Neuman Nicklas, Persson Osowski Christine, Mattsson Sydner Ylva, Fjellström Christina
Department of Food, Nutrition and Dietetics, Uppsala University, P.O. Box 560, SE-751 22 Uppsala, Sweden.
Department of Food, Nutrition and Dietetics, Uppsala University, P.O. Box 560, SE-751 22 Uppsala, Sweden.
Appetite. 2014 Nov;82:29-35. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.07.003. Epub 2014 Jul 10.
This study used focus group discussions to investigate how a group of Swedish University students (24 women and five men) interpret symbols with claims about health and/or symbols with information about nutrition. The participants mostly talked about farming methods and food processes when asked about health and nutrition symbols. The Swedish Keyhole was the most familiar symbol to the participants but they had scant knowledge of its meaning. Symbols that were judged to be the most useful in guiding food choices were, according to the participants, symbols showing information about number of calories and/or nutrients. However, the most striking finding is still that the food experts' medical discourse, i.e. the focus on physical health and nutritional effects on the individual body, seems to be inconsistent with the participants' perceptions of healthy eating and risk. The participants rather used what we call an "inauthenticity discourse" where health and risks are judged in relation to farming methods, industrial food production, additives and other aspects of the food that are unknown to the individual. Despite limitations considering the number of participations and their relative homogeneity, these findings contribute to a further understanding of the gap between experts and the public when it comes to perceptions of healthy eating and risks. If this is a broader phenomenon, then we argue that this must be acknowledged if information about health and risk is to be communicated successfully.
本研究采用焦点小组讨论的方式，调查了一群瑞典大学生（24名女性和5名男性）如何解读那些声称与健康相关的符号以及那些包含营养信息的符号。当被问及健康和营养符号时，参与者大多谈论的是种植方法和食品加工过程。瑞典锁孔标志是参与者最熟悉的符号，但他们对其含义知之甚少。据参与者称，在指导食物选择方面被认为最有用的符号是那些显示卡路里和/或营养成分信息的符号。然而，最引人注目的发现仍然是，食品专家的医学论述，即对个体身体健康和营养影响的关注，似乎与参与者对健康饮食和风险的认知不一致。参与者更倾向于使用我们所谓的“非真实性论述”，即根据种植方法、工业化食品生产、添加剂以及个体对食品其他未知方面来判断健康和风险。尽管考虑到参与人数及其相对同质性存在局限性，但这些发现有助于进一步理解在健康饮食和风险认知方面专家与公众之间的差距。如果这是一个更广泛的现象，那么我们认为，如果要成功传达有关健康和风险的信息，就必须承认这一点。
