Dar seafood ppp standard

Organisation / Author

Summary / Major Points

Ian Doughty Laister Consulting Services P/L Carole Theobald Cormorant Technical Services P/L

Comments provided on DAR identify areas where industry may find it difficult to comply with the standard and areas where enforcement officers may find it difficult to enforce them. Standard 4.2.1 Primary Production & Processing Standard for Seafood This title includes the word ‘processing’ which is not ordinarily associated with primary production. No definition is provided in Standard 4.2.1 to differentiate the use of this word in this Standard to the use of the word “process” in Standard 3.2.2. - recommends the words “and processing” be removed from the title of the Standard. 2 Interpretation / Clause 6 Seafood Storage Temperatures referenced in Standard (where it is stated “unless the contrary intention appears, the definitions in Chapter 3 of this Code apply for the purposes of this Standard”). Questions whether there is a need for a chilled or frozen seafood definition. States they are only referenced in clauses 6 & 7 as examples of types of food. These definitions may lead to enforcement difficulties as an enforcement officer would not know which standard to apply. For example: should a frozen product be hard, below -18°C or another temperature that ensures the safety of the food; if the product is between -2°C and -17°C it is under temperature control, is safe and suitable, but is outside the definitions of chilled seafood or frozen seafood. How would this be enforced? In reality, there would be a conflict of standards so standard 3.2.2 (temperature control definition) would prevail (clause 1(2)). Therefore, why put the conflicting definitions in the Seafood Standard in the first place? Believes the reference to the thermal centre of the seafood after thermal stabilisation adds unnecessary complexity to the standard. The thermal centre is not always easily and readily identifiable and will be dependent on external influences at the time of freezing. Every block of fish will be different. It would therefore be virtually impossible to demonstrate compliance with this requirement and similarly difficult to enforce it. States that in Standard 3.2.2 there is no reference to thermal centres for either hot or cold foods, so to maintain consistency, the reference to thermal centre after thermal stabilisation should be removed. - recommends these definitions/descriptions be removed or replaced as editorial notes as guidance for good practice Seafood Storage (Clause 6(4) Notes that Food Safety Standard 3.2.2 clause 22 requires food businesses to have a temperature measuring device where potentially hazardous food is handled that is: readily accessible and can accurately measure the temperature of potentially hazardous foods to +/- 1°C. Comments that given Standard 4.2.1 is also measuring potentially hazardous food, it would seem appropriate that the same standard applies i.e. device accessible and accurate. - recommends the wording from 3.2.2 clause 22 be included in 4.2.1 Notes that temperatures are monitored and are not recorded. This is in line with 3.2.2 but is not an acceptable standard as a business is unable to demonstrate they have complied without written records. 3 General seafood safety management Comments that the current wording does not require a business to document that it has systematically examined its operations. Therefore, a business will not be able to demonstrate that it has complied with the standard. - recommends that the words “and document” be inserted in the Standard after “systematically examine” or alternatively: - delete clause 3 as it would be impossible to enforce. 5 Inputs and harvesting areas / Division 3 (16) harvesting bivalve molluscs for human consumption and (17) harvesting bivalve molluscs for depuration or relaying Comments that Clause 5(2) adequately addresses the issue of harvesting seafood from only ‘safe areas’. Believes these clauses duplicate this requirement in much unnecessary detail for bivalve molluscs. Clause 5(2) and clauses 16 and 17 provide the same outcome. Believes the reference to the SSCA requirements may place an unnecessary financial burden on small fishermen. Cites an example if a scallop fisherman was harvesting scallops from many different areas, he would be required to supply and pay for the water analysis from each place the scallops were caught. This could involve many areas on one trip. Results of analysis would only be available after the fresh scallops had been sold which makes the results superfluous to the fisherman especially if the fisherman may never return to exactly the same area. Samples from geographic areas need to be interpreted with weather conditions, currents and tides and the sea is an ever-moving object. In addition, fishermen would need to be trained on how water samples should be collected, stored and transported to ensure handling does not compromise results. However, the scallop fisherman would be able to demonstrate that scallops were not caught in restricted areas by recording the areas in which the catch was made and comparing them against the latest list of restricted areas. If State/Territory government(s) require water samples to be taken to provide them with more information to identify restricted areas, this would be outside the scope of the seafood standard. As all States/Territories already operate the ASQAP, questions whether it is necessary to bring this quality requirement into a food safety standard? 9 Seafood for disposal Comments that the wording in this clause implies that food must be labelled “returned”, “recalled”, or “unsafe” or “unsuitable”. States that the outcome required is that food for disposal is not accidentally used, so questions why specify the different terms for a label. Some businesses have marked ‘quarantine’ areas – these would not technically comply. 10 Seafood Receipt Comments that this clause implies that food is being received by the primary seafood business. A primary industry is one at the beginning of the chain. If a business is receiving food it is actually the second link in the chain not the first, and does not fall under the definition of primary producer in 3.1.1. In addition, if food is received at 60°C or above it must have undergone substantial transformation. Therefore, the businesses would not satisfy the definition of primary producer. - recommends that the clause be deleted. 12 Skills and knowledge Believes the wording is in conflict with clause 3 of Standard 3.2.2 as it does not apply to persons supervising food handling operations. - recommends the wording be the same in both Standards to avoid confusion along the food chain. 13 Health and hygiene requirements Questions who determines which hygiene and health practices are commensurate with the food safety risks, especially if the supervisors are not required to have skills and knowledge of food hygiene or food safety matters. In addition, no guidance is provided about what the term “health practices” means. The editorial notes reference Division 4 of 3.2.2 for processing, but any contamination will already be in the seafood by the time the food reaches the processor, unless clear guidance is provided to the primary producers. - recommends that the following requirements be included in the seafood standard: Standard 3.2.2 clause 14 Standard 3.2.2 clause 15(1) a-g Standard 3.2.2 clause 15(2) Standard 3.2.2 clause 15 (3) Believes this will provide seafood businesses with the necessary guidance to supervise seafood handlers and protect food from contamination. 18 Wet Storage of bivalve molluscs / 19 Co-mingling of bivalve molluscs Questions whether these items need to be listed separately, especially if the seafood business is required to have a food safety program based on HACCP principles. The food safety program would identify all hazards and provide ways to control their risks. - recommends these clauses be deleted. 15 Interpretation States that if clauses 16-19 were removed, this clause would be redundant. 20 Specified seafood safety management systems Notes the editorial note provides a list of acceptable systems. - believes a reference to at least Standard 3.2.1 should be put in clause 20 (preferably Commonwealth Export Control Orders as well) as the editorial notes are not enforceable. - in addition 3.2.1 refers to ‘food safety programs’, but this draft standard refers to ‘safety management system’. Believes this inconsistency in the use of terms may cause unnecessary confusion. Naming of seafood Comments that this has not been included in the Seafood Standard on the grounds that it is considered a consumer fair trading issue. Believes this misses the main point of traceability. If seafood is called by different names along the food chain, it will be impossible to recall it at the consumer level. The primary producers are the ones who identify the fish for sale, so it would make sense to include reference to fish names in the primary producers’ standard. This would help address traceability issues and the reference could be amended if an Australian Standard is developed. Unloading seafood in Victoria and New South Wales Comments that both Victoria and New South Wales require seafood businesses to have in place a food safety program. If a fisherman on the state borders is forced by bad weather to land and sell fish in another state, they would fall foul of local state laws. Questions whether Victoria and NSW will accept the Primary Production and Processing Standard for Seafood for foods sold in their jurisdiction under such circumstances. If not, believes consideration should be given to applying the food safety programs requirement to the entire sector around Australia in the interests of consistency and in order to overcome any internal trade barriers that may develop. Imported Foods Questions whether seafood imported into Australia will be required to demonstrate it has been grown/collected/harvested in accordance with this standard. Also questions whether food imported into NSW and Victoria and all bivalve molluscs imported into anywhere in Australia be required to demonstrate that they have food safety programs that comply with Standard 3.2.1. If not, believes we have a double standard and the local industry is being disadvantaged.

Organisation / Author	Summary / Major Points
Roy Palmer Director Fishy Business A Division of Tigrey Pty Ltd	Congratulates FSANZ on this the first Primary Production and Processing Standard. Makes the following comments and requests that these be taken into consideration before the Standard is finalised: Fish Names States the clearly on the record was the agreement that Fish Names would not be included in the Standard on the proviso that an acceptable method to all parties be found to ensure that Imports do not escape control. Believes at this time, no advice has been given that such a method has been found, and this puts the agreement in jeopardy. Subject to this issue being resolved, it is their clear understanding that compliance and enforcement issues would be addressed. Express their opinion that whilst some states are looking to address these issues, some are showing clear reluctance to do this. Would appreciate FSANZ making it very clear to all jurisdictions that their efforts in this area are very important and not to be diminished. Mandatory labelling of Imported Seafood at the point of sale States that this has taken on major significance and has been subject of many press releases by the Minister for Fisheries. States that it is difficult for the retailer to have knowledge of whether some product has been imported and that information must be passed on down the food chain. States that they have not heard any comment that sways them from their request that the provision of adequate information and prevention of false and deceptive conducted by the food service sector be mandated. National Standard across the jurisdictions Fully endorse the concept of a National Standard as the aim is to create a level playing field. However, if the states/territories interpret the regulations in different ways, charge differing fees, create Audit strategies that are not risk-based, then the whole concept will be lost. Believes the industry will be in a worse position and the consumers will be more confused. Believes that FSANZ and all Ministers responsible for the standard in each state/territory must work through these issues with industry and ensure that the level playing field is created. Also believes that FSANZ should carry out a survey before the standard is actioned, taking real examples of similar situations in each state and territory, analysing the costs. The examples should be revisited annually over a 3 to 5 period to ensure there is real success in the creation of a level playing field. Third party audits across the jurisdictions State that it has been brought to their attention that one jurisdiction has told operators that they will be required to have 3 or 4 audits, without looking at the risk elements involved. Consider this unacceptable as it adds unreasonable and unnecessary costs. Believe that the audit process must be orchestrated in accordance with the risk involved. The same jurisdiction also appears to have a willingness to create duplication in the audit process. Believe that FSANZ should ensure that where a business has a third party audited seafood safety plan that satisfies the conditions of the new Standard, the business will be deemed to be complying with the Standard. Promotion of health benefits of seafood and Listeria Believes that the risk of a seafood safety accident happening should be clearly explained to the consumer in a manner that promotes the excellent health benefits of eating seafood, rather than in a manner that creates public uncertainty. Is at a loss to understand the need to highlight the issue of Listeria and certain seafoods when the risk assessment cannot demonstrate incidents in Australia. The industry welcomes the opportunity of partnerships with FSANZ and other jurisdictions when it comes to educating and promoting the health benefits of eating seafood.
Australian Food and Grocery Council	Welcomes the opportunity to make a submission in response the to Proposal P265 and compliments FSANZ on the preparation of a such a detailed and thorough Draft Assessment Report. Makes comments under the following headings: Options The AFGC has long supported a total through chain food safety system from raw material through the chain to final delivery to the customer. Although AFGC would prefer to see mandatory food safety programs in all areas of primary production, they support option three, as recommended by FSANZ. Drafting – Clause 13 This clause contains health and hygiene requirements that are broad and generic in nature. Considers a specific prohibition on a person suffering from a food-borne disease from handling any seafood where there is a reasonable likelihood of seafood contamination as a result of the disease, similar to that of subclause 14(1)(b) of Standard 3.2.2, should also be included. States that if FSANZ considers the generic provisions of Clause 13 are sufficient to control this then the provisions of 3.2.2 should also be made generic for consistency. Drafting – Clause 15 Considers that in the third line of the definition of State Shellfish Control Authority, ‘control and relaying’, is a typographical error and should read ‘and control relaying’. Considers also that there is a typographical error in line 4 and ‘that is contaminated or has’ should read ‘that are contaminated and have’. Drafting - Subclause 18(a) Considers subclause 18(a) does not read correctly and the word ‘continue’ at the start of the second line should be preceded by the word ‘must’.
Ray Brown Manager Tasmanian Shellfish Quality Assurance Program Tasmanian Dept of Health and Human Services	Supports submission from the Chairman of ASQAAC that went to FSANZ in November 2003, and notes that the recommendations of that committee were supported in the recent draft. Aware that these comments, on behalf of DHHS, are duplication the ASQAAC input, but wishes to make them on behalf of this agency. Under Division 3 Clause 15 the definition of ‘bivalve molluscs’ excludes pearl oyster where the only part consumed is the adductor muscle. This exclusion is based on the assumption that there are no biotoxin issues with adductor meat of pearl oysters as is the case with scallop adductor muscle. Issue was raised at the last ASQAAC meeting and it was agreed that there was insufficient toxin data at this stage to exclude the adductor muscle. Recommends to not exclude pearl oyster adductor muscle meat from the definition until this work has been done and endorsed by ASQAAC. The intent of Division 3 Clause 19 to prevent co-mingling of lots of bivalves is strongly supported. No doubt that this will represent an inconvenience to certain sectors of the seafood industry but the benefits to industry as a whole will outweigh this. States it is important that there are labelling requirements on the product through to the retail end to prevent co-mingling of molluscs. In addition to any general labelling provisions of the FSC, molluscan shellfish (not just oysters) should have the name of the harvest area and date of harvest attached to any containers/packets right through to retail outlets. Strongly supports the requirement for all food businesses handling bivalve molluscs for sale to have a food safety management system. Notes that an emerging issue for some states will be the shortage of appropriately trained and qualified food safety auditors.
Hans Heilpern, Chairperson for Warren Matthew Executive Officer, Operations NSW Seafood Industry Conference NSW Food Authority	Notes that the draft standard requires live seafood to be stored at a temperature that will not adversely affect the safety and suitability of the seafood (Sec 6(3)), and businesses involved in primary production of bivalve molluscs to implement a documented seafood safety management system (Sec 20). ASQAP has specified storage temperature and depuration conditions for live oysters and different types of oysters have different requirements. The optimal storage temperature for live Sydney Rock oysters is still a matter of some debate. States that FSANZ’s clear guidance on this matter will be essential for consistent implementation and enforcement of the relevant provisions of the standard. The definition of bivalve molluscs in Sec 15 excludes pearl oysters. This would effectively exempt pearl oysters from the provisions specific to bivalve molluscs, including requirement of a marine biotoxin management plan. Seeks confirmation from FSANZ that there is sufficient scientific justification for the exemption. Concerned about the increased audit costs as a result of the introduction of the PPPS for Seafood. States that it is important that mutual recognition arrangements are put in place between states, commonwealth (AQIS) and commercial organisations to minimise duplication. The requirements of Division 3, subdivision 3 for a ‘seafood business’ are less stringent than the corresponding requirements in Chapter 3 of the Code for a ‘food business’. Considers this appropriate when applied to primary production environments such as those found on fishing vessels, sea cages and live seafood premises. Notes that the Editorial Notes to Clauses 13 and 24 emphasis the point that any businesses engaging in activities beyond primary production will have to comply with Standard 3.2.2 and Standard 3.2.3. It is requested that FSANZ provide very clear criteria as to the boundary of ‘primary production’. For example, questions if heading, gutting and/or filleting of fin fish onboard a vessel is within the scope of primary production. States that it is not clear how far down the supply chain the prohibition f co-mingling (sec 19) is intended to apply. Notes that as this requirement is only proposed for the PPPS for Seafood but is not currently in Chapter 3 of the Code, presumes that it is FSANZ’s intent to allow co-mingling beyond primary production. Seeks FSANZ’s advice on the rationale of this. Also reinforces the need to have a clear distinction between what is considered primary production. Questions whether shucking of oysters is considered primary production or processing. Draw’s FSANZ’s attention to the fact that NSW is well underway in implementing the Seafood Safety Scheme developed by NSW Food Authority in consultation with industry. Urges FSANZ to ensure that the national standard will not compromise regulatory measures already set in place in NSW. Looks forward to receiving information on the status of ASQAP requirements in the draft standard and the time-line for the Transitional Standard for Country of Origin Labelling Requirements. Congratulates FSANZ on having made good progress on the development of the PPPS for Seafood, which is essential for ensuring consistent production of safe seafood in Australia. Second letter of 18 August 2004 Discussion at the last meeting of the NSW Seafood Industry Conference on August 9 concerning fish naming conventions and strategies to assist reducing fish substitution. Convention generally agreed that fish substitution could potentially lead to food safety issues and damage the good reputation of the seafood industry. Numerous examples of potential food safety issues through the misnaming of fish or fish substitution. Well known that some fish species contain higher levels of mercury than others and incorrect naming of fish may result in pregnant women consuming higher levels of mercury than expected thus increasing the risk of complications to the foetus. Other fish species are known to be associated with ciguatera poisoning. The main control in preventing ciguatera poisoning relies on banning these species from sale and restricting the sale of others based on size. Eating escolar or rudderfish may cause keriorrhoea (passing of oil) due to the presence of waxy oils. Correct naming of these fish allows the consumer to make an informed decision and not suffer potential embarrassment or concern These three examples demonstrate how incorrect naming of seafood can adversely affect the consumer and the reputation of the seafood industry. Believes that there is a need for legislative support for the adoption of common fish names across Australia. States that the Code would appear to be the most appropriate legal document for this purpose. Recommends the adoption of common fish names either in the Food Product Standard Section of the Food Standards Code, or within the proposed Primary Produce and Processing Standard (P265) with naming based on the work already undertaken by the Fish Names Committee. Believes that a mandatory requirement to correctly name fish would lead to better food safety protection for the general public and increase consumer confidence in seafood and in the seafood industry.