IRAC Annual Plan (FY2003)
Presentations
Designation of "basic" requires that other RAC reps only listen to a presentation and have some discussion time. It is a quarterly meeting activity. Based on a "canned" format for quarterly meetings (see below for outline). There are 12 hours of presentation time available in one year.
1. Presentations by CSREES funded researchers with projects related to RA's that RAC members are doing. This would be a showcase of CSREES food safety projects with the goal of enhancing networking between RAC members and CSREES supported researchers (2 hours) [CSREES, charter goal 4, basic, Mary Torrence will recruit speakers]
2. Presentations by agency reps on current risk assessments underway, including data gaps identified from risk assessments (2 hours) [ARS, charter goal 4, basic]
3. Presentation on CFSAN's risk management plan (1 hour) [CFSAN, charter goal 4, basic, Dick Whiting would recruit a speaker]
4. Presentation on the completed Vibrio and Listeria risk assessments and risk management plans (2 hours) [CFSAN, charter goal 4, basic, Dick Whiting would recruit a speaker]
5. ARS would host a quarterly meeting in Wyndmoor and feature Wyndmoor researchers as a presentation speakers. Presentation by ARS on ComBase database for archiving data sets. (3 hours) If possible a satellite hook-up to a DC location will be arranged. [ARS, charter goal 3, basic, Mark Tamplin would organize this meeting]
6. Update on CDC projects that impact risk assessments, such as FoodNet and emerging pathogens for food (Rob Tauxe). RAC would also like an explanation of the organizational structure of CDC (2 hours) [FSIS suggested, CDC has agreed, charter goal 4, basic, CDC representative will recruit speakers after surveying RAC for what specific information is requested]
Work Group projects (enhanced RAC activities)
Designation of "enhanced" requires that the activity have a leader and a suggested deliverable. Over the year there are 4 hours of quarterly meeting time devoted to work group updates and business.
1. Dose-Response Work Group project- Compile mechanistic data on variability of host, pathogen, and environment relating to dose-response modeling. Scope to emphasize: host susceptibility; rates of excretion, attachment, and repair; efficacy of physiological defenses; biomarkers for activation of immune defenses; and pathogens LM, EHECs, Salmonella, Cryptosporidium, Vibrio, viral hazards. [FSIS, charter goal 2, enhanced, Lead- Peg Coleman & Marianne Miliotis, possible deliverables: presentations to RAC member agencies (1) Angelo Turturro (NCTR), target dose versus administered dose: fundamental difference between chemical and microbial dose-response (2) Marianne Miliotis (CFSAN), data from human tissue culture (3) Peg Coleman (FSIS), data from tissue and animal models for O157:H7 (4) Leigh Sawyer & Dennis Lang (NIH), data on viral dose-response, (5) Dose-response for susceptible vs. normal population (6) Comparison between animal and human parameters relating to dose-response]
2. Performance Standards Work Group: Develop performance standards that use risk assessment to explicitly connect regulations to public health outcomes. In light of recent court decisions related to food safety and OMB Executive Order 12866 for regulations that have a significant impact on industry, risk-based performance standards are needed. One approach to developing such standards involves back-calculating from a reasonably low probability of the occurrence and level of hazard in food to predict the corresponding occurrence and level of hazard in food at various points during processing that are necessary to achieve an established public health goal (e.g., X% reduction in foodborne illness). This project involves outlining one or more approaches for developing food safety risk-based performance standards. Other considerations include the quality of the data utilized in risk assessments, the peer review process, policy inputs, and modeling approaches used to develop risk-based performance standards. [FSIS, charter goal 1 Lead: Janell Kause, FSIS/OPHS. Other participants include: Gary Becker (FSIS/OPPDE), Mike Kasina (FSIS/OPPDE), Eric Ebel (FSIS/OPHS), Terry Disney (FSIS/OPHS), Angela Ruple (NMFS), Tanya Roberts (ERS), Angelo Turturro (NCTR) and Dick Whiting (CFSAN). Deliverables: (1) concept paper; (2) RAC presentation (3) SRA panel.]
3. Establish a biological terrorism (BT) threat assessment tools/methodology work group that will explore and develop modeling and data analysis approaches that can be used to both further develop and link qualitative and quantitative models of BT threat identification and methods for risk analysis and mitigation. This work group will focus on quantification of the BT threat to both the US food and water supply. For example, one approach could develop techniques for reevaluating and further developing initial qualitative estimations about risky BT quadruplets- where BT quadruplets are defined as combinations of the variable (1) identified bioterrorism hazards (i.e. pathogens) and their associated consequences, (2) geographic areas of product origin, (3) meat and poultry production processes, and (4) further practices such as packaging, shipping, and unloading involved in import. Modeling techniques can be used to determine which situations require additional attention - either in the form of additional manpower/mitigation at a particular node along the product flow pathway, or in the form of additional research to determine quantitative coefficient values of the risk from a particular quadruplet member or situation. [Charter goal 3 Co-Lead: Terry Disney (FSIS/OPHS) and CDC representative. Other participants include: Carol Maczka (FSIS/OPHS), Abdel Kadry (FSIS/OPHS), Dorothy Yuan (FSIS/OPHS), Janell Kause (FSIS/OPHS), Steve Schaub (EPA/OW), John Tennyson (NMFS) and Richard Canady (CFSAN). Deliverables: (1) methodological paper; (2) RAC presentation; (3) a plan for training/educating state and local personnel in BT threat risk assessment.]
4. Data gaps work group- Identification of data gaps in microbial exposure assessments and risk ranking to help set research priorities. Ask RAC for lists of data needed. [ARS, charter goal 1, enhanced, Lead-Mark Tamplin, Other participants: Carol Maczka (FSIS), Sherri Dennis and John Hicks (CFSAN) deliverable-Report for web]
5. Establish a "non-microbial" workgroup to focus on risk assessment for chemicals and related issues. This workgroup will seek to identify representation from each of the RAC member agencies. The working group representatives will consider whether there is a need for networking and collaboration amongst federal "non-microbial"/chemical risk assessment communities and whether to develop a prospectus for integrating such collaborative efforts into the RAC organization. The prospectus may include a plan for developing a separate non-microbial/chemical "branch" of the RAC, which would replicate (as appropriate), the networking and organizational structure of the current RAC. The prospectus may also outline to what degree the chemical and microbial branches of the RAC should be integrated. [Charter goal 2 Lead- Workgroup leader to be announced, contact person is Judy Nelson at OPPTS. Deliverable - prospectus and quarterly updates.]
6. Public meeting workgroup. The public meeting workgroup is responsible for proposing, planning and conducting the annual public meeting, including identification and collection of funding, publication of Federal Register notice, meeting facilities, and web-posting of presentations, proceedings, or other meeting documentation. [Lead- TBA]
RAC quarterly meeting format
Summary:
Presentation slots available in 1 year at RAC quarterly meetings are listed below.
(These could be subdivided in several shorter slots. Lunches and breaks make these time slots short. A group of talks may take more than one slot.)
winter:
2 hours
1 ½ hours
spring:
2 hours
1 ½ hours
2 hours
1 ½ hours
summer:
0 hours
fall:
1 ½ hours
total presentation time in 1 year: 12 hours
Networking and information sharing was repeatedly identified as the key aspect of RAC, so RAC representative updates and reports from work groups are built into the quarterly meeting format.
Winter (Dec.) one day (3 hours and 30 minutes of presentation time)
9:30-10:30am: RAC rep updates
10:30-11:30: updates from work groups
11:30-1:00 pm: networking lunch
1-3: presentation time
3-3:15: break
3:15-4:45pm: presentation time
Spring (March) 2 days
Day 1: (3 hours and 30 minutes presentation time)
9:30-10:30am: RAC rep updates
10:30-11:30: begin annual plan discussion
11:30-1:00 pm: networking lunch
1-3: presentation time
3-3:15: break
3:15-4:45pm: presentation time
Day 2: (3 hours and 30 minutes of presentation time)
9:30-10:30: updates from work groups
10:30-11:30: annual plan discussion
11:30-1:00 pm: networking lunch
1-3: presentation time
3-3:15: break
3:15-4:45pm: presentation time
Summer (May or June) half day (second half of day is policy council meeting) (0 hours presentation time)
9:30-10:30am: RAC rep updates
10:30-noon: updates from work groups
noon-1:00 pm: networking lunch
Policy council joins technical reps.
1-2: RAC year in review (including clearinghouse update)
2-2:30: Summary of issues to be discussed by policy council
2:30-3pm: break
3-4:30: annual plan discussion
Fall (Sept.) half day (morning or afternoon) (1 ½ hours presentation time)
1 ½ hours: RAC rep updates
30 minutes: break
30 minutes: updates from work groups
1 ½ hours: presentation time