Andrew Strak (abstrak@accesswave.ca)
Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:32:01 -0400
I would suggest a supplier's lot-by-lot certification with all drugs that
have been used (including INADs) and their withdrawal times. Besides, know
your supplier and products and periodically audit him directly or through a
third party on his farming practices including drugs using procedures and
monitoring the residues with the appropriate record keeping as well. The
supplier may already operate under a third party kind of audit. If despite
of all those measures you still do not trust and see that the hazards are
reasonably likely to occur, then simply review the whole situation for it
may be better off not to buy from the source that is not credible when you
still remain liable for the safety of the product regardless.
Andrew Strak
----- Original Message -----
From: Guray, Frank <GurayF@CULINARY-FOODS.COM>
To: Seafood Internet <seafood@ucdavis.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 10:39 AM
Subject: Aquaculture Drugs
> Hey Folks (again)
> Can I get some advice from the experts of Seafood HACCP? We receive two
> products of seafood that have aquaculture hazards that are reasonably
likely
> to occur (Shrimp: Penaeus spp. and Sole: All species.) The HACCP team
> decided that COA with back verification would be the best choice for
> controlling these hazards.
> 1. What type of statement from the supplier should we expect (testing
> for all drugs, or some blanket statement regarding aquaculture drugs?
> 2. When we perform our back verification, what aquaculture drug(s)
> should we test for, or should we test for them all?
>
> I would appreciate a little help.
> Thanks,
> Frank Guray
> HACCP Coordinator
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Dec 04 1999 - 05:32:22 PST