(a) Review of Performance-based Criteria for Methods of Analysis and Sampling for Veterinary Drugs in Foods
(b) Identification of Routine Methods of Analysis and Sampling for Veterinary Drug Residues in Foods
98. The Committee recalled the decisions made at its last session concerning its work on methods of analysis, in order to implement the recommendations of the Joint FAO/IAEA Expert Consultation on Validation of Analytical Methods for Food Control[20], and in particular the need to establish performance criteria.
99. The report of the ad hoc Working Group on Methods of Analysis and Sampling was presented by Dr. J.D. MacNeil (Canada), Co-Chair with Dr. J.J. O’Rangers (United States). The Committee was informed that the following meetings relevant to method validation had been held in November 1999:
100. It was agreed that the outcome of the Expert Consultation, together with the work in progress in the EU, AOAC and IUPAC could provide the basis for the criteria to be developed by the Committee.
101. The Committee agreed that a drafting group (Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, France, Netherlands, United States, COMISA) would consider the criteria for the selection of methods of analysis contained in the Guidelines for the Establishment of a Regulatory Programme for Control of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CAC/GL 16-1993) in the light of recent developments in method validation at the international level, and prepare proposals for consideration by the next session.
102. The Delegation of the United States presented the results of the questionnaire sent to governments on analytical methods used for monitoring veterinary drug residues in their national control programmes. The Committee noted that this list could provide a basis to facilitate the identification of validated methods to support MRLs. In addition, the survey provided a useful source of contacts and technical information for member countries, especially developing counties.
103. The Committee recognized that insufficient progress had been made so far in the selection of methods and this problem needed to be addressed urgently. For this purpose the current working arrangements were not adequate and the Committee considered the proposal from the Working Group to convene an expert meeting prior to the next meeting of the Committee to clear the backlog of compounds for which a method was required.
104. The Secretariat noted that proposals to convene expert consultations or meetings should be put forward to the parent organizations through the Commission, which would meet in July 2001, and that such a decision depended on the priorities and availability of funding in FAO and/or WHO. In reply to a suggestion that JECFA consider this question since there would be no meeting of JECFA on veterinary drugs in 2001, the JECFA Secretariat informed the Committee that a meeting on mycotoxins would be held in February 2001 due to the high priority of this subject in terms of public health.
105. The Committee recognized that it would not therefore be possible to convene an expert meeting before the next session and agreed that in the meantime the task groups should proceed with their work on the basis of the draft criteria prepared by the drafting group (para. 101) and prepare a report for consideration by the next session. The Committee discussed the possibility of the task groups meeting prior to the 13th Session and noted that this would depend on the availability of funding. The Committee agreed that the work of specific task groups would be led by the following coordinators:
106. The Committee agreed that, since suitable validation existed, provisional status could be applied to the methods for the following compounds:
107. In addition, the Committee agreed that the methods previously recommended with provisional status for tetracyclines residues in edible tissues (AOAC 995.09) and in milk (AOAC 995.05) could be advanced to “Recommended” status.
108. The Committee noted that the working group was informed of a project undertaken by the United Kingdom to conduct independent laboratory evaluations of previously reported methods for the determination of carazolol, ceftiofur, dexamethasone and gentamicin. These compounds are all on the agenda of the Committee. It further noted that the working group agreed that these reports should be considered by the appropriate task groups and that it would be helpful if a brief evaluation of the work could be provided by the contract manager.
109. The Committee expressed its appreciation to the Working Group and agreed that it should be reinstated at the next session under the chairmanship of Canada and the United States.
