Scoring the parasite risk in highly-valuable fish species from southern ICES areas

We carried out a comparison of three different tools for determining the risk of Anisakis exposure in fish: i) a risk ranking tool registered as a trade mark (FPR standard) based on a previous risk categorization scheme (Site, abundance, density and exposure, SADE), ii) the current visual method for fish inspection (V) and iii) the UV-press/peptic digestion (UV-P/PD) method. We used 2377 fish from 9 species and three important ICES fishing areas. The percentage of rejection for each fish lot was calculated according to the criteria established for the three different methods as follows: V, presence of visible parasites in the viscera and/or abdominal cavity; UV-P/PD, presence of parasites in the fish flesh; FPR scoring for parasite risk, individuals obtaining the classification of “poor”. The highest rejection rate was for UV-P/PD method, rejecting all the fish that harbor just one Anisakis in the edible part of the fish. Follow the rejection rate of fish under visual inspection, being the lowest that catalogued using the FPR standard. Visual inspection penalizes species with far higher rates of visceral than muscular parasitation, such as the blackbellied angler. Conversely, fish individuals preliminarily accepted by visual inspection would be rejected by FPR, thus minimizing the risks for consumers in species, such as in the case of the European hake, with high flesh infection. In some cases, the edible part exceeded the number of parasites found in the abdominal cavity and visceral organs. Overall, the results obtained after combining various geographic areas and fish species clearly suggest that a risk ranking tool represents a better trade-off between a best-value for money approach and the best-assurance for fish quality and safety approach than current inspection methods FPR also allows the possibility of an objective, transparent and efficient classification of the fish lots in 5 different categories from “poor” to “excellent”. As a conclusion, the FPR scheme should be routinely used within HACCP programs to facilitate the risk standardization and communication to improve the fish quality and guarantee healthier products.