MessageExcellent Hector...I've been watching the replies on this subject with some interest
I do fear that there will be problems
In Australia selling something as 'Sashimi' has become an 'in' thing and gives the retailers a chance to increase the price even though he has no knowledge of how the product has been cared for since capture
The other issue today is the issue of Clear Smoke or CO processing - I dont wish to debate whether that is a safe practice or not but I think it behoves everyone selling that style of product to ensure that their customers are aware that the prodct has been processed in such a manner. It may look suitable for eating raw but is that a risk?
What we are doing in Australia is looking at creating an Australian Standard for Sashimi that will set the benchmark
Anyone interested in assisting us can contact eith Lucas Woolford or myself
Best regards Roy
----- Original Message -----
From: Lupin, Hector (FIIU)
To: Jin Kim ; seafood@ucdavis.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:20 AM
Subject: Sashimi and fish safety
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 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%
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
# 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2006 - 22:30:25 PDT