David,
You have made several interesting points.
1. "UK processors using MAP "gave-up" on claims of shelf-life extension
using
MAP. It is used primarily as a "quality maintenance" device, not a
shelf-life extender".
Do you mean that 'quality maintenace' is nothing else but shelf-life
extension in disguise? Or, MAP has just evolved in UK as a pure marketing
tool and another quality attribute by itself to be perceived by general
public as somehow superior to ordinary packaging and therefore of higher
value?
2. "I had hoped that as seafood companies were gobbled-up by food
companies
(ConAgra, Tyson, etc.) that things would dramatically change. This welcome
change has still not occurred."
It makes one wonder what kind of changes could be expected from that kind of
acquisitions. Tyson has divested their seafood business while taking heavy
losses with apparently nobody being left better off at the end. Wild fishery
is wild fishery with sometimes very little resemblance to agro-based
businesses concerning its harvesting, post-harvesting handling and primary
processing stages. Conseqently, the models of operation do not have to be
the same but possibly different since very little experience generated
somewhere else is fully transferable or aplicable. On the other hand, in
aquaculture where there is a significant convergence of basic issues related
to processing and distribution resembling other fresh foodstuffs, we enjoy
fresh seafood products almost everywhere these days similar to fresh poultry
or red meat products.
Regards,
Andrew Strak
www.canfish.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "David J. Solomon" <dsolomon@attglobal.net>
To: "Graham Fletcher" <FletcherG@crop.cri.nz>; <seafood@ucdavis.edu>
Cc: <phowgate@rsc.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: MAP for fish
> I was invited to a meeting at the NSF headquarters in Chicago, several
years
> ago, of scientists, FDA, packaging people, domestic & UK seafood
importers,
> processors & distributors, to discuss MAP for seafood. Some of the
> conclusions were as follows:
> a. State of US LTL seafood distribution system precludes "safe" commercial
> application of MAP for seafood retail packs.
> b. State of US supermarket equipment, training, personnel, controls,
> preclude "safe" commercial application of MAP for seafood retail packs.
> c. UK processors using MAP "gave-up" on claims of shelf-life extension
using
> MAP. It is used primarily as a "quality maintenance" device, not a
> shelf-life extender.
> d. Main concern of FDA is the risk that botulism could be present prior to
> any organaliptic evidence of it's presence.
>
> Unfortunately, despite the emergence of many opportunities for commercial
> seafood operations to move closer to the "food" business in the US, the
> majority of the fresh seafood sold here comes to market via the "fish"
> business. (I am reminded of a real story of the LTL seafood trucker who,
in
> order to avoid claims, put time-temperature monitors in the freezer prior
to
> deployment on his cargo!)
>
> Chong, even if the technology is there, I'm afraid that our industry still
> cannot handle MAP, at least for retail packs.
> I have heard of one successful application of bulk-packed MAP being used
by
> North Coast seafoods for full truck deliveries to Shaw's supermarkets.
> I had hoped that as seafood companies were gobbled-up by food companies
> (ConAgra, Tyson, etc.) that things would dramatically change. This
welcome
> change has still not occurred.
>
> David J. Solomon
> dsolomon@attglobal.net
> phone 954-349-1236
> fax 954-349-3742
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Graham Fletcher <FletcherG@crop.cri.nz>
> To: <seafood@ucdavis.edu>
> Cc: <phowgate@rsc.co.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 17:33
> Subject: RE: MAP for fish
>
>
> I think that your interpretation of Reddy et al is rather conservative.
>
> They carried out botulinum challenge studies and presented 'margin of
> safety' values as the time between sensory rejection and toxin
development.
> They found very good margins of safety for all MAP fish stored at 4°C. At
> 8°C, marine fish (cod) had a very good margin of safety (>36 days) while
> aquacultured species varied from Tilapia (23 days) to salmon (0 days). At
> 16°C Marine cod had a margin of safety of only 1 day with tilapia and
> catfish having margins of 0 days and salmon of -1 day. On first reading,
> one might conclude that MAP aquacultured fish are unsafe. However, they
> also presented data on air packaged fish and found very similar margins of
> safety. Air packed salmon at 8°C had a margin of 0 days and catfish and
> salmon both had safety margins of 0 days at 16°C. MAP tilapia and catfish
> at 8°C had higher safety margins than air packed fish. Unfortunately the
> experiments weren't able to give a estimations of error for the results
but
> my reading of them is that there was probably no significant difference in
> the hazard from temperature abused MAP fish and temperature abused air
> packed fish. The hazard did not come from the packaging but from the
> temperature abuse and initial level of contamination with C. botulinum
type
> E spores (100 spores per gram).
>
> MAP of fish has been commonly used in some parts of Europe for a number of
> years with, to my knowledge, no incidents of botulism.
>
>
>
> Graham C Fletcher
> Food Microbiologist,
> Seafood Research Unit,
> Crop & Food Research, Private Bag 92169
> Auckland, New Zealand
> Phone: 64-9-815 4200 Ex 7018
> Fax: 64-9-815 4214
> Email: FletcherG@crop.cri.nz
>
>
> >>> "Douglas L. Marshall" <microman@ra.msstate.edu> 22/6/00 9:48:15 AM >>>
> Hi Chong,
>
> The general opinion (FDA) in the U.S. is that modified atmosphere (or
> vacuum) packaging of fresh fish is too risky due to the potential for
> outgrowth and toxin production of nonproteolytic Clostridium botulinum
> (primarily type E) prior to spoilage, especially during mild to moderate
> temperature abuse storage conditions. For recent research evidence
> supporting this position see Reddy et al., 1999. J. Food Safety
19:171-183.
> However, you may be able to prove safety by demonstrating strict
temperature
> control (<3.3 C) during the entire expected storage life of the product.
>
> FWIW,
>
> Doug
>
> ********************************************
> Douglas L. Marshall, Ph.D.
> Professor & Food Scientist
> Department of Food Science & Technology
> Mississippi State University
> Box 9805
> Mississippi State, MS 39762-9805 USA
> Ph 662-325-8722
> Fax 662-325-8728
> http://www.msstate.edu/dept/fst/Homepage
> ********************************************
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu]On
> Behalf Of chong lee
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 11:53 AM
> To: seafood@ucdavis.edu
> Cc: phowgate@rsc.co.uk
> Subject: MAP for fish
>
>
>
> I wonder if anyone could provide the information on the current status of
> MAP on shelf-life extension of fresh fish, primarily processed - e.g.
> fillet. There have been some reports in the past, but I found the gas
> composition somewhat varies with species and reports. There seems to be
no
> general agreement on what the makeup of the gas should be. Any
> information would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Chong Lee
>
> Chong M. Lee, Professor
> Dept. of Food Science & Nutrition
> University of Rhode Island
> Kingston, RI 02881
> Tel. 401-874-2862; Fax. 401-874-2994
>
>
> ________
> CAUTION: The information contained in this email is privileged and
> confidential. If you read this message and you are not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution
> or reproduction of all or part of the contents is prohibited. If you
> receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
>
> Any opinions or views expressed in this message are those of the
individual
> sender and may not represent those of their employer.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 22 2000 - 09:41:46 PDT