food safety and aquatic animals lahsen ababouch chief, fish products, trade and marketing fisheries...

Food safety and aquatic animals

Lahsen AbabouchChief, Fish Products, Trade and Marketing

Fisheries and Aquaculture DepartmentFood and Agriculture Organization

Rome, Italy

OIE Global Conference on Aquatic Animal Health Programmes:

Their benefits for Global Food Security

Panama City, 28 – 30 June 2011

Imports

Japan 13%

USA 14%

Others9%

EU (27)43%

Developing countries

18%

Exports

Japan 2%Others

19%EU (27)

26%

USA 5%

Developing countries

48%

World Fish Trade 2007 (by value)

Fisheries and Aquaculture Value Chain (Estimated at US $ 818 billion)

Capture fisheriesUS $ 100 billion Primary

processing

US $ 90 billion

Secondary processing

US $ 180 billion

Distribution

US $ 350 billion Aquaculture

US $ 98 billion

3

Historical background

Attempts to codify food well known by early civilizations and during the middle age

Scientific developments of nineteenth century More recent milestones

1. 1963: Creation of the Codex Alimentarius

2. 1985, the UNGA adopted resolution 39/248 on guidelines for consumer protection

3. 1995: Creation of the WTO and signing of two agreements on The SPS measures and on TBT

Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT)

Revised Agreement from Tokyo Round (1973 - 79) Purpose of Agreement:

1. To encourage the development and use of international standards and conformity assessment systems

2. to prevent the use of technical requirements as unjustifiable trade barriers

3. To prevent deceptive trade practices Product (1979) vs. product, process and

production methods (1995) SPS measures for agriculture and foods dealt with

separately under SPS

Scope of SPS and TBT is different!

technical regulations, standards, conformity assessment procedures

Central Governments, regional Governments, Non Government Organizations

“any measure”

World Trade Organisation

GuidelinesStandards

Codes of Practiceof CODEX, OIE,

IPPC orother international

Organizations

SPS/TBT, harmonization and equivalence

National Regulations

Objectives of the Codex alimentarius

To protect the health of consumers;

To ensure fair trade practices in food production and distribution;

To coordinate the development of food standards and facilitate international trade in food

Management Organs of the Codex Alimentarius

The Executive Committee

The Regional Co-coordinating Committees

The Secretariat of the Commission

Technical Organs of the Codex Alimentarius

9 General Subject (horizontal) Committees

12 Commodity (vertical) Committees

4 Ad Hoc Inter-Governmental Task Forces (JECFA, JEMRA,...)

General Subject Committees

1. General Principles (France)

2. Import/Export Inspection and Certification Systems

(Australia)

3. Food Labeling (Canada)

4. Methods of Analysis & Sampling (Hungary)

5. Food Hygiene (USA)

6. Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Food (USA)

7. Pesticide Residues (Netherlands)

8. Food Additives and Contaminants (Netherlands)

9. Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (Germany)

Active Commodity Committees

1. Fats and Oils (Malaysia)

2.2. Fish and Fishery Products (Norway)Fish and Fishery Products (Norway)

3. Milk and Milk Products (New Zealand)

4. Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (Mexico)

5. Cocoa Products & Chocolate

(Switzerland)

6. Natural Mineral Waters (Switzerland)

Decision to elaborate standard (Commission)

Draft standard proposed (Relevant Codex Committee)

Request for Comments (Secretariat)

Amendments / Session (Relevant Codex Committee)

Adoption as a draft standard (Commission)

Request for Comments (Secretariat)

Amendments / Session (Relevant Codex Committee)

Adoption as a Codex standard (Commission)

1

2

34

56

7

8

UNIFORM PROCEDURE

Codex Outputs relevant to Fisheries and aquaculture

Code of practice for food hygiene (GHP, HACCP, Risk assessment, microbiological criteria)

Standards for fish and fishery products (Volume 9A: 16 standards on frozen, canned, salted and dried fish, 2 guidelines for sensory evaluation)

Code of practice for Fish and Fishery products (GHP, GAP, HACCP)

Several international risk assessments (Vibrios in seafood, biotoxins, antimicrobial resistance)

Several principles and guidelines for food import and export inspection and certification

MRL for veterinary drugs relevant to FFP MRL for contaminants relevant to FFP Work in progress (EC Viruses, Risk/benefits of

MeHg or active chlorine, antimicrobial resistance, fish sauce, sturgeon caviar)

The food chain approach (FAO)

Prevention at Source Risk Analysis Harmonization Equivalence Traceability

Prevention at source

Producers and processors are responsible for fish safety and quality along the food chain using preventive systems (GAP, GHP, HACCP and GMP)

Competent authorities enact food laws and regulations, verify that producers and processors apply properly preventive systems (through inspection, audit and verification)

Risk Communication(interactive exchange

ofinformation and ideas)

RiskAssessment

“scientific”•hazards•exposure•dose-response•synthesis•uncertainty

Risk Managemen

t

“policy”•social

•cultural•economic

ProcessInitiation

The Risk Analysis Process

How do “experts” and consumers rate risks?How do “experts” and consumers rate risks?

Actual Risk Risk FactorPerceived

RiskHIGH microbiological contamination LOW

packaging failuredistribution failurepesticide residues

biotechnologyfood additives

LOW food irradiation HIGH

Food safety hazards from aquatic animal products

Microbiological contaminants: 1. Bacteria (Vibrio spp., Salmonella, Shigella, E.coli,...)2. viruses (hepatitis A, Norwalk)3. Parasites (nematodes, cestodes, trematodes)

Chemical contaminants: pesticides, heavy metals, dioxins, PCBs,...

Residues of

1. veterinary drugs (chloramphenicol, nitrofurans, green malachite,...)

2. additives (e.g. metabisulfites)

Biotoxins: PSP, DSP, ASP, NSP

EU Rapid Alert System-by causes for Aquaculture

    2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

CAUSE   total  50  101  247  103  137

(01-04)

46

totalChloramphenicol

00

44(43%)44

188(76%)102

73(71%)13

48(35%)8

26(57%)0

chemical nitrofurans 0 0 85 50 26 12

  malachite green 0 0 1 10 14 14

total

Vibrio(parahaemolyticus/cholerae)

46(92%)

36(16/20)

57(56%)

38(25/13)

58(23%)

37(27/10)

29(28%)

15(13/2)

87(64%)

26(22/4)

19(41%)

2(2/0)

  salmonella 6 12 17 2 13 4

biological mesophiles 3 6 4 2 6 4

  listeria 0 0 0 10 34 7

  e.coli 1 1 0 0 8 2

otherstotal

Labeling4(8%)

4  01(1%)

11(1%)

 02(1%)

21(2%)

0 

  temp.control 0  0  0  1 0  1

379

55%

296

43%

9

2%

684

100%

Sources of food safety hazards in aquaculture

Farm and its surroundings Water Source of fry and fingerlings Feed Grow-out (practices, workers, animals) Harvesting and transportation

Biosecurity vs GAP/GHP

Harmonization and equivalence

Codex standards, Codes of practice and guidelines

European Union: “Farm to Fork” Food Hygiene Package (2002 + 2005)

FDA: 1997 (21CFR 1230): GHP, GMP, Guidance for hazards in fish and fishery products, Seafood HACCP Alliance training program

Mutual recognition agreements

Economics (US$ per ha)

Profit Doubled over

the year

Gross Revenue

increased by 14%

29

Progress: 2007-2009

2007 2008 2009 2010

Villages11 34 84 93

Farmers47 260 1100 2656

Ha22 184 1027 2442

30FAO Aceh 601/ARC Jun

2010

Development of “private standards”

Food scares: Mad cow disease, Dioxin, Avian flu, SARS,...

Loss of confidence in public control authorities

Concern over the sustainability of natural resources, the marine fauna (dolphins, whales, turtles,...) and environment

Increasing influence of civil society and consumer advocacy groups

Globalization of production, processing and trade

Vertical integration and Consolidation

“Supermarketization”, including in developing countries

Increasing role of retailers as the last link between suppliers and consumers.

The use of B2B standards to protect reputations

Emergence of coalitions (GFSI, BRC)

• “Corporate social responsibility”

- Legality (IUU)- Sustainability- Certification - Eco-labelling- Tracability and chain of custody- Social and Environmental aspects

Market Response

Individual logos are the property of the owner and used for illustration purposes only

Implications

Competing standards and labels can be confusing as to the value of the process

Definition of boundaries between private and public sectors. Who is responsible for what?

Duplication or complementarity Compliance with WTO rules Who bears the cost of certification Specific needs of small scale businesses

and developing countries

• Governments• Policymakers• Fisheries Bodies• National Fisheries

• Fishing• Farming Sector

• Processors • Retailers

B2CFocus

‘B2B’Focus

‘B2B’Focus

Market driven phase

Guidelines for aquaculture certification

1. Background2. Scope3. Terms and Definitions4. Users5. Application

6. Principles (OIE)7. Minimum Substantive Criteria

7.1 Animal Health and Welfare (OIE) 7.2 Food Safety and Quality7.3 Environmental Integrity7.4 Social Responsibility

8. INSTITUTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS8.1 Governance8.2 Standards Setting8.3 Accreditation8.4 Certification

9. Implementation http://www.fao.org/fishery/about/cofi/aquaculture/en

! B شكرًا

谢谢 !

Thank you!

Merci!

Gracias!

Спасибо

Lahsen.Ababouch@fao.org