March 17, 2015-SP

My response

Original Comment 

Proposed Change 

Method name: Determination of vitamin XX  (XX) in..... 1. Applicability: Add: "For the  purpose of this SMPR, vitamin XX is defined  as the sum of xxxx". Include CAS numbers for each compound using same format as other  SMPRs already published (example: choline,  C, B12, A, D) 2. Definitions: use same format  and contents as other SMPRs in SPIFAN.  Remove definition of the vitamin in this  section, include in section 1. Applicability.  Remove chemical structures, as this can  easily be found if CAS numbers are included.  If they absolutely have to be present, include  them in an Annex or at the end of the  document, as in the example of carotenoids.  4. Method performance requirements: low  limits given in the requirements are at the  same level or higher than minimum Codex  l l Pl i thi h b t d d eve s. ease rev ew, s as een ex en e  to 50 % of minimum level for other SMPRs, or  even lower in some specific cases and when  justified. Technical comments: we have  questions on the inclusion of all possible  natural forms of the vitamins, knowing that  not all are present in the type of matrices in  the scope of the project. 5 % and 10 % for  RSDr and RSDR might be tight 

I will comment on this in parts. I do agree  that footnote 1 in each SMPR should be  included in the Applicability section with the  preface “ For the purpose of this SMPR…” Additionally  all CAS numbers should be included.    I do not have an issue with moving vitamin  definition to section one, and removing  structures.  Unless the change was made for specific  reasons which I am not aware of I have no  problem with making the Accuracy definition  consistent, and adding recovery.  I don’t believe sensitivity will be major issue  with any of these analytes therefore I am  f t bl d i th l t com or a e re uc ng e ower range o up  to 50% of the Codex limits.  

Method name: although many of the  SMPR already issued are intended to  be applicable to "total" vitamin, this  h t b t i th titl b t as no een se up n e  e, u  rather in the definition 1.  Applicability: For consistency and  alignment with other SMPRs already  published. Add definition as stated in  other SMPRs instead of in a footnote  2. Definitions: Accuracy has never  been defined as such previously, the  definition of "recovery" has always  been present instead. Keep  consistency 

I believe the RSDs are achievable. 

Including all forms was discussed and agreed  upon, and several objections were noted.  However the final concensus was the forms  stated in the SMPRs 

Stakeholder Comments

Original Comment

Proposed Change

My response

I think NAD/NADH should be included  in SMPR, maybe it was overlooked? If  NAD(H) was considered and rejected  as unimportant then the SMPR should  state this, rather than ignoring its  contribution. FMN/FAD is mentioned  for vitamin B2, and the phosphate  coenzymes of B1 and B6, so the 

I don’t believe these forms  were discussed much at the  September meeting. At this  time due to the negligible  concentrations of these  forms, and the fact that  both alkali, and acid  h d l i ill il lib t y ro ys s w eas y era e  both forms to one of the  measured forms I would  leave the SMPR as is.

innate coenzyme forms are  potentially an issue for SPIFAN

6