Fishing Industry Board is willing to police exports

Press, 3 October 1985, Page 31

Fishing Industry Board is willing to police exports

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington The Fishing Industry Board is prepared to take over responsibility for fish inspection and export certification from the Meat Division of the Ministry of Fisheries, if that is what the fishing industry wants. In spite of initial misgiv- ■ ings, the board would do this, said its general manager, Mr Nick Jarman. A resolution asking the board to do this was passed in June at the annual conference of the Seafood Processors and Exporters’ Association. The resolution had been the culmination of a growing dissatisfaction with the system controlled by the Meat Division. It was also a reaction to the announced intention of the Government to put the inspection and certification system on a cost-recovery basis. Mr Jarman said the scheme would be subject to big changes on completion of discussions with fish processors. At this' stage its main elements were — First, establishing with the industry the standards which should apply and devising codes of practice, guidelines, checklists, qual-

ity assurance schemes, and training packages, which would help the industry to meet its own standards.

Second, all existing fishing packing houses would be classed initially as “A” grade, based on their meeting Meat Division standards. This would entitle them to automatic certification and minimum inspection. If there were enough opposition to this concept from the industry, Mr Jarman said that the board would consider establishing a grading scheme based on a preliminary audit of industry performance, undertaken before any new scheme came into force.

Third, the board would set up a small and region-ally-based audit team whose prime function would be to help the industry to meet its own agreed standards, and to provide a check system. Fourth, because fish was a product which in general did not have any serious public health risks associated with it, the general surveillance of hygiene measures could be infrequent. Mr Jarman said that, as well, the auditors would almost certainly be invovled in considering minimum quality standards, as deter-

mined by the industry itself. Fifth, more frequent surveillance might be needed for those handling products which were more vulnerable to public health concerns, such as cooked fish, highly processed fish, canned fish, and filter-feed-ing shellfish. Sixth, the board’s aim would be, as far as possible, to absorb the costs of providing this minimal service within Board’s income.

Seventh, however, any company which did not maintain its “A” grading would be subject to increasing attention, partly to provide it with extra help so that it could again lift its standards.

There would also be extra inspection to ensure that the product was not doing any disservice to the reputation of New Zealand fish products as a whole.

Any company needing this additional involvement would have to meet the whole of the' extra costs. This would provide a further incentive for such a firm to lift its standards.

Eighth, an appeal system would be set up so that the industry would have the right to object to any decisions it considered objec-

tionable. Ninth, the board, in association with individual companies, would make appropriate arrangements to cover any special requirements that applied to particular markets. Mr Jarman cited veterinary and mercury certification as examples. Such arrangements would be charged to the firm. Tenth, if the board did take over this role, it would be with the prior approval of the Government. The board anticipated some official sanctioning of what it and the industry would be doing. Eleventh, certification would be accomplished by providing all “A” rated companies with numbered, pre-printed, pre-signed certificates, on conditon that — • The company maintained a register of its use of the certificates; • Their use conferred an obligation on the company / to meet the standards implied by the certificate; and ® The certificate, for completion, required the responsible company officer to counter-sign, thereby placing on record the company’s commitment and responsibility to the over-all

scheme and the standards associated with it. Twelfth, it was proposed that paperwork should be kept to a minimum. Mr Jarman said the onus would be on the licensed packhouse to accept only product of appropriate standards. If there were anything wrong with the product, the fish packinghouse itself would have to take full responsibility. Thirteenth, after their appointment, the auditors would be given training similar to that of industry members in quality control positions, to ensure that both industry and board auditors were talking about the same thing. In setting out these elements of a possible system, Mr Jarman said there were still several unanswered questions about the future involvement of the Meat Division and other Government agencies. He believed, however, that the • fishing ■ industry would get the co-operation of the division and others in ensuring that the new certification scheme was acceptable, and that interim arrangements for its implementation would go ahead smoothly.