Notice2023-02836
Protein Efficiency Ratio Rat Bioassay Studies To Demonstrate That a New Infant Formula Supports the Quality Factor of Sufficient Biological Quality of Protein; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 10, 2023
Issuing agencies
Health and Human Services DepartmentFood and Drug Administration
Abstract
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled "Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) Rat Bioassay Studies To Demonstrate That a New Infant Formula Supports the Quality Factor of Sufficient Biological Quality of Protein." The draft guidance, when finalized, will provide information for manufacturers and contract laboratories that perform PER studies to assist in designing, conducting, evaluating, and reporting PER studies. The draft guidance, when finalized, will explain "appropriate modifications" of AOAC Official Method 960.48 (the AOAC Method) with the aim of supporting industry in successfully conducting PER studies that demonstrate that a new infant formula meets the quality factor of sufficient biological quality of protein when fed as the sole source of nutrition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 28 (Friday, February 10, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8868-8872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02836]
[[Page 8868]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA-2022-D-2424]
Protein Efficiency Ratio Rat Bioassay Studies To Demonstrate That
a New Infant Formula Supports the Quality Factor of Sufficient
Biological Quality of Protein; Draft Guidance for Industry;
Availability; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed
Collection; Comment Request
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance entitled ``Protein Efficiency Ratio
(PER) Rat Bioassay Studies To Demonstrate That a New Infant Formula
Supports the Quality Factor of Sufficient Biological Quality of
Protein.'' The draft guidance, when finalized, will provide information
for manufacturers and contract laboratories that perform PER studies to
assist in designing, conducting, evaluating, and reporting PER studies.
The draft guidance, when finalized, will explain ``appropriate
modifications'' of AOAC Official Method 960.48 (the AOAC Method) with
the aim of supporting industry in successfully conducting PER studies
that demonstrate that a new infant formula meets the quality factor of
sufficient biological quality of protein when fed as the sole source of
nutrition.
DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by May 11, 2023 to ensure that we consider your comment on the
draft guidance before we begin work on the final version of the
guidance. Submit electronic or written comments on the proposed
collection of information in the draft guidance by May 11, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
<bullet> If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').
Written/Paper Submissions
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
<bullet> Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
<bullet> For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2022-D-2424 for ``Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) Rat Bioassay
Studies To Demonstrate That a New Infant Formula Supports the Quality
Factor of Sufficient Biological Quality of Protein.'' Received comments
will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-402-7500.
<bullet> Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' We will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify this information as ``confidential.''
Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except
in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law.
For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets,
see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at:
<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf</a>.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling (HFS-800), Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr.,
College Park, MD 20740. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to
assist that office in processing your request or include a Fax number
to which the draft guidance may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the draft
guidance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
With regard to the draft guidance: Andrea Lotze, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling
(HFS-800), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park,
MD 20740, 240-402-1450, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96d7f8f2e4f3f7b8daf9e2ecf3d6f0f2f7b8fefee5b8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="62230c061007034c2e0d161807220406034c0a0a114c050d14">[email protected]</span></a>; or Keronica
Richardson, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of
Regulations and Policy (HFS-024), Food and Drug Administration, 5001
Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2378.
With regard to the proposed collection of information: Rachel
Showalter, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three
White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD
20852, 240-994-7399, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#144446554760757272547270753a7c7c673a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="025250435176636464426466632c6a6a712c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled
[[Page 8869]]
``Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) Rat Bioassay Studies To Demonstrate
That a New Infant Formula Supports the Quality Factor of Sufficient
Biological Quality of Protein.'' Our regulations, at 21 CFR 106.96,
establish requirements for quality factors for infant formulas,
including the quality factor of sufficient biological quality of
protein. Subject to a limited exception (see Sec. 106.96(g)), each
manufacturer of an infant formula that is not an eligible infant
formula must demonstrate that the formula meets the quality factor of
sufficient biological quality of protein by establishing the biological
quality of the protein in the infant formula when fed as the sole
source of nutrition using an appropriate modification of the AOAC
Official Method 960.48 (the AOAC Method) Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER)
Rat Bioassay (Sec. 106.96(f)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We support the principles of the ``3Rs'' to reduce, refine,
and replace animal use in testing when feasible. We encourage
sponsors to consult with us if they wish to use a non-animal testing
method they believe is suitable, adequate, and validated to
demonstrate that the formula supports the quality factor for the
biological quality of the protein as described in 21 CFR
106.96(g)(3). We support alternative methods by exemption in 21 CFR
106.96(f) which allows the manufacturer to request an exemption and
provide certain required assurances described in 21 CFR 106.96(g).
The applicability of this exemption is not the subject of this
guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AOAC Method provides a procedure by which the quality of a
protein in food can be evaluated and compared with those of other
proteins. Protein ``quality'' can be defined as the ability of a
protein to meet the essential amino acid needs of an animal. The AOAC
Method is a standardized bioassay with published collaborative study
data. The AOAC Method permits the calculation of a PER as the ratio of
the average animal body weight gain per gram of protein consumed of a
test protein versus casein after a 28-day feeding period. Typically,
the protein concentration of both the test and casein reference diet is
set at about 10 percent, a level that is below the estimated
requirement for growth of rats of 15 percent, to improve the
sensitivity of the method. While growth is slower at 10 percent protein
than at 15 percent protein, the lower protein level assures that
available protein is efficiently utilized.
In the PER study described in the AOAC Method, a protein ingredient
was assayed at 10 percent and other potential variables were
standardized so that their numbers and potential effects were
minimized. Vitamin composition, moisture, ash, carbohydrates, fat, and
fiber were adjusted between the casein reference diet and the test
diet. Use of a test diet that contains an infant formula in its
entirety introduces matrices of high fat content and additional
vitamins, minerals, and other ingredients, as well as the low protein
source. A major challenge in analyzing infant formulas by the AOAC
Method is matching the casein reference diet and test diet to achieve
dietary groups with as few confounding variables as possible.
Since we promulgated Sec. 106.96, we have found that industry is
experiencing difficulties in consistently meeting its requirements.
Therefore, we are announcing the availability of a draft guidance for
industry entitled ``Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) Rat Bioassay Studies
To Demonstrate That a New Infant Formula Supports the Quality Factor of
Sufficient Biological Quality of Protein.'' This draft guidance, when
finalized, will help infant formula manufacturers and contract
laboratories that perform PER studies in designing, conducting,
evaluating, and reporting PER studies. The draft guidance, when
finalized, will explain ``appropriate modifications'' of the AOAC
Method to help manufacturers and contract laboratories conduct PER
studies that demonstrate to FDA that a new infant formula meets the
quality factor of sufficient biological quality of protein.
FDA's work on this draft guidance document began prior to
significant infant formula supply chain concerns that arose in early
2022. Although this guidance was not prepared specifically to alleviate
supply chain concerns, this guidance will help ensure that infant
formula products meet FDA's regulatory requirements and will contribute
to ensuring a more resilient infant formula supply. We are issuing the
draft guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation
(21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the
current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights
for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an
alternate approach to make ``appropriate modifications'' if it
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Topics discussed in the draft guidance include:
<bullet> Purpose of the AOAC Method;
<bullet> Overview of the AOAC Method as originally described;
<bullet> Need for ``appropriate modifications'' to update the AOAC
Method and for use of infant formulas in PER bioassays;
<bullet> Conduct and analysis of a PER study with ``appropriate
modifications'' (matching the reference and test diets);
<bullet> Protocols and reports;
<bullet> Reference guidelines; and
<bullet> Appendices: AOAC Official Method 960.48, composition of
vitamin and mineral mixtures, compositions of diets, and examples of an
approach for matching vitamin, mineral, and (methionine + cystine)
compositions of PER study diets.
II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct or sponsor. ``Collection of information'' is defined in 44
U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or
requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records,
or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a
60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed
collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for
approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of
the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) Rat Bioassay Studies To Demonstrate That
a New Infant Formula Supports the Quality Factor of Sufficient
Biological Quality of Protein
OMB Control Number 0910-0256--Revision
Under Sec. 106.96(e), an infant formula must meet the quality
factor of sufficient biological quality of protein, and Sec. 106.96(f)
provides how an infant formula manufacturer must demonstrate that a
formula meets this quality factor. PER studies are used to demonstrate
to FDA that a new infant formula meets
[[Page 8870]]
the quality factor of sufficient biological quality of protein when fed
as the sole source of nutrition. This draft guidance, when finalized,
would help manufacturers and laboratories performing PER studies in the
design, conduct, evaluation, and reporting of such studies. When
finalized, the draft guidance would provide recommendations for
additional recordkeeping and reporting of protocols and PER studies
related to the composition of test and control diets, as well as
conditions, adverse effects, and attrition in rats. The draft guidance,
when finalized, also will explain ``appropriate modifications'' of the
AOAC Method to help manufacturers and contract laboratories conduct PER
studies that demonstrate to FDA that a new infant formula meets the
quality factor of sufficient biological quality of protein.
Description of Respondents: Respondents to the information
collection are manufacturers of infant formula. Respondents are from
the private sector (for-profit businesses).
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:
Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of records Total annual
Activity; guidance document section recordkeepers per recordkeeper records Average burden per recordkeeping Total hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Records for composition of the test and 15 2 30 1................................ 30
control diets during PER studies;
Section IV.
Records for conditions, adverse effects, 15 140 2,100 0.083 (5 minutes)................ 174
and attrition in rats during PER
studies; Section IV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ................. ................. ................. ................................. 204
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
The estimates in tables 1 and 2 are based on experience with our
infant formula safety and nutrition programs. We estimate that fifteen
manufacturers annually will each create and maintain two records for
the composition of test and control diets of PER studies. We estimate
the recordkeeping burden to be 1 hour per record for an annual burden
of 30 hours (15 manufacturers x 2 records). These estimates are based
on numerous PER study protocols, reports, and laboratory experiences.
We estimate that fifteen manufacturers annually will each create
and maintain 140 records to account for conditions, adverse effects,
and attrition in rats during PER studies. We estimate these records
will take 5 minutes per record for an annual burden of 174.3 hours,
rounded to 174 (15 manufacturers x 140 records x 0.083/hours). We
calculate the total recordkeeping burden will be 204 hours annually.
Table 2--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Average
Activity; guidance document Number of responses per Total annual burden per Total hours
section respondents respondent responses response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development and submission of a 15 1 15 70 1,050
PER study protocol; Section V..
Development and submission of a 15 1 15 40 600
PER study final report; Section
V..............................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 1,650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
information.
We estimate that fifteen manufacturers will prepare and submit to
FDA a protocol to ensure that the specifications of the AOAC Method and
FDA's ``appropriate modifications'' are met. A protocol is a detailed
plan for the conduct of the PER study that helps the manufacturer meet
the requirements of Sec. 106.96. In Table 1 in Appendix 6 of the draft
guidance, we offer an illustration of how the values can be recorded as
part of a protocol. An interested manufacturer will call FDA to discuss
the manner in which a protocol will be submitted. We estimate each
protocol will take 70 hours for an annual burden of 1,050 hours (15
protocols x 70 hours).
In addition, we estimate that fifteen manufacturers will submit a
final report on all aspects of the PER study, including Certificates of
Analyses (i.e., a full specification of results) for relevant
ingredients to FDA. A final report is submitted in the same manner as a
protocol. We estimate each final report will take 40 hours for an
annual burden of 600 hours (15 final reports x 40 hours). We calculate
the total reporting burden will be 1,650 hours annually.
This draft guidance also refers to previously approved FDA
collections of information. The collections of information in 21 CFR
part 106 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0256.
III. Electronic Access
Persons with access to the internet may obtain an electronic
version of the draft guidance at <a href="https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.html">https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.html</a>, <a href="https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents">https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents</a>, or <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
IV. Other Issues for Consideration
Although FDA welcomes comments on any aspect of the draft guidance,
we particularly invite comments on the following sections, issues, and
questions related to the compositions of PER study test (infant
formula) and reference (casein control) diets. We ask that your
[[Page 8871]]
comments explain how suggestions will meet the overall requirement of
demonstrating that the quality factor has been met using an
``appropriate modification.'' When commenting on a particular question,
please use the question numbers below as this will make it easier for
us to determine how a specific comment relates to a particular question
or topic.
A. Questions for Section IV.B.1.c. Fats and Carbohydrates
1. Fats
Question 1. Companies have expressed difficulties in qualitative
matching of fat in test and reference diets (e.g., problems with
physical consistency of reference diets when qualitative matching is
attempted) and difficulties in quantitative matching because of the
much lower fat requirement of rats. We invite comments on whether the
fat compositions of the test and reference diets should be matched: (a)
on a quantitative basis only; or (b) on both a quantitative and
qualitative basis. Please explain your reasoning. If your answer is
(b), please describe what additional flexibilities might be needed to
reduce problems with formulation and palatability of the reference
diets (e.g., use of more saturated fat in place of the unsaturated
(liquid) fats in infant formulas; partial substitution of the
unsaturated fat in the infant formula with saturated fat in the
reference diet). Please describe your experience with use of fat
compositions in the reference diets that differ from that of the infant
formula.
Question 2. Would reducing the fat content of the reference diet to
about 80 percent that of the infant formula test diet (e.g., to about
17-20 percent fat in the reference diet versus about 22-25 percent fat
in the test diet) help to avoid issues (e.g., problems with physical
consistency of reference diets when qualitative matching is attempted)
reported with high-fat reference diets? If your answer is ``yes,''
please describe other compositional changes that might be needed to
keep the test and reference diets isocaloric. If your answer is ``no,''
please explain your reasoning.
Question 3. The need for vitamin E increases with an increase in
dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and with the degree of
unsaturation of PUFA. We are proposing the use of a minimum ratio value
for vitamin E:PUFA of 0.48 <plus-minus> 0.28 milligrams (mg) of d-
[alpha]-tocopherol to grams (g) of PUFAs in the PER study diets. We
suggest that the total PUFA content of the test and reference diets be
estimated from the Certificates of Analysis or other information and
used with dietary concentrations of vitamin E to calculate the ratio of
vitamin E:PUFA for both diets. The minimum ratio value of 0.48 can be
used as a guideline for adjusting the concentration of vitamin E in the
reference diet. Is this adjustment for using vitamin E needed? If you
think the adjustment for vitamin E is needed, please explain your
reasoning. If your answer is ``no,'' please explain why not. Is the
mean ratio of 0.48 mg d-[alpha]-tocopherol per gram of PUFA reasonable
or is there a more appropriate value? Please explain your reasoning.
2. Carbohydrates
Question 4. In explaining appropriate modifications to the AOAC
Method, the IFR states that, among other things, if an infant formula
contains a carbohydrate source other than lactose, the source(s) of
carbohydrate in the formula should be added in the reference diet as
well (see FDA's interim final rule, Current Good Manufacturing
Practices, Quality Control Procedures, Quality Factors, Notification
Requirements, and Records and Reports, for Infant Formula, 79 FR 7933
at 8024, Feb. 10, 2014)).
The simultaneous qualitative matching of fat and carbohydrate
composition has proven difficult during formulation of PER study
reference diets (e.g., problems from adding sugars such as sucrose;
hardening of mixture and compromised oil absorption when water is added
to liquid oils). Our current thinking is that use of the same oil blend
in the infant formula and reference diet may be one approach if there
is not a need to qualitatively match all the carbohydrates. We invite
comments on potential solutions to these difficulties. For example,
would altering the type of fat used in the reference diet while
retaining quantitative matching of the fat contents of the test and
reference diets be sufficient to overcome these problems? Would the use
of corn starch as a carbohydrate source in the reference diet allow the
reference diet to be formulated with the same oil blends used in the
infant formula? Please explain your reasoning.
B. Questions for Section IV.B.1.d. Removal of Water From Liquid Infant
Formulas and Determination of Moisture in PER Study Diets
Question 5. The AOAC Method specifies a moisture content of 5
percent in the PER study test and reference diets. Some laboratories
have had difficulty preparing diets to match fat and water contents,
leading to physical consistencies in diets that makes it difficult to
accurately record food consumption. We invite comments on specific
problems that have arisen when attempting to match dietary contents of
fat and water, as well as solutions that have been identified to help
limit the occurrence of such problems. Should flexibility be provided
in matching the water and fat contents of the diets? If your answer is
``yes,'' please describe an approach (i.e., explain the types of
flexibilities) that might be needed to reduce problems with the
physical consistencies of the reference diets. If your answer is
``no,'' please explain your reasoning.
C. Questions for Section IV.B.1.e. Mineral Content
Question 6. FDA's regulations require that the infant formula be
studied in a PER assay (Sec. 106.96(f)). Further, the AOAC Method
specifies that both the PER study test and reference diets contain
similar contents of minerals based on matched ash contents. We invite
comments on how this matching could be achieved while meeting the
requirement that the infant formula be tested. Is ash content alone an
adequate surrogate when matching minerals in test and reference diets?
If your answer is ``no,'' please described why not and discuss another
approach that might be used to achieve the matching of minerals in test
and reference diets.
Question 7. Multielement analysis (e.g., ICP-AES (inductively
coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy), ICP-MS (inductively
coupled plasma-mass spectrometry)) is currently used for the
simultaneous analysis of many minerals. We invite comments on whether
use of multielement analysis for the quantitation and subsequent
matching of all minerals would be preferable to continued use of ash as
a surrogate for mineral content. If your answer is ``yes,'' please
describe reasonable expectations regarding how such analyses can be
used.
Question 8. In Appendix 6 of the draft guidance, FDA has suggested
a process by which mineral compositions of the test and reference diets
can be matched to within <plus-minus>20 percent. We invite comments on
whether this is a reasonable approach. If your answer is ``no,'' please
explain your reasoning and suggest an alternate approach.
D. Questions for Section IV.B.1.f. Vitamin Content
Question 9. The AOAC Method specifies that both the PER study test
and reference diets contain the same vitamin composition. For the
purpose of studying infant formula, we understand this to mean that the
vitamin
[[Page 8872]]
composition of the test and reference diets in a PER study should be
comparable. We invite comments on how such comparability should be
defined and how it might be achieved.
Question 10. In Appendix 6 of the draft guidance, FDA has suggested
a process by which vitamin compositions of the test and reference diets
can be matched to within <plus-minus>20 percent. We invite comments on
whether this approach is reasonable and ask you to explain your
thinking. If you do not believe the approach is reasonable, please
explain your reasoning and suggest an alternative approach.
Question 11. We invite comments on whether the matching of the
vitamin compositions between the test and reference diets should be
eliminated because, for example, vitamins such as vitamin K and vitamin
B12, among others, do not impact the growth of rats during the 28-day
PER study. If your answer is ``yes, the matching of vitamin
compositions between test and reference diets should be eliminated,''
what do you propose as the vitamin composition for the reference diet?
Please explain your reasoning. If your answer is ``no,'' please explain
your reasoning.
E. Question for Section IV.B.1.g. Fiber
Question 12. We invite comment on whether fiber should be added to
the PER study test and matched casein reference diets under all
conditions, under specified conditions, or not added at all. If your
answer is ``yes, under all conditions,'' what is your proposed level of
addition (e.g., to match the concentrations of non-digestible fiber in
the infant formula at its rate of addition)? If your answer is ``yes,
under specified conditions,'' what are the specific conditions under
which fiber should be added and at what concentration? If your answer
is ``no, fiber should not be added,'' please explain your reasoning.
F. Question for Section IV.B.1.h. Sulfur Amino Acids (Methionine,
Cystine)
Question 13. In the draft guidance, we recommend that the
concentration of inorganic sulfur (e.g., as sulfate salts) in the PER
study casein reference control diet be adjusted to 0.964 g/kilograms
diet, the content calculated from the mineral composition set forth in
the AOAC Method as originally described. We also provide a procedure
for matching the (methionine + cystine) concentrations in the casein
reference control and test diets, and for use of this sulfur amino
acid-matched group as a second casein reference control group in PER
studies. This approach will reduce the risk of a failure of the PER
study control group. If you think the approach is needed, please
explain your reasoning. If you think that such an approach is not
necessary, please explain why not. If you think that other approaches
might be more helpful in reducing the risk of a failure of the
reference control group, please describe such approaches and explain
their advantages.
Dated: February 6, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-02836 Filed 2-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 10, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.