Commission Regulation (EC) No 273/2008 of 5 March 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards methods for the analysis and quality evaluation of milk and milk products (repealed)
When the UK left the EU, legislation.gov.uk published EU legislation that had been published by the EU up to IP completion day (31 December 2020 11.00 p.m.). On legislation.gov.uk, these items of legislation are kept up-to-date with any amendments made by the UK since then.
This is the original version as it was originally adopted in the EU.
This legislation may since have been updated - see the latest available (revised) version
The following procedures are applicable if scoring methods are used (IDF Standard 99C:1997).
At least ten samples will be analysed as blind duplicates by an assessor within a period of 12 months. This will usually happen in several sessions. The results for individual product characteristics are evaluated using the following formula:
where:
:
repeatability index
:
score for the first evaluation of sample xi
:
score for the second evaluation of sample xi
:
number of samples
The samples to be evaluated should reflect a broad quality range. wI should not exceed 1,5 (5-point scales).
This index should be used to check whether an assessor uses the same scale for quality evaluation as an experienced group of assessors. The scores obtained by the assessor are compared with the average of the scores obtained by the assessor group.
The following formula is used for the evaluation of results:
where:
:
see section (A)
:
average score of the assessor group for the first and second evaluation respectively of sample xi
:
number of samples (at least 10 per 12 months).
The samples to be evaluated should reflect a broad quality range. DI should not exceed 1,5 (5-point scales).
Member States must notify any difficulties encountered when applying this procedure.
Where individual assessors are found to exceed the 1,5 limit for Deviation or Repeatability indices, the Official authority expert/s must perform one or more random ‘Re-performance’ checks on samples graded by them over the next few weeks, or perform one or more ‘Accompanied’ checks with those assessors. Close monitoring is necessary to decide whether to retain their services. Findings should be documented and retained as proof of follow up action.
Where applicable, a test must be organised at least once per year to compare the results obtained by assessors from different regions. If significant differences are observed, the necessary steps should be taken to identify the reasons and arrive at comparable results.
Member States may organise tests to compare the results obtained by their own assessors and by assessors from neighbouring Member States. Significant differences should lead to an in-depth investigation with the aim of arriving at comparable results.
Member States should notify the Commission of the results of these comparisons.
All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. This site additionally contains content derived from EUR-Lex, reused under the terms of the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU on the reuse of documents from the EU institutions. For more information see the EUR-Lex public statement on re-use.
