THE CARROLL COX SHOW

NEWS AND COMMENTARY

 

DOCUMENTATION  -

REJECTED SHIPMENTS OF IMPORTED FISH

 

 
The attached information is the bill of lading, shipping, United States Food 
and Drug Administration inspection reports, and information for refused or 
rejected shipments of imported tuna and other fish products into the United 
States from the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand.  The information is from
 the United States Food and Drug Administration’s, December 2007 to 
November 2008 import refusal reports.  Also, the names and contact 
information for the “verified facilities” were obtained from the United States 
Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
Sea Food Inspection Program.   Note that the rejected shipments are 
originating from “Verified Facilities” certified by the USDC.  
These shipments were rejected because they are, as described by the FDA, 
“filthy”, and contain Salmonella and Histamines”.  It is assumed that 
“Verified Facilities” should be clean and in compliance with United States 
health standards and processing regulations.    Therefore, perhaps the 
status of “Verified Facility” should be revoked.  Having the USDC stamp 
on the boxes during import is misleading and gives a false sense of security
 that the shipments are good and these foreign processing plants can be 
trusted.  

This information was researched and compiled by Mr. Carroll Cox, and is from the Food And Drug Administration and the United States Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sea Food Inspection program. 

Background information Program Policy:  Fishery Products Treated with Carbon Monoxide and Filtered Smoke Gas

In 1997, the USDC Seafood Inspection Program became aware of a process that employs a filtered wood smoke that at least one processing company, Hawaii International Seafoods, Inc., termed "tasteless smoke" (TS). The purpose of its application is to retard the development of the brown color that rapidly occurs in tuna flesh after it has been cut. Although carbon monoxide (CO) is a component of the "tasteless smoke", its concentration is similar to that found in normal wood smoke. Unlike some other processes that result in the color of the product being enhanced or brightened and fixed through the direct use of CO at significantly higher concentrations and/or longer exposure times, this process, when used with appropriate controls, reportedly does not enhance the natural flesh color of tuna, and the color of the flesh eventually degrades over time. There is no evidence to suggest that “tasteless smoke” poses a health risk to the consumer from the ingestion of treated product.

On September 3, 1998, Richard Cano signed a policy indicating that only seafood treated with “tasteless smoke” gas from verified facilities named in the policy would be permitted to be lot inspected and bear our mark once it arrived in the United States. The list of accepted facilities would be updated as necessary.  

In May 1999, FDA issued Import Bulletin 16B-95 which included instructions that tuna treated with "tasteless smoke" or CO should be:

    • labeled as processed foods that have been treated with CO or TS,

    • not misrepresented as fresh frozen seafood by their label, and

    • near normal in flesh color

As a result of Import Bulletin 16B-95, the USDC Seafood Inspection Program policy was expanded to include facilities treating products with carbon monoxide mixtures.  

 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Definitions of
Reasons for Rejections:
Reason: FILTHY
     Section: 402(a)(3), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
     Charge: The article appears to consist in whole or    in part of a filthy, putrid, or decomposed    substance or be otherwise unfit for food.
Reason: SALMONELLA
     Section: 402(a)(1), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
     Charge: The article appears to contain Salmonella,   a poisonous and deleterious substance which may   render it injurious to health.
Reason: HISTAMINE
     Section: 402(a)(1), 801(a)(3); Adulteration
     Charge: The article appears to bear or contain   histamine, a poisonous and deleterious substance in   such quantity as ordinarily renders it injurious to   health.
Reason: POISONOUS
     Section: 402(a)(1), 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
     Charge: The article appears to contain a poisonous   or  deleterious substance which may render it   injurious to health.
Reason: VETDRUGRES
     Section: 402(a)(2)(C)(ii); 801(a)(3); ADULTERATION
     Charge: The article appears to contain a new animal   drug or conversion product thereof) that is unsafe   within the meaning of section 512.  Product contains
Reason: LACKS FIRM
     Section: 502(b)(1), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
     Charge: The article is in package form and appears   to notbear a label containing the name and place   of business of the manufacturer, packer, or   distributor.
Reason: LABELING
     Section: Section 4(a); 801(a)(3) Misbranding
     Charge: The article appears in violation of FPLA   because of its placement, form and/or contents   statement.
Reason: NUTR UNIT
     Section: 403(f), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDED
     Charge:  The article is subject to refusal of   admission pursuant to Section 801(a)(3) in that the   infant formula ppears to be misbranded within the   meaning of Section 403 in that the labeling fails   to use the proper units to
Reason: NUTRIT LBL
     Section: 403(q); 801(a)(3); Misbranding
     Charge: The article appears to be misbranded in   that the label or labeling fails to bear the   required nutrition information.
Reason: LACKS N/C
     Section: 403(e)(2), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
     Charge: The food is in package form and appears to   not have a label containing an accurate statement   of the quantity of the contents in terms of weight,   measure or numerical count and no variations or   exemptions have been prescribed
    
Reason: LACKS N/C
     Section: 502(b)(2), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
     Charge: The article is in package form and appears   to not  have a label containing an accurate   statement of the quantity of the contents in terms   of weight, measure or numerical count and no   variations or exemptions have been
Reason: USUAL NAME
     Section: 403(i)(1), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING
     Charge: It appears that the label does not bear the   common or usual name of the food.
 

 

Sources:    http://www.fda.gov/ora/oasis/ora_ref_cntry.html

                    http://www.fda.gov/ora/oasis/11/ora_oasis_cntry_lst.html

                    http://www.seafood.nmfs.noaa.gov/Fees09.pdf

                       http://www.seafood.nmfs.noaa.gov/FacilityUpdate102103.pdf

            

Click here for list of rejected shipments

Click here for information regarding certified facilities