Transcript Food safety and aquatic animals Lahsen Ababouch Chief, Fish Products, Trade and Marketing Fisheries and Aquaculture Department Food and Agriculture Organization Rome, Italy OIE Global Conference on.

Food safety and aquatic
animals
Lahsen Ababouch
Chief, Fish Products, Trade and Marketing
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department
Food 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
World Fish Trade 2007 (by value)
Exports
Imports
Developing
countries
18%
Others
9%
Others
19%
Japan
13%
Japan
2%
EU (27)
26%
USA
14%
EU (27)
43%
USA
5%
Developing
countries
48%
Fisheries and Aquaculture Value Chain (Estimated at
US $ 818 billion)
Capture fisheries
US $ 100 billion
Aquaculture
US $ 98 billion
3
Primary
processing
US $ 90 billion
Secondary
processing
US $ 180
billion
Distribution
US $ 350
billion
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
“any measure”
Scope of SPS and TBT is different!
technical regulations, standards, conformity assessment procedures
Central Governments, regional Governments, Non Government Organizations
SPS/TBT, harmonization and equivalence
World Trade Organisation
Guidelines
Standards
Codes of Practice
of CODEX, OIE,
IPPC or
other international
Organizations
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. 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)
UNIFORM PROCEDURE
1
Decision to elaborate standard (Commission)
2
3
4
5
6
Draft standard proposed (Relevant Codex Committee)
7
8
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)
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)
The Risk Analysis Process
Risk
Assessment
Risk
Management
“scientific”
“policy”
•hazards
•exposure
•dose-response
•synthesis
•uncertainty
Process
Initiation
•social
•cultural
•economic
Risk Communication
(interactive exchange
of
information and ideas)
How do “experts” and consumers rate risks?
Actual Risk
HIGH
LOW
Risk Factor
microbi ol ogic al contamin ati on
packag ing fail ure
di stri buti on fa il ure
pesti cide resi dues
bi ote chnol ogy
food addi ti ves
food irrad iatio n
Perceiv ed
Risk
LOW
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
(01-04)
CAUSE
chemical
total
50
101
247
103
137
46
684
total
Chloramphenicol
0
0
44(43%)
44
188(76%)
102
73(71%)
13
48(35%)
8
26(57%)
0
nitrofurans
0
0
85
50
26
12
malachite green
0
0
1
10
14
14
total
46(92%)
57(56%)
58(23%)
29(28%)
87(64%)
19(41%)
100%
379
55%
296
biological
others
Vibrio
(parahaemolyticus/cholerae)
36
(16/20)
38
(25/13)
37
(27/10)
15
(13/2)
26
(22/4)
2
(2/0)
salmonella
6
12
17
2
13
4
mesophiles
3
6
4
2
6
4
listeria
0
0
0
10
34
7
e.coli
1
1
0
0
8
2
total
Labeling
4(8%)
4
0
1(1%)
1
1(1%)
0
2(1%)
2
1(2%)
0
temp.control
0
0
0
1
0
1
43%
9
2%
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)
Gross Revenue
increased by
14%
Profit
Doubled over
the year
29
Progress: 2007-2009
2007
2008
2009
2010
11
34
84
93
47
260
1100
2656
22
184
1027
2442
Villages
Farmers
Ha
30
FAO 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
Market driven phase
Guidelines for aquaculture certification
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Background
Scope
Terms and Definitions
Users
Application
6. Principles (OIE)
7. Minimum Substantive Criteria
7.1 Animal Health and Welfare (OIE)
7.2 Food Safety and Quality
7.3 Environmental Integrity
7.4 Social Responsibility
8. INSTITUTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
8.1 Governance
8.2 Standards Setting
8.3 Accreditation
8.4 Certification
9. Implementation
http://www.fao.org/fishery/about/cofi/aquaculture/en
!ً‫شكرا‬
谢谢!
Thank you!
Merci!
Gracias!
Спасибо
[email protected]