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.
|