2017 Mid-Year Meeting Voting & ERP Panels

D. Proposal for Representative Voting Members To develop the proposal for voting members that is representative of the registrants for the ISPAM meeting.  There is a maximum of 30 seats possible; however, with the number of registrants, 30 voting seats may be more than is needed to represent the stakeholder panel.  There are 58 registered organizations of which 27 organizations would be appropriate to ensure that the perspectives are covered. For 27‐29 representatives and using the Broad Perspectives of Registrants as a based, 4% academia would  allow for one (1) institution.  Government is 16% of the registrants, and this would allow for four (4)  to five (5) agencies.  As industry is 71% of the registrants, this would allow for 19 ‐ 20 companies. With  NGO being 9% percent of the registrants, this would allow for two (2) to three (3) organizations.    Adding  the  regional  perspective,  56%  of  the  registrants  are  from  the  US  which  would  make  14‐15  members  representative  of  the  stakeholder  registrants  from  the  US.    Canadian  registrants  total  12%,  which  would  allow  for  3  representatives.    Also,  23%  of  the  registrants  are  European.    Therefore,  to  represent Europe among the stakeholders allows seven (7) voting members.  These numbers need to  balance with the regional perspective for the same set of registrants.  Two voting members from Oceania  is representative of Oceania and one voting member for Asia.  Brazil may be represented by the US as the  organization that is in Brazil is also in the US and the organization may opt to be represented by its  US counterpart.   

RECOMMENDATION:

For the AOAC Official Methods Board to review and approved the recommended proposal in Table 2 for  representative voting members for the ISPAM meeting on Tuesday, March 14, 2017.    

Table 2: Proposed Representative Voting Members  Broad  Perspective  Specific Perspective 

Region 

Organization (s) 

1. Academia

Research 

US 

FARRP‐Univ. of Nebraska  Health Canada / CFIA  Canadian Grain Commission 

2. Government  Regulatory 3. Government  Regulatory 4. Government  Regulatory 5. Government  Regulatory 6. Government  Regulatory

Canada  Canada 

US 

US FDA 

Belgium  Austria 

European Commission 

AGES 

7. NGO 8. NGO 9. NGO 10. NGO

Product Certification 

US / France 

GFCO‐GIG / AFNOR 

Research  Research 

Austria 

MoniQA 

Germany 

German Center for Food Chemistry  AOAC Food Allergen Community 

Independent 

France 

11. Industry 12. Industry 13. Industry 14. Industry

Food  Food  Food  Food 

US  US 

General Mills 

PepsiCo/Quaker Oats 

Japan 

Nippon Ham 

US 

Nestle