Dar seafood ppp standard

1. Scope and purpose

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has qualitatively ranked the relative public health and safety risks posed by chemical and microbiological hazards in seafood products eaten in Australia. FSANZ has undertaken this ranking, using the best available scientific data, for the sole purpose of developing a Primary Production and Processing Standard for seafood.

The output of this report is presented as a qualitative risk ranking, rather than as a risk assessment of commodity/hazard pairs. Risk ranking, a form of comparative risk assessment [1,2], enables differentiation of the relative level of risk posed by microbiological and chemical hazards present in the diverse range of seafood commodities in the Australian marketplace – for example, molluscs, crustacea and finfish.
The report draws on data from a variety of sources including published risk assessments, and the format is based on the elements of risk assessment defined by the Codex Alimentarius Commission: hazard identification; hazard characterisation; exposure assessment; and risk characterisation [3]. The analysis was, to some extent, constrained by the limited epidemiological data on seafood-borne illness and the scarcity of information of the prevalence and levels of hazards in seafood products in Australia. A quantitative exposure assessment was therefore not undertaken.
A qualitative assessment was made of the exposure of consumers to hazards in seafood products, drawing on available information on patterns of seafood consumption and the prevalence and levels of hazards in seafood. This assessment also took into account the likely influences of the conditions of production, processing, storage and use of seafood commodities along the entire seafood production and processing supply chain. No attempt was made to evaluate the efficacy of different risk management options.
FSANZ has drawn on the risk rankings and associated information presented in this report as a basis for developing suitable risk management options and strategies for seafood eaten in Australia.

2. Introduction

This report draws on a number of risk assessments that have been undertaken on Australian seafood in recent times. For example, the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) undertook risk assessments of contaminants and microbiological hazards associated with seafood as part of its review of the Code in 1999 [4–7]. These assessments informed the establishment of various standards applying to seafood, including those specifying microbiological limits and maximum levels of contaminants. More recently, risk assessments and risk profiling covering many seafood commodity/hazard combinations have been commissioned by Seafood Services Australia Ltd (SSA) and Safe Food Production New South Wales (SafeFood NSW) [8–10].

In addition, a number of international risk assessments of seafood have been conducted, focusing particularly on Vibrio species and Listeria monocytogenes [11–13]. These and other assessments [14–16] have sought to identify and assess the risk associated with specific commodity/hazard combinations.
The goal of this risk ranking document is to provide a broader comparative overview of risks associated with seafood in Australia, with the purpose of identifying higher-risk industry sectors and commodity groups.
In compiling this risk ranking document, a wide range of scientific literature and information from Australia and overseas (including the risk assessments mentioned above) was reviewed and evaluated. The evaluation identified key hazards and assessed where in the seafood production and processing supply chain these food safety hazards might be introduced, increased, reduced or eliminated. This latter information is presented in Appendix 1 as important background information for risk managers.
To the extent possible within the scope and purpose, the principles for conducting risk assessment outlined in Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Application in the Framework of the Codex Alimentarius [3], as adopted at the 26th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, were followed in the conduct of this risk ranking exercise.
The scope, purpose and form of output of this risk ranking are defined, and the extent to which the four steps of risk assessment have been incorporated is described, in Section 1. All available relevant quantitative and qualitative data have been taken into account, including information relating to through-chain factors impacting upon the relative level of risk. Constraints and uncertainties impacting on the process are described, along with the assumptions underpinning the comparative risk rankings. The risk rankings are presented in a format designed to help risk managers make informed decisions regarding strategies for risk minimisation.

Sources of hazards associated with seafood in Australia

Seafood can contain microbiological, chemical, and physical hazards derived from different sources. Some of these hazards occur naturally in the environment in which seafood lives and grows and are unavoidable contaminants of seafood when caught. Examples include:

• 
  endogenous bacterial species (for example, vibrios, aeromonads) which may or may not be pathogenic to the host species
  
• 
  biotoxins (typically of algal or bacterial origin, occasionally metabolised by the host to other toxic forms)
  
• 
  helminthic parasites (where the seafood species is typically an intermediate host)
  
• 
  heavy metals (for example, mercury, cadmium) and other naturally occurring chemicals (for example, dioxins).
  
  
  

Seafood may also contain food safety hazards as a consequence of the impact of human activities on the environment. Such environmental pollutants include:

• 
  bacterial and viral pathogens derived from human sewage and animal faecal pollution of seafood growing and harvesting areas (for example, Salmonella spp., Noroviruses)
  
• 
  industrial chemical pollutants (for example, heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls)
  
• 
  agricultural chemical run-off (for example, pesticide residues).
  
  
  

Other potential sources of contamination of seafood in the pre-harvest phase include feed components, veterinary drugs and other chemicals employed in aquaculture production.
In the post-harvest phase, hazards can be introduced into seafood, or grow to potentially hazardous levels, through:

• 
  direct contamination by food handlers and contaminated utensils and equipment
  
• 
  inadequate handling (for example, temperature abuse, cross-contamination, inadequate processing)
  
• 
  processing operations and the processing environment.
  

In addressing chemical hazards, the report distinguishes between:

• 
  those contaminants which are present in food as a result of deliberate addition to seafood or use in seafood production or agriculture
  
• 
  those which are present as natural contaminants.
  
  
  

The former, including agricultural chemicals, pesticides and veterinary drugs, are subject to pre-market safety assessment and their presence in food is regulated under the Code. These chemicals are not addressed in this report. However, food safety hazards which are natural environmental contaminants of seafood, such as certain heavy metals, and which are inherent or unintentional components of foods, are evaluated along the production and processing supply chain.
Physical hazards associated with seafood have not been specifically addressed in this risk ranking report. Such physical hazards include intrinsic hazards (for example, bones, shell fragments, pearls in oysters) and extrinsic hazards (for example, grit in shellfish, hooks, metal and glass inclusions). The intrinsic physical hazards are less likely to cause injury because of consumer awareness of the potential for the hazard to be present in seafood [17]. Extrinsic physical hazards are potentially introduced at all steps of the production and processing supply chain. Sources for such contaminants include raw materials, badly maintained facilities and equipment, improper production procedures, packaging materials and poor employee practices [18].
Physical hazards may cause traumatic injury to the mouth, tongue, teeth, gums, throat, stomach and intestines, as well as presenting a choking hazard, and would normally be addressed by adherence to Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), a hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) system and requirements relating to safe and suitable food in state and territory legislation.