대한지역사회영양학회지 (Korean Journal of Community Nutrition)

대한지역사회영양학회 (The Korean Society of Community Nutrition)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

영양표시타입이 가정간편식 건강성 평가와 구매의도에 미치는 영향

Effect of Type of Nutrition Labeling on the Healthfulness Evaluation and Purchase Intentions of Home Meal Replacements (HMR) in South Korea

  • 투고 : 2022.09.23
  • 심사 : 2022.10.26
  • 발행 : 2022.10.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the types of nutrition labeling on the processing fluency, health evaluation and purchase intentions of home meal replacements. Methods: This online experimental study was conducted from December 29 to 31, 2019 and included 134 participants. The research design was 2 (Objective nutrition labeling: present vs. absent) × 2 (Evaluative nutrition labeling: present vs. absent) and each participant was randomly assigned to one of four groups. As stimuli, five types of ready-to-heat foods sold in the market were used. Results: Processing fluency (4.91 points) and purchase intention (4.13 points) were significantly high when both evaluative nutrition labeling and objective nutrition labeling were presented, and healthfulness evaluation (4.47 points) was significantly high when only evaluative nutrition labeling was presented. All three variables were measured to be high when evaluative nutrition labeling was presented. The evaluative nutrition labeling that visually represented nutritional values was found to be more effective for processing fluency, healthfulness evaluation, and purchase intention than the objective nutrition labeling representing the nutritional value of the product in numbers and proportions. Conclusions: These results show that it is necessary to develop various types of evaluative nutrition labeling to enable consumers to choose and purchase healthful home meal replacements. Also, consumer education and public campaigns are needed to encourage consumers to select healthier home-cooked meals using nutrition labeling.

키워드

과제정보

This research was supported by a grant from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A5B5A01025126).

참고문헌

  1. Nestle M. What to Eat. 1st ed. New York: North Point Press; 2016. p. 10.
  2. Park JO. Analysis of comparisons of eating-out, dietary lifestyles, and healthy dietary competencies among middle-aged consumers according to obesity status and gender for implications of consumer education. J Nutr Health 2018; 51(1): 60-72. https://doi.org/10.4163/jnh.2018.51.1.60
  3. Kim D, Ahn BI. Eating out and consumers' health: Evidence on obesity and balanced nutrition intakes. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17(2): 586. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020586
  4. Kim DM, Kim KH. The changes in obesity prevalence and dietary habits in Korean adults by residential area during the last 10 years: Based on the 4th (2007-2009) and the 7th (2016-2018) Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data. Korean J Community Nutr 2021; 26(1): 37-47. https://doi.org/10.5720/kjcn.2021.26.1.37
  5. Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. 2020 National Health Statistics [internet]. Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency; 2022 [cited 2022 Sep 23]. Available from: https://www.data.go.kr/data/3043716/fileData.do.
  6. Brown HM, Rollo ME, de Vlieger NM, Collins CE, Bucher T. Influence of the nutrition and health information presented on food labels on portion size consumed: A systematic review. Nutr Rev 2018; 76(9): 655-677. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuy019
  7. Roberts SB, Das SK, Suen VM, Pihlajamaki J, Kuriyan R, Steiner-Asiedu M et al. Measured energy content of frequently purchased restaurant meals: Multi-country cross sectional study. BMJ 2018; 363.
  8. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Standards and specifications for food, partial amendment notice (Notification No. 2021-114). Cheongju: Ministry of Food and Drug Safety; 2021.
  9. Korea Agro-Fisheries & Food Trade Corporation. Processed food detailed market status (home meal replacement). Naju: Korea AgroFisheries & Food Trade Corporation; 2022. p. 5.
  10. Maeil Business News Korea. Even if the restaurant disappears, the convenience food remains...Double-digit growth to '5 trillion market' [internet]. Maeil Business News Korea; 2022 [cited 2022 Sep 23]. Available from: https://www.mk.co.kr/news/business/view/2022/03/192754/.
  11. US FDA. Guidance for Industry: Food Labeling Guide [internet]. US FDA; 2013 [cited 2022 Sep 23]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-food-labeling-guide.
  12. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Children's health guard traffic light sign leaflet [internet]. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety; 2011 [cited 2022 Oct 23]. Available from: https://impfood.mfds.go.kr/CFBCC02F02/getCntntsDetail?cntntsSn=278197&cntntsMngId=00005.
  13. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Compulsory labeling of sodium content comparison on packaging such as hamburgers [internet]. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety; 2011 [cited 2022 Oct 23]. Available from: https://impfood.mfds.go.kr/CFBBB02F02/getCntntsDetail?cntntsSn=282378.
  14. Newman CL, Howlett E, Burton S. Effects of objective and evaluative front-of-package cues on food evaluation and choice: The moderating influence of comparative and noncomparative processing contexts. J Consum Res 2016; 42(5): 749-766. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv050
  15. Berning JP, Chouinard HH, McCluskey JJ. Consumer preferences for detailed versus summary formats of nutrition information on grocery store shelf labels. J Agric Food Ind Organ 2008; 6(1): 1-22.
  16. Schwarz N. Meta-cognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. J Consum Psychol 2004; 14(4): 332-348. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2
  17. Lee AY, Aaker JL. Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 2004; 86(2): 205-211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.205
  18. Lee JS. Awareness, satisfaction, and usage patterns of female -consumers for food-nutrition labeling in Busan. J Korean Diet Assoc 2018; 24(4): 312-329.
  19. Lee DB, Kim MH, Choi MK. Recognition of nutritional labeling and intake status of processed foods and snacks among high school students in Incheon. J Korean Diet Assoc 2021; 27(1): 15-25.
  20. Kang SH, Choi MK. Use of nutrition labeling according to gender and the obesity degree of high school students in Chungnam. J Korean Diet Assoc 2021; 27(3): 149-161.
  21. Bae YJ, Park SY, Bak HR. Evaluation of dietary quality and nutritional status according to the use of nutrition labeling and nutrition claims among university students in Chungbuk area: Based on Nutrition Quotient. Korean J Community Nutr 2020; 25(3): 179-188. https://doi.org/10.5720/kjcn.2020.25.3.179
  22. Yun SH, Choi MK. Assessment of nutrient contents using food and nutrition labeling of meal kit sold in Korea. J East Asian Soc Diet Life 2022; 32(2): 103-112. https://doi.org/10.17495/easdl.2022.4.32.2.103
  23. Liu PJ, Roberto CA, Liu LJ, Brownell KD. A test of different menu labeling presentations. Appetite 2012; 59(3): 770-777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.08.011
  24. Kim E, Tang LR, Meusel C, Gupta M. Optimization of menu-labeling formats to drive healthy dining: An eye tracking study. Int J Hosp Manag 2018; 70: 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.10.020
  25. Morley B, Scully M, Martin J, Niven P, Dixon H, Wakefield M. What types of nutrition menu labelling lead consumers to select less energy-dense fast food? An experimental study. Appetite 2013; 67: 8-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.03.003
  26. Yepes MF. (2015). Mobile tablet menus: Attractiveness and impact of nutrition labeling formats on millennials' food choices. Cornell Hosp Q 2015; 56(1): 58-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965514546371
  27. van Horen F, Pieters R. When high-similarity copycats lose and moderate-similarity copycats gain: The impact of comparative evaluation. J Mark Res 2012; 49(1): 83-91. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.08.0405
  28. Fang X, Singh S, Ahluwalia R. An examination of different explanations for the mere exposure effect. J Consum Res 2007; 34(1): 97-103. https://doi.org/10.1086/513050
  29. Kozup JC, Creyer EH, Burton S. Making healthful food choices: The influence of health claims and nutrition information on consumers' evaluations of packaged food products and restaurant menu items. J Mark 2003; 67(2): 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.2.19.18608
  30. Burton S, Tangari AH, Howlett E, Turri AM. How the perceived healthfulness of restaurant menu items influences sodium and calorie misperceptions: Implications for nutrition disclosures in chain restaurants. J Consum Aff 2014; 48(1): 62-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12015
  31. Lee SH, Lee SL. The effect of the use of nutrition labeling on dietary attitudes, dietary habits, nutrition knowledge and application of nutrition information to daily life among housewives in Gyeonggi-provincial area. Korean J Hum Ecol 2014; 23(3): 453-465. https://doi.org/10.5934/kjhe.2014.23.3.453
  32. Kim JM, Lee MH, Lee NH. Perception on nutrition labeling of the processed food among elementary school students and parents in Daegu area. Korean J Food Nutr 2014; 27(6): 1107-1118. https://doi.org/10.9799/ksfan.2014.27.6.1107
  33. Bae YJ, Yeon JY. Dietary behaviors, processed food preferences and awareness levels of nutrition labels among female university students living in middle region by breakfast eating. J Korean Diet Assoc 2011; 17(4): 387-402.
  34. Kim MH, Kim H, Lee WK, Kim SJ, Yeon JY. Food habits and dietary behavior related to using processed food among male college students residing in dormitory and self-boarding in Gangwon. Korean J Community Nutr 2013; 18(4): 372-385. https://doi.org/10.5720/kjcn.2013.18.4.372
  35. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Report of consumer perception about nutrition label. Cheongju: Ministry of Food and Drug Safety; 2016. p. 18-19.
  36. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2021 Consumer Attitude Survey on Processed Food [internet]. Statistics Korea; 2021 [cited 2022 Sep 23]. Available from: https://kostat.go.kr/portal/korea/kor_pi/8/6/1/index.board?bmode=read&aSeq=387203&pageNo=8&rowNum=10&amSeq=&sTarget=&sTxt=.
  37. Korea Broadcast Advertising Corporation. 2019 Media & Consumer Research [internet]. Korea Broadcast Advertising Corporation; 2019 [cited 2022 Sep 23]. Available from: https://adstat.kobaco.co.kr/mcr/portal/dataSet/fileInfoPage.do?orderState=regDt&pageSize=10&pageIndex=1&searchText=&datasetId=DS_MST_0000000442#.
  38. Maeil Business News Korea. Buy and eat home-cooked food...The era of three meals a day [internet]. Maeil Business News Korea; 2022 [cited 2022 Sep 23]. Available from: https://www.mk.co.kr/news/culture/view/2022/03/200581/.
  39. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Processed food nutrition label [internet]. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety; 2020 [cited 2022 Sep 23]. Available from: https://www.foodsafetykorea.go.kr/portal/board/boardDetail.do
  40. Korea Rural Economic Institute. Europe's HMR (Home Meal Replacement) Industry Status I [internet]. 2018 [updated 2019 Jul 11; cited 2022 Sep 23]. Available from: https://www.atfis.or.kr/home/board/FB0003.do?act=read&bpoId=3241&bcaId=0&pageIndex=2.
  41. Walmart. Walmart's Great for You Icon [internet]. Walmart; 2018 [cited 2022 Sep 23]. Available from: https://corporate.walmart.com/globalresponsibility/hunger-nutrition/great-for-you.
  42. Unilever. Smart Choices Program [internet]. Foodnavigator; 2009 [cited 2022 Sep 23]. Available from: https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2009/10/27/Unilever-pulls-out-of-Smart-Choices-Program#.
  43. PepsiCo. Good for You [internet]. PepsiCo; 2018 [cited 2022 Sep 23]. Available from: http://www.pepsico.com/Brands/BrandExplorer#goodfor-you.
  44. Asia Economic. A convenience food that diversifies... Segmentation acceleration beyond convenience [internet]. Asia Economic; 2022 [cited 2022 Sep 23]. Available from: https://www.asiae.co.kr/article/2022052013281063350.
  45. Jeong JY, Kim E, Yang IS, Ham S. Motivators and barriers to provision of nutritional information in restaurants. Korean J Hosp Tour 2015; 24(1): 227-243.