Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Food safety and aquatic animals

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Food safety and aquatic animals"— Presentation transcript:

1 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

2 World Fish Trade 2007 (by value)
Quality requirements are dominated by three import areas, which represent three quarter of the world imports, EU, Japan, USA where as the exports are to 50% coming from developing countries

3 Fisheries and Aquaculture Value Chain (Estimated at US $ 818 billion)
Capture fisheries US $ 100 billion Primary processing US $ 90 billion Secondary processing US $ 180 billion Distribution US $ 350 billion Aquaculture US $ 98 billion The sector of fisheries and aquaculture contributes significantly to national economies, income and livelihood for millions of people around the world. In 2008, the first sale value of capture fisheries was estimated at US$ 100 billion and that of aquaculture at 98 billion, in addition to US$ 7.4 billion of aquatic plants. This harvest undergoes a primary and a secondary processing before distribution, generating additional value at each subsequent step, estimated in 2007 at US$ 90 billion, 180 US$ billion and 350 US$ billion respectively for primary processing, secondary processing and distribution. This value addition is also accompanied by employment opportunities, especially for women employed in first and secondary processing in developing countries. Analysis of the dynamics of various value-chains in international fish trade can help understand the distribution of benefits in the value-chain and the linkages between the relative benefits obtained and the design of the chain. In an FAO project, comparisons are being made between domestic, regional and international value-chains with the view to understand better how developing countries can increase the value derived from their fishery resources. The project includes capture fisheries – marine and freshwater – as well as aquaculture and involves 15 countries, including Maldives, Bangladesh, Thailand, Vietnam and Combodia from Asia.

4 Historical background
Attempts to codify food well known by early civilizations and during the middle age Scientific developments of nineteenth century More recent milestones 1963: Creation of the Codex Alimentarius 1985, the UNGA adopted resolution 39/248 on guidelines for consumer protection 1995: Creation of the WTO and signing of two agreements on The SPS measures and on TBT Initiated in 1960, work to establish the Codex Alimentarius finalized in 1963 when a Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards programme was adopted In 1985, the UNGA adopted resolution 39/248 on guidelines for consumer protection, which state that “when formulating national policies and plans with regard to food, Governments should take into account the need of all consumers for food security and should support and, as far as possible, adopt standards from the Food and Agriculture Organization’s ... and the World Health Organization’s Codex Alimentarius ...” The agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures and the agreement on the technical barriers to trade were signed by WTO members in 1995

5 Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT)
Revised Agreement from Tokyo Round ( ) Purpose of Agreement: To encourage the development and use of international standards and conformity assessment systems to prevent the use of technical requirements as unjustifiable trade barriers 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

6 Scope of SPS and TBT is different!
“any measure” Scope of SPS and TBT is different! technical regulations, standards, conformity assessment procedures Central Governments, regional Governments, Non Government Organizations The SPS agreement Expanded and updated text from GATT (1947, Article XXII b) and from TBT agreement of the Tokyo Round (1973 – 1978) Purpose of the SPS agreement: - to ensure that measures established by governments to protect human, animal and plant life and health are consistent with obligations prohibiting arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination on trade between countries where the same conditions prevail. - Such measures shall not be applied in a manner that would constitute a disguised restriction on international trade The TBT Agreement: Revised Agreement from Tokyo Round ( ) Purpose of Agreement: - To encourage the development and use of international standards and conformity assessment systems - To prevent the use of technical requirements as unjustifiable trade barriers - 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

7 SPS/TBT, harmonization and equivalence
World Trade Organisation Guidelines Standards Codes of Practice of CODEX, OIE, IPPC or other international Organizations National Regulations

8 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

9 Management Organs of the Codex Alimentarius
The Executive Committee The Regional Co-coordinating Committees The Secretariat of the Commission

10 Technical Organs of the Codex Alimentarius
9 General Subject (horizontal) Committees 12 Commodity (vertical) Committees 4 Ad Hoc Inter-Governmental Task Forces (JECFA, JEMRA,...)

11 General Subject Committees
General Principles (France) Import/Export Inspection and Certification Systems (Australia) Food Labeling (Canada) Methods of Analysis & Sampling (Hungary) Food Hygiene (USA) Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Food (USA) Pesticide Residues (Netherlands) Food Additives and Contaminants (Netherlands) Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (Germany)

12 Active Commodity Committees
Fats and Oils (Malaysia) Fish and Fishery Products (Norway) Milk and Milk Products (New Zealand) Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (Mexico) Cocoa Products & Chocolate (Switzerland) Natural Mineral Waters (Switzerland)

13 UNIFORM PROCEDURE 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) Adoption as a Codex standard (Commission) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8



16 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)

17 The food chain approach (FAO)
Prevention at Source Risk Analysis Harmonization Equivalence Traceability Fish safety and quality from a food chain perspective should incorporate the three fundamental components of risk analysis - assessment, management and communication Tracing techniques (traceability) from the primary producer through post-harvest treatment, processing and distribution to the consumer must be improved. Harmonisation of fish quality and safety standards, implying use of internationally agreed, scientifically-based standards Equivalence in food safety systems – achieving the same results whatever means of control are used Increased emphasis on risk avoidance or prevention at source within the whole food chain – from farm or sea to plate,

18 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)

19 (interactive exchange information and ideas)
The Risk Analysis Process Risk Assessment “scientific” hazards exposure dose-response synthesis uncertainty Risk Management “policy” social cultural economic Risk Communication (interactive exchange of information and ideas) Process Initiation

20 How do “experts” and consumers rate risks?

21 Food safety hazards from aquatic animal products
Microbiological contaminants: Bacteria (Vibrio spp., Salmonella, Shigella, E.coli,...) viruses (hepatitis A, Norwalk) Parasites (nematodes, cestodes, trematodes) Chemical contaminants: pesticides, heavy metals, dioxins, PCBs,... Residues of veterinary drugs (chloramphenicol, nitrofurans, green malachite,...) additives (e.g. metabisulfites) Biotoxins: PSP, DSP, ASP, NSP

22 EU Rapid Alert System-by causes for Aquaculture
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 CAUSE   total  50  101  247  103  137 (01-04) 46 total Chloramphenicol 44(43%) 44 188(76%) 102 73(71%) 13 48(35%) 8 26(57%) chemical nitrofurans 85 50 26 12 malachite green 1 10 14 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%) (22/4) 19(41%) 2 (2/0) salmonella 6 17 4 biological mesophiles 3 listeria 34 7 e.coli others Labeling 4(8%)  0 1(1%) 2(1%) 1(2%) temp.control 684 100% 379 55% 296 43% 9 2%

23 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

24 Harmonization and equivalence
Codex standards, Codes of practice and guidelines European Union: “Farm to Fork” Food Hygiene Package ( ) FDA: 1997 (21CFR 1230): GHP, GMP, Guidance for hazards in fish and fishery products, Seafood HACCP Alliance training program Mutual recognition agreements

25 Placard showing project site
Study of aquaculture practices, possible sources of parasites and pathogens that affect fish heath Develop site-specific good aquaculture practices and train farmers on implementation Training of the officers of Bureau of Fisheries Improve awareness in farmers about animal health problems and strategies for prevention of diseases Support to the Laboratory and training on monitoring water and sediment quality, monitoring use of chemicals by farmers

26 Desiltaion of ponds- about 1 meter silt was removed

27 Training of DOF officers on water quality and fish health management

28 Harvesting of demonstration ponds
Ten demonstration and 10 non demonstration ponds Mean profit in non-demonstration ponds: Yuan 958 Mean profit in demonstration ponds: Yuan 1678

29 Gross Revenue increased by 14% Profit Doubled over the year
Economics (US$ per ha) Gross Revenue increased by 14% Profit Doubled over the year people reached by BMP programme 47 farmers in 2007, following BMPs; 2656 in 2010. Losses to disease halved, numbers making a profit doubled 150 farmers’ groups formed, 27 Petua Neuheun at the organizational level above Aquaculture strategy, spatial plan, tilapia diversification, studies on socio-economics, potential for freshwater and oyster farming Strengthening government capacity & support

30 Progress: 2007 2008 2009 2010 Villages 11 34 84 93 Farmers 47 260 1100 2656 Ha 22 184 1027 2442 FAO Aceh 601/ARC Jun 2010

31 Development of “private standards”
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) 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 FSMs: food safety management standards; FSMS: Food safety management systems

32 “Corporate social responsibility” - Legality (IUU) - Sustainability - Certification - Eco-labelling - Tracability and chain of custody - Social and Environmental aspects As a result, major buyers have developed corporate social responsibility policies which now regularly include references to a range of private standards. The fisheries procurement policies of most large retailers typically include a significant sustainability component, often with targets for wild caught fish to be certified to an ecolabel, and for farmed fish and seafood to be certified to an aquaculture certification scheme. Suppliers working at the post-harvest level are increasingly required to be certified to a private food safety management certification scheme. The onus is therefore increasingly on suppliers to verify that their products meet certain standards. Certification provides this ‘burden of proof’. The costs and benefits of certification accrue differently to different stakeholders. Retailers are the main drivers for certification and reap the most rewards in terms of value-addition to their brand and reputation, risk management, ease of procurement, and potential price premiums, at relatively low or no cost (relating to chain of custody certification or licence fees). In contrast, producers assume the main cost burden. 32

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

34 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

35 Market driven phase ‘B2B’ Focus ‘B2B’ Focus B2C Focus Governments
Policymakers Fisheries Bodies National Fisheries Fishing Farming Sector Processors Retailers

36 Guidelines for aquaculture certification
Background Scope Terms and Definitions Users Application Principles (OIE) 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

37 ! شكراً 谢谢! Thank you! Merci! Gracias! Спасибо

Download ppt "Food safety and aquatic animals"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google