Dar seafood ppp standard

Medium relative risk rankings

Many of the medium risk rankings reflect hazards that have severe adverse health effects, although the likelihood of illness from these hazards in the seafood commodity is rated as ‘unlikely’. This is the case for abalone and roe-off scallops (amnesic shellfish poison and paralytic shellfish poison); prawns, whether green or cooked (arsenic, V. cholerae O1 and S. Typhi); canned seafood (arsenic and C. botulinum); hot-smoked fish products (C. botulinum); and whole or filleted finfish, chilled or frozen, for cooking (arsenic).

The ‘unlikely’ ratings for the likelihood of adverse health effects reflect the effectiveness of existing risk management systems in place for those commodity/hazard combinations.
That many of the medium risk rankings are assigned to hazard/commodity pairs based on severe adverse health effects with unlikely occurrence reflects that the likelihood and severity ratings are not linear and that they are measured on different scales. That reflects the value judgement inherent in the ranking process, and allows inferences to be drawn as to which factors play a more important role in the final risk ranking assigned to each specific commodity group.

Abalone and roe-off scallops

Abalone and roe-off scallops were ranked in the medium risk category of seafood products due to the potential presence and adverse health effects of algal biotoxins (particularly the more severe toxins, amnesic shellfish poison and paralytic shellfish poison). These are hazards which might be introduced in the pre-harvest phase of primary production. Significantly lower levels of algal biotoxins accumulate in the adductor muscle of scallops and the muscular foot of the abalone [16,44], reducing the likelihood of adverse health effects compared to those molluscs where the viscera is also eaten (for example, oysters). Growth, harvesting and processing of abalone and roe-off scallops are not covered by the requirements of the ASQAP.

Findings of other risk assessments

Lehane, in reviewing the public health implications of paralytic shellfish poisons, reported that scallops generally do not pose a public health threat because the adductor muscle does not accumulate toxins [16]. For abalone, Lehane reports the findings of Pitcher et al. [44] that the muscular foot made a low contribution to the total toxin content of abalone harvested during algal bloom events on the west coast of South Africa.

ANZFA [4], Sumner [9] and Ross and Sanderson [8] did not consider the risks due to algal toxins in abalone and roe-off scallop separately from other molluscan shellfish. Sumner noted the low proportion of domestic abalone production available for local consumption, as around 90 per cent is exported, and reported findings that algal toxins had been detected in abalone in Victoria and overseas.

Prawns

Prawns were ranked in the medium relative risk category due to arsenic, V. cholerae O1 and S. Typhi. The medium ranking reflects the severe nature of the adverse health effects potentially caused by these hazards and the effectiveness of current risk management strategies in reducing the likelihood of adverse health effects rating to ‘unlikely’.

The bacterial pathogens are hazards which might be present in the growing environment, particularly in aquaculture facilities stocked to high densities, or could be introduced through use of contaminated cooling water for prawns cooked on-board trawlers or at aquaculture sites. Arsenic is an unavoidable contaminant that may be present in the growing environment for prawns. The medium relative risk ranking for these hazards were not significantly affected by consideration of the form in which these crustacea are sold (raw or cooked).
Standard 1.4.1 – Contaminants and Natural Toxicants, of the Code contains a maximum level standard for arsenic in crustacea (2 mg/kg), set in response to the findings of the risk assessment ANZFA conducted as part of Proposal P157 – Contaminants in Foods – Metals [7]. The likelihood of illness due to arsenic in prawns meeting the requirements of Standard 1.4.1 is considered negligible.
Standard 1.6.1 – Microbiological Limits for Food includes microbiological limits for Salmonella in both cooked and raw crustacea. In addition, the User Guide to Standard 1.6.1 [59] includes additional non-mandatory guideline criteria for V. cholerae in cooked and raw crustacea. (When guideline criteria levels are exceeded it generally indicates a failure in food production or hygiene procedures, and alerts the processor and regulator that action should be taken to identify and remedy the problem.)

Findings of other risk assessments

The ongoing FAO/WHO Risk assessment of Vibrio spp. in seafood [12] considered the public health risk due to choleragenic Vibrio cholerae O1 and O139 in warm-water shrimps. The qualitative risk assessment showed ‘there was not a public health problem associated with the consumption of imported warm-water shrimp.’

The quantitative risk assessment is yet to be finalised.
Sumner [9] focused on the public health risk from consumption of ready-to-eat prawns from Asia, the primary source of prawns imported into Australia. The resultant rankings were medium (risk rankings of 37) due to:

• 
  V. cholerae (for the very susceptible sub-population)
  
• 
  Salmonella (for the general population).
  
  
  

Ross and Sanderson [8] focused their assessment on the risk due to Vibrio spp. in raw ready-to-eat shellfish, primarily oysters, but concluded generally that the incidence of severe disease from V. cholerae through consumption of bivalve molluscs or crustaceans was low.
The former ANZFA [6] initially proposed microbiological limit standards for V. cholerae in raw and cooked crustacea during its review of the Code. However, in response to public submissions and issues raised at a stakeholder forum, ANZFA amended or deleted some proposed microbiological limit standards. As part of these changes, the proposed standards for V. cholerae in crustacea were moved into the guideline document. The rationale for this decision was that:
While crustacea obtained from countries where this pathogen [V. cholerae] is not endemic will not present a hazard to the consumer, product obtained from those areas where it is endemic could do so. This is supported by epidemiological evidence. However, testing cannot be carried out on product only from countries where V. cholerae is endemic. Testing of all imported product would be onerous and unnecessary [62].

Canned seafood

Canned finfish (and other low-acid canned seafood products) were ranked in the medium relative risk category due to an unlikely rating for severe adverse health effects due to spore survival, outgrowth and toxin formation by C. botulinum.

The relative risk due to arsenic was also ranked medium in these products. The medium relative risk rankings primarily reflect the severe nature of the adverse health effects potentially caused by these hazards.
The risk from botulism in low-acid canned foods has been successfully managed for many years through industry adherence to HACCP principles, scientifically based thermal processes, training of retort operators and good hygienic practices, and there have been very few outbreaks attributed to canned seafood either in Australia or other countries over the past 50 years [60].
Standard 1.4.1 – Contaminants and Natural Toxicants – of the Code contains a maximum level standard for arsenic in fish (2 mg/kg), set in response to the findings of the risk assessment ANZFA conducted as part of Proposal P157 – Contaminants in Foods – Metals [7]. The likelihood of illness due to arsenic in canned fish products meeting the requirements of Standard 1.4.1 is considered negligible.

Findings of other risk assessments

Sumner [9] ranked the risk of illness due to C. botulinum in canned fish as very low (risk ranking 22), based on the demonstrated effectiveness of control mechanisms in place for canning low-acid foods.

Ross and Sanderson [8] focused their assessment on the risk from C. botulinum in vacuum-packed ready-to-eat (generally smoked) seafood products, rather than canned seafoods.
FSANZ [6] concluded that the risk of botulism from canned fish was very low due to rigorous control of canning facilities worldwide, while noting that ‘the severity of this disease means that the potential for it to occur must always be allowed for.’

Whole and filleted finfish

For whole and filleted finfish (chilled or frozen, including fish for raw consumption) the only hazard falling into the medium relative risk ranking category was arsenic. The ranking primarily reflects the severe nature of the adverse health effects potentially caused by arsenic.

Findings of other risk assessments

Ross and Sanderson [8] and Sumner [9] did not assess the risks due to arsenic in seafoods.

ANZFA concluded [7] that the likelihood of illness due to arsenic in fish and fish products meeting the maximum level standard (2 mg/kg) was negligible.

Whole and filleted finfish – larger reef fish

Certain species of reef fish prone to accumulating ciguatoxin were ranked in the medium relative risk ranking category. The epidemiological evidence strongly indicates the risk is greatest in Queensland and New South Wales – the states consuming the greater proportion of potentially ciguatoxic fish and having fisheries located in proximity to tropical and sub-tropical reefs. However, the interstate trade in fish in Australia leads to the risk being ‘exported’ to other states where the local fish catch is not a source of ciguatera.

Findings of other risk assessments

Ross and Sanderson considered the risk to New South Wales consumers of ciguatera fish poisoning to be ‘relatively low’ [8]. Sumner [9] ranked the risk of ciguatera in the general population as medium (risk ranking 45), and as high (risk ranking 60) for recreational fishers and their families in known ciguatera ‘hot spots’ in Queensland and the Northern Territory. The different rankings reflect self-regulation by fish marketing bodies, for example, bans on certain known ciguatoxic species and size limits on others, and the perceived need for greater education of recreational fishers.

ANZFA has not previously published a risk assessment of ciguatoxin in fish.

Whole and filleted finfish – large, carnivorous and long-lived fish species

For the susceptible sub-population (the foetus), the risk of chronic effects caused by exposure to mercury from large, carnivorous or long-lived fish in the maternal diet was also ranked as medium.

Standard 1.4.1 – Contaminants and Natural Toxicants – of the Code contains a maximum level standard for mercury of 1 mg/kg which applies to several identified fish species (including shark and billfish) known to accumulate higher levels of mercury. FSANZ has recently reviewed its risk assessment for mercury, particularly in fish and fish products, and has revised its advice on the consumption of fish by women of childbearing age.

Findings of other risk assessments

Ross and Sanderson [8] concluded that people consuming above-average levels of fish, particularly of shark and billfish might be exposed to hazardous levels of mercury. Sumner [9] ranked the risk due to mercury in fish as low (risk ranking of 24). Neither explicitly assessed the risk for the foetus, although both indicated that education of pregnant women and consumers of large amounts of larger, predatory fish species was a necessary risk management strategy.

Hot-smoked fish products

Hot-smoked fish products were ranked in the medium relative risk category due to an ‘unlikely’ rating for severe adverse health effects from spore survival, outgrowth and toxin formation by C. botulinum. The medium relative risk ranking primarily reflects the severe nature of the adverse health effects potentially caused by this hazard.

Findings of other risk assessments

Ross and Sanderson [8] considered that the risk to New South Wales consumers from C. botulinum in vacuum-packed ready-to-eat fish products was ‘relatively low’, and would only result from gross temperature abuse. Sumner [9] ranked the risk as ‘negligible’ on the basis of the low levels of spores likely to be in products available in the Australian marketplace and the typical salt levels in these products.

FSANZ has not previously published a risk assessment of C. botulinum in hot-smoked fish products.