The process of testing seafood affected by the April 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was daunting at first because the methods for testing the safety of the affected seafood were inadequate and new protocols had to be designed on-the-fly, according to research presented at an IFT Expo 2011 pre-annual meeting short course session.
The issue of consumer confidence in the safety of gulf seafood is especially important after market researcher Technomic released its “Market Intelligence Report: Seafood" report in January 2011. The report revealed 23 percent of consumers said their consumption of seafood at restaurants decreased as some 200 million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico last summer, and 19 percent say they are still eating less fish as a direct result of the spill.
During the “Evaluating the Safety of Gulf Seafood: Programs and Analytical Techniques in the Aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon Spill" session, Steven Wilson, chief quality officer of the Seafood Inspection Program for the U.S. Dept. of Commerce said while scientists want to collect data, analyze it, and collect more data to get a total picture, food safety professionals have to make “yes" or “no" decisions with some level of risk. The latter mindset was critical in establishing protocol for reopening areas for fishing and seafood harvesting following the Gulf oil spill.
Sensory analysis became the standard test for reopening various areas; chemical analyses also were used. Wilson said the sampling program initially targeted 30 specifies of fish and shellfish; however, it quickly was determined the volume of samples would overwhelm the testing laboratory and sensory panelists. Instead, the sampling program focused on top, middle, and bottom feeders through the use of nets and line trawling. Protocols were developed for sample size, storage and chain of custody.
Existing protocol called for wrapping a sample of the fish in aluminum foil on the fishing vessel and sending it to the laboratory in Pascagoula, Miss. Due to the hot temperatures in the region, many samples were showing up in the lab in a highly decomposed state. New protocols were put in place, treating the fish as if it were a commercial catch.
Another challenge was training the sensory panelists. Due to the burning of the oil and the resulting odor and potential contamination in the area, it was decided that training should take place at a laboratory in Gloucester, Mass. The actual sensory testing was done at the laboratory in Pascagoula. Samples were spiked with oil and dispersants as a quality-control check. This was done sparingly due to the limited availability of the seafood supply in the gulf. Even so, the testers went through about 6 million pounds of purchased seafood in two months.
The issue of consumer confidence in the safety of gulf seafood is especially important after market researcher Technomic released its “Market Intelligence Report: Seafood" report in January 2011. The report revealed 23 percent of consumers said their consumption of seafood at restaurants decreased as some 200 million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico last summer, and 19 percent say they are still eating less fish as a direct result of the spill.
During the “Evaluating the Safety of Gulf Seafood: Programs and Analytical Techniques in the Aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon Spill" session, Steven Wilson, chief quality officer of the Seafood Inspection Program for the U.S. Dept. of Commerce said while scientists want to collect data, analyze it, and collect more data to get a total picture, food safety professionals have to make “yes" or “no" decisions with some level of risk. The latter mindset was critical in establishing protocol for reopening areas for fishing and seafood harvesting following the Gulf oil spill.
Sensory analysis became the standard test for reopening various areas; chemical analyses also were used. Wilson said the sampling program initially targeted 30 specifies of fish and shellfish; however, it quickly was determined the volume of samples would overwhelm the testing laboratory and sensory panelists. Instead, the sampling program focused on top, middle, and bottom feeders through the use of nets and line trawling. Protocols were developed for sample size, storage and chain of custody.
Existing protocol called for wrapping a sample of the fish in aluminum foil on the fishing vessel and sending it to the laboratory in Pascagoula, Miss. Due to the hot temperatures in the region, many samples were showing up in the lab in a highly decomposed state. New protocols were put in place, treating the fish as if it were a commercial catch.
Another challenge was training the sensory panelists. Due to the burning of the oil and the resulting odor and potential contamination in the area, it was decided that training should take place at a laboratory in Gloucester, Mass. The actual sensory testing was done at the laboratory in Pascagoula. Samples were spiked with oil and dispersants as a quality-control check. This was done sparingly due to the limited availability of the seafood supply in the gulf. Even so, the testers went through about 6 million pounds of purchased seafood in two months.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment