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.