82
H. Toyofuku
harvesting area monitoring programmes and epidemiological data linking outbreaks
of Salmonella to bivalve molluscs. The data showed that most countries do not
monitor shellfish harvesting areas for Salmonella, but rely on monitoring faecal
contamination using indicator bacteria in shellfish meat or surrounding water.
Epidemiological data showed that bivalves have rarely been involved in outbreaks of salmonellosis, suggesting that there was no particular public health
problem associated with Salmonella in bivalve molluscs. The FAO Representative
indicated that most studies on Salmonella in bivalve harvesting areas have used
single samples (n D 1) and there were very limited data using multiple samples
and, therefore, data are inadequate for the evaluation of sampling plans. The
CCFFP was further informed that the International Commission on Microbiological
Specifications for Foods (ICMSF) did not recommend microbiological criteria
for Salmonella in bivalve molluscs and that the Codex Guidelines on Sampling
(CAC/GL 50-2004) recommends sampling plan classification according to the
nature of the problem. Relating epidemiological data to these guidelines would
suggest continuation of currently recommended (n D 5; c D 0, m D non dateable
in 25 g) sampling plan, when there is a need for testing for Salmonella. In
this two class sampling plan, n means the number of sampling units to be
drawn independently and randomly from the lot, c means the maximum allowable
number of sample units that yield unsatisfactory test results, and m separates good
quality from non-acceptable or defective quality. Therefore, the current two-class
sampling plan in the Standard for Live and Raw Bivalve Molluscs need not be
changed.
Then a question was raised whether there was a need for criteria for Salmonella
in the Standard, especially taking into account the guidance for the development of
criteria given in the Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Food (CAC/GL 21-1997) which stated that criteria should be
developed only when there was a need for such criteria and that such criteria are
meaningful for consumer protection.
The CCFFP agreed to request that FAO/WHO undertake a risk assessment
to determine whether there was a significant public health risk of exposure to
Salmonella associated with consumption of bivalves. FAO/WHO were also asked
to evaluate whether criteria for Salmonella are meaningful in ensuring adequate
consumer health protection. FAO/WHO agreed to retain the current criteria for
Salmonella and the associated sampling plan as their recommended advice until
the result of this assessment became available (Codex 2009).
At the 31st session of the CCFFP, the FAO representative presented the work
done by FAO/WHO through an electronic Expert Group. The latter noted that
the current Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (CAC/RCP 52-2003)
recommends control of harvesting areas by monitoring faecal coliforms and E. coli
and does not recommend pathogen testing for routine monitoring of harvesting
waters. Available data on the prevalence of Salmonella from bivalves indicate
differences in levels of prevalence in areas which are controlled by monitoring
faecal indicator bacteria ( 1 % prevalence in areas where bivalves go directly to
H. Toyofuku
harvesting area monitoring programmes and epidemiological data linking outbreaks
of Salmonella to bivalve molluscs. The data showed that most countries do not
monitor shellfish harvesting areas for Salmonella, but rely on monitoring faecal
contamination using indicator bacteria in shellfish meat or surrounding water.
Epidemiological data showed that bivalves have rarely been involved in outbreaks of salmonellosis, suggesting that there was no particular public health
problem associated with Salmonella in bivalve molluscs. The FAO Representative
indicated that most studies on Salmonella in bivalve harvesting areas have used
single samples (n D 1) and there were very limited data using multiple samples
and, therefore, data are inadequate for the evaluation of sampling plans. The
CCFFP was further informed that the International Commission on Microbiological
Specifications for Foods (ICMSF) did not recommend microbiological criteria
for Salmonella in bivalve molluscs and that the Codex Guidelines on Sampling
(CAC/GL 50-2004) recommends sampling plan classification according to the
nature of the problem. Relating epidemiological data to these guidelines would
suggest continuation of currently recommended (n D 5; c D 0, m D non dateable
in 25 g) sampling plan, when there is a need for testing for Salmonella. In
this two class sampling plan, n means the number of sampling units to be
drawn independently and randomly from the lot, c means the maximum allowable
number of sample units that yield unsatisfactory test results, and m separates good
quality from non-acceptable or defective quality. Therefore, the current two-class
sampling plan in the Standard for Live and Raw Bivalve Molluscs need not be
changed.
Then a question was raised whether there was a need for criteria for Salmonella
in the Standard, especially taking into account the guidance for the development of
criteria given in the Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Food (CAC/GL 21-1997) which stated that criteria should be
developed only when there was a need for such criteria and that such criteria are
meaningful for consumer protection.
The CCFFP agreed to request that FAO/WHO undertake a risk assessment
to determine whether there was a significant public health risk of exposure to
Salmonella associated with consumption of bivalves. FAO/WHO were also asked
to evaluate whether criteria for Salmonella are meaningful in ensuring adequate
consumer health protection. FAO/WHO agreed to retain the current criteria for
Salmonella and the associated sampling plan as their recommended advice until
the result of this assessment became available (Codex 2009).
At the 31st session of the CCFFP, the FAO representative presented the work
done by FAO/WHO through an electronic Expert Group. The latter noted that
the current Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (CAC/RCP 52-2003)
recommends control of harvesting areas by monitoring faecal coliforms and E. coli
and does not recommend pathogen testing for routine monitoring of harvesting
waters. Available data on the prevalence of Salmonella from bivalves indicate
differences in levels of prevalence in areas which are controlled by monitoring
faecal indicator bacteria ( 1 % prevalence in areas where bivalves go directly to