Recent International Efforts to Improve Bivalve Molluscan Shellfish Safety

  • Iddya Karunasagar


Global trade in bivalve molluscan species has been increasing at a significant rate and in 2010; global production of molluscs (excluding fresh water molluscs and cephalopods) reached 14.6 million tonnes, of which 12.9 million tonnes came from aquaculture. Total bivalve trade has expanded continuously during the past three decades to reach US$ 2.1 billion in 2009. Scallops are the most important species accounting for 46 % of trade by value, followed closely by mussels (26 %). In terms of quantity, scallops accounted for 24 % of export, while mussels contributed to 48 %. FAO/WHO has been providing scientific support for Codex Committees working in bivalve molluscs and the ongoing work relates to Vibrio parahaemolyticus and V. vulnificus in oysters, norovirus, hepatitis A virus and biotoxins in bivalves. Considering that a risk management tool that is applicable over wide geographical areas would be very useful for pathogenic Vibrio spp., a tool based on FAO/WHO risk assessment for V. parahaemolyticus and V. vulnificus is being examined. Though shellfish harvesting is generally controlled using faecal indicator bacteria, there are concerns about the adequacy of this measure with respect of some pathogens such as viruses. There are also a number of concerns about the sampling plans required for detection of pathogens when the prevalence is very low and about the lack of internationally validated methods for some pathogens like V. parahaemolyticus and viruses. FAO/WHO initiatives to address these concerns and efforts made to build capacity in these areas and improve market access for bivalves from these countries is discussed in this paper.


Sampling Plan Bivalve Mollusc Fishery Product Faecal Indicator Bacterium Bivalve Species 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I am grateful to Stefania Vannuccini, Zhou Xiaowai and Luca Garibaldi from Fisheries Statistics and Information Service for providing the data on bivalve production and trade.


  1. Deepanjali A, Sanath Kumar H, Karunasagar I, Karunasagar I (2005) Seasonal variation in abundance of total and pathogenic Vibrio parahaemolyticus bacteria in oysters along the Southwest coast of India. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:3575–3580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. DePaola A, Jones JL, Woods J, Burkhardt W, Calci KR, Krantz JA, Bowers JC, Kasturi K, Byars RH, Jacobs E, Williams-Hill D, Nabe K (2010) Bacterial and viral pathogens in live oysters: 2007 United States market survey. Appl Environ Microbiol 76:2754–2768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DeWaal CS, Roberts C, Catella C (2012) Outbreak Alert, 1999–2008. Center for Science in the Public Interest.
  4. EFSA (2009) The Community summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses and zoonotic agents in the European Union in 2007. The EFSA Journal (2009), 223Google Scholar
  5. EFSA (2010) The Community summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses and zoonotic agents and foodborne outbreaks in the European Union in 2008. EFSA J 8(1):2496Google Scholar
  6. EFSA (2011) The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses and zoonotic agents and foodborne outbreaks in 2009. EFSA J 9(3):2090Google Scholar
  7. Eyles M, Davey G, Arnold G (1985) Behaviour and incidence of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Sydney rock oysters (Crassostrea commercialis). Int J Food Microbiol 1:327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. FAO (2010) The state of the world fisheries and aquaculture. FAO, Rome, 197 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. FAO/WHO (2011a) Risk assessment of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in seafood, Microbiological risk assessment series 16. FAO/WHO, Rome, 183 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. FAO/WHO (2011b) Interim report of the electronic expert group on Salmonella in bivalve molluscs.
  11. FAO (2012a) FAO fisheries and aquaculture information and statistics service. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  12. FAO/WHO (2012b) Risk assessment tools for Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Vibrio vulnificus associated with seafood. Microbiological risk assessment series 20 (in press)Google Scholar
  13. Girard S, Mariojouls C (2000) Analysis of the French demand for oysters and mussels, within the European market.
  14. Hall G, Raupach J, Yohannes K (2006) An estimate of under-reporting in foodborne notifiable diseases: Salmonella, Campylobacter, Shiga Toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC). NCEPH working paper 52.
  15. Scallan E, Hoekstra RM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Widdowson M, Roy SL, Jones JJ, Griffin PM (2011) Foodborne illness acquired in the United States – major pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis 17:16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wheeler JG, Sethi D, Cowden JM, Wall PJ, Rodrgues LC, Tompkins DS, Hudson MJ, Roderick PJ (1999) Study of intestinal infectious disease in England: rates in the community, presenting to general practice and reported to national surveillance. BMJ 318:1046–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Products, Trade and Marketing ServiceFood and Agriculture OrganizationRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations