Dear colleagues,
The discussion on the term "sashimi" brought us to safety aspects related to
the consumption of raw fish. This could increase confusion in more than one
way. First of all I understood till here that "sashimi" is Japanese for "raw
fish" and that "sushi" can contain raw fish, but can also contain cooked or
prepared fish and vegetables (very common "Sushi" Bars outside Japan now).
From the point of view of Risk Assessment to define the characteristics of a
whole category of products (e.g. "Sashimi"), that can encompass different
fish species and situations, all around the world, it is a hard (if not
impossible) work, and probably would require to define safety conditions that
would be necessary for some species and unnecessary for others. Moreover,
according with the main hazards detected (taken from epidemiology data) the
relative importance of one hazard regarding the others could change according
with the country.
For instance if we take the FDA Fish and Fisheries Products Hazards and
Controls Guidance (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/haccp4.html) and go to
Table #3-1 - Potential Vertebrate Species Related Hazards
<http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/haccp4c1.html> and look, for instance, for
"Tuna" Hazards, we find that "Tunas" are divided in two groups "small"and
"large"; the "small" ones have the "Parasite" hazard, the large ones no. The
"large" tunas, I guess, are these consumed as "sashimi" in Japan. If that
were the case, to ask for freezing (to eliminate the hazard of parasites)
would be unnecessary. But, what happens if instead large tunas alone, we have
also "small" tunas and many other potential "sashimi" species, including
freshwater fish? The situation may change even with reference to salmon, a
normal raw fish utilized for "Sashimi" in Western countries (see Table# 3-1
again), since in that case the specie may carry the parasite hazard.
I took here salmon as shocking example, but it is clear that a number of
other fish species could carry parasites of importance to human health.
Actually under the influence of "Sashimi" and "Sushi" has also spread the
consumption of a number of other ethnic dishes that utilize raw fish as main
ingredient like "carpaccios" and "ceviches". I would not be surprised if (at
least in some) western countries would be a jump in parasitism epidemiology
records in the last decade. For sure in Brazil it has been an increase in
human parasitism, in large cities like Sao Paolo, linked to the increased
consumption of raw fish.
A more in depth analysis (Risk Assessment) would be certainly necessary, but
from a Western point of view, to ask for freezing before consumption of raw
fish seems a sensible measure, in the case of possible parasite hazard.
(Probably this type of risk assessment has been already performed in more
than one public health agency in developed countries).
However, raw fish, even in the case of absence of parasites of human health
interest, is not per se safe. I think the Japanese regulation regarding
Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Vp) is clear. The problem is that Vp (and other
pathogenic vibrios like V. vulnificus and V. metschinkovii (1) are part of
the sea water normal flora. Therefore, there is a risk here that deserves
attention. Pending a more specific risk assessment we could extend here the
general conclusions of the existing risk assessments of Vp in raw oysters
(FDA and FAO/WHO) and agree that a key point to keep this hazard low, is to
keep the fish at a low temperature (at least chilling). Low temperature
should also take care (in principle) of other hazard associated with tunas
(Histamine). To keep "sashimi" at a chilling temperature, is (fortunately)
one of the key conditions for a good quality "sashimi" (2).
But, it is an illusion to think that this will make, in practice, the risk of
Vp zero. With all the due respect for the opinion of my Japanese colleagues,
I would like to quote Cliver and Riemann (3): "Raw fish or shellfish are the
most important source of gastroenteritis caused by this organism (V.
parahaemolyticus) in Japan, where the high incidence is undoubtedly due to
the national custom of eating raw fish". But the most important thing, is
that we could not expect this situation be different outside Japan.
Nevertheless, there could be other risks associated to other hazards too. A
good candidate could be, for instance, Listeria monocytogenes (Lm). Lm does
not form part of the normal flora of fish, but is present as a contaminant
flora in harbours, processing facilities, etc., see for instance: (4). The
FDA Quantitative Risk Assessment of Relative Risk to Public Health from Food
borne Listeria monocytogenes Among Selected Categories of Ready-to-Eat Foods
(that included raw fish) http://www.foodsafety.gov/~dms/lmr2-toc.html ,
concluded that, raw seafood is a "low risk" food. But again, this should be
understood with reference to the possible exposure (pathogen concentration,
dose - size of the portion consumed- and number of meals consumed of that
product). Different situations may require of a new risk assessment.
It is necessary to notice, with reference to the FDA risk assessment of Lm in
ready-to-eat foods, that cooking and freezing do not necessarily exclude the
risk of Lm. For instance, raw shrimp served in Western "Sushi" bars is
sometimes thawed (peeled or shell on) cooked shrimp. In this case the FDA
risk assessment exercise on Lm in ready-to-eat fish concluded that concluded
that ready-to-eat crustaceans implies a "moderate risk" to consumers,
something to take into account in the US context.
We could eventually think about the possibility of intoxication with S.
aureus and/ or with its toxin [SFP, (Staphylococcal Food Poisoning)]. "The
largest number of outbreaks (staphylococcal food poisoning) was 128 per year
in Japan compared to 9.4 in the US" (Worldwide surveillance of food borne
disease between 1985 and 1989) and "For the period 1971-1990, 14.9 % and 24.6
% of outbreaks in Korea and Japan, respectively, were due to staphylococcal
food poisoning" [both quotes taken from (3)]. Foods involved in SFPs (among
others) are "fish salads... and generally high-protein leftover foods" (5).
But, it is really raw fish the responsible for SPFs in Japan? "The frequency
of SFPs in Japan is 20 to 25 % and rice balls are usually responsible for the
disease occurrence" (6). As S. aureus is part of human normal flora, SFPs
will be always there.
In short, we have different potential hazards in raw fish (we could add other
hazards to the list). Some are more serious than others, some more frequent
than others and some will depend on local conditions (fish specie, handling
and processing methods, functioning of the cold chain, etc.). To generalize
about all of them is not possible.
Regardless the possible definitions of "sashimi"; it seems that from the
safety point of view the most adequate move is to perform in each case a
Hazard Analysis ("each case is a case") and implement a HACCP Plan when
necessary (USA) or always (EU) definitely recommended [Japan Ref. (2)] . A
more in depth analysis (e.g. Risk Assessment) could be necessary in some
cases. A key point that producers, industry and fish traders should
understand is that safety is not produced just fitting at a certain point a
regulatory requirement or definition; but to handling, storing and processing
the fish in a way such a conditions can be actually fulfilled, at the time of
consumption.
Consumption of raw fish, in its different ways, is spreading all over the
World, including large cities of developing countries. In view that to be
clear about the right conditions for consumption of raw fish is not possible
in a generalized way, additional care is necessary to prevent fish outbreaks
for this reason. The same could be said of international fish trade of raw
fish, taking into account that nowadays is not only Japan that imports fish
to be consumed raw.
Kind regards.
Hector M. Lupin
FAO Consultant
(1) Virulence factors of Vibrio metschinkovii strains isolated from fish in
Brazil. Maria A. Matté et al.; Food Control (in Press)
(2) Quality assurance of raw fish based on HACCP concept. N. Hamada-Sato, K.
Usui, T. Kobayashi, C. Imada and E. Watanabe.; Food Control 16 (2005) 301-307
(3) Foodborne Diseases. D.O. Cliver and H. P. Riemann; Academic Press 2nd
Edition (2002)
(4) Incidence of Listeria spp in fish and environment of fish markets in
Northern Greece. N. Soultos, et al. Food Control (in press)
(5) Casarett & Doull's Toxicology, 5th Edition, 1999.
(6) Toxins in Food. W.M. Dabrowski and Z.E. Sikorski. CRC Press (2005).
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu] On
Behalf Of Jin Kim
Sent: 20 September 2006 09:39
To: Jon McGraw; 'Robert Greer'; 'Janani Tulasendrapuram';
'seafood@ucdavis.edu'
Subject: RE: sashimi question
Hi,
I have another response from another friend in Japan. Dr. Kazutaka
Yamamoto is Laboratory Head, National Food Research Institute in Tsukuba,
Ibaraki Prefecture, north of Tokyo. His response is almost similar to the one
from Professor Konno in Hokkaido. I pasted his response here.
There are two categories for Sashimi (eaten in the raw): raw and
frozen fish.
Sashimi quality is controlled by Ministry of Health, Labor and
Welfare in Japan.
I will translate the standards from Japanese to English.
***frozen fresh fish for eating raw***
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/2006/05/dl/s0522-5g.pdf#search=%22%E8%85%B8%E7%
<http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/2006/05/dl/s0522-5g.pdf>
82%8E%E3%83%93%E3%83%96%E3%83%AA%E3%82%AA%E3%80%80%E8%A6%8F%E6%A0%BC%E5%9F%B
A%E6%BA%96%E3%80%80site%3Amhlw.go.jp%22
(4) frozen fish for eating raw, which is sliced or deshelled fish and
is raw fish frozen for eating raw, hereafter the same), must garantee a
bacterial number (survival number) of less than 100,000 /g tested material,
negative coliform group bacteria, and a and a MPN (most probable number) of
Vibrio parahaemolyticus of less 100. .....
***fresh fish for eating raw***
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/topics/2002/bukyoku/iyaku/4.html
<http://www.mhlw.go.jp/topics/2002/bukyoku/iyaku/4.html>
# sliced or deshelled fresh fish for eating raw
composition standard (MSN of Vibrio parahaemolyticus of less 100),
process standard (use of pasteulized see water and so forth), storage
standard (< 10 degree C), labelling standard (to indicate "for eating raw").
As you see the above standards, we do not have what you referred to
as "sashimi grade".
However, we Japanese in general have an eye for fresh fish, and we
avoid buying and eating less fresh fish.
Therefore, we have less food poisoning due to Sashimi than expected
cases by European and American.
This was Dr. Yamamoto's comment on "sashimi grade" in Japan. So it is
interesting to see there are not as many food poisoning incidence in Japan as
in America without much government intervention in the case of sashimi.
Distributors are very serious and sincere about their own reputation and face
to their customers. I remember what my long time friend in Minnesota once
said when we were working for the same company in the US, I would eat sashimi
only in Japan.
Kim, Jin Moon
Professor
School of Food Science and Technology
Southern Yangtze University
Wuxi, Jiangsu Province
China
jmkim@sytu.edu.cn jinmoonkim01@yahoo.com
Jon McGraw <JonMcGraw@seafreeze.com> wrote:
Hello,
Cannot answer the original question and I suspect "sashimi"
means different things to different people. It not only refers to best of the
best as far as intrinsic and extrinsic quality but then may only apply to
certain parts of a particular fish or seafood product. The real answer has to
come from Japan. Perhaps they have codified the term.
In the US it seems to be used rather cavalierly and I see
product presented as "sashimi" grade because that's what the producer/seller
wants to/needs to/prefers to call it. It's worth more money. Much of what I
see certainly is not. The proof is in the pudding, you will know it when you
eat it.
Freezing procedures for parasite control for products to be
eaten raw can be found in the:
FDA Fish and Fisheries Products Hazards and Control Guide
(3rd edition)
Chapter 5 Parasites
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/haccp4e.html
Freezing and storing at -4°F (-20°C) or below for 7 days
(total time), or freezing at -31°F (-35°C) or below until solid and storing
at -31°F (-35°C) or below for 15 hours, or freezing at -31°F (-35°C) or below
until solid and storing at -4°F (-20°C) or below for 24 hours is sufficient
to kill parasites. FDA's Food Code recommends these freezing conditions to
retailers who provide fish intended for raw consumption.
Note this is for PARASITE control and has little if any
effect on the sanitary properties of the product. If it was sanitary before,
it still will be, if it wasn't it won't be.
Regards
Jon McGraw
Seafreeze
Seattle
_____
From: Robert Greer [mailto:greer@rushmartrading.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 8:52 PM
To: 'Janani Tulasendrapuram'; seafood@ucdavis.edu
Subject: RE: sashimi question
Interestingly, I've spent a not inconsiderable amount of time
in the past month or two trying to find out the answer to this exact same
question. I have come up with several different answers, so I think the
"official" definition depends on whom you're talking to.
Initially, I researched this question on the website of the
United States FDA. There are some regs and guidance about qualifying certain
types of fish as sashimi grade, but as best I could tell, they relate only to
fresh water species which have different and more potential biological
hazards than salt water specices. If memory serves, these regs require
freezing the fish below specified temperatures for specified periods of time
in order to insure that product that will be eaten uncooked is sanitary.
Secondly, I inquired of my sister-in-law, who is a salesman
for a fresh fish distributor which sells to premium restaurants. Her
response was that sashimi refers to the very highest quality fish: "the best
of the best."
Lastly, I met only the other day with a supplier of seafood
(wild caught ocean fish) in Vietnam. This company labels as "sashimi" grade,
fish that once caught is immediately frozen on board at or below minus 55
degrees Celsius and kept at such low temperatures continuously.
It's my suspicion that the second and third definitions are
essentially equivalent, though on their face, they seem to describe different
things.
If I learn any more about this, I'll let you know.
Sincerely,
Robert Greer
Robert Greer
Rushmar Trading Company LLC
Tel (US): 1-713-350-6025
Mobile (US): 1-713-594-4996
Mobile (VN): 84-(0)90-966-7379
EFax: 1-713-583-9667
email: greer@RushmarTrading.com
_____
From: owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu
[mailto:owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu] On Behalf Of Janani Tulasendrapuram
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 10:17 PM
To: seafood@ucdavis.edu
Subject: sashimi question
Hi,
Good morning! I am hoping someone on this listserv will be
able to answer the following question:
-Is there an "official" definition of sashimi grade (mainly
for tuna)?
Thanks,
Janani Tulasendrapuram
Kim, Jin Moon
Professor
School of Food Science and Technology
Southern Yangtze University
170 Huihe Road
Wuxi, Jiangsu Province
China 214036
Tel) 86-510-8340-3818
jmkim@sytu.edu.cn jinmoonkim01@yahoo.com
_____
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call
rates.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman8/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt
=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 20 2006 - 08:57:36 PDT