FEED ADDITIVES AND CONTAMINANTS
SUBGROUP
Mission.
The Mission of the Feed Additive and Contaminants Group of the Agricultural Materials Community is consistent with the mission of the larger Community, but specific for feed additives and contaminants. The Group’s common interest and focus is the prioritization, development and validation of analytical methods that can be used by all stakeholders for the purposes of protecting the public health and safety, regulation, trade, monitoring programs, and quality control of processes and products.
Overview.
In early meetings of the Agricultural Materials Community, in became evident that the topics of consideration were too broad to be efficiently and effectively attended by one committee. Separate groups for Feeds, Fertilizers and other areas emerged. So that the large number of feed related analytical topics could be effectively dealt with, the topic of “animal feeds” was further divided into two groups: 1) Feed Nutrients and 2) Feed Additives and Contaminants.
Currently membership of the Feed Additive and Contaminants Group includes representatives from state, federal and local governments, industry, trades, and academia with an interest and investment in (a stake in) analytical methods for feed additives and contaminants. The volunteers work through consensus to identify and develop needed analytical standards. Membership is open to anyone with an interest and willingness to participate in the activities of the Group.
Methods Prioritization Categories (August 2004).
Initial methods needs were established by surveys. The compiled list of needed methods was quite long (actually overwhelming) and it was impossible to consider all needs initially. Some methods needed are new methods (where none exist), some are for analytes where methods are available that show promise but need further validation, and others are those where old methods exist that need modernizing and updating. With a long list of methods needs, the group began a prioritization process.
The initial methods prioritization process was accomplished by first establishing criteria for a prioritization process. After discussion and consolidation, five areas emerged. These five areas were assigned a “weight” based on input from each participant. The areas and respective “weights” assigned were as follows:
- Health and Safety/Adulteration (4.22)
Human and animal health and safety was established as the number one priority for establishing a method need. Methods for human and animal health concerns might include: methods for natural toxins or contaminants; methods for feed additives intended for one species that are toxic to humans or other species; methods for drugs for which there is concern of potential microbial resistance; methods for natural or synthetic contaminants that might be used with the intention of producing harm or death (terrorism concerns).
- Economic/Fraud (3.33)
Economics (meeting label guarantees, a level playing field) and fraud (adulteration of commercial products) was rated the second highest priority for establishing method needs. Product regulations vary from nation to nation and/or from state to state. Companies must register or license feed products and adjust product ingredients and guarantees according to each nations’ and/or states’ laws or regulations. Uniform acceptance of mutually acceptable methodologies is needed for labeling and other regulatory purposes.
- Political/Public Perception (2.89)
Political/public perception was rated the third area of establishing methods needs. The public often perceives that certain issues are a high threat to human health and safety. Sometimes they are a serious threat. In other cases, the perception may not be valid. In either case, when these issues arise, they become a very high priority for all stakeholders involved. As public awareness increases, the issues often become a political priority or a political “hot topic”. Laboratories must often react by using in-house or unproven methods in response to the emergencies. As much as possible, a proactive approach and standardization of analytical methods is necessary.
- New Technology/Updating Methods (2.44)
Methods that reflect new analytical technology and provide increased applicability to the products in the current marketplace are needed. For example, in the area of animal drugs in feeds, the new animal drug application (NADA) process has been operational for many years, and while the number of ingredients used in animal feed today has expanded greatly from the time of many NADA submittals, most methods have not been updated by the drug sponsors or by FDA. Many of the original methods are microbiological assays, while today, instrumental methods are of great interest. Since the list of needed methods in this area is quite long, the Group has prioritized methods that are already in use, and those that show promise and need further consideration for some initial study.
- Trade (2.11)
Companies that do business internationally need analytical methods that are accepted worldwide to facilitate trade.
On some periodic basis when method priorities are reviewed, the criteria will be reviewed and reweighed. The Group must be flexible to reassess priorities with changing times and technologies.
Program of Work (Following Prioritization).
To ensure that the Feed Additive and Contaminants Group’s mission and objectives are successful and meet the needs of the stakeholders, the Group’s program will follow systematic procedures and processes as appropriate to each method. Although there may be some variation, a typical project plan will proceed as follows:
- Stakeholders Identified and Involved
The Feed Additives and Contaminants Group seeks to identify and gather stakeholders from federal, state, industry, trade, and international organizations appropriate to each method need. The Group also seeks the input of persons with expertise in the priority methods to participate in the project(s).
- Establishing Method Performance Criteria (Fit for Purpose Methods)
The first item of work for a priority method is to document method needs criteria so that the resulting method can potentially meet the needs of all stakeholders, or as many stakeholders as feasible. Criteria for each method will be established by consensus with input of the appropriate stakeholders and experts.
- Develop a List of Potential Methods and Experts
Methods will next be identified and collected. Expert Review Panels (ERPs) for each priority method will be formed to review submissions based on established performance criteria and choose the best method(s) or identify gaps in methodology. If there are gaps in methodology, the ERPs may modify existing methods to better meet the performance criteria.
- Assign a Project Leader/Study Director
A project leader will be designated to develop a project plan and schedule. For most methods, the charges to the project leader will be to write the method according to AOAC or ISO style, develop a study protocol, identify collaborators, carry out the collaborative study, and write the collaborative study manuscript.
- Plan Approval
The collaborative study protocol will be reviewed by the ERP to assure that it meets the needs of the project and, if applicable, meets the requirements of the harmonized collaborative study protocol. The project leader will address any concerns of the ERP.
- Collaborative Study
The collaborative study process is carried out, and the study report prepared by the project leader.
- Evaluation and Approval
The collaborative study manuscript will be reviewed by the ERP and evaluated against fitness for purpose (methods needs criteria). The study will also be approved by the appropriate AOAC Technical Committee. It is anticipated that AOAC Technical Committee members will be represented within the ERP, and that the reviews will be concurrent and timely.
- Publishing and Disseminating Approved Methods
Collaborative study manuscripts will be published in the Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL. Approved methods will be published in the Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL and posted on AOAC’s website for widest possible distribution, immediately after approval as “First Action.”
- Follow up
Follow up comments will be heard at Feed Additives and Contaminants meetings and at AOAC Technical Committee meetings. The method will move to AOAC Official Final Action Status if no issues arise that cannot be resolved.
- Identifying Financial Support
Financial support will be needed to help the Group accomplish its mission and goals. Participants will work with AOAC to help identify and get financial support from the organizations and government agencies that will benefit from the work of the community.
Meetings.
The Feed Additives and Contaminants Group will tentatively have face-to-face meetings three times a year. Other communication will take place by email or other electronic means, and conference calls. The Group will meet at the AAFCO Spring Meeting (January), the Annual AACO Meeting (typically first week of August) and the Annual AOAC Meeting (September).
Methods Prioritization. To prioritize methods, areas of methods need were identified and prioritized as follows:
| |
2004 |
2006 |
| 1. Health and Safety/Adulteration |
4.22 |
5.25 |
| 2. Economic/Fraud |
3.33 |
4.63 |
| 3. Political/Public Perception |
2.89 |
2.44 |
| 4. New Technology/Updating Methods |
2.44 |
3.5 |
| 5. Trade |
2.11 |
2.13 |
| 6. Availability of Potential Methods |
- |
3.06 |
METHODS 2004 AND 2006 RANK
2006 Rank |
2004 Rank |
Methods Needs |
2006 Score Method Needs |
| |
8 |
Lasalocid |
|
| |
6 |
Oxytetracycline |
|
1 |
2 |
Ruminant protein |
48.96 |
2 |
1 |
Multi-analyte mycotoxin screen |
47.46 |
3 |
3 |
Non-nutritive metals |
45.1 |
4 |
- |
Decoquinate |
41.51 |
5 |
5 |
Chlortetracycline |
40.96 |
6 |
- |
Vitamin A |
40.82 |
7 |
10 |
Multi-class multi-analyte pesticide residue screen |
39.33 |
8 |
- |
Tylosin |
39.1 |
9 |
- |
Vitamin D |
38.39 |
10 |
- |
Trace-nutritive metals |
37.6 |
11 |
- |
Vitamin E |
37.04 |
12 |
- |
Carbadox |
36.75 |
13 |
4 |
Neomycin |
35.37 |
14 |
- |
Amprolium |
35.39 |
15 |
7 |
Virginiamycin |
32.3 |
16 |
- |
Ethopabate |
31.33 |
17 |
- |
Ractopamine |
30.9 |
18 |
- |
Morantel Tartrate |
30.59 |
19 |
- |
Ormetoprim/Sulfadimethoxine |
30.3 |
20 |
- |
Nicarbzin A & B |
30.27 |
21 |
- |
Perchlorates |
29.23 |
22 |
9 |
Pyrrolizidine alkaloids |
23.83 |
NEW NEEDS METHODS IDENTIFIED IN 2006 AND SCORES
2006 Rank |
2004 Rank |
Methods Needs |
2006 Score Method Needs |
1 |
N/A |
MGA |
48.53 |
2 |
N/A |
Bacitracin/BMD |
45.25 |
3 |
N/A |
Phosphorus |
43.39 |
4 |
N/A |
Robenidine |
42.69 |
5 |
N/A |
Clopidol |
42.69 |
6 |
N/A |
Tiamulin |
39.09 |
7 |
N/A |
Fenbendazole |
38.03 |
8 |
N/A |
Tilmicosin |
38.03 |
9 |
N/A |
Ivermectin |
37.94 |
10 |
N/A |
Bacitracin |
36.13 |
11 |
N/A |
Levamisole |
30.88 |
METHODS PROJECTS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY
Methods |
Method Needs |
SVL |
Project Leader |
Collab Study |
| Lasalocid |
X |
X |
X |
X |
| Oxytetracycline |
X |
X |
X |
X |
Multi-analyte
mycotoxin screen |
X |
In progress |
- |
- |
| Non-nutritive metals |
In progress |
- |
- |
- |
| Decoquinate |
X |
X |
X |
- |
| Chlortetracycline |
X |
In progress |
X |
- |
| Trace-nutritive metals |
In progress |
- |
- |
- |
| Neomycin |
X |
- |
- |
- |
|
