PubMed · 9847910
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A S Reece. 1998-11-02. Alcohol licensing data.. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1998.tb123389.x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Premix alcohol products (also known as ready-to-drink beverages) are a rapidly expanding alcohol category and frequently marketed using 'better for you' claims (e.g., 'Low sugar', 'Natural'). Little is known about the extent to which these products are ultra-processed or whether marketing claims align with ultra-processed status. This study aimed to address this evidence gap by auditing ingredient disclosure on premix products, assessing the ultra-processed status of these products, and determining the prevalence of 'better for you' claims with a particular focus on claims relating to ultra-processed status. METHODS: 534 premix alcohol products sold in major Australian retail outlets were assessed. Products were evaluated for compliance with mandatory ingredient disclosure, classified according to ultra-processed status based on the presence of indicators of ultra-processing (additives and other industrial ingredients), and analysed to determine the prevalence and types of 'better for you' marketing claims. RESULTS: Only 79% of assessed products displayed an ingredients list. Among compliant products, 98% contained at least one additive or ingredient indicative of ultra-processing, most commonly flavours, carbonating agents, colours, and sweeteners. One-third (33%) of products containing an ultra-processing indicator displayed a claim suggesting naturalness or minimal processing. Substantially higher proportions of ultra-processed products than non-ultra-processed products carried health-related claims. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Premix beverages available in Australia are overwhelmingly ultra-processed, yet many are marketed in ways that may mislead consumers about their composition and healthfulness. Stronger regulatory oversight of ingredient disclosure and marketing claims in this sector is urgently needed to support informed consumer decision-making.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Two extraction procedures, i.e. conventional liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) and liquid solid-phase microextraction (SPME) for extraction of the oximes formed after derivatization of carbonyl compounds with o-(2,3,4,5,6-pentafluorobenzyl) hydroxylamine (PFBHA) in alcoholic solutions have been compared. The limit of detection for LLE followed by GC-ECD determination of C1-C6 was in the range of 0.23-3.3 microg/L, whereas for liquid SPME 0.005-0.33 microg/L. Both methods elaborated can be applied to the determination of carbonyl compounds present in spirits and alcoholic beverages.