WTO Notification Discussion Document  
27 August 2019     Page: 1 of 11 
WTO Notification Discussion Document  
Amendment to the Food Notice: Importing Food  – August 2019  
 
Date:     27 August 2019  
Notifying Member:   New Zealand  
Agency Responsible:  Ministry for Primary Industries  
Team Responsible:   Imported Food Team  
    Food Regulation  
    New Zealand Food Safety  
  
Purpose:  
1. This discussion document outlines the amendments to the Food Notice: Importing Food , which 
seek to clarify clearance requirements, espec ially for scallop meat from all countries and for 
products from the United Kingdom once Brexit has occurred.  Plus other minor alterations to 
improve clarity  around test units . 
 
2. The Notice will revoke and replace the Food Notice : Importing Food , which was i ssued on 28 
February 2019  
 
Key messages:  
About the Notice  
3. The Notice specifies:  
 Requirements in relation to registering as a food importer under the Food Act 2014  
 Which imported foods are of High Regulatory Interest (HRI) and which are of Increased 
Regulatory Interest (IRI)  
 The requirements to be met to obtain a clearance for entry into New Zealand  
 Approved laboratories for testing of imported food for the purposes of clearance  
 Conditions that apply to approved laboratories  
 
About the main changes to  the Notice  
4. The first main change is to add the United Kingdom to the table in Schedule 1 which shows the 
countries New Zealand has pre -clearance arrangements with.  
 
5. Currently the United Kingdom is included in the Food Notice as a ‘Country of the European  Union’, 
however when the United Kingdom exits the European Union, as a result of the Brexit referendum , 
it would no longer be a country eligible to use this provision in the Food Notice.  
 
6. The second main change is to clarify the requirements for scallop m eat as a High Regulatory 
Interest (HRI) food, and how its clearance requirements differ from other BMS products , 
formalising existing border clearance practices . This is to provide clarity to importers and our 
trading partners.  
 WTO Notification Discussion Document  
27 August 2019     Page: 2 of 11 
7. These changes are summarise d in the table in Annex 1.  
 
Other changes (minor/structural changes)  
8. A small number of other minor amendments have also been made to schedules 1, 2 and 3 to 
provide better clarity of the requirements. These amendments do not create any material change to 
current border clearance processes.  
 
9. These amendments are summarised in the table in Annex 2.  
 
Consultation  
 
10. It is our opinion that the proposed changes continue existing permissions and clarify existing 
requirements. The changes confer only benefits and w ill not detrimentally affect any current trade.  
 
11. We have consulted with the coordinator of SPS New Zealand, and have confirmed that a WTO 
consultation period is not required. Formal notification of the minor changes is being made to the 
SPS committee , as p er our obligations.  
 
Commencement and notification  
12. The notice will come into effect on 2 September  2019 . As the proposed changes do not affect or 
change any clearance procedures, a transitional period is not required.  
 
13. We will publish t he new Food Notice: Importing Food  on our website, replacing all previous 
versions. It will be able to be found at: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/10685 -food-notice -
importing -food 
 
 WTO Notification Discussion Document   
27 August 2019          Page: 3 of 11 
Annex 1: Summary of amendments  to the Notice  – Major Amendments  
 
Issue/Subject  Existing Food Notice  
29 Feb 2018  Proposed Change  Rationale  Consultation needed?  
Update Schedule 1 
to include United 
Kingdom in 
preparation for 
Brexit  Schedule 1  
United Kingdom  listed as a 
country of export under 
‘Countries of the European 
Union’  
Listed for HRI foods:  
 Dairy: Raw Milk Products  
 Dairy: Fresh cheese, 
curd cheese and soft 
cheese (pasteurised)  
 Fish: Histamine 
susceptible fish and fish 
products  
 Fish: Ready to Eat (RTE)  
smoked fish and smoke 
flavoured fish (chilled)  
 Meat: Bovine meat and 
products containing 
bovine meat  
 Meat: Fermented meat 
products, meat paste and 
pate 
 Seafood: Bivalve 
molluscan shellfish 
(BMS) and products 
containing BMS  
 Seafood: Ready to Eat 
(RTE) crustaceans – 
lobsters, crabs, bugs, 
shrimps and prawns and 
their products  Schedule 1  
United Kingdom listed as a 
country of export as ‘United 
Kingdom’.  
Listed for HRI foods:  
 Dairy: Raw Milk Products  
 Dairy: Fresh cheese, curd 
cheese and soft cheese 
(pasteu rised)  
 Fish: Histamine susceptible 
fish and fish products  
 Fish: Ready to Eat (RTE) 
smoked fish and smoke 
flavoured fish (chilled)  
 Meat: Bovine meat and 
products containing bovine 
meat  
 Meat: Fermented meat 
products, meat paste and 
pate 
 Seafood: Bivalve moll uscan 
shellfish (BMS) and products 
containing BMS  
 Seafood: Ready to Eat 
(RTE) crustaceans – 
lobsters, crabs, bugs, 
shrimps and prawns and 
their products   The United Kingdom have agreed to withdraw 
from the European Union, although the date that 
this will ha ppen has not yet been confirmed.  
 Currently we have pre -clearance agreements with 
the European Union for several High Regulatory 
Interest (HRI) foods.  
 To prevent disruption of trade, we have added  
‘United Kingdom’ to those HRI products, as listed 
above.  
 This will allow importers to continue to provide an 
official certificate once the United Kingdom has 
exited the European Union.  
 MPI’s Market Access team advise that the EU v et 
agreement and existing EU certificates will be 
issued by the United Kingdom compe tent authority 
once Brexit has occurred.  
 The content of the pre -clearance arrangement and 
the official certifications will remain as they are 
currently under the ‘Countries of the European 
Union’.  
 Making the proposed amendment prior to Brexit 
occurring wil l allow current trade to continue 
without disruption if and when the UK eventually 
withdraw from the European Union, which may 
happen suddenly . 
 
 
 
  We consider there is no need to 
publically consult on this change (Food 
Act 2014 s407) as it clarifies 
requirements for existing trade and 
exposes consumers to no new or 
increased  risk or barriers to trade.  
 WTO Notification Discussion Document   
27 August 2019          Page: 4 of 11 
Update Schedule 1 
‘Seafood: Bivalve 
molluscan 
shellfish (BMS) 
and products 
containing BMS’ 
HRI to show 
clearance 
requirements for 
scallop meat.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Schedule 1  
No segregation of the HRI 
category ‘Seafood: Bivalve 
molluscan shellfish (BMS) 
and products containing 
BMS’ to show clearance 
requirements for scallop 
meat.  
Schedule 1 indicates that for 
scallop meat to gain 
clearance to enter New 
Zealand:  
 China must have scallop 
meat sampled and 
tested  
 Australia, Canada, Chile, 
EU, Japan, Korea, Peru, 
Thailand, USA and 
Vietnam can either 
sample and test or 
provide an official 
certificate  
 All other countries 
cannot bring it in to New 
Zealand  
 Schedule 1  
Crea te two sub -categories in 
Column A for ‘Seafood: Bivalve 
molluscan shellfish (BMS) and 
products containing BMS’.  
The sub -categories:  
 Scallop Meat – whole 
adductor muscle with viscera 
and roe completely removed  
 All other BMS and products 
containing BMS  
For the Scallop Meat sub -
category:  
 Hazards in Column B:  
o E.coli  
o Marine Biotoxins  
o Listeria monocytogenes   
(RTE BMS Only)  
 Clearance Requirement in  
Column C:  
o Whole adductor muscle 
of the scallop with 
viscera and roe 
completely removed  
 Country of Export in Column 
D: 
o All countries  
 Evidence Required in 
Column E:  
o Not required so will be 
left blank  
  Long standing border operational practice has 
been for all roe -off scallop meat from all countries 
to be granted clearance without certification or 
testing. Effectively exc luding scallop meat from 
the BMS HRI category.   
 This was based on scientific advice that the 
removal of the roe and viscera significantly 
reduces the concentration of marine biotoxins and 
the microbial load of the scallop meat.  
 Technical advice sought as part of this review, 
confirms that scallop meat does indeed present a 
much significantly lower risk for both biotoxin and 
microbial hazards.  
 The time and the way in which this practice was 
adopted is unclear, but in our opinion it is a 
reasonable response in light of the scientific risk 
information.  
 Recent MPI Market Access team negotiations 
with China have focussed on the removal of 
border clearance testing for roe -off scallop meat.   
 A memoranda agreeing to this was signed by both 
MPI and GACC on 18 June 2019.  This includes 
both China grown and product imported into 
China from other countries.  
 The proposed amendment wa s to separate roe -off 
scallop meat into a BMS sub -category, explai ning 
how border clearance can be achieved.  For roe -
off scallop meat this will be confirmation that the 
product is the whole adductor muscle with the 
viscera and roe completely removed.   
 No certification or testing would be required. The 
geographic region would be listed as ‘all 
countries’, confirming the ability for any country to 
import roe -off scallop meat.   We consider there is no need to 
publically consult on this change (Food 
Act 2014 s ection 407) as it clarifies 
requirements for existing trade and 
exposes consumers to no new or 
increased  risk or barriers to trade.  
 Recent Market Access negotiations 
with China have focussed on the 
removal of border clearance testing for 
roe-off scallop meat.   
 A memoranda agreeing to this was 
signed by both  MPI and GACC on 18 
June 2019.  
 This memoranda stated that:  
“Scallop meat from China will be 
permitted for import into New Zealand 
without certification. No routine 
laboratory testing for border clearance 
will be required. This memorandum, 
once signed by both sides, wil l trigger 
changes to the New Zealand side’s 
published rules and border clearance 
procedures”  
 We consider the amendments 
proposed will meet the requirements as 
stated in the memorandum with China 
signed 18 June 2019.  WTO Notification Discussion Document   
27 August 2019          Page: 5 of 11 
Annex 2 : Summary of amendments to the Notice  – Minor Amendments  
Issue/Subject  Existing Food Notice  
29 Feb 2018  Proposed Change  Rationale  Consultation needed?  
Approved Laboratory 
address incorrect, 
Schedule 3.  
 RJ Hills laboratory, Hamilton.  
28 Duke Street  
Frankton  
Hamilton 32094   RJ Hills laboratory, Hamilton.  
221A Ellis Street  
Frankton  
Hamilton 32094  Address for drop -off of samples has 
changed.  Minor Change  
No impact on trade or 
border clearance 
procedures.  
Providing clarification only.  
Consultation not required  
Removal of NZ 
Importer Assurance, 
Column E, Schedule 1 
& 2 
 Column E – Evidence Required  
This column currently states ‘NZ 
Importer Assurance’ as evidence 
required for getting food safety 
clearance for a HRI or IRI food  Column E – Evidence Required  
Remove ‘NZ Importer Assurance’ from 
Column E for all HRI and IRI foods.  NZ Importer Assurance (NZIA) membership 
is not evidence required for food safety 
clearance in itself.  
All members of the NZIA need to either 
check official certificates or sample and test 
as per the rest  of column E in schedule 1.  Minor Change  
No impact on trade or 
border clearance 
procedures.  
Providing clarification only.  
Consultation not required  
Title of Column D,  
Schedule 1 & 2  Column D – Country or 
geographical region of harvest, 
production and manufacture.  Column D – Country or geographical 
region of export  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The country or region listed in this column is 
always the country of export, and not 
specifically the place of harvest, production 
or manufacture.  
Pre-clearance arrangements are only  made 
with the country/region of export.  
Where place of harvest, production or 
manufacture is important, this will be added 
to Column C or Column D alongside the 
country of export (example: ‘Thailand (NZ 
Origin Beef Only’)).  Minor Change  
No impact on trade  or 
border clearance 
procedures.  
Providing clarification only.  
Consultation not required  WTO Notification Discussion Document   
27 August 2019          Page: 6 of 11 
Issue/Subject  Existing Food Notice  
29 Feb 2018  Proposed Change  Rationale  Consultation needed?  
Country segregation 
into new rows, 
Column D, Schedule 1  
 Column D – Country or 
geographical region of harvest, 
production and manufacture.  
Some HRI foods have the co untries 
listed  as ‘all countries’, when 
specific countries have a pre -
clearance arrangement.  
 Column D – Country or geographical 
region of harvest, production and 
manufacture.  
Separate into different table rows, where 
a HRI or IRI food has different evidence 
required for different countries.  
Amend the statement for the remaining 
countries to ‘All other countries’.  There has been confusion where sampling 
and testing has been conducted when an 
official certificate should have been 
reviewed, as countries  with pre -clearance 
arrangements were not clearly identified.  
Where a specific country has a pre -clearance 
arrangement and an agre ed official 
certificate that is to  be provided for 
clearance, it is clearer to separate these into 
different rows in the table . 
Changing  the statement for the remaining 
countr ies to ‘all other countries’ provides  
consistency.  
 
 Minor Change  
No impact on trade or 
border clearance 
procedures.  
Providing clarification only.  
Consultation not required  
Title of Column C,  
Schedule 1 &  2 Column C – Clearance Limits  Column C – Clearance Requirements  The Food Act 2014 and Food Regulations 
2015 refer to ‘clearance requirements’ and 
not ‘clearance limits’.  
‘Limit’ is no longer the correct term now that 
some of the requirements are more than just 
a microbiological enumeration value, but are 
declarations or a process that ensures safety 
and suitability.  Minor Change  
No impact on trade or 
border clearance 
procedures.  
Providing clarification only.  
Consultation not required  
 WTO Notification Discussion Document   
27 August 2019          Page: 7 of 11 
Issue/Subject  Existing Food Notice  
29 Feb 2018  Proposed Change  Rationale  Consultation needed?  
Clarify the clearance 
requirements for 
Listeria and 
Salmonella,  
Column C,  Schedule 1  
 Column C – Clearance Limits  
Listeria monocytogenes  not 
detected in 25g  
Salmonella not detected in 25g  Column C – Clearance Requirements  
Listeria monocytogenes  
n = 5, c = 0, m = not detected in 25g  
 
Salmonella  
n = 5, c = 0, m = not detected in 25g  
 
The clearance requirements have not 
changed. The above requirements are 
what the border team has been applying 
for border clearance.  To align with correct formatting of a microbial 
limit, the requirement has been amended to 
now state  the number of samples taken as 
well as the  limit, in the scientific format of c, 
n, m and M  (where applicable) .  
This is the standard format for reporting 
microbial limits, and now aligns with the 
format used in the Australia New Zealand 
Food Standards Code Section 1.6.1 – 
Microbial Limits in Food  and CODEX 
requirements.  
 Minor Change  
No impact on trade or 
border clearance 
procedures.  
Providing clarification only.  
Aligns with CODEX and 
Food Standards Code.  
Consultation not required  
Clarify the Aerobic 
Plate Count (APC) 
clearance limits for 
Ready to Eat (RTE) 
smoked fish,  
Column C, Schedule 1  
 Column C – Clearance Limits  
Aerobic plate count per gram  not to 
exceed 500,000 cfu in a single 
sample  Column C – Clearance Requirements  
Aerobic Plate Count (APC)  
n = 5, c = 2, m = 50,000 cfu/g,  
M = 500,000cfu/g  
The clearance requirements have not 
changed. The above requirements are 
what the border team has been applying 
for border clearance.  The cle arance limit being applied  at the 
border  is that in the 5 samples taken, none 
can be over 500,000cfu/g, but also only 2 
can be above 50,000cfu/g. This was not 
shown in the original wording of the Notice.  
To align with correct formatting of a microbial 
limit, the requirement has been amended to 
now state  the number of samples taken as 
well as the  limit, in the scientific format of c, 
n, m and M  (where applicable) .  
This is the standard format for reporting 
microbial limits, and now aligns with the 
format use d in the Australia New Zealand 
Food Standards Code Section 1. 6.1 – 
Microbial Limits in Food and CODEX 
requirements.  
 Minor Change.  
No impact on trade or 
border clearance 
procedures.  
Providing clarification only.  
Aligns with CODEX and 
Food Standards Code.  
Consultation not required  WTO Notification Discussion Document   
27 August 2019          Page: 8 of 11 
Issue/Subject  Existing Food Notice  
29 Feb 2018  Proposed Change  Rationale  Consultation needed?  
Clarify the Coagulase 
producing 
Staphylococci 
clearance limits for 
fermented meat 
products,  
Column C, Schedule 1  
 Column C – Clearance Limits  
Coagulase producing Staphylococci 
not exceed 1000/g  Column C – Clearance Requirements  
Coagulase positive Staphylococci  
n = 5, c = 2, m = 100cfu/g, M = 
1000cfu/g  
The clearance requirements have not 
changed. The above requirements are 
what the border team has been applying 
for border clearance.  The clearance limit being applied at the 
border  is that in the 5 samples taken, none 
can be over 1,000cfu/g, but also only 2 can 
be above 100cfu/g. This was not shown in 
the original wording of the Notice.  
To align with correct formatting of a microbial 
limit, the requirement has been amended to 
now st ate the number of samples taken as 
well as the  limit, in the scientific format of c, 
n, m and M  (where applicable) .  
This is the standard format for reporting 
microbial limits, and now aligns with the 
format used in the Australia New Zealand 
Food Standards  Code Section 1 .6.1 – 
Microbial Limits in Food and CODEX 
requirements.  
Also changed from the incorrect ‘producing’ 
to the correct term ‘positive’ for ‘Coagulase 
positive staphyloccocci’  Minor Change  
No impact on trade or 
border clearance 
procedures.  
Providing clarification only.  
Aligns with CODEX and 
Food Standards Code.  
Consultation not required  
Clarify the Aflatoxin 
clearance limit for 
peanuts & pistachios, 
Column C, Schedule 1  
 Column C – Clearance Limits  
Aflatoxins less than 0.015ppm  Column C – Clearance Requirements  
Total Aflatoxins ≤ 0.015ppm  
(sum of aflatoxins B1, B2, G1, G2)  There is a need to clarify that our clearance 
requirement is based on the sum of the 
aflatoxins B1, B2, G1 and G2 in the product.  
Changing the ‘less than’ to the less than  or 
equal to’ symbol of ≤ provides more clarity.  Minor Change  
No impact on trade or 
border clearance 
procedures.  
Providing clarification only.  
Consultation not required  
Clarify the Histamine 
clearance limit for 
histamine susceptible 
fish,  
Column C, Schedule 1  
 Column C – Clearance Limits  
Histamine not exceeding 200mg/kg  Column C – Clearance Requirements  
Histamine ≤ 200mg/kg  Changing the ‘not exceeding’ to the less than 
or equal to’ symbol of ≤ provides more 
clarity.  Minor Change  
No impact on trade or 
border clearance 
procedures.  
Providing clarification only.  
Consultation not required  WTO Notification Discussion Document   
27 August 2019          Page: 9 of 11 
Issue/Subject  Existing Food Notice  
29 Feb 2018  Proposed Change  Rationale  Consultation needed?  
Clarify BMS biotoxin 
poisonings and 
biotoxins limits in 
columns B and C, 
Schedule 1  
 
 Column B – Hazard  
Biotoxins  
Column C – Clearance Limits  
The following Biotoxins:  
 Saxitoxin equivalent less than 80 
micrograms/100g  
 Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning 
toxin less than 0.16mg/kg  
 Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning toxin 
less than 20mg/kg  
 Brevetoxin -2 equivalent less than 
0.8mg/kg  
 AZP less than 0.16mg/kg  Column B – Hazard  
Marine Biotoxins (PSP, DSP, ASP, 
NSP, AZP)  
Column C - Clearance Requirements  
Marine Biotoxins  
 Saxitoxin equivalent ≤ 0.8 mg/kg  
 Okadaic acid equivalent ≤ 0.16 mg/kg  
 Domic Acid ≤ 20 mg/kg  
 Brevetoxin -2 equivalent ≤ 0.8 mg/kg  
 Azaspiracid equ ivalent ≤ 0.16 mg/kg  There is a need to clarify that the hazard of 
concern is ‘marine’ biotoxins, and to 
standardise the list of biotoxin limits.  
The current Notice states some of the 
biotoxins as their toxin group name (e.g. 
Saxitoxin equivalent) and some  as their 
poisoning name (e.g. Diarrhetic Shellfish 
Poisoning). Standardising this to the toxin 
group names, as would be reported by the 
testing laboratory provides clarity and allows 
for easy comparison.  
The current Notice states one toxin group 
limit in ‘micrograms/100g’ but displays all 
others in mg/kg. Standardising this to mg/kg 
aligns with the MPI Regulated Control 
Scheme and provides clarity.  
Changing the ‘less than’ to the ‘less than or 
equal to symbol’ of ≤ provides more clarity.  Minor Change  
No im pact on trade or 
border clearance 
procedures.  
Providing clarification only.  
Aligns with MPI Regulated 
Control Scheme limits  
Consultation not required  WTO Notification Discussion Document   
27 August 2019          Page: 10 of 11 
Issue/Subject  Existing Food Notice  
29 Feb 2018  Proposed Change  Rationale  Consultation needed?  
Clarify the E.coli  
clearance 
requirement  for 
frozen berries, 
Schedule 2 . 
 Column C – Clearance Limits  
E.coli <100 MPN/g or <100cfu/g  Column C – Clearance Requirements  
E.coli   
c = 5, n = 2, m = 10 MPN/g,  
M = 100 MPN/g  The clearance limit being applied is that in 
the 5 samples taken, none can be over 
100cfu/g (100MPN/g), but also only 2 can be 
above 10cfu/ g (or 10MPN/g).  
To align with correct formatting of a microbial 
limit, the requirement has been amended to 
now state  the number of samples taken as 
well as the  limit, in the scientific format of c, 
n, m and M .  
This is the standard format for reporting 
microbial limits, and now aligns with the 
format used in the Australia New Zealand 
Food Standards Code Section 1. 6.1 – 
Microbial Limits in Food and CODEX 
requirements.  
The current Notice gives two microbiological 
criteria limits, one based on the MPN method 
and one based on plate count method which 
results in a cfu/g result.  
This has been amended to only provide for 
the use of a MPN method, which is both 
standard for CODEX and the Australia New 
Zealand Food Standards Code, and is the 
more accurate method for  small numbers of 
E.coli detection. This method is less costly 
for the importer as has a cheaper testing cost 
then the plate count method.  
 Minor Change  
No negative impact on 
trade or border clearance 
procedures.  
Provides clarification and 
standardisation.  
Does limit to one method of 
laboratory testing, but as 
this method is cheaper for 
the importer, this is not 
seen as having a negative 
impact to trade.  
Consultation not required  WTO Notification Discussion Document   
27 August 2019          Page: 11 of 11 
Issue/Subject  Existing Food Notice  
29 Feb 2018  Proposed Change  Rationale  Consultation needed?  
Clarify all clearance 
methods for frozen 
berries, Schedule 2 . 
 Column C – Clearance Limits  
No listing of clearance requirements 
for providing a manufacturers 
declaration  
 
Column E – Evidence required  
 Official certification  
 Manufacturers declaration  
 Sample and test  
 NZ Importer Assurance  
 Column C – Clearance Requirements  
 
Declaration stating:  
Has been treated with a heat step of  
85°C for 1 minute or equivalent  
or 
Declaration stating:  
Will be treated with a heat step of  
85°C for 1 minute or equivalent at a NZ 
manufacturer  
 
Column E – Evidence required  
Manufact urers declaration  The current Notice states  that a 
manufacturer’s declaration coul d be used for 
clearance, but does  not state the clearance 
limits for this method.  
Separating the manufacturer’s declaration 
evidence option out into a new row in the 
table a nd adding in the clearance 
requirements (statements required on the 
declaration) provides information on this 
current border clearance method.  
The lack of information regarding the use of 
a manufacturer’s declaration has been 
questioned by importers. We be lieve this 
amendment will provide clarity on this 
requirement.   Minor Change to include 
more information on a 
clearance method.  
No negative impact on 
trade or border clearance 
procedures.  
Will provide more 
information on a possible 
method of clearance for  
importers so will provide a 
benefit.  
Consultation not required