All qualifications and part qualifications registered on the National Qualifications Framework are public property. Thus the only payment that can be made for them is for service and reproduction. It is illegal to sell this material for profit. In the text purpose statements, qualification rules, etc , any references to NQF Levels are to the pre levels unless specifically stated otherwise. This qualification does not replace any other qualification and is not replaced by any other qualification.
Dear readers! Our articles talk about typical ways to solve the issue of renting industrial premises, but each case is unique.
If you want to know how to solve your particular problem, please contact the online consultant form on the right or call the numbers on the website. It is fast and free!
Dried fish processingVIDEO ON THE TOPIC: 15 Things You Didn't Know About The Seafood Industry
NCBI Bookshelf. Seafood Safety. This chapter considers the questions of how well existing governance efforts address and move to mitigate the risks in consuming seafood that have been identified thus far in this report.
The chapter describes and evaluates efforts by federal and state regulatory authorities and private industry to minimize the level of seafood risk. The FDA serves as the lead agency in setting and enforcing regulatory limits for seafood products. However, other federal agencies also play an important role. The Centers for Disease Control is responsible for the collection and evaluation of data characterizing the source of seafood-borne illness.
Individual states play a dominant role in the control of seafood-borne risk. State public health, environmental protection, and resource management agencies have developed programs designed to mitigate that risk.
The actions of state governments are fundamental to seafood safety because of the important differences in consumption and contaminant levels across regions of the country. 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.
The impacts of all these governance efforts are described and evaluated in this chapter. The purpose of this chapter is twofold. An initial effort is made to describe and characterize existing programs under the authority of federal, state, and local governments; other public bodies; and private organizations designed to ensure the safety of seafood consumed by the U. Based on an analysis of those programs, this report provides an overall evaluation of their effectiveness. Such a broad-based evaluation is necessary to ensure a reasonable understanding of all governance and management programs currently in place, as well as some measure of protection for the U.
This report recognizes that the question of seafood safety is being addressed by a network of governmental and nongovernmental efforts. The committee's evaluation attempts to incorporate as comprehensive an approach as possible in order to develop a realistic characterization of seafood safety. The organization of this evaluation is designed to reflect as reasonably as possible this complex programmatic effort. The effort addresses both those programs carried out by federal administrative agencies and the responsibilities taken on by various state or local governments and the seafood industry.
Further, in recognition of the international and interdependent nature of seafood commerce, efforts related to seafood safety carried out by other countries and by international economic and scientific organizations are also characterized. A number of federal agencies are involved in regulation of seafood Martin, The primary federal agency with responsibility for the assurance of seafood safety is the U. The agency houses a wide range of programs devoted to the research and management of seafood product safety.
To carry out these statutory mandates, FDA has developed a series of regulatory and research programs described below. Regulatory authority for seafood safety is partially shared, within the present federal system, with two other regulatory actors.
The Environmental Protection Agency EPA is most fundamentally involved in setting and recommending regulatory guidelines for pesticides. The EPA also provides assistance to FDA in identifying the range of residual chemical contaminants that pose a human health risk and are most likely to accumulate in seafood. The role and responsibilities of both these agencies are detailed further below. Other federal regulators are also responsible for seafood promotion and quality.
However, although programs in the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and Defense may enhance seafood safety, such efforts should be viewed as ancillary to the larger federal efforts described below.
The FDA is granted primary authority to set and enforce allowable levels of contaminants and pathogenic microorganisms in seafood, and has developed a number of regulatory guidelines designed to reduce public health risk.
Under this provision, FDA may control the production and trade of any "adulterated" seafood product. The FDA has historically used three related strategies to determine whether or not a seafood product should be deemed adulterated. If significant and reliable toxicological data are available, the agency will set a formal "tolerance" that identifies a limit above which the food is deemed to be injurious FFDCA , Sec.
A formal tolerance identifies the amount of a given substance or organism that must be present for an enforcement action or seizure to be initiated.
If a product contaminant exceeds a tolerance level, FDA may automatically remove that product from interstate commerce. However, when toxicological data are scanty or conflicting, when additional data are being developed, or when other conditions are changing rapidly, the promulgation of formal tolerance may be deemed inappropriate. In such instances the agency can promulgate "action levels" [the authority to set such levels is defined in FDCA, Sections , a and ] which, according to the agency, are designed to provide prosecutorial guidance.
Action levels are not binding on the agency or industry, and FDA can recommend prosecution regardless of whether the action level is exceeded.
If FDA recommends prosecution, then it must establish in court that the product is injurious to health. Although the primary authority for the designation of formal tolerances and action levels resides with FDA , the agency shares authority with EPA regarding the regulatory limits for pesticides.
Under present agreements, EPA holds sole responsibility for setting formal tolerances in seafood that are then enforced by FDA. However, lacking a formal tolerance or action level, FDA may still act on an adulterated product by providing sufficient evidence that the product constitutes a problem for public health.
These three approaches are detailed below. According to FDA policy and a general interpretation of the U. To date, FDA has specified only one formal tolerance designed specifically to mitigate human health impacts in seafood, that is, the 2. FDA has developed other tolerances for food, but none that are directly related to seafood safety. Although FDA has used the vehicle of formal tolerances, setting regulatory guidelines for food, including seafood, has most often proceeded through the use of action levels.
Unlike the establishment of tolerances, action levels do not require FDA to proceed through formal notice-and-comment rule making. Thus, setting seafood regulatory guidelines most often occurs via action levels. However, action levels have been the focus of significant controversy in recent years. Until recently, FDA had developed a set of enforcement practices wherein tolerances and action levels were enforced with equivalent rigor.
In fact, there was little difference in the certitude with which the agency would characterize and respond to an adulterated product. Indeed, the equivalence of these two types of regulatory limits was articulated by FDA. An action level may prohibit any detectable amount of substance in food. Thus, in practice, there was no functional difference between an action level and a tolerance.
However, in the legal status of FDA action levels was refined and clarified by the U. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Young: F. FDA had set an action level for corn at 20 parts per billion ppb. In addition, the agency allowed aflatoxin-contaminated and noncontaminated corn to be mixed, provided the mixture did not exceed the ppb action level. The court did recognize that action levels have the benefit of apprising the regulated community of the agency's intention, as well as informing the exercise of discretion by agents and officers in the field; however, the court held [ F.
If it so chooses, FDA could proceed by action levels that are purely policy statements. But in order to do so, FDA must avoid giving action levels the kind of substantive significance that it now so plainly attaches to them. The FDA has also published a new regulation that allows substantive rules, called regulatory limits, to be established by formal notice-and-comment rule making [55 Fed.
The regulatory limit will establish the level of an unavoidable added poisonous or deleterious substance that renders a food adulterated within the meaning of the FFDCA. A regulatory limit will be established when 1 the substance cannot be avoided by current good manufacturing practices GMPs ; 2 there is no tolerance established for the substance in the particular food; and 3 there is insufficient information by which a tolerance may be established for the substance, or technology changes that may affect the appropriateness of a tolerance appear reasonably possible [55 Fed.
Although FDA has established a formal mechanism for creating regulatory limits for unavoidable deleterious or poisonous contaminants, the agency also recognizes that it will maintain the action levels.
However, FDA has stressed that action levels are not binding on the agency or industry [55 Fed. As such, FDA has the discretion to recommend court enforcement regardless of whether the product is within the action level.
Likewise, FDA can forgo recommending court action when a product exceeds an action level. Although action levels are no longer binding on the FDA , they are valuable because they provide significant guidance and focus to field personnel who direct monitoring and inspection programs that contribute to the identification of adulterated seafood products.
Specific action levels have been developed for several contaminants in seafoods and seafood products. The list of action levels for microbial and natural toxin contaminants includes Escherichia coli in fresh and frozen crabmeat, parasites in finfish, and paralytic shellfish poison in clams, mussels, and oysters.
A complete list of current action levels for microbial and natural toxin contaminants, and of the measurement methods used to determine them, is presented as Table Additionally, FDA has published a set of action levels for residual chemical contaminants, including pesticides.
Although EPA retains the right to generate formal tolerances for pesticides, its strategy has been to communicate pesticide limits in terms of action levels. According to EPA personnel, this approach allows the agency to continue to monitor pesticide levels in the environment and to modify the action level based on monitoring results.
Although a broad-based reevaluation of current pesticide action levels is underway by EPA, they provide guidance for acceptable levels in seafood products. The complete list of FDA action levels for residual chemical contaminants is presented in Table The FDA need not avail itself of either a formal tolerance or an action level to make a determination of adulteration.
It may monitor for any contaminant that might produce a product injurious to public health. The most effective statement of existing FDA strategy addressing the development of regulatory guidelines was that recently presented by the agency's Acting Commissioner, during a hearing before Congress on February 7, In the absence of a national standard, FDA brings individual enforcement actions to establish that the amount of the contaminant present in the food may render it injurious to health.
This broad legal standard in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act applies across the board to all foods under FDA's jurisdiction and its application is the norm in food adulteration cases.
Whether a national standard does or does not exist, the Agency can still take action against potentially unsafe products.
This is an important point. Standards are not an essential prerequisite to Agency action. We regularly use an internal health hazard evaluation process to determine whether a contaminant in a particular sample would be likely to render that food injurious to public health Benson, Indeed, it is by way of these broad-based responsibilities to control deleterious substances in food that the agency controls microbiological pathogens in seafood.
In certain instances the mere measurable presence of a pathogen will signify an adulterated product. The agency treats Shigella dysenteriae, Vibrio cholerae O-1, Salmonella , and Listeria , among others, in this fashion. The effective regulatory limit for these pathogens is equivalent to the ability of the measurement methodology to detect them.
For others, the mere measurable presence of a pathogen does not constitute an automatic hazard, but significant populations would. For this class of pathogens the agency has developed a reactive strategy that allows for a broad-ranging and flexible approach to determine adulteration. Indeed, a majority of FDA enforcement actions for microbial pathogens are determined on the basis of this less formal, flexible response John Kvenberg, FDA, personal communication, The committee recently proposed new criteria for cooked, ready-to-eat shrimp and cooked, ready-to-eat crabmeat.
In general, the present system for setting regulatory limits could be both adequate and appropriate if such guidelines were effectively implemented.
This Statistics Explained article is outdated and has been archived - for recent articles on structural business statistics see here. This article belongs to a set of statistical articles which analyse the structure, development and characteristics of the various economic activities in the European Union EU. The activities covered in this article are:. It should be noted that this article excludes the agricultural activities of growing, farming, rearing and hunting and also fishing NACE Divisions 01 and In , it consisted of an estimated 4. The fish processing sectors of Spain, France and the United Kingdom generated more than half
Archive:Fish production and processing statistics - NACE Rev. 1.1
The regulation became effective December 18, The agency also published the "Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guide" "the Guide" in September, , to assist processors in the development of their HACCP plans, and to provide information to help them identify hazards that may be associated with their products and formulate control strategies for those hazards. The guide was developed to coincide with the issuance of the final regulation. A large number of questions have been raised by the seafood industry, regulators, consumers, and others about interpretation of the regulation. Future issues will be printed as other questions are received.
Microbiology of Thermally Preserved Foods: Canning and Novel Physical Methods
Silver Food is confirmed today as the leader of the Moroccan market in the fish cannery sector, thanks in particular to its innovation pole but also t The National Association of Freezing Seafood Industries has the main mission to represent and defend the general interests of this profession and to u CIBEL is a public limited company with a capital of 24 dhs, it operates mainly in two sectors of activity namely: Packaging and preservatio Thanks to our experience, know-how, o Ompi is a company that was created in and makes the manufacture of flour and fish oil
Insect infestation. AV 2 Wet salting brining. We have a lot of options! Dried fish spreads bad smell occasionally. Popularity of dried fish has increased substantially over the last years and it is widely consumed as a snack in homes and during holidays. BDO - Basics like Fishing and Processing Fish I wanted to make a post of things I've learned over the last couple of days that would have been helpful in a post The fish processing market is projected to reach USD Your fish should be refrigerated at all times during the processing to prevent bacterial growth. Dried fish producers in Cox's Bazar's Nazirar Tek village, the largest dried fish producing village in the country, are still using toxins even though an NGO has been putting in efforts to make Homer Fish Processing is located at Ocean Drive in Homer, Alaska.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Products and Services:. KG Germany Fish and seafood processing equipment. CFT S.
This page was archived due to the coming into force of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations. Archived information is provided for reference, research or record-keeping purposes only. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. For current information visit Food. This standard for fresh and frozen groundfish fillets and blocks including minced fish derives its authority from the Fish Inspection Act and Regulations. It defines minimum acceptability for taint, decomposition, and unwholesomeness and other requirements, other than weight, as defined in the Fish Inspection Act and Regulations and describes methods for determining that acceptability. This standard applies to fresh, frozen or defrosted fillets or fillet blocks or minced blocks of groundfish, prepared from any one of the following families or orders of groundfish:. Fresh, frozen or defrosted groundfish fillets or fillet blocks or minced blocks should be prepared from sound, wholesome raw material and processed using good manufacturing practices.
Canning and Fish Packaging Technology
The term fish processing refers to the processes associated with fish and fish products between the time fish are caught or harvested, and the time the final product is delivered to the customer. Although the term refers specifically to fish, in practice it is extended to cover any aquatic organisms harvested for commercial purposes, whether caught in wild fisheries or harvested from aquaculture or fish farming. Larger fish processing companies often operate their own fishing fleets or farming operations. The products of the fish industry are usually sold to grocery chains or to intermediaries. Fish are highly perishable. A central concern of fish processing is to prevent fish from deteriorating, and this remains an underlying concern during other processing operations. Fish processing can be subdivided into fish handling, which is the preliminary processing of raw fish, and the manufacture of fish products. Another natural subdivision is into primary processing involved in the filleting and freezing of fresh fish for onward distribution to fresh fish retail and catering outlets, and the secondary processing that produces chilled, frozen and canned products for the retail and catering trades. There is evidence humans have been processing fish since the early Holocene.
It considered the draft report at its meetings of 21 January, 26 February, 18 March and 15 April At the last meeting it adopted the motion for a resolution by 10 votes to 1, with 1 abstention. The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant partsession. Resolution on the fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union. Calls on the Commission to draw up a study on the situation in the fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union: companies, trends in the industry in the last few years in the various Community countries, data on production, origin of raw material, volume of exports and imports, employment, technical and health standards, tariff arrangements and, in general, on the law applicable to the industry and codification of that law;.
Будет лучше, - сказал Джезерак, - если мы будем откровенны друг с другом. Мы оба знаем, что Элвин - Единственный, что он никогда прежде не жил в Диаспаре.
Оба исследователя -- а теперь они смотрели на себя именно так, да так оно и было на самом деле -- лежали в собирающейся темноте, глядя на реку и размышляя над всем тем, что им довелось увидеть в течение дня. Но вот Олвин снова ощутил, как его охватывает состояние восхитительной дремоты, впервые познанное предыдущей ночью, и радостно отдался сну.
На этот раз оно явилось им в виде редкого ряда стройных колонн, каждая из которых располагалась в сотне футов от соседней, а высотой была футов в двести. Колонны эти уходили вдаль, перспектива гипнотически уменьшала их все больше и больше, пока, наконец, горизонт не поглощал их. Олвин бросил корабль вправо, и они помчались вдоль линии этих колонн.
Он напряженно размышлял, для какой же цели могли они предназначаться.
И все же он понимал, что это именно Диаспар, хотя даже не задавался вопросом о том, откуда ему это стало Улицы были уже, здания - ниже, парк исчез. Или, скорее, он еще не существовал. Это был Диаспар до перемен, Диаспар, открытый миру и Вселенной.