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