• Search
  • Advanced Search
Korean J Health Promot > Volume 14(4); 2014 > Article
Park, Kim, Kwon, and Kong: Nutrition Label Use and Its Relation to Dietary Intake among Chronic Disease Patients in Korea: Results from the 2008–2009 Fourth Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES-IV)

Original Article

Korean Journal of Health Promotion 2014;14(4):131-140.

Published online: January 20, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15384/kjhp.2014.14.4.131

Nutrition Label Use and Its Relation to Dietary Intake among Chronic Disease Patients in Korea: Results from the 2008–2009 Fourth Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES-IV)

Seung Guk Park1, Hyeon Ju Kim2, Young-Min Kwon3, Mi Hee Kong2,

1Department of Family Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan

2Department of Family Medicine, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju National University College of Medicine, Jeju

3Department of Family Medicine, SamYook Seoul Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author：Mi Hee Kong, MD, PhD Department of Family Medicine, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju National University College of Medicine, 15 Aran 13-gil, Jeju 690-767, Korea
Tel: +82-64-717-1830, Fax: +82-64-717-1581 E-mail: mdoc74@daum.net

Received January 28, 2014       Accepted September 17, 2014

Copyright © 2014 The Korean Society of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Nutrition label reading is helpful in attaining a healthy diet. Nutrition label use and its related factors have been studied in many Korean articles, but their research samples were the general population and not chronic disease patients. This study aimed to explore the use of nutrition labels and its relation to dietary intake among chronic disease patients in Korea.

Methods

A total of 3160 respondents aged≥20 years from the 2008–2009 Fourth Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES-IV) participated in the study. Their chronic medical conditions included hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, diabetes and/or stroke and they were interviewed regarding their use of nutrition labels. Nutrition intake was also estimated by 24-hour dietary recalls.

Results

Overall, 10.4% of the chronic disease patients reported to using nutrition labels. The nutrients they looked at first were total calories, fat and cholesterol. Factors related to reading nutrition labels were relatively higher education, high body mass index and lower frequency of alcohol intake in males and relatively younger age and higher education in females. Nutrition label users consumed lower total calories, protein and fat in the male CAD group, lower total calories and carbohydrate in both diabetes and total groups and lower total calories and fiber in the female stroke group.

Conclusions

Our study found that, in Korea, a significantly lower rate of patients with chronic disease read nutrition labels. Strategies need to be developed to improve clinical application of nutrition labels in this population.

Keywords: Nutrition labeling, Chronic disease, Utilization

Table 1.
Comparison of characteristics between nutrition label users and non-users in chronic disease patients
  Male (n=1329, N=3.62) Female (n=1831, N=3.65)
Users (SE) Non-users (SE) Pa Users (SE) Non-users (SE) Pa
Age, y 49.41 (1.61) 56.99 (0.54) <0.001 52.55 (0.76) 64.05 (0.38) <0.001
Area,%            
 Urban 86.8 (4.8) 75.6 (2.8) 0.062 83.8 (3.8) 73.1 (2.8) 0.015
 Rural 13.2 (4.8) 24.4 (2.8)   16.2 (3.8) 26.9 (2.8)  
Monthly incomeb, %            
 Low (0–0.7) 15.0 (4.1) 29.7 (1.8) 0.116 19.2 (3.4) 47.7 (1.7) <0.001
 Middle low (0.7–1.25) 24.1 (5.8) 21.3 (1.4)   21.0 (3.2) 20.2 (1.2)  
 Middle high (1.25–2.0) 29.4 (6.3) 22.7 (1.6)   29.1 (3.7) 16.2 (1.2)  
 High (more than 2.0) 31.5 (6.3) 26.4 (1.8)   30.7 (3.7) 16.0 (1.5)  
Educational level,%            
 Less than middle school 9.2 (3.1) 41.4 (2.0) <0.001 40.5 (4.4) 79.8 (1.5) <0.001
 high school 37.7 (6.5) 30.9 (1.7)   39.9 (4.1) 16.0 (1.2)  
 College or higher 53.1 (6.2) 27.7 (2.0)   19.7 (3.5) 4.2 (0.7)  
Alcohol use,%            
 No 18.8 (4.7) 22.0 (1.3) <0.001 37.2 (3.7) 57.9 (1.5) <0.001
 1 day/wk 55.9 (6.3) 35.9 (1.7)   53.5 (3.8) 35.5 (1.5)  
 2–3 days/wk 23.4 (5.4) 23.9 (1.4)   7.8 (2.0) 4.7 (0.7)  
 ≥4 days/wk 1.9 (1.1) 18.1 (1.3)   1.6 (0.9) 1.9 (0.4)  
Smoking,%            
 Current smoker 30.2 (5.9) 33.6 (1.8) 0.814 3.9 (2.0) 4.9 (0.7) 0.783
 Past smoker 49.1 (6.4) 48.3 (1.9)   4.3 (1.5) 5.6 (0.6)  
 Non-smoker 20.7 (5.3) 18.1 (1.5)   91.8 (2.5) 89.4 (0.9)  
Physical activity, METs/wk 48.46 (7.22) 54.80 (2.74) 0.046 50.99 (5.28) 40.12 (2.12) <0.001
BMI, kg/m2 26.73 (0.51) 24.90 (0.11) 0.001 25.00 (0.26) 24.99 (0.11) 0.987

Abbreviations: METs, Metabolic equivalents; BMI, Body mass index; wk, week; n, unweighted sample size; N, weighted sample size in millions; Users, patients who read nutrition labels; Non-users, patients who do not read nutrition labels

aCategorical variables were calculated by χ2 test and continuous variables were calculated by regression analysis.

bUnit: 1,000,000 (KW).

Table 2.
Adjusted comparison of characteristics between nutrition label users and non-users in chronic disease patients
  Male (n=1329, N=3.62) Female (n=1831, N=3.65)
Users (SE) Non-users (SE) Pa Users (SE) Non-users (SE) Pa
Age, y 55.68 (1.57) 58.56 (0.43) 0.086 59.69 (0.78) 64.12 (0.30) <0.001
Area            
 Urban 1 0.369 1 0.585
 Rural 0.68 (0.29–1.57)   0.85 (0.49–1.48)  
Monthly incomeb        
 Low (0–0.7) 1 0.899 1 0.075
 Middle low (0.7–1.25) 1.94 (0.88–4.28)   1.46 (0.79–2.72)  
 Middle high (1.25–2.0) 1.52 (0.63–3.66)   1.91 (1.04–3.50)  
 High (more than 2.0) 1.27 (0.54–3.00)   1.64 (0.88–3.07)  
Educational level        
 Less than middle school 1 <0.001 1 0.001
 high school 4.05 (1.59–10.30)   1.75 (1.04–2.96)  
 College or higher 5.36 (2.21–12.94)   3.48 (1.69–7.17)  
Alcohol use        
 No 1 0.005 1 0.470
 1 day/wk 1.37 (0.64–2.94)   1.28 (0.84–1.94)  
 2–3 days/wk 0.86 (0.72–1.96)   1.10 (0.46–2.63)  
 ≥4 days/wk 0.13 (0.00–0.51)   1.23 (0.28–5.27)  
Smoking        
 Current smoker 1 0.608 1 0.666
 Past smoker 1.39 (0.66–2.92)   0.85 (0.20–3.50)  
 Non-smoker 0.95 (0.40–2.23)   1.10 (0.40–3.04)  
Physical activity, METs/wk 50.11 (7.46) 52.87 (2.36) 0.719 43.97 (5.94) 40.56 (2.23) 0.591
BMI, kg/m2 25.78 (0.48) 24.58 (0.10) 0.017 24.99 (0.27) 24.98 (0.10) 0.975

Abbreviations: METs, Metabolic equivalents; BMI, Body mass index; wk, week; n, unweighted sample size; N, weighted sample size in millions; Users, patients who read nutrition labels; Non-users, patients who do not read nutrition labels.

aCategorical variables were calculated by multivariable logistic analysis and continuous variables were calculated by multivariable linear regression analysis adjusted for age, area, education, income, smoking status, frequency of alcohol intake, physical activity and BMI.

bUnit: 1,000,000 (KW)

Table 3.
Utilization rate of nutrition label and the difference according to nutrition education in chronic disease patients
  Male Pa   Female Pa
Nutritional education % (SE) Use nutrition label % (SE) Non-Use nutrition label % (SE) Nutritional education % (SE) Use nutrition label % (SE) Non-Use nutrition label % (SE)
HTN       <0.001 HTN       0.001
 n=1000, N=2.65   6.9 (1.1) 93.1 (1.1)    n=1441,   10.9 (1.0) 89.1 (1.0)  
 Educated 6.3 (0.9) 21.8 (6.1) 5.1 (0.9)    N=2.84 6.7 (0.8) 14.5 (3.4) 5.8 (0.8)  
 Not educated 93.7 (0.9) 78.2 (6.1) 94.9 (0.9)     93.3 (0.8) 85.5 (3.4) 94.2 (0.8)  
DLP       0.085  DLP       0.217
 n=225, N=0.73   11.4 (2.4) 88.6 (2.4)    n=408,   19.6 (2.4) 80.4 (2.4)  
 Educated 11.8 (2.5) 22.9 (8.9) 10.3 (2.5)    N=0.87 10.7 (1.7) 15.1 (4.7) 9.6 (1.8)  
 Not educated 88.2 (2.5) 77.1 (8.9) 89.7 (2.5)     89.3 (1.7) 84.9 (4.7) 90.4 (1.8)  
CAD       0.676 CAD       0.089
 n=105, N=0.24   2.0 (1.4) 98.0 (1.4)    n=108,   6.5 (2.7) 93.5 (2.7)  
 Educated 7.8 (2.9) 0.0 (0.0) 7.9 (3.0)    N=0.18 11.3 (4.8) 37.0 (21.7) 9.5 (4.9)  
 Not educated 92.2 (2.9) 100.0 (0.0) 92.1 (3.0)     88.7 (4.8) 63.0 (21.7) 90.5 (4.9)  
DM       0.014 DM       0.067
 n=386, N=1.00   8.0 (1.8) 92.0 (1.8)    n=493,   14.9 (2.1) 85.1 (2.1)  
 Educated 12.0 (1.9) 26.5 (8.9) 10.7(1.8)    N=1.01 12.2 (1.7) 20.1 (5.9) 10.8(1.7)  
 Not educated 88.0 (1.9) 73.5 (8.9) 89.3(1.8)     87.8 (1.7) 79.9 (5.9) 89.2(1.7)  
Stroke       0.132 Stroke       0.329
 n=91, N=0.22   6.6 (3.2) 93.4 (3.2)    n=96,   9.1 (4.9) 90.9 (4.9)  
 Educated 4.5 (2.4) 18.0 (17.2) 3.5 (2.2)    N=0.15 9.4 (3.6) 22.7 (21.3) 8.1 (3.3)  
 Not educated 95.5 (2.4) 82.0 (17.2) 96.5 (2.2)     90.6 (3.6) 77.3 (21.3) 91.9 (3.3)  
Total       <0.001 Total       <0.001
 n=1329, N=3.62   7.6 (1.0) 92.4 (1.0)    n=1831,   13.2 (1.0) 86.8 (1.0)  
 Educated 6.8 (0.8) 19.2 (4.8) 5.8 (0.8)    N=3.65 8.2 (0.8) 15.7 (2.9) 7.1 (0.8)  
 Not educated 93.2 (0.8) 80.8 (4.8) 94.2 (0.8)     91.8 (0.8) 84.3 (2.9) 92.9 (0.8)  

Abbreviations: HTN, Hypertension; DLP, Dyslipidemia; CAD, Coronary artery disease; DM, Diabetes mellitus; n, unweighted sample size; N, weighted sample size in millions.

aCalculated by χ2 test.

Table 4.
Nutrients most commonly read and effects of nutrition label using in nutrition label users
Male HTN DLP CAD DM Stroke Total
n=53, N=0.18 n=24, N=0.08 n=3, N=0.005 n=25, N=0.08 n=4, N=0.01 n=78, N=0.27
Effect of nutrition label using, % (SE)a 79.8 (6.7) 92.8 (5.1) 77.7 (27.5) 61.3 (11.6) 39.1 (27.5) 76.7 (5.3)
Nutrients,% (SE)b
 Total Calories 23.8 (6.7) 24.9 (9.0) 61.8 (35.6) 36.0 (10.0) 18.0 (19.8) 27.2 (5.4)
 Carbohydrate 1.2 (1.2) 3.2 (3.3) 15.8 (20.7) 0 0 2.1 (1.3)
 Sugar 3.0 (2.9) 2.3 (2.4) 0 11.1 (6.7) 0 3.3 (2.1)
 Protein 16.6 (6.6) 2.3 (2.3) 0 10.4 (7.2) 0 12.5 (4.8)
 Fat 34.2 (7.8) 32.9 (9.6) 0 30.4 (11.9) 50.2 (29.6) 30.7 (6.1)
 Cholesterol 16.9 (5.9) 22.6 (10.2) 22.3 (27.5) 4.8 (3.0) 31.8 (29.1) 19.0 (5.1)
 Na 0.6 (0.6) 0 0 1.4 (1.5) 0 0.4 (0.4)
 Others 4.4 (2.4) 11.8 (7.3) 0 5.9 (4.6) 0 4.9 (2.4)
Female
 n=125, N=0.31 n=69, N=0.17 n=6, N=0.01 n=53, N=0.15 n=4, N=0.01 n=192, N=0.48
Effect of nutrition label using, % (SE) 78.2 (4.3) 85.8 (5.1) 89.3 (11.5) 78.6 (7.1) 22.7 (24.5) 77.8 (3.5)
Nutrients,% (SE)
 Total Calories 22.9 (4.5) 22.6 (5.5) 43.9 (23.2) 33.4 (7.6) 5.5 (7.0) 24.7 (3.7)
 Carbohydrate 0.7 (0.7) 0 19.4 (19.0) 0 0 0.9 (0.7)
 Sugar 6.7 (2.5) 4.6 (2.7) 0 22.7 (7.3) 27.8 (28.2) 9.1 (2.6)
 Protein 5.6 (2.0) 6.4 (3.1) 0 6.7 (3.5) 0 6.8 (1.9)
 Fat 23.1 (3.8) 26.2 (6.2) 36.7 (23.6) 16.5 (5.7) 22.7 (24.5) 21.4 (3.0)
 Cholesterol 26.2 (4.6) 35.3 (6.7) 0 11.9 (4.8) 0 26.3 (3.7)
 Na 4.7 (2.0) 0 0 1.8 (1.8) 0 3.0 (1.3)
 Others 10.0 (3.5) 4.8 (2.5) 0 6.9 (4.4) 44.0 (33.9) 7.8 (2.4)

Abbreviations: HTN, Hypertension; DLP, Dyslipidemia; CAD, Coronary artery disease; DM, Diabetes mellitus. n, unweighted sample size; N, weighted sample size in millions.

aProportion of people who answered they were influenced by nutrition labels when purchasing food.

bNutrients which patients check first when reading nutrition labels.

Table 5.
Differences in nutrient intake according to nutrition label use in chronic disease patients, males
  Total Calories (kcal) Pa Carbohydrate (g) Pa Protein (g) Pa Fat (g) Pa Fiber (g) Pa Na (mg) Pa
HTN (n=1000, N=2.65)   0.737   0.200   0.883   0.800   0.057   0.169
 Users
 Non -users		 1996.4±178.0
2057.1±35.6		   331.6±3.9
306.7±18.9		   73.6±6.8
72.6±1.4		   36.5±6.4
34.8±1.5		   10.8±1.3
8.1±0.1		   4841.4±427.1
5453.8±136.8		  
DLP (n=255, N=0.73)
 Users
 Non -users		 2352.2±151.4
2168.5±53.4		 0.280 362.3±27.1
340.9±7.7		 0.462 84.5±7.4
81.4±2.6		 0.701 42.8±6.7
39.7±2.0		 0.676 9.5±1.1
9.4±0.4		 0.967 6840.7±820.4
6242.9±295.9		 0.495
CAD (n=105, N=0.24)
 Users
 Non -users		 1091.8±288.8
1813.8±53.4		 0.015 213.8±59.8
323.2±9.7		 0.074 31.3±7.3
61.6±2.5		 <0.001 14.4±4.9
27.2±1.8		 0.012 9.8±2.5
9.0±0.7		 0.777 3187.1±1271.7
5563.2±415.9		 0.118
DM (n=386, N=1.00)
 Users
 Non -users		 1760.7±139.8
1983.0±53.1		 0.137 311.1±21.6
334.9±8.8		 0.307 66.1±6.5
70.2±2.5		 0.569 28.3±5.2
33.1±1.9		 0.391 11.8±2.6
9.3±0.6		 0.362 5021.1±541.6
5216.9±254.2		 0.740
Stroke (n=106, N=0.22)
 Users
 Non -users		 1510.8±247.5
1755.0±63.7		 0.372 286.9±30.2
310.2±11.0		 0.503 50.0±18.0
59.8±2.9		 0.607 14.5± 10.9
26.6±2.0		 0.292 6.3±2.0
7.4±0.4		 0.605 3631.8±1250.7
4324.8±293.5		 0.604
Total (n=1329, N=3.62)
 Users
 Non -users		 1982.5±130.6
2053.2±32.1		 0.597 312.7±15.1
333.7±4.2		 0.184 71.6±5.1
73.1±1.4		 0.778 34.3±4.7
35.1±1.4		 0.866 9.6±1.0
8.6±0.3		 0.407 5062.3±377.5
5556.2±145.6		 0.219

Abbreviations: HTN, Hypertension; DLP, Dyslipidemia; CAD, Coronary artery disease; DM, Diabetes mellitus. n, unweighted sample size; N, weighted sample size in millions; Users, patients who read nutrition labels; Non-users, patients who do not read nutrition labels.

aCalculated by multivariable linear regression analysis adjusted for age, area, education, income, smoking status, frequency of alcohol intake, physical activity and BMI.

Table 6.
Differences in nutrient intake according to nutrition label use in chronic disease patients, females
  Total Calories (kcal) Pa Carbohydrate (g) Pa Protein (g) Pa Fat (g) Pa Fiber (g) Pa Na (mg) Pa
HTN (n=1441, N=2.84)                        
 Users
 Non -users		 1348.4±55.6
1438.4±18.5		 0.152 254.0±10.6
266.9±3.7		 0.292 46.6±2.6
48.4±0.7		 0.524 18.9±1.5
20.1±0.5		 0.468 6.7±0.5
6.8±0.2		 0.894 3373.6±213.7
3582.3±70.6		 0.373
DLP (n=408, N=0.87)                        
 Users
 Non -users		 1461.7±68.3
1555.6±33.3		 0.252 265.2±13.8
283.4±6.2		 0.265 54.2±3.4
54.1±1.4		 0.969 23.8±2.7
24.2±1.0		 0.899 6.5±0.5
7.4±0.3		 0.187 3628.8±310.6
3916.7±152.6		 0.435
CAD (n=108, N=0.18)                        
 Users
 Non -users		 1307.4±204.7
1415.2±46.6		 0.605 254.3±49.0
269.1±9.9		 0.768 49.4±12.4
47.5±2.1		 0.882 18.4±5.7
17.9±1.3		 0.937 10.2±4.0
6.3±0.3		 0.327 2779.9±493.7
3575.1±207.1		 0.148
DM (n=493, N=1.01)                        
 Users
 Non -users		 1228.6±99.0
1480.5±40.3		 0.037 215.5±19.0
278.4±8.0		 0.007 45.4±4.0
48.2±1.2		 0.544 20.2±2.5
19.9±0.8		 0.926 5.6±0.6
6.8±0.2		 0.064 3779.0±399.8
3510.1±127.8		 0.542
Stroke (n=96, N=0.15)                        
 Users
 Non -users		 1036.9±250.5
1429.9±59.9		 0.133 162.2±43.2
274.8±12.4		 0.014 50.1±13.0
45.4±2.1		 0.730 22.8±5.0
17.1±1.1		 0.266 3.5±1.0
5.8±0.3		 0.042 2546.8±652.6
3279.7±207.1		 0.285
Total (n=1831, N=3.65)                        
 Users
 Non -users		 1363.0±47.0
1467.9±16.9		 0.049 249.3±8.9
272.4±3.4		 0.023 47.8±2.1
49.5±0.6		 0.472 20.3±1.4
20.8±0.4		 0.735 6.3±0.4
6.9±0.1		 0.242 3537.6±203.4
3673.1±64.6		 0.543

Abbreviations: HTN, Hypertension; DLP, Dyslipidemia; CAD, Coronary artery disease; DM, Diabetes mellitus. n, unweighted sample size; N, weighted sample size in millions; Users, patients who read nutrition labels; Non-users, patients who do not read nutrition labels.

aCalculated by multivariable linear regression analysis adjusted for age, area, education, income, smoking status, frequency of alcohol intake, physical activity and BMI.

References

1. Park HK. Nutrition policy in South Korea. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2008;17(Suppl 1):343-45.
pmid
2. Kim S, Moon S, Popkin BM. The nutrition transition in South Korea. Am J Clin Nutr 2000;71(1):44-53.
crossref pmid
3. Park YS, Son SM, Lim WJ, Kim SB, Chung YS. Comparison of dietary behaviors related to sodium intake by gender and age. Korean J Community Nutr 2008;13(1):1-12.
4. World Health Organization. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 2003;916:1-149.
5. Hu FB, Willett WC. Optimal diets for prevention of coronary heart disease. JAMA 2002;288(20):2569-78.
crossref pmid
6. Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Rimm E, Colditz GA, Rosner BA, et al. Dietary fat intake and the risk of coronary heart disease in women. N Engl J Med 1997;337(21):1491-9.
crossref pmid
7. Park SH, Lee KS, Park HY. Dietary carbohydrate intake is associated with cardiovascular disease risk in Korean: analysis of the third Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES III). Int J Cardiol 2010;139(3):234-40.
crossref pmid
8. Chobanian AV, Hill M. National heart, lung, and blood institute workshop on sodium and blood pressure: a critical review of current scientific evidence. Hypertension 2000;35(4):858-63.
crossref pmid
9. Kang HN, Shin EJ, Kim HN, Eom KY, Kwon KI, Kim SY, et al. Food nutrition labeling (processing food, food service business) in Korea. Food Science and Industry 2011;44(1):21-7.
10. Kreuter MW, Brennan LK, Scharff DP, Lukwago SN. Do nutrition label readers eat healthier diets? Behavioral correlates of adults' use of food labels. Am J Prev Med 1997;13(4):277-83.
crossref pmid
11. Neuhouser ML, Kristal AR, Patterson RE. Use of food nutrition labels is associated with lower fat intake. J Am Diet Assoc 1999;99(1):45-53.
crossref pmid
12. Temple JL, Johnson K, Recupero K, Suders H. Nutrition labels decrease energy intake in adults consuming lunch in the laboratory. J Am Diet Assoc 2010;110(7):1094-7.
crossref pmid
13. Variyam JN. Do nutrition labels improve dietary outcomes? Health Econ 2008;17(6):695-708.
crossref pmid
14. Lewis JE, Arheart KL, LeBlanc WG, Fleming LE, Lee DJ, Davila EP, et al. Food label use and awareness of nutritional information and recommendations among persons with chronic disease. Am J Clin Nutr 2009;90(5):1351-7.
crossref pmid pmc
15. Post RE, Mainous AG 3rd, Diaz VA, Matheson EM, Everett CJ. Use of the nutrition facts label in chronic disease management: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Am Diet Assoc 2010;110(4):628-32.
crossref pmid
16. Hyon SM, Kim JW. Improvement of dietary attitudes of elementary students by nutrition labeling education. Korean J Community Nutr 2007;12(2):168-77.
17. Cho SH, Yu HH. Nutrition knowledge, dietary attitudes, dietary habits and awareness of food-nutrition labelling by girl's high school students. Korean J Community Nutr 2007;12(5):519-33.
18. Lee KA, Lee HJ, Park EJ. The effect of use of nutrition labelling on knowledge and perception of nutrition labelling, and awareness of nutrition labelling usefulness with among college students. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr 2010;39(2):253-66.
crossref
19. Lee HY, Kim MK. Dietary behavioral correlates of nutrition label use in Korean women. Korean J Nutr 2008;41(8):839-50.
20. Chang SO. A study on the perception, use, and demand of housewife-consumers for nutrition label. Korean J Nutr 2000;33(7):763-73.
21. Kim NY, Lee JS. A study on perception and utilization of food-nutrition labeling by age in Busan residents. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr 2009;38(12):1801-10.
crossref
22. Kim SY, Lee JH. Effect of nutrition labeling use on consumers'food choices. J Consumer Studies 2010;21(3):107-28.
23. Kim MS, Kim JS, Yu JO. Factors relating to use of food labels among adults with metabolic syndrome. Korean J Health Educ Promot 2012;29(5):1-12.
24. Kang HT, Shim JY, Lee YJ, Linton JA, Park BJ, Lee HR. Reading nutrition labels is associated with a lower risk of metabolic syndrome in Korean adults: the 2007–2008 Korean NHANES. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2013;23(9):876-82.
crossref pmid
25. Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Korea health statistics 2009: Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES IV-3). Reston: Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention; 2010. [Accessed Jun 11, 2013].. https://knhanes.cdc.go.kr/knhanes/index.do.
26. Chung J, Kim MJ. Using and understanding of nutrition labels and related factors among female adults in the Seoul area. Korean J Community Nutr 2007;12(4):417-25.
27. Campos S, Doxey J, Hammond D. Nutrition labels on prepackaged foods: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 2011;14(8):1496-506.
crossref pmid
28. Ollberding NJ, Wolf RL, Contento I. Food label use and its relation to dietary intake among US adults. J Am Diet Assoc 2010;110(8):1233-7.
crossref pmid
TOOLS
METRICS Graph View
  • 7 Crossref
  •  0 Scopus
  • 229 View
  • 1 Download
Related articles

Association between Allergic Rhinitis and Osteoarthritis in the Korean Adult Population-Based on the 3rd to 8th Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey2024 March;24(1)

Association between Atopic Dermatitis and Hyperuricemia in the Adult Korean Population based on the 7th and 8th Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey2023 December;23(4)

Association between Chronic Obsructive Pulmonary Disease and Dietary Inflammatory Index in Korean Men Over 40s-based on the 2016-2019 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey2023 December;23(4)

Prevalence and Associated Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease: Findings from the 2005, 2007 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey2011 September;11(3)

Prevalence and trends of metabolic syndrome in Korean children and adolescents according to the 2001 and 2005 Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys2009 March;9(1)

Editorial Office
Department of Family Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
Tel: +82-2-3010-3820   Fax: +82-2-3010-3815   E-mail: kshpdp@amc.seoul.kr                

Copyright © 2025 by Korean Society For Health Promotion And Disease Prevention.

Developed in M2PI