Dear Arya,
I am no authority on the anzfa maze of regulatory criteria but this link appears to be the nearest current prime one which I could find (I daresay you've seen it already ).
http://www.nzfsa.gov...which-micro.htm
No problem for anyone to further update/corrrect me. Various caveats as to which anzfa countries are in accordance with these documents and their separate relevance to imported goods is occasionally visible. Another reason to be cautious about current info.when using. BTW, I noticed this fascinating text in yr link –
In this user guide, the ‘old Code’ means Volume 1 of the Food Standards Code (the
Australian Food Standards Code). The ‘new Code’ means Volume 2 of the Food
Standards Code (the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code). The ‘New Zealand
regulations’ means the New Zealand Food Regulations 1984.
In adopting the new Code in November 2000, the ministerial council agreed to a two-year
transition period. After this, the new Code will replace both the old Code and the New
Zealand regulations.
During this two-year phase-in period, foods in Australia may comply with either the old Code
or the new Code (but not a combination of these). In New Zealand, foods may comply with
the old Code or the new Code or the New Zealand regulations (but not a combination of
these).
After this, the old Code and New Zealand regulations will be repealed and all food sold in
Australia and New Zealand will have to comply with the new Code.
The new Code will mean changes in the way manufacturers and retailers make and present
food for sale.
The Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) has developed this user guide, in
consultation with Australian and New Zealand government and industry representatives, to
help manufacturers and retailers interpret and apply Standard 1.6.1 – Microbiological Limits
for Food in the new Code. The guide may also be used by food officers to help interpret food
standards in the new Code.
This user guide, unlike the standard itself, is not legally binding. If in any doubt about
interpreting the standards, you should seek independent legal advice.
As well as complying with food standards requirements, you must also continue to comply
with other legislation. In Australia, this legislation includes the Trade Practices Act 1974, the
Imported Food Control Act 1992, and State and Territory Fair Trading Acts and Food Acts.
In New Zealand, this legislation includes the Food Act 1981 and Fair Trading Act 1986.
All very clear !
In the top link, Paragraph 2 is Simon’s link; 1,3,4 all seem to be identical links ! These are all referenced to be 2001 as you say but in fact there is a (strangely undated??) revision number on the individual section contents. After all, science does change it’s mind occasionally. An ingeniously evasive presentation. It is the up-to-date current search for specific items which often tends to be the hardest IMEX. Not sure about present methodology but the data (for Australia) tended to be split into two levels (again, the regulations for imports are probably different) – (a) a fully implemented official set (I guess equivalent to the one referenced in above link as revision 103 and (b) a subset of additional “guidelines” (and products perhaps) which were utilised in “certain” other situations. I think set (b) also used to be published online somewhere but currently I don’t know, sorry. Additionally, various excellent, detailed stakeholder risk evaluations hv been carried out on many of these mic.criteria for a wide range of products but often only appear for a short time to enable comments / updates (there is another section on the site somewhere which groups these documents, some searching is required). A superb parallel set of mic. procedures is also issued by anzfa but unfortunately not for free (many libraries stock them).
As you can see, the 1995 document tried to generalise criteria for items like RTE foods etc but if you look into the lower details you will see the problem illustrated, eg compare spc for 5.8, 5.23c, and 5.26d.
The above main link also contains an interesting RTE, guideline sub link which appears to be based on the UK/RTE regulations (ca 2000) –
http://www.foodstand.....icro exam.pdfNowadays, I think only product- by -product mic. limits are presented. If you compare the 1995 / “2001” data, can see that a considerable reduction in the number of parameters is also occurring, this is analogous to the EC trend. Unfortunately, IMEX, buyers often do not suscribe to this lean philosophy.
Have only touched the aspect of mic. criteria here but space/time does not permit much more. Personally, I wud still recommend an initial perusal of the ICMSF books on this subject, they start from 1986 but a huge amount of their comments are still current and very readable. A considerable quantity of Books 1 and 2 is now on the net if you can find it (also linked on this site, somewhere).
Rgds / Charles.C
added - as an example of (presumably) post 2001 studies, can see this article on a large project published in 2003 (was probably once available on anzfa website but I think no longer) -
Food Control
Volume 14, Issue 6, September 2003, Pages 391-398
Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code
Review of the microbiological standards for foods
Purchase the full-text article
Sally K. Hasella and Mark A. Salter
(a New Zealand Milk, b Food Standards Australia New Zealand)
abstract -
A significant component of the review of the Australian Food Standards Code and the development of joint food standards with New Zealand was the review of microbiological criteria. The outcome of the review was the retention of a number of standards where qualitative risk assessments supported their continuation. Other standards were withdrawn because they could not be justified as supporting a public health objective, being more relevant to quality and spoilage issues. However some new standards were adopted and an additional category of microbiological guidelines was developed to assist with the identification of food not being produced in a satisfactory manner. Work from the review is still ongoing including more quantitative risk assessments being undertaken, such as for Listeria monocytogenes