I am sorry I still don’t agree, they have done a good job of putting in a lot of recent references from 2011, 2010, 2009, etc. which is definitely good research and a great upgrade to the previous version. I have used it extensively but zero tolerance trumps everything when rubber meets the road.
Yes, absolutely, we aim for > 6 log reduction of Salmonella. Hamburger story is relatively new compared to 6D reduction which is based on heat resistance of Salmonellae in reeference to water activity as well as inoculation studies in beef.
The argument is not on the variation in ATP between bacterial species but the fact that ATP can be used as an indirect indicator of the presence of them, and has been effective in early detection of biofilms as well.
I am not well versed in statistics either but if you have ever had the need to sample products you will have to do that based on statistics accepted by the International community or your federal requirements. And nothing trumps ICMSF. You can argue about it but unless the regulations change you are probably not going to convince lawyers or inspectors if you choose an alternate route.
According to me, there are two reasons for this: As more and more non-O157s are incorporated into the testing module, small companies will not have the resources to test for each individually. And secondly E. coli has remained and continues to be the indicator organism for fecal contamination and
Absolutely, detection limits, sensitivities and specificities are fixed for a specific procedure but you can stretch the limits by increasing your sample size. For the same reason as suggested by you, compositing for product testing is not allowed in US.
Dear abhagat,
Looks a bit like stalemate 
.No problem .
Rgds / Charles.C
