AOAC SPIFAN Stakeholder Panel Meeting Book (March 12, 2020)
Stakeholder Comments (1) Name:
Martine van Gool (FrieslandCampina):
Date :
3 February 2020
Type of comment :
Technical
SMPR :
2’FL & LNnT
Section :
5. System suitability and/or analytical quality control
Line Number(s) or N/A : Comment(s) / Justification : Proposed change by submitter :
67
Also add top range (why only low and middle) Also add top range (why only low and middle)
Remarks: The comment is related to the standards’ checks. It was discussed with Sean Austin and Phil Haselberger. This is a general sentence found in SMPRs, however not 100% consistency has been observed on how it is expressed. Similar comment also given in GOS SMPR. 2 Suggestions: • Include the “high point” (as accepted for GOS) or • Make the phrase more general: e.g. […], and check standards at the appropriate analytical range(s).
Stakeholder Comments (2) Name:
Martine van Gool (FrieslandCampina):
Date :
3 February 2020
Type of comment :
Technical
SMPR : Section :
2’FL & LNnT
Table 1
Line Number(s) or N/A : Comment(s) / Justification :
63
The numbers are expressed per 100g, but below the table it still says reconstituted powder which is now confusing Make a footnote below the table as follows: ii: powder (reconstituted 25g in 200ml)
Proposed change by submitter :
Remarks: Comment discussed with Sean Austin and Phil Haselberger. The reconstitution is 25g powder in 200g water – so everything is given by mass.
Suggestions: • No change of the comment as it is clear.
Made with FlippingBook Annual report