Yetişkinlerde Sürdürülebilir Gıda Okuryazarlığının, Beslenme Davranışlarının ve Besin Tercihlerinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kesitsel Bir Çalışma

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, sürdürülebilir gıda okuryazarlığının yetişkinlerin beslenme davranışları ve besin tercihleri üzerindeki olası etkisini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu kesitsel çalışmaya, İstanbul’da ikamet eden 18–65 yaş aralığında 400 yetişkin (172 erkek, 228 kadın) dâhil edilmiştir. Veriler; sosyodemografik özellikler, beyana dayalı alınan antropometrik ölçümler, beslenme davranışları, besin tercihleri ve fiziksel aktiviteyi kapsayan yapılandırılmış bir anket aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Sürdürülebilirlikle ilişkili gıda okuryazarlığını değerlendirmek amacıyla Sürdürülebilir Gıda Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği (SFLS) kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Sürdürülebilir Gıda Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği’nin çeşitli alt boyutlarında cinsiyete bağlı anlamlı farklılıklar saptanmıştır. Kadın katılımcılar, erkeklere kıyasla Sürdürülebilir Gıda Bilgisi-2 (SFK-2) (5,75 ve 5,5; p<0,001), Yemek ve Mutfak Becerileri (CKS) (6,0 ve 5,17; p<0,001), Tutumlar (ATT) (5,0 ve 4,67; p<0,001), Harekete Geçme Niyeti ve Harekete Geçme Stratejileri (AIS) (4,71 ve 4,28; p<0,001), Toplam Sürdürülebilir Gıda Bilgisi (SFK-T) (4,8 ve 4,5; p=0,005) ile genel SFLS puanlarında (132,0 ve 121,0; p<0,001) daha yüksek skorlar bildirmiştir. Belirli bir diyeti sürdüren bireylerde SFK-2 (6,0 ve 5,5; p=0,019), CKS (6,16 ve 5,66; p=0,002), AIS (5,0 ve 4,57; p=0,015) ve toplam SFLS puanları (138,0 ve 125,0; p=0,009) istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde yüksek bulunmuştur. Düzenli ara öğün tüketen bireyler ise SFK-2 (6,0 ve 5,5; p=0,035) ve toplam SFLS (132,5 ve 124,0; p=0,012) puanlarında anlamlı artış göstermiştir. Beslenme eğitimi almış olan katılımcıların SFK-1 (4,66 ve 4,0; p<0,001), SFK-2 (6,0 ve 5,5; p=0,002), SFK-T (5,0 ve 4,6; p<0,001) ve toplam SFLS puanlarının (131,0 ve 125,0; p=0,011) anlamlı düzeyde yüksek olması, sürdürülebilir gıda okuryazarlığı ile formal beslenme eğitimi arasında pozitif bir ilişki olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç: Gıda okuryazarlığı puanları; cinsiyet, beslenme ile ilgili uygulamalara katılım, ara öğün tüketimi ve önceki beslenme eğitimi gibi değişkenlere göre anlamlı farklılıklar göstermiştir. Bu bulgular, ekolojik açıdan sorumlu beslenme alışkanlıklarının teşvik edilmesi ve daha geniş sürdürülebilirlik hedeflerine katkı sağlanması açısından gıda okuryazarlığının artırılmasının önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

• Beslenme alışkanlıkları
• besin tercihleri
• sürdürülebilirlik
• beslenme davranışı
• gıda okuryazarlığı

Supporting Institution

TÜBİTAK

Project Number

1919B012325215

Ethical Statement

Çalışma, İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Etik Kurulu’ndan 23 Ocak 2024 tarihli ve 2024/1 sayılı kararla etik onay alarak yürütülmüştür. Araştırmaya katılan tüm bireylerden bilgilendirilmiş onam alınmıştır.

Thanks

Bu çalışma, TÜBİTAK BİDEB 2209-A – Üniversite Öğrencileri Araştırma Projeleri Destekleme Programı 2023/2. Dönem (Başvuru No: 1919B012325215) kapsamında desteklenmiştir.

Evaluation of Sustainable Food Literacy, Dietary Behaviors, and Food Preferences among Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to examine the potential influence of sustainable food literacy on adults’ dietary behaviors and food preferences. Material and Methods: This cross-sectional study included 400 adults (172 males, 228 females), aged 18–65, residing in Istanbul. Data were collected via a structured questionnaire covering sociodemographic characteristics, self-reported anthropometrics, dietary behaviors, food preferences, and physical activity. The Sustainable Food Literacy Scale (SFLS) was used to evaluate sustainability-related food literacy. Results: Significant gender-based differences were observed across several domains of the SFLS, with women reporting higher scores in Sustainable Food Knowledge-2 (SFK-2) (5.75 vs. 5.5; p<0.001), Cooking and Kitchen Skills (CKS) (6.0 vs. 5.17; p<0.001), Attitudes (ATT) (5.0 vs. 4.67; p<0.001), and Intentions for Action, and Action Strategies (AIS) (4.71 vs. 4.28; p<0.001), Total Sustainable Food Knowledge (SFK-T) (4.8 vs. 4.5; p=0.005) and the overall SFLS score (132.0 vs. 121.0; p<0.001). Individuals following a specific diet showed higher scores in SFK-2 (6.0 vs. 5.5; p=0.019), CKS (6.16 vs. 5.66; p=0.002), AIS (5.0 vs. 4.57; p=0.015), and total SFLS (138.0 vs. 125.0; p=0.009). Regular snack consumers demonstrated significantly higher scores in SFK-2 (6.0 vs. 5.5; p=0.035) and SFLS total (132.5 vs. 124.0; p=0.012). Prior nutrition education was associated with increased scores in Sustainable Food Knowledge-1 (SFK-1) (4.66 vs. 4.0; p<0.001), SFK-2 (6.0 vs. 5.5; p=0.002), SFK-T (5.0 vs. 4.6; p<0.001), and total SFLS (131.0 vs. 125.0; p=0.011), indicating a positive relationship between nutrition education and sustainable food literacy. Conclusion: Food literacy scores differed significantly by gender, engagement in dietary practices, snack consumption, and prior nutrition education. These findings underscore the importance of enhancing food literacy to promote ecologically responsible dietary behaviors and contribute to broader sustainability goals.

Keywords

• Dietary behaviors
• food literacy
• food preference
• nutrition behavior
• sustainability

Supporting Institution

TÜBİTAK

Project Number

1919B012325215

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics Committee for Social and Human Sciences at Istanbul Medeniyet University (Approval No: 2024/1, dated January 23, 2024). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Thanks

This study was funded by TÜBİTAK BİDEB 2209-A – Research Project Support Programme for Undergraduate Students. 2023/2nd Term (Application No: 1919B012325215).

References

1. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development. History [Internet]. [cited 2025 Apr 8]. Available from: https://sdgs.un.org/goals
2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Sustainable food and agriculture 2025 [Internet]. [cited 2025 Apr 8]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/sustainability/en/
3. Manna A, Vidgen H, Gallegos D. Examining the effectiveness of food literacy interventions in improving food literacy behavior and healthy eating among adults belonging to different socioeconomic groups- a systematic scoping review. Syst Rev. 2024;13(1):221. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02632-y.
4. Ares G, De Rosso S, Mueller C, Philippe K, Pickard A, Nicklaus S, et al. Development of food literacy in children and adolescents: implications for the design of strategies to promote healthier and more sustainable diets. Nutr Rev. 2023;82(4):536-52. DOI: 10.1093/nutrit/nuad072.
5. Yoo H, Jo E, Lee H, Park S. Development of a food literacy assessment tool for healthy, joyful, and sustainable diet in South Korea. Nutrients. 2022;14(7):1507. DOI: 10.3390/nu14071507.
6. McManus S, Pendergast D. Exploring the intersection of food literacy and consumer research: A review, conceptualisation, and agenda for sustainability-focused research. Food Qual Prefer. 2025;126:105429. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105429.
7. Jo EB, Kim K, Park S. Defining food literacy and its application to nutrition interventions: A scoping review. Korean J Community Nutr. 2021;26(2):77-92. DOI: 10.5720/kjcn.2021.26.2.77.
8. Vidgen HA, Gallegos D. Defining food literacy and its components. Appetite. 2014;76:50-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.01.010.

9. Cullen T, Hatch J, Martin W, Higgins JW, Sheppard R. Food literacy: definition and framework for action. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2015;76(3):140-5. DOI: 10.3148/cjdpr-2015-010.
10. Kizgin Y, Tuncer B. Türk gıda kodeksine göre gıda etiketi okuryazarlığının belirlenmesi: genç tüketiciler üzerinde bir araştırma. Bus Manag Stud Int J. 2020;8:1849-65. DOI: 10.15295/bmij.v8i2.1471.
11. Durmus H, Gökler ME, Havlioglu S. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the short food literacy questionnaire among university students. Prog Nutr. 2019;21:333-8.
12. Park D, Shin MJ, Song S. Food literacy in South Korea: Operational definition and measurement issues. Clin Nutr Res. 2019;8(2):79-90. DOI: 10.7762/cnr.2019.8.2.79.
13. Lee Y, Kim T, Jung H. The relationships between food literacy, health promotion literacy and healthy eating habits among young adults in South Korea. Foods. 2022;11(16):2467. DOI: 10.3390/foods11162467.
14. Ensaff H. A nudge in the right direction: the role of food choice architecture in changing populations' diets. Proc Nutr Soc. 2021;80(2):195-206. DOI: 10.1017/s0029665120007983.
15. Doustmohammadian A, Omidvar N, Shakibazadeh E. School-based interventions for promoting food and nutrition literacy (FNLIT) in elementary school children: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2020;9(1):87. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-020-01339-0.
16. Kammholz G, Craven D, Boodoosingh R, Akeli Amaama S, Abraham J, Burkhart S. Exploring food literacy domains in an adult Samoan population. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(7). DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18073587.
17. EUFIC [Internet]. Food literacy survey in 7 European countries (2024) [cited 2025 Sep 28]. Available from: https://www.eufic.org/en/research/article/food-literacy-survey-in-7-european-countries-2024
18. Kang H. Sample size determination and power analysis using the G*Power software. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2021;18:17. DOI: 10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.17.
19. Tedik S. Healthy life and role of nursing in the control of body weight. Turk J Diab Obes. 2017;2:54-62.
20. Teng C-C, Chih C. Sustainable food literacy: A measure to promote sustainable diet practices. Sustainable Prod Consump. 2022;30. DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2022.01.008.
21. Yüksel A, Kubilay MN. Validity and reliability study of the Turkish adaptation of the sustainable food literacy scale. Gümüşhane Univ Sağlık Bilim Derg. 2023;12(4):1562-70. DOI: 10.37989/gumussagbil.1367727.
22. Choi J, Peters M, Mueller R. Correlational analysis of ordinal data: From Pearson's r to Bayesian polychoric correlation. Asia Pac Educ Rev. 2010;11:459-66. DOI: 10.1007/s12564-010-9096-y.
23. Lee Y, Kim T, Jung H. Effects of university students’ perceived food literacy on ecological eating behavior towards sustainability. Sustainability. 2022;14(9):5242. DOI: 10.3390/su14095242.
24. Ertaş Öztürk Y, Kabalı S, Açar Y, Ağagündüz D, Budán F. Adaptation of the food literacy (FOODLIT) tool for Turkish adults: A validity and reliability study. Nutrients. 2024;16(19):3416. DOI: 10.3390/nu16193416.
25. Mortaş H, Navruz-Varlı S, Çıtar-Dazıroğlu ME, Bilici S. Can unveiling the relationship between nutritional literacy and sustainable eating behaviors survive our future? Sustainability. 2023;15(18):13925. DOI: 10.3390/su151813925.
26. Sponselee HCS, Kroeze W, Poelman MP, Renders CM, Ball K, Steenhuis IHM. Food and health promotion literacy among employees with a low and medium level of education in the Netherlands. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1273. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-11322-6.
27. Svendsen K, Torheim LE, Fjelberg V, Sorprud A, Narverud I, Retterstøl K, et al. Gender differences in nutrition literacy levels among university students and employees: a descriptive study. J Nutr Sci. 2021;10:e56. DOI: 10.1017/jns.2021.47.
28. Aksoy Canyolu B, Dönmez B, Yılmaz Önal H, Güneş FE. Gıda okuryazarlığının, akdeniz diyetine uyum ve beslenmeyle ilintili biyokimyasal bulgularla ilişkisi. Hacettepe Univ Fac Health Sci J. 2024;11(2):404-16. DOI: 10.21020/husbfd.1387455.
29. Lavelle F, Bucher T, Dean M, Brown HM, Rollo ME, Collins CE. Diet quality is more strongly related to food skills rather than cooking skills confidence: Results from a national cross-sectional survey. Nutr Diet. 2020;77(1):112-20. DOI: 10.1111/1747-0080.12583.
30. Wardle J, Haase AM, Steptoe A, Nillapun M, Jonwutiwes K, Bellisie F. Gender differences in food choice: The contribution of health beliefs and dieting. Ann Behav Med. 2004;27(2):107-16. DOI: 10.1207/s15324796abm2702_5.
31. Murakami K, Shinozaki N, Livingstone MBE, Yuan X, Tajima R, Matsumoto M, et al. Associations of food choice values and food literacy with overall diet quality: a nationwide cross-sectional study in Japanese adults. Br J Nutr. 2023;130(10):1795-805. DOI: 10.1017/S000711452300082X.
32. Forray AI, Coman MA, Cherecheș RM, Borzan CM. Exploring the impact of sociodemographic characteristics and health literacy on adherence to dietary recommendations and food literacy. Nutrients. 2023;15(13):2853. DOI:10.3390/nu15132853.
33. Guiné RPF, Florença SG, Aparício MG, Cardoso AP, Ferreira M. Food knowledge for better nutrition and health: A study among university students in Portugal. Healthcare. 2023;11(11):1597. DOI:10.3390/healthcare11111597.
34. Murakami K, Shinozaki N, Yuan X, Tajima R, Matsumoto M, Masayasu S, et al. Food choice values and food literacy in a nationwide sample of Japanese adults: Associations with sex, age, and body mass index. Nutrients. 2022;14(9):1899. DOI:10.3390/nu14091899.
35. Uzdil Z, Macit-Çelebi MS, Ertaş Öztürk Y, Sokulmez Kaya P. Effect of food literacy on adherence to mediterranean diet and anthropometric measurements in adults. Rev Nutr. 2024;37:e230034. DOI: 10.1590/1678-9865202437e230034.
36. Yurtdaş Depboylu G, Kaner G, Süer M, Kanyılmaz M, Alpan D. Nutrition literacy status and its association with adherence to the Mediterranean diet, anthropometric parameters and lifestyle behaviours among early adolescents. Public Health Nutr. 2023;26(10):2108-17. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980023001830.
37. Murakami K, Shinozaki N, Okuhara T, McCaffrey TA, Livingstone MBE. Self-perceived food literacy in relation to the quality of overall diet and main meals: A cross-sectional study in Japanese adults. Appetite. 2024;196:107281. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2024.107281.
38. Fernandez MA, Desroches S, Marquis M, Lebel A, Turcotte M, Provencher V. Which food literacy dimensions are associated with diet quality among Canadian parents? Br Food J. 2019;121(8):1670-85. DOI :10.1108/bfj-11-2018-0724.
39. Intarakamhang U, Prasittichok P. Causal model of health literacy in dietary supplement use and sufficient health behavior among working-age adults. Heliyon. 2022;8(11). DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11535.
40. Thepthawach R, Rattanawarang W. The relationship between health literacy and food supplement product consumption behavior of the elderly. Thai J Public Health. 2024;54(2):846-59.
41. Buja A, Rabensteiner A, Sperotto M, Grotto G, Bertoncello C, Cocchio S, et al. Health literacy and physical activity: A systematic review. J Phys Act Health. 2020;17(12):1259-74. DOI: 10.1123/jpah.2020-0161.
42. Yolcuoğlu İZ, Kızıltan G. Effect of nutrition education on diet quality, sustainable nutrition and eating behaviors among university students. J Am Nutr Assoc. 2022;41(7):713-9. DOI: 10.1080/07315724.2021.1955420.
43. Begley A, Paynter E, Butcher L, Bobongie V, Dhaliwal SS. Identifying who improves or maintains their food literacy behaviours after completing an adult program. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12). DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17124462.
44. Öztürk EE, Özgen L. Evaluation of the relationship between nutrition knowledge and sustainable food literacy. J Contemp Med. 2023;13(1):66-71. DOI: 10.16899/jcm.1221031.
45. McManus S, Pendergast D, Kanasa H. The intersection between food literacy and sustainability: A systematic quantitative literature review. Sustainability. 2025;17(2):459. DOI:10.3390/su17020459.
46. Chamcham J, Pakravan-Charvadeh MR, Maleknia R, Flora C. Media literacy and its role in promoting sustainable food consumption practices. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):18831. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-69627-6.