RESUMO
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES@#The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of application of the draft nutritional standards for school lunches in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) from the supplier perspective. @*SUBJECTS/METHODS@#In November 2018, a pilot operation was conducted at 104 participating schools for 2 weeks each by applying the draft standards A and B. To evaluate the ease and appropriateness of application of the standards, we analyzed the nutritional values and food cost of the school lunches for 2 weeks before and for 4 weeks under the pilot operation. We conducted an online survey of school dietitians or nutrition teachers of the participating schools to evaluate the feasibility of application of the standards in school lunch sites. @*RESULTS@#The proportions of schools of which lunches met the reference values of the school’s own nutritional standards were 19.2% for the standards A and 21.2% for the standards B. The food cost of school lunches applying the standards A (KRW 2,880) was significantly lower than that of school lunches applying the standards B (KRW 3,030) or the existing standards (KRW 2,980). As a result of the survey, the mean score for the ease of application was significantly higher for the standards B (2.75) than for the standards A (2.24). The proportions of school dietitians or nutrition teachers reporting no problem in meeting an existing food cost standard were 72.5% for the standards A and 61.8% for the standards B, respectively. The overall appropriateness of application was higher for the standards B, because almost two-thirds (58.8%) of the respondents answered that the standards B were more appropriate than the standards A. @*CONCLUSION@#The standards B were more feasible to apply as nutritional standards for school lunches than the standards A from the supplier perspective.
RESUMO
Objectives@#This study evaluated nutritional quality of convenience store meal boxes according to store company and meal price. @*Methods@#In May 2020, 71 meal boxes from five major convenience store companies were collected. Respective weights of all dishes and food ingredients included in each meal box were measured with a digital scale. Information on nutritional contents was collected from nutrition fact panels on packages. Food group patterns, dietary diversity scores (DDS), and dietary variety scores (DVS) were analyzed. Nutritional contents, i.e., amounts of energy, protein, and sodium, and percentages of energy from carbohydrate, sugar, fat, and saturated fat were compared with respective standards based on the 2020 Dietary Reference Intakes for Koreans. Comparison was made among five companies (Company A, B, C, D, E) and three price groups ( ≤4,200 won, ≥4,300 and ≤4,500 won, ≥4,600 won). Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the difference of nutritional contents according to company and price, respectively while holding the other variable constant. @*Results@#DDS, but not DVS, significantly differed among companies. The percentages of meal boxes meeting the nutritional standards of sodium significantly differed among companies; the percentage was highest in companies B (75.0%) and C (73.3%). “Company” was associated with amount of energy, protein, and sodium, and percentage of energy from saturated fat. “Price” was associated with the amount of energy and percentage of energy from carbohydrate. The average number of satisfied standards was highest in companies B (5.0) and C (4.0). About two-thirds of the meal boxes provided less amount of energy than the standard; the percentage of such meal boxes was highest in meal boxes with price of 4,200 won or lower. @*Conclusions@#There were significant differences in the nutritional quality of meal boxes according to “company”. Meanwhile, higher-priced meal boxes did not necessarily ensure better nutritional quality.
RESUMO
Purpose@#This study examines the attitude of South Korean adults toward food aid to North Korea and factors associated with it. @*Methods@#An online survey involving 1,000 adults aged 19–69 years was conducted between September–October 2019. Throughout South Korea, the subjects were proportionally distributed with respect to gender, age, and region, to represent South Korean adults. @*Results@#A total of 44.6% of the respondents agreed (Agreement group), 36.7% disagreed (Disagreement group), and 18.7% neither agreed nor disagreed to food aid to North Korea. Compared to the Disagreement group, the Agreement group had a higher concern of food aid to North Korea and a more positive perception on the effect of it. The Agreement group selected “direct assistance from the government” whereas the Disagreement group chose “support through international organizations” as the most appropriate channel for food aid to North Korea. Logistic regression analysis revealed that South Korean adults showing a more positive perception on the effect of food aid to North Korea were more likely to agree to the aid (odds ratio [OR], 19.32). Moreover, compared to the conservatives, the progressives were more likely to agree to food aid to North Korea (OR, 5.94). South Korean adults in their 40–50s were more likely to agree to food aid to North Korea than those in their 20–30s (OR, 2.81). South Korean adults with a higher concern of food aid to North Korea (OR, 3.93) and a greater positive perception on Korean unification (OR, 1.88) were more likely to agree to food aid to North Korea. @*Conclusion@#The most important factor associated with the attitude of South Korean adults toward food aid to North Korea was their perception on the subsequent effect. As strategies to draw social consensus on food aid to North Korea, we recommend systematizing the monitoring process on the effect of providing food aid to North Korea and informing the public of the outcomes.