1. External Peer Review of the FDA Office of Regulatory Affairs Pesticide Program FDA Science Board Advisory Committee Meeting Nov. 4, 2005

2. Internal ORA Pesticide Peer Review Report - 2004 Report completed in October, 2004. 18 Management Issues 21 Science Issues Presented to Science Board in November 2004.

3. Internal ORA Pesticide Peer Review Report - 2004 5 Key Areas Emerged Program Management Laboratory Science Issues Productivity and Timeliness Resources Compliance and Regulatory Policy

4. External ORA Pesticide Peer Review - 2005 Focus on Science Issues Sampling Methods

5. External Peer Review Panel Members Katherine M.J. Swanson, Ph.D., Vice President for Food Safety, Ecolab Inc., Eagan, MN (Co-chair) John A. Thomas, Ph.D., Professor (emeritus) Pharmacology & Toxicology, University of Texas Health Science Center – San Antonio, Texas (Co-chair) Joanne M. Cook, Chief, Bureau of Chemical Residue Laboratories, Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, FL Mark Lee, Ph.D., Research Agricultural Chemist, Center for Analytical Chemistry, California Department of Food & Agriculture, Sacramento, CA Steven Musser, Ph.D., Chief, Instrumentation and Biophysics Branch, and Lead Scientist for Chemistry CFSAN, FDA, College Park, MD

6. External Peer Review Site Visit #1 Florida State Pesticide Residue Lab Tallahassee, FL Presentations from Florida state staff Presentations from FDA Florida District staff

7. External Peer Review Site Visit #2 FDA Headquarters, Rockville, MD CFSAN presentations ORA presentations

8. External Peer Review Site Visit #3 FDA Pacific Regional Lab SW, Irvine, CA Operation of a FDA pesticide lab Presentations from Investigators and CSO’s

9. Observation 1 FDA needs to clearly define goals, requirements, and desired outcomes for its pesticide program. ?

10. Observation 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Collaboration within FDA and across other agencies to clearly define goals of ORA's pesticide program. Implement a more effective information management system for sampling and methods. Re-focus available resources to better mirror public health and safety interests.

11. Observation 2 Pesticide sampling should be risk-based.

12. Observation 2 RECOMMENDATIONS ORA and CFSAN should jointly reevaluate commodities to be sampled using a risk-based approach focused on public health needs and patterns of non- compliance.

13. Observation 3 Current pesticide sampling is not statistically based.

14. Observation 3 RECOMMENDATIONS On-going consultation with statisticians is recommended to meet defined program goals. Develop a sampling plan that clearly articulates the data needs of the program.

15. Observation 4 There is a general lack of coordination between sample collection and analysis.

16. Observation 4 RECOMMENDATIONS Enhance coordination to select the right samples, & timing of collection & analysis. CFSAN, ORA, states, others Revitalize the Pesticide Coordination Teams. Establish a notification process for scheduled sample submission. Interact with EPA & USDA to support risk assessment for commodities they do not sample.

17. Observation 5 The Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) is important, and should be updated in a timely manner.

18. Observation 5 RECOMMENDATIONS Update the PAM I immediately. Create a process to get validated methods into the PAM in a timely manner. Create an incentive for scientists to enter validated methods into PAM. Utilize stakeholders and experts in the field for editorial support.

19. Observation 6 There should be a defined process for method validation and acceptance.

20. Observation 6 RECOMMENDATIONS Define a formal process for method validation. Use validated methods for official regulatory samples. Define a process for use of methods in emergency situations.

21. Observation 7 Most methods used to analyze samples are generally cost-effective and efficient, but not comprehensive.

22. Observation 7 RECOMMENDATIONS Harmonize methodology internationally. Investigate alternative cost effective, faster & efficient procedures. Complete adoption of efficient multi-residue procedure for all labs. Expand screening to LC/MS to assay broader class of pesticides. Define pesticide confirmation & quantitation criteria similar to other international & state agencies.

23. Observation 8 Additional confirmation testing for “no-tolerance pesticides” increases time and resource requirements.

24. Examples of Commodities with No EPA Tolerances for pesticides Chinese Water chestnut Durian Schisandra fruit Chia seeds

25. Observation 8 RECOMMENDATIONS Update the Criteria for Analytical Packages to Support Regulatory Action on pesticide residues, including “no tolerance pesticides" to keep pace with new technology.

26. Observation 9 Uniform procedures for capturing, sharing, reporting, and auditing raw data are lacking.

27. Observation 9 RECOMMENDATIONS Implement a more effective Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). Evaluate commercially available LIMS. LIMS should generate automatic reports. Don’t develop individual stand-alone systems.

28. Observation 10 Quality assurance programs are inconsistent across ORA laboratories.

29. Observation 10 RECOMMENDATIONS Complete ISO accreditation. Collaborate across laboratories on Quality Assurance Policies and Procedures. Introduce or augment statistically based quality control measures to reduce unnecessary repetition in assaying.

30. Summary & Overall Finding Clear articulation and definition of goals is needed to improve implementation of ORA’s pesticide program.

31. Acknowledgements Bureau of Chemical Residue Laboratories, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, FL FDA Headquarters Staff Pacific Regional Laboratory Southwest, Irvine, CA