The only specialised marine publication in Oceania that focuses on the maritime industry, from super yachts to small craft to large commercial ships, including coastal shipping, tugs, tow boats, barges, ferries, tourist, sport-fishing craft
Issue link: https://viewer.e-digitaleditions.com/i/131029
FOOD SAFETY How to measure "EQUIVALENCY" BY DOROTHY-JEAN MCCOUBREY magine 300 people from 30 different countries all with a common interest gathered in one room. Plenty of smiles and hugs as old friends meet and future networks are built, animated debates about the latest trends and heated discussions about points of difference. This was the scene of the International Conference on Molluscan Shellfish Safety held in Sydney, Australia during March 17-22, 2013. This conference first started in Sydney 20 years ago with less than 100 participants. Since then the meeting has been hosted every two years at venues around the world, each time expanding in attendance and with a broadening agenda. Today the conference is considered to be the primary international forum that deals with all the scientific food safety issues associated with bivalve shellfish (mussels, oysters, clam and scallops). Once again the Sydney meeting showcased presentations on the latest trends in microbiology, marine biotoxins and risk management. However, new topics were also addressed which reflected our changing world, both in the commercial and physical environment. This included information on how industry can add value to their products in today's competitive, globalized world. Cyanotoxins were discussed, given they seem to be an emerging problem in freshwater systems, therefore affecting drinking water supplies, fish and shellfish taken from lakes and streams. Listening to all the presentations it became evident that today scientists armed with sophisticated analytical tools are able to easily find old and new contaminants and at much lower levels than ever before. Repeatedly scientists were able to describe a wide suite of new microbes or marine biotoxins due to the rapid genetic and molecular advancements. Methods are becoming more rapid and less expensive, producing much new information to be interpreted by scientists and society in general. This brings me to what I considered to be the major issue that became evident during the conference – how to interpret such science, using cultural and economic values of different countries. Today there are two major markets for shellfish – the European Union and the United States. Each of these superpowers has their own regulatory system for managing food safety risks, along with their own cadre of scientists. While both the EU and USA aim to protect consumers, they both have a different view of how this should happen. The EU generally tests the shellfish in the market place, considering that this reflects what consumers eat. The USA on the other hand, monitors water bodies where shellfish are harvested, thinking that if the water is clean, the shellfish will not bioaccumulate any pollution. These systems have operated for many years, the USA system since 1925. The European member countries have also used traditional systems for generations, but have been I ABOVE: A water sampling group at the International Conference on Molluscan Shellfish Safety held in Sydney, Australia but can be used for a different story. LEFT: Dr Catherine Seamer, Chairperson of the ICMSS 2013 conference consolidating their standards since the formation of the European Union in 1993. The USA shellfish industry is spread over 22 states, while the EU currently has 27 member countries. Both believe that their programmes are applicable and appropriate. The problem then comes when there is a desire to globalise trade, yet there is no agreement amongst regulatory authorities on acceptable standards. The EU and USA equivalency debates are about to start so that shellfish trade can flow unimpeded. This is going to provide for interesting times while we watch two major powers struggle with their own identity and traditional views of what is "right," while trying to assess science in biogeographically diverse continents. Science may provide some of the answers, but will never provide them all. Morgenthau, in his 1946 publication "Scientific Man Vs Power Politics" thought a naive faith in science led too many of its admirers to advance simplistic answers to deeply rooted political and social dilemmas. He also believed that humankind is a political animal by nature due to the scarcity of food, shelter and security and the means by which they are obtained, and these basic biologically rooted needs provide an elementary source of social conflict. Second, the animus dominandi, or lust for power, constitutes and additional feature of human nature. If Morgenthau is correct, the EU and USA debates on an acceptable common international standard, may not founder on scientific equivalency, but how best to integrate social mores and laws of two very different and powerful "statehoods." Scientists like numbers, feeling that they provide us with neutral factual information, but as Einstein once said, "everything that can be counted does not necessarily count, everything that counts cannot be necessarily counted." MAY/JUNE 2013 ■ NZ AQUACULTURE ■ 11