아동건강권 사업 보고서 2012

* 아동건강권사업은 시민건강증진연구소의 Child Health Initiative 연구기금으로 진행되었습니다.
Child Health Initiative

Child Health Initiative는 우리 연구소의 활동을 지지하는 뜻 있는 회원의 기부로 조성된 연구기금입니다.

출판일 ∥ 2014년 06 월 09 일
편집인 ∥ 서 상 희 (시민건강증진연구소)
공동저자 ∥ 전 경 자 (순천향대학교 간호학과)
김 명 희 (시민건강증진연구소)
서 상 희 (시민건강증진연구소)
장 민 희 (시민건강증진연구소)
펴낸 곳 ∥ (사) 시민건강증진연구소
서울시 서초구 방배로 201 보성빌딩 4층
전화: 070 8658-1848 팩스: 02 581-0339

=====================================

< 차 례 >
요약 ················································································i
1. 연구의 필요성 ································································1
2. 배경 ············································································3
2.1 어린이 건강을 바라보는 엇갈린 시선들 ································3
2.1.1 미래의 일꾼이라서? 아니 불쌍하니까? ······························3
2.1.2 성인기의 건강불평등을 해소하기 위한 출발점? ····················4
2.1.3 어린이, 건강한 삶, 존재론적 가치 ·····································5
2.2 어린이 건강과 지역사회 ···················································8
2.2.1 왜 지역사회에서 시작 하는가 ··········································8
2.2.2 어린이가 건강하게 자랄 수 있는 지역사회란························10
3. PHI 아동건강권 사업 소개 ··················································12
3.1 아동건강권 사업의 목표와 추진계획 ····································12
3.1.1 천안에서 시작하다. ······················································13
3.1.2 “미래를 여는 아이들”과 함께 ···········································14
3.2 첫 해, 우리는 이렇게 활동했다. ···········································14
3.2.1 준비회의 ····································································14
3.2.2 진행일정 ····································································16
4. 어린이 건강에 대한 지역주민의 인식: 집단면담 결과 ···················18
4.1 집단면담 준비 과정 ··························································18
4.2 그룹별 집단면담 내용 ························································21
4.2.1 ‘건강한 아이들’에 대한 참여자들의 인식 ·······························21
4.2.1.1 건강한 아이들이란? ······················································21
4.2.1.2 아이들을 ‘불건강’하게 만드는 현실에 대한 인식 ·····················27
4.2.1.3 아프진 않지만 ‘불건강’한 아이들-놀지 못하는 아이들 ···············31
4.2.1.4 아프진 않지만 ‘불건강’한 아이들-즐겁지 않은 아이들 ···············33
4.2.1.5 건강한 아이들의 조건-신체적, 정신적 건강의 조화 ···················35
4.2.1.6 건강할 수 없는 아이들-형평성의 문제 ···································38

4.2.1.7 부모 교육의 필요성 ·························································42
4.2.2 ‘건강한 지역’에 대한 참여자들의 인식 ······································45
4.2.2.1 천안지역에 대한 참여자들의 인식 ········································45
4.2.2.2 천안에 대한 기대-건강한 환경 조성과 어린이에 대한 지원 확충 ······48
4.2.2.3 천안에 대한 기대-공동체에 대한 희망, 실천을 위한 실마리 ············50
4.3. ‘건강한 아이들, 살고 싶은 천안’을 위한 과제 : 워크샵 결과 ················54
4.3.1 워크샵 과정 및 내용 보고 ·······················································55
4.4. 소결 ···················································································59
5. 어린이들이 말하는 건강관련 경험: 어린이 면담 결과 ···························61
5.1 자료수집방법 ·········································································61
5.1.1 집단면담 ·············································································63
5.1.2 개별심층면담 ········································································66
5.2 참여 어린이 소개·······································································68
5.3 어린이 면담 내용 ······································································76
5.3.1 총체적 박탈 경험 “집 밥” ···························································78
5.3.1.1 스스로 챙겨먹거나 그냥 굶기 ···················································79
5.3.1.2 외롭고 맛없는 밥 ···································································91
5.3.1.3 체념 ··················································································95
5.3.2. 새로운 경험 구축 “학교 밥” ························································100
5.3.2.1 기다려지고 맛있는 학교급식 ····················································101
5.3.2.2 편하고 즐겁게 함께 하는 점심시간 ·············································104
5.3.3. 어중간함 속에 존재하는 가치 “공부방 밥” ······································105
5.3.3.1 맛있거나 혹은 맛없거나 ·························································106
5.3.3.2 간식의 긍정성 ······································································109
5.3.4 사라져버린 공동체 “이웃(동네)밥” ················································111
5.3.4.1 이웃사촌이 없음 ···································································112
5.3.4.2 친구 집에 놀러간 경험 ····························································113
5.3.5 인식(생각)을 넘어서는 경험 ························································115
5.3.5.1 ‘밥’에서 중요한 것 ·································································116
5.3.5.2 ‘밥’ 보다 중요한 것 ································································120
5.3.5.3 먹을거리에 대한 다양한 경험이 없음 ···········································122
5.4 소결 ·······················································································128

6. 결론 ·························································································130

지난 2008년 다우너 소 동영상 사건으로 미국 역사상 최대의 리콜 사태를 불러왔던
캘리포니아 주 웨스턴랜드/홀마크(Westland/Hallmark Meat Co)사 도축장의 동물학대
소송사건이 5억 달러에 합의가 이루어졌다는 소식입니다.

동물보호단체 휴메인 소사이어티 미국지부(Humane Society of the United States)와
웨스턴랜드/홀마크(Westland/Hallmark Meat Co)사 사장과 이루어진 이 합의는
동물학대 사례에서 사상 최대의 벌금을 부과한 것인데… 해당 도축장이 파산했기
때문에 이 합의는 상징적 의미만 가지게 되었습니다.

문제의 도축장에서 생산된 쇠고기를 학교급식에 공급해온 리버사이드 카운티 컴퍼니(
the Riverside County company)는 인도적인 방법으로 도축한 쇠고기라는 사실이 증명된
고기만을 공급하겠다는 계약서에 서명했다고 합니다.

다우너 불법도축 사건은 미국 내 광우병 검사 시스템이 부실한 사례 중 하나로
2008년 MBC 피디수첩 ‘광우병’편에서 소개되기도 했습니다.

이 사건을 계기로 미 정부는 다우너 소 도축금지 조치를 내렸지만, 캘리포니아 주에서
이 조치에 대해 연방정부를 상대로 소송을 벌여 다시 다우너 소의 예외적 도축을 허용
하게 되었습니다.

그리고 다시 2012년 캘리포니아 주의 렌더링 공장에서 다우너 소가 광우병에 감염된
사실이 확인되었습니다.

========================

Huge animala abuse settlement reached

By Tracie cone

Source : AP Nov 16 2012

FRESNO, Calif. (AP) — A landmark $500 million agreement was reached to settle a slaughterhouse abuse case in California that led to the biggest meat recall in U.S. history in 2008, an animal welfare group announced Friday.

The civil settlement with the owners of Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. is the largest-ever penalty for an animal abuse case, and the first time federal fraud statutes have been used, according to the Humane Society of the United States, the lead plaintiff.

The settlement is largely symbolic because the company is bankrupt.

“It’s a deterrence judgment,” said Jonathan R. Lovvorn, chief counsel for animal protection litigation at the Humane Society of the United States. “It informs other federal government contractors that when your contract says you provide humane handling, if you don’t do that you’re likely to end up bankrupt as well.”

As a supplier of meats for the national school lunch program, the Riverside County company had signed federal contracts certifying that it would provide humane treatment of animals sent there for slaughter.

The animal welfare group filed a civil complaint in U.S. District Court in Riverside in 2009, and the U.S. Justice Department intervened after research showed that one of the packing plant partners had two felony convictions related to illegal industry practices.

“This is a first-of-its-kind lawsuit regarding farm animals, the first time federal fraud statutes have been applied,” Lovvorn said. “When you look at the video, it’s about as far from humane treatment as you can get.”

The widely circulated video shot by an undercover operative showed “downer cows” — those too weak or sick to walk — being dragged by chains, rammed by forklifts and sprayed with high-pressure water by employees who wanted them to stand and walk to slaughter.

Downed cows can pose an increased risk for mad cow and other diseases. Thus far, no mad cow cases have been linked to the recalled meat from Westland/Hallmark Meat Co.

The video sparked the largest beef recall in U.S. history. Nearly 37 million pounds of the 143 million pounds recalled had gone to school lunch programs, and most had been eaten by the time of the recall. The recall cost taxpayers $150 million.

The lawsuit alleged the government paid the company money it was not entitled to because the company lied about meeting the conditions of its contracts.

The settlement agreement followed another slaughterhouse abuse investigation in August in Central California.

In that case, the federal government suspended school lunch purchases from Central Valley Meat Co. of Hanford after a video by an undercover operative from Compassion Over Killing showed downed animals being repeatedly kicked, shocked, shot and pulled by the tails by workers trying to get them to stand. That cruelty investigation is ongoing.

In the Hallmark case, the partial settlement announced Friday is with two of nine defendants in the case, Donald Hallmark Sr. and Donald Hallmark Jr. Neither is the packing plant partner with the felony convictions.

Under the terms, the father and son also have five years to pay $316,802, or the bulk of their remaining personal assets. They have also agreed to cooperate fully with the Justice Department and the Humane Society of the United States in settling the litigation against the remaining seven defendants.

Attorneys for the defendants and the Justice Department did not immediately return calls seeking comment. The symbolic settlement will become final when the cases against the other defendants are resolved, Lovvorn said.

If accepted by the court, the $497 million agreement reached with the defendants against the bankrupt company likely will go unpaid, Lovvorn said. The amount was determined under the treble damages provision of the federal False Claims Act.

In the court papers, the plaintiffs alleged that the meatpacking plant slaughtered and processed downer cows from January 2004 to September 2007 at the average rate of one every six weeks.

서울 학교급식 쇠고기 26% ‘원산지 세탁’된다

Model Wellness Policies

The Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act in 2004 requires every school district that participates in federal school meals programs to pass a Local Wellness Policy (LWP) by the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year (Public Law 108-265 Section 204). The Local Wellness Policy is a significant development in education and health policy because it requires schools to address nutrition and physical activity, as well as creates an opportunity for greater public input into health in the school environment. 

What must be addressed in the LWP?

• 
  
  Set goals for nutrition education, physical activity, and other school-based activities that promote health
  
  
• 
  
  Provide guidelines for all foods available in schools during the school day
  
  
• 
  
  Be no less restrictive than federal guidelines for school meals
  
  
• 
  
  Establish a way to measure the implementation of the LWP

Who should be involved in creating the LWP?

• 
  
  Parents, students, school food service representatives, the school board, school administrators, and the general public.

The Local Wellness Policy is an excellent opportunity to address the issue of serving irradiated food in school meals.

Irradiation – A Toxic Technology

Irradiation is a technology that exposes food to high doses of ionizing radiation to kill bacteria. In the process, irradiation depletes vitamins and nutrients and causes the creation of new chemicals – some of which do not naturally occur in food and have never been studied for safety by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Some of the byproducts of irradiating food may promote cancer development and cause genetic damage to cells. Moreover, there is scarce research on the long-term health effects on children who are exposed to toxic chemicals in foods.  Existing studies indicate that children are more susceptible to environmental toxins because their bodies are still developing and they proportionally consume more food, water, and oxygen than adults.

Irradiated Foods in School Meals

Nationwide, schools are taking a greater interest in the nutritional standards and wholesomeness of food being served to children at school.  In addition to fat and calorie content, the level of environmental toxins in food is of increasing concern to parents, teachers and school board officials.  A 2003 decision to allow irradiated ground beef into the National School Lunch Program was met with tremendous opposition from the public.  Since then, school districts across the country have debated whether serving this food to school children is appropriate, and 11 school districts, including Los Angeles and the District of Columbia, have banned irradiated foods from their meal programs.

Sample Policy Requirements for the Model Local Wellness Policy

1. Ban irradiated foods:  Eleven school districts have banned irradiated foods from being served in their school meal programs.  This measure can be included as a separate section of a Local Wellness Policy (see Appendix I) or as part of a nutrition component of a Local Wellness Policy (see Appendix II)

2. Right-to-Know Requirement:  The public has overwhelmingly opposed the inclusion of irradiated foods in school lunches, despite the recent decision to allow irradiated ground beef in the National School Lunch Program.  In school meals, irradiated food does not have to be labeled. Require school board approval, parental notification, and labeling for irradiated food prior to it being served to students.

Additional Resources

Food Irradiation

• 
  
  Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program
  http://www.safelunch.org
  
  
• 
  
  The Cancer Prevention Coalition
  http://www.preventcancer.com
  
  
• 
  
  Minnesota Voices for Choices
  http://www.mnvoicesforchoices.org

Model Local Wellness Policies

• 
  
  USDA’s Team Nutrition Website, Basic Information on the Law:
  http://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/Healthy/wellnesspolicy.html
  
  
• 
  
  Food Research & Action Center, General Information   http://www.frac.org/html/federal_food_programs/cnreauthor/wellness_policies.htm
  
  
• 
  
  Center for Ecoliteracy, Rethinking School Lunch
  http://www.ecoliteracy.org/programs/rsl.html
  
  
• 
  
  Community Food Security Coalition, Farm-to-School Programs
  http://www.foodsecurity.org/farm_to_school.html
  
  
• 
  
  National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity, Model School Wellness Policy
  http://www.schoolwellnesspolicies.org

APPENDIX 1

Respectfully Submitted to the [DISTRICT NAME] District School Board on [DATE]

A Resolution in Support of Keeping Food Safe for All Students

Submitted by: [Group or Individual Name]

WHEREAS: Each day, [DISTRICT NAME] school district students trust that the foods they eat in cafeterias are wholesome and safe; and

WHEREAS: The school board is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the safety of foods provided at schools within the [DISTRICT NAME] school district for human consumption; and

WHEREAS: Despite the fact that much of the research done on irradiated foods is over twenty years old and expressed the need for more long-term research on the unique radiolytic products created in irradiated food, current US laws regulating the production and retail of irradiated foods are still based on these studies and the FDA has never studied the long-term effects of consuming irradiated food; and

WHEREAS: Recent research in Germany, using more technologically advanced techniques and equipment, has led to the belief by many scientists, here and abroad, that irradiated foods are unsafe; and

WHEREAS: Current federal laws do not require irradiated foods served in schools to be labeled as such, and because schools are increasingly being targeted by the food irradiation industry through such programs as the National School Lunch Program, there is increasing likelihood that children may consume unsafe foods without their knowledge or the consent of their parents; and

WHEREAS: Current federal laws do not require certain irradiated food ingredients to be labeled, there is likelihood that the school district may be unknowingly purchasing irradiated foods.

FURTHER RESOLVED: The [DISTRICT NAME] school district shall not purchase any food products that can be reasonably believed to have been processed using any form of ionizing radiation (irradiation).

APPENDIX 2

September 3, 2004

News Release

Seattle SchoolBoard Approves
Comprehensive Suite of Nutrition Policies

Sales of Sodas and Junk Food Banned on School Campuses

The Seattle School Board has unanimously approved a comprehensive and far-reaching set of nutrition-related policies designed to provide students with healthy food and beverage choices during the school day. Specifically, the policies will ban sales of all foods containing high levels of sugar and fat, improve the quality and appeal of school meal programs, and prohibit contracts with beverage vendors for “exclusive pouring rights.”

These policies are amongst the strongest in the country, and confirm the Board’s commitment to eliminating barriers to learning by creating a healthy nutrition environment in all 100 schools.

“These policies make it clear that we are determined to provide our students with healthy food options,” said School Board Vice-President Brita Butler-Wall. “We are committed to providing an environment at each school that maximizes students’ ability to learn and succeed. That includes ensuring that foods and beverages sold at schools are healthy and nutritious.”

The new policies require all foods and beverages sold and distributed during the school day to meet nutrition guidelines and follow certain portion sizes. This provision will go into effect immediately at elementary and middle schools, and beginning February 1, 2005 at high schools. Exclusive ‘pouring rights’ contracts will be prohibited, and the current exclusive contract with Coca-Cola will be phased out within one year. The policies also give direction to the school meal program and others to offer fresh, local, organic, non-genetically-modified, non-irradiated, unprocessed food, whenever feasible.

Butler-Wall praised Shelley Curtis, Nutrition Director for the Children’s Alliance, for leading the research team that developed the policies over a six-month period. The nutrition sub-committee of the School Board relied on the expertise of more than 60 health and nutrition experts and community members. In adopting these policies, Seattle leads the way on a new state law requiring districts to adopt nutrition policies by 2005.

The new and amended policies include:

Policy E11.00, Food Service , and Procedure E11.01, Breakfast and Lunch Program

Policy E13.00, Food Sales , and Procedure E13.01, Distribution and Sales of Competitive Foods

Procedure C30.01, Advertising and Commercial Activities

The report of the nutrition committee is available on the District’s Web site at http://www.seattleschools.org/area/board/committees.xml and School Board Policies are available at http://www.seattleschools.org/area/policies/index.dxml

암모니아 섞인 분쇄육에 더 큰 위험 있어

뉴욕타임즈는 지난 2009년 10월 4일 미국에서 해마다 수 만명의 사람들이 병원성 대장균 O157(E. Coli 0157:H7)에 오염된 분쇄육(갈아 만든 쇠고기, 간 쇠고기, ground beef)을 먹고 위험에 처한다고 보도했습니다.

뉴욕타임즈는 지난 2007년 가을 카길사의 냉동 햄버거육(패티)을 먹은 스테파니 스미스(22)가 식중독 때문에 허리 아래가 마비됐다고 전하면서 분쇄육 위생점검 체계의 문제점을 고발한 바 있습니다.

문제는 연방정부의 규제와 기준에 분쇄육의 성분에 대해 병원균 검사를 요구하는 내용이 없다는 점이었습니다.

2010년 1월 9일자 뉴욕타임즈는 분쇄육에 세척제로 사용되는 암모니아가 주입되어 있다는 사실을 지적했습니다.

8년 전쯤 비프 프로덕트사(Beef Products Inc)는 살인적인 대장균과 살모넬라균을 사멸시킬 수 있는 암모니아를 분쇄육(ground beef)에 주입하는 새로운 아이디어를 내놓았습니다. 미 농무부는 이 아이디어가 효과적이라고 선언하고, ‘비프 프로덕트사’를 일상적인 검사를 제외시켜주었습니다. 이에 따라 비프 프로덕트사의 분쇄육은 식료품점, 패스트푸드 음식점, 그리고 학교급식 프로그램 정기적으로 납품되기 시작했습니다.

그러나  비프 프로덕트사의 분쇄육은 안전하지 않은 것으로 드러났습니다.

이 회사에서 제조한 분쇄육에서는 암모니아를 주입했음에도 불구하고 사멸하지 않은 병원성 대장균이나 살로넬라균이 검출되었습니다.  암모니아를 주입하지 않은 타 회사의 분쇄육보다도 더 많은 세균이 검출된 것은 더 심하게 미생물에 오염된 불량 원재료를 사용했기 때문으로 추정됩니다.

심지어 이 회사는 병원성 대장균 O157(E. Coli 0157:H7)에 오염된 분쇄육이 적발되어 2차례에 걸쳐 2만7천파운드의 쇠고기에 대해 자발적 리콜을 실시한 적도 있습니다.

 ’비프 프로덕트사’에서 제조한 분쇄육은 맥도널드, 버거킹을 비롯한 패스트 푸드 체인점, 학교급식 프로그램, 그리고 각종 식품점에서 판매되었습니다.

미국에서도 특히 문제가 되는 점은 학교급식에 이러한 미생물에 오염된 쇠고기가 판매됐다는 사실입니다. 분쇄육은 안전성에 문제가 있으나 가격 자체가 헐값이다보니 학교급식 재료로 사용되고 있는 것입니다.

미 농무부는 뒤늦게  ‘비프 프로덕트사’의 분쇄육에 대한 검사 면제조치를 취소했습니다. 미 농무부 고위 관료는 뉴욕타임즈가 학교급식 쇠고기 검사의 문제점에 대해서 경고하기 전까지 이러한 검사 면제조치의 문제점을 모르고 있었다고 인정했다고 합니다.(과연 모르고 있었는지, 알면서도 모른채 하고 있었는지 궁금합니다.)

지난 2008년 4월 한미쇠고기 수입위생조건 졸속협상이 타결됨에 따라 현재 미국산 분쇄육은 한국에 수입이 가능한 품목으로 지정되어 있습니다.

최근 대만에서 여야 합의로 미국산 소의 내장, 분쇄육 등 6개 부위에 대한 수입금지를 명시하는 법률개정안이 통과됨에 따라 국내에서도 가축전염병예방법을 개정하고 미국산 쇠고기 수입위생조건 재협상을 실시해야 할 필요성이 제기되고 있습니다.

아래 뉴스는 ‘분쇄육 더 위험해’라는 제목의 뉴욕타임즈 기사 원문입니다.

===============================================
 
More Perils of Ground Meat

 출처 : The New York Tomes, Published: January 9, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/opinion/10sun2.html?em

About eight years ago, a company called Beef Products Inc. had the novel idea of injecting its ground beef with ammonia to kill deadly E. coli and salmonella. The Agriculture Department pronounced the idea effective and exempted Beef Products Inc. from routine tests. The company’s beef began appearing regularly in grocery stores, fast food restaurants and school lunch programs. It turned out the beef was not safe.

The slaughterhouse trimmings the company used to grind its beef — known as processed beef — have a much higher microbial presence than other cuts, including E. coli and salmonella, and the ability of the ammonia to kill the germs appears to have been greatly oversold.

Investigators working for a division of the Agriculture Department that oversees school lunch programs found higher rates of salmonella in meat from Beef Products than from other vendors. Two 27,000-pound batches of beef were recalled for E. coli contamination.

The Agriculture Department has now belatedly withdrawn its exemption. Top officials admitted that they had been unaware of the problem until The New York Times alerted them to the school lunch test results.

This whole scary mess suggests several problems that need fixing, starting with better coordination. School lunch officials and managers at the Agriculture Department’s meat safety division are obviously not sharing information effectively. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has since directed them to do so. And mindsets must change. School lunch programs were initially attracted to processed beef (despite its alkaline taste and offensive smell) because it was so much cheaper. Safety and quality must be higher priorities than price.

With its exemption has been withdrawn, Beef Products Inc. deserves the closest possible scrutiny: its beef is widely used, not just in schools. And the Agriculture Department’s meat safety division clearly must be more vigilant. Consumers should not have to wait until somebody in the school lunch program blows the whistle.