Microsoft Word - Candidates for 2017 ERP of the Year

306

AOAC RESEARCH INSTITUTE  Expert Review Panel Chair Report for Microbiology for Foods and Environmental Surfaces  Page 5 of 8 

MEETING MINUTES 

I. Welcome and Introductions  The Expert Review Panel Co‐chairs, Michael Brodsky and Wendy McMahon, welcomed Expert Review Panel  (ERP) members, initiated introductions, and discussed with the panel the goal of the meeting.      II. Review of AOAC Volunteer Policies & Expert Review Panel Process Overview and Guidelines Deborah McKenzie presented a brief overview of AOAC Volunteer Policies, Volunteer Acceptance  Agreement and Expert Review Panel Policies and Procedures which included Volunteer Conflicts of Interest,  Policy on the Use of the Association, Name, Initials, Identifying Insignia, Letterhead, and Business Cards,  Antitrust Policy Statement and Guidelines, and the Volunteer Acceptance Form (VAF).  All members of the  ERP were required to submit and sign the Volunteer Acceptance Form.  In addition, she also presented an  overview of the ERP process including meeting logistics, consensus, First Action to Final Action  requirements, and documentation.  Review of Methods  All ERP members presented a review and discussed OMAMAN‐25: Evaluation of the 3M™Petrifilm™Rapid  Aerobic Count Plate for the Enumeration of Aerobic Bacteria: Collaborative Study .   The method author,  Robert Jechorek of 3M Food Safety, was present and able to address the questions and concerns of the ERP  members.  A summary of comments was provided to the ERP and the method author. 1   By consensus the  ERP presented the following motions for OMAMAN‐23 .  Motion by Brodsky; Second by Arbault,  to move OMAMAN‐25 to AOAC First Action Official Methods  status.    Consensus demonstrated by: 8 in favor, 0 opposed, and 0 abstentions. Motion Passed.   Motion by Brodsky; Second by Arbault,  to request statistical advisors to come to an agreement on how  quantitative microbiological methods are reviewed and to amend the workbooks accordingly .  Consensus demonstrated by: 8 in favor, 0 opposed, and 0 abstentions. Motion Passed.   Motion by McMahon; Second by Brodsky, method feedback must be submitted during the 2‐year  tracking period.  Consensus demonstrated by: 8 in favor, 0 opposed, and 0 abstentions. Motion Passed.   The ERP reviewed and discussed the responses to the technical consultant questions to assist the AOAC  Research Institute Technical Consultants in the development of protocols and studies for independent  laboratory testing for the AOAC Performance Tested Methods SM (PTM) program and Consulting Services. The  Expert Review Panel members previously submitted their feedback regarding specific questions as provided  by the AOAC Technical Consultant.  The Expert Review Panel discussed the following areas of interest  regarding unique test portion sizes, use of expensive equipment for alternative collaborative study design  and the use of the new  Listeria  species in the inclusivity studies.    IV. REVIEW OF AOAC RESEARCH INSTITUTE TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS  III.

1 Attachment 1: Summary of Expert Reviewer Comments for OMAMOD‐03 (AOAC 2009.03)

03/12/2018