Long term classification of shellfish harvesting areas: Your questions answered

In principle it would be possible to establish some form of local action groups and plans under the biotoxin-monitoring programme or, for example, when monitoring environmental incidences. However, the primary purpose of the long term classification system is to improve public health controls and increase stability in the classification of harvesting areas through improved use of data without increasing burdens to local authorities.

Careful consideration is given to reducing the number of yearly samples from designated shellfish beds. In most cases where this is possible reductions will normally occur during months when shellfish beds are closed or where harvesting is no longer carried out. This can be due either to conservation, insufficient stocks or the likelihood that food safety issues dictate harvesting a bed is no longer tenable. The final decision to reduce sampling for particular sites lies with the Food Standards Agency, in accordance with advice from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences, which should be consulted prior to any change in the sampling regime.

Weekly sampling will not be required, should results remain high during an action state. If E.coli levels continue to remain above 18000 E.coli after the first two initial samples, taken a week apart, the bed will remain closed and sampling will revert to the monthly classification sample regime for up to three months in total.

Yes. However, the inclusion of members in a local action group is the sole prerogative of the relevant local food authority. As such they are at liberty to include members of the fishing industry, including fishermen or shellfish gatherers.

Local action plans are to a great extent determined by local factors and conditions. Consequently, the amount of detail will depend on the number and size of shellfish beds under the responsibility of the local food authority, any special local conditions and the number of stakeholders involved. However, to ensure that local action plans are fully effective, local food authorities are at liberty to make them as comprehensive as possible. To help with the development of these plans the Food Standards Agency has provided guidance indicating what an action plan is designed to achieve. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences may also be consulted on any such detail.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) would think it sensible and prudent to cease sampling of those beds that have been closed indefinitely. However, the FSA would wish to be informed of any such cases and should the bed be scheduled for re-opening. If sampling is ceased, some additional samples may be required before a bed may be re-opened.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is of the view that while conservation measures are in place and shellfish beds are closed, regular sampling may be reduced, but only with the agreement of the FSA and The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences (Cefas). However, as soon as conservation and regulatory measures reveal that the bed may become operational, the FSA and Cefas should be consulted for further advice in relation to when monthly sampling should re-commence and the amount of samples required.

FSA Northern Ireland and FSA Scotland have their own arrangements in place for the classification of shellfish harvesting areas. However, they are evaluating the system to see the impact and decide if it is appropriate for shellfish beds in their waters.

Class A, B and C shellfish beds are subject to third tier action states, although only Class B beds with five years worth of compliance data will benefit from the long-term classification status. A formal review of the system is planned two years after implementation and it may be possible to include beds from other classes, and any remaining non-long term classification Class B beds into the system.

As bacteriological yields differ across shellfish species any re-sampling on the basis of higher than normal levels of E.coli should be carried out on the same species from which the results were obtained. This will also help to avoid ambiguity when deciding what actions should be undertaken.

When a bed is temporarily downgraded under the third tier action state, two subsequent samples should be taken seven days apart. If these results are unsatisfactory (i.e. remain above 4600 but below 18000) then the bed will be placed on the three-month monitoring period. During this period sampling will revert to monthly monitoring. A risk assessment on the bed would need to be made if results above 4600 continue for the duration of the action state.