysters & mussels) Comments that shellfish (oysters & mussels) must enter the cold chain within 24 hrs of harvest. Recommends a labelling amendment to verify this in terms of a harvest time being added to the label so that random checks could be made. Recommends transport of shellfish should be by a refrigerated vehicle (3rh part carriers) and should only be accepted if product is less than 10 deg at time of collection. Refrigerated transport should not be used as the first point of cold chain management.
David Gill, President - FTA Vic Food Technology Assoc. of Victoria Inc	Agrees with Option 3 – to approve the introduction of a risk-based Primary Production and Processing Standard to improve the overall safety in the seafood supply chain.
Neil R Smith Principal Policy Officer Dept. Primary Industries and Fisheries, Queensland	Provides comments against three headings: Div. 3 – Harvesting and other requirements for bivalve molluscs 15 Interpretation Suggests a definition of ongrowing is included as this term is referred to in the definition of spat. Ongrowing is defined in the Australian Shellfish Quality Assurance Program (ASQAP) Operations Manual as the process whereby shellfish are translocated to a classified area for a sufficient period to permit their development as a marketable product. The period shall not be less than 60 days. Definition of bivalve molluscs excludes spat, scallops and pearl oysters where the only part of the product consumed is the abductor muscle. ASQAP Operations Manual differs to this and excludes only spat and scallops when the consumed product is only the abductor muscle. Scallop abductor muscle is exempt based on scientific evidence showing the deposition of algal biotoxins and other contaminants is considerably less in the abductor muscle. Pearl oyster meat is not excluded under ASQAP Operations Manual as there is no such evidence available for pearls. 16 Harvesting bivalve molluscs for human consumption Standard requires a seafood business may only harvest bivalve molluscs for sale for human consumption from areas that have been classified, subject to a marine biotoxin management plan – believes this requirement will have major ramifications for Queensland’s oyster industry and will represent a significant cost to harvesters and any new operations that commence and may delay harvesting of product until classification of their area is complete. Believes this increase in costs may detract people from entering the industry. Talks about oyster areas in Queensland with 111 areas in Central Queensland that harvest wild oysters from natural stocks on rocky headlands. All of these areas would need to be classified under this standard, probably as remote areas. Due to the remoteness of the wild oyster areas of central Queensland, (there is no human habitation and no impact of actual or potential pollution sources), it is reasonable to expect that oysters would be safe from non-biotoxin hazards. The practical limitations imposed by the total distance the oyster areas cover make it impossible to classify all areas as remote. Queensland Shellfish Quality Assurance Monitoring Program (QSWAMP) is administered by Fisheries and is responsible for classification of oyster growing areas in Queensland. States that given the distance the oyster areas are spread over, many of the areas would need to be classified individually and this would represent a substantial task for the authority responsible for administering the QSWAMP. Remarks in many cases it would simply not be practical given the costs involved to classify areas to enable the harvester to sell product for human consumption. Believes that the need to apply the monitoring required under this Standard is excessive and there should be some acknowledgement of the reduced food safety risk for these operations. Suggests a less comprehensive monitoring program for these oyster areas could be included as part of the oyster harvester’s food safety program which is required for all food businesses that handle bivalve molluscs. States that the standard will not impact on Queensland’s scallop industry as all product is marketed as abductor muscle only and is therefore exempt. States that any future marine aquaculture planning will need to consider the need for classification of growing areas as this will influence possible locations of new areas. 18 Wet Storage No wet storage of bivalve molluscs.
Dr David Mills Manager – R&D Paspaley Pearling Company Pty Ltd	Supports the current recommendation in the DAR regarding the classification of pearl meat using solely the abductor muscle. Specifically that it has been excluded, along with other similar products, from the high risk ‘Bivalve Mollusc’ class of product. Attaches a draft review completed by WA Fisheries showing that bivalve abductor muscle, such as pearl meat and scallops, are one of the safer forms of seafood available. To their knowledge, there have been no instances of food poisoning or other illness caused by consumption of pearl adductor meat in over 50 years. Over 1000 people working for or with the company with access to pearl meat with no ill effects. Pearl farms are located in remote pristine wilderness areas in northern Australia, with no permanent populations or pollution sources. Paspaley Pearling has also commissioned a heavy metal analysis from pearl farms across 5 sites carried out by NT Environmental Laboratories (NATA accredited) and the results show all of the values for heavy metals in the pearl meat at all sites are below the maximum limits as outlined in the Code – attaches a copy of analysis report. Heavy metal analysis results: inorganic arsenic (max 1 mg/kg) – results 0.17-0.89; cadmium (max 2 mg/kg) – results 0.20-0.62; lead (max 2 mg/kg) – results <0.01-0.04; zinc (no max) – results 10.3-75.2 Also attached – an outline of a proposal to do laboratory-based feeding experiments to quantify any accumulation of algal biotoxins in the adductor and viscera of pearl oysters. Experiment proposal submitted by Janet Howieson and Walter Arrow.
Ralph Mitchell Executive Officer Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council	Endorses the Standard in its current form, recommending that (7.4) Option 3 be adopted. Raises a concern about ‘co-mingling’. Believes that while co-mingling of seafood from different sources may not in itself present an elevated level of risk of food safety, for traceability and consumer confidence reasons, the Standard should ensure that co-mingling is not permitted in the market place. States that from a state/region perspective, traceability via the provision of not permitting the practice of co-mingling produce from various sources at the market, would allow adaptive management of the program to prevent any further illness in the event of food-borne illness.
Cassandra Melrose Assistant Manager Melshell Oysters, Tasmania	Applauds the introduction of a nationally mandated standard for the seafood industry. Provides comments on two issues: The regulation of the proposed Standard Disappointed that the standard is outcome based not directional or prescriptive. Believes this causes ambiguity for auditing and will add expense to producers with numerous audits required to understand what is expected. Concerned with regard to bivalve production and processing that the individual states will interpret the standard differently. For example, the problem of Tasmanian products not being accepted by Victorian processors may arise. Clause 19 – co-mingling of bivalve molluscs Pleased to see the introduction of Clause 19. Believes clause as it stands will not aid the tracing of contaminated products to their origin. The lease number and harvest date is critical information required to identify lots. Therefore the definition for lots as in standard 1.1.1 is not appropriate for this clause. Suggests that a definition is added to Clause 15 – interpretation, to read: ‘Batches – means a quantity of food which is harvested, depurated or handled from the same lease number with the same harvest date.’ Suggests changing Clause 19 to read: ‘For the purposes of clause 11, each batch of bivalve molluscs harvested must be separated in a manner that prevents co-mingling of batches.’
Geoff Raven Manager Food Safety Program Primary Industries and Resources SA	In considering the DAR, the Department of Primary Industries & Resources SA consulted with the Department of Health. Both agencies support the attached submission. General Recommendations: South Australia supports: mandatory requirements for bivalve molluscs; the gazettal, as a voluntary standard, of the requirements for the remaining seafood businesses; and the splitting of the 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 food businesses up to the back door of retail premises. Discussion: SA agrees with the assessment of bivalve molluscs in uncontrolled waters as a potentially high public health risk and supports the application of draft standard 4.2.1 to bivalve molluscs. SA does not have intensively farmed or contaminated estuarine harvest waters for prawns and as such does not see a public health need for mandatory requirements for prawn harvesting in SA. Notes that most harvesting of prawns in SA is covered by AQIS systems. SA supports the assessment of finfish as medium risk for ciguatera toxin, mercury and arsenic, but notes that draft standard 4.2.1 does not address these risks as they are managed by alternate strategies. SA acknowledges the potential risk to abalone and roe-off scallops from algal biotins, but notes that abalone and roe-off scallops are excluded from the relevant risk management tool i.e. application of Division 3 in 4.2.1. SA supports the exclusion but notes that if further data indicates an increased risk this may need to be reassessed. Notes that the risk assessment did not identify any high or medium risks for primary seafood production, beyond bivalve molluscs, that would be mitigated in SA by application of draft standard 4.2.1. SA contends that the contribution from poor handling and primary risks in primary seafood production, apart from estuarine/farmed prawns and bivalve molluscs and ciguatera toxin, is a minor contributor to food-borne illness and that post-harvest cross-contamination and poor handling is by far the major contributor. States that if the food-borne illness risk from the low risk sectors in primary seafood production is significant, then so too will be the costs to correct them. However, if there are minimal public health issues with primary seafood production than the implementation and compliance costs will be relatively low, but then the rationale for imposing the standard is also limited. On the basis of a limited positive benefit cost ration, the SA government does not support the mandating of hygiene requirements for primary seafood production apart for bivalve molluscs. SA will reassess its position if data is presented that supports the contention that the poor handling of primary seafood production, excluding shellfish, makes a significant contribution to food borne illness. Notes that there are indirect benefits for industry in implementing 4.2.1 eg improved consumer perception and improved shell-life, that may improve the benefit-cost ratio. As such, if primary seafood production sectors believe that the benefits outweigh the costs and support implementation of the standards, then SA would not oppose implementation of 4.2.1 for non-shellfish primary seafood production. DPIR South Australia provided specific comments on the draft standard. These are detailed below: Defining the split between standards 3.2.1 and 4.2.1 The split between applications of 4.2.1 and 3.2.1 needs to be based on, and consistent with , the definition of ‘primary food production’ in the current Food Act and then be consistent with the definition of ‘primary production of seafood’ in standard 4.2.1. Currently the words in clause 15 of 4.2.1 mean that bivalve molluscs are extended beyond the definition of ‘primary production of seafood’. They also conflict with the words ‘primary production of bivalve molluscs’ under the table in clause 20. The additional words also seem to be superfluous for applying the clauses relevant to bivalve molluscs under 4.2.1 Suggests the definition of bivalve molluscs under clause 15 has the following words removed, ‘… either shucked or in the shell, fresh or frozen, ….., or processed….’. The current words in the table to paragraph 2(2)(b) in 3.2.1 extend the application of 3.2.1 to the production of bivalve molluscs, as ‘handling’ includes production. As the intent is to now have 3.2.1 and 4.2.1 sit alongside each other then this table needs to be amended to exclude the primary production of bivalve molluscs from standard 3.2.1. Suggests the words be added: ‘other than the primary production of bivalve molluscs’ after ‘handling of bivalve molluscs’ in the table. Frozen Seafood Suggests that the following words could be removed as the remaining words adequately convey the intent: frozen seafood remove ‘…has been changed into a different state by the reduction in temperature and…’. It is unclear why there is a need to have a definition for ‘frozen seafood’, ‘thermal centre of seafood’ and ‘thawing’. In general, unless there has been penetration of a seafood animal, microbiological contamination will not occur in the centre of the animal and hence the need to ensure a specific temperature is achieved at the core of an animal would not seem to help in significantly reducing any public health risk. Enforcement would also be an issue as an inspector would need to probe into the centre of an animal to verify compliance with the standards. Appropriate chilling soon after capture or harvest would seem to be sufficient. suggests the definitions for ‘frozen seafood’, ‘thermal centre of seafood’ and ‘thawing’ be removed. Live Seafood Premises It appears that there may have been a need in earlier versions of the standard for the definition of live seafood premises. However now it appears that there is no longer a need as there is no longer a reference to live seafood premises in the standard. suggests the definition for live seafood premises be removed. Seafood Safety Management and Preventing Contamination Clauses 3 and 4 will be difficult to verify by regulators in the absence of a documented program. Clause 3 will also be difficult for small operators who will tend to seek a list of actions, or advice on actions, that they need to follow, rather than doing a primary assessment of the hazards. Both clauses also seem to be covered by subsequent clauses 5 to 14. suggests clauses 3 and 4 be deleted. Clause 3 may become a policy statement in the preamble to the standard. Storing at High Temperature The Editorial Note for clause 6 and 7 indicates that temperature control means maintaining food at or above 60 degrees Celsius. South Australia was unable to think of an example where pre-harvest seafood would be held at a high temperature. This is a requirement for retail or food service businesses that cook and hold food. Even where animals are cooked on board boats, eg prawns, the animals are then cooled for transport and storage. Suggests the Editorial Note reflect this standard is for pre-harvest seafood. Seafood for Disposal As primary seafood production businesses are the primary (first) businesses in the food chain they are unable to return seafood products to a supplier. Suggests clause 9(1)(b) ‘returned to its supplier’ be removed. Seafood Receipt This clause was relevant when the standard was likely to extend beyond primary production, i.e. when product would be received by a seafood business up the food chain. However now that the standard only applies to seafood primary production there are no (second) businesses that will receive seafood products. There could be packing or grading operations but they will be part of the same seafood business. Suggests clause 10 be deleted. Recall SA supports the recall provisions in clause 11 for bivalve molluscs as there are significant risks that may lead to recall of product. However believes there are no other high risks identified in the risk assessment that would be expected to lead to a recall by the operator. Difficult to envisage a situation where a fisher would know their product has become dangerous to the public and order retailers, wholesalers and processors to return or dispose of the product. As such, the requirement for a documented recall system means that an operator without the paperwork commits an offence. This imposition is significant with limited or no public health benefit. Believes, however, there may be situations where seafood becomes contaminated through the chain and having a mechanism to trace the product back would aid in establishing the potential source of the contamination. Suggests clause 11 becomes ‘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. Division 3 – Interpretations Suggests the following words could be removed as the remaining words adequately convey the intent: Spat ‘…not immediately intended for human consumption…’ Relaying ‘…by using the ambient environment as a treatment process…’ States that there appears to be no evidence that pearl oyster meat will not accumulate biotoxins or heavy metals as has been shown by the abductor muscle of scallops. Believes FSANZ should consider deleting the reference to pearl oyster flesh from the definition. Suggests the following change could add clarity to the definition for bivalve molluscs: Change bivalve molluscs to ‘… but excludes scallops where the only part of the product consumed is the abductor muscle, and spat.’ Believes a definition for ‘wet storage’ will aid clarity, suggests: ‘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.’ Division 3 – Sale from areas under classification States that it usually takes 2 years to classify an area for the collection or harvest for sale of bivalve molluscs for human consumption. For wild shellfish that have been collected from existing fisheries for a number of year, clause 16 and 17 will, in effect, close the fisheries until classification is complete. Also new aquaculture leases will be unable to sell shellfish for 2 years. The authority responsible for food safety should be able to allow existing wild fisheries to continue and new aquaculture operations to sell some product during the start up phase. Data collected during the first year will assist in deciding the conditions under which sales could be permitted. 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’. Division 3 – State Shellfish Control Authority The State Shellfish Control Authority (SSCA) is an effective term in the ASQAP Manual. However there may be difficulty with using SSCA, as defined, as a legal entity in legislation. Particularly where the legal authority is split between agencies and/or legislation. Suggests the term ‘SSCA’ is replaced by the term ‘appropriate authority’ or ‘controlling authority’. Seafood Management Systems This clause is in division 3 that is specific for bivalve molluscs. As such it should specifically refer to primary production of bivalve molluscs and the table removed. However, the clause and table are obviously structured for future flexibility so that, if agreed, seafood management systems can be applied to another category of seafood business. In this case, clause 20 should be shifted out of division 3 and be placed after clause 15, i.e. in the general seafood businesses section of the standard.