본 연구는 전문가집단을 대상으로 식품안전사고 발생 시 ‘보도용어’와 ‘대응용어’에 대한 인식도 차이를 알아보고 용어선택에 따른 피해정도를 개선하기 위한 기초자료를 제공하고자 실시하였다. 식품기업체 식품안전관리책임자 28인과 식품전문기자 17인 총 45인을 대상으로 인식도 조사 및 개선방안에 대해 설문조사하여 통계분석 하였다. 그 결과, 식품안전사건 발생 시 미디어의 영향이 크다는 질문에 기자 70.6%, 기업체 92.9%가 ‘매우 그렇다’의 응답률을 보였다. 미디어의 자극적인 용어사용이 기업피해의 원인이라는 인식에는 기업체의 83%가 ‘매우 그렇다’, 기자의 70.6%가 ‘그렇다’로 답해 양측 모두 자극적 용어사용으로 인한 기업피해를 인식하고 있었다. 미디어의 ‘보도 용어’와 정부, 학계 등의 ‘대응용어’가 소비자의 인식과 사건의 파급에 차이를 주는지를 묻는 질문에 기업체의 92.9% 와 기자의 35.3%가 ‘매우 그렇다’로 답해 두 집단 모두 용어의 차이가 소비자의 인식뿐 아니라 파급을 확대시킨다는데 공통적인 의견을 보였으나 기업이 훨씬 심각하게 느끼고 있었다. ‘보도용어’의 통일 및 사용제한에 대해 기 업체는 전반적으로 긍정적인 입장이고 기자는 긍정과 부정으로 답변이 나뉘어 개인차가 컸다. 식품안전사건 발생 시 소비자와 기업체의 피해를 줄이기 위해 기업과 기자, 전문가간 사용하는 용어의 일치 및 차이를 좁힐 수 있는 방안 마련이 필요하다고 사료된다.

In the present study, we collected the information of the 18 major food safety incidents and conducted a delphi survey with 10 experts to analyze the effect of difference between terms used in reporting of the major food safety incidents on risk communication. In the result of the analysis of information from the major food safety incidents, discord of terms used from government, local government, media and consumer groups had a tremendous effect on the socioeconomic losses and caused the expansion of the incidents. The survey with 10 experts showed that there was a high correlation between the difference in ripple effect of reporting terms and the difference in reporting terms. A correlation coefficient was 0.865. Therefore, ripple effect of incidents was significantly affected by reporting terms and we concluded that standardization of term is necessary in reporting of the food safety incidents. These results can be used as a basic material for successful risk communication among the government, enterprises and consumers.

This study surveyed the change of housewives’ purchase behaviors by food safety incidents; the outbreak of 2008 Melamine incident in Korea as for example. 565 housewives in Gunsan were interviewed in March 2009. 52.3% of respondents were regarded as unsatisfactory for food safety management in Korea. Despite the result of scientific assessment for melamine, 74.6% of respondents were yet regarded as health-threatening substance. By the point of before, during and after Melamine-related food safety incident, we were surveyed the level of purchase for melamine-related food items as five scales, the results were 2.47 ± 0.97, 1.80 ± 0.92 and 1.62 ± 0.92, respectively (p < 0.001). After the incident happened, the purchase level was even more reduced. This study also found that there were significance difference (p < 0.05) among the respondents’ knowledge for melamine toxicity and food safety management in Korea concerning housewives’ purchase behaviors, i.e. the more accurately for melamine toxicity and higher satisfactory of consciousness of food safety, there were less change of purchase behaviors. In conclusion, the consciousness of food safety and accurate knowledge of hazards were significantly affected for the change of housewives’purchase behaviors by food safety incidents. Therefore, it can be suggested that the need for more scientific risk communication strategies with consumer.