The 29th Session of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products
(CCFFP) was held on February 18-23, 2008 in Trondheim, Norway. Participants
were from 50 member states, one member organization and one international
organization. Some highlights that reflect the U.S. effort and interest
are included below.
Meeting Summary
(1) Draft Standard for Live and Raw Bivalve Molluscs
The CCFFP had previously listed examples of testing regimes for
E. coli and fecal coliform in this standard so as to recognize
various country interests and practices and to prevent Committee
deadlock. However, the Codex
Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) recommended that only one microbiological
criterion be set as an indicator for fecal coliforms. Recognizing
that the examples currently listed are not significantly different
from one another and are not likely to produce substantially different
public health outcomes, the U.S., along with other countries that
use fecal coliform as the indicator organism, agreed to refer only
to the limit for E. coli, irrespective of the type of indicator
bacteria used in growing area monitoring programs. In addition,
the CCFFP agreed to include a new section in the Standard that considers
actions to be taken by the competent authority when the microbiological
criteria were not met.
In response to concerns raised by the CCFH on the use of a 3-class
sampling plan, the CCFFP indicated that this was consistent with
the General Guidelines on Sampling and with the recommendations
by the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications
for Foods in Microorganisms in Foods 2: Sampling for Microbiological
Analysis: Principles and Specific Applications. The CCFFP agreed
to delay consideration of a criterion for Vibrio parahaemolyticus
pending completion of the work undertaken by the CCFH on a Code
of Hygienic Practices for Vibrio spp. in seafood. The United
States supported this proposal, recognizing that further scientific
research is needed on Vibrio parahaemolyticus.
The CCFFP agreed on all the levels proposed for biotoxins and transferred
the language to a new section on Contaminants as recommended by
the CCFH. Only the method for the saxitoxin group has been endorsed
by the Codex
Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS) currently
so, the CCFFP decided to include the table listing other methods
in an Annex that would be circulated for further comment and consideration
at Step 6. Similarly, the CCFFP agreed to retain language indicating
five 25g samples be used in determining presence of Salmonella,
but requested consultation from FAO and WHO to consider the risk
mitigation for Salmonella in bivalve molluscs when different
sampling plans and microbiological criteria are applied.
Discussions regarding labeling resulted in some minor modifications
and an agreement that labeling of non-retail containers should include
the identification of the product by its common and/or scientific
name, as determined by the competent authority, leaving the possibility
to the country where the product is sold to require the scientific
name.
(2) Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products;
section on Processing of Live and Raw Bivalve Molluscs
The United States, along with other Delegations, pointed out that
there were different possibilities for monitoring waters and that
the use of fecal coliforms and total coliforms as indicators should
be retained in addition to E. coli because the different
monitoring systems could all be effective in ensuring the safety
of bivalves. The concerns of CCFH in advocating a single indicator
were addressed in the Standard. The CCFFP agreed that a more flexible
approach could be taken in the Code of Practice for the purposes
of monitoring and therefore, the CCFFP agreed to retain the language
allowing the use of all three indicators.
The Delegation of the European Community (EC) proposed documentation
requirements that should accompany the consignments sent to distribution
centers. The CCFFP agreed to make several revisions to the EC proposal,
including allowing the use of a common and/or scientific name to
identify the bivalve molluscs, where appropriate. The United States
and other delegations made refinements to the EC proposal, such
as distinguishing documentation requirements for consignments arriving
in the distribution center and those arriving in the depuration
center. The CCFFP made other minor modifications and clarifications
of terms in the standard and consequently reached consensus to advance
the Draft Code of Practice section on Processing of Live and Raw
Bivalve Molluscs to Step 8.
(3) Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products;
section on Processing of Lobsters
Revisions made to this section of the Code of Practice were primarily
for clarification and were done without much discussion by the CCFFP.
One item that was discussed was the use of water chlorination. The
Delegation of the European Community opposed the use of chlorinated
water and proposed to revise text which would allow for the establishment
to use chlorine for water treatment, provided that the residual
chlorine did not exceed levels for potable water. The United States
did not disagree with this language given its flexibility. Brazil,
along with other Delegations, disagreed with the EC position, noting
that further scientific advice from the FAO/WHO on chlorination
would be forthcoming and a previous discussion paper submitted to
the Committee by the WHO had shown that residual levels of chlorine
of up to 10mg/l did not pose a risk to human health. The Committee
decided to accept the proposed amendments to the text by the Delegation
of the European Union and noted the reservation of the Delegation
of Brazil to this decision.
(4) Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products;
section on Processing of Crabs
During the last session, the CCFFP decided to split the sections
on processing of crabs and lobsters. Although the CCFFP decided
to advance the section on processing of lobsters to Step 8, the
section on processing of crabs needed further discussion by the
CCFFP at this session. The CCFFP agreed to several clarifying modifications.
Among the revisions agreed upon include noting that biotoxins in
addition to parasites for certain species of crabs could be a potential
hazard. In addition, the Committee also agreed to delete the phrasing
"survival of pathogens microorganisms" as a potential hazard in
section xx3.1.4, to highlight that the cooking process is not intended
to reduce or eliminate pathogens but to aid the removal of the crab
flesh. The United States proposed other modifications such as the
inclusion of language to note that products that undergo pasteurization
are not shelf stable; that products should be exposed to procedures
that would specifically address non-proteolytic Clostridium
botulinum risk; and that appropriate time and temperatures
would inactivate microorganisms that could grow during storage.
Due to time constraints, the Committee did not consider the section
on chilled and frozen cooked crab and agreed to return the draft
Code to Step 6 for further comments and discussion at the next session.
The Committee agreed to establish a working group to consider comments
received at Step 6.
(5) Draft Standard for Sturgeon Caviar
After much discussion, the Committee made several revisions to the
draft standard, including amending the definition of fish eggs to
refer to use of non-ovulated eggs and to indicate that for aquaculture
sturgeon, ovulated eggs could be used. Other modifications were
agreed upon, including noting in the text that salt content was
for the end product, amending the process definition to differentiate
among product temperatures required during packaging, storage and
retail and wholesale, and specifying the allowance for freezing
and frozen storage of caviar provided that deterioration of quality
is avoided. The Committee recognized the finding by the Committee
on Food Additives that the use of boric acid in sturgeon caviar
is not allowed, but agreed to further discuss the food additives
section for the next Session in order to explore the use of other
food additives.
Due to time constraints, the Committee did not complete review
of the draft standard and agreed to return the standards as amended
to Step 6 for further comments and consideration by the next Session
of the Committee.
(6) Quick Frozen Scallop Adductor Muscle Meat; Proposed
Draft Standard and section on Processing of Scallop Adductor Muscle
Meat in the Proposed Draft Code of Practice
The Committee discussed the scope of the Standard at length and
concluded that quick frozen scallops with added water or those with
significant uptake of water should not be included in the present
standard. The Delegation of the United States considered a proposal
for new work for the next session on the development of a specific
standard for quick frozen scallops with added water for the next
session. The Committee discussed food additives and agreed that
phosphates could be used, but did not decide upon levels of use.
An electronic working group led by Canada will prepare a revised
version that would include a proposed list of phosphates among other
items for consideration at the next session. The section of the
Proposed Draft Code of Practice on Processing of Scallop Meat was
only briefly discussed due to time constraints, but the CCFFP recognized
that the discussion should correspond with the products included
in the Standard. The electronic working group established for the
Standard would also revise the section of the Proposed Draft Code
of Practice.
(7) Smoked Fish; Proposed Draft Standard and section on
Processing of Smoked Fish in the Proposed Draft Code of Practice
Prior to this session, the Netherlands established an electronic
working group to revise the draft standard. The resulting draft
included smoked fish, smoke-flavored fish, and smoked-dried fish.
The CCFFP had considerable discussion over the inclusion and definition
of the three smoked fish products at this session. An in-session
working group was convened to discuss the product and process definitions.
Some technical amendments were made as a result of the working group's
discussion and the CCFFP agreed to include all three smoked fish
products in the Standard at the working group's recommendation.
The Committee also agreed that carbon monoxide treated fish was
not considered smoked fish and should not be included in the Standard.
Consideration was given to listing information specific to histamine
forming fish in the Standard, but the CCFFP agreed to elaborate
that information in the code of practice instead. The CCFFP made
some modifications to the labeling requirements in the standard
so that the name of the food would be smoked 'fish,' smoked-flavoured
'fish,' or smoked-dried 'fish' where 'fish' would be the common
or commercial name of the species of fish used in accordance with
the law and customs of the country where the product is sold. Due
to time constraints, the Committee did not consider all sections
of the Standard and did not discuss the section on Processing of
Smoked Fish in the Proposed Draft Code of Practice, but agreed to
return these drafts to Step 3 for comments and further consideration
by the next session. The Committee agreed to establish a physical
working group to be led by the Netherlands to discuss the Standard
and comments received as well as the section in the Proposed Draft
Code of Practice.
(8) Proposed Draft Revision of the Procedure for the Inclusion
of Additional Species in Standards for Fish and Fishery Products
The Committee did not enter into a detailed discussion on this agenda
item, but agreed to establish a physical working group led by France
to review the inclusion procedure of additional species in the standards
with a view to its inclusion in the Procedural Manual. The Committee
agreed to circulate the Proposed Draft Procedure for the Inclusion
of Additional Species in Standards for Fish and Fishery Products
at Step 3 for comments and further revision by the physical working
group for consideration by the next Session of the Committee.
(9) Proposed Draft Standard for Fish Sauce
The Committee discussed the proposal for fish sauce undertaken by
Thailand and other countries. The Committee discussed at length
the scope of the draft standard and ultimately reached the conclusion
to limit the scope to products prepared with only fish but to include
fish sauce prepared with technologies other than traditional fermentation.
The Delegations of United States, Cambodia, Japan and Germany volunteered
to assist the Delegation of Thailand in further development of the
draft standard.
(10) Proposed Draft Amendment to the Standard for Quick
Frozen Fish Sticks
Discussion of this agenda item was deferred until the next Session
of the Committee, in light of the need for further research on nitrogen
factors. The Delegation of Thailand, with assistance of other interested
countries, agreed to prepare a proposed draft standard for circulation
at Step 3.
(11) Proposed Draft Standard for Fresh/Live and Frozen
Abalone
The Committee reviewed the scope of this draft standard to include
other gastropods and agreed to include in the Proposed Draft Standard
fresh/live, frozen and raw chilled abalone of the species Haliotis
and other relevant species. The Committee agreed to both return
the proposed draft Standard to Step 2/3 for redrafting by South
Africa and circulate for comments and consideration by the next
session of the Committee.
(12) Other items considered by CCFFP
The Delegation of Canada described the global increase of standards
on contaminants, in particular maximum limits for cadmium in shrimp,
but noted the finding of the 55th JECFA meeting (2000) that crustaceans
were not among the main contributors to cadmium exposure. The Committee
on Food Additives and Contaminants agreed to discontinue work on
establishing maximum levels for cadmium given the JECFA findings
and therefore, the CCFFP determined that it was not necessary to
develop a maximum level for cadmium in shrimp at this time.
The Commission decided to disallow consequential changes to the
commodity standards when adopting food additive provisions until
the General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) was finalized. In
light of this decision, the CCFFP decided to work on aligning food
additive provisions in the different standards to ensure consistency
with the GSFA. In order to accomplish this, the Secretariat agreed
to prepare a circular letter listing current additive levels in
the standards and relevant provisions in the GSFA and solicit comments
on the need for amendments to the additive sections. |