Nutr Res Pract.  2016 Apr;10(2):237-244. 10.4162/nrp.2016.10.2.237.

Analysis of food irradiation education for elementary, middle, and high school students for three years in South Korea

• Choi Y
• Kim J
• Han E

• KMID: 2313923
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4162/nrp.2016.10.2.237

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES
The current South Korean government policy on food irradiation technology should be reformed based on an in-depth investigation of the communications aspect, because the issue is no longer of a technological nature, given the proven safety and efficacy of the processes.
SUBJECTS/METHODS
The target population of the education program consisted of elementary, middle, and high school students attending 310 schools in South Korea (2013: 63 schools, 2014: 104 schools, 2015: 143 schools). Data subjected to analysis were 13,327 pre-education and 12,641 post-education questionnaires received from 7,582 elementary, 2,671 middle, and 3,249 high school students who participated in the education program from May 2012 to April 2015 (n = 12,831), after the exclusion of inadequately filled-in questionnaires.
RESULTS
Analysis of the three-year educational effect trend was conducted by comparing levels of variables before and after food radiation education. The analysis yielded the finding that the post-education levels were significantly higher for all variables. That is, for interest in education, perception (necessity, safety, subjective knowledge, and information acquisition), objective knowledge, and attitude, with the sole exception of objective knowledge in 2013.
CONCLUSIONS
Given that post-education levels of perception, knowledge, and attitude concerning irradiated foods increased considerably compared to pre-education levels, behavior change should be induced by providing continuous education to enhance, these primary variables.

Keyword

Irradiated food; radiation; trend analysis; perception

MeSH Terms

Education*
Food Irradiation*
Health Services Needs and Demand
Humans
Korea*

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Research procedure and education program elements

• 

  Fig. 2 Composition of the questionnaire

Reference

1. Health Canada, Health Products and Food Branch. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Recommended Canadian Code of Practice for Food Irradiation. Ottawa: Canadian Food Inspection Agency;2002. 11. 19.

2. Korea Food and Drug Administration. Guidebook on Food Labeling Standards. 1st ed. Cheongju: Korea Food and Drug Administration;2010.

3. Korea Food and Drug Administration. Guidebook on Food Labeling Standards. 2nd ed. Cheongju: Korea Food and Drug Administration;2012.

4. Lee JW. Application and prospect of food irradiation for providing the safe food materials. Food Ind Nutr. 2006; 11:12–20.

5. Nam HS, Kim KE, Yang JS, Ly SY. Effect of food irradiation education on food majoring college students' knowledge and acceptance of irradiated food. Korean J Diet Cult. 2000; 15:279–285.

6. Yoon Y, Byun MW, Kim WJ, Kwon JH, Lee JW. Current status of food irradiation technology on quarantine of agricultural commodities. Food Sci Ind. 2009; 42:19–26.

7. Han EO, Choi YS. Relation of self-efficacy and cognition of irradiated food among high school students. J Radiat Prot. 2013; 38:106–118.

8. Kim MR. Study on the Management Trend of Domestic and Foreign Countries toward Food Irradiation. Cheongju: Korea Food and Drug Administration;2004.

9. Kim H, Kim M. Consumer attitudes towards irradiated foods. J Korean Home Econ Assoc. 2003; 41:119–130.

10. Malone JW Jr. Consumer willingness to purchase and to pay more for potential benefits of irradiated fresh food products. Agribusiness. 1990; 6:163–178.

11. Foster A. The impact of consumer acceptance on trade in irradiated foods. Br Food J. 1990; 92:28–34.

12. Choi MH, Youn SJ, Ahn YS, Seo KJ, Park KH, Kim GH. A survey on the consumer's recognition of food labeling in Seoul area. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 2010; 39:1555–1564.

13. Lee JS. The effect of media modality and the valence of the risk messages on affective risk perception and behavioral intention. Korean J Cogn Sci. 2012; 23:457–485.

14. Lee JE, Lee CH. The effects of consumer compaign to boycott certain food produce on national economy and food security. Food Sci Ind. 2011; 44:43–49.

15. Seo HJ. Fukushima nuclear accident and negative perceptions. J Gov Stud. 2013; 19:321–361.

16. Han E, Kim J, Choi Y. Using education on irradiated foods to change behavior of Korean elementary, middle, and high school students. Nutr Res Pract. 2014; 8:595–601.

17. Park JW. The status and role of the precautionary principle in international environmental law. Hanyang Law Rev. 2007; 24:405–427.

18. Tomas G, Durant J. Why should we promote the public understanding of science?. In : Shortland M, editor. Scientific Literacy Papers. Oxford: Rewley House;1987. p. 1–14.

19. Lee TJ, Ki BJ, Kim IS. A national survey of the policy customers' perceptions and beliefs of nuclear energy issues and agenda. Korean J Advert. 2015; 26:299–323.

20. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991; 50:179–211.

21. Van der Linden S. Towards a new model for communicating climate change. In : Cohen SA, Higham JE, Peeters P, Gössling S, editors. Understanding and Governing Sustainable Tourism Mobility: Psychological and Behavioural Approaches. New York (NY): Routledge;2014. p. 243–275.

22. Han EO, Kim JR, Choi YS. Different perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes of elementary, middle, and high school students regarding irradiated food, nuclear power generation, and medical Radiation. J Radiat Prot. 2014; 39:118–126.

23. Oh MY, Choi JM, Kim HS. Stigma effect of technology with risk: the impact of stigma on nuclear power on the perception and acceptance of products based on radiation technology. Korean J Journal Commun Stud. 2008; 52:467–500.

24. Cho SK, Oh SK. A theoretical approach to derive perception indicators influencing the acceptability on nuclear energy facilities & policies. J Energy Eng. 2002; 11:332–341.

25. Weinstein N. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980; 19:30–53.

26. Lee JS. The effect of media modality and the valence of risk messages on affective risk perception and behavioral intention. Korean J Cogn Sci. 2012; 23:457–485.

27. Krimsky S. The role of theory in risk studies. In : Krimsky S, Golding D, editors. Social Theories of Risk. New York (NY): Praeger;1992. p. 3–22.

28. Honkanen P, Verplanken B. Understanding attitudes towards genetically modified food: The role of values and attitude strength. J Consum Policy. 2004; 27:401–420.

29. Flynn J, Perter E, Mertz CK, Slovic P. Risk, media, and stigma at rocky flats. In : Flynn J, Slovic P, Kunreuther H, editors. Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. London: Earthscan Publication Ltd;2001. p. 309–327.

30. Bruhn CM, Schutz HG, Sommer R. Attitude change toward food irradiation among conventional and alternative consumers. Food Technol. 1986; 40:86–91.

31. Fox JA, Hayes DJ, Shogren JF. Consumer preferences for food irradiation: how favorable and unfavorable descriptions affect preferences for irradiated pork in experimental auctions. J Risk Uncertain. 2002; 24:75–95.

32. Rodriguez L. The impact of risk communication on the acceptance of irradiated food. Sci Commun. 2007; 28:476–500.

33. Epstein S. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol. 1994; 49:709–724.