巴西和德国非专业成年人的食品健康判断。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Nutrition Bulletin Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-15 DOI:10.1111/nbu.12638
Jessica Maria Muniz Moraes, Gudrun Sproesser, Marle Dos Santos Alvarenga
{"title":"巴西和德国非专业成年人的食品健康判断。","authors":"Jessica Maria Muniz Moraes, Gudrun Sproesser, Marle Dos Santos Alvarenga","doi":"10.1111/nbu.12638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study investigated which foods are most saliently judged as healthy and unhealthy in Brazil and Germany and the reasons for these judgements. Dietary guidelines in the two countries differ in that those in Brazil are based on a food processing classification rather than nutrient profiling, whereas dietary guidelines in Germany do not include the processing level of food. In an online study with 355 lay adults (Brazil n = 205, Germany n = 150), we explored which foods are listed as healthy and unhealthy using a free-listing method. The main reasons for these healthiness judgements were then identified with a one or two-word phrase and compared between countries. Saliency analysis was conducted to identify the 15 most salient healthy and unhealthy foods in each country. Principles of content analysis were used to assess the reasons why these 15 items were listed as most salient by the participants. Results showed that both Brazilians and Germans listed mostly natural or minimally processed food (e.g. fruits, vegetables, grains, fish and milk) as healthy, whereas types of convenience and fast food, sweets and other ultra-processed foods (e.g. chocolate, soda, French fries, pizza and hamburger) were the most salient unhealthy items listed in both countries. Differences in culturally relevant items listed in each country are discussed. Further, in both countries, despite differences in their dietary guidelines, food healthiness judgements for the most salient items listed relied heavily on the nutritional content of food, reinforced the 'good/healthy' and 'bad/unhealthy' dichotomy, and were centred on benefits or harms to the body (e.g. prevention or cause of diseases and weight control). The similarity of food healthiness judgements between the two countries, together with their agreement with conventional health claims and dietary guidelines, suggest that lay Brazilian and German adults are knowledgeable about the general concepts of 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' food. Finally, these findings suggest that rather than just providing more nutritional information, policymakers and health professionals need to take into account the multiple psychosocial and environmental determinants of eating in these countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":48536,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition Bulletin","volume":" ","pages":"482-499"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Food healthiness judgements among Brazilian and German lay adults.\",\"authors\":\"Jessica Maria Muniz Moraes, Gudrun Sproesser, Marle Dos Santos Alvarenga\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/nbu.12638\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study investigated which foods are most saliently judged as healthy and unhealthy in Brazil and Germany and the reasons for these judgements. Dietary guidelines in the two countries differ in that those in Brazil are based on a food processing classification rather than nutrient profiling, whereas dietary guidelines in Germany do not include the processing level of food. In an online study with 355 lay adults (Brazil n = 205, Germany n = 150), we explored which foods are listed as healthy and unhealthy using a free-listing method. The main reasons for these healthiness judgements were then identified with a one or two-word phrase and compared between countries. Saliency analysis was conducted to identify the 15 most salient healthy and unhealthy foods in each country. Principles of content analysis were used to assess the reasons why these 15 items were listed as most salient by the participants. Results showed that both Brazilians and Germans listed mostly natural or minimally processed food (e.g. fruits, vegetables, grains, fish and milk) as healthy, whereas types of convenience and fast food, sweets and other ultra-processed foods (e.g. chocolate, soda, French fries, pizza and hamburger) were the most salient unhealthy items listed in both countries. Differences in culturally relevant items listed in each country are discussed. Further, in both countries, despite differences in their dietary guidelines, food healthiness judgements for the most salient items listed relied heavily on the nutritional content of food, reinforced the 'good/healthy' and 'bad/unhealthy' dichotomy, and were centred on benefits or harms to the body (e.g. prevention or cause of diseases and weight control). The similarity of food healthiness judgements between the two countries, together with their agreement with conventional health claims and dietary guidelines, suggest that lay Brazilian and German adults are knowledgeable about the general concepts of 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' food. Finally, these findings suggest that rather than just providing more nutritional information, policymakers and health professionals need to take into account the multiple psychosocial and environmental determinants of eating in these countries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nutrition Bulletin\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"482-499\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nutrition Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12638\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12638","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这项研究调查了哪些食物在巴西和德国被认为是健康的和不健康的,以及这些判断的原因。两国的膳食指南的不同之处在于,巴西的膳食指南基于食品加工分类,而不是营养概况,而德国的膳食指南不包括食品的加工水平。在一项有355名非专业成年人参与的在线研究中(巴西205人,德国150人),我们使用自由列表法探讨了哪些食品被列为健康食品和不健康食品。然后,这些健康判断的主要原因被确定为一个或两个词的短语,并在国家之间进行比较。进行了显著性分析,以确定每个国家最突出的15种健康和不健康食品。内容分析的原则被用来评估为什么这15个项目被参与者列为最突出的原因。结果表明,巴西人和德国人都将大多数天然食品或加工程度最低的食品(如水果、蔬菜、谷物、鱼和牛奶)列为健康食品,而便利食品和快餐、糖果和其他超加工食品(如巧克力、苏打水、炸薯条、披萨和汉堡包)是两国列出的最显著的不健康食品。讨论了每个国家所列文化相关项目的差异。此外,在这两个国家,尽管其饮食指南有所不同,但对所列最突出项目的食品健康判断严重依赖于食品的营养成分,强化了"好/健康"和"坏/不健康"的二分法,并以对身体的益处或危害为中心(例如预防或引起疾病和控制体重)。两国食品健康判断的相似性,以及他们对传统健康声明和膳食指南的一致,表明巴西和德国的普通成年人对“健康”和“不健康”食品的一般概念有所了解。最后,这些发现表明,决策者和卫生专业人员不仅需要提供更多的营养信息,还需要考虑这些国家饮食的多重心理社会和环境决定因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Food healthiness judgements among Brazilian and German lay adults.

This study investigated which foods are most saliently judged as healthy and unhealthy in Brazil and Germany and the reasons for these judgements. Dietary guidelines in the two countries differ in that those in Brazil are based on a food processing classification rather than nutrient profiling, whereas dietary guidelines in Germany do not include the processing level of food. In an online study with 355 lay adults (Brazil n = 205, Germany n = 150), we explored which foods are listed as healthy and unhealthy using a free-listing method. The main reasons for these healthiness judgements were then identified with a one or two-word phrase and compared between countries. Saliency analysis was conducted to identify the 15 most salient healthy and unhealthy foods in each country. Principles of content analysis were used to assess the reasons why these 15 items were listed as most salient by the participants. Results showed that both Brazilians and Germans listed mostly natural or minimally processed food (e.g. fruits, vegetables, grains, fish and milk) as healthy, whereas types of convenience and fast food, sweets and other ultra-processed foods (e.g. chocolate, soda, French fries, pizza and hamburger) were the most salient unhealthy items listed in both countries. Differences in culturally relevant items listed in each country are discussed. Further, in both countries, despite differences in their dietary guidelines, food healthiness judgements for the most salient items listed relied heavily on the nutritional content of food, reinforced the 'good/healthy' and 'bad/unhealthy' dichotomy, and were centred on benefits or harms to the body (e.g. prevention or cause of diseases and weight control). The similarity of food healthiness judgements between the two countries, together with their agreement with conventional health claims and dietary guidelines, suggest that lay Brazilian and German adults are knowledgeable about the general concepts of 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' food. Finally, these findings suggest that rather than just providing more nutritional information, policymakers and health professionals need to take into account the multiple psychosocial and environmental determinants of eating in these countries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nutrition Bulletin
Nutrition Bulletin NUTRITION & DIETETICS-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
12.10%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: The Nutrition Bulletin provides accessible reviews at the cutting edge of research. Read by researchers and nutritionists working in universities and research institutes; public health nutritionists, dieticians and other health professionals; nutritionists, technologists and others in the food industry; those engaged in higher education including students; and journalists with an interest in nutrition.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信