The implications for preparing a sample for residue analysis are influenced by the composition
of the muscle and fat test samples. In USDA procedures, adipose fat samples are placed in a
vessel
over a bed of anhydrous sodium sulfate that allows liquid fat to drain from the sample as it is
processed. Typically, processing involves placing the test sample in a convection oven set at
80
o
C overnight. The residue analysis is performed from an aliquot of the rendered liquid fat
sample. Pesticide residues are reported on a fat basis. For a muscle tissue or “low fat” sample
consisting of less than approximately 10% fat, solvent extraction is used and the fat is
determined by gravimetric methods. However, solvent composition may, to a limited extent,
influence the extracted “fat” (in quotes because the solvent choice can influence whether or not
phospholipids, for example, are extracted as fat or equivalents of free fatty acids). This typically,
however, makes a small (<5%) difference in the yield of fat. This also indicates that extraction
of low fat meat samples is more labor intensive and an additional processing step that must be
carried out prior to performing the residue analysis. A realistic consequence is that fewer
analyses are possible given a fixed number of available analysts and other resources. This
provides some of the rationale on sample instructions to an inspector in an abattoir.
If one were to address the issue from a consumption of some fixed quantity of residue, then the
discussion that follows should be considered.
To address the composition of muscle tissue, data from the USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 8
was searched. The search examined species commonly addressed by the Committee and was
sorted as” lean muscle” and “muscle and fat” for a variety of different meat portions. (The data
were available for review at the 50
th
JECFA). What it shows, is that the average fat (lipid
content) in lean muscle (equated to interstitial fat) for horse is 4.60%; for lamb, 5.16%; chicken,
2.91%; pig, 6.07%; and for cattle, 6.08%. The grand average for all species is 4.97%. Thus,
there is not a big difference in the fat content of lean muscle across animal species (poultry may
be an exception). For the arguments below, I have used a value of 6.0% for interstitial fat in
muscle tissue. Though not provided, the average fat content used for milk is approximately 4 %.
For fat (lipid) composition in kidney and liver, data from the USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 8
indicates the following composition. For kidney, values for cattle, pigs and poultry are 3.1%,
3.3% and 4.2% (poultry giblets – kidney is not listed separately), respectively. For liver, values
for cattle, pigs and poultry are 3.9%, 3.7% and 4.0%, respectively.
If JECFA, JMPR or Codex in general, were to apply a constant value (as Φg or mg of residue,
for example) for all tissues, one can calculate a default ratio between MRL’s in muscle and milk
compared to the MRL in adipose tissue. Using the JECFA daily food intake for residues of
veterinary drugs in food, the ratios reported below take into account the food composition
factors, 300g muscle, 50g fat, and 1500ml milk. For fat/muscle the ratio is, 2.78; for fat/milk,
0.83; and for muscle/milk, 0.30. One can do the same calculations by food animal species.
Poultry would give noticeably different values. I do not support taking this approach. You may
draw your own conclusions – pro or con.
As the issue seems to be one more of addressing compliance by national authorities, then a
different approach ought to be considered. Though it is not an easy one, a refinement of the