Meeting Minutes Saturday, September 6, 2014, 08:30 a.m. 5:00 p.m. EDT

Transcription

1 AOAC International Stakeholder Panel on Alternative Methods / Fresh Produce (ISPAM/FP) Meeting Minutes Saturday, September 6, 2014, 08:30 a.m. 5:00 p.m. EDT Attendees (Present during all or part of the meeting): Stakeholder Panel Members: Erin Crowley, Q Labs (Chair) Patrice Arbault, BioAdvantage Consulting Marcia Armstrong, QIAGEN Stan Bacler, Health Canada Heather Bessoff, Elanco Christopher Blake, Nestec Ltd. Joe Boison, CFIA Michael Brodsky, Brodsky Consultants Jo Marie Cook, Florida Department of Agriculture Auriele Dubois, International Dairy Federation Phillip Feldsine, BioControl Systems, Inc. Russell Flowers, Merieux NutriSciences David Gombas, UFPA Thomas Hammack, FDA Norma Hill, US Treasury (Ret.) Anthony Hitchins, FDA (Ret.) Joe Holt, Earthbound Farm Paul in t Veld, Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority Maria Ishida, Florida Department of Agriculture Balamurugan Jagadeesan, Nestec S.A. Robert Jechorek, 3M Food Safety George Joseph, AsureQuality Marcus Lacorn, R-Biopharm Wendy Lauer, Bio-Rad Labs Katerina Mastovska, Covance Wendy McMahon, Silliker Dan Morse, 3M Food Safety Mark Mozola, Neogen John Reuther, Eurofins Brooke Schwartz, Schwartz Consulting Neil Shepherd, National Association of Testing Authorities Daniele Sohier, ADRIA Meredith Sutzko, Romer Labs Nancy Thiex, Thiex Laboratory Solutions, LLC Laszlo Torma, Pickering Laboratories Morgan Wallace, DuPont Nutrition & Health Paul Wehling, General Mills AOAC Staff: Scott Coates Nora Marshall Krystyna McIver Deborah McKenzie 09/06/2014 ISPAM Meeting Minutes 10/03/2014 V4

2 Meeting Minutes I. Introductions and Meeting Goals The meeting was opened at 8:30 a.m. and all participants were introduced. Flowers provided a presentation 1 on ISPAM s past and current initiatives and introduced Crowley as the new Chair of ISPAM. II. Update on Efforts to Harmonize Method Validation Guideline for Alternative Methods In 't Veld took the floor and provided an update presentation 2 on efforts to harmonize method validation guidelines for alternative methods. III. Update on Fresh Produce Initiative Schwartz, Chair of the Fresh Produce Panel, then took the floor to provide ISPAM with an update presentation 3 on the activities of the Fresh Produce initiative and the progress of its two working groups, the Salmonella SMPR Working Group as well as the Sampling Plan Working Group. IV. Standard Method Performance Requirements (SMPRs) for the Detection of Salmonella in Leafy Greens Crowley took the floor and gave a presentation 4 on the SMPR for Detection of Salmonella in Leafy Greens., specifically baby spinach and romaine lettuce. She advised that the SMPR was made available for public comment from June 24, 2014 to July 25, 2014 and the comments have been reconciled, so the SMPR is now ready for approval by the stakeholder panel. The SMPR was then opened up for discussion and several changes 5 were incorporated into the document. MOTION to approve the SMPR for the Detection of Salmonella in Leafy Greens as modified on September 6, (Wallace / Arbault) o 16 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstain. The motion carried. V. Breakout Sessions a. Discussion on Future Topics for ISPAM Coates and Crowley opened the breakout session and explained that this session is to develop a recommendation for what projects ISPAM should work on next, and directed participants to Memo Item VI 6 in the meeting book, which includes a list of potential topics. Upon further discussion the group agreed to recommend the following topics for ISPAM s consideration: Harmonizing methods on Salmonella- ISO 6579 and FDA BAM initially 1 Attachment 1 - Flowers Presentation 2 Attachment 2 - In 't Veld Presentation 3 Attachment 3 - Schwartz Presentation 4 Attachment 4 - Crowley Presentation 5 Attachment 5 Detection of Salmonella species in romaine lettuce and baby spinach SMPR Tracked Changes from September 6, Attachment 6 September 6, 2014 ISPAM Meeting Book, Memo Item VI 09/06/2014 ISPAM Meeting Minutes 10/03/2014 V4

3 Developing method validation guideline for Identification Methods for Microbiology with Complimentary SMPRs; Working on developing SMPRs and reference materials for viruses; Deciding on the next Fresh Produce topic(s) to address since the SMPR for Salmonella in leafy greens was approved. After some discussion, ISPAM decided to form a Working Group on harmonizing methods for Salmonella. MOTION to form a WG on harmonizing methods for Salmonella (Hammack/In t Veld) 18 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstain. The motion carried. Tom Hammack, FDA agreed to chair the WG and indicated that the WG will determine the scope and establish action items to ensure that the project moves forward. The following agreed to serve on the WG: Wendy McMahon; Mark Mozola; Balamurugan Jagadeesan; Wendy Lauer; Ron Johnson; Meredith Sudzko; Morgan Wallace; Phil Feldsine; Marcia Armstrong; and Brooke Schwartz. Hammack indicated that he will reach out to contact the Salmonella SME for the European Union. On the issue of ID method validation guidelines, Paul In t Veld indicated that this is an area of interest being undertaken by ISO TC 34, WG 3, specifically with the draft of ISO , which he agreed to provide ISPAM with a copy. ISPAM decided that before forming a WG, the topic would be put on the AOAC Mid-Year 2015 Meeting Agenda as a potential presentation. Method developers would present the type and scope of different id technologies being developed. The objectives of the WG can then be established and the intended use clearly defined. Although not targeted for a working group, ISPAM agreed that developing guidance on viruses was an important topic that could be introduced through an initial discussion at the AOAC 2015 Mid-Year Meeting followed by a symposium at the 2015 AOAC Annual Meeting. Patrice Arbault volunteered to spearhead this effort and prepare an abstract to present to the annual meeting planning committee. He will prepare an update on the topic at the AOAC Mid-year meeting. As for deciding on the next Fresh Produce SMPR to tackle, the group agreed to defer to the FP Stakeholder Panel to decide. A conference call will be scheduled with the WG to initiate discussion. b. Sampling Plan Working Group Gombas led the Sampling Plan Working Group in continued revisions 7 of the draft document Considerations for Field Sampling Romaine Lettuce for Microbiological Testing. VI. Adjourn 7 Attachment 7 Considerations for Field Sampling Romaine Lettuce for Microbiological Testing as revised on September 6, /06/2014 ISPAM Meeting Minutes 10/03/2014 V4

4 Crowley thanked the past Chair, Flowers, for his work leading the panel thus far, and thanked the panel for the work accomplished at the session. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:00 p.m. EDT. Attachments: 1. Flowers Presentation 2. In t Veld Presentation 3. Schwartz Presentation 4. Crowley Presentation 5. Salmonella SMPR (Tracked Changes from 9/6/14) 6. September 6, 2014 ISPAM Meeting Book, Memo Item VI 7. Considerations for Field Sampling Romaine Lettuce for Microbiological Testing as revised on September 6, 2014* *Not Currently Available for Distribution To be appended to a Later Version of this document 09/06/2014 ISPAM Meeting Minutes 10/03/2014 V4

5 International Stakeholder Panel on Alternative Methods (ISPAM) Overview Russ Flowers, Mérieux NutriSciences Corp., and Chair ISPAM

6 Overview Driven and supported by AOAC Organizational Affiliates and contributing members who participate in the AOAC Research Institute Program Purpose and Scope Develop harmonized, internationally accepted standard validation guidelines for alternative chemical and microbiological methods by leveraging global networks of experts to reach consensus on an analytical validation protocol

7 ISPAM Accomplishments Microbiology Approved harmonized approaches for several testing parameters Number of levels/samples/fractional positives Results analysis/criteria/statistical analysis Number of data sets for collaborative study/sample size Approved Food Classification Table

8 ISPAM Current Work ISPAM approved 3 new initiatives in March 2013 Develop guidelines for method verification related to All Foods Claim Harmonize methods for Salmonella through revision of ISO Method 6579 on Salmonella Develop standards in the area of Fresh Produce ISPAM formed sub-groups for each initiative

9 ISPAM Sub-Group on Verification of All Foods Claim Based on recommendations from sub-group: ISPAM voted to recommend to replace all foods with a claim for a broad range of foods ISPAM recommends that method validation organizations require method developers to specify the validated food claims in the method applicability statement/product insert No previously approved method with an all foods claim will be affected by ISPAM s recommendation

10 ISPAM Sub-Group on Validation and Verification of All Foods Claim ISPAM recommended that developers of analytical methods follow ISO Draft Annex A, Guidance on food matrices and food categories for method validation, as a guidance for choosing food categories to make a broad range of foods claim ISPAM agreed to adopt the ISO Part 1: Terminology of method validation working definitions for validation and verification

11 Decisions at ISPAM Annual Meeting August 2014 ISPAM approved a motion to have ISO TC 34/SC 9 WG 3 review ISPAM comments at their meeting in Seattle in November 2013 and finalize broad range claim of foods and include the final definitions in the revision to ISO16140 parts 1 & 2 ISPAM decided to discuss on-site verification guidelines for micro methods issues after ISO TC 34/SC 9 WG 2 meeting on Statistics, which will be discussing the topic ISPAM recommended that ISO TC 34/SC 9 WG 3 establish a New Work In Progress (NWIP) on on-site verification guidelines and report to ISPAM

12 Decisions at ISPAM Annual Meeting on August 2014 Harmonizing Methods on Salmonella: ISPAM agreed to work in concert with ISO TC 34/SC9 on future revisions to ISO Method 6579 on Salmonella with the goal of developing an internationally acceptable method for the evaluation of Salmonella detection methods ISPAM agreed to work in concert with ISO TC 34/S9 to develop optional protocols that will support the equivalence of multiple reference methods.

13 AOAC New Initiative on Fresh Produce

14 Fresh Produce (FP) Project Added AOAC Board of Directors approved an AOAC Research Institute proposal to help provide food safety standards for fresh produce Project adopted by ISPAM in 2013 The produce industry was identified as a community that is underserved by AOAC Salmonella in leafy greens was identified by the FP Executive Advisory Panel as a topic where the development of SMPR(s) and sampling plan(s) would be of the most benefit 6

15 2013 Initiative on Fresh Produce Help provide food safety standards for fresh produce sampling and testing 2013 moneys coming from AOAC Research Institute AOAC Organizational Affiliates and Contributing Members

16 Project Objectives Develop best practices for sampling Salmonella in leafy greens fields Develop an SMPR for Salmonella detection methods for leafy greens Integrate SMPR and best practices Develop AOAC membership and participation in the produce community 7

17

18 Update on Efforts to Harmonize Method Validation Guideline For Alternative Methods AOAC annual meeting Boca Raton

19 Update - Harmonisation between ISPAM and ISO is related to the work done in ISO TC34/SC9/WG3: method validation. Wg 3 activities: - Vocabulary (16140 part 1) - Validation of alternative methods (16140 part 2) - Validation of standard methods (ISO 17468) - Method verification (16140 part 3) - In house validation (16140 part 4) - Factorial interlaboratory validation (16140 part 5) - Validation of confirmation methods (16140 part 6)

20 WG 3: General Since last annual meeting: - WG 3 meeting in November 2013 in Seattle and - ISO TC 34/SC9 meeting in June 2014 in Washington.

21 : Vocabulary - Daniele Sohier (France) is project leader. - Positive vote received on draft FprEN/FDIS version (25 x yes; 0 x no; 9 abstention). - Big issue was the definition of 'reference method.

22 : Vocabulary - FDIS is ready (submitted to SC 9 on September 4-th). - Next step is yes/no vote by ISO members.

23 : Validation of alternative methods - Paul in t Veld (Netherlands) is project leader - Successor of current Positive vote was received on draft FprEN/FDIS (24 x yes; 1 x no; 9 abstention). - Comments were discussed and follow up agreed. - FDIS is ready (submitted to SC 9 on September 4-th). - Next step is yes/no vote by ISO members. - Publication of the final standard in 2015

24 : Validation of alternative methods - Paul in t Veld (Netherlands) is project leader - Successor of current Positive vote was received on draft FprEN/FDIS (24 x yes; 1 x no; 9 abstention). - Comments were discussed and follow up agreed. - FDIS is ready (submitted to SC 9 on September 4-th). - Next step is yes/no vote by ISO members. - Publication of the final standard in 2015.

25 : Validation of alternative methods Qualitative methods: - Method comparison study - Sensitivity study: Use of mainly naturally contaminated samples (60 per category, 3 types). Minimum of 5 categories for application to broad range of foods. Experimental design and acceptance of the results (based on Acceptability limits) depending on paired or unpaired study. Not harmonised with AOAC (additional requirement of ISO)

26 : Validation of alternative methods - Method comparison study - Relative limit of detection (RLOD) study Use of spiked samples, 3 levels (LOD, >LOD, Blanc), 1 type per category. Experimental design according to AOAC, calculation and interpretation is different. - Inclusivity/exclusivity study: Numbers of strains to be tested identical to AOAC. - Interlaboratory study - One food type is tested in the ILS.

27 : Validation of alternative methods Quantitative methods: - Method comparison study - Relative trueness study: Use of mainly naturally contaminated samples (15 per category, 3 types). Minimum of 5 categories for application to broad range of foods. Evaluation of results based on scatter and Bland-Altman plots. No formal statistical evaluation or Acceptability Limits. Not harmonised with AOAC (additional requirement of ISO)

28 : Validation of alternative methods - Method comparison study - Accuracy profile study: Use of spiked samples, 3 levels, 2 sample/level, 5 replicates/sample. Results accepted based on Acceptability limits. Experimental design according to AOAC, calculation and interpretation is different. - Limit of quantification study: Only needed for methods that do not rely on visual observation of colonies. Not harmonised with AOAC (additional requirement of ISO)

29 : Validation of alternative methods - Method Comparison study Inclusivity/exclusivity study: Numbers of strains to be tested identical to AOAC. - Interlaboratory study - One food type is tested in the ILS.

30 Annex A: Listing categories, types and items table is final. Is based on the outcome of the ISPAM subgroup. Categories Types Food items (some examples) Total viable count Lactic Acid Bacteria Yeast and moulds Enterobacteriaceae Escherichia coli Coagulase positive staphylococci Salmonella spp. Listeria spp. L. monocytogenes STEC Cronobacter spp. Campylobacter Yersinia enterolitica Vibrio spp. Bacillus cereus (vegetative cells or spores) Clostridium perfringens (vegetative cells or spores) Clostridium botulinum (vegetative cells or spores) Raw milks and/or fermented/acidified milks (not heat treated) Raw milk Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Raw fermented/acidified, raw milk yoghurts, raw Y Y Y Y Y Y Y dairy based drinks Raw milk and dairy products Raw milk based products, with high fat content and/or high background microflora Raw butters Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Raw creams Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Hard and semi-hard cheeses (e.g. Comté, Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Beaufort) Blue cheeses (Roquefort) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Soft cheeses (e.g. Brie, Munster) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

31 : Verification of methods - Benjamin Diep (Switserland) is project leader. - The outcome of the NWIP was positive (21 approved, 9 abstentions). - Formal standardisation process is now started. - AOAC is now represented in the group. - Growing interest in this work.

32 : In house validation - Petra Gowik and Steffan Uhlig (Germany) are (co)project leaders. - The outcome of the NWIP was positive (17 approved, 16 abstentions). - Formal standardisation process is now started. - Covers single lab validation based on a classical and factorial design approach. - Validation designs as method comparison study and single method validation. - Link with

33 : Factorial interlaboratory validation - Petra Gowik and Steffan Uhlig (Germany) are (co)project leaders. - The outcome of the NWIP was positive (15 approved, 2 no, 16 abstentions). - Formal standardisation process is now started. - Covers factorial design validation in multilab approach. - Not used for validation of alternative method - Link with

34 : Confirmation method validation - Kirsten Mooijman and Wilma Jacobs (Netherlands) are (co)project leaders. - The outcome of the NWIP was positive (17 approved, 16 abstentions). - Formal standardisation process is now started. - Covers alternative validation confirmation techniques. - Based on inclusivity/exclusivity testing.

35 Future considerations ISO are final (and published in 2015). Experiences gained e.g. with RLOD and POD should be shared. AOAC participates in method verification. But do we agree on what is method validation, matrix extensions and verification? Selection of matrices (categories) and differences between the same matrices. Other topics (factorial design, validation of confirmation methods) are open for input.

36 Meeting of the International Stakeholder Panel on Alternative Methods (ISPAM) September 6, 2014 Boca Raton, FL Update on AOAC Initiative on Fresh Produce Brooke Schwartz Brooke Schwartz Consulting

37 Fresh Produce Project Overview The produce industry was identified as a community that is underserved by AOAC Project adopted by ISPAM in 2013 and funded by AOAC Research Institute Project kicked off during 2013 AOAC Annual Meeting Initial focus: Salmonella in leafy greens Initial goals: Develop best practices for sampling Salmonella in leafy greens fields Develop an SMPR for Salmonella detection methods for leafy greens Integrate SMPR and sampling best practices 6

38 Progress Since 2013 Annual Mtg Identified and engaged subject matter experts and stakeholders Formed 2 Working Groups Working Group on Sampling Plan Working Group on SMPR for Salmonella Chair - David Gombas United Fresh Produce Association Chair - Erin Crowley Q Laboratories Prioritized first crops, targets and applications Determined critical parameters Met with key produce stakeholder groups to solicit feedback on issues and process, including United Fresh Members FDA / CFSAN 7

39 Stakeholder Participation ISPAM Fresh Produce by Broad Perspectives academia government industry laboratory 2% 5% 14% 79% 9

40 Stakeholder Participation ISPAM Fresh Produce by Specific Perspective consultant FP producer contract research organization method developer retailer state laboratory academia/research national government state government 2% 6% 8% 10% 2% 21% 18% 19% 14% 10

41 Salmonella SMPR Working Group Drafted SMPR Document: Detection of Salmonella species in romaine lettuce and baby spinach Submitted for public comment Reviewed and addressed comments Prepared SMPRs for ISPAM/FP review and approval SMPR Key elements: Applicability Definitions Method performance criteria Inclusivity / Exclusivity

42 Sampling Plan Working Group Evaluated existing sampling plans Determined scope of first plan: Field sampling of Romaine lettuce for detection of Salmonella Developed outline and draft white paper (in progress): Considerations for Field Sampling Romaine Lettuce for Microbiological Testing Goals of white paper: Provide recommendations and best practices regarding number, location and collection of test samples Serve as a guideline for developing sampling plans Have ability to be adapted and applied to additional products, organisms and stages in growing / distribution chain 7

43 Sampling Plan White Paper Outline Objectives, scope, audience Description of the challenge Considerations in field sampling Considerations in developing a sampling plan Recommendations for a sampling plan For routine sampling For cause (suspected contamination) Alternative sampling procedures Research needs 7

44 Working Group Field Trip Participants of Fresh Produce Sampling Plan Working Group toured Salinas Valley produce fields and processing facilities Team observed in-field sampling and harvesting activities, and processing / packaging of fresh and bagged products Products included leafy greens and strawberries Tour organized by David Gombas, United Fresh, and hosted by Church Brothers Naturipe Berry Growers Earthbound Farm Dole Fresh Vegetables 7

45

46 AOAC INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL STAKEHOLDER PANEL ON ALTERNATIVE METHODS FRESH PRODUCE Erin Crowley Chair, Salmonella SMPR Working Group September 6, 2014 Boca Raton Resort & Club, Boca Raton, Florida

47 Background / Need The first SMPR to be limited to select leafy greens- Romaine Lettuce and Baby Spinach Identified by community as highest level of need Future SMPR s to address other commoditiestomatoes, fresh herbs, peppers, etc. Translate diversity of ideas into a useable, workable document. What will method developers need to meet SMPR during validation? What does the FP Industry need to see? Designed for use with internationally accepted validation criteria

48 Salmonella SMPR Working Group Members Erin Crowley, Q Laboratories (Chair) Patrice Arbault, BioAdvantage Marcia Armstrong, QIAGEN DeAnn Benesh, 3M James Black, Kroger Will Daniels, Earthbound Farms Michael Doyle, U. Georgia Peyman Fatemi, Aemtek, Inc. David Gombas, United Fresh Produce Paul In t Veld, Netherlands Food and Consumer Safety Authority Cindy Jiang, McDonald s Ronald Johnson, biomerieux Kristina McCallum, Colorado Dept. of Agriculture Trevor Suslow- UC Davis Phil Feldsine- BioControl Neil Sharma, InstantLabs Gurjit Shergill, Taylor Farms Raymond Shilito, Bayer CropScience Leslie Thompson, VANGUARD Sciences Bob Whittaker, Produce Marketing Association Meredith Sutzko, Romer Labs Donna Lynn Browne, Naturipe Farms Bob Buchanan, U of Maryland Joe Holt, Earthbound Farm Russ Flowers, Silliker Wendy McMahon, Silliker Sam Mohajer, CFIA Brooke Schwartz, Brooke Schwartz Consulting Tom Hammack- FDA-CFSAN

49 SMPR WG- Stakeholder Participation SMPR WG on Salmonella by Perspective 31.0% 10.3% 20.7% 10.3% 6.9% 20.7% Laboratory Government Industry Food Safety Consultant Method Developer Academia

50 Salmonella SMPR Working Group Work to Date First Meeting on November 14 th, 2013 Telecons every 2 weeks. 1 x month post- Mid- Year Meeting 2 face-to-face meetings 1 SMPR Document Drafted 30 day public comment period (June 25, 2014 July 25, 2014) SMPRs made ready for ISPAM/FP review and approval.

51 SMPR Key Points Applicability Pre-Harvest Commodities Definitions Align with current validation guidelines AOAC Appendix J ISO (2003) Standard ISO/FDIS Method Performance Criteria SLV, MLV, Verification Statistical Considerations Maximum Time to Determination Inclusivity/Exclusivity Fair and exhaustive data sets with a common set of genera and species for Inclusivity and Exclusivity Inclusivity- Include strains implicated in the past 5 years, produce specific Exclusivity- Critical cross-reacting genera should be represented

52 Comments Received 66 comments received and addressed by WG General comments regarding footnotes, typos and clarification Revised definition of Baby Spinach and Romaine Lettuce Eliminated Annex I: Controls (positive, negative, inhibition control) Specified Maximum Time to Determination as 24 hours. Content-specific Inclusivity- specify must-test and minimum representation of subspecies (salamae, houtenae, bongori, arizonae, diarizonae) Follow-up question needed to be addressed by ISPAM RLOD

53 Comments Received 1. Method Performance Requirements Parameter Parameter Requirements Target Test Concentration* Minimum Acceptable Results Acceptable Minimum Detection Level (AMDL) SLV: Minimum of 20 replicates per food type, artificially inoculated as outlined in internationally accepted method validation guidelines. 1 to 5 cfu / test portion 25 to 75% positive rate; and dpod 0, LCL < 0, UCL > 0 ** High concentration Zero concentration SLV: Minimum of 5 replicates per food type artificially inoculated as outlined in internationally accepted method validation guidelines at 10x the AMDL concentration. SLV: Minimum of 5 replicates per food type that have tested negative with the reference method in the validation study and have not been artificially inoculated. 10 to 50 cfu / test portion 0 cfu / test portion 100% correct analyses are expected per food type LPOD Multi-laboratory study cfu / test portion 10 to 50 cfu / test portion 0.15 LPOD C 0.85 dlpod = LPOD 0.95 dlpod = LPOD (0) Multi-laboratory study. 0 cfu / Test portion LPOD 0.05 RLOD Single laboratory study Multi-laboratory study Combined levels RLOD =TBD RLOD = TBD

54 Motion Motion to accept the SMPRs for Detection of Salmonella species in romaine lettuce and baby spinach as presented.

55 Discussion?

56 Pre-decisional draft, do not distribute AOAC Standard Method Performance requirements2014.xx, Version 13; August 22, 2014 Method Name: Detection of Salmonella species in romaine lettuce and baby spinach. Purpose: AOAC SMPRs describe the minimum recommended performance characteristics and suggested inclusivity/exclusivity organisms to be used during the evaluation of a method. The evaluation may be an on-site verification, a single-laboratory validation, or a multi-site collaborative study. SMPRs are written and adopted by AOAC Stakeholder Panels composed of representatives from the industry, regulatory organizations, contract laboratories, test kit manufacturers, and academic institutions. AOAC SMPRs are used by AOAC Expert Review Panels in their evaluation of validation study data for method being considered for Performance Tested Methods or AOAC Official Methods of Analysis, and can be used as acceptance criteria for verification at user laboratories. Add Reference to Appendix F. Approved Body: Approval Date: Final version date: AOAC International Stakeholder Panel on Alternative Methods (ISPAM) 1. Intended Use: Routine surveillance and monitoring by a trained technician. 2. Applicability: Alternative methods used to detect Salmonella species and their serovars in pre-harvest field samples of romaine lettuce and baby spinach. 3. Analytical Technique: Any analytical technique that can meet the performance requirements. 4. Definitions: Alternative Method Method of analysis that demonstrates or estimates, for a given category of products, the same analyte as is measured using the corresponding reference method. The method can be a proprietary or non-commercial, and does not need to cover an entire analysis procedure, that is from the preparation of samples to the test report. 1 An ISO term used to denote the method to be evaluated against a reference method. AOAC uses the term candidate method for the same purpose in its guidelines. The terms alternative and candidate methods are interchangeable for the purposes of this SMPR. Acceptable Minimum Detection Level (AMDL) The predetermined minimum level of an analyte, as specified by an expert committee which must be detected by the alternative method with an estimated 5% lower confidence limit on the probability of detection (POD) of 0.95 or higher. The AMDL is dependent on the intended use. 2 1 International Standard FDIS ISO : (E) - (insert new Title) Mircrobiology of food and animal feeding stuffs - Protocol for the validation of alternative methods, International Standard FDIS ISO : 2014Draft EN ISO/CD :(insert new title) Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs - Method validation - Part 1: Terminology of method validation, vs (to be updated erin will provide) 1 Draft Salmonella SMPR v12

57 Pre-decisional draft, do not distribute Baby Spinach Spinach ( Spinacia oleracea L.) that has been harvested during a fairly early stage of plant growth, typically 6-8 true leaves, usually between days after planting. dpod (Differential Probability of Detection) The POD for any two methods can be compared by difference at a given analyte concentration. This difference in POD values is termed dpod. Exclusivity Study involving pure non-target strains, which are potentially cross-reactive, that shall be not detected or enumerated by the tested method. 3 See Annex III for a list of recommended non-target strains. Fractional Positive: Validation criterion that is satisfied when an unknown sample yields both positive and negative responses within a set of replicate analyses. The proportion of positive responses should fall within 25% and 75% and should ideally approximate 50% of the total number of replicates in the set. A set of replicate analyses are those replicates analyzed by one method (either alternative or reference). Only one set of replicates per matrix is required to satisfy this criterion. Inclusivity Study involving pure target strains that shall be detected or enumerated by the alternative method. 4 See Annex II for a list of recommended target strains. Laboratory Probability of Detection (LPOD) The POD value obtained from combining all valid collaborator data sets for a method for a given matrix at a given analyte level or concentration. 5 LCL Lower confidence limit. Pre-Harvest Field Sample Prior to and within 7 days of harvest Probability of Detection (POD) 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Appendix H: Probability of Detection (POD) as a Statistical Model for the Validation of Qualitative Methods, Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL, 19 th edition, Draft Salmonella SMPR v12

58 Pre-decisional draft, do not distribute The proportion of positive analytical outcomes for a qualitative method for a given matrix at a given analyte level or concentration. 6 Romaine Lettuce - (Romaine Lettuce Lactuca sativa L. var longifolia) is a columnar heading-type lettuce with firm, spoon-shaped leaves possessing a prominent mid-rib typical surrounding a compact set of elongated central leaves or heart. Typical maturation takes 65 to 80 days in main season and up to days during winter production. Plant spacing and preharvest interval varies depending on target for crop market heads vs. hearts. Romaine lettuce may also be grown for marketing as baby or tender greens, harvested at a non-heading stage (35-45 days post-emergence) with 5-9 true leaves. Both green and red-pigmented varieties are produced. Salmonella Straight rods, x 2-5 μm. Gram negative. Usually motile by peritrichous flagella. Facultative anaerobic. Chemoorganotrophic, having both a respiratory and fermentative metabolism. D- glucose and other carbohydrates are catabolized with the production of acid and usually gas. Oxidase negative, catalase positive, indole and Voges-Proskauer negative, methyl red and Simmons citrate positive. Lysine and ornithine decarboxylase positive, there is a variable arginine dihydrolase reaction. H 2 S is produced, urea is not hydrolyzed, growth on KCN and utilization of malonate are variable. Reduce nitrates. Carbohydrates usually fermented include L-arabinose, maltose, D- mannitol, D-mannose, L-rhamnose, D-sorbitol, trehalose, and D-xylose. Occur in humans, warm and cold blooded animals, food, and the environment. Pathogenic for humans and many animal species. Causative agent of typhoid fever, enteric fevers, gastroenteritis, and septicemia. 7 Formatted: Font: Not Bold Comment [TS1]: What about non-h2s Salmonella? Test Portion The test portion is the sample size used in most validation studies and is typically 25 grams. A different test portion can be used in validation studies when appropriate. When combining several test portion units into a composite sample, equivalency must be demonstrated in a validation study relative to the test portion of the reference method. For this validation scheme, refer to Appendix J: AOAC INTERNATIONAL Methods Committee Guidelines for Validation of Microbiological Methods for Food and Environmental Surfaces, or other acceptable international microbiology validation guidelines. UCL Upper confidence limit. 5. System suitability tests and/or analytical quality control: Positive and negative controls shall be embedded in assays as appropriate. Inhibition controls should be used for method verification for each new matrix. Manufacturer must provide written justification if controls are not appropriate to an assay. 6. Reference Material(s): None 7. Validation Guidance: 6 Appendix H: Probability of Detection (POD) as a Statistical Model for the Validation of Qualitative Methods, Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL, 19 th edition, Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology Ninth edition edited by John G. Holt. 3 Draft Salmonella SMPR v12

59 Pre-decisional draft, do not distribute 7.1 Appendix J: AOAC INTERNATIONAL Methods Committee Guidelines for Validation of Microbiological Methods for Food and Environmental Surfaces (2012); or ISO 16140: Use pre-harvest materials for method evaluation. Do not use processed materials. 8. Maximum Time-To-Determination: Maximum time to complete an analysis starting from the test portion preparation to presumptive determination must must be 8 hours (same day test) or 24 hours. Formatted: Strikethrough 9. Method Performance Requirements Table 1: Matrix Dependent Criteria Parameter Parameter Requirements Target Test Concentration* Minimum Acceptable Results Acceptable Minimum Detection Level (AMDL) SLV: Minimum of 20 replicates per food type, artificially inoculated as outlined in internationally accepted method validation guidelines. 1 to 5 cfu / test portion 25 to 75% positive rate; and dpod 0 95% CI, LCL < 0< UCL, UCL > 0 ** Comment [TS2]: For a fresh consumed product I don t see how this AMDL can be acceptable. AMDL must be 95% if known 1-5 cfu High concentration Zero concentration SLV: Minimum of 5 replicates per food type artificially inoculated as outlined in internationally accepted method validation guidelines at 10x the AMDL concentration. SLV: Minimum of 5 replicates per food type that have tested negative with the reference method in the validation study and have not been artificially inoculated. 10 to 50 cfu / test portion 0 cfu / test portion 100% correct analyses are expected per food type LPOD Multi-laboratory study cfu / test portion 10 to 50 cfu / test portion 0.15 LPOD C 0.85 dlpod = LPOD 0.95 dlpod = LPOD (0) Multi-laboratory study. 0 cfu / Test portion LPOD 0.05 RLOD Single laboratory study RLOD Paired Study Combined 1.5=TBD Multi-laboratory study levels RLOD Unpaired Study 2.5= TBD * Confirm the target test concentration on the initiation of the method evaluation using the threelevel Most Probable Number (MPN) procedure. See Annex IV for further guidance. 4 Draft Salmonella SMPR v12

60 Pre-decisional draft, do not distribute ** It is expected that the range between the lower and upper control limits should encompass 0, if not, the results must be investigated and an explanation provided. 100% correct analyses are expected. All aberrations are to be re-tested following internationally recognized guidelines. Some aberrations may be acceptable if the aberrations are investigated, and acceptable explanations can be determined and communicated to method users. At the 5% lower confidence limit. See Annex V. At the 95% upper confidence limit. See Annex V. Formatted: Strikethrough 5 Draft Salmonella SMPR v12

61 Pre-decisional draft, do not distribute 9. Method Performance Requirements (cont d): Table 2: Inclusivity/Exclusivity Parameter Parameter Requirements Final Test Concentration (cfu/ml ) Minimum Acceptable Results Inclusivity SLV: At least 100 Salmonella serovars cultured by the candidate method enrichment procedure x AMDL 100% positive results ** Exclusivity SLV: At least 30 non-salmonella species cultured in non-selective broth. overnight growth undiluted 100% negative results ** Notes: SLV: Single-laboratory validation study. ** 100% correct analyses are expected. All aberrations are to be re-tested following internationally recognized guidelines (ISO 16140, AOAC OMA Appendix J, Health Canada XX). Some aberrations may be acceptable if the aberrations are investigated, and acceptable explanations can be determined and communicated to method users. 6 Draft Salmonella SMPR v12

62 Pre-decisional draft, do not distribute 7 Draft Salmonella SMPR v12

63 Pre-decisional draft, do not distribute Annex II: Inclusivity Panel This is a list of suggested seriovars method developers can use to validate their methods. A minimum of 100 seriovars are required for AOAC adoption. At least one of each supspecies (salamae, arizonae, diarizonae, houtenae, indica) and one of Salmonella bongori must be included. SALMONELLA (serovar included) Antigenic Properties SEROTYPE O H Year OUTBREAK Center for Disease Control and Prevention Top 20** Food and Drug Adminstration Ranking Top 40 1 Salmonella bongori, Serotype Brookfield 66 z 41 :- 2 Salmonella bongori 66 3 Salmonella enterica subsp. Salamae 47 4 Salmonella enterica subsp. Salamae 50 5 Salmonella enterica subsp. salamae 53 6 Salmonella enterica subsp. salamae 55 7 Salmonella enterica subsp. salamae serovar Artis 56 8 Salmonella enterica subsp. salamae 57 9 Salmonella enterica subsp. salamae serovar Basel Salmonella enterica subsp. salamae Salmonella enterica subsp. salamae Salmonella enterica subsp. Arizonae # Salmonella enterica subsp. Arizonae Salmonella enterica subsp. Arizonae Salmonella enterica subsp. Arizonae Salmonella enterica subsp. Arizonae 65 8 Draft Salmonella SMPR v12

64 Pre-decisional draft, do not distribute 17 Salmonella enterica subsp. diarizonae Salmonella enterica subsp. diarizonae Salmonella enterica subsp. Diarizonae # Salmonella enterica subsp. diarizonae serovar Eilbek Salmonella enterica subsp. houtenae serovar Halmstad 3,{10}{15}{15,34} g,s,t:- 22 Salmonella enterica subsp. houtenae serovar Harmelen Salmonella enterica subsp. houtenae serovar Ochsenzoll Salmonella enterica subsp. Indica 1,6,14,25 25 Salmonella enterica subsp. Indica Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Paratyphi A 1,2,12 27 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Agona # 1,4,[5],12 f,g,s:[1,2] Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Heidelberg 1,4,[5],12 r:1,2 14, 13, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Paratyphi B # 1,4,[5],12 b:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Derby 1, 4,[5], 12 f,g:[1,2] 31 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Typhimurium # 1,4,[5],12 i:1,2 13, 12, 11, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Saintpaul # 1,4,[5],12 e,h:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Sandiego # 1,4,[5],12 e,h:e,n,z Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica I 4,[5],12:i:- 1,4,[5],12 i: Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Chester 1,4,[5],12 e,h:e,n,x Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Stanley* 1,4,[5],12,[27] d:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Indiana 1,4,12 z;1,7 38 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Preston 1,4,12 z:l,w 39 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Bredeney 1,4,12,27 l,v:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Vellore 1,4,12,27 z 10 :z Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica 1,4,12, 27 d:1,7 9 Draft Salmonella SMPR v12

65 Pre-decisional draft, do not distribute serovar Schwarzengrund 6, 7,14 42 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Abortusequi 4,12 -:e,n,x 43 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Abortusovis 4,12 c:1,6 44 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Choleraesuis 6, 7 c:1,5 45 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Hartford 6, 7 y:e,n,x 10 This serovar is now recognized as Westhampton Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Braenderup # var Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Bareilly # 6,7,14 y:e,n,x Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Infantis # 6,7,14 r:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Lille 6,7,14 z 38 :- 13,12 50 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Mbandaka # 6, 7, 14 z 2 10:e,n,z Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Oranienburg # 6, 7, 14 m,t:[z 10 57] Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Thompson # 6, 7, 14 K:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Montevideo # 6, 7,14,[54] g,m,[p],s: 4 13,12, 10 6 [1,2,7] 54 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Hadar 6,8 z 10 :e,n,x 12, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Muenchen # 6, 8 d:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Newport # 6, 8, 20 e,h:1,2 13,12, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Haardt 8 k:1,5 58 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Kentucky # 8, 20 I,z Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Panama # 1,9,12 l,v:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Berta 1,9,12 [f],g,[t]: Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Enteritidis # 1,9,12 g,m:- 12, 11, Draft Salmonella SMPR v12

66 Pre-decisional draft, do not distribute 62 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Gallinarum 1,9,12 -:- 63 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Javiana # 1,9,12 l,z 28 :1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Neasden 9,12 g,s,t:e,n,x 65 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Typhi 9,12[Vi] d: Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Baildon 9,46 a:e,n,x Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Anatum # 3,{10}{15}{15,34} e,h:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Anatum var ,{10}{15} g,m,s:- 69 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Give # 3,{10}{15}{15,34} l,v:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Nchanga 3,{10}{15} l,v:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Krefeld 1,3,19 y;l,w 72 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Senftenberg # 1,3,19 g,[s],t: Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Abaetetuba # 11 k:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Poona # 1,13,22 z:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Cubana # 1,13,23 z 29 : Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Mississippi 1,13,23 b:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Bristol 13,22 z:1,7 78 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Putten 13,23 d:l,w 79 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Kaitaan 1,6,14,25 m,t:- 80 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Schalkwijk 6,14,[24] i:e,n,z Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Sundsvall [1], 6,14,[25] z:e.n.x 82 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Nottingham 16 d:e,n,z Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Matadi 17 k:e,n,x 84 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Cerro 6,14,18 z 4,z 23 :[1,5] 85 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Minnesota 21 b:e,n,x 11 Draft Salmonella SMPR v12

67 Pre-decisional draft, do not distribute 86 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Pomona # 28 y:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Urbana # 30 b:e,n,x Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Adelaide 35 f,g:- 89 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Inverness 38 k:1,6 90 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Champaign 39 k:1,5 91 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Johannesburg 1,40 b:e,n,x Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Waycross 41 z 4,z 23 :[e,n,z 15] 93 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Kahla 1, 42 z 35 :1,6 94 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Houten 43 z 4,z 23 :- 95 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Niarembe 44 a:l,w 96 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Deversoir 45 c:e,n,x 97 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Dahlem 48 k:e,n,z Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Wassenaar Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Utrecht 52 d:1,5 100 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Uccle 54 g,s,t:- 101 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Tranora 55 k:z Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Crossness 67 r:1,2 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar 103 Weltevreden # 3, {10}{15} r:z Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Tennessee # 6,7,14 z 29 :[1,2,7] Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Rubislaw # 11 r:e,n,x Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Virchow # 6,7,14 r:1,2 20 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar 107 Hvittingfoss # 16 b:e,n,x Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Gaminara # 16 d:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Aberdeen # 11 i:1, Draft Salmonella SMPR v12

68 Pre-decisional draft, do not distribute 110 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Mgulani 38 i:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Havana # 1,13,23 f,g,[s]:- 30 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar 112 Wandsworth # 39 b:1, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Caracas # [1],6,14,[25] g,m,s: Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Rissen # 6,7,14 f,g: Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Michigan # 17 l,v:1,2 42 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar 116 Meleagridis # 3,{10}{15}{15,34} e,h;l,w 43 * Strains identified from outbreaks, shorten date as (2011 = "11"; 2012 = "12) ** Number indicates the numerical position on CDC list. # Serotypes isolated from vegetable products, including spices. Courtesy of FDA-CFSAN 13 Draft Salmonella SMPR v12

69 Pre-decisional draft, do not distribute 1 Annex III: Exclusivity Panel Aeromonas hydrophila Additional Aeromonas species Burkholderia speces Campylobacter jejuni Citrobacter braakii Citrobacter farmerii Citrobacter freundii Citrobacter youngae Additional Citrobacter species Edwardsiella tarda Enterobacter aerogenes Enterobacter amnigenus Enterobacter cancerogenus Enterobacter cloacae Enterobacter gergoviae Enterobacter sakazakii Erwinia species Escherichia coli Escherichia coli O157:H7 Escherichia fergusonii Escherichia hermanii Organism Escherichia vulneris Hafnia species Klebsiella oxytoca Klebsiella pneumonia Morganella morganii Pantoea species Proteus hauseri Proteus mirabilis Proteus vulgaris Pseudomonas aeruginosa Pseudomonas fluorescens Pseudomonas species Ralstonia species Rhanella species Serratia marcesens Shigella dysenteriae Shigella flexneri Shigella sonnei Yersinia species Vibrio vulnificus 14 Draft Salmonella SMPR v12

70 Pre-decisional draft, do not distribute 2 Annex IV: Example Most Probable Number (MPN) Procedures For 25 grams 1. Perform a 3-level MPN on the low and high inoculation levels of test material. Prepare 5 test portions of 50 g and 5 test portions of 10 g. To the 50 g test portions, add 450 ml of BAM method enrichment broth. To the 10 g test portions, add 90 ml of the BAM method enrichment broth. Follow the BAM reference method for the matrix through to confirmations. 2. Use the twenty 25 g replicate low level test portions or the five 25 g replicate high level test portions analyzed by the reference method in the matrix study as the third level for the MPN. 3. Use the number of positives from the 50 g portions, 25 g portions and 10 g portions to calculate the MPN for each inoculated level of each matrix. Access the MPN calculator ( MPNCalculator.exe) to determine the MPN values and 95% confidence intervals. For 325 grams 1. For foods with a 325 g reference method test portion, prepare 5 test portions at 650 g (50 g primary sample g uninoculated matrix) and 5 test portions at 130 g (10 g primary sample g uninoculated matrix). Add the appropriate reference method enrichment broth to give a 1:3 ratio of test portion to broth. Follow the reference method through to confirmations. 2. Use the 20 replicate test portions (low level) or 5 replicate test portions (high level) analyzed by the reference method in the matrix study as the third level for the MPN. 3. Use the number of positives from the five large portions, twenty (low level) or five (high level) nominal portions and five small portions to calculate the MPN for each inoculated level of each matrix. Access the MPN calculator 4. ( MPNCalculator.exe) to determine the MPN values and 95% confidence intervals. Note: Data must be entered in test portion size order from large to small. 15 Draft Salmonella SMPR v12

71 Pre-decisional draft, do not distribute Annex V: LPOD Tables Table 1: LPOD 0.95 (5% lower confidence limit) Equivalent to x positive results for N analyses X N Table 2: LPOD 0.05 (95% upper confidence limit) Equivalent to x positive results for N analyses X N Draft Salmonella SMPR v12

72 ITEM VI MEMORANDUM DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2014 TO: ISPAM/FP MEMBERS FROM: AOAC INTERNATIONAL SUBJECT: Breakout Sessions Discussion of Future Topics for ISPAM/FP BACKGROUND: Erin Crowley will lead a discussion of potential new topics and areas of interest for ISPAM. Potential topics will include: 1. Development of Guideline for Identification Methods for Microbiology with Complimentary SMPRs A method for the identification of a broad spectrum of bacteria has been submitted to AOAC for review. Neither AOAC nor ISO have guidelines for the validation of microbiology identification methods. All micro method validation guidelines are qualitative or quantitative methods. It is expected that more identification methods will be submitted in the future, and therefore AOAC and method developers will need a guideline for validation of these methods. This could be an international project since it can be assumed that ISO, NMKL, Health Canada, etc. will need validation guidelines for these methods. Development of a standard method performance requirement for microbiology identification methods could be a complementary project. 2. On-site method verification guidelines Development of a guideline for on-site verification was proposed at a previous ISPAM meeting but the panel did not select this topic because it was reported that ISO is, or will be, working on such a guideline. It would seem useful for AOAC to create a working group to work with ISO on such a guideline. 3. Follow-up on harmonization of BAM and ISO Salmonella methods. The working group on harmonization of BAM and ISO Salmonella methods agreed to begin work on additional harmonization in anticipation of the next round of ISO revisions. The suggestion was to identify and organize work that needs to be done to support additional harmonization. 4. Harmonization of other pathogen detection methods BAM and ISO Salmonella methods have been partially harmonized. It has been suggested that methods for other pathogens need to be harmonized as well. 5. Development of standard inclusivity/exclusivity panels for Salmonella, Listeria, E. coli and STEC methods Work on an STEC SMPR was abandoned after several months. A suggested inclusivity/exclusivity panels was created but never finished. Several working group participants commented on the usefulness of creating a suggested inclusivity/exclusivity panels.