<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>02388nam a22001817a 4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="003">DOH</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20210430110531.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">210430b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="0" ind2="0">
    <subfield code="a">Vitamin C labelling of selected commercially processed and packaged juice drinks /</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">A.V. Lontoc [and three others]</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">The vitamin C labelling in selected local juice drinks was evaluated by comparison of samples collected in 1983 and 1989; validity of label claims; product differences; and contributions to the RDA of 10-12 years old children. In 1983, 19 out of 27 products (70%) analyzed for vitamin C content, claimed vitamin C in their labels, either qualitatively (added/enriched/fortified) or quantitatively (9-60 mg/100 g). Actual assays showed contents ranging from less than 0.5 mg/100 g (or traces) to 58 mg/100 g. In 1989, 12 out of 15 products (80%) likewise made vitamin C claims with actual assays revealing levels from traces to 53 mg/100 g. Interestingly, the product with the highest values in both 1983 and 1989; which was packed in plastic bottle, did not bear any vitamin C claim. A comparison of the 1983 and 1989 figures, using 8 products existing in 1983 which were perceived to be popular in 1989, showed that the 1983 vitamin C analyses did not differ significantly from their 1989 assays. The 1989 label claims were validated in 3 tetra brik-packed and 1 foil laminate-packed juice drinks, out of 6 products bearing quantified claims. In contrast, the label claims of the 2 other products, all foil laminate-packed, were found to be 70-99% overstated based on actual assays, indicating either deliberate mislabelling or vitamin C loss related to packaging and storage. These mislabelled products were already existing in 1983, suggesting a lack of attempts at vitamin C monitoring and improvement during the intervening 6 years. The increasing use of vitamin C labelling in juice drinks to gain competitive advantage and the apparent unregulated mislabelling in these products call for, not only a product vitamin C assurance program among juice drinks producers but also a surveillance system by government and consumers alike. (Author)</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="580" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">
J Nutr-Diet Assoc Philipp, 1989 3 ( 4) pages  135-141</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="2">
    <subfield code="a">Product Labeling</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Lontoc, A.V.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Reyes, G.D.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Matibag, P.M.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Aguinaldo, A.R.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">JA</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">4335</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">4335</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">nlm</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">DOHCL</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">DOHCL</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">ElectronicRes</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2021-04-30</subfield>
    <subfield code="l">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">J000586</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">D0001J000586</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2021-04-30 00:00:00</subfield>
    <subfield code="w">2021-04-30</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">JA</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
