Swiftlet Industry Development Bill
We will soon have a separate law for each farm animal he he.

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/133157
http://www.dvs.gov.my/c/document_library/g...groupId=6661941
Still playing along the pre-framed issue...
He's implying our EBN has the stuff and we need to continue having the additive....what???
Worst still he's playing ...'your exports to us have them too and more ppm!!!!'
Wonder if he's helping or antagonising.

Response by SAM on the above..also published on at least 1 alternative site
http://mmail.com.my/content/83184-more-details-bill-needed
He's advocating putting swiftlet BACK into the CITES list to be again under the jurisdiction of Wildlife Dept.

IMHO the above 2 statements sums up the issue and the required action from the authorities.

Instead of nipping the issue in the bud, they just play along allowing it to snowball and now threatens to go national in China and maybe go international.
All the newly awakened ministries are now just grabbing at whatever that someone else has proposed to appear to be proactive.
I will give them credit that they went to China to assuage the authorities there...
...but they have to watch their utterances...as an example ..what was said yesterday locally in the Sun.

A simple case of adulteration doesn't require a new law.
There are sufficient laws already to deal with it....if only those entrusted to do their jobs do!
No one ever gets the sack if all these new silly proposals fail.

Triggers a question......
Why EBN need to be traced to the individual BHs?...I assume that from pictures of the boxes?
Are they saying the additives are added at the BH???
If so, it's the responsibility of the processor to ensure it's cleaned up.
Penalise the sellers for the cost up additional cleaning....all simple economic sense and market forces...

Did they miss proposing a special courier to ensure non adulteration along the way to the processors

Question to u CK...were the association consulted and subsequently agreed to those boxes and RFID labelling?

---

Added on September 28, 2011, 10:45 pmHoly mackerel!!!!
See what I found googling the latest news on what CK has shared above...
http://www.dlm.gov.my/birdnest/

This post has been edited by Cergau: Sep 28 2011, 10:45 PM

"There is a need to trace the nests to particular house in case of disease outbreak etc. (Which is fair I think)"
Got to be kidding me...disease outbreak from EBN????
If it's even possible, that's a shortcoming of the processor isn't it?
Why get BH operators into this bureaucracy?

http://www.dlm.gov.my/birdnest/
If you look over their site...all the consumer has to rely on is a label with serial nos....
All these silliness just so the consumer has a label to check on the origin?
Customers are not interested in the origin...they want to know they have unadulterated EBN.
Serial nos can easily be duplicated and consumers do not always have a means to verify them anyways.
This is an overkill!!!
A simple and elegant solution to all these is just a little more proactive enforcement.

All these will not detract from the fact that some folks are not doing their jobs and if they do they mess it up further.

There is also a comment that harvesting has to be done with govt officer's presence!!!!
So we now have to work on THEIR time table too??
What utter nonsense!!!!!

All these unnecessary processes and additional bureaucracy will degenerate into the Bh operators having to bear the consequence of non compliance of a non value add process in the 1st place.

Me think they can't see the forest for the trees....

Even if for a moment I put aside my revulsion for all these...
See the breakdown in the traceability?
They seem more proud that WE are the 1st to implement traceability...
I would cower and hide with shame!!!!

"5. Retail Outlet
Whilst MEBNOTS will not cover traceability down to the door step of the retailer in China,
nevertheless the system will be user friendly and ubiquitous enough to enable to a multitude of
other retailers to combine their track and trace systems to the MEBNOTS and the MATS in order to
maintain the door to door traceability."


This post has been edited by Cergau: Sep 28 2011, 11:59 PM

Just back from PutraJaya..left early before the end to avoid the commuter rush hour.

1)My observation...MOH seem sincere in wanting to resolve the issue with China
2)They claim to be in touch with their Chinese counterparts...and are enforcing our existing food safety regulations to comply with the Chinese requirement of 0 PPM for the stuff. The Fed Assoc have reiterated that that stuff occur naturally in raw EBN (this require you guys to verify) and 0ppm is not achievable. MOH claim that they have indicative positive response with their Chinese counterpart for 1 ppm....yet to be confirmed.
3)MOH officials presented
0)the relevant laws empowering them
0)necessary certification as part of compliance to the enforcement of the Food Act 1983 for processing plants.
0)Subsequent to plant certification, each shipment a Health Cert is required which require lab sample analysis.....these is in addition to existing DVS requirement of a similar cert.
Majority of attendees were processors or BH operators/cum processors.

Only 2 BH operators specific concerns were raised
1)request that the traceability RFID box be made freely available and not be monopolised.
2)Traceability was clarified and confirmed is a requirement of the Chinese govt and already exist in our local laws....that means the RFID and GPS thingy may be heaped upon us. When challenged by an attendee on the limitation of the proposed process/system....MOH clarified their interest is 1 UP and 1 DOWN....ie where you got it and where you are moving it to next.....also an MCMC staff interrupted the proceeding and claim the what we read from the papers are misleading. We will just have to wait & see....

Exporters repeatedly request for rationalisation of the various depts requirement which are confusing the exporters ontop of not being able to export to China the last few mths. This pleading for govt help was still going on when I left.

You and the wine are welcome

When I registered at the entrance, I noticed that attendance was by invitation as they had their names already printed on the attendance sheet.
And being an EBN 'processor'/MOH dialog, the majority were 'processors' and almost all issues raised pertained to exporting.
But...the slides states "DIALOG BERSAMA INDUSTRI SARANG BURUNG WALIT"
There were outspoken reps from Kelantan and Sarawak and of course we had the Fed Assoc people present..also vocal.
Some who spoke didn't state their hometown.
Given that some present must have been both BH operators and processors...it was surprising so few BH specific issues were raised.
I am beginning to sense that BH specific issues will only be raised on a best effort basis with the current representation and scenario and maybe even going forward.

This isn't what the accepted understanding and basis of MOH ongoing effort with their Chinese counterpart at the dialog.
The understanding is.. RAW EBN already contains the stuff ABOVE the Chinese requirement.
This something you guys need to verify for your own comfort.
I have personally spoken to a pioneer and he acknowledges that observation as factual.
MOH claimed to have advised their Chinese counterpart that it occurs naturally...The Chinese wanted evidence of that and MOH has undertaken the task to work with 'industry players' to provide evidence.

As for the tracking which MOH terms as 'traceability' there wasn't any major objection (except the 2 already mentioned) as MOH didn't emphasise this in their presentation.
As observed the attendees were more interested in overcoming their problems with exporting to China than the welfare of the industry as a whole.
This is something you guys have to mull over if the current assoc setup is sufficient to represent ALL interest or just the big players that spans the whole supply chain.

My reading of MOH's response on the question on traceability (I may be wrong) is....
The Chinese didn't specifically mentioned the requirement for traceability...but maybe.. implied it somehow...(there is room for MOH to have misinterpreted the Chinese requirement on this).
MOH has taken the opportunity to implement it as part of their assistance to the industry as after all it's already legislated in our current laws.

The attendee who questioned the robustness of the proposed traceability system/process/technology was cut short by the MCMC official in the audience (mind you he was seated amongst the industry attendees but came up to the mike to respond to the attendee's question).
I felt he was out of turn ...and if he were to carry on with his defence of the system...he would have riled me sufficiently to also jump to the mike.
The original questioning attendee was challenging the system from the industry perspective (I speculate..unnecessary process and cost) but the MCMC chap jumped up to defend the technical excellence and trust and recognition it will earn being a govt effort. He went on to remind MOH officers of involvement of both MCMC and PEMANDU in the system and how govt depts must work like comrades. So in essense, we must use the system cos' it's MCMC and PEMAMDU ...not cos' it's fit for the purpose??????? That what the MCMC chap implied...I suppose he didn't realise what he was letting us in on.
That's how I realise that the system and processes will be forced on us...
Those of you who can feel the pulse on the ground will realise what 'DRIVER' was originally meant to be and what is has morphed into..will also summise that the system will be forced down our throat.
The MCMC chap claim 'unprofessionalism' on our part for criticising the yet unseen system.
He doesn't realise that he was speaking to poor farmers and there exist farmers smarter than him

Picking it apart and resolving each bit linearly may be good if time wasn't a factor.
The exporters claim to be already out of time, they were almost pleading for help to export as they have both stocks and contracts to fullfill.
I get the sense that MOH may be preparing to or already presented our national plan of action to the Chinese which then commits the industry with or without consultation.
In the plan traceability will feature I am sure; so the Chinese authorities will expect the FULL delivery of the FULL plan.
Without proper advance consultation and education of the industry, I fear there may be resistance.

Not that I doubt MOH's good intention, implementing traceability is good for everyone in terms of food safety and disease outbreak.
It's also brings in national prestige and may ease trade with the EU and USA.
The recent case of the European E coli outbreak and deaths highlights the need for traceability.

My point being we need to tackle all that is on the plate cos' we do not have the luxury of time.

Unc WW,
It's NOT 1% (..ie 1 part in a hundred parts) they want.
The formal/official requirement is 0 parts in a million parts.
There is only indicative positive response that they may accept 1 part in a million parts.
As I understand it (I may be wrong), it's mainly due to the limitation of their current detection method/system, we MAY scrape through with 1ppm.
...only cos' the Chinese counterparts current method is capable of detecting a minimum of 1ppm.

If you are a little mathematical about it you will realise there is a problem with that statement.
If their method can detect 1ppm, whcih means 1ppm is detectable and thus unacceptable.
I think the poor MOH official may be grasping at straws with that answer due to the pressure from the floor at the dialog.
In my mind it's anything less than 1ppm is NOT detectable BUT not necessarily 0ppm.
In simple terms 0ppm to <1ppm (ie zero to less than 1ppm.) MAY get through.

Anybody else who were also present pls correct me if necessary, else you need to get the 'official' ver from yr assoc.

As for WW's other comments, sorry, only know cleaning with my laundry washing machine

The issue is with nitrite NOT nitrate...both sounds similar but NOT the same chemically and in many other ways.

You are welcome and no need to be sorry.
I am here to learn Shit and Nesting Smell.
The rest I just Google and share here

Remember how China dealt with the folks involved in melamine in milk that caused baby deaths?
2 men were sentenced to death...that's how China dealt with their own saboteurs
That's the kind of action they understand and appreciate ...
Instead of ....
Two local bird's nest manufacturers were ordered to cease operations last year for adding nitrates from artificial red colouring to produce “blood nest”.
as poorly reported or poorly researched (or both) in the Star sometime in Aug...
...as usual the compliant majority get to pay the penalty of the guilty few who get away with a slap on their wrists..
It this keeps on it will only drive more of it underground for the brave...and the political backlash will be furious from the rest.
A simple case of lost faith.

1 piece of your specualtion in place
China mulls standard for edible bird nests
I hope you are wrong.
with a change in leadership due in China, they may just decide to show some more muscle with a clampdown and if it was a private endeavor (or in the wrong camp) some in China will need to buy their own bullets soon.

This post has been edited by Cergau: Oct 11 2011, 07:52 PM