Within the Australian Seafood industry, thousands of tonnes of fish waste are produced by processors and retailers each year. Generally only the fillets are retained and the bulk (~60%) of the product is discarded, often at a cost to the processor and ending up as little more than land-fill. This practice is coming under increased scrutiny due to environmental issues and is becoming an increasing cost burden for the whole industry.  Across the seafood industry in south eastern Australia alone, there is an estimate that well over 20,000t of fish product waste is produced each year. 

Through the work of FRDC’s SEF Industry Development Subprogram to tackle this issue, a group of key stakeholders in the seafood industry formed Australian Seafood Co-products (ASCo: ACN 100 489 236). The mission of the company is to add value to the seafood supply chain through the sustainable utilisation of fish and fish co-products that are not traditionally utilised or marketed.  ASCo has 17 seafood companies as shareholders spanning the five south eastern Australian states. A shareholder’s agreement is now in place and the company directors have now been elected.  

ASCo considered a range of options for the utilisation of seafood waste.  Given the relatively wide geographical area covered by Australia's seafood industry and the large variability in the amount and composition of species involved, it was agreed that processing the waste into a valuable organic fertiliser was the most suitable option for ASCo at this point in time.  With this goal in mind ASCo went into partnership with Sieber, a New Zealand fertiliser company with proven fertiliser technology, technical backup, and partnerships with other established fertiliser companies and the agricultural industry. Sieber already had a range of fish-based fertiliser products in New Zealand with proven benefits to agricultural crops and certification for use in the rapidly growing organic (farming) market. 

Keywords: South East Fishery, value-adding, waste utilisation, fertilisers, biological farming.   

Within the Australian Seafood industry, thousands of tonnes of fish waste are produced by processors and retailers each year. Generally only the fillets are retained and the bulk (~60%) of the product is discarded, often at a cost to the processor and ending up as little more than land-fill. This practice is coming under increased scrutiny due to environmental issues and is becoming an increasing cost burden for the whole industry.  Across the seafood industry in south eastern Australia alone, there is an estimate that well over 20,000t of fish product waste is produced each year. 

Through the work of FRDC’s SEF Industry Development Subprogram to tackle this issue, a group of key stakeholders in the seafood industry formed Australian Seafood Co-products (ASCo: ACN 100 489 236). The mission of the company is to add value to the seafood supply chain through the sustainable utilisation of fish and fish co-products that are not traditionally utilised or marketed.  ASCo has 17 seafood companies as shareholders spanning the five south eastern Australian states. A shareholder’s agreement is now in place and the company directors have now been elected.  

ASCo considered a range of options for the utilisation of seafood waste.  Given the relatively wide geographical area covered by Australia's seafood industry and the large variability in the amount and composition of species involved, it was agreed that processing the waste into a valuable organic fertiliser was the most suitable option for ASCo at this point in time.  With this goal in mind ASCo went into partnership with Sieber, a New Zealand fertiliser company with proven fertiliser technology, technical backup, and partnerships with other established fertiliser companies and the agricultural industry. Sieber already had a range of fish-based fertiliser products in New Zealand with proven benefits to agricultural crops and certification for use in the rapidly growing organic (farming) market. 

Keywords: South East Fishery, value-adding, waste utilisation, fertilisers, biological farming.   

Within the Australian Seafood industry, thousands of tonnes of fish waste are produced by processors and retailers each year. Generally only the fillets are retained and the bulk (~60%) of the product is discarded, often at a cost to the processor and ending up as little more than land-fill. This practice is coming under increased scrutiny due to environmental issues and is becoming an increasing cost burden for the whole industry.  Across the seafood industry in south eastern Australia alone, there is an estimate that well over 20,000t of fish product waste is produced each year. 

Through the work of FRDC’s SEF Industry Development Subprogram to tackle this issue, a group of key stakeholders in the seafood industry formed Australian Seafood Co-products (ASCo: ACN 100 489 236). The mission of the company is to add value to the seafood supply chain through the sustainable utilisation of fish and fish co-products that are not traditionally utilised or marketed.  ASCo has 17 seafood companies as shareholders spanning the five south eastern Australian states. A shareholder’s agreement is now in place and the company directors have now been elected.  

ASCo considered a range of options for the utilisation of seafood waste.  Given the relatively wide geographical area covered by Australia's seafood industry and the large variability in the amount and composition of species involved, it was agreed that processing the waste into a valuable organic fertiliser was the most suitable option for ASCo at this point in time.  With this goal in mind ASCo went into partnership with Sieber, a New Zealand fertiliser company with proven fertiliser technology, technical backup, and partnerships with other established fertiliser companies and the agricultural industry. Sieber already had a range of fish-based fertiliser products in New Zealand with proven benefits to agricultural crops and certification for use in the rapidly growing organic (farming) market. 

Keywords: South East Fishery, value-adding, waste utilisation, fertilisers, biological farming.   

Within the Australian Seafood industry, thousands of tonnes of fish waste are produced by processors and retailers each year. Generally only the fillets are retained and the bulk (~60%) of the product is discarded, often at a cost to the processor and ending up as little more than land-fill. This practice is coming under increased scrutiny due to environmental issues and is becoming an increasing cost burden for the whole industry.  Across the seafood industry in south eastern Australia alone, there is an estimate that well over 20,000t of fish product waste is produced each year. 

Through the work of FRDC’s SEF Industry Development Subprogram to tackle this issue, a group of key stakeholders in the seafood industry formed Australian Seafood Co-products (ASCo: ACN 100 489 236). The mission of the company is to add value to the seafood supply chain through the sustainable utilisation of fish and fish co-products that are not traditionally utilised or marketed.  ASCo has 17 seafood companies as shareholders spanning the five south eastern Australian states. A shareholder’s agreement is now in place and the company directors have now been elected.  

ASCo considered a range of options for the utilisation of seafood waste.  Given the relatively wide geographical area covered by Australia's seafood industry and the large variability in the amount and composition of species involved, it was agreed that processing the waste into a valuable organic fertiliser was the most suitable option for ASCo at this point in time.  With this goal in mind ASCo went into partnership with Sieber, a New Zealand fertiliser company with proven fertiliser technology, technical backup, and partnerships with other established fertiliser companies and the agricultural industry. Sieber already had a range of fish-based fertiliser products in New Zealand with proven benefits to agricultural crops and certification for use in the rapidly growing organic (farming) market. 

Keywords: South East Fishery, value-adding, waste utilisation, fertilisers, biological farming.   

Within the Australian Seafood industry, thousands of tonnes of fish waste are produced by processors and retailers each year. Generally only the fillets are retained and the bulk (~60%) of the product is discarded, often at a cost to the processor and ending up as little more than land-fill. This practice is coming under increased scrutiny due to environmental issues and is becoming an increasing cost burden for the whole industry.  Across the seafood industry in south eastern Australia alone, there is an estimate that well over 20,000t of fish product waste is produced each year. 

Through the work of FRDC’s SEF Industry Development Subprogram to tackle this issue, a group of key stakeholders in the seafood industry formed Australian Seafood Co-products (ASCo: ACN 100 489 236). The mission of the company is to add value to the seafood supply chain through the sustainable utilisation of fish and fish co-products that are not traditionally utilised or marketed.  ASCo has 17 seafood companies as shareholders spanning the five south eastern Australian states. A shareholder’s agreement is now in place and the company directors have now been elected.  

ASCo considered a range of options for the utilisation of seafood waste.  Given the relatively wide geographical area covered by Australia's seafood industry and the large variability in the amount and composition of species involved, it was agreed that processing the waste into a valuable organic fertiliser was the most suitable option for ASCo at this point in time.  With this goal in mind ASCo went into partnership with Sieber, a New Zealand fertiliser company with proven fertiliser technology, technical backup, and partnerships with other established fertiliser companies and the agricultural industry. Sieber already had a range of fish-based fertiliser products in New Zealand with proven benefits to agricultural crops and certification for use in the rapidly growing organic (farming) market. 

Keywords: South East Fishery, value-adding, waste utilisation, fertilisers, biological farming.   

Within the Australian Seafood industry, thousands of tonnes of fish waste are produced by processors and retailers each year. Generally only the fillets are retained and the bulk (~60%) of the product is discarded, often at a cost to the processor and ending up as little more than land-fill. This practice is coming under increased scrutiny due to environmental issues and is becoming an increasing cost burden for the whole industry.  Across the seafood industry in south eastern Australia alone, there is an estimate that well over 20,000t of fish product waste is produced each year. 

Through the work of FRDC’s SEF Industry Development Subprogram to tackle this issue, a group of key stakeholders in the seafood industry formed Australian Seafood Co-products (ASCo: ACN 100 489 236). The mission of the company is to add value to the seafood supply chain through the sustainable utilisation of fish and fish co-products that are not traditionally utilised or marketed.  ASCo has 17 seafood companies as shareholders spanning the five south eastern Australian states. A shareholder’s agreement is now in place and the company directors have now been elected.  

ASCo considered a range of options for the utilisation of seafood waste.  Given the relatively wide geographical area covered by Australia's seafood industry and the large variability in the amount and composition of species involved, it was agreed that processing the waste into a valuable organic fertiliser was the most suitable option for ASCo at this point in time.  With this goal in mind ASCo went into partnership with Sieber, a New Zealand fertiliser company with proven fertiliser technology, technical backup, and partnerships with other established fertiliser companies and the agricultural industry. Sieber already had a range of fish-based fertiliser products in New Zealand with proven benefits to agricultural crops and certification for use in the rapidly growing organic (farming) market. 

Keywords: South East Fishery, value-adding, waste utilisation, fertilisers, biological farming.   

Within the Australian Seafood industry, thousands of tonnes of fish waste are produced by processors and retailers each year. Generally only the fillets are retained and the bulk (~60%) of the product is discarded, often at a cost to the processor and ending up as little more than land-fill. This practice is coming under increased scrutiny due to environmental issues and is becoming an increasing cost burden for the whole industry.  Across the seafood industry in south eastern Australia alone, there is an estimate that well over 20,000t of fish product waste is produced each year. 

Through the work of FRDC’s SEF Industry Development Subprogram to tackle this issue, a group of key stakeholders in the seafood industry formed Australian Seafood Co-products (ASCo: ACN 100 489 236). The mission of the company is to add value to the seafood supply chain through the sustainable utilisation of fish and fish co-products that are not traditionally utilised or marketed.  ASCo has 17 seafood companies as shareholders spanning the five south eastern Australian states. A shareholder’s agreement is now in place and the company directors have now been elected.  

ASCo considered a range of options for the utilisation of seafood waste.  Given the relatively wide geographical area covered by Australia's seafood industry and the large variability in the amount and composition of species involved, it was agreed that processing the waste into a valuable organic fertiliser was the most suitable option for ASCo at this point in time.  With this goal in mind ASCo went into partnership with Sieber, a New Zealand fertiliser company with proven fertiliser technology, technical backup, and partnerships with other established fertiliser companies and the agricultural industry. Sieber already had a range of fish-based fertiliser products in New Zealand with proven benefits to agricultural crops and certification for use in the rapidly growing organic (farming) market. 

Keywords: South East Fishery, value-adding, waste utilisation, fertilisers, biological farming.   

Within the Australian Seafood industry, thousands of tonnes of fish waste are produced by processors and retailers each year. Generally only the fillets are retained and the bulk (~60%) of the product is discarded, often at a cost to the processor and ending up as little more than land-fill. This practice is coming under increased scrutiny due to environmental issues and is becoming an increasing cost burden for the whole industry.  Across the seafood industry in south eastern Australia alone, there is an estimate that well over 20,000t of fish product waste is produced each year. 

Through the work of FRDC’s SEF Industry Development Subprogram to tackle this issue, a group of key stakeholders in the seafood industry formed Australian Seafood Co-products (ASCo: ACN 100 489 236). The mission of the company is to add value to the seafood supply chain through the sustainable utilisation of fish and fish co-products that are not traditionally utilised or marketed.  ASCo has 17 seafood companies as shareholders spanning the five south eastern Australian states. A shareholder’s agreement is now in place and the company directors have now been elected.  

ASCo considered a range of options for the utilisation of seafood waste.  Given the relatively wide geographical area covered by Australia's seafood industry and the large variability in the amount and composition of species involved, it was agreed that processing the waste into a valuable organic fertiliser was the most suitable option for ASCo at this point in time.  With this goal in mind ASCo went into partnership with Sieber, a New Zealand fertiliser company with proven fertiliser technology, technical backup, and partnerships with other established fertiliser companies and the agricultural industry. Sieber already had a range of fish-based fertiliser products in New Zealand with proven benefits to agricultural crops and certification for use in the rapidly growing organic (farming) market. 

Keywords: South East Fishery, value-adding, waste utilisation, fertilisers, biological farming.   

Within the Australian Seafood industry, thousands of tonnes of fish waste are produced by processors and retailers each year. Generally only the fillets are retained and the bulk (~60%) of the product is discarded, often at a cost to the processor and ending up as little more than land-fill. This practice is coming under increased scrutiny due to environmental issues and is becoming an increasing cost burden for the whole industry.  Across the seafood industry in south eastern Australia alone, there is an estimate that well over 20,000t of fish product waste is produced each year. 

Through the work of FRDC’s SEF Industry Development Subprogram to tackle this issue, a group of key stakeholders in the seafood industry formed Australian Seafood Co-products (ASCo: ACN 100 489 236). The mission of the company is to add value to the seafood supply chain through the sustainable utilisation of fish and fish co-products that are not traditionally utilised or marketed.  ASCo has 17 seafood companies as shareholders spanning the five south eastern Australian states. A shareholder’s agreement is now in place and the company directors have now been elected.  

ASCo considered a range of options for the utilisation of seafood waste.  Given the relatively wide geographical area covered by Australia's seafood industry and the large variability in the amount and composition of species involved, it was agreed that processing the waste into a valuable organic fertiliser was the most suitable option for ASCo at this point in time.  With this goal in mind ASCo went into partnership with Sieber, a New Zealand fertiliser company with proven fertiliser technology, technical backup, and partnerships with other established fertiliser companies and the agricultural industry. Sieber already had a range of fish-based fertiliser products in New Zealand with proven benefits to agricultural crops and certification for use in the rapidly growing organic (farming) market. 

Keywords: South East Fishery, value-adding, waste utilisation, fertilisers, biological farming.   

Within the Australian Seafood industry, thousands of tonnes of fish waste are produced by processors and retailers each year. Generally only the fillets are retained and the bulk (~60%) of the product is discarded, often at a cost to the processor and ending up as little more than land-fill. This practice is coming under increased scrutiny due to environmental issues and is becoming an increasing cost burden for the whole industry.  Across the seafood industry in south eastern Australia alone, there is an estimate that well over 20,000t of fish product waste is produced each year. 

Through the work of FRDC’s SEF Industry Development Subprogram to tackle this issue, a group of key stakeholders in the seafood industry formed Australian Seafood Co-products (ASCo: ACN 100 489 236). The mission of the company is to add value to the seafood supply chain through the sustainable utilisation of fish and fish co-products that are not traditionally utilised or marketed.  ASCo has 17 seafood companies as shareholders spanning the five south eastern Australian states. A shareholder’s agreement is now in place and the company directors have now been elected.  

ASCo considered a range of options for the utilisation of seafood waste.  Given the relatively wide geographical area covered by Australia's seafood industry and the large variability in the amount and composition of species involved, it was agreed that processing the waste into a valuable organic fertiliser was the most suitable option for ASCo at this point in time.  With this goal in mind ASCo went into partnership with Sieber, a New Zealand fertiliser company with proven fertiliser technology, technical backup, and partnerships with other established fertiliser companies and the agricultural industry. Sieber already had a range of fish-based fertiliser products in New Zealand with proven benefits to agricultural crops and certification for use in the rapidly growing organic (farming) market. 

Keywords: South East Fishery, value-adding, waste utilisation, fertilisers, biological farming.   

Within the Australian Seafood industry, thousands of tonnes of fish waste are produced by processors and retailers each year. Generally only the fillets are retained and the bulk (~60%) of the product is discarded, often at a cost to the processor and ending up as little more than land-fill. This practice is coming under increased scrutiny due to environmental issues and is becoming an increasing cost burden for the whole industry.  Across the seafood industry in south eastern Australia alone, there is an estimate that well over 20,000t of fish product waste is produced each year. 

Through the work of FRDC’s SEF Industry Development Subprogram to tackle this issue, a group of key stakeholders in the seafood industry formed Australian Seafood Co-products (ASCo: ACN 100 489 236). The mission of the company is to add value to the seafood supply chain through the sustainable utilisation of fish and fish co-products that are not traditionally utilised or marketed.  ASCo has 17 seafood companies as shareholders spanning the five south eastern Australian states. A shareholder’s agreement is now in place and the company directors have now been elected.  

ASCo considered a range of options for the utilisation of seafood waste.  Given the relatively wide geographical area covered by Australia's seafood industry and the large variability in the amount and composition of species involved, it was agreed that processing the waste into a valuable organic fertiliser was the most suitable option for ASCo at this point in time.  With this goal in mind ASCo went into partnership with Sieber, a New Zealand fertiliser company with proven fertiliser technology, technical backup, and partnerships with other established fertiliser companies and the agricultural industry. Sieber already had a range of fish-based fertiliser products in New Zealand with proven benefits to agricultural crops and certification for use in the rapidly growing organic (farming) market. 

Keywords: South East Fishery, value-adding, waste utilisation, fertilisers, biological farming.   

Within the Australian Seafood industry, thousands of tonnes of fish waste are produced by processors and retailers each year. Generally only the fillets are retained and the bulk (~60%) of the product is discarded, often at a cost to the processor and ending up as little more than land-fill. This practice is coming under increased scrutiny due to environmental issues and is becoming an increasing cost burden for the whole industry.  Across the seafood industry in south eastern Australia alone, there is an estimate that well over 20,000t of fish product waste is produced each year. 

Through the work of FRDC’s SEF Industry Development Subprogram to tackle this issue, a group of key stakeholders in the seafood industry formed Australian Seafood Co-products (ASCo: ACN 100 489 236). The mission of the company is to add value to the seafood supply chain through the sustainable utilisation of fish and fish co-products that are not traditionally utilised or marketed.  ASCo has 17 seafood companies as shareholders spanning the five south eastern Australian states. A shareholder’s agreement is now in place and the company directors have now been elected.  

ASCo considered a range of options for the utilisation of seafood waste.  Given the relatively wide geographical area covered by Australia's seafood industry and the large variability in the amount and composition of species involved, it was agreed that processing the waste into a valuable organic fertiliser was the most suitable option for ASCo at this point in time.  With this goal in mind ASCo went into partnership with Sieber, a New Zealand fertiliser company with proven fertiliser technology, technical backup, and partnerships with other established fertiliser companies and the agricultural industry. Sieber already had a range of fish-based fertiliser products in New Zealand with proven benefits to agricultural crops and certification for use in the rapidly growing organic (farming) market. 

Keywords: South East Fishery, value-adding, waste utilisation, fertilisers, biological farming.   

Within the Australian Seafood industry, thousands of tonnes of fish waste are produced by processors and retailers each year. Generally only the fillets are retained and the bulk (~60%) of the product is discarded, often at a cost to the processor and ending up as little more than land-fill. This practice is coming under increased scrutiny due to environmental issues and is becoming an increasing cost burden for the whole industry.  Across the seafood industry in south eastern Australia alone, there is an estimate that well over 20,000t of fish product waste is produced each year. 

Through the work of FRDC’s SEF Industry Development Subprogram to tackle this issue, a group of key stakeholders in the seafood industry formed Australian Seafood Co-products (ASCo: ACN 100 489 236). The mission of the company is to add value to the seafood supply chain through the sustainable utilisation of fish and fish co-products that are not traditionally utilised or marketed.  ASCo has 17 seafood companies as shareholders spanning the five south eastern Australian states. A shareholder’s agreement is now in place and the company directors have now been elected.  

ASCo considered a range of options for the utilisation of seafood waste.  Given the relatively wide geographical area covered by Australia's seafood industry and the large variability in the amount and composition of species involved, it was agreed that processing the waste into a valuable organic fertiliser was the most suitable option for ASCo at this point in time.  With this goal in mind ASCo went into partnership with Sieber, a New Zealand fertiliser company with proven fertiliser technology, technical backup, and partnerships with other established fertiliser companies and the agricultural industry. Sieber already had a range of fish-based fertiliser products in New Zealand with proven benefits to agricultural crops and certification for use in the rapidly growing organic (farming) market. 

Keywords: South East Fishery, value-adding, waste utilisation, fertilisers, biological farming.   

Within the Australian Seafood industry, thousands of tonnes of fish waste are produced by processors and retailers each year. Generally only the fillets are retained and the bulk (~60%) of the product is discarded, often at a cost to the processor and ending up as little more than land-fill. This practice is coming under increased scrutiny due to environmental issues and is becoming an increasing cost burden for the whole industry.  Across the seafood industry in south eastern Australia alone, there is an estimate that well over 20,000t of fish product waste is produced each year. 

Through the work of FRDC’s SEF Industry Development Subprogram to tackle this issue, a group of key stakeholders in the seafood industry formed Australian Seafood Co-products (ASCo: ACN 100 489 236). The mission of the company is to add value to the seafood supply chain through the sustainable utilisation of fish and fish co-products that are not traditionally utilised or marketed.  ASCo has 17 seafood companies as shareholders spanning the five south eastern Australian states. A shareholder’s agreement is now in place and the company directors have now been elected.  

ASCo considered a range of options for the utilisation of seafood waste.  Given the relatively wide geographical area covered by Australia's seafood industry and the large variability in the amount and composition of species involved, it was agreed that processing the waste into a valuable organic fertiliser was the most suitable option for ASCo at this point in time.  With this goal in mind ASCo went into partnership with Sieber, a New Zealand fertiliser company with proven fertiliser technology, technical backup, and partnerships with other established fertiliser companies and the agricultural industry. Sieber already had a range of fish-based fertiliser products in New Zealand with proven benefits to agricultural crops and certification for use in the rapidly growing organic (farming) market. 

Keywords: South East Fishery, value-adding, waste utilisation, fertilisers, biological farming.   

Within the Australian Seafood industry, thousands of tonnes of fish waste are produced by processors and retailers each year. Generally only the fillets are retained and the bulk (~60%) of the product is discarded, often at a cost to the processor and ending up as little more than land-fill. This practice is coming under increased scrutiny due to environmental issues and is becoming an increasing cost burden for the whole industry.  Across the seafood industry in south eastern Australia alone, there is an estimate that well over 20,000t of fish product waste is produced each year. 

Through the work of FRDC’s SEF Industry Development Subprogram to tackle this issue, a group of key stakeholders in the seafood industry formed Australian Seafood Co-products (ASCo: ACN 100 489 236). The mission of the company is to add value to the seafood supply chain through the sustainable utilisation of fish and fish co-products that are not traditionally utilised or marketed.  ASCo has 17 seafood companies as shareholders spanning the five south eastern Australian states. A shareholder’s agreement is now in place and the company directors have now been elected.  

ASCo considered a range of options for the utilisation of seafood waste.  Given the relatively wide geographical area covered by Australia's seafood industry and the large variability in the amount and composition of species involved, it was agreed that processing the waste into a valuable organic fertiliser was the most suitable option for ASCo at this point in time.  With this goal in mind ASCo went into partnership with Sieber, a New Zealand fertiliser company with proven fertiliser technology, technical backup, and partnerships with other established fertiliser companies and the agricultural industry. Sieber already had a range of fish-based fertiliser products in New Zealand with proven benefits to agricultural crops and certification for use in the rapidly growing organic (farming) market. 

Keywords: South East Fishery, value-adding, waste utilisation, fertilisers, biological farming.   

The project demonstrated that businesses that comply with FoodSafe Plus have work practices that will conform to the Australian Seafood Standard and thus comply with their responsibilities under the mandatory Food Safety Standards.

Although the project was to introduce a food safety program to comply with Food Safety Standard 3.2.1, the consultants identified that pre-requisite programs to cover Food Safety Standard 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 were not in place and these were therefore included as part of the project. 

The minimum number of businesses accredited to FoodSafe Plus exceeded the target in Western Australia.  At the time of writing the final report, eight businesses were accredited, or in the final stages of accreditation. Importantly, two businesses were deemed not to require a food safety plan in order to produce safe food.  Two environmental health practitioners became familiar with the seafood industry and a further two (the consultants themselves) improved their knowledge of the seafood industry. 

Although currently one of the simplest HACCP based food safety program models available, FoodSafe Plus would require considerable amendment to be a suitable model for the fishing industry sector.  The consultants experience from this project found that participants were isolated, easily confused and intimidated by the size of the manual.  They also had difficulty relating to the examples used and lacked the confidence and knowledge to modify forms for their own businesses without help.

Overall, the findings suggest that the FoodSafe Plus quality system is comparatively low cost and does enable business to meet more confidently the requirements of the FSANZ food safety standards. 

Keywords: Seafood safety, Post Harvest, FoodSafe Plus, Best practice.

The project demonstrated that businesses that comply with FoodSafe Plus have work practices that will conform to the Australian Seafood Standard and thus comply with their responsibilities under the mandatory Food Safety Standards.

Although the project was to introduce a food safety program to comply with Food Safety Standard 3.2.1, the consultants identified that pre-requisite programs to cover Food Safety Standard 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 were not in place and these were therefore included as part of the project. 

The minimum number of businesses accredited to FoodSafe Plus exceeded the target in Western Australia.  At the time of writing the final report, eight businesses were accredited, or in the final stages of accreditation. Importantly, two businesses were deemed not to require a food safety plan in order to produce safe food.  Two environmental health practitioners became familiar with the seafood industry and a further two (the consultants themselves) improved their knowledge of the seafood industry. 

Although currently one of the simplest HACCP based food safety program models available, FoodSafe Plus would require considerable amendment to be a suitable model for the fishing industry sector.  The consultants experience from this project found that participants were isolated, easily confused and intimidated by the size of the manual.  They also had difficulty relating to the examples used and lacked the confidence and knowledge to modify forms for their own businesses without help.

Overall, the findings suggest that the FoodSafe Plus quality system is comparatively low cost and does enable business to meet more confidently the requirements of the FSANZ food safety standards. 

Keywords: Seafood safety, Post Harvest, FoodSafe Plus, Best practice.

The project demonstrated that businesses that comply with FoodSafe Plus have work practices that will conform to the Australian Seafood Standard and thus comply with their responsibilities under the mandatory Food Safety Standards.

Although the project was to introduce a food safety program to comply with Food Safety Standard 3.2.1, the consultants identified that pre-requisite programs to cover Food Safety Standard 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 were not in place and these were therefore included as part of the project. 

The minimum number of businesses accredited to FoodSafe Plus exceeded the target in Western Australia.  At the time of writing the final report, eight businesses were accredited, or in the final stages of accreditation. Importantly, two businesses were deemed not to require a food safety plan in order to produce safe food.  Two environmental health practitioners became familiar with the seafood industry and a further two (the consultants themselves) improved their knowledge of the seafood industry. 

Although currently one of the simplest HACCP based food safety program models available, FoodSafe Plus would require considerable amendment to be a suitable model for the fishing industry sector.  The consultants experience from this project found that participants were isolated, easily confused and intimidated by the size of the manual.  They also had difficulty relating to the examples used and lacked the confidence and knowledge to modify forms for their own businesses without help.

Overall, the findings suggest that the FoodSafe Plus quality system is comparatively low cost and does enable business to meet more confidently the requirements of the FSANZ food safety standards. 

Keywords: Seafood safety, Post Harvest, FoodSafe Plus, Best practice.

The project demonstrated that businesses that comply with FoodSafe Plus have work practices that will conform to the Australian Seafood Standard and thus comply with their responsibilities under the mandatory Food Safety Standards.

Although the project was to introduce a food safety program to comply with Food Safety Standard 3.2.1, the consultants identified that pre-requisite programs to cover Food Safety Standard 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 were not in place and these were therefore included as part of the project. 

The minimum number of businesses accredited to FoodSafe Plus exceeded the target in Western Australia.  At the time of writing the final report, eight businesses were accredited, or in the final stages of accreditation. Importantly, two businesses were deemed not to require a food safety plan in order to produce safe food.  Two environmental health practitioners became familiar with the seafood industry and a further two (the consultants themselves) improved their knowledge of the seafood industry. 

Although currently one of the simplest HACCP based food safety program models available, FoodSafe Plus would require considerable amendment to be a suitable model for the fishing industry sector.  The consultants experience from this project found that participants were isolated, easily confused and intimidated by the size of the manual.  They also had difficulty relating to the examples used and lacked the confidence and knowledge to modify forms for their own businesses without help.

Overall, the findings suggest that the FoodSafe Plus quality system is comparatively low cost and does enable business to meet more confidently the requirements of the FSANZ food safety standards. 

Keywords: Seafood safety, Post Harvest, FoodSafe Plus, Best practice.

The project demonstrated that businesses that comply with FoodSafe Plus have work practices that will conform to the Australian Seafood Standard and thus comply with their responsibilities under the mandatory Food Safety Standards.

Although the project was to introduce a food safety program to comply with Food Safety Standard 3.2.1, the consultants identified that pre-requisite programs to cover Food Safety Standard 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 were not in place and these were therefore included as part of the project. 

The minimum number of businesses accredited to FoodSafe Plus exceeded the target in Western Australia.  At the time of writing the final report, eight businesses were accredited, or in the final stages of accreditation. Importantly, two businesses were deemed not to require a food safety plan in order to produce safe food.  Two environmental health practitioners became familiar with the seafood industry and a further two (the consultants themselves) improved their knowledge of the seafood industry. 

Although currently one of the simplest HACCP based food safety program models available, FoodSafe Plus would require considerable amendment to be a suitable model for the fishing industry sector.  The consultants experience from this project found that participants were isolated, easily confused and intimidated by the size of the manual.  They also had difficulty relating to the examples used and lacked the confidence and knowledge to modify forms for their own businesses without help.

Overall, the findings suggest that the FoodSafe Plus quality system is comparatively low cost and does enable business to meet more confidently the requirements of the FSANZ food safety standards. 

Keywords: Seafood safety, Post Harvest, FoodSafe Plus, Best practice.

The project demonstrated that businesses that comply with FoodSafe Plus have work practices that will conform to the Australian Seafood Standard and thus comply with their responsibilities under the mandatory Food Safety Standards.

Although the project was to introduce a food safety program to comply with Food Safety Standard 3.2.1, the consultants identified that pre-requisite programs to cover Food Safety Standard 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 were not in place and these were therefore included as part of the project. 

The minimum number of businesses accredited to FoodSafe Plus exceeded the target in Western Australia.  At the time of writing the final report, eight businesses were accredited, or in the final stages of accreditation. Importantly, two businesses were deemed not to require a food safety plan in order to produce safe food.  Two environmental health practitioners became familiar with the seafood industry and a further two (the consultants themselves) improved their knowledge of the seafood industry. 

Although currently one of the simplest HACCP based food safety program models available, FoodSafe Plus would require considerable amendment to be a suitable model for the fishing industry sector.  The consultants experience from this project found that participants were isolated, easily confused and intimidated by the size of the manual.  They also had difficulty relating to the examples used and lacked the confidence and knowledge to modify forms for their own businesses without help.

Overall, the findings suggest that the FoodSafe Plus quality system is comparatively low cost and does enable business to meet more confidently the requirements of the FSANZ food safety standards. 

Keywords: Seafood safety, Post Harvest, FoodSafe Plus, Best practice.

The project demonstrated that businesses that comply with FoodSafe Plus have work practices that will conform to the Australian Seafood Standard and thus comply with their responsibilities under the mandatory Food Safety Standards.

Although the project was to introduce a food safety program to comply with Food Safety Standard 3.2.1, the consultants identified that pre-requisite programs to cover Food Safety Standard 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 were not in place and these were therefore included as part of the project. 

The minimum number of businesses accredited to FoodSafe Plus exceeded the target in Western Australia.  At the time of writing the final report, eight businesses were accredited, or in the final stages of accreditation. Importantly, two businesses were deemed not to require a food safety plan in order to produce safe food.  Two environmental health practitioners became familiar with the seafood industry and a further two (the consultants themselves) improved their knowledge of the seafood industry. 

Although currently one of the simplest HACCP based food safety program models available, FoodSafe Plus would require considerable amendment to be a suitable model for the fishing industry sector.  The consultants experience from this project found that participants were isolated, easily confused and intimidated by the size of the manual.  They also had difficulty relating to the examples used and lacked the confidence and knowledge to modify forms for their own businesses without help.

Overall, the findings suggest that the FoodSafe Plus quality system is comparatively low cost and does enable business to meet more confidently the requirements of the FSANZ food safety standards. 

Keywords: Seafood safety, Post Harvest, FoodSafe Plus, Best practice.

The project demonstrated that businesses that comply with FoodSafe Plus have work practices that will conform to the Australian Seafood Standard and thus comply with their responsibilities under the mandatory Food Safety Standards.

Although the project was to introduce a food safety program to comply with Food Safety Standard 3.2.1, the consultants identified that pre-requisite programs to cover Food Safety Standard 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 were not in place and these were therefore included as part of the project. 

The minimum number of businesses accredited to FoodSafe Plus exceeded the target in Western Australia.  At the time of writing the final report, eight businesses were accredited, or in the final stages of accreditation. Importantly, two businesses were deemed not to require a food safety plan in order to produce safe food.  Two environmental health practitioners became familiar with the seafood industry and a further two (the consultants themselves) improved their knowledge of the seafood industry. 

Although currently one of the simplest HACCP based food safety program models available, FoodSafe Plus would require considerable amendment to be a suitable model for the fishing industry sector.  The consultants experience from this project found that participants were isolated, easily confused and intimidated by the size of the manual.  They also had difficulty relating to the examples used and lacked the confidence and knowledge to modify forms for their own businesses without help.

Overall, the findings suggest that the FoodSafe Plus quality system is comparatively low cost and does enable business to meet more confidently the requirements of the FSANZ food safety standards. 

Keywords: Seafood safety, Post Harvest, FoodSafe Plus, Best practice.

The project demonstrated that businesses that comply with FoodSafe Plus have work practices that will conform to the Australian Seafood Standard and thus comply with their responsibilities under the mandatory Food Safety Standards.

Although the project was to introduce a food safety program to comply with Food Safety Standard 3.2.1, the consultants identified that pre-requisite programs to cover Food Safety Standard 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 were not in place and these were therefore included as part of the project. 

The minimum number of businesses accredited to FoodSafe Plus exceeded the target in Western Australia.  At the time of writing the final report, eight businesses were accredited, or in the final stages of accreditation. Importantly, two businesses were deemed not to require a food safety plan in order to produce safe food.  Two environmental health practitioners became familiar with the seafood industry and a further two (the consultants themselves) improved their knowledge of the seafood industry. 

Although currently one of the simplest HACCP based food safety program models available, FoodSafe Plus would require considerable amendment to be a suitable model for the fishing industry sector.  The consultants experience from this project found that participants were isolated, easily confused and intimidated by the size of the manual.  They also had difficulty relating to the examples used and lacked the confidence and knowledge to modify forms for their own businesses without help.

Overall, the findings suggest that the FoodSafe Plus quality system is comparatively low cost and does enable business to meet more confidently the requirements of the FSANZ food safety standards. 

Keywords: Seafood safety, Post Harvest, FoodSafe Plus, Best practice.

The project demonstrated that businesses that comply with FoodSafe Plus have work practices that will conform to the Australian Seafood Standard and thus comply with their responsibilities under the mandatory Food Safety Standards.

Although the project was to introduce a food safety program to comply with Food Safety Standard 3.2.1, the consultants identified that pre-requisite programs to cover Food Safety Standard 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 were not in place and these were therefore included as part of the project. 

The minimum number of businesses accredited to FoodSafe Plus exceeded the target in Western Australia.  At the time of writing the final report, eight businesses were accredited, or in the final stages of accreditation. Importantly, two businesses were deemed not to require a food safety plan in order to produce safe food.  Two environmental health practitioners became familiar with the seafood industry and a further two (the consultants themselves) improved their knowledge of the seafood industry. 

Although currently one of the simplest HACCP based food safety program models available, FoodSafe Plus would require considerable amendment to be a suitable model for the fishing industry sector.  The consultants experience from this project found that participants were isolated, easily confused and intimidated by the size of the manual.  They also had difficulty relating to the examples used and lacked the confidence and knowledge to modify forms for their own businesses without help.

Overall, the findings suggest that the FoodSafe Plus quality system is comparatively low cost and does enable business to meet more confidently the requirements of the FSANZ food safety standards. 

Keywords: Seafood safety, Post Harvest, FoodSafe Plus, Best practice.

The project demonstrated that businesses that comply with FoodSafe Plus have work practices that will conform to the Australian Seafood Standard and thus comply with their responsibilities under the mandatory Food Safety Standards.

Although the project was to introduce a food safety program to comply with Food Safety Standard 3.2.1, the consultants identified that pre-requisite programs to cover Food Safety Standard 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 were not in place and these were therefore included as part of the project. 

The minimum number of businesses accredited to FoodSafe Plus exceeded the target in Western Australia.  At the time of writing the final report, eight businesses were accredited, or in the final stages of accreditation. Importantly, two businesses were deemed not to require a food safety plan in order to produce safe food.  Two environmental health practitioners became familiar with the seafood industry and a further two (the consultants themselves) improved their knowledge of the seafood industry. 

Although currently one of the simplest HACCP based food safety program models available, FoodSafe Plus would require considerable amendment to be a suitable model for the fishing industry sector.  The consultants experience from this project found that participants were isolated, easily confused and intimidated by the size of the manual.  They also had difficulty relating to the examples used and lacked the confidence and knowledge to modify forms for their own businesses without help.

Overall, the findings suggest that the FoodSafe Plus quality system is comparatively low cost and does enable business to meet more confidently the requirements of the FSANZ food safety standards. 

Keywords: Seafood safety, Post Harvest, FoodSafe Plus, Best practice.

The project demonstrated that businesses that comply with FoodSafe Plus have work practices that will conform to the Australian Seafood Standard and thus comply with their responsibilities under the mandatory Food Safety Standards.

Although the project was to introduce a food safety program to comply with Food Safety Standard 3.2.1, the consultants identified that pre-requisite programs to cover Food Safety Standard 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 were not in place and these were therefore included as part of the project. 

The minimum number of businesses accredited to FoodSafe Plus exceeded the target in Western Australia.  At the time of writing the final report, eight businesses were accredited, or in the final stages of accreditation. Importantly, two businesses were deemed not to require a food safety plan in order to produce safe food.  Two environmental health practitioners became familiar with the seafood industry and a further two (the consultants themselves) improved their knowledge of the seafood industry. 

Although currently one of the simplest HACCP based food safety program models available, FoodSafe Plus would require considerable amendment to be a suitable model for the fishing industry sector.  The consultants experience from this project found that participants were isolated, easily confused and intimidated by the size of the manual.  They also had difficulty relating to the examples used and lacked the confidence and knowledge to modify forms for their own businesses without help.

Overall, the findings suggest that the FoodSafe Plus quality system is comparatively low cost and does enable business to meet more confidently the requirements of the FSANZ food safety standards. 

Keywords: Seafood safety, Post Harvest, FoodSafe Plus, Best practice.

The project demonstrated that businesses that comply with FoodSafe Plus have work practices that will conform to the Australian Seafood Standard and thus comply with their responsibilities under the mandatory Food Safety Standards.

Although the project was to introduce a food safety program to comply with Food Safety Standard 3.2.1, the consultants identified that pre-requisite programs to cover Food Safety Standard 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 were not in place and these were therefore included as part of the project. 

The minimum number of businesses accredited to FoodSafe Plus exceeded the target in Western Australia.  At the time of writing the final report, eight businesses were accredited, or in the final stages of accreditation. Importantly, two businesses were deemed not to require a food safety plan in order to produce safe food.  Two environmental health practitioners became familiar with the seafood industry and a further two (the consultants themselves) improved their knowledge of the seafood industry. 

Although currently one of the simplest HACCP based food safety program models available, FoodSafe Plus would require considerable amendment to be a suitable model for the fishing industry sector.  The consultants experience from this project found that participants were isolated, easily confused and intimidated by the size of the manual.  They also had difficulty relating to the examples used and lacked the confidence and knowledge to modify forms for their own businesses without help.

Overall, the findings suggest that the FoodSafe Plus quality system is comparatively low cost and does enable business to meet more confidently the requirements of the FSANZ food safety standards. 

Keywords: Seafood safety, Post Harvest, FoodSafe Plus, Best practice.

The project demonstrated that businesses that comply with FoodSafe Plus have work practices that will conform to the Australian Seafood Standard and thus comply with their responsibilities under the mandatory Food Safety Standards.

Although the project was to introduce a food safety program to comply with Food Safety Standard 3.2.1, the consultants identified that pre-requisite programs to cover Food Safety Standard 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 were not in place and these were therefore included as part of the project. 

The minimum number of businesses accredited to FoodSafe Plus exceeded the target in Western Australia.  At the time of writing the final report, eight businesses were accredited, or in the final stages of accreditation. Importantly, two businesses were deemed not to require a food safety plan in order to produce safe food.  Two environmental health practitioners became familiar with the seafood industry and a further two (the consultants themselves) improved their knowledge of the seafood industry. 

Although currently one of the simplest HACCP based food safety program models available, FoodSafe Plus would require considerable amendment to be a suitable model for the fishing industry sector.  The consultants experience from this project found that participants were isolated, easily confused and intimidated by the size of the manual.  They also had difficulty relating to the examples used and lacked the confidence and knowledge to modify forms for their own businesses without help.

Overall, the findings suggest that the FoodSafe Plus quality system is comparatively low cost and does enable business to meet more confidently the requirements of the FSANZ food safety standards. 

Keywords: Seafood safety, Post Harvest, FoodSafe Plus, Best practice.

The project demonstrated that businesses that comply with FoodSafe Plus have work practices that will conform to the Australian Seafood Standard and thus comply with their responsibilities under the mandatory Food Safety Standards.

Although the project was to introduce a food safety program to comply with Food Safety Standard 3.2.1, the consultants identified that pre-requisite programs to cover Food Safety Standard 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 were not in place and these were therefore included as part of the project. 

The minimum number of businesses accredited to FoodSafe Plus exceeded the target in Western Australia.  At the time of writing the final report, eight businesses were accredited, or in the final stages of accreditation. Importantly, two businesses were deemed not to require a food safety plan in order to produce safe food.  Two environmental health practitioners became familiar with the seafood industry and a further two (the consultants themselves) improved their knowledge of the seafood industry. 

Although currently one of the simplest HACCP based food safety program models available, FoodSafe Plus would require considerable amendment to be a suitable model for the fishing industry sector.  The consultants experience from this project found that participants were isolated, easily confused and intimidated by the size of the manual.  They also had difficulty relating to the examples used and lacked the confidence and knowledge to modify forms for their own businesses without help.

Overall, the findings suggest that the FoodSafe Plus quality system is comparatively low cost and does enable business to meet more confidently the requirements of the FSANZ food safety standards. 

Keywords: Seafood safety, Post Harvest, FoodSafe Plus, Best practice.