| SUBGROUPS |
| Pesticides |
| Veterinary Drugs |
| Metals |
| Emerging Contaminants |
| SPECIAL INTERESTS |
| Seafood |
| Honey |
| FORMS, Minutes, etc. |
| Meetings |
| Reports |
| Forms |
| Archives |
Veterinary Drugs Subgroup |
|
Veterinary Drugs Subgroup - Application!
|
|
We are happy to announce that Sherri Turnipseed has agreed to be the Chair of the Veterinary Drug Residue Sub Group. Sherri comes to us from the U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Contact
Sub Group
Chair at: sherri.turnipseed@fda.hhs.gov
and that Perry Martos has agreed to be Secretary of the Veterinary Drug Residue Sub Group. Perry comes to us from the Lab Serrvices at the University of Guelph, Canada. Contact Sub Group Secretary at: Perry Martos [pmartos@uoguelph.ca] |
|
Minutes, Subgroup Meeting, September, 2011 |
|
AOAC Community for Chemical Contaminants and Residues The Veterinary Drug Subgroup of the AOAC Community for Chemical Contaminants and Residues met at the 125th AOAC meeting in New Orleans. Over 30 scientists representing academia, government, and industry and many nationalities attended the subgroup meeting. There was an initial overview discussion regarding the evaluation of methods that had been submitted the previous year in response to the call for methods for veterinary drugs in seafood (SMPR 2009.006). Much of the meeting focused on methods for dye residues in seafood. One method from USDA/ARS that had been selected as a possible candidate was further evaluated and did not perform as necessary in all species of fish. Dr. Eric Verdon of ANSES/France gave a brief presentation highlighting results from proficiency trials performed in the EU for dye residues in seafood. It was decided that in light of AOAC’s new alternative path for official methods, the subgroup would propose that AOAC form an expert review panel to review available methods for dyes in seafood. This proposal has since been written and was submitted to AOAC in November, 2011. AOAC is going to consider this at their meeting in March of this year. There were also lengthy discussions regarding methods for nitrofuran residues in seafood at the subgroup meeting, including ways to streamline current procedures and whether total or bound residues should be measured. Tom Burnett of Elanco also provided the group with a brief update on the status of methods for ractopamine, monensin, and narasin that have been evaluated by expert review panels. Finally, Matthew Clarke from Randox shared information regarding new screening technology with the group.
|
Current Activities of the Veterinary Drugs subgroup include:
1. AOAC has agreed to fund the validation of a multi-residue veterinary drug method in seafood.
2. Method performance criteria have been established by the seafood stakeholders.
3. A "Call for Methods"
4. A "Call for Volunteers" is also being conducted to appoint experts to review and choose the best method for collaboration and also to become members of the Committee who will oversee the collaborative study.
Please contact the Community Chair, Jo Marie Cook at cookj@doacs.state.fl.us if you are interested in participating in the multi-drug residue collaboration work.
Veterinary Drug Residue Method Needs!
Merged file showing method needs expressed by the group.
I hope the sub-community will review the file and add to it.
Prioritization Criterion for veterinary drug residue methods
Discussion:
1. Health risk 50
Trade disruption 30
Technology update 10
Improves lab efficiency 30
Method is ready for collab. validation 30
Labs are available for collab. val. 40
Comments that came back were (in no particular order):
2. I think the priority weightings are pretty good. I would maybe give less emphasis to trade disruption and even more to health risk. Also- maybe you could include a factor for "expands number of analytes monitored" to reflect and evaluate the newer multi-class, multi-residue methods.
3. As far as the weighting of the methods I would increase health risk to the highest after increasing trade disruption above the others, say trade 50 and health 80. Since AOAC is international, and we don't have any current import tolerances I think trade could be an important area for AOAC to work in.
Prioritization criterion Weight
Health risk 50
Trade disruption 10
Technology update 20
Improves lab reliability & efficiency 30
Method is ready for collab. validation 20
Labs are available for collab. val. 40
4. In terms of the prioritization criterion I would add the following:
1. Regulatory significance
a. Health risks
b. Availability of established tolerance levels or levels to be determined.
c. Amount of testing to be required, i.e. exploratory, surveys or a required certificate for every shipment.
2. Trade issues
3. Method availability and validation
In general, a determinative method should exist for every analyte of concern and when there is a need for a larger amount of testing then a rapid screening method should be developed with the potential to confirm by the determinative method.
As you can see, there is some disagreement, but everyone puts health risks at the top. I personally agree with the person who pointed out that AOAC may have more stake in validation of methods that can somehow ameliorate (is that the right word?) trade disruption, even if that may not be of the most concern to some of us government types. The existence of a fixed target--whether tolerance, MRL, or MRPL--certainly makes it easier to know if you have achieved your goal, so I will add that criterion. However, I don't know that I will give it a high weighting factor, since so often we must work in a murky area where no one in authority will commit to a fixed target concentration.
Conclusion:
So a merged set of criteria looks like (in order of importance):
Health risk 60 (increased)
Labs are available for collab. val. 40 (unchanged)
Trade disruption 30 (unchanged)
Improves lab reliability & efficiency 30 (modified)
Method is ready for collab. validation 25 (slight decrease)
Technology update 15 (slight increase)
Availability of established target conc. 15 (new)
Veterinary Drugs Subgroup Members
Please forward comments to John Reuther at jreuther@centralanalytical.com
| Subgroup Processes |
-
1. Get the current needs document completed.
2. Send the documents and an introduction to all the people on the Community list that indicated an interest in metals . 3. Ask each member to contribute their "needs". 4. Send everyone one the new "needs" to get each person's interest in each need.
5. Prioritize the needs. 6. Get performance criteria for the first 1-3 priorities.
7. Have call for methods. 8. Expert review of methods against performance criteria.
9. Reach consensus from stakeholders [not sure who these people are yet] on analytical approach/method. 10 develop Single Laboratory Validation (SLV) protocol for each high priority.
11. Ask volunteers to perform SLV. 12. Publish SLV. |