AOAC RI ERP Final Action Recommendations

AOAC RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Expert Review Panel Chair Report for Microbiology for Foods and Environmental Surfaces

Page 5of 8

MEETING MINUTES

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.

ReviewofAOACVolunteerPolicies&ExpertReviewPanelProcessOverviewandGuidelines

Deborah McKenzie presented a brief overview of AOAC Volunteer Policies, Volunteer Acceptance

Agreementand 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.

III.

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 0abstentions.

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 0abstentions.

Motion Passed.

Motion by McMahon; Second byBrodsky,

method feedback must be submitted during the 2-year

tracking period.

Consensus demonstrated by: 8 in favor, 0 opposed, and 0abstentions.

Motion Passed.

IV.

REVIEW OF AOAC RESEARCH INSTITUTE TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

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

(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.

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