Food Authenticity Program Meeting Book (March 13, 2020)

Water and Whey are natural components. Would fingerprint region have the ability to distinguish these as adulterants? Melamine is still very high for the % adulterant, is it that high due to LOD on instrument? With Urea, how will you account for change in feed or moving cows inside to account for possible uptick in the Urea, but not a true adulteration? Will a targeted method be used to validate the % adulterant in addition to the NTT? Methods approved at this level will proceed to a second level of evaluation where blinded samples containing unknown adulterants will be sent to participating laboratories. Recommend more detail to clarify exactly what constitutes an authentic milk sample. Should other liquid milk quality parameters be reported to monitor impact of variability in authentic samples on the method? For example, variability in total solids would be important to understand the ability differentiate natural variability from intentional dilution with water How will this work with different labs and instruments since LOD and LOQ will be very different between MID-IR, NIR and Raman (different lasers, mirrors, integrating spheres, types of crystals, etc.) How will chemometrics work on multi- lab? Does everyone need to baseline correct?

These questions warrant further discussion.

1) Water & Whey: The SMPR is focusing on the most common current adulterants. Methods that meet this baseline can be evaluated for additional adulterants for reliability or method improvements. 2) The melamine concentration is the minimum amount as an intentionally economically motivated adulterant, not a residual amount. 3) The urea concentration is the minimum amount as an intentionally economically motivated adulterant, not an unintentional added amount. 4) The non-targeted working group is focusing on screening methods that may identify a need for a targeted method. Excellent point. "(i.e., multi-laboratory validation) has been added to all 3 SMPRs

Recommend "second level of evaluation (i.e. MLT)"

Early working group discussions reached a consensus to leave the authentic sample collection to the method develops who must supply full documentation on the process. The collected materials will be reviewed by the ERP to properly define the matrix scope of the method.

N/A

1) All methods must be able to evaluate commodities adulterated down to the levels in Table 1. 2) The MLV requires the entire method including the technology and

Recommend further clarification of definition to avoid confusion for practitioner. Could add detail here or under Section 7 Val Guidance.

chemometric software be set up identically in participating labs.