Food Standards Australia New Zealand
P. O. Box 7186
Canberra BC
ACT 2610
Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council Submission Re:
Proposal P265 Issues Paper
Development of a Primary Production and Processing Standard for Seafood
The Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council (TFIC) is the peak representative body for all Tasmanian licenced commercial fishermen, marine farmers and seafood processors.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Issues Paper. This submission is made to FSANZ on behalf of our stakeholders, in the interests of achieving a transition to the new standard in as seamless a way as is possible.
It is appropriate to use the period for public and ongoing industry consultation to capitalise on the substantial industry energy that has been invested into the process so far.
Attached, please find the TFIC submission.
Yours faithfully,
Ralph Mitchell
Executive Officer
Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council (TFIC)
Submission to
Food Standards Australia & New Zealand (FSANZ)
Re the Issues Paper for Proposal P265,
released for public comment as part of the development of the national
Primary Production and Processing Standard for seafood
.
Author: Ralph Mitchell
Contributions from:
John Roach,
Bryan Skepper,
Phil Walsh,
Ted Loveday.
Submitted electronically and via post: 25 February 2003
The Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council
The Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council (TFIC) is the peak representative body for the commercial fishing industry in Tasmania. TFIC represents the interests of all licenced wildcatch commercial fishermen, marine farmers and seafood processors in Tasmania.
Introduction
TFIC acknowledges the importance and relevance of the establishment of national food safety standards. This submission on the proposed Primary Production and Processing Standard for seafood is presented as a result of TFIC having an interest in any issue that may impact upon the Tasmanian commercial seafood industry, as well as concerns about any unnecessary added impost to industry.
TFIC welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Issues Paper for Proposal P265. This submission will address pertinent issues such as those summarised in the preface of the Issues Paper, as well as commenting on other issues where necessary.
Industry Standard
There has been a great deal of seafood industry/regulatory expertise and energy invested into the development of a national industry seafood standard over the past three years. This industry preferred standard detailed in the Seafood Services Australia (SSA)/Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC) application to FSANZ should be utilised within the proposed 'outcomes based' standard where appropriate, perhaps performing a significant role as part of the interpretive guidelines.
Comment
Scope: (Issues Paper: 5)
The scope of the proposed Primary Production and Processing Standard for seafood should be clearly defined at the outset, with 'seafood' (5.1) meaning "…any fish or other aquatic plant or animal intended for human consumption" . This should perhaps be qualified as 'seafood that has been commercially captured or farmed and is intended for the purpose of human consumption'. (Definition of 'seafood' in the Australian Seafood Standard).
This definition clearly covers finfish, crustaceans, cephalopods, oysters and molluscs such as mussels, scallops, abalone etc; however, interpretive guidelines could be used if listing species and seafood types are considered necessary. The standard should probably include marine plants harvested for human consumption (especially where there is a level of arsenic present), but not include crocodile or mammalian meat.
The scope should embrace all seafood that is produced and/or traded commercially in Australia from sources as diverse as commercial wildcatch harvesting, marine farming, imported and exported product or any seafood sold on the Australian domestic market.
Other chemical/biological hazards: (Issues Paper: 4.2.2)
Comment is requested as to whether there should be any other chemical or biological hazards that need to be specifically addressed in the proposed standard.
All chemicals or biological hazards in foods that pose a threat to human health are obviously a risk and as such will automatically come within the standard. TFIC questions the need to list them in a standard that would require regular updating.
The 'outcome based' standard should be a minimalist document, i.e.; it should be neither specific nor prescriptive apart from clearly stating that the seafood produced and sold in Australia must be safe food for human consumption. Microbiological and chemicals are addressed in previous sections of the Food Code and should simply be referenced in Chapter 4.
As this is intended to be an outcomes based standard, these hazards could be listed or addressed within dynamic interpretive guidelines that are appended to the standard. This part of the document would be easily updated as required.
Point of Sale (Issues Paper: 5.2)
The Issues Paper (page 19) questions whether the standard should regulate from the point of harvest through to the point of retail sale. This seafood standard should be applicable through the entire production chain, up to but excluding the point of retail sale, assuming that the point of retail sale is already covered in Chapter 3 of the Code.
As the Issues Paper raises the question in the first place, TFIC questions whether the point of retail sale is sufficiently (comprehensively) covered under preceding chapters of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code?
Fishing Vessels
Regulation of fishing vessels may pose some complex problems and as such should be considered from a risk-based perspective. Most fishing vessels that produce a live (landed) product pose minimal threat to food safety. It is possible that some boats may demonstrate that there is little or no significant risk of introducing a hazard to the seafood in the normal course of events during harvesting wildcatch. If this is the case (and excepting the 'far-fetched and fanciful' philosophy embraced by the legal profession) it may be that an exemption from having a certified onboard food safety plan could be appropriate in these instances.
Under the proposed seafood safety standard, vessels that process and/or store the captured product onboard will need to demonstrate that the food they produce is safe for human consumption (deceased product). As such, the food safety plans in place onboard vessels will obviously need some form of regulation under the proposed standard. This poses logistical problems when the catch is processed/stored at sea, as few boats will have the desire to carry an observer or have the room onboard to do so. As such, in most instances, these vessels may be required to demonstrate an adequate food safety plan at the wharf (before or after the event) when required.
A possible solution to this may be to encourage vessel skippers to obtain accredited food safety certification (via government subsidised industry training) that is recognised as adequately covering the food safety aspect onboard until a receival standard takes over at the wharf.
Currently, wild-catch (and marine farm) produce is market driven. The primary driver is to gain the maximum possible price for the product. To produce an inferior quality product or unsafe food would defeat the purpose of seafood primary production, where maximum market price is also often linked to both food quality and the 'reputation' of the producer. This would tend to indicate that the majority of producers already have informal safe food practices in place.
Perhaps an awareness program would reinforce the basic tenets of food safety on board. These of course would include good personal and workplace hygiene, harvesting of seafood only from places known to pose no risk to food safety, appropriate temperature control throughout the harvesting, handling and storage procedure, along with appropriate record keeping.
To regulate and enforce 'on-vessel' standards may be costly, inefficient and impractical. Many types of commercial wild-catch fishing have negligible (or virtually zero) risk to food safety so in these cases a 'receival' standard would possibly be sufficient.
Receival Standard
Perhaps a logical method for this proposed 'mandatory and enforceable' standard to effectively ensure wildcatch fishers produce safe product is to make certain that the responsibility begins onboard, but that regulation/enforcement begins at the wharf.
In those cases where there is processing, substantial transformation of the product, or storage of catch on board (where it may be possible that a hazard could be introduced), the receiver/buyer could be responsible for ensuring that the seafood received from the vessel is safe to eat. To accomplish this, the receiver could be restricted to only handling catch that comes from a vessel with either an approved or certified current food safety plan, or an exemption.
The use of receival standards would be likely to have the effect of both encouraging compliance and of lessening the impost of the proposed standard to the fishing industry.
It is important to mention here that minimising the impost to industry is vital to ensure the cooperation and acceptance of the standard by industry members.
This is neither an appropriate or opportune time for authorities/regulators to effect a 'cash-grab' via licence fees or 'regulatory cost recovery'.
FSANZ Risk Assessment Process (Issues Paper: 6.2.1)
The risk assessment process is the key for justifying the development of a new standard or modification of an existing standard. In the case of seafood production and fishing vessels, a 'one size fits all' would be totally inappropriate and therefore ineffective.
In this application to vessels, a risk assessment process must evaluate where there is a risk and whether it is significant enough to warrant regulation. This would need to be based on the primary production activity, i.e., type of fishing operation, climatic variables (e.g., temperate/tropical waters), species risk of hazard introduction, amount of on-board processing and handling etc.
There will no doubt be areas other than vessels that will need intelligent risk assessment. The FSANZ scientific risk assessment process as detailed in Section 6 appears to be comprehensive and appropriate.
Suitability of the industry preferred standard detailed in the SSA/ASIC application (Issues Paper: 7.2.3)
It is unlikely that any single existing industry or government standard will be so comprehensive as to fulfill all the requirements of the proposed Primary Production and Processing Standard for seafood. It is also inappropriate that the outcome-based standard be prescriptive.
However, acknowledgement must be given to the intense effort made by the Australian seafood industry and regulators to ensure that the Australian industry seafood standard is as precise and as current as it can get. It would be foolish to ignore this expertise and the energy that went into it. The bulk of this document would be ideal for use in the interpretive guidelines, which should utilise as much industry expertise as is possible. To this end, it is strongly recommended that the industry developed Australian Seafood Standard be subsumed into the interpretive guidelines of the proposed standard.
Suitability of existing government standards such as the SafeFood NSW Food Production (Seafood Safety Scheme)
Various schemes have been formulated and adopted by industry to ensure maximum quality/safety of the product. A good example of a partnership agreement developed and agreed to between oyster growers and regulators in Tasmania is the Tasmanian Shellfish Quality Assurance Program (TASQAP). Despite the name of the program indicating a focus on 'quality', this program was designed to ensure maximum food safety of the product. It is now a standard that is managed and enforced by the Department of Health. All Tasmanian oyster growers adhere to it in the interests of both food safety and production of a top quality product.
Existing standards such as TASQAP and the NSW Seafood Safety Scheme should be incorporated into the interpretive guidelines where appropriate (without replication where possible). To rewrite them is unnecessary duplication.
Non-regulatory options (Issues Paper: 7.2.4)
The Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC) has produced 'A Code of Conduct for a Responsible Seafood Industry'. Although not legally binding, this document provides clear unambiguous objectives and principles for Australian seafood producers.
Despite being targeted at raising awareness of ecological issues in the industry, it has as one of its principles:
- The seafood industry will harvest, handle, process and distribute seafood and seafood products in a manner which will maintain the health and nutritional value, quality and safety of the products.
In keeping with the philosophy espoused within this document (but focussing on seafood safety) this type of Code of Conduct or Memorandum of Understanding within the industry as a whole would be a very useful tool, especially in areas where mandatory measures are ineffective. The industry could perhaps condense and adapt portions of the Australian Seafood Standard or other industry Code of Conduct documents (if they exist) for use in this way.
Import Legislation (Issues Paper: 7.3)
The PP&S for Seafood must apply to all seafood traded in Australia regardless of whether it is produced in Australia or imported.
WTO rules provide that a country cannot impose regulation on imports that do not apply domestically. This is an issue that requires further work by the Standards Development Committee.
Time frames needed for industry to comply with food safety management options
It should be understood that the Tasmanian seafood industry is made up of different commodity groups representing different types of fishing (e.g., scalefish, abalone, rock lobster, marine farming and processing etc). The industry is characterised by micro and small businesses.
Vessels, equipment and method of capture/production vary significantly; therefore a 'one size' will definitely not fit all vessels.
Any strategy and time frame for implementation of the proposed plan must be established via close consultation with industry, allowing adequate time and resources to effectively cover all of the various styles of seafood primary production activities and vessels.
Informing enterprises and members of the seafood industry is relatively easy using a vehicle such as mail-outs or inserts/articles in an industry newsletter or magazine. However, to get the majority of the target audience to actually read, absorb and understand the delivered information is an entirely different proposition. This is likely to be more of a problem where there are members of industry who have poor English skills.
As well as that factor to take into account, it would be fair to say that the industry is relatively fragmented. The small coastal population areas dotted around the Tasmanian coastline (equivalent to both New South Wales and Victoria combined) make this situation even more difficult.
To initially gain the attention of these fishers (especially those in remote areas on the west coast), then to instruct and educate those who need it… And to then implement effective food safety plans on-board vessels and in marine production enterprises may well be very challenging, costly and time consuming in Tasmania.
Comment:
In Tasmania, most abalone divers use small open boats deployed daily from trailers anywhere on the Tasmanian coastline. Rock lobster vessels average around 14+ metres in length with displacement hulls, storing the animals live in tanks or 'wet-wells' open to the sea over extended periods of fishing activity, usually based at a specific 'home port'.
Other types of fishing methods employed around Tasmania include vessels and equipment as diverse in nature, technology and size as this previous example. Other examples include many variations/sizes of hook and line, trawl gear, dredges, traps etc.
Valid issues needing consideration for inclusion/exclusion from the proposed standard:
Being mindful that this proposed standard is to harmonise and mesh comfortably with other domestic and international standards, consideration should be given to various issues.
The following dot points may be relevant for discussion by the Standards Development Committee. These issues are not in any particular order of relevance, but are raised here for consideration if needed.
- Despite it being a regulatory 'grey area', there are cases where stolen seafood, or indigenous/recreationally caught seafood still finds its way into the public domain (e.g., fish illegally sold by non-commercial fishers directly to food outlets such as hotels and restaurants or to other private persons).
The standard must be very clear as to any inclusions or exclusions of seafoods from illegitimate sources, right up to the point of retail sale. This would be particularly applicable if the retailer unknowingly purchased seafood from a third person under the impression that the product was legally caught or harvested.
To illustrate this graphically, the Spring 2002 issue of Seafood Australia magazine (Page 40) discusses…
"NSW rock oysters are heading into their peak supply period with rivers and estuaries on the north coast already harvesting top quality product. Thefts from the area, however, have some farmers concerned about quality issues if the stolen oysters end up being 'black-marketed' to commercial re-sellers."
- The exclusion/inclusion of seafood 'quality' within the standard. While 'quality' and 'safety' are not mutually exclusive, they are often two totally different (and often seriously confused) issues. An example could be a quality tropical reef fish that looks perfect but in fact carries the ciguatera toxin, i.e., a top quality product that represents a threat to human safety if consumed.
Perhaps an educative process of some nature may be relevant to enable primary producers of seafood to differentiate between 'quality' and 'safety' factors.
- The exclusion/inclusion of 'truth in labeling' within the standard, addressing country of origin and species i.e., the need for harmonisation with international policy such as World Trade Organization (WTO) trade policy. Is this issue covered adequately in Chapters 1 and 2 in the Food Standards Code?
- The exclusion/inclusion of labeling and lists of additives to value-added product within the standard or the interpretive guidelines. An example here is the species/fish name/origin in products such as fishcakes, crumbed fish fingers, or other packaged products and portions that may include mixed species.
- Notification via labeling of possible health risks (may be species specific). Examples are where a captured tuna species may on occasion demonstrate high levels of histamine, or where a shark or deep sea Southern Ocean species may carry levels of heavy metals such as mercury/cadmium etc. The former may be a food safety issue to a person sensitive to histamine; the latter is an issue for pregnant women.
- Assuming that food safety includes public health issues, consideration must be given to the exclusion/inclusion of dietary comment on retailed product. An example would be in line with the EU directive on foods that may or may not be consumed by persons suffering from specific diseases such as diabetes, or those that need a 'low/zero sodium' or 'gluten free' (e.g. crumbed fish portions) food etc. (Commission of the European Communities White Paper on Food Safety; Brussels, 12 January 2000. COM (1999) 719 final)
- Consideration of explicit traceability requirements may be needed as part of the standard for recall purposes. (Bin/batch numbers that can be related to source/catch data/records; records of raw materials/suppliers etc?).
- The standard may have to consider the exclusion/inclusion of commercially produced feed for commercially farmed marine species. Factors needing consideration may include the specific declaration/regulation of feed additives, minimum/maximum levels and types of specific oils and fats, maximum allowable levels of dioxins and genetically modified components, colourants, supplements, medicinal products such as antibiotics and growth-promoters etc. These components could be found in imported feed ingredients.
- Clear definition of when a wild-caught 'fish', farmed 'fish', wild-caught 'on-grown' animal or harvested marine animal actually stops being 'stock' and becomes 'food'? (In the Tasmanian agricultural sector, livestock only becomes 'food' when it is killed. In the seafood industry there are implications with regard to the growing trend of live seafood at a retail or restaurant level.)
- Clear definition of whether fish/marine animals that are caught and kept alive prior to processing/shipping (such as abalone, clams, oysters, rock lobster) are considered to be 'wild-caught animals' or 'food' during the period that they are kept alive.
- Clear definition of where the standard needs to differentiate between live (often for export) and deceased/stored/processed product.
- Guidelines/definitions of where a primary producer can gain 'recognition' auditing, rather than having to pay for multiple auditing (e.g., does an AQIS approved establishment qualify for exemptions from other audits?)
Re: (Issues Paper: 4.2.1 para 4) Microbiological Risks associated with seafood
It is understandable that an explanation of some of the risks and costs associated with food-borne illnesses from seafood be included within the Issues Paper, however use of the 'Wallis Lakes' incident as an illustration of cost to industry is at best questionable. (Issues Paper, Page 17: These quotes are selectively taken from the Final Report of the National Risk Validation Project by Food Science and Minter Ellison Consulting, 2002. Anecdotal comment from Tasmanian oyster growers and the Master Fish Merchants Association of Australia reveal significant doubt about the accuracy of the $ values claimed for this incident in the Minter Ellison Report.)
Admittedly prices for seafood fell across the board after the incident occurred, with an accompanying temporary reduction in sales. However, the figures ($10 - $30 million) quoted have such astonishing latitude as to indicate a significant lack of quantifiable data. This results in a very misleading estimation of the cost of this food-borne illness outbreak. The figures quoted are based on unquantified 'media estimates' and although illustrative, would appear to be irrelevant to this issues paper. The incident is a graphic example, but the reality about the cost to industry is something different.
While accepting that the situation was lamentable from all aspects, the point to be made here is that the stocks of oysters (that were not sold at that time due to the contamination) were not irretrievably contaminated. With subsequent depuration and ongrowing in cleaner water, these stocks purged the contaminants and were subsequently marketed at a later date. Just because they were not sold at the time of contamination does not mean that they were a total loss to the industry, neither did the drop in sales at the time mean a loss overall.
Oysters from other sources also suffered a drop in demand for approximately six weeks after the incident became public, but again, they were neither lost to the industry nor to the market. Overall, there was a temporary reduction in both cash and product flow, but the affected stocks were later sold at a comparable pre-incident price.
The reality was that by Christmas 1997, the demand for oysters was so great that the Sydney Fish Market retailers were obliged to ration oyster sales to 3 dozen per customer.
Other interstate suppliers had a similar drop in sales to NSW suppliers, with the market subsequently building up to such demand that it outstripped supply over Christmas. This clearly indicates that estimation of the costs/losses of the Wallis Lakes incident to industry is nebulous and these inclusions in the Issues Paper questionable.