Dear Val,
I think you are correct in that it is not easy to find definitive statements of official requirements for L.mono in raw seafoods. This is probably in part due to the fact that there was a very adverse general initial response which then became somewhat of an embarrassment when the 'natural'ubiquity became evident in many commercially traded seafoods together with detailed quantitative studies on the significance of L.mono. in RTE items.
As a result many countries 'decontrolled' L.mono from the tested pathogens in raw seafoods destined to be cooked before consumption.
The situation for some RTE items (but not all) is illustrated in these forums in the micro.criteria thread, eg you can find -
5.2 QUESTION 1
Estimate the risk from L. monocytogenes in food when the number of organisms range from
absence in 25 grams to 1000 colony forming units per gram, or millilitre or does not exceed
specified levels at the point of consumption."
( http://www.who.int/f.../mra5_part5.pdf )
However there are also some specific raw data around if you search long enough, eg see the comment on Denmark (ca 1999) in -
http://groups.google...b80b32b03be24fc
(Not sure if this info. still valid now)
or for some general comments on pathogens in raw seafoods can look at -
http://www.fao.org/d...3e/y4743e05.htm
and
http://www.fao.org/d...3e/y4743e0n.htm
As indicated in above refs, one viewpoint of a tolerable raw level may be related to the ability to achieve a specified result subsequent to cooking.
Nonetheless I would not be at all surprised if a raw zero tolerance still exists for some locations.
I think yr last query overlaps various aspects, eg the sensitivity of other products in vicinity, specific products and their specs, company philosophy. As a result responses varied in my experience from 'panic' stations to ignoring the issue.
Rgds / Charles.C
Added - one more comment is that the confused situation you have encountered is in my experience absolutely normal at the micro.end of the food business. There are some bacteria where you will find disagreements at the highest level over pathogenic significance although the regulatory requirements are completely uniform, eg salmonella (see the Cadbury's thread for an example of the possible ramifications). Often authorities take the 'Precautionary Principle' (guilty until proven innocent) which is understandable from a public health aspect (and politically impeccable). Subsequently opinions may then change but quite often it falls to commercial operations who have been impacted to promote official movements. Such issues prompted Simon to initiate the thread on micro. criteria which I recommend if not seen already -
http://www.saferpak....?showtopic=4590
(my apologies if you knew most of this already, I tend to talk too much) 
Edited by Charles.C, 29 November 2006 - 03:51 AM.
