• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Organic Agriculture Conference
• /
• 2009.12a
• /
• pp.275-276
• /
• 2009

민간단체들에 의하여 자율적으로 시작된 국내 유기농업은 친환경농업육성법(1997. 12.13)이 제정되면서 국가기관의 친환경농업 활성화 노력과 더불어 2008년 유기농재배 농가(8,460호)와 면적(12,033호)이 급격히 증가되었다. 또한 유기농업의 확산과 더불어 화학비료 및 유기합성 농약대체 친환경농자재들의 유통이 증가되고 있으나 관리규정이 없어 검증되지 않은 다양한 농자재들이 유통되어 친환경실천 농가들의 혼란이 초래되어 국정감사 시 문제점으로 지적과 함께 각계에서 관리제도의 필요성이 대두되었다. 친환경농업육성법 시행령 개정(대통령령 제19964호, 2007.3.27.공포, 2007.3.28.시행)으로 농촌진흥청에 친환경농자재심의회가 설치되어 효과와 효능을 검증하지 아니하고 친환경농산물 중 유기농산물 생을 해 사용가능한 자재인지 여부를 검토하여 그 결과를 공개하는 목록공시제가 마련되었다. 친환경유기농자재 목록공시는 1년에 4회 매분기말에 농촌진흥청 농자재관리과에서 접수를 받아 친환경농자재 분야별 전문위원회 검토 후 심의위원회 심의를 거쳐 접수일로부터 90일 이내에 농촌진흥청장이 공시(농진청 홈페이지, 관보게재)하고 친환경농업 관련기관 및 검토 신청자에게 통보함으로서 마무리된다. 목록 공시된 친환경유기농자재의 유효기간은 2년이다. 친환경농자재심의위원회는 토양개량 및 작물생육분야 전문위원회 위원 11명, 병 해충 관리분야 전문위원회 위원 11명 및 심의위원회 의원 20명으로 구성되어 있다. 2007년 3월부터 2009년 11월 30일 현재 목록 공시된 친환경유기농자재 제품은 (1) 양개량용 자재 25 개, (2) 작물생육용 자재 282개, (3) 토양개량 및 작물생육용 자재 308개, (4) 작물병해 관리용 자재 110개, (5) 작물충해 관리용 자재 : 224개, (6) 작물병해충 관리용 자재 5개 및 (7) 기타 자재 1개 제품으로 총 955개 제품에 이르고 있다. 한편, 공시연장 미신청, 현재 검토기준안에 필요로 하는 추가요청 자료 미제출 및 공시이외의 물질 사용으로 국내유통 중 단속되어 부적합한 판정을 받아 20여 제품이 목록공시가 취소되었다. 앞으로 목록 공시되는 친환경유기농자재는 제품의 주성분 함량 표기, 시용효과 검정방법 선, 제조방법 현장점검, 안전성 검정 등 여러가지 제도보완 및 사후관리 방안이 시급히 마련되어야 할 것으로 사려된다.

• Journal of Nutrition and Health
• /
• v.49 no.5
• /
• pp.367-377
• /
• 2016

Purpose: This study analyzed the degree of job stress and caffeine intake in workers in industrial positions in order to determine the relationships between job stress and caffeine intake. Methods: For this purpose, this study conducted a survey targeting 361 blue collar workers working for K manufacturing company, Gwangju. Results: The total score for job stress in subjects was $72.7{\pm}6.8points$/100points. According to job stress, subjects were categorized as follows: Q1 for the group who had the least stress; Q2 for the group who had little stress; Q3 for the group who had a lot of stress, and Q4 for the group who had the most stress. As for the effects of caffeine on health, 57.1% thought that caffeine is helpful and not harmful if taken properly while 17.3% responded that less caffeine consumption is better. Daily intake of caffeine according to stress was presented as: $172.0{\pm}85.3mg$ in Q1, $179.0{\pm}83.7mg$ in Q2, $187.9{\pm}81.4mg$ in Q3, and $214.2{\pm}147.3mg$ in Q4 (p < 0.05). The percentages of caffeine consumption compared to the daily safe limit in subjects were: $43.0{\pm}21.3$, $44.8{\pm}20.9$, $47.1{\pm}20.4$, and $53.6{\pm}36.8%$ in Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4, respectively (p < 0.05). Adverse effects such as nausea or vomiting from caffeine were most common in Q4 (p < 0.05). Conclusion: As a result, higher stress in blue collar workers working for K manufacturing company was associated with more caffeine consumption. Groups with a lot of stress (Q4) consumed approximately 50% of daily safe limit of caffeine. Considering the results above, this study suggests that further research on more precise caffeine intake and its effects is needed.

• Journal of Nutrition and Health
• /
• v.49 no.6
• /
• pp.495-505
• /
• 2016

Purpose: This study was conducted to investigate and analyze the association between stress from shift and non-shift work as well as the effects living habits have on eating habits in order to identify why and how workers can improve their health and form proper eating habits for higher working efficiency. Methods: The subjects of this study were 361 workers from K manufacturing company from April 7 to 11, 2014 and they were surveyed using a questionnaire. The subjects were divided into two groups according to working pattern: shift workers (n = 216) and non-shift workers (n = 110). Results: In the general characteristics, there were significant differences in age, work career, work time, marriage, monthly income, and education levels between the two groups. For healthy behaviors, significant differences in subjective health status, moderate physical activity, drinking, smoking, and sleep time were observed between shift workers and non-shift workers. For eating habits, scores of non-shift workers having a regular mealtime, balanced meal composition, and vegetable and seaweed intakes were significantly higher than those of shift workers. The sum score of dietary habits in non-shift workers was also significantly lower than that in shift workers (p < 0.05). Total job stress score did not significantly differ between the two groups. Conclusion: The sum of eating habit scores according to work types was $16.1{\pm}0.6$ in non-shift workers and $14.0{\pm}0.3$ in shift workers. These results suggest that it is necessary to provide food suitable to characteristics of different workers according to work type which should be provided along with daily nutrition counseling to help subjects recognize their status.