Contaminants in fish risk benefit considerations when dating
These potential safety issues, however, have not yet been fully recognized as justifying expanded vessel regulations. The results of these evaluations have not been published, nor has this committee carried out independent analysis of the data. Furthermore, the international community, as well as individual foreign states, have developed practices and protocols impacting the regulation of seafood safety in the United States.
In some states this responsibility is shared with the department of agriculture, with jurisdictions delineated by species and product forms e. The agency must then determine the current levels in seafoods and the proportion of seafood products that exceeds the regulatory limit. Occasionally, there are good candidates for the establishment of national standards.
These recommendations are supported further by the fact that imported products destined for further processing constitute the major portion of seafood consumption in the United States. These products are detained at the point of entry and held until the importer can provide assurance, typically by using private laboratory testing, that the product is safe. The committee recently proposed new criteria for cooked, ready-to-eat shrimp and cooked, ready-to-eat crabmeat.
Training and Educational Programs The final set of activities to be considered here that are carried out by the federal government in support of seafood safety are related to training and education. There is interagency confusion about certain regulatory interpretations and authority. In most instances the continued level of state regulatory attention for all seafood processing will require more manpower, additional support funds, and better analytical capability. This product identification system represents one of the most tedious forms of inter- and intra-state seafood safety regulation. States typically lack sufficient administrators and inspectors experienced with seafoods and with the subtleties of pertinent regulations.
However, they do not provide reliable information on the magnitude of the problem or its importance relative to that posed by other foods. In this section, the committee considers that suite of programs not focused exclusively within the federal environment.
It is worth noting that these alert levels for metals were not formulated on the basis of toxicity assessment, but rather are based on a year-old survey of average concentrations of metals in U. These considerations are similar for the harvest from natural resources or from a cultured stock in fresh-or saltwater environments. Dependence on federal guidance and difficulties in changing or amending statutes are common excuses for this lack of flexibility and adaptivity in state seafood safety regulations. However, several critical points must be raised. In addition, specified durations for in-plant processing and terminal sale-by-date requirements can be imposed for additional public protection.
This preprocessing consideration complements state recommendations to expand environmental monitoring efforts that ensure product safety prior to processing. The alignment of jurisdictions, programs, and regulatory philosophy is essential to fostering more cooperative, responsive, and uniform programs. Regulatory authority for seafood safety is partially shared, within the present federal system, with two other regulatory actors. The geographic distribution of the resource, surface distinction of waters, and variable harvest time complicate field enforcement.
The reasoning here is that for an equivalent effort, an inspector will certify fewer pounds of a fresh or fresh frozen product than in large lots of processed product. Program activities are distinctly customized to toxins of regional concern. Fortunately, occurrence is somewhat localized within certain states Florida, Hawaii and territories Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam. The impacts of all these governance efforts are described and evaluated in this chapter. Current federal efforts include processing vessels working in U.
It is questionable and probably unlikely that random sampling would yield such high violation rates. It may monitor for any contaminant that might produce a product injurious to public health. Specific action levels have been developed for several contaminants in seafoods and seafood products. Clearly, existing data reporting the level and source of seafood-borne illness do not represent accurately either the level or the source of disease. Whether commercial or recreational activities, all boat or shore-based seafood harvests should be made mindful of restricted areas and species, and should be properly equipped to preserve the catch.
Likewise, increasing recreational fishing means more harvesting effort in likely ciguatoxic areas. In some state regulations, recreational and commercial fish harvests are distinguished by licensing, declared intent with permits, and harvest restrictions.