Well resumed Remi.
The aim of the question was to gain some international perspective from
fellow industry people in regards the application of the directive.
Do you see for example in Indonesia, the CA for Animal Health being the same
than for Food Safety?
Or your organization would have to endure 2 different CAs, and all the
issues associated to EU Market Access will so duplicate.
Iım interested for example in the case that processors decide to process
shrimp with any of the viral diseases, he may have two CAs to deal with at
once.
Thanks
-- Francisco Blaha www.franciscoblaha.comOn 15/1/07 2:56 PM, "Remi Michalowski" <remi.michalowski@cpp.co.id> wrote:
> Hello, > > Basically, it is a result of the application of the SPS regulation. It is > targeted to prevent any threat to the EU ecosystem by introducing exotic > diseases. > The Directive establishes "Compartments Principle" that basically identifies > geographical areas based on "viral risk". Aqua products have to come from a > Member State or a Compartment declared as Disease Free. > The Directive covers the live aqua products import (and their reprocess in the > EU) and introduction into the ecosystem. Their health status has to reveal no > disease present on the Directive list. > > About material already packed: the aqua products in retail size packaging can > be put on the market without particular measures. > > About the country exporting, rules are in place to prevent the spread of > diseases with a contengency plan and a rapid alert system (and CA has to > inform EU authorities...). > The processors shall be equipped to prevent the spread of the diseases from > the effluents. GAP with Biosec. protocol is in place at the farms. > CA has to inspect, authorize and register Aqua facilities. The efficiency of > the CA action is evaluated. > > To Chingling, the rules for non-conforming containers in EU depends on the EU > Member States and their policy. The destruction of containers is the rule in > UK and France, I do not know about the others. If I am not wrong, it will be > based on the severity of the non-conformity. > > Rgds, > > Dipl. Ing. Remi Michalowski > Deputy General Manager IQA Food Processing > PT. Centralpertiwi Bahari - Lampung, Indonesia > HP x2B; 62 815 4040 484 > Yahoo Messenger ID: michalowski_rmi@yahoo.fr > > CPB - Integrated Shrimp Farming. "From Pond to Plate" > A CPP Company. Member of Charoen Pokphand Group > > > On Jan 14, 2007, at 6:17 PM, Chingling R. Tanco (mida) wrote: > >> Hola Francisco, Feliz Ano Nuevo. >> >> Havenıt seen it so am not sure of the implications. I will try to look it up >> through the SIPA website but can you highlight some of the things there we >> should start addressing as an industry? SIPA chat room talked about a >> possibility of destruction of cargo again if rejected in the UK There is >> fresh news from the UK that: >> ³the UK FSA has advised ports that any cargo found to have antibiotic >> residues over the permitted tolerance level will now be destroyed ³ >> This is really disturbing and we are checking if it is only limited to the >> UK. >> >> Chingling >> >> >> From: owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu] On Behalf >> Of Francisco Blaha >> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 5:47 PM >> To: Chingling R. Tanco (mida) >> Cc: seafood@ucdavis.edu >> Subject: EU Market Access, Competent Authorities, and Aquaculture >> >> Hi Ching >> >> Since we are discussing EU Market Access, Competent Authorities, and >> Aquaculture, (besides over-chlorination!) >> >> Perhaps is good to enquire if those who have interest in these 3 issues are >> aware of the implications of the recent Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October >> 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products >> thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic >> animals >> >> Particularly in terms of the interactions and competency of the "competent >> authorities (or authority)" regulating, from the animal health and/or food >> safety perspectives, and their ability in providing the required official >> assurances. >> >> While is a quite reasonable and necessary legislative instrument, I kind of >> foresee a nightmare for us (industry)... Anyone has had a good look into it? >> >> Cheers
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 16 2007 - 02:23:26 PST