• Journal of Community Nutrition
• /
• 제1권2호
• /
• pp.75-80
• /
• 1999

Special nutritional foods are one category of processed foods. In this category, 5 different food standards are defined in the current rule of the Korean Food Code ; that is, infant formulae, complementary foods for infants and young children, foods nutrient supplementation, processed dietary fiber-based foods, and foods for special dietary uses. The major differences between the special dietary uses. The major difference between the special nutritional foods and the other processed foods is that the special nutritional foods are characterized by their dietary uses for specific population groups rather than food ingredients or manufacturing and processing techniques which characterize and distinguish most of other processed foods. Although several countries establish similar standards for this type of foods, they use different legal names such as foods for special dietary uses(U.S.A., CODEX, Japan), foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses(EC), or special purpose foods(Australia). In addition, there are some other differences in the definitions for these food types and categorization of food types among countries. The major difference in the definitions is the description of 'special dietary uses' by specifying certain population groups whose nutrient requirements are different from those of ordinary men due to physiological or physical conditions and therefore may not be sufficiently met by consuming ordinary foods. The categorization of this type of foods is based on the type of dietary uses in the other countries, whereas we include foods simply supplemented with nutrients or foods having certain components such as dietary fibers even if these foods types do not have special dietary sues. Recently, a revision of standards for special nutritional food has been proposed. However, the description of 'special dietary uses' is not clearly indicated in the definition, and some food types which should not be categorized into the special nutritional foods still remain in this category. In order to correct these problems, the standard of food labeling in the Food Safety Law needs to be revised along with revision of food standards in the Food Code.

• 한국식품위생안전성학회지
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.339-348
• /
• 2012

본 연구에서는 향후 고령친화식품의 중심적인 상품군이 될 건강기능식품과 특수용도식품의 시장규모에 대한 예측을 시도하였다. 건강기능식품과 특수용도식품 중 고령친화와 관련된 시장의 범위를 설정하고 현황에 대해서 분석한 후 향후 전망에 대해서 예측하였는데, 경제성장과 민간소비지출의 변화 그리고 이에 따른 노령인구의 경제력 변화, 의료보험 및 연금저축의 변화 등을 반영하였다. 한편 관련기업들을 대상으로 한 설문조사 결과를 활용하는 한편, 노인인구의 변화 및 주요 만성질환의 발병률을 분석하여 예측에 반영하였다. 결과를 보면 2010년부터 2025년까지 건강기능식품과 특수용도식품 중 고령친화와 관련된 부문의 연평균 성장률은 최소 4.54%에서 최대 8.32%로 예측되었으며, 시장규모 예측치는 모형과 예측방식에 따라 2025년에 최소 7,073억원에서 최대 10,976억원으로 나타났다. 향후 고령친화제품의 수요는 고령인구의 증가와 보험급여 확대 등으로 크게 성장할 것으로 예상되는 반면에, 기업들은 수요의 변화를 관망하고 있는 상황으로 판단된다. 따라서 이는 자칫 수요에 비하여 부족한 공급 문제를 야기시킬 수 있다. 따라서 정부의 R&D에 대한 적극적인 지원, 고령친화식품에 대한 표준화 및 인증제 실시, 관련산업의 DB구축 등이 필요한 상황이다.

• 한국식품위생안전성학회지
• /
• 제35권3호
• /
• pp.252-260
• /
• 2020

본 연구는 특수용도식품에 함유되어 있는 비타민B₁₂와 비오틴에 대하여 식품의 복잡한 매질 특성에 특이성을 확보할 수 있도록 현행 식품공전 시험법을 개선하고자 하였다. 식품공전에서 비타민B₁₂와 비오틴의 시험법에 항체반응을 통해서 분석물질과 특이적으로 결합하여 그 외의 성분들을 효과적으로 제거할 수 있는 면역친화성 컬럼을 도입하여 시험용액을 정제 및 농축함으로써 전처리 과정을 개선하였다. 식품 등 시험법 마련 표준절차에 관한 가이드라인에 따라 밸리데이션(특이성, 직선성, 검출한계, 정량한계, 정확도, 정밀도)을 수행하고 개선된 시험법을 이용하여 유통 중인 특수용도식품의 대상 품목에 대해 시험법 적용여부를 확인하였다. 본 연구사업의 수행으로 시험·검사의 정확성을 증대시켜 특수용도식품 품질관리에 대한 신뢰성을 더 높일 것으로 본다.

• Nutrition Research and Practice
• /
• 제1권2호
• /
• pp.89-93
• /
• 2007

Many countries such as The Republic of Korea have established their own nutritional standards, collectively termed Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs), and they vary due to the science which was reviewed, the purposes for which they are developed, and issues related to nutrition and food policy in the country. The current effort by the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CNFSDU) to update the NRVs that were established following the Helsinki Consultation in 1988 represents an opportunity to develop a set of reference values reflecting current scientific information to be used or adapted by many countries. This paper will focus on possible approaches to selecting or developing reference values which would serve the intended purpose for nutrition labeling to the greatest extent possible. Within the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA) is currently reviewing regulations on nutrition labeling to better address current health issues, and is expected to enter into a process in the next few months to begin to explore how best to update nutrient Daily Values (DVs), most of which are still based on the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) of the Food and Nutrition Board, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, last reviewed and revised in 1968. In this presentation, I review the current purposes in the U.S. for nutrition labeling as identified in the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as amended, the scientific basis for current nutrition labeling regulations in the United States, and the recommendations made by the recent Committee on Use of Dietary Reference Intakes in Nutrition Labeling of the Institute of Medicine (2003) regarding how to use the DRIs in developing new DVs to be used on the label in the United States and Canada. Based on these reviews, I then provide examples of the issues that arise in comparing one approach to another. Much of the discussion focuses on the appropriate role of nutrient labeling within the Nutrition Facts panel, one of the three major public nutrition education tools in the United States (along with MyPyramid and Dietary Guidelines for Americans).

• 대한지역사회영양학회지
• /
• 제6권3호
• /
• pp.361-370
• /
• 2001

This survey was conducted to evaluate with 457 health professionals from July, 1999 to September, 1999 the awareness of and satisfaction with the nutrition labeling system in Korea and to determine a desirable labeling system. Professors of food and nutrition and nutrition researchers in the food industry had the hightest scores on awareness of the nutrition labeling system(75.6% and 73.4%, respectively), which was significantly different from each other by occupation(p < 0.01). Frequently checked labeling information were expiration date, production date, price, and company respectively. Special nutrient food producers(56.9%), dietitians(49.3%), nurses(48.1%), researchers(42.3%) answered moderately on satisfaction with nutrition information for products, which was statistically significant(p < 0.01). This suggests that health professionals were unsatisfied with the present nutrition labeling system. In nutrition focusing statements, nutrient content claims, health claims, and working periods were significantly related with nutrition focusing statements and health claims, but not with nutrient content claims : the subject who had been working for more than 10 years and less than 5 years had positive thoughts or those matters while the subjects whose working periods were between 10 and 5 years had the lowest score. The most desirable labeling units were serving size(65.1%). Ninety two percent of the subjects wanted absolute nutrient contents in food and their percentage of the KRDA. Eight nine percent of health professionals agreed that the health claims should be used only with scientific approval by the government or food research institutions. Only 4.4% of subjects were satisfied with current regulations of health claims(p < 0.001). More studies regarding labeling units, their range and nutrient reference values are needed. The opinions of health professionals in nutrition labeling system should discussed to establish a desirable nutrition labeling system.