An Update on the Vitamin D Content of Fortified Milk from the United States and Canada

Abstract

We reported previously (April 30, 1992, issue)¹ that 71 percent of 42 milk samples purchased in five Eastern states in 1991 did not contain 80 to 120 percent of the amount of vitamin D claimed on the label. These results confirmed an earlier study by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)². As a result of these observations, there has been increased awareness of the need to monitor the fortification of milk with vitamin D more carefully. Between May 1992 and June 1993, we therefore purchased 94 milk samples in seven Eastern states, including the same five states in which we purchased samples in 1991, and also in Illinois, Louisiana, Utah, and British Columbia, Canada. The vitamin D concentrations of the samples were analyzed as previously described¹. In the United States, 80 percent of the samples contained either 20 percent less or 20 percent more than the label claimed ( Table 1 ); 14 percent had undetectable amounts of vitamin D. One sample of chocolate milk from Louisiana and one sample of whole milk from Utah contained 914 percent and 382 percent, respectively, of the amount of vitamin D stated on the label. The results in milk samples purchased in British Columbia were similar; 73 percent did not contain 80 to 120 percent of the amount of vitamin D claimed. One sample of 2 percent milk had no detectable vitamin D, and one sample of whole milk contained 363 percent of the amount stated on the label. The overall distribution of vitamin D concentrations reported here is similar to those reported by the FDA in 1988² and by our laboratory in 1992¹. In addition, our results were confirmed in a recently published report showing a large variation in vitamin D content in commercially available milk samples³. Our survey indicates that there has been no improvement in the fortification process of milk.