CFIA Public Opinion Research for the Food Business Line 2023 to 2024

Overall views on and experiences with food fraud

Reactions to CFIA messaging regarding food fraud

Overall views on and experiences with “best before” dates

An important research objective was to better understand Canadians’ views and use of “best before” dates.

Many were confident that they understood the difference between an expiration date and a “best before” date on food products. A few were less confident in the difference between these two dates with some admitting that they will throw food away once it is past the “best before” date.

To make sure all participants were on the same page, definitions were provided:

After hearing these definitions, some admitted that they did not realize the difference between these dates.

Most pay attention to “best before” dates at the grocery store, particularly when it comes to meat or dairy products (particularly milk). These participants typically wanted to purchase items that will stay fresh for longer once they bring it home rather than because of food safety concerns. A few said that they will purchase discounted food that is close to the “best before” date with intentions to use it right away or freeze it.

Most participants were more lenient on best “before dates” when it comes to food products in their home, especially pantry items. However, they remain cautious with certain items such as meat, fish and milk. These participants explained that they will check for signs of spoilage to determine freshness and decide whether they should consume it.

When the topic of removing “best before” dates from food items was probed, most were opposed. Participants generally felt that even though “best before” dates should not necessarily be used as a firm date, they are still beneficial as a guideline, especially when it comes to items such as meat, fish and dairy products. Participants would be less concerned about the removal of “best before” dates on items such as spices or non-perishable items.

There were concerns that without “best before” dates, items might sit on the shelves at stores for long periods of time and it might be difficult to know if an item has already spoiled before purchasing it.

While several felt that removing “best before” dates would likely reduce food waste, they suggested that instead there should be more awareness on the difference between an expiry date and “best before” date so that consumers would be encouraged to inspect items that are past their “best before” date rather than just throwing them out.

General attitudes towards and awareness of food regulation and compliance

Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR)

CFIA’s role in food safety regulation

For the most part, CFIA’s role is generally understood to be that of regulator for the Canadian food industry, and to ensure the safety of the food Canadians eat. It was also mentioned that one of its roles is to ensure that uniform standards are met across the country and throughout the whole supply chain.

In terms of helping businesses comply with food regulations in Canada, those who felt that the CFIA had in fact been helpful to them in the past considered the CFIA a partner. These participants often spoke about the education aspect – the CFIA helping them to find information or directly sending them information they required regarding the regulations, often particularly when starting their business.

CFIA tools

A variety of CFIA virtual tools were shown to participants in order explore familiarity and collect feedback.

Effectiveness of SFCR communications

Few participants received communications or recalled receiving such communications directly from CFIA. For the most part, communications about regulations came from third parties such as newsletters from industry associations or informal communications with others within their industry.

Receiving information from industry associations seemed to be a preference for some who felt that communication coming directly from the CFIA may get lost, or likely would not be very tailored to them. There would be interest in receiving more communications from the CFIA if it could be divided by industry so that businesses can look for the relevant information.

When asked how communications could be improved, some liked the idea of having a contact at the CFIA that they can quickly reach out to for information as needed. Similarly, a few felt that the business relationship with the CFIA should feel more like a partnership where the business can work together with their CFIA contact along the way rather than the relationship being more unilateral.

It was also suggested that there is a lack of bilingual services and support in regions where French is a minority language.

Familiarity with the CFIA

Unaided, over half of respondents were unsure of any organizations in Canada that are dedicated to food safety (53%). More than 1 in 10 respondents thought of the CFIA (16%), followed by Health Canada (11%), Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation du Québec (6%), and the Food and Drug Administration (6%).

Roughly 3 in 5 respondents (59%) were not familiar with the activities of the CFIA while nearly a third (31%) were somewhat familiar. A smaller proportion reported being very familiar with the activities of the CFIA (8%).

When provided a list of organizations and asked which ones they think of when it comes to food safety in Canada, the most common organization selected was Health Canada (68%) followed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (61%) and then the Public Health Agency of Canada (48%).

When presented with a list of food safety related roles, 62% believed that the CFIA was involved in checking food products being imported into the country. A similar proportion believed they were involved in conducting food safety investigations (59%), issuing food recalls (59%), and taking enforcement action against food producers who aren’t following Canada’s laws (57%).

Far fewer believed that the CFIA play the following types of roles:

• is involved when it comes to live animals being exported from Canada to other countries to be consumed as food (35%).

• handles complaints that a restaurant has a dirty kitchen (26%)

• handles complaints when a person gets food poisoning from cooking and eating undercooked meat (16%).

Contact with the CFIA

Most respondents had not had any interactions with the CFIA (79%). Nearly 1 in 10 had read articles or watched videos from the CFIA (8%) or visited the CFIA website (7%).

Nearly a quarter of respondents (23%) had recently seen, heard, or read something about the CFIA. When asked where they might have recently seen, heard, or read something about the CFIA, 50% cited traditional media such as newspapers, television, or radio and 39% cited social media (not including the CFIA’s social media) such as Facebook (16%), Instagram (14%), YouTube (13%), X (formerly Twitter, 11%), TikTok (4%), or Reddit (3%). Additionally, more than two thirds of respondents (34%) had recently seen, heard, or read about the CFIA on internet sources other than social media.

Understanding the CFIA

Those who had recently seen, heard, or read something from the CFIA were asked how well they understood the information. More than half of respondents (52%) understood completely (a score of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) and 38% somewhat understood (a score of 4 or 5).

Respondents were asked the extent to which they agreed with various statements regarding the CFIA. Nearly 3 in 5 respondents (58%) strongly agreed that the CFIA is believable when it issues a statement (scores of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale), 50% strongly agreed that all businesses are treated fairly by the CFIA, and 47% strongly agreed that CFIA enforcement activities are strong enough to encourage companies to comply with the regulations.

When presented with a list of adjectives and asked which ones best described the CFIA, the most popular terms selected included: scientific (52%), trusted (50%), informative (49%), responsive (36%), fair (31%) and efficient (29%).

CFIA’s role in food safety awareness

When asked how well they believed the CFIA was doing at safeguarding the food sold in Canada, 43% believed that the CFIA was doing well (a score of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) and 32% believed it was doing somewhat well (a score of 4 or 5).

A quarter of respondents (25%) reported that they had looked for or read information specifically about food safety or food fraud over the past few years. Among these respondents, the internet (excluding social media) was the most common source of information (61%) followed by traditional media (46%) and social media (43%).

A majority of respondents (78%) felt the statement “I believe food recalls illustrate that the food safety system is working”, was true.

When it comes to food recalls, 25% of respondents would say they had a great deal of concern (a score of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) while 43% had some concern.

Trusting the CFIA’s food safety procedures

When asked how much they trust the CFIA to do what is right to help ensure that food is safe in Canada, 43% reported high trust (a score of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) and another 2 in 5 (41%) said they somewhat trusted the CFIA to do what is right (a score of 4 or 5).

Respondents were also asked a series of questions related to food consumption and “best-before” dates.

When it comes to deciding whether a food can still be eaten, respondents most commonly look for and consider signs of spoilage (81%), expiry dates (66%), what kind of food it is (66%), how it was stored (65%), “best before” dates (64%) and how long they have had the food (62%).

When it comes to “best before” dates and expiration dates, 24% reported that these terms meant the same thing to them while 72% felt the terms meant different things to them.

Other key findings related to date labels, including “best before” dates included:

• Nearly half (48%) were very confident that they know how to use date labels when judging if a food can still be eaten (a score of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale)

• A quarter of respondents (25%) regularly throw out food when it has passed the “best before” date (7% always do while 19% often do) while 43% sometimes do this.

• Nearly 3 in 10 respondents (29%) reported that they regularly purchase food that has been discounted because the “best before” date is approaching (4% always do while 25% often do) while 39% sometimes do so.

More than half of respondents (56%) reported being very confident in the safety of food sold in Canada (a score of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale). Another 37% said they were somewhat confident (a score of 4 or 5).

When asked to rate how well they believe the CFIA is doing when it comes to verifying that food sold in Canada is safe, 49% felt that the CFIA was doing well (a score of 6 or 7 on a 7-point) and 38% felt that the CFIA was doing somewhat well (a score of 4 or 5).

Other key findings related to some of the roles the CFIA plays when it comes to food safety included:

• Just over half of respondents (51%) agreed (scores of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) that the CFIA looks out for the best interests of Canadians,

• More than 2 in 5 (42%) agreed that the CFIA is effective in enforcing food safety regulations.

• Roughly a quarter (24%) agreed that getting information about food, plant or animal safety from the CFIA is easy while 39% somewhat agreed.

• Less than a fifth (17%) agreed that CFIA regulations are not strict enough while 36% somewhat agreed.

Overall, 79% support the CFIA publishing names of companies that receive administrative monetary penalties (AMP’s) due to having not complied with regulations.

Food fraud

Next, respondents were asked a series of questions related to food fraud.

Just over a quarter of respondents (26%) reported a great deal of concern regarding food fraud when they go grocery shopping while 40% were somewhat concerned.

For the most part, respondents support the CFIA publishing names of companies that have been found to have committed food fraud (68% strongly support while 21% somewhat support).

When asked how well they believed the CFIA was doing when it comes to safeguarding from misrepresented food sold in Canada, 35% believed that the CFIA was doing well (a score of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale). Additionally, 42% believed the CFIA was doing somewhat well (a score of 4 or 5).

Other key findings related to the role the CFIA plays in relation to food fraud included:

• Nearly 2 in 5 respondents (39%) reported a high level of trust in the CFIA to inspect food product labels for ingredients to which people may be allergic or sensitive (scores of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale).

• A similar proportion (41%) reported high confidence that the CFIA will take enforcement action to protect consumers from food fraud (scores of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale).

Less than 1 in 10 (7%) had experienced food fraud within the past year. Among these respondents (n=111), 11% believed they had encountered misrepresented meat products, followed by fish products (9%), cereal (7%), dairy products (7%), snack foods (6%), baked goods (5%), vegetables (3%), organic products (3%), cooking oils (2%), juice (2%) and vegan products (2%).

Nearly a quarter of respondents (23%) said that if they suspected food fraud, they would definitely report it to the CFIA, while more than one third (37%) would probably report it. Among these respondents, 41% would know how to report it (9% definitely, 32% probably).

More than 1 in 10 respondents reported not eating or buying fish (13%). Those who eat or buy fish were asked to rate their level of trust on a series of statements related to fish products:

• More than 2 in 5 respondents (43%) reported high trust (scores of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) that the fish they buy is safe to eat while 46% reported moderate trust (scores of 4 or 5).

• A third (33%) reported high trust that the fresh fish they buy is properly labelled for the type of fish that it is while 48% reported moderate trust.

• When it comes to the multi-ingredient fish products that respondents buy (for example, fish sticks), 20% had high trust that these products are accurately labelled for the type of fish they contain while 49% reported moderate trust.

Respondents who eat or buy fish were also asked to which extent they trust various locations when it comes to the fish that they sell. Trust was highest when it comes to grocery stores with 36% reporting high levels of trust (scores of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale). This was followed by fish mongers (32%), local markets (31%) and restaurants (28%).

Awareness of food safety regulations

Two thirds of business representatives (66%) reported managing public trust and corporate reputation as a high priority and a similar proportion (63%) reported managing regulatory issues as a high priority. Fewer said that implementing new technology or innovative solutions was a high priority for their business (30%).

Nearly two thirds of businesses (63%) reported being very familiar (scores of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) with the activities of the CFIA while 22% were somewhat familiar (scores of 4 or 5).

Roughly 4 in 5 (81%) believe they clearly understand the food safety regulations that apply to their business (scores of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) while 14% understand the applicable regulations somewhat well (scores or 4 or 5).

Two thirds of business representatives (66%) had recently seen, heard, or read something about the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR).

Key findings among those familiar with the SFCR included,

• A majority (93%) believed the SFCR applied to their business while 72% believed that the SFCR applied to online sales of food products.

• Business representatives believed that the key safety requirements of the SFCR were general food handling or food safety (32%), sanitation controls (28%), temperature controls (16%), “best before” or expiration dates (11%), labeling (11%), preventative control plans (11%) and traceability (10%).

• Nearly three quarters (73%) were clearly aware that a licence is required to import food products into Canada while 21% were somewhat aware.

• Maintaining traceability records was the biggest challenge of the SFCR (15%) followed by maintaining a written preventative control plan (13%) or implementing traceability labelling on products (11%).

  • Just under two fifths (39%) felt that none of the requirements were challenges for their business.

Nearly a third of business representatives (31%) reported that their business uses a private food safety or quality control certification system.

The most commonly used preventative measures used by businesses were traceability documents (63%) or traceability labelling (63%) followed by written preventative controls plans (55%) and having a SFCR licence (49%).

Transparency

More than half of business representatives (53%) viewed the CFIA as very transparent (scores of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) when it comes to determining if there are non-compliance of regulations while another quarter (25%) felt the CFIA was somewhat transparent (scores of 4 or 5) in this regard, while 8% believed they CFIA was not very transparent (scores of 1, 2 or 3).

Just over half (51%) felt that the CFIA was very transparent when it comes to reporting and publishing non-compliance results while nearly a quarter (24%) believed the CFIA was somewhat transparent in this regard. On the other hand, 7% viewed the CFIA as not very transparent.

“Best before” dates

Nearly half (46%) reported that their business benefits from “best before” date requirements.

Nearly two fifths (39%) reported that their business experiences negative impacts from “best before” date requirements.

A large majority of business representatives (88%) believed that there is a connection between “best before” dates and food waste.

More than one third (35%) perceived that an elimination of “best before” dates would have at least a somewhat positive impact on their business while 21% perceived that it would have a negative impact.

Food fraud

More than two fifths (42%) reported being very concerned with food fraud (scores of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) while another 21% reported being somewhat concerned (scores of 4 or 5). Conversely, 36% were not very concerned with food fraud (scores of 1, 2 or 3).

A minority of food businesses (14%) reported being affected by food fraud.

More than two thirds (68%) reported being very likely (scores of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) to report a fellow industry member of suspected food fraud to the CFIA while another 16% would be somewhat likely to report them (scores of 4 or 5). Conversely, 13% reported being not very likely to report suspected food fraud to the CFIA (scores of 1, 2 or 3).

More than one third of business representatives (37%) indicated they knew how to report suspected food fraud to the CFIA while 60% did not.

Less than 1 in 10 (7%) reported that their business had received consumer complaints related to food fraud or misrepresented food.

The majority of businesses that sell fish or seafood products (89%) reported high confidence that the fish or seafood products that they sell are properly labelled for the type of fish that they are (scores of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale).

A majority of respondents were very confident (scores of 6 or 7) that all of the food products they sell are properly labelled (90%).

The most commonly suspected source of mislabelling was the domestic processor/ manufacturer (26%) followed by the importer (15%), pre-import in another country (12%), at retail (10%), at restaurants (10%), or at wholesale (9%). Many (16%) were unsure where mislabelling was most likely to occur.

Information search and understanding

Business representatives most often use the internet as a source of information about food safety regulations or requirements (22%) followed by internal resources such as head office or company policies (15%).

Business representatives were asked whether they had received any information from the CFIA within the past year. More than a third (36%) recalled receiving information from the CFIA while nearly 3 in 5 (58%) did not.

Those who had received information from the CFIA within most often reported receiving email notifications from the CFIA (71%) followed by personal interaction with a CFIA representative (18%) or telephone calls (13%).

More than 2 in 5 (44%) reported high satisfaction with CFIA communications (scores of 9 or 10 on an 11-point scale) and another third (33%) reported moderate satisfaction (scores of 7 or 8). Conversely, a fifth (21%) reported low satisfaction with communications from the CFIA (scores of 6 or lower).

Other key findings related to CFIA communications included:

• A majority felt that the frequency of CFIA communication was about right (75%) while 16% there was not enough communication and 6% felt there was too much.

• Most business representatives who had received information from the CFIA in the past year (91%) agreed that these communications are helpful and provide the information they need to know.

• Similarly, 85% agreed that communications from the CFIA are clear and easy to understand.

• When it comes to receiving communication from the CFIA, email was the most preferred channel (68%) followed at a distance by mail (11%).

One in 10 (10%) reported difficulties getting the information they needed from the CFIA over the past few years. These respondents most often cited difficulties getting information on regulations or regulatory changes (20%), labelling (17%), general information (13%), and industry and product specific topics (12%).

Nearly two fifths (39%) believed that the concept of “outcome-based” regulations was clear to them (scores of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) while it was somewhat clear (scores of 4 or 5) for 32% of businesses. Conversely, 23% felt the concept was not very clear (scores of 1, 2 or 3).

When asked to consider whether the SFCR are “outcome-based” regulations, nearly two thirds (64%) believed so while 12% did not. Nearly a quarter (24%) were unsure.

Ask CFIA

More than 1 in 10 (11%) business representatives reported having used the Ask CFIA service. Of these respondents, over half (54%) reported high satisfaction (scores of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) and more than a third (36%) reported moderate satisfaction (scores of 4 or 5).

These results are presented and discussed in-depth throughout the detailed results section of the report.

Defining food fraud

To kick-off the focus groups with consumers, participants were shown the following sentence and asked to provide some examples of what they felt would constitute food fraud.

Food fraud occurs when food is misrepresented.

The topic of product sizes came up often with many mentioning “shrinkflation” (when brands quietly reduce the size of their products but continue to sell them for the same price). Many also discussed how the weight listed on a product package can sometimes be greater than the actual weight of the contents in the package.

Many gave examples of misleading labelling, such as:

• Products that claim to be “natural” or “healthy” but contain several “unhealthy” or artificial ingredients.

• Items labelled as made with real fruit but are actually only made from a small percentage of real fruit in addition to artificial flavours.

• Fish products that are farmed, but do not specify origin on package.

• Meat that is mechanically tenderized but does not say so on package.

• False claims of packaged products (for example, natural health products).

A smaller proportion of participants considered the following food fraud:

• Fruits and vegetables or other products labelled as organic when they are not.

• Dairy, meat or egg products that are labelled as “free-range” when they are not.

• Fish products that are labelled incorrectly (for example, salmon that is actually another type of fish, calamari or mussels that are actually another type of fish or seafood, canned tuna that contains other types of white fish).

• Products being labelled as 100% pure when they actually contain a mix of ingredients or use cheaper or artificial ingredients as filler.

After participants listed examples of what they thought may be classified as food fraud, the moderator specified that food fraud is classified as intentional misrepresentation of food.

Sources of information on food fraud

When asked whether they had seen, heard or read anything about food fraud in the past year, some recalled examples from social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or Reddit, the news, documentaries as well as friends and family. Some examples included the following:

• Side-by-side images of product packaging before and after “shrinkflation”.

• A Reddit post where someone purchased pancake mix and weighed the contents to find it was smaller than what the packaging listed.

• Olive oil listed as organic when it was not actually, or labelled as pure olive oil when it actually contained a mix of oils.

• Honey that is labeled as pure but has been diluted with cheaper ingredients.

• Maple syrup that when tested, was not 100% maple syrup.

• Salmon from grocery stores that was tested and determined as misrepresented and in reality, was another form of fish.

• Calamari and mussels sold at high price points when they were actually less expensive types of fish being misrepresented.

• Water being added to meat in order to inflate the size.

• Artificial colouring being added to products such as salmon or jam to make them appear more appetizing and attractive to consumers.

For the most part, participants did not actively look for information on food fraud but rather came across news articles or posts on the topic. Only a few said that they searched for more information after learning about examples of food fraud through the news, documentaries or social media.

Level of concern with food fraud

When it comes to purchasing food products from grocery stores, most participants were not overly concerned about encountering food fraud and said this was not something they were actively looking for. With that said, many explained that they were cautious in general when purchasing groceries from a health-perspective or to get good value for their money.

Those who were more concerned with food fraud tended to be those with a food allergy or dietary restriction in their household as well as those who were health conscious. These participants tended to pay closer attention to ingredient lists and nutrition labels to ensure that the products they are buying are suitable for their dietary needs.

When asked which foods they felt were more subject to food fraud, animal products came up the most. Participants typically described skepticism in labels such as “organic”, “natural”, “free-range”, “grass-fed”, “triple A” or “halal” with the reasoning that they would not be able to distinguish if these products actually met these claims. Some had similar concerns regarding “organic” labelling on fruits, vegetables or packaged foods.

Some felt that processed or packaged foods may be subject to food fraud as it would be easier for companies to add cheaper ingredients as a way to save costs and consumers likely would not notice.

A few participants shared that while they have always been skeptical about companies being misleading or dishonest about the quality or ingredients in their products as a way to cut costs, they are slightly more concerned recently due to the economy.

When specifically asked about fish sold in Canada, most said that they trusted that it is for the most part, properly labelled as they had no reason to believe otherwise.

Of those who were less trusting, a handful had heard about fish being mislabelled from the news or other sources which decreased confidence. Others were worried about mislabelling from a sourcing standpoint. For example, some wondered whether a product labelled as wild-caught might actually be farmed, or whether a product labelled as a product of Canada might have actually been caught in another country and simply packaged in Canada.

“I’ve read some articles recently in different news outlets about fish mislabelling. I believe there was a case of it happening at [a grocery store] in Halifax […] some salmon was apparently not salmon. I’ve heard that it is a phenomenon that fish can be misrepresented or mislabelled. I do still eat the fish but I kind of accept that it might not necessarily be what I think it is.” – Female, 30, Nova Scotia

Some felt that fraud would be more likely to occur in packaged fish such as canned tuna or fish sticks, which may use a mix of less expensive fish rather than the type of fish listed on the package and consumers would be less likely to notice the discrepancy.

A majority of participants agreed that the fish sold in Canada is safe to eat, including most of those who were less trusting that fish was labelled correctly. Rather than concerns about food fraud, concerns about safety of fish mainly pertained to its freshness, as many referred to the distance it may travel before it gets to the grocery store. A few also mentioned slight concerns about mercury levels. However, those with concerns explained that they view it more as a quality concern rather than a safety concern and continue to eat fish.

When participants were asked to guess what percentage of fish sold in Canada was accurately labelled, responses typically ranged from 40%-80%, although many admitted that they had not thought about this before, and the topic of discussion made them perceive that fish mislabelling might be a bigger issue than they were aware of. Participants were informed that 92.7% of fish sold in Canada is properly labelled, which many felt was great to hear and would lessen concerns. While most were reassured, a few questioned how this statistic was calculated and what would explain the remaining proportion of fish that is not properly labelled.

“I think it’s pretty good. But I do have questions about the other 7%, and what exactly that means and what is being done about it?” – Female, 33, British Columbia

« Ils disent 92%, mais comment ils ont fait pour vérifier pourquoi ça ne serait pas 100%? Comment ont-ils fait pour quantifier le 92%, c'est la question qu'il faut se poser. » – Male, 30, Quebec [« They say 92%, but how did they figure out it wasn't 100%? How did they quantify 92%, that is the question. »]

Participants were generally unsure at what point in the fish supply chain they believed fraud might occur, however some suspected this probably happened at the processing or packaging plants.

Personal experiences with food fraud

Overall, very few participants had personally experienced food fraud. That said, some admitted that they might not know if they had encountered or consumed a product that was fraudulent.

Of the few who felt they had experienced food fraud, the following examples were shared:

• Cereal which contained an ingredient not listed on the box.

• Product weight inconsistent with weight listed on package.

• Product listed as a prepared meal with beef but was mainly comprised of soy protein and a smaller percentage of beef.

• “Lean” ground beef which had a lot of fat after cooking, suspected to not be lean meat.

As a result of suspected food fraud, some participants said they chose not to purchase the product (if they noticed the issue in the store), did not buy the product again, did not consume the product out of concern for potential allergens, returned the product to the store, or emailed the company. None of the participants indicated having reported their concern with a government agency such as the CFIA.

If they were to encounter food fraud in the future, their actions taken would depend on factors such as the severity of the fraud, where they purchased the product, the amount of money they spent on the product, whether there had been any impact on their health, and the quantity of the product they purchased.

Many participants suggested they would return the product to the store they purchased it from to try to get refunded, especially if it was an expensive item. Otherwise, some said they might “cut their losses” if the item was not particularly expensive in order to avoid having to spend time taking the item back or contacting the company. Others would look on the package for a contact number where they could communicate the issue to the supplier/manufacturer directly. A few would search online to see if other people had similar experiences or would discuss the issue with friends and family and, depending on the health consequence or financial toll, they may recommend to others not to buy the brand or product.

If the fraud resulted in a health consequence such as food poisoning or an allergic reaction from an undisclosed ingredient, participants would be much more likely to take action, especially as it could prevent others from getting sick. In these cases, a couple of participants suggested that they may look up the government department that handles these complaints. However, if the encountered food fraud was something such as a minor labelling issue, many would brush it off or take less extreme actions such as contacting the store.

When asked what consequences they would expect if a company was found guilty of food fraud, many would want there to be an investigation to determine if the issue was widespread. Participants would want to see transparency in the process and for the companies responsible to be held accountable through financial penalties and bad press so that Canadians are made aware and can make informed choices on which brands and products to buy in the future. A few suggested that the amount fined should be commensurate with the size of the company, otherwise large companies may not be sufficiently impacted financially and might repeat the offense.

Views on how food fraud is managed in Canada

Participants were asked their opinion on how food fraud is managed in Canada. For the most part, participants felt that it is well managed and that overall, there is a high level of confidence that food in Canada is safe to eat, especially compared to some other countries. This sentiment came from the fact that in most groups, none or very few participants had experienced food fraud, or knew somebody else who had. Additionally, a few mentioned that when food safety issues occurred, as seen through food recalls, actions are quickly taken to inform Canadians and pull these products from shelves, which gave them reassurance.

Most assumed that there is a government agency responsible for managing food safety, however only a few mentioned the CFIA organically. There was some general agreement that there should be more awareness of the topic of food fraud, how the government is managing the issue as well as what to do if you encounter it. Some mentioned that they would be unsure where to report food safety issues or food fraud if they were to encounter it.

A few felt that the way food fraud or food safety in general is managed in Canada is good but could be improved. These participants typically had concerns about the length of time it can take for issues to get caught. A couple mentioned having seen news articles about food companies that were not following regulations, and when they looked into these articles, they found that the investigations had started years prior. For these individuals, this lowered confidence when it comes to how quickly food safety or food fraud issues are identified and then resolved.

Awareness of CFIA’s involvement in food fraud

Participants were informed that the CFIA is responsible for regulating food in Canada and verifying that companies are complying with the federal food rules.

While many had heard of the CFIA before, very few had ever thought about contacting the CFIA when they encountered food fraud or a similar food safety issue. Instead, they typically thought of contacting the store or the manufacturer.

As well, many repeated that they did not know much about food fraud in general so they had not thought about who they would contact if they were to encounter it. Those who had not had personal experiences with food fraud also felt they would probably think about contacting the store or contact the company directly rather than contacting the CFIA.

Many were apprehensive about contacting the CFIA regarding food fraud with concerns that it would probably take awhile to get a response, or it might not be worth the effort, especially if it was just a mislabelling issue rather than a food safety concern. There were also various concerns that engaging with a government of Canada agency would be cumbersome and time consuming which in turn would discourage some from considering this reporting avenue. However, if the food fraud was to result in a health consequence, more would consider contacting the CFIA.

“If it wasn’t severe, or health threatening or anything like that, I don’t think it’s necessary to take it that far. Maybe when it is health threatening, you know this is not just about getting your money back, you don’t want this to happen to somebody else, they should take this out of stores. Maybe then you’d be at the point to actually contact them.” – Female, 23, Manitoba

Additionally, some said that that they would first contact the store or manufacturer, and if unsatisfied with the response or actions taken, they would then contact the CFIA.

With that said, some felt that it was good to know that the CFIA could be a contact for food fraud concerns, as some explained they would trust a government department or agency to do more to look into the actual issue than the store where the product was sold or the manufacturer. These participants felt that there should be more awareness about the CFIA’s role in food safety and food fraud so that consumers know what actions to take if they experience it.

“I think the problem is that it’s not something that you really hear that much about. So, you don’t really know what the avenue is to do anything about it. Personally, I don’t know where I would go to report it, apart from complaining to the store or the company. I don’t even know what regulations are around it.” – Female, 65, Prince Edward Island

Participants were then shown the following screenshot of the CFIA’s online food concern reporting tool:

The screenshot shows a web page from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) intended to guide users on how to report a food complaint or concern

Here are the details presented on the page: Header: The top of the page includes the Government of Canada logo, and a menu bar that offers navigation options such as the home page link for Canada.ca and specific sections for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and food safety for consumers. Title: “Find out where to report a food complaint or concern” Instructions: The page provides an interactive form where users are asked to answer a few questions to determine if their complaint should be reported to the CFIA or directed to a provincial, regional, or municipal authority. Important Note: A cautionary note indicates that the CFIA cannot provide medical advice. If the food issue has caused illness, users are advised to seek medical attention. Residency Question: There is a specific question asking if the user’s permanent residence is in the province of Quebec, noting that this information is required. Language Option: A button to switch the language to French (“Français”) is available at the top right corner of the page. This tool is part of the CFIA’s effort to streamline the process of reporting food-related issues and ensuring that concerns are directed to the appropriate authority.

Very few had seen or heard about this tool before. Of the few who had, some stumbled across it when searching for other food safety related information online, however they did not actually use the tool to report a concern or complaint.

The reporting tool was perceived by participants to be beneficial, however some felt that there should be more awareness about it. It was also suggested that in order to instill confidence in its effectiveness, the CFIA could promote the tool along with how it is being used to conduct investigations and prevent food fraud.

Views on food recalls

When participants were asked how concerned they were with food recalls in general (meaning, whether they were on high alert for recalls or do not pay much attention to them), responses varied from low to high concern.

Of those who were less concerned, many shared that the food items they have purchased in the past had never been recalled. Others shared that their low concern for food recalls came from their perception that quality control and standards were typically quite high. A few also had the impression that many recalls were voluntary and from a place of caution rather than because of a serious health concern.

“The reason why I’m not super worried about it is because generally I feel like a lot of recalls are done out of an abundance of caution, and it’s rare that a large number of people get really sick.” – Female, 33, British Columbia

Those who were moderately concerned with food recalls typically said that they do not actively look for recall notices, however when they happen to come across food recall notices, they will pay attention or see which items were affected.

“If I see something, I’ll look into it and make sure I try to, you know, learn what’s happening. But I’m not going to be actively looking for it everywhere I go.” – Male, 42, British Columbia

On the other hand, a few who said they were quite concerned with food recalls had purchased items in the past that had been recalled and worried about the health consequences, with a few explaining that they have had food poisoning in the past. A few also said that they will proactively search for food recalls every once in a while.

“I’ve had food poisoning, and I don’t want to ever have it again […] I pay attention to articles. I’ll share them with my family, my mother who’s elderly. I’m really aware of produce, and you know, kind of e-coli infiltration. And I’m just always looking. I mean, I’m not like crazy paranoid, but if I see an article I’m following it.” – Female, 34, Prince Edward Island

Finally, some participants shared that their concerns regarding food fraud were mostly related to protecting their children.

“I’ll always look over any kind of popular children’s product to make sure there’s no recalls on that […] I can consume things that might be moderately damaging, and I don’t care. But if anything affects my children, I’m far more concerned.” – Male, 37, British Columbia

Participants typically learn of food recalls from the news (some mentioned CTV, Global News website, CBC and CBC’s Marketplace or local newspapers), social media, from signage or information boards in grocery stores, or from friends and family. A handful of participants said they received email alerts. As well, a few mentioned being contacted by a grocery store when a product they purchased had been recalled (Costco was often mentioned in this context).

There was a perception among some that it is harder to get information on recalls than it used to be as many do not watch televised news and either don’t have social media, or do not see news-related information on social media anymore.

Only a small number of participants were aware of email alerts prior to the discussion.

“I recently learned about the government of Canada’s recall email subscription you can sign up for I learned about when I was at school talking about medical devices that were recalled. And I learned that you can sign up via email and you get a newsletter pretty much every day from the Government of Canada with any products at all that are called food or otherwise. A lot of times. It’s auto parts and cars. But I do often read them to be aware of things that might affect me like food.” - Female, 30, Nova Scotia

When specifically asked about this type of notification, interest in a subscription service to receive recall email notifications from an agency like CFIA was quite high. A few would like to be able to customize the notifications, perhaps by region, by type of recall or by food category. A preference for notifications via a mobile app was also expressed in one session.

“If it affects only like a small postal code in, you know part of Canada, then perhaps you shouldn’t go out to all the subscribers. […] Then you get like notification fatigue […] you’re probably not going to give that service too much attention. […] I have Apple News and all the important notifications and stuff get filtered to me every day, and I enjoy reading Apple News anyway because it has all the sources. I feel like that would be the more optimal way of notifying.” - Male, 39, Alberta

« J’allais dire les courriels, je reçois une tonne par jour, donc je n’arrive jamais aller à tous mes courriels, mais Si c’est une application où je reçois une notification, je vais plus se porter vers une application qui est vers des courriels. » - Male, 46, Quebec [« I was about to say emails. I receive tons of them each day, but I don't have the time to read them all. But if I receive notifications through an app, I would more likely be interested by one that uses emails. »]

Reactions to a social media post concept

In order to gain feedback on CFIA messaging regarding food fraud, the following social media post was tested with participants. Participants were informed that for legal reasons, the post could not name the company that was being discussed.

The Facebook post by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

Taking Action Against Food Fraud. A CFIA investigation revealed a company was misrepresenting imported greenhouse vegetables, including tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers as a Product of Canada to retail stores over a 15 month time frame. The company was charged, and were ordered by the court to pay fines totalling $1,500,000 and sentenced to a three-year probation period. This is an example of how CFIA inspectors work to verify that industry is operating in compliance with Canadian standards and regulations so that consumers can be confident that the food they buy is accurately represented and safe. We take mislabeling seriously as it is deceptive to consumers, impacts consumer trust, and creates an unequal playing field for the industry. [https://bit.ly/12345 (https://bit.ly/12345).

Some participants felt that this post was good as it could help raise awareness of the topic of food fraud and remind Canadians that the CFIA is doing investigations and holding companies accountable. For a few, this type of post would provide a sense of trust in the CFIA.

A few gave neutral feedback citing that they would probably scroll past this post if they saw it on social media as it does not really affect them or because they don’t feel that the misrepresentation in this case was that big of a deal.

Other feedback was more critical. A large number of participants voiced concerns about the fact that the company could not legally be named. Many felt that by not revealing the company, the post was useless as it does not allow Canadians to make informed decisions about their purchases by avoiding the brand in the question and may instead instill more fear when consumers buy food in the category referenced in the post. Some also felt that if the company were named, it would hold that, and probably other companies, more accountable to follow regulations in the future.

“In the absence of a name, It’s more fear mongering than anything. I think it’s going to keep people from buying peppers, tomatoes, and cucumbers. Not knowing who the guilty party was, you may assume that it’s the one at your local grocery store.” – Female, 41, Newfoundland and Labrador

A few questioned the 15-month timeline and felt that knowing the investigation took this long did not provide much reassurance.

After reading the post, many were unclear about how the company misrepresented the fruits and vegetables and felt that more information could be included. It was also suggested that the post should include more information such as which regions and stores the affected items were sold in. Additionally, some would like to see a clear call to action and reference to a link where they could click to learn more. A link to learn more about food fraud in general or how to report suspected food fraud to the CFIA would also help improve the relevance or usefulness of this type of post.

Reactions to CFIA messaging

Participants were also asked to provide feedback on the following series of statements which the CFIA could use in some of its communications with Canadians:

Overall, many felt that these statements were reassuring and alleviated some concerns and worries they had.

“I would say that this is reassuring to read this. It gives you a little bit more peace of mind to know that this is happening behind the scenes.” – Female, 48, Ontario

Some commented that it was nice to hear about how the process works, although others would like to see more information about the process, for example how often investigations occur, especially as many were unaware about the CFIA and their scope of work. Additionally, some were not sure what was meant by “areas of highest risk,” some doubted the validity of the statements on the grounds that not everything can be inspected, and some just wanted to better understand what the regulations are in general.

Many agreed that the first four statements made the fifth statement more believable. Some felt that the statements provided awareness in a straightforward manner. However, others saw them as vague and said they would need to see statistics or facts such as how many cases of food fraud they have caught in the past year and how quickly these investigations were completed in order to find them believable or reassuring.

Perceptions of Canada’s approach to food regulation

As a warm-up question, participants were asked to generally describe Canada’s approach to food regulation.

For the most part, food regulation in Canada was described as strict but fair, offering solid consumer protection. From a business perspective, some felt it was somewhat demanding, especially when it came to paperwork and labelling. As well, a number of participants spoke of regulations being difficult to understand or implement for new businesses in particular. Compared to other countries, it was said that Canada was perhaps over-regulated; some felt this was the right thing to do, while others were a bit less positive.

There were also some discussions of CFIA’s role and particularly how businesses interacted with the CFIA when it comes to regulations and inspections. While some said the CFIA (through inspectors, mainly) was easy to get in touch with, others said that it was not always easy to get the answers they were looking for regarding regulations. Some also felt that even when given answers, they did not feel that the CFIA was “on their team” or specific enough with their guidance to help them solve an issue.

Outcome-based regulations

Familiarity with the term “outcome-based regulations” was quite low. However, even when not familiar with the term, when prompted many participants could guess more or less accurately the main premise of what was meant by the term.

“They only think of what they want from the regulation instead of following a specific process. That is what outcome-based regulation is.” – food importer/exporter, Ontario

Overall, many felt that from a business perspective, this could sometimes make things difficult, since it could be trial-and-error when trying to either start a new business, when trying to comply with new regulations or when fixing issues of non-compliance. Participants from smaller businesses in particular said this could be a challenge, since they did not have dedicated staff to deal with regulations and it often meant that they would be quite thinly spread, would have to quickly investigate and learn a lot about something that was not their specialty, or would have to spend a lot of money on consultants to help them out.

Some spoke specifically of large investments being made in machinery or processes, only to be told later that they did not comply, or of difficulty starting up a business because it was not immediately clear what was required. Recalling for example when they started their businesses, some small business owners said that it would have been easier with more “how to” supports from the CFIA, both in terms of set-up as well as regarding the development of processes and procedures. In those cases, more prescriptive regulations (for example in the form of guidance, tools or checklists) were often desired by these participants.

On the other hand, there were also those who said it made sense to be less prescriptive but to put the onus on industry to understand their own processes and how they can best comply with regulations, especially for those who had been in the industry for a long time. It was also said to signal respect for industry and an acknowledgement that professionals in their various industries would know well (or best) how to achieve outcomes, and that the regulator is open to listening, learning and work together in a collaborative way.

There was some agreement that if food products are safe, they by definition meet regulatory requirements. On the other hand, some countered that there was more to meeting requirements than only food safety, such as for example labeling and administrative requirements (for example regarding traceability). There was also some discussion in a few groups about where the bar of “safe” is or should be set, for example whether this means that it is just not making consumers sick, or that it should meet a certain “healthiness” test, or whether it could potentially be unhealthy / unsafe to some but not for most consumers.

Familiarity with SFCR

Not everyone was familiar with the fact that the CFIA’s regulations were called the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR). Familiarity with these regulations was noticeably higher among participants whose main role was food safety and/or quality control and lower among businesses whose primary activity is retail. Among those who were familiar with the SFCR, most recognized that these regulations are outcome-based although, as noted above, not everyone agreed that they should be.

When asked about key safety requirements in the SFCR, a few participants could name specific elements of it, such as traceability, pest control, building and/or equipment maintenance, other preventive controls, licensing, hazards planning, labeling, and packaging. When listed, many were familiar with these elements, but they often referred to their own specific procedures and standards (i.e. the temperatures of their fridges, certain logs that need to be kept, cleaning standards they upheld, periodic machine testing, freshness of produce, mandatory label information for their products, having to pasteurize milk, etc.) rather than to the larger umbrella terms or regulations they might fall under. In some groups, there was also some confusion about which level of government or which government agency was in charge of certain regulations.

In terms of how easy or difficult it is for their business to comply with food regulations in Canada, for the most part participants said it is relatively easy, or at least not overly difficult, to do. As well, there were some discussions about industry generally understanding the importance of regulations and of them wanting to do what’s best for consumers and wanting to have high standards, no matter what. In some cases, participants say they exceed the CFIA standards because they feel those are the minimum requirements and they want to do better, or because they adhere to other (often international) certifications or standards that are stricter than what is required in Canada.

In terms of compliance challenges, specific points were raised around interactions with the CFIA. More specifically, participants would refer to issues working with or contacting CFIA, for example not getting answers as quickly as they had hoped, getting conflicting opinions or advice depending on who at CFIA they spoke to, feeling vulnerable or unsure as a business when trying to comply or even knowing if they are on the right path to compliance, or unclarity about expectations more generally.

Other types of compliance challenges raised in these groups included:

• not always knowing whether or not suppliers closely followed regulations,

• trying to figure out and comply with inter-provincial trade regulations,

• labelling (for example bilingualism requirements),

• expiry dates (a lot of food ending up going to the foodbank when it’s “expired” but still good for consumption),

• small companies being over-burdened by paperwork,

• some traceability or quality control struggles, for example when importing products.

Participants in the livestock industry mentioned very specific examples, including difficulties trying to tag young cows, tags being ripped out, as well as abattoirs and auction houses having exceedingly strict regulations, making these services less available.

Participants were also asked what explains their successes in complying with food regulations. Many businesses explained that Canadian products are held to high standards and are counted among the best in the world, which in turn opens up a lot of international markets for them. Traceability and detailed record-keeping by them as well as by all parts of the supply chain were also said to help them meet regulations. These records help determine that if the end consumer has an issue, where in the supply chain the issue may have taken place, potentially protecting them if it’s clear in their documents that they followed all the rules and regulations. It was also explained that accurate record-keeping contributes to swift and accurate recalls. Some also attribute some of their success in complying to their good relationship with the CFIA in general and also to inspectors being helpful and going above and beyond, for example by being available to bounce ideas off and give their opinions at various stages of a process. Others mentioned that they were sent links by the CFIA to documents or specific regulations they were looking for.

There was also some sense that a lot of the regulations are the same as, or promote what in their minds, in the end, is “just smart business.”

“Because of the regulations that we follow, we’re just a bit more strict. But at the end of the day, we’re sending out quality product. And that’s just part of the job.” – food importer/exporter and manufacturer, British Columbia

In summary, while in the end, everyone was confident that they could properly incorporate the CFIA’s regulations, since this is a requirement of being and staying in business in Canada, it was not unanimous that SFCR’s (outcome-based) regulations are the easiest or most effective for all businesses, given some of the challenges they may have faced.

“Best before” dates

Opinions about “best before” dates generally reflect that they serve an important role in food safety where they are required. While this important role was most often seen from a consumer safety perspective, upon probing, some also said it was important for their business. However, for the most part this was not very top-of-mind from a business perspective.

When participants said it played some role in their business, the most-often mentioned context was for inventory control. They spoke about their business’ “first in/first out” rules in this situation, or of asking their suppliers for a certain shelf life of their deliveries based on their best-before dates, so that they know they have enough time to process it. They were also seen as going a long way to protect businesses, for example against consumer complaints. It also makes some feel like it represents their “warrantee” or promise to their customers, that their product will still be fresh or good for consumption until that date, acting in a way as a quality control stamp (rather than only a food safety measure).

A few participants had thought of the connection between “best before” dates and food waste, although this was mainly from a consumer perspective rather than from a business perspective.

From a business perspective, a few participants gave examples of this connection. One example given was that of their business receiving products that they use in processing that had shorter shelf-life than usual (based on a “best before” date), that could lead to food waste if they were not able to use it soon enough. Another example was the need to buy a certain product in large quantities, of which a large proportion had to be thrown out in the end because they couldn’t process it all. This product was something that they did not feel would spoil at all, and that they could have continued to use safely or perform tests on to ensure safety much past its stated “best before” date. A few other participants who sold specific products that they felt actually have a longer shelf life than the “best before” date would suggest, such as certain beverages, said that there would be less waste in their business without “best before” dates on their products.

Some say that as consumers, they don’t necessarily always abide by them, or that it depends on the product. However, there is a general sense that they are important for consumers as well as for businesses, and that doing away with them would lead to, at best, confusion, and, at worse, consumer safety being compromised. Again, it was also brought up that “best before” dates are important for liability purposes, and that without them, businesses could more easily get in trouble (or be asked for refunds, etc.) if consumers get sick when eating bad food. There was also some sense that removing “best before” dates just “didn’t feel right” for businesses, perhaps sensing that this might make them appear less trustworthy in the eyes of consumers. Some were also concerned about what it would generally mean for quality control and safety standards of food in Canada.

“I wouldn’t say there’d be more food waste, but there’d be probably a lot more sick people.” – food manufacturer, Alberta

“No, we need to have it on there just to have a guideline that we guarantee good quality before that day. And if you go over it - at your own risk, but don’t come back to me.” – food importer/exporter, Alberta

Food fraud

In order to level-set common understanding, food fraud was explained to participants first, as follows:

Very few participants had directly experienced or been impacted by food fraud, and even fewer had received a consumer complaint about food fraud. A few indicated they may have observed it or have suspected it in the past. For example, a participant said they were not sure that claims of a product being organic were always true, verified or properly certified. Some also mentioned honey from other countries being misrepresented or adulterated, which puts pressure on the entire industry, including in Canada. An instance of misrepresentation of a type of wheat was also brought up which ended up indirectly having an impact on their business since it cast a shadow on the entire food category.

Hypothetically, if they would have been accused of or found to have committed food fraud, participants generally said they would get to the bottom of it and rectify it as soon as they could, first by investigating their own processes and procedures, and then by moving back through the supply chain and ask questions to find the root cause.

Preventative controls to avoid food fraud they have in place for the most part include what participants call their standard quality control procedures, for example weighing products, checking them visually or otherwise, and carefully checking the labels of anything they use to make their end products. Some also conduct random testing on products they receive from their suppliers.

However, for many participants it was difficult to pin-point specific controls they have in place to prevent being impacted by food fraud specifically. Those who use suppliers of raw materials often explain how these are solid, trusting relationships and that they carefully vet new suppliers, and get to know them. Many also ensure their suppliers have needed certifications and proper traceability procedures in place. These relationships go a long way towards feeling confident that they are not using or (re-)selling any products that are susceptible to food fraud. As well, there is generally a strong level of trust in the Canadian food safety regulatory system, which leads to businesses trusting that if products have made it to them through this system, it is meeting the standard and they can in turn trust what’s on the label.

Participants were asked whether they would report suspected food fraud in their industry to the CFIA. Responses were mixed, with some saying they would not, and others saying they might, but most likely only after having gone down other paths first. This could include speaking to the company they suspected directly or going through an industry association to report it first. Some participants mentioned that they would be more likely to report it if it could be done anonymously. It was also mentioned that it would depend on the “level of proof” they had. The primary motivation for wanting to report suspected fraud is if the fraud results in a competitive advantage for the accused. As well, there was concern for repercussions on the entire food category or industry vertical if fraud is not appropriately addressed – how one “bad apple” can spoil the image or reputation of all other apples.

Many participants agreed with the CFIA publishing more information about misrepresented products identified through inspection activities. They felt that the type of information published should include details of what rules were broken, how it happened, what the impact on consumers or food safety was, and how it was detected. Most participants felt that in order to be fully transparent, publishing the product name, brand name and/or company name that was found to have committed food fraud should be part of the information made public.

However, some said that this was their perspective as a consumer, but that from a business perspective, they felt that the CFIA should carefully weigh the impacts this could have on a company, and that this should only be made public if repeated warnings were not heeded or if food fraud was a trend or an ongoing issue with a brand or company. There also had to be solid proof of who perpetrated it and that it was purposeful, systemic or malicious, and not the result of accidental human error, one bad actor in a company or a simple one-time oversight. Some also mentioned that the CFIA should also be transparent when it comes to companies rectifying the problem and close the loop by publishing that information as well.

Among participants who sell fish or seafood products, there is also a high level of confidence that that the fish and seafood products they sell are properly labelled for the type of fish when it comes to the common name. While there were a few participants who described substituting happening in the business, most commonly in other countries or with imports, they also noted that there are typically good checks in Canada. If food fraud were to happen in this category, some assumed that it would be perpetrated at or close to the source, i.e., on the boat or shortly thereafter (at the broker level), some assumed it was happening before the product is imported into Canada, whereas others believe the fraud would be committed at the store level.

CFIA website

First, participants were shown the main page of the CFIA website and then asked if they had visited the website in the last couple of years. Across the groups, several had used the website when looking for information related to their business.

The screenshot displays two web pages from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) website, providing a comprehensive overview of the agency’s services and information resources

On the left page, the main content introduces the CFIA and highlights its commitment to safeguarding food, animals, and plants in Canada. It includes quick access links for common requests such as reporting food concerns and guidelines for traveling with pets. Additional sections address privacy breaches affecting federal employees and general food safety regulations. The right page offers contact details, a brief about the agency’s mandate, and recent updates like food recalls and pest detections. It also features sections on importing manufactured foods and the influence of agri-influencers in Canada. Overall, the pages are designed to serve as a thorough resource for individuals and businesses looking for detailed information on food safety, import regulations, and CFIA’s regulatory actions and updates.

Of those who had used the website, feedback was mostly positive. These participants were generally able to find what they needed on the website. Some commented on the ease of finding information through the menu options. When asked to provide other feedback, some suggested that recall information could be more noticeable and some also suggested that the CFIA could offer more resources which business owners or managers could use to show employees.

When asked about the virtual assistant function, participants were not familiar with this option and were unable to offer feedback.

My CFIA

Only a few participants had used My CFIA in the past and awareness of the service was generally quite low among the others.

Some participants mentioned that other people within their business have an account, however they have not personally used the service. As well, a few were aware of the service but had not used it as they explained that they have not needed to since their province handles licensing.

Of the few who had used this service, most felt it was user-friendly and convenient when they needed to renew or amend a licence. A couple felt that it was challenging to figure out at first, but became easier and that when they had questions, CFIA employees were helpful.

The screenshot shows a web page from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) website dedicated to the “My CFIA” account service

Here’s a summary of the key features and information provided: 1. Automatic License Verification for Imports: It highlights a specific update as of February 12, 2024, about an automatic license verification system for imports of manufactured foods. This system requires a valid license number on import declarations to avoid shipment denial into Canada. 2. Account Sign-in or Registration: There is an option for users to sign in or sign up for a My CFIA account. This can be done as an individual, a business, or an alternative service provider (ASP). 3. Services Available in My CFIA: The page outlines the types of requests, management, and tracking services available through the My CFIA account. These include: Licenses, Permits, Registrations, and Certificates 4. Support for Businesses and Veterinarians: The account also supports businesses and ASPs by delivering services such as accredited veterinarian services, private veterinary services, and laboratory services. 5. Additional Resources: Links for assistance with account issues (e.g., forgotten passwords), guidance and FAQs, a glossary of terms, and how to authenticate a Canadian export certificate are also provided. The layout is user-friendly, offering direct access to a wide range of regulatory compliance tools and resources, designed to help users navigate the complexities of food importation and other regulatory responsibilities.

Ask CFIA

Participants were asked whether they had ever reached out to the CFIA through the website. A handful of participants had, however several explained that their business has a contact or inspector that they will contact instead if they have questions.

A few explained that they came across the “contact us” page before reaching out to the CFIA with questions.

Typically, those who had contacted the CFIA, regardless of how they did so, felt that the information they received was helpful and specific.

Very few were aware of the Ask CFIA service, although a couple said it looked familiar and that they think they may have used it in the past to ask questions.

The screenshot shows a web page from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) website dedicated to providing contact information for various CFIA services

Here’s a detailed breakdown of the page’s content: 1. Warning Note: At the top, the page emphasizes that the CFIA cannot provide medical advice. It advises individuals who think something they ate or drank made them sick to seek medical attention. 2. General Enquiries: Provides phone numbers for both Canadian and international callers. Lists operating hours from 8 am to 8 pm (EST), Monday to Friday, except holidays. Includes a link to submit a question online. 3. Specific Contact Sections: Office Telephone Directory: Links to a directory for finding an office specializing in food safety, plant or animal health. Media Enquiries: Dedicated section for journalists. National Import Service Centre: Discusses import admissibility document review for CFIA regulated commodities. My CFIA Account and Permissions: Information on licenses, permits, registrations, exemptions, authorizations, and permissions to move. Food Safety or Labelling Issues: Guide on how to report a concern. Complaints and Appeals: Outlines the steps to send a complaint or appeal a CFIA decision. Pre-market Applications: Concerns livestock feed, plant breeders’ rights, fertilize, crop variety, plant with novel traits, and veterinary biologic. Produce Inspections: Details the process to resolve buyer-seller disputes over the quality of shipped fresh fruit and vegetables. Ask CFIA: A link for enquiries related to Canadian food regulatory requirements from the food industry. This page is structured to guide visitors to the appropriate CFIA contact points for various concerns and inquiries, ensuring that stakeholders and the public can easily access the right resources and support.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to mention the CFIA unprompted when thinking of organizations in Canada that are dedicated to food safety included the following:

• Those aged 35-54 (19%) and those aged 55 and older (17%) compared to those aged 18-34 (11%)

• Respondents with a household income of $40k-$80k (18%) or a household income of more than $80k (19%) compared to those with a household income of under $40k (10%)

• Respondents with a university education compared to those who have completed high school or less (20% versus 12%)

Roughly 3 in 5 respondents (59%) were not familiar with the activities of the CFIA while nearly a third (31%) were somewhat familiar. A smaller proportion reported being very familiar with the activities of the CFIA (8%).

QF2. How familiar would you say you are with the activities of the Canadian Food and Inspection Agency (CFIA)? Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Those who had a great deal of concern with food fraud were more likely to be very familiar with the activities of the CFIA (14%).

When provided a list of organizations and asked which ones they think of when it comes to food safety in Canada, the most common organization selected was Health Canada (68%) followed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (61%) and then the Public Health Agency of Canada (48%). Closer to 2 in 5 selected municipal food safety regulators (41%), Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (37%), and provincial food safety regulators (37%), while 30% selected the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and 9% selected businesses.

The horizontal bar graph depicts percentages of prompted awareness of food safety organizations

According to the data presented in the horizontal bar graph, Health Canada leads with the highest level of trust at 68%, followed closely by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) at 61%. The Public Health Agency of Canada ranks third with 48% of respondents expressing trust. Municipal food safety regulators, such as public health inspectors, hold a trust level of 41%, followed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Provincial food safety regulators, both at 37%. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans trails behind with 30% of trust from respondents. Businesses are trusted the least, with only 9% expressing confidence in them regarding food safety. Additionally, 6% of respondents either didn’t know or preferred not to say where their trust lies.

QF3. When thinking of organizations that are dedicated to food safety, which of the following come to mind? Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to select the CFIA included the following:

• Those aged 35 and older compared to those aged 18-34 (67% versus 43%)

• Respondents who did not identify as a visible minority compared to those who did (63% versus 54%)

When presented with a list of food safety related roles, more than 3 in 5 respondents believed that the CFIA was involved in checking food products being imported into the country (62%). A similar proportion believed they were involved in conducting food safety investigations (59%), issuing food recalls (59%), and taking enforcement action against food producers who aren’t following Canada’s laws (57%).

More than two thirds of respondents believed that the CFIA is involved when it comes to live animals being exported from Canada to other countries to be consumed as food (35%). Fewer believed that the CFIA handles complaints that a restaurant has a dirty kitchen (26%) or when a person gets food poisoning from cooking and eating undercooked meat (16%).

Overall, 16% were unsure of the CFIA’s involvement across these situations while few felt that the CFIA was not involved in any of these situations (1%).

The horizontal bar graph illustrates the perceptions of food safety roles involving the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

The percentages reflect the proportion of respondents who associate specific food safety roles with the CFIA. Here is a summary of the data presented: Checking food products being imported into the country: 62%; Conducting food safety investigation: 59%; Issuing food recalls: 59%; Taking enforcement action against food producers who aren’t following Canada’s laws: 57%; Live animals being exported from Canada to other countries to be consumed as food: 35%; A complaint that a restaurant has a dirty kitchen: 26%; A person gets food poisoning from cooking and eating undercooked meat: 16%; None of the above: 1%; DK / Prefer not to answer: 16%. The most commonly perceived role of the CFIA is checking food products being imported into the country, followed closely by conducting food safety investigations and issuing food recalls, each with 59%. Taking enforcement action against food producers not adhering to Canadian laws is also a significant perception, with 57% of respondents associating this role with the CFIA. Other roles, such as handling complaints about dirty restaurant kitchens and issues related to food poisoning from undercooked meat, are less commonly associated with the CFIA. A notable 16% of respondents either did not know or preferred not to answer.

QF4. From the following list, indicate which of the following situations you believe the CFIA is involved in? Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, the following differences were found:

• Respondents from Atlantic Canada were more likely than those from other regions to believe that the CFIA was involved in complaints that a restaurant has a dirty kitchen (40% versus 25%).

• Those aged 55 or older were more likely to believe that the CFIA is involved in the following situations compared to those aged 54 or younger:

  • Checking food products being imported into the country (73% versus 55%)

  • Conducting food safety investigations (67% versus 54%)

  • Issuing food recalls (68% versus 53%)

  • Taking enforcement action against food producers who aren’t following Canada’s laws (63% versus 53%)

• Those aged 55 or older were more likely than those aged 18-34 to believe that the CFIA was involved with live animals being exported from Canada to other countries to be consumed as food (39% versus 31%).

Key segments

Across sub-segments, the following differences were found:

• Those aged 18-34 were more likely than those aged 55 and older to have done the following:

  • Visited the CFIA website (9% versus 5%)

  • Contacted the CFIA by phone (3% versus 1%)

• Those aged 18-34 were more likely than those aged 35 and older to have done the following:

  • Follow the CFIA on a social media platform (7% versus 2%)

  • Subscribe to the CFIA food recall notices (6% versus 2%)

• Male respondents were more likely than female respondents to have done the following:

  • Followed the CFIA on a social media platform (5% versus 2%)

  • Subscribed to the CFIA food recall notices (4% versus 3%)

  • Had in in-person interaction with a CFIA employee (4% versus 2%)

  • Contacted the CFIA by phone (3% versus 1%)

• Those who identified as a visible minority were more likely than those who did not to report the following:

  • Visited the CFIA website (13% versus 6%)

  • Followed the CFIA on a social media platform (8% versus 3%)

  • Subscribed to the CFIA food recall notices (8% versus 2%)

  • Contacted the CFIA by email or through the website (5% versus 1%)

• Those who reported a food allergy or sensitivity in their household were more likely than those without one to have done the following:

  • Read articles or watched videos from the CFIA (11% versus 7%)

  • Subscribed to the CFIA food recall notices (6% versus 2%)

  • Submitted a food safety or labelling concern (4% versus 2%)

• Respondents with a university education (9%) were more likely to have visited the CFIA website than those with a college education (5%) or those who have completed high school or less (5%).

Nearly a quarter of respondents (23%) had recently seen, heard, or read something about the CFIA while most had not (71%). Another 6% of respondents were unsure.

QF6. Have you seen, heard, or read anything recently about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency? Base: Respondents familiar with the CFIA, n=786.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to have recently seen, heard, or read something about the CFIA included:

• Respondents with a food allergy or sensitivity in their household compared to those without one (30% versus 19%)

• Indigenous respondents compared to non-Indigenous respondents (43% versus 22%)

• Respondents who speak French at home compared to those who speak English (32% versus 21%)

• Those who were very familiar with the CFIA (45%) compared to those somewhat (21%) or not very familiar (14%)

• Those who had a great deal of concern with food fraud (31%) compared to those with some concern (21%) or not very much concern (18%)

When asked where they might have recently seen, heard, or read something about the CFIA, half of aware respondents (50%) cited traditional media such as newspapers, television, or radio. Nearly 2 in 5 (39%) cited social media (not including the CFIA’s social media) such as Facebook (16%), Instagram (14%), YouTube (13%), X (formerly Twitter, 11%), TikTok (4%), or Reddit (3%) while 6% could not recall the specific social media platform. Additionally, more than two thirds of respondents (34%) had recently seen, heard, or read about the CFIA on internet sources other than social media.

Other sources included word of mouth (22%), a digital assistant (9%) and direct contact from the CFIA such as on the Agency’s website or social media accounts (9%). Another 4% of respondents could not recall where they had recently seen, heard, or read about the CFIA.

The horizontal bar graph illustrates the channels of information used by respondents surrounding the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

The most frequently used channel is traditional media, such as newspapers, TV, and radio, cited by 50% of respondents. Social media, excluding CFIA social media, is the second most common channel, used by 39% of respondents. Within social media, specific platforms mentioned include Facebook (16%), Instagram (14%), YouTube (13%), X (formerly Twitter) (11%), TikTok (4%), and Reddit (3%). Additionally, 6% of respondents could not recall the specific channels they used. The Internet, which includes online news sites but excludes social media, is used by 34% of respondents. Word of mouth, involving friends, family, and other personal contacts, is a source for 22% of respondents. Digital assistants, such as Alexa, Siri, and Google, are used by 9% of respondents, matching the percentage that relies on direct contact from the CFIA, which includes CFIA social media and visiting the CFIA website. Finally, 4% of respondents indicated they could not recall using any channels. This data highlights the significant reliance on traditional media and social media for information surrounding the CFIA, with a notable number of respondents also turning to the Internet, personal networks, and digital assistants.

QF7. Where have you seen, heard, or read about the CFIA? Base: Respondents who had recently seen, heard or read anything about the CFIA, n=171.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, the following differences were found:

• Respondents aged 55 or older were more likely to cite traditional media compared to respondents aged 54 and younger (70% versus 34%)

• Respondents aged 18-34 were more likely to cite social media compared to respondents aged 35 and older (55% versus 33%)

• Respondents aged 54 and younger were more likely to cite word of mouth than those 55 or older (32% versus 9%).

• Those who speak English at home were more likely than those who speak French at home to mention social media (44% versus 27%) or direct contact with the CFIA (11% versus 2%).

Key Segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to report a high level of understanding included:

• Respondents aged 55 and older compared to those aged 18-34 (62% versus 41%)

• Male respondents compared to female respondents (60% versus 42%)

• Respondents with a university education or higher compared to those with a college education (62% versus 39%)

• Respondents who reported a great deal of concern with food fraud compared to those who reported moderate concern (66% versus 38%)

Respondents were asked the extent to which they agreed with various statements regarding the CFIA. A 7-point scale was used with 7 representing “agree completely” and 1 representing “disagree completely”.

Nearly 3 in 5 respondents (58%) strongly agreed that the CFIA is believable when it issues a statement while nearly two thirds (35%) somewhat agreed.

Half of respondents (50%) strongly agreed that all businesses are treated fairly by the CFIA and another 3 in 10 (30%) somewhat agreed. Conversely, less than 1 in 10 (8%) disagreed while over 1 in 10 (13%) were unsure.

Lastly, a little under half of respondents (47%) strongly agreed that CFIA enforcement activities are strong enough to encourage companies to comply with the regulations while 38% somewhat agreed. Less than 1 in 10 disagreed (8%) and a similar proportion were unsure (7%).

The horizontal bar graph in Figure 9 illustrates respondents’ general impressions of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) activities

When asked if the CFIA is believable as a science-based regulator when it issues a statement, 58% of respondents strongly agree, while 35% somewhat agree. Only 5% do not agree, and 2% either did not know or preferred not to say. Regarding whether all businesses are treated fairly by the CFIA, 50% of respondents strongly agree, and 30% somewhat agree. In contrast, 8% do not agree, and 13% either did not know or preferred not to say. When considering whether CFIA enforcement activities are strong enough to encourage companies to comply with regulations, 47% of respondents strongly agree, and 38% somewhat agree. Meanwhile, 8% do not agree, and 7% either did not know or preferred not to say. This data indicates a generally positive perception of the CFIA’s credibility, fairness, and enforcement strength, with the majority of respondents expressing strong or somewhat agreement with these statements.

QU2. How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? Base: Respondents who had recently seen, heard or read anything about the CFIA, n=171.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, the following differences were found:

• Respondents aged 55 or older were more likely to agree that the CFIA is believable when it issues a statement compared to those aged 18-34 (71% versus 41%)

• Those who were not concerned about food fraud were more likely to agree that the CFIA is believable when it issues a statement compared to those somewhat concerned about food fraud (79% versus 44%)

When presented with a list of adjectives and asked which ones best described the CFIA, roughly half selected scientific (52%), trusted (50%) and informative (49%).

Two thirds of respondents (36%) viewed the CFIA as responsive while roughly 3 in 10 selected the words fair (31%) and efficient (29%).

More than a fifth would describe the CFIA as respectful (24%), consistent (23%), service oriented (22%), transparent (22%) or dedicated (21%). A slightly smaller proportion would describe the CFIA as collaborative (19%), caring (17%), innovative (13%), a global leader (12%) or punitive (10%).

The horizontal bar graph displays the associated descriptions of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) based on respondents’ perceptions

The data indicates the percentage of respondents who selected each description for the CFIA. The most commonly associated description is “Scientific,” with 52% of respondents identifying the CFIA in this way. Following closely, 50% of respondents describe the CFIA as “Trusted,” and 49% consider it “Informative.” Other significant descriptors include “Responsive” at 36%, “Fair” at 31%, and “Efficient” at 29%. The CFIA is seen as “Respectful” by 24% and “Consistent” by 23% of respondents. Both “Service oriented” and “Transparent” are each associated with the CFIA by 22% of respondents. The descriptions “Dedicated,” “Collaborative,” and “Caring” are associated with the CFIA by 21%, 19%, and 17% of respondents, respectively. Further down the list, 13% of respondents view the CFIA as “Innovative,” and 12% see it as a “Global leader.” The descriptor “Punitive” is the least associated, with 10% of respondents selecting it. Additionally, 3% of respondents chose “None of the above,” while 2% either did not know or preferred not to answer. This data reflects a broad range of positive perceptions about the CFIA, with a strong emphasis on its scientific, trusted, and informative nature.

QU3. Of the words listed below, please select the ones that best describe the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). SELECT ALL THAT APPLY Base: Respondents who had recently seen, heard or read anything about the CFIA, n=171.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, the following differences were found:

• Those who were not concerned about food fraud were more likely to describe the CFIA as “scientific” (72%) compared to those somewhat concerned (48%) or very concerned about food fraud (44%)

• Those who were not concerned about food fraud were more likely to describe the CFIA as “informative” compared to who were very concerned about food fraud (63% versus 39%)

• Respondents aged 55 or older were more likely to use the following terms to describe the CFIA compared to those aged 54 or younger:

  • “Trusted” (61% versus 42%)

  • “Scientific” (69% versus 39%)

• Those aged 55 or older were more likely to use the following terms to describe the CFIA compared to those aged 18-34:

  • “Informative” (57% versus 36%)

  • “Responsive” (43% versus 21%)

• Respondents aged 18-34 were more likely than those aged 55 or older to describe the CFIA as “innovative (25% versus 7%)

• Men were more likely than women to describe the CFIA as “innovative” (18% versus 8%).

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to believe that the CFIA is doing well when it comes to safeguarding food in Canada included:

• Respondents aged 55 or older compared to those aged 54 and younger (53% versus 37%)

• Respondents who reported being very familiar (66%) or somewhat familiar with the CFIA (52%) compared to those who were not familiar (37%)

• Respondents who were not concerned about food fraud (57%) compared to those with some concern (37%) or a great deal of concern (44%)

A quarter of respondents (25%) reported that they had looked for or read information specifically about food safety or food fraud over the past few years.

The data illustrates respondents’ behavior regarding seeking information related to food safety or food fraud

A quarter of respondents (25%) reported that they actively seek such information. However, a significant majority, 68%, indicated that they do not seek information related to food safety or food fraud. Additionally, 6% of respondents either did not know or preferred not to say.

QS2. Over the past few years, have you looked for or read information specifically about food safety or food fraud of any kind? Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to have looked for information about food safety or food fraud included:

• Respondents who identify as a visible minority compared to those who do not (33% versus 24%)

• Respondents who reported having a food allergy or sensitivity in their household compared to those who do not (34% versus 22%)

• Respondents with a university education (30%) compared to those with a college education (23%) or high school or less (22%)

• Those very familiar (45%) or somewhat familiar (32%) with the CFIA compared to those not very familiar (20%)

• Those who had a great deal of concern about food fraud (35%) compared to those with some concern (24%) or no concern (23%)

Those who had looked for or read information about food safety or food fraud were asked which sources of information they had used for this purpose.

The internet (excluding social media) was the most common source of information (61%) followed by traditional media (46%) and social media (43%). Social media platforms used as sources of information included Facebook (21%), Instagram (15%), YouTube (12%), TikTok (7%), X (formerly Twitter, 7%), and Reddit (3%) while 6% did not recall which platform they had used as a source of food safety or food fraud information.

Additional sources of information included word of mouth (29%), a digital assistant (9%), or direct contact with the CFIA (7%).

The horizontal bar graph illustrates the channels used by respondents to search for information on food safety or food fraud

The most commonly used channel is the Internet, which includes online news sites but excludes social media, cited by 61% of respondents. Traditional media sources such as newspapers, TV, and radio are used by 46% of respondents. Social media, excluding CFIA social media, is utilized by 43% of respondents. Specific social media platforms mentioned include Facebook, used by 21% of respondents, Instagram by 15%, and YouTube by 12%. TikTok and X (formerly Twitter) are each used by 7% of respondents, while Reddit is used by 3%. Additionally, 6% of respondents could not recall the specific channels they used. Word of mouth, involving friends, family, and other personal contacts, is a channel for 29% of respondents. Digital assistants such as Alexa, Siri, and Google are used by 9% of respondents. Direct contact from the CFIA, which includes CFIA social media and visiting the CFIA website, is a source for 7% of respondents. Finally, 1% of respondents indicated they could not recall using any channels. This data underscores the predominant reliance on the Internet and traditional media for information on food safety and food fraud, with a significant number of respondents also turning to social media and personal networks.

QS3. What sources of information about food safety or food fraud have you recently used? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY Base: Respondents that recently looked for information about food safety or food fraud, n=379.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, the following differences were found:

• Respondents aged 35 and older were more likely than those aged 18-34 to report using the internet (excluding social media) as a source of information on food safety (67% versus 47%)

• Respondents aged 18-34 were more likely to mention social media compared to those aged 55 or older (55% versus 35%)

• Respondents aged 55 or older were more likely that those aged 54 and younger to mention traditional media (64% versus 32%)

• Respondents aged 54 and younger were more likely than those aged 55 or older to mention the following sources:

  • Word of mouth (37% versus 16%)

  • A digital assistant (13% versus 3%)

• Respondents who identified as a visible minority were more likely to mention using social media as a source of information regarding food safety compared to those who did not identify as a visible minority (64% versus 38%)

• Those who did not identify as a visible minority were more likely to mention traditional media compared to those who identified as a visible minority (50% versus 32%)

• Those with food allergies or sensitivities in their household were more likely than those without one to mention using social media (53% versus 36%) and a digital assistant (14% versus 5%)

Respondents were presented with the statement “I believe food recalls illustrate that the food safety system is working.” Nearly 4 in 5 (78%) felt this was true while 1 in 10 (10%) felt the statement was false and a similar proportion (13%) were unsure.

The data illustrates the impact of food recalls on respondents’ perception of the food safety system

A significant majority, 78%, believe that food recalls positively impact their perception of the food safety system, indicating they see recalls as a sign that the system is working to protect consumers. Conversely, 10% of respondents think that food recalls do not positively impact their perception, and 13% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QS4. I believe food recalls illustrate that the food safety system is working. Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to believe this statement is true included:

• Those aged 55 or older compared to those aged 54 and younger (83% versus 74%)

• Respondents with a household income of $80k+ compared to those with a household income of $40k or less (81% versus 72%)

• Respondents who reported being not very concerned about food fraud (86%) compared to those who were somewhat concerned (77%) or had a great deal of concern (76%)

Respondents were asked how concerned they were with food recalls in general. A 7-point scale was used with 7 representing “very concerned” and 1 representing “not at all concerned”.

One quarter of respondents (25%) had a great deal of concern regarding food recalls (a score of 6 or 7) while 43% had some concern. On the other hand, more than a quarter of respondents were not very concerned about food recalls (27% gave a score of 1, 2 or 3) while 4% were unsure.

The data illustrates the general concern respondents have with food recalls

A quarter of respondents (25%) reported having “A great deal of concern” about food recalls. A larger segment, 43%, expressed “Some concern.” Meanwhile, 27% of respondents indicated they are “Not really concerned” about food recalls, and 4% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QS5. How concerned are you with food recalls in general? Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments:

Across sub-segments, those more likely to report a great deal of concern regarding food recalls included:

• Respondents aged 55 or older compared to respondents aged 54 and younger (32% versus 20%)

• Female respondents compared to male respondents (28% versus 22%)

• Respondents who identified as a visible minority compared to those who did not (34% versus 24%)

• Those with a household income of less than $40k compared to those with a household income of $80k and above (28% versus 22%)

• Respondents very familiar with the CFIA (40%) compared to those who were somewhat familiar (25%) or not very familiar (23%)

• Those who reported a great deal of concern regarding food fraud (51%) compared to those with a moderate level of concern (20%) or a low level of concern (12%)

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to report a high level of trust in the CFIA to do what is right to help ensure that food is safe in Canada included:

• Respondents aged 55 or older compared to respondents aged 54 and younger (52% versus 37%)

• Respondents who reported being very familiar (62%) or somewhat familiar (51%) with the CFIA compared to those who were not very familiar (37%)

Respondents were asked a series of questions related to food consumption and “best-before” dates.

When it comes to deciding whether a food can still be eaten, participants seem to take into consideration a variety of factors. Participants most commonly look for and consider signs of spoilage (81%), expiry dates (66%), what kind of food it is (66%), how it was stored (65%), “best before” dates (64%) and how long they have had the food (62%).

The horizontal bar graph illustrates the factors considered by respondents when determining if a food can still be eaten

The most commonly cited factor is signs of spoilage, such as mold or change of color, considered by 81% of respondents. The expiry date is also a significant factor, mentioned by 66% of respondents, along with the type of food it is, which is equally considered by 66%. How the food was stored is a factor for 65% of respondents, and the best-before date is considered by 64%. Additionally, 62% of respondents take into account how long they have had the food. Other unspecified factors are mentioned by 1% of respondents, while 2% either did not know or could not recall the factors they consider. This data highlights that visual and sensory indicators of spoilage, along with dates indicating freshness and storage conditions, are key considerations for most respondents in determining the edibility of food.

QP2. What factors do you consider when deciding if a food can still be eaten? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, the following differences were found:

• Respondents outside of Quebec were more likely than those living in Quebec to report using the following factors when deciding if a food can still be eaten:

  • The expiry date (72% versus 46%)

  • How it was stored (69% versus 53%)

• Respondents aged 35 and older were more likely than those aged 18-34 to report using the following factors when deciding if a food can still be eaten:

  • Signs of spoilage (84% versus 74%)

  • How it was stored (68% versus 60%)

  • What kind of food it is (68% versus 59%)

• Respondents aged 55 and older were more likely than those aged 54 and younger to consider how long they have had the food when deciding if it can still be eaten (69% versus 58%).

• Female respondents were more likely than male respondents to report using the following factors when deciding if a food can still be eaten:

  • Signs of spoilage (86% versus 76%)

  • Expiry date (70% versus 63%)

  • How it was stored (69% versus 61%)

  • What kind of food it is (72% versus 59%)

  • How long they’ve had it (67% versus 58%)

• Non-Indigenous respondents were more likely than those who identified as Indigenous to report using the following factors when deciding if a food can still be eaten:

  • Expiry date (67% versus 47%)

  • How it was stored (66% versus 49%)

  • What kind of food it is (67% versus 50%)

  • “Best-before” date (65% versus 49%)

• Those who did not identify as a visible minority were more likely to report using the following factors when deciding if a food can still be eaten:

  • Signs of spoilage (84% versus 72%)

  • How it was stored (68% versus 58%)

  • What kind of food it is (69% versus 58%)

  • How long they’ve had it (65% versus 52%)

• Those who identified as a visible minority were more likely than those who did not to report using the expiry date when considering whether a food can still be eaten (75% versus 66%).

When it comes to “best before” dates and expiration dates, nearly a quarter of respondents (24%) reported that these terms meant the same thing to them. Conversely, over 7 in 10 respondents (72%) said that the terms meant different things to them.

The data in respondents’ understanding of the terminology “best before” dates and “expiration date.”

A majority of 72% of respondents indicated that these terms mean different things to them. Conversely, 24% of respondents believe that “best before” dates and “expiration date” mean the same thing. Additionally, 4% of respondents either did not know or preferred not to say.

QP3. Do the terms “best before date” and “expiration date” mean the same thing to you? Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to report that these date labels mean the same thing to them included:

• Those with a household income of less than $40k compared to those with a household income of $40k and above (31% versus 22%)

• Respondents living in urban areas compared to those living in rural areas (25% versus 17%)

• Those who reported being very familiar with the CFIA (33%) compared to those who were somewhat familiar (22%) or not very familiar (23%)

Respondents were asked to rate their confidence in using date labels, such as “best before” dates and expiration dates among others, to determine whether a food could still be eaten. A 7-point scale was used with 7 representing “very confident” and 1 representing “not at all confident”.

Nearly half of respondents (48%) were very confident that they know how to use date labels when judging if a food can still be eaten (a score of 6 or 7). A slightly smaller proportion (42%) were somewhat confident (a score of 4 or 5). Conversely, just 7% were not confident (a score of 1, 2 or 3) while 3% were unsure.

The data illustrates respondents’ confidence in interpreting date labels on food products

Nearly half of the respondents (48%) reported being “Very confident” in interpreting date labels. Another 42% indicated that they are “Somewhat confident.” In contrast, 7% of respondents are “Not confident” in their ability to interpret date labels, and 3% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QP4. How confident are you that you know how to use date labels (for example, best-before dates, manufactured on dates, packaged on dates and expiry dates) when judging whether a food can still be eaten? Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to report high confidence when it comes to using date labels when judging whether a food can still be eaten included:

• Those aged 35 and older compared to those aged 18-34 (52% versus 39%)

• Those who speak English at home compared to those who speak French at home (51% versus 41%)

A quarter of respondents (25%) regularly throw out food when it has passed the “best before” date (7% always do while 19% often do). Another 43% sometimes throw away food that has passed the “best before” date. On the other hand, just over a quarter of respondents (26%) reported that they rarely do so and an additional 5% never throw away food when it’s past the “best before date”.

The data illustrates the frequency with which respondents throw out food past the “best before” date

A small percentage, 7%, reported that they always throw out food past this date. Another 19% indicated that they often do so. The largest group, 43%, sometimes throws out food past the “best before” date. Additionally, 26% of respondents rarely discard food past this date, while 5% never do, and 2% either did not know or preferred not to say. Combining the “always” and “often” responses, 25% of respondents frequently throw out food past the “best before” date.

QP5. How often do you throw out food when it’s past the best-before date? Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to report always or often throwing out food that has passed the “best before” date included:

• Respondents aged 54 and younger compared to those aged 55 or older (30% versus 19%)

• Female respondents compared to males (28% versus 22%)

• Respondents who identify as a visible minority compared to those who do not (33% versus 24%)

• Those with a food allergy or sensitivity in the household compared to those without one (30% versus 24%)

Nearly 3 in 10 respondents (29%) reported that they regularly purchase food that has been discounted because the “best before” date is approaching (4% always do while 25% often do) while 39% sometimes do so. Conversely, 21% rarely purchase food that has been discounted because it is approaching the “best before” date and 10% never do so.

The data illustrates the frequency with which respondents purchase discounted food approaching the “best before” date

A small percentage, 4%, reported that they always purchase such discounted food. Another 25% indicated that they often do so. The largest group, 39%, sometimes purchases discounted food nearing its “best before” date. Additionally, 21% of respondents rarely make such purchases, while 10% never do, and 2% either did not know or preferred not to say. Combining the “always” and “often” responses, 29% of respondents frequently purchase discounted food approaching the “best before” date.

QP6. How often do you buy foods that are on discount because the best-before date is approaching? Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to report always or often buying foods that are on discount because the “best before” date is approaching included:

• Respondents living in Atlantic Canada (28%) or Ontario (31%) compared to those living in Quebec (22%)

• Respondents aged 54 and younger compared to those aged 55 or older (32% versus 25%)

• Those with a food allergy or sensitivity in the household compared to those without one (33% versus 27%)

• Respondents who speak English at home compared to those who speak French at home (31% versus 22%)

Respondents were asked to rate their confidence that food sold in Canada is safe. A 7-point scale was used with 7 representing “very confident” and 1 representing “not at all confident”.

More than half of respondents (56%) reported being very confident in the safety of food sold in Canada (a score of 6 or 7). Additionally, close to 2 in 5 (37%) said they were somewhat confident (a score of 4 or 5) and 4% reported low confidence (scores of 1, 2 or 3).

The data illustrates respondents’ confidence in food safety in Canada

A majority, 56%, reported being “Very confident” in the safety of food in Canada. Another 37% indicated that they are “Somewhat confident.” In contrast, 4% of respondents stated that they are not confident in the safety of food, and 2% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QP7. Please rate your level of confidence that food sold in Canada is safe. Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to report high confidence that food sold in Canada is safe included:

• Respondents aged 55 or older compared to those aged 54 and younger (68% versus 49%)

• Non-Indigenous respondents compared to those who identified as Indigenous (58% versus 38%)

• Respondents who did not identify as a visible minority compared to those who did (60% versus 47%)

• Respondents who did not report a food allergy or sensitivity in their household compared to those who did (59% versus 52%)

• Respondents with a household income of $40k and above compared to those with a household income of less than $40k (59% versus 48%)

• Respondents who reported low concern with food fraud (74%) compared to those who reported moderate (46%) or high concern (57%)

Next, respondents were asked to rate how well they believe the CFIA is doing when it comes to verifying that food sold in Canada is safe. A 7-point scale was used with 7 representing “doing well” and 1 representing “not doing well”.

Just under half of respondents (49%) felt that the CFIA was doing well in this regard (a score of 6 or 7) and nearly 2 in 5 (38%) felt that the CFIA was doing somewhat well (a score of 4 or 5). On the other hand, just 5% felt the CFIA was not doing well when it comes to verifying that food sold in Canada is safe (a score of 1, 2 or 3). Another 8% were unsure.

The data illustrates respondents’ perceptions of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) performance in verifying food safety

Nearly half of the respondents, 49%, believe that the CFIA is “Doing well” in this role. Another 38% feel the CFIA is performing “Somewhat well.” In contrast, 5% of respondents think the CFIA is “Not doing well” in verifying food safety, and 8% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QP8. When it comes to verifying that food sold in Canada is safe, how well do you believe the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is doing? Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to believe that the CFIA is doing well when it comes to verifying that food sold in Canada is safe included:

• Those aged 55 or older compared to those aged 54 and younger (59% versus 42%)

• Respondents with a household income of $80k and above compared to those with a household income of less than $40k (51% versus 43%)

• Respondents who reported being very familiar (64%) or somewhat familiar with the CFIA (56%) compared to those who reported not being very familiar (43%)

• Respondents who reported low concern with food fraud (64%) compared to those who reported moderate (38%) or high concern (52%)

Respondents were asked to which extent they agreed with various statements regarding some of the roles the CFIA plays when it comes to food safety. A 7-point scale was used with 7 representing “agree completely” and 1 representing “disagree completely”.

Just over half of respondents (51%) agreed that the CFIA looks out for the best interests of Canadians while nearly 2 in 5 (39%) somewhat agreed and just 6% disagreed. Another 4% were unsure.

More than 2 in 5 (42%) agreed that the CFIA is effective in enforcing food safety regulations. A similar proportion somewhat agreed and just 6% disagreed. Another 8% were unsure.

Just under a quarter of respondents (24%) agreed that getting information about food, plant or animal safety from the CFIA is easy while 39% somewhat agreed and 8% disagreed. Just under 3 in 10 (29%) were unsure.

Less than a fifth (17%) agreed that CFIA regulations are not strict enough while 36% somewhat agreed. Conversely, a third of respondents (33%) disagreed and 14% were unsure.

The horizontal bar graph illustrates respondents’ impressions of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and food safety in Canada

Regarding whether the CFIA looks out for the best interests of Canadians, 51% of respondents agree, 39% somewhat agree, 6% disagree, and 4% either did not know or preferred not to say. When asked if the CFIA is effective in enforcing food safety regulations, 42% of respondents agree, 45% somewhat agree, 6% disagree, and 8% either did not know or preferred not to say. In terms of the ease of getting information about food, plant, or animal safety from the CFIA, 24% of respondents agree, 39% somewhat agree, 8% disagree, and a significant 29% either did not know or preferred not to say. Regarding whether CFIA regulations are not strict enough, 17% of respondents agree, 36% somewhat agree, 33% disagree, and 14% either did not know or preferred not to say. This data indicates that a majority of respondents have a positive perception of the CFIA’s efforts to protect the best interests of Canadians and enforce food safety regulations. However, there is some uncertainty or lack of clarity about the ease of accessing information from the CFIA and opinions on the strictness of CFIA regulations are more divided.

QP9. How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? Base: Respondents familiar with the CFIA, n=786.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to agree that the CFIA looks out for the best interests of Canadians included:

• Those aged 55 or older compared to those aged 54 and younger (65% versus 41%)

• Respondents who did not have a food allergy or sensitivity in their household compared to those who did (55% versus 45%)

• Respondents who were very familiar (57%) or somewhat familiar (54%) with the CFIA compared to those who were not very familiar (41%)

• Respondents who reported low concern with food fraud (66%) compared to those who reported moderate (42%) or high concern (52%)

Those more likely to agree that the CFIA is effective in enforcing food safety regulations included:

• Those aged 55 or older compared to those aged 54 and younger (53% versus 34%)

• Respondents who were very familiar (56%) or somewhat familiar (42%) with the CFIA compared to those who were not very familiar (33%)

Those more likely to agree that getting information about food, plant or animal safety from the CFIA is easy included:

• Those aged 55 or older compared to those aged 18-34 (27% versus 19%)

• Respondents who were very familiar with the CFIA (44%) compared to those who were somewhat familiar with the CFIA (23%) or not very familiar (15%)

Those more likely to agree that CFIA regulations are not strict enough included:

• Those aged 55 or older compared to those aged 18-34 (20% versus 16%)

• Male respondents compared to female respondents (20% versus 13%)

• Respondents who speak French at home compared to those who speak English at home (25% versus 15%)

• Respondents who reported a great deal of concern with food fraud (32%) compared to those who reported moderate (12%) or low concern (10%)

Respondents were asked the extent to which they support the CFIA publishing names of companies that receive administrative monetary penalties (AMP’s) due to having not complied with regulations.

Overall, nearly 4 in 5 respondents (79%) support the CFIA publishing names of these companies (52% strongly support this action while 27% somewhat support). A much smaller proportion are opposed to this enforcement action (5% somewhat oppose while 2% strongly oppose). Another 15% were unsure.

The data illustrates respondents’ support for publishing the names of companies that receive Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs)

A majority of 52% “Strongly support” this measure, while an additional 27% “Somewhat support” it. In contrast, 5% “Somewhat oppose” the publication of these names, and 2% “Strongly oppose” it. Additionally, 15% of respondents either did not know or preferred not to say. Combining the “strongly support” and “somewhat support” responses, a significant 79% of respondents support the publication of names of companies that receive AMPs.

QP10. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose CFIA publishing names of companies that receive AMPs? Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to somewhat support or strongly support publishing names of companies that receive AMPs included:

• Respondents aged 35 and older compared to those aged 18-34 (84% versus 66%)

• Male respondents compared to female respondents (83% versus 76%)

• Those with a university education compared to those who have completed high school or less (82% versus 74%)

• Those with a household income of $40k and above compared to those with a household income of less than $40k (82% versus 73%)

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to report a great deal of concern regarding food fraud included:

• Respondents aged 35 and older compared to those aged 18-34 (30% versus 18%)

• Respondents who identified as a visible minority compared to those who did not (36% versus 25%)

• Respondents who reported a food allergy or sensitivity in their household compared to those who did not (31% versus 25%)

• Respondents who reported being very familiar with the CFIA (47%) compared to those who reported being somewhat familiar (25%) or not very familiar (25%)

Respondents were asked the extent to which they support the CFIA publishing names of companies that have been found to have committed food fraud.

Overall, 90% of respondents at least somewhat support this enforcement action (68% strongly support while 21% somewhat support). A much smaller proportion of respondents were opposed to this enforcement action (3% somewhat oppose while 1% strongly oppose). Another 6% were unsure.

The data illustrates respondents’ support for publishing the names of companies that have committed food fraud

A significant majority, 68%, “Strongly support” this measure, while an additional 21% “Somewhat support” it. In contrast, 3% “Somewhat oppose” the publication of these names, and 1% “Strongly oppose” it. Additionally, 6% of respondents either did not know or preferred not to say. Combining the “strongly support” and “somewhat support” responses, a substantial 90% of respondents support the publication of names of companies that have committed food fraud.

QFF2. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose CFIA publishing names of companies that have been found to have committed food fraud? Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to somewhat support or strongly support publishing names of companies that commit food fraud included:

• Respondents aged 35 and older compared to those aged 18-34 (92% versus 82%)

• Non-Indigenous respondents compared to those who identified as Indigenous (91% versus 79%)

• Respondents who did not identify as a visible minority compared to those who did (92% versus 84%)

• Those with a university education (91%) or college education (92%) compared to those who have completed high school or less (85%)

Respondents were asked how well they believed the CFIA was doing when it comes to safeguarding from misrepresented food sold in Canada. A 7-point scale was used with 7 representing “doing well” and 1 representing “not doing well”.

Just over one third of respondents (35%) believed that the CFIA was doing well (a score of 6 or 7) when it comes to safeguarding from misrepresented food sold in Canada. Additionally, 42% believed the CFIA was doing somewhat well (a score of 4 or 5). Conversely, less than 1 in 10 (6%) felt the CFIA was not doing well (a score of 1, 2 or 3) and another 16% were unsure.

The data illustrates respondents’ perceptions of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) performance in safeguarding from misrepresented food

A portion of 35% of respondents believes that the CFIA is “Doing well” in this role. Another 42% feel the CFIA is performing “Somewhat well.” In contrast, 6% of respondents think the CFIA is “Not doing well” in safeguarding from misrepresented food, and 16% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QFF3. When it comes to safeguarding from misrepresented food being sold in Canada, how well do you believe the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is doing? Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to believe that the CFIA is doing well when it comes to safeguarding from misrepresented food included:

• Those aged 55 or older compared to those aged 54 and younger (43% versus 30%)

• Male respondents compared to female respondents (38% versus 33%)

• Respondents who reported being very familiar (54%) or somewhat familiar (42%) with the CFIA compared to those who reported being not very familiar (30%)

Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they trust the CFIA to inspect food product labels for ingredients to which people may be allergic or sensitive. A 7-point scale was used with 7 representing “trust completely” and 1 representing “do not trust at all”.

Nearly 2 in 5 respondents (39%) reported a high level of trust in the CFIA to inspect food product labels for ingredients to which people may be allergic or sensitive (scores of 6 or 7). A slightly larger proportion (45%) said they somewhat trust the CFIA in this regard. Less than 1 in 10 (7%) had a low level of trust in the CFIA when it comes to inspecting food product labels for ingredients to which people may be allergic or sensitive and a similar proportion (9%) were unsure.

The data illustrates respondents’ trust in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) inspection of labels for ingredients to which people may be allergic or have a sensitivity

A significant portion, 39%, reported that they “Trust completely” in the CFIA’s inspection of such labels. Another 45% “Trust somewhat.” In contrast, 7% of respondents indicated that they do not trust the CFIA’s inspection, and 9% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QFF4. How much do you trust the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to inspect food product labels for ingredients to which people may be allergic or have a sensitivity? Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to report high trust in the CFIA when it comes to inspecting food product labels for ingredients to which people may be allergic or have a sensitivity included:

• Respondents aged 35 or older compared to those aged 18-34 (42% versus 30%)

• Those with a household income of $40k and above compared to those with a household income of less than $40k (41% versus 31%)

• Respondents who reported being very familiar (58%) or somewhat familiar (44%) with the CFIA compared to those who reported being not very familiar (34%)

Respondents were asked to rate their confidence in the CFIA to take enforcement action to protect consumers from food fraud. A 7-point scale was used with 7 representing “very confident” and 1 representing “not at all confident”.

Just over than 2 in 5 respondents (41%) reported high confidence that the CFIA will take enforcement action to protect consumers from food fraud (scores of 6 or 7) while a similar proportion (42%) were somewhat confident (scores of 4 or 5). On the other hand, less than 1 in 10 respondents (8%) were not very confident (scores of 1, 2 or 3) and a similar proportion (9%) were unsure.

The data illustrates respondents’ confidence in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) enforcement actions to protect consumers from food fraud

A portion of 41% of respondents reported being “Very confident” in the CFIA’s enforcement actions, while another 42% are “Somewhat confident.” In contrast, 8% of respondents stated they are not confident in the CFIA’s ability to protect consumers from food fraud, and 9% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QFF5. Rate your level of confidence that the CFIA will take enforcement action to protect consumers from food fraud. Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to report a high level of confidence that the CFIA will take enforcement actions to protect consumers from food fraud included:

• Respondents aged 55 or older compared to those aged 54 and younger (48% versus 36%)

• Respondents who speak English at home compared to those who speak French (42% versus 36%)

• Respondents who reported being very familiar (63%) or somewhat familiar (47%) with the CFIA compared to those who reported low familiarity (35%)

Respondents were asked whether they had knowingly experienced food fraud within the past year.

Less than 1 in 10 (7%) had experienced food fraud within the past year while 21% were unsure.

The data illustrates respondents’ recent experiences with food fraud

A small percentage, 7%, reported having recent experiences with food fraud. A significant majority, 71%, indicated that they have not had any recent experiences with food fraud, while 21% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QFF6. To the best of your knowledge have you experienced food fraud in the past year? Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to have reported experiencing food fraud within the past year included:

• Respondents who identify as a visible minority compared to those who do not (12% versus 6%)

• Respondents who reported a food allergy or sensitivity in their household compared to those who did not (13% versus 5%)

• Those who reported a great deal of concern regarding food fraud (13%) or a moderate level of concern (8%) compared to those with low concern (2%)

Of those who had experienced food fraud within the past year (n=111), 11% believed they had encountered misrepresented meat products, followed by fish products (9%), cereal (7%), dairy products (7%), snack foods (6%), baked goods (5%), vegetables (3%), organic products (3%), cooking oils (2%), juice (2%) and vegan products (2%).

The horizontal bar graph shows examples of misrepresented products as identified by respondents

Meat products are the most frequently cited, with 11% of respondents mentioning them. Fish products are the second most cited, noted by 9% of respondents. Cereals and dairy products each account for 7% of responses, followed by snack foods at 6% and baked goods at 5%. Vegetables and organic products are each identified by 3% of respondents, while cooking oil (such as olive oil), juice, and vegan/plant-based products are each cited by 2% of respondents. Only 1% of respondents indicated none or nothing in terms of misrepresented products. Other unspecified products account for 14% of responses. Notably, a significant 45% of respondents either did not know or preferred not to say. This data reflects a broad range of product categories that respondents perceive as commonly misrepresented, with a notable emphasis on meat and fish products.

QFF7. Which product or products did you believe were misrepresented? Base: Respondents that experienced food fraud in the past year, n=111.

Nearly a quarter of respondents (23%) said that if they suspected food fraud, they would definitely report it to the CFIA, while more than one third (37%) would probably report it. Conversely, 25% would probably not report suspected food fraud to the CFIA and another 2% definitely would not report it. More than 1 in 10 (13%) were unsure whether they would report suspected food fraud.

The data illustrates respondents’ likelihood of reporting suspected food fraud to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

A portion of 23% of respondents indicated that they would “Definitely” report suspected food fraud, while 37% stated they would “Probably” report it. Conversely, 25% of respondents indicated they would “Probably not” report suspected food fraud, and 2% said they would “Definitely not” report it. Additionally, 13% either did not know or preferred not to say. Combining the “definitely” and “probably” responses, 61% of respondents are likely to report suspected food fraud to the CFIA.

QFF8. If I suspected food fraud, I would report it to the CFIA. Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to definitely or probably report suspected food fraud to the CFIA included:

• Those aged 35 and older compared to those aged 18-34 (64% versus 52%)

• Respondents who identified as a visible minority compared to those who did not (70% versus 60%)

• Respondents who reported being very familiar (81%) or somewhat familiar (66%) with the CFIA compared to those who reported low familiarity (56%)

• Respondents who reported a great deal of concern regarding food fraud (71%) compared to those with moderate concern (59%) or low concern (60%)

Of those who suggested that they would definitely or probably report suspected food fraud (n=898), roughly 2 in 5 (41%) would know how to report it (9% definitely, 32% probably) while more than half (54%) would not know how to report it (35% probably not, 18% definitely not).

The data illustrates respondents’ knowledge of how to report food fraud

A portion of 9% of respondents indicated they “Definitely” know how to report food fraud, while 32% “Probably” know how to report it. In contrast, 35% of respondents stated they “Probably not” know how to report food fraud, and 18% said they “Definitely not” know how to report it. Additionally, 6% either did not know or preferred not to say. Combining the “definitely” and “probably” responses, 41% of respondents have some level of confidence in their knowledge of how to report food fraud.

QFF9. I would know how to report it. Base: Respondents that would report suspected food fraud, n=898.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to believe that they would definitely or probably know how to report suspected food fraud included:

• Male respondents compared to female respondents (45% versus 37%)

• Respondents who reported being very familiar (71%) or somewhat familiar (51%) with the CFIA compared to those who reported low familiarity (29%)

• Respondents who reported a great deal of concern regarding food fraud (49%) compared to those with moderate concern (40%) or low concern (36%)

More than 1 in 10 respondents reported not eating or buying fish (13%). Those who eat or buy fish were asked to rate their level of trust on a series of statements related to fish products. A 7-point scale was used with 7 representing “trust completely” and 1 representing “do not trust at all”.

Among those who purchase fish products (n=1,272), more than 2 in 5 respondents (43%) reported high trust (scores of 6 or 7) that the fish they buy is safe to eat while a slightly larger proportion (46%) reported moderate trust (scores of 4 or 5). On the other hand, less than 1 in 10 (8%) reported low trust that the fish they buy is safe to eat and 3% were unsure.

A third of respondents (33%) reported high trust that the fresh fish they buy is properly labelled for the type of fish that it is while nearly half (48%) reported moderate trust. More than 1 in 10 (15%) reported low trust in this regard while 3% were unsure.

When it comes to the multi-ingredient fish products that respondents buy (for example, fish sticks), a fifth (20%) had high trust that these products are accurately labelled for the type of fish they contain. Just under half (49%) reported moderate trust regarding the labelling of multi-ingredient fish products while just over one quarter (26%) reported low trust. Another 6% were unsure.

The horizontal bar graph illustrates respondents’ trust in fish products

When asked if they trust that the fish they buy is safe to eat, 43% of respondents indicated they trust a lot, 46% trust somewhat, 8% do not trust, and 3% either did not know or preferred not to say. Regarding whether the fish they buy (e.g., fresh salmon or frozen haddock) is accurately labeled for the type of fish, 33% of respondents trust a lot, 48% trust somewhat, 15% do not trust, and 3% either did not know or preferred not to say. For multi-ingredient fish products (e.g., fish sticks) being accurately labeled for the type of fish, 20% of respondents trust a lot, 49% trust somewhat, 26% do not trust, and 6% either did not know or preferred not to say. This data indicates that a majority of respondents have a significant level of trust in the safety and accurate labeling of fish products, although trust is somewhat lower for multi-ingredient fish products compared to single-ingredient fish.

QFF10. How would you describe your level of trust in the following? Base: Respondents that eat or buy fish, n=1,272.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to report high trust that the fish they buy is safe to eat included:

• Male respondents compared to female respondents (40% versus 33%)

• Non-Indigenous respondents compared to those who identified as Indigenous (37% versus 25%)

• Respondents who reported being very familiar with the CFIA (48%) compared to those who reported not being very familiar (34%)

• Respondents who reported being not very concerned with food fraud (54%) compared to those who reported moderate concern (28%) or a great deal of concern (33%)

Those more likely to report high trust that the fish they buy is accurately labeled for the type of fish included:

• Non-Indigenous respondents compared to those who identified as Indigenous (29% versus 14%)

• Respondents who reported being very familiar with the CFIA (38%) compared to those who reported not being very familiar (27%)

• Respondents who reported being not very concerned with food fraud (45%) compared to those who reported moderate concern (20%) or a great deal of concern (26%)

Those more likely to report high trust that the multi-ingredient fish products they buy are accurately labelled for the type of fish included:

• Respondents who reported being very familiar with the CFIA (28%) compared to those who reported not being very familiar (15%)

• Respondents who reported being not very concerned with food fraud (29%) compared to those who reported moderate concern (11%) or a great deal of concern (16%)

Respondents who eat or buy fish were asked to which extent they trust various locations when it comes to the fish that they sell. A 7-point scale was used with 7 representing “trust completely” and 1 representing “do not trust at all”.

Trust was highest among grocery stores with more than a third of respondents (36%) reporting high levels of trust (scores of 6 or 7) while half (50%) reported that they somewhat trust this source (scores of 4 or 5). Conversely, more than 1 in 10 (13%) had low trust in grocery stores when it comes to the type of fish they sell and another 1% were unsure.

Fish mongers were highly trusted by just under a third of respondents (32%) while a larger proportion of respondents (37%) assigned moderate trust. On the other hand, more than 1 in 10 respondents (14%) reported low trust in fish mongers. Nearly a fifth respondents (18%) were unsure of their level of trust in fish mongers when it comes to the fish that they sell.

Nearly a third of respondents (31%) reported high trust in local markets when it comes to the fish that they sell while just under half (49%) reported moderate trust. Conversely, just over 1 in 10 (11%) reported low trust and a similar proportion (9%) was unsure.

Lastly, restaurants received high ratings of trust from over a quarter of respondents (28%) and over a half (53%) reported moderate trust. Less than a fifth (17%) reported low trust while a small proportion (2%) were unsure.

The horizontal bar graph illustrates respondents’ trust in various locations that sell fish products

Grocery stores have the highest level of trust, with 36% of respondents indicating they trust them a lot, 50% trust somewhat, 13% do not trust, and 1% either did not know or preferred not to say. Fishmongers are trusted a lot by 32% of respondents, while 37% trust them somewhat, 14% do not trust, and 18% either did not know or preferred not to say. Local markets are trusted a lot by 31% of respondents, with 49% trusting them somewhat, 11% not trusting, and 9% either did not know or preferred not to say. Restaurants have the lowest level of high trust, with 28% of respondents trusting them a lot, 53% trusting them somewhat, 17% not trusting, and 2% either did not know or preferred not to say. This data indicates that grocery stores are the most trusted location for purchasing fish products, followed by fishmongers and local markets. Restaurants have the lowest level of high trust among the various locations.

QFF11. To what extent do you trust the following types of locations when it comes to the fish they sell? Base: Respondents that eat or buy fish, n=1,272.

Key segments

Across sub-segments, those more likely to report high trust in grocery stores when it comes to the fish they sell included:

• Male respondents compared to female respondents (34% versus 28%)

• Non-Indigenous respondents compared to those who identified as Indigenous (31% versus 20%)

• Respondents with a household income of more than $80k compared to those with a household income of less than $40k (34% versus 26%)

• Respondents who reported being very familiar with the CFIA (47%) compared to those who reported being somewhat familiar (31%) or not very familiar (28%)

• Respondents who reported being not very concerned with food fraud (46%) compared to those who reported moderate concern (24%) or a great deal of concern (27%)

Those more likely to report high trust in fish mongers when it comes to the fish they sell included:

• Respondents living in Quebec compared to those living in regions outside of Quebec (46% versus 22%)

• Non-Indigenous respondents compared to those who identified as Indigenous (28% versus 16%)

• Respondents with a household income of more than $80k (31%) compared to those with a household income of less than $80k (24%)

• Respondents who reported being very familiar with the CFIA (43%) compared to those who reported being somewhat familiar (29%) or not very familiar (24%)

• Respondents who speak French at home (51%) compared to those who speak English (21%) or another language other than English or French (23%)

Those more likely to report high trust in local markets when it comes to the fish they sell included:

• Respondents living in Atlantic Canada compared to those living in regions outside of Atlantic Canada (39% versus 26%)

• Respondents with a household income of more than $80k compared to those with a household income of less than $40k (29% versus 22%)

• Respondents who reported being very familiar with the CFIA (43%) compared to those who reported being somewhat familiar (26%) or not very familiar (25%)

• Respondents who reported being not very concerned with food fraud (35%) compared to those who reported moderate concern (22%) or a great deal of concern (27%)

Those more likely to report high trust in restaurants when it comes to the fish they sell included:

• Non-Indigenous respondents compared to those who identified as Indigenous (25% versus 11%)

• Respondents with a household income of more than $80k compared to those with a household income of less than $40k (28% versus 19%)

• Respondents who reported being not very concerned with food fraud (33%) compared to those who reported moderate concern (20%) or a great deal of concern (21%)

Food allergy and sensitivity

For research analysis purposes, respondents were asked whether themselves or anyone in their household had any food allergies or sensitivities.

Overall, more than 3 in 10 respondents (31%) reported a food allergy or sensitivity in their household.

The data illustrates the presence of food allergies or sensitivities in respondents’ households

A total of 31% of respondents reported having food allergies or sensitivities in their household. Specifically, 21% indicated that they themselves have food allergies or sensitivities, while 12% reported that somebody else in their household has them. In contrast, 67% of respondents stated that there are no food allergies or sensitivities in their household, and 2% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QA1. Do you have any food allergies or sensitivities? Base: All respondents, n=1,503.

Those with a food allergy or sensitivity in their household were asked to specify the food(s) to which there was an allergy or sensitivity.

Of those with a food allergy or sensitivity in their household, the most common food allergies/sensitivities were to milk (42%), gluten (24%), wheat (20%), shellfish (17%), tree nuts (13%), and peanuts (13%).

Other food sensitivities and allergies included: eggs (9%), sulfites (8%), soy (8%), caffeine (7%), fin fish (5%), fruits (5%), mustard (3%), sesame (3%), meats (3%), vegetables (2%), amines (2%), salicylates (2%), kiwis (2%), mangos (1%), avocados (1%), and bananas (1%).

The horizontal bar graph outlines the types of food allergies or sensitivities reported by respondents

The most commonly reported food allergy or sensitivity is to milk, with 42% of respondents indicating this. Following milk, gluten is the second most common allergen, affecting 24% of respondents, while wheat allergies or sensitivities impact 20%. Shellfish is noted by 17% of respondents, and both tree nuts and peanuts are each reported by 13%. Other notable allergens include eggs, which affect 9% of respondents, and sulfites, which are reported by 8%. Soy allergies or sensitivities are noted by 8% of respondents, and caffeine by 7%. Fin fish is reported by 5% of respondents, while various other fruits collectively impact 4%. Mustard, sesame, and various meats each affect 3% of respondents. Allergies or sensitivities to various vegetables, amines, and salicylates are each reported by 2% of respondents. Kiwis and mangoes are also noted by 2%, and avocados and bananas each affect 1% of respondents. An additional 9% of respondents report other unspecified food allergies or sensitivities. Lastly, 2% of respondents either did not know or preferred not to answer. This data highlights the diversity of food allergies and sensitivities, with milk, gluten, and wheat being the most prevalent.

QA2. Please select all foods to which you or someone in your household has allergies or sensitivities: Base: Respondents with a food allergy or sensitivity, n=464.

Key findings

Across sub-segments, those more likely to report that managing public trust and corporate reputation was a high priority included:

• Business representatives from Quebec (81%) compared to those in Ontario (62%), Atlantic Canada (59%) and Western Canada (56%)

• Retailers (73%) compared to businesses in agriculture (55%) or wholesalers/distributors (55%)

• Large businesses compared to micro businesses (74% versus 59%)

Those more likely to report that managing regulatory issues was a high priority included:

• Business representatives from Quebec (76%) compared to those in Ontario (62%), Atlantic Canada (54%) and Western Canada (54%)

• Processors/manufacturers compared to businesses in agriculture (69% versus 58%)

• Large (78%) and medium sized businesses (70%) compared to small (61%) or micro businesses (49%)

Those more likely to report that implementing technology or innovative solutions was a high priority included:

• Large (49%) or medium sized businesses (35%) compared to small (25%) or micro businesses (22%)

Business representatives were asked to rate their familiarity with the activities of the CFIA. A 7-point scale was used with 7 representing “very familiar” and 1 representing “not at all familiar”.

Nearly two thirds of businesses (63%) reported being very familiar (scores of 6 or 7) with the CFIA while another 22% were somewhat familiar (scores of 4 or 5). A smaller proportion (13%) were not very familiar (scores of 1, 2 or 3).

The data illustrates respondents’ familiarity with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

A significant majority, 63%, reported being “Very familiar” with the CFIA. Another 22% indicated that they are “Somewhat familiar” with the agency. In contrast, 13% of respondents stated that they are “Not very familiar” with the CFIA, and 1% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QAA1. How familiar would you say your company is with the activities of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency? Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

Across sub-segments, those more likely to report being very familiar with the CFIA included:

• Businesses in Ontario (70%) compared to those in Western Canada (58%) or Quebec (57%)

• Processors/manufacturers (76%), wholesalers/distributors (66%) and retailers (64%) compared to businesses in agriculture (47%)

• Familiarity with CFIA increased with business size, highest among large businesses (86%) compared to medium (71%), small (59%), or micro businesses (45%)

Business representatives were asked how well they understand the food safety regulations that apply to their business. A 7-point scale was used with 7 representing “very clear” and 1 representing “not at all clear”.

Roughly 4 in 5 (81%) believe they clearly understand the food safety regulations that apply to their business (scores of 6 or 7). An additional 14% would say they understand the applicable regulations somewhat well (scores or 4 or 5) while just 4% reported a low level of understanding (scores of 1, 2 or 3).

The data illustrates respondents’ understanding of applicable food safety regulations

A large majority, 81%, reported that they understand these regulations “Very clearly.” An additional 14% indicated that they understand them “Somewhat clearly.” In contrast, 4% of respondents stated that they do not understand the regulations “Very clearly,” and 1% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QA1. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means not at all and 7 means very clearly, how well do you feel that you understand the food safety regulations that apply to your business? Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

Across sub-segments, businesses more likely to report very clearly understanding the food safety regulations applicable to their business included:

• Processors/manufacturers (87%), retailers (86%) and wholesalers/distributors (78%) compared to businesses in agriculture (66%)

• Retailers compared to wholesalers/distributors (86% versus 78%)

• Large (93%), medium (87%) and small businesses (82%) compared to micro businesses (67%)

Two thirds of business representatives (66%) had recently seen, heard, or read something about the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR) while less than a third had not (31%). Another 3% of business representatives were unsure.

The data illustrates respondents’ awareness of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR)

A majority of 66% reported that they have seen, read, or heard something about the SFCR. In contrast, 31% indicated that they have not, and 3% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QA2. Have you seen, read or heard anything about the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations? Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

Across sub-segments, businesses more likely to have seen, read or heard something about the SFCR included:

• Business representatives from Quebec (81%) compared to those from Ontario (61%), Atlantic Canada (56%) or Western Canada (55%)

• Processors/manufacturers (84%) and wholesalers/distributors (80%) compared to retailers (62%) and businesses in agriculture (54%)

• Medium (72%) and small businesses (69%) compared to micro businesses (56%)

• Medium sized businesses (72%) compared to large businesses (57%)

When asked where they might have recently heard, seen, or read something about SFCR, just over a quarter of aware business representatives (26%) cited the internet while a fifth (20%) cited internal resources such as through head office or company policies. Another 15% cited the CFIA (CFIA website, 7%; CFIA, general, 5%; CFIA emails, 1%; CFIA inspector, 1%) while 10% cited media such as magazines, TV or radio.

Fewer cited email (general, 7%), food safety course materials (6%), an inspector (6%), a distributor, retailer, supplier or wholesaler (5%), food associations (4%), licensing or registration materials (4%), MAPAQ (4%), government websites (4%), the government (general, 3%) CanadaGAP (1%) or the MAPAQ website (1%). Another 2% of business representatives could not recall where they had heard, seen, or read about the regulations.

The horizontal bar graph presents the channels of information surrounding regulations as identified by respondents

The most frequently mentioned channel is the Internet, online sources, or websites, with 26% of respondents utilizing these for information on regulations. Head office, internal resources, or company policies are the second most common source, cited by 20% of respondents. Media, including magazines, TV, and radio, is used by 10% of respondents. The CFIA website and email are each used by 7% of respondents. Food safety course materials and other inspectors are each mentioned by 6% of respondents. Distributors, retailers, suppliers, and wholesalers are identified by 5% of respondents as a source of regulatory information, matching the CFIA itself, also at 5%. Food groups or associations, license or registration materials, and the Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation du Québec (MAPAQ) each account for 4% of responses. Government websites are another 4% source, while government sources generally account for 3%. Less frequently mentioned channels include CFIA emails, CanadaGAP, and CFIA inspectors, each at 1%, with the MAPAQ website cited by less than 1% of respondents. Other sources are noted by 6% of respondents, and 2% either did not know or preferred not to say. This data highlights the diverse range of channels through which individuals access information about regulations, with a strong preference for online and internal company resources.

QA3. Where did you hear, see or read about the regulations? Base: Businesses that have seen, read or heard about the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, n=574.

Key findings

Across sub-segments, the following differences were found:

• Retailers (29%) were more likely to cite head office compared to processors/manufacturers (12%), wholesalers/distributors (10%) and businesses in agriculture (6%)

• Those in Ontario (10%) were more likely to mention food groups/associations compared to those in Quebec (3%), Western Canada (1%) and Atlantic Canada (0%),

• Those in Quebec (12%) were more likely to cite MAPAQ compared to those in other regions (0%)

Most business representatives familiar with the SFCR believed that the SFCR applied to their business (93%).

The data illustrates respondents’ perceived relevance of new regulations

A substantial majority, 93%, indicated that they perceive the new regulations as relevant. In contrast, 5% stated that they do not see the regulations as relevant, and 2% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QA4. As far as you know, do you think the new Safe Food for Canadians Regulations will apply to your business? Base: Businesses that have seen, read or heard about the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, n=574.

Of those familiar with the SFCR, 72% of business representatives believed that the SFCR applied to online sales of food products. On the other hand, 10% did not believe that the SFCR applied to online sales of food products while 18% were unsure.

The data illustrates respondents’ perceived relevance of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR) for online sales

A majority of 72% indicated that they believe the SFCR is relevant for online sales. In contrast, 10% stated that they do not see the SFCR as relevant for online sales, and 18% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QA5. As far you know do you think the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations apply to on-line sales of food products? Base: Businesses that have seen, read or heard about the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, n=574.

Without being provided with a list of options, business representatives who were familiar with the SFCR were asked what they believed were the key safety requirements within these regulations.

Safety requirements mentioned most frequently included general food handling or food safety (32%), sanitation controls (28%), temperature controls (16%), “best before” or expiration dates (11%), labeling (11%), preventative control plans (11%) and traceability (10%).

Fewer mentioned hazards (6%), integrity of packaging (4%), proper storage (3%), building maintenance (2%), import or export programs (1%), recalls (1%) or complaint investigations (1%), among others.

Nearly a quarter of respondents (24%) were unsure of the key safety requirements in the SFCR.

The horizontal bar graph presents the unaided awareness of key safety requirements in the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR) among respondents

The most commonly recognized requirement is food handling and general food safety, noted by 32% of respondents. Sanitation controls are the next most recognized, cited by 28%. Temperature controls are acknowledged by 16% of respondents, followed by “best before” and expiration dates, labeling, and preventive control plans, each recognized by 11% of respondents. Traceability is identified by 10% of respondents, while hazards are noted by 6%. The integrity of packaging is recognized by 4%, proper storage by 3%, and building maintenance by 2%. Both import/export programs, recalls, and complaint investigations are each acknowledged by 1% of respondents. Additionally, 3% of respondents mentioned other unspecified requirements, while a significant 24% either did not know or preferred not to say. This data highlights the varying levels of awareness among respondents regarding the key safety requirements outlined in the SFCR, with a notable emphasis on general food safety practices and sanitation controls.

QA5A. To the best of your knowledge what are the key safety requirements in the SFCR? Base: Businesses that have seen, read or heard about the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, n=574.

Business representatives familiar with the SFCR were asked whether they were aware that the licence is required to import food products into Canada.

Nearly three quarters of familiar respondents (73%) reported being clearly aware of this requirement while 21% were somewhat or vaguely aware. Conversely, 6% were not aware of this requirement.

The data illustrates respondents’ awareness of the Safe Food for Canadians licence requirement

A significant majority, 73%, reported being “Clearly aware of this requirement.” Another 21% indicated that they are “Somewhat or vaguely aware” of the requirement. In contrast, 6% stated that they are not aware of this requirement, and less than 1% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QA6. Were you aware that a Safe Food for Canadians licence is required to import food products into Canada? Would you say you were… Base: Businesses that have seen, read or heard about the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations and import food products, n=176.

Key findings

Across sub-segments, businesses more likely to be clearly aware that a SFCR licence is required to import food products into Canada included:

• Business representatives from Western Canada (79%), Ontario (76%) and Quebec (68%), compared to those from Atlantic Canada (22%)

• Processors/manufacturers (88%), wholesalers/distributors (88%) and businesses in agriculture (75%) compared to retailers (43%)

• Small (80%) and medium sized businesses (77%) compared to large businesses (49%)

Business representatives familiar with the SFCR were asked which food safety requirements within the SFCR were the biggest challenge for their business. A specific list of food safety requirements was provided to respondents.

Maintaining traceability records was the biggest challenge for 15% of respondents while slightly fewer cited maintaining a written preventative control plan (13%) or implementing traceability labelling on products (11%). Less than 1 in 10 felt their biggest challenge was implementing preventative controls (9%) or obtaining/ maintaining the SFCR licence (7%). Another 1% cited all of these food safety requirements as challenges.

Just under two fifths (39%) felt that none of the requirements were challenges for their business.

The horizontal bar graph illustrates the challenges respondents face in meeting the food safety requirements of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR)

The most frequently cited challenge is maintaining traceability records, noted by 15% of respondents. This is followed by maintaining a written preventive control plan, which is a challenge for 13% of respondents. Implementing traceability labeling on products is recognized as a challenge by 11%, while implementing preventive controls is cited by 9% of respondents. Obtaining or maintaining a Safe Food for Canadians Licence is a challenge for 7% of respondents. Understanding food safety requirements and handling paperwork requirements, including license renewal, are each noted by 1% of respondents. Additionally, 1% of respondents indicated that they face all the listed challenges. Other unspecified challenges are mentioned by 3% of respondents. Notably, a significant 39% of respondents indicated that none of these are challenges for them. This data highlights the diversity of challenges faced by respondents in complying with SFCR requirements, with maintaining traceability records and a preventive control plan being the most commonly reported issues.

QA7. From your perspective, which of the following food safety requirements of the SFCR is your biggest challenge? Would it be..? Base: Businesses that have seen, read or heard about the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations and are not retail only, n=386.

Key findings

• Micro (11%), small (10%) and medium sized businesses (5%) were more likely to cite obtaining or maintaining a SFCR licence compared to large businesses (0%)

• Those in Western Canada (17%), Quebec (8%) and Ontario (8%) were more likely to say implementing preventative controls was a challenge compared to those in Atlantic Canada (0%)

• Those in Quebec (52%) were more likely to say that none of these actions were considered challenges compared to those in Ontario (35%), Western Canada (25%) and Atlantic Canada (23%)

Nearly a third of business representatives (31%) reported that their business uses a private food safety or quality control certification system such as the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) or the Quality Management Program (QMP). Conversely, 57% did not use a private food safety or quality control certification system while 12% were unsure.

The data illustrates respondents’ use of private certification systems

A portion of 31% reported that they use private certification systems. In contrast, a majority of 57% indicated that they do not use these systems, and 12% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QA8. Do you use a private food safety or quality control certification system such as GFSI, ISO or QMP? Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

Across sub-segments, businesses more likely to have a private food safety or quality control certification system included:

• Those in Ontario (36%) compared to those in Western Canada (25%)

• Processers/manufacturers (48%) and wholesalers/distributors (38%) compared to retailers (28%) and businesses in agriculture (27%)

• Large (49%) and medium sized businesses (42%) compared to small (20%) and micro businesses (17%)

Business representatives were asked which preventative control measures were currently being used by their business.

Nearly two thirds reported using traceability documents (63%) or traceability labelling (63%) while more than half (55%) used a written preventative controls plan. Nearly half (49%) cited having a SFCR licence while slightly fewer had preventative controls in place, but not a written plan (43%).

An additional 10% were not using any of the listed preventative control measures, while 5% were unsure.

The horizontal bar graph outlines the preventative control measures used by businesses

The most commonly implemented measures are traceability documents and traceability labeling, each cited by 63% of respondents. A written preventive controls plan is used by 55% of respondents, while 49% have obtained a Safe Food for Canadians Licence. Preventative controls that are not part of a written plan are implemented by 43% of respondents. Additionally, 10% of respondents indicated that they do not use any of the listed preventative control measures. A further 5% either did not know or preferred not to say. This data highlights the emphasis businesses place on traceability and formal preventive controls, with a significant number also relying on non-written preventive measures and regulatory licensing.

QA9. Which of the following items, if any, does your company have? [SELECT ALL THAT APPLY] Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

The following sub-segments were more likely to report having a Safe Food for Canadians Licence:

• Respondents in Quebec (63%) compared to those in Atlantic Canada (47%), Western Canada (44%) and Ontario (40%)

• Large (54%), medium (58%), or small businesses (49%), compared to micro businesses (31%)

The following sub-segments were more likely to report that their business has a written preventative controls plan:

• Processors/manufacturers (77%) compared to wholesalers/distributers (63%), retailers (51%) and businesses in agriculture (45%),

• Large (70%), medium (68%) and small businesses (50%) compared to micro businesses (34%)

The following sub-segments were more likely to report that their business has traceability documents:

• Processors/manufacturers (83%) compared to businesses in agriculture (70%), wholesalers/distributers (68%) and retailers (54%)

• Medium (72%) and large sized businesses (70%) compared to micro (54%) and small businesses (53%)

The following sub-segments were more likely to report that their business has traceability labelling:

• Processors/manufacturers (81%) compared to wholesalers/distributers (70%), retailers (59%) and businesses in agriculture (53%)

• Large (72%), medium (74%) and small businesses (61%) compared to micro businesses (43%)

The following sub-segments were more likely to report that their business does not have any of these measures in place:

• Businesses in agriculture (16%) compared to wholesalers/distributors (6%) and processors/manufacturers (3%)

• Retailers (11%) compared to processors/manufacturers (3%)

• Micro businesses (20%) compared to small (11%) medium (5%) and large businesses (5%)

Key findings

Across sub-segments, businesses more likely to believe that the CFIA is very transparent when it comes to determining if there are non-compliance of regulations included:

• Processors/manufacturers (62%) compared to wholesalers/distributors (47%) and businesses in agriculture (41%)

• Retailers (56%) compared to businesses in agriculture (41%)

• Large (63%), medium (57%) and small businesses (53%) compared to micro businesses (38%)

Businesses more likely to believe that the CFIA is very transparent when it comes to reporting and publishing non-compliance results included:

• Processors/manufacturers (60%) compared to wholesalers/distributors (48%) and businesses in agriculture (33%)

• Retailers (56%) compared to businesses in agriculture (33%)

• Large (63%) and medium sized businesses (55%) compared to micro businesses (39%)

Key findings

Across sub-segments, businesses more likely to have experienced any benefits from “best before” date requirements included:

• Retailers (55%), processors/manufacturers (49%) and wholesalers/distributors (45%) compared to businesses in agriculture (19%)

• Retailers (55%) compared to wholesalers/distributors (45%)

• Large (56%), medium (51%) and small businesses (46%) compared to micro businesses (35%)

Nearly two fifths (39%) reported that their business experiences negative impacts from “best before” date requirements. Conversely, more than half (56%) reported that their business did not experience any negative impacts from these requirements and another 4% were unsure.

The data illustrates respondents’ perceptions of the negative impacts of “best before” date requirements

A portion of 39% of respondents believe that there are negative impacts associated with these requirements. In contrast, a majority of 56% do not see any negative impacts, and 4% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QB2. Does your business experience any negative impacts from best before date requirements? Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

Across sub-segments, businesses more likely to have experienced negative impacts from “best before” date requirements included:

• Retailers (52%), wholesalers/distributors (43%) and processors/manufacturers (29%) compared to businesses in agriculture (8%)

• Retailers (52%) and wholesalers/distributors (43%) compared to processors/manufacturers (29%)

• Large (50%) and medium businesses (46%) compared to small (35%) and micro businesses (28%)

A large majority of business representatives (88%) believed that there is a connection between “best before” dates and food waste.

The data illustrates respondents’ perceptions of a connection between “best before” dates and food waste

An overwhelming majority, 88%, believe there is a connection between these dates and food waste. In contrast, 9% do not see any connection, and 3% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QB3. Do you believe there is a connection between best before dates and food waste? Base: All respondents, n=850.

Respondents were asked to consider the impacts on their business if the requirement for “best before” dates was to be eliminated.

Overall, more than one third (35%) perceived that an elimination of “best before” dates would have a positive impact on their business (12% reported a very positive impact while 23% reported a somewhat positive impact). A slightly larger proportion (38%) felt this change would have a neutral impact on their business.

Conversely, more than 1 in 10 (11%) perceived that the elimination of “best before” dates would have a somewhat negative impact on their business and a similar proportion (10%) perceived a very negative impact. Another 6% were unsure.

The data illustrates respondents’ perceptions of the impact of eliminating “best before” dates

Among the respondents, 12% believe the impact would be “Very positive,” and 23% consider it “Somewhat positive.” A neutral stance is held by 38% of respondents. On the negative side, 11% think the impact would be “Somewhat negative,” and 10% view it as “Very negative.” Additionally, 6% either did not know or preferred not to answer. Overall, 35% of respondents view the elimination of “best before” dates positively, while 21% perceive it negatively, and a significant portion remains neutral.

QB5. If the requirement to have best before dates was eliminated, would the impact on your business be very negative, somewhat negative, neutral, somewhat positive, or very positive? Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

• Retailers (45%) were more likely to believe that eliminating “best before” date requirements would have a somewhat positive or very positive impact on their business compared to wholesalers/distributors (33%), processors/manufacturers (25%) and businesses in agriculture (15%)

Key findings

Across sub-segments, businesses more likely to report being very concerned with food fraud included:

• Those in Quebec (48%) compared to those in Western Canada (35%)

• Micro (42%), small (48%) and medium sized businesses (42%) compared to large businesses (27%)

A minority of food businesses (14%) reported being affected by food fraud.

The data illustrates the proportion of businesses affected by food fraud

Among the respondents, 14% reported that their businesses have been affected by food fraud. In contrast, a significant majority of 83% indicated that their businesses have not been affected, while 2% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QFF2. Has food fraud affected your business? Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

• Those in Quebec (16%) or Ontario (16%) were more likely to report that food fraud has affected their business compared to those in Atlantic Canada (7%)

Respondents were asked how likely they would be to report to the CFIA if they suspected a fellow industry member was committing food fraud. A 7-point scale was used with 7 representing “very likely” and 1 representing “not at all likely”.

More than two thirds (68%) reported being very likely (scores of 6 or 7) to report a fellow industry member of suspected food fraud to the CFIA while another 16% would be somewhat likely to report them (scores of 4 or 5). Conversely, 13% reported being not very likely to report suspected food fraud to the CFIA (scores of 1, 2 or 3) and another 3% were unsure.

The data illustrates the likelihood of respondents reporting suspected food fraud to the CFIA

A substantial 68% indicated that they are “Very likely” to report suspected food fraud, while 16% are “Somewhat likely” to do so. Conversely, 13% reported that they are “Not very likely” to report suspected food fraud, and 3% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QFF3. If you suspected a fellow industry member was committing food fraud, how likely would you be to report it to the CFIA? Please use a number between 1 and 7, where 1 means “not at all likely” and 7 means “very likely”. Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

Across sub-segments, businesses more likely to report that they would be very likely to report to the CFIA if they suspected that a fellow industry member was committing food fraud included:

• Those in Western Canada (72%) or Ontario (69%) compared to those in Quebec (60%)

• Retailers (74%), processors/manufacturers (70%) and wholesalers/distributors (70%) compared to businesses in agriculture (46%)

• Large (77%) and medium sized businesses (71%) compared to micro businesses (59%)

When asked if they knew how to report suspected food fraud to the CFIA, more than one third of business representatives (37%) indicated they knew how to do so. On the other hand, 60% did not know how to report suspected food fraud and another 3% were unsure.

The data illustrates respondents’ knowledge of how to report food fraud

Among the respondents, 37% indicated that they know how to report food fraud. In contrast, a significant majority of 60% reported that they do not know how to report food fraud, while 3% either did not know or preferred not to say.

QFF4. Do you know how to report suspected food fraud to the CFIA? Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

Across sub-segments, businesses more likely to know how to report suspected food fraud included:

• Those in Ontario (46%) compared to those in Quebec (32%) or Western Canada (26%)

• Processors/manufacturers (55%) compared to wholesalers/distributors (43%), retailers (33%) or businesses in agriculture (33%)

• Wholesalers/distributors (43%) compared to retailers (33%)

• Large businesses (47%) compared to micro businesses (33%)

Less than 1 in 10 (7%) reported that their business had received consumer complaints related to food fraud or misrepresented food.

The data indicates the incidence of customer complaints related to food fraud

According to the responses, only 7% of respondents have experienced customer complaints regarding food fraud. A vast majority of 92% reported no such complaints, while 1% either did not know or preferred not to answer. This suggests that customer complaints about food fraud are relatively rare among the respondents.

QFF5. Have you received consumer complaints (whether they were well founded or not) related to food fraud or misrepresented food? Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

Across sub-segments, businesses more likely to have received consumer complaints related to food fraud or misrepresented food included:

• Those in Ontario (11%) compared to those in Western Canada (5%) or Quebec (4%)

• Large businesses (13%) compared to micro (5%) or small businesses (4%)

Businesses that identified as retail only or specified that they deal with fish were asked to provide their level of confidence in the labelling for type of fish in the seafood products that they sell. A 7-point scale was used with 7 representing “very confident” and 1 representing “not at all confident”. Among these businesses, 19% specified that they did not sell fish or seafood.

When adjusting for businesses that did sell fish or seafood products, the majority (89%) reported being very confident that the fish or seafood products that they sell are properly labelled for the type of fish that they are (scores of 6 or 7). Another 10% were somewhat confident (scores of 4 or 5) while 1% were not confident (scores of 1, 2 or 3).

The data in Figure 61 shows the level of confidence respondents have in seafood product labels

A significant 89% of respondents are confident, with 10% being somewhat confident and 1% not confident at all. This indicates a high level of trust in the accuracy and reliability of seafood product labeling among the respondents.

QFF6. How confident are you that the fish and seafood products you sell are properly labelled for type of fish when it comes to the common name? Please use a number between 1 and 7, where 1 means “not at all confident” and 7 means “very confident”. Base: Businesses that sell fish or seafood products, n=331.

Key findings

Businesses in Atlantic Canada (100%) were more likely to be very confident that the fish and seafood products they sell are properly labelled compared to those in Ontario (92%), Western Canada (84%) or Quebec (85%).

When considering all food products sold, a majority of respondents were very confident (scores of 6 or 7) that the food products they sell are properly labelled (90%). Another 7% reported being somewhat confident (scores of 4 or 5) and 1% were not very confident (scores of 1, 2 or 3). Another 2% were unsure.

The data shows the level of confidence respondents have in food product labels

A significant 90% of respondents are confident, with 7% being somewhat confident, 1% not confident, and 2% choosing not to disclose their confidence level. This indicates a high level of trust in the accuracy and reliability of food product labeling among the respondents.

QFF8. Considering all the food products you sell, how confident are you that they are properly labelled? Please use a number between 1 and 7, where 1 means “not at all confident” and 7 means “very confident”. Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

Large (96%) and small businesses (92%) were more likely to be very confident that all food products they sell are properly labelled compared to micro businesses (86%).

Business representatives were asked at what step of the supply chain they suspected that food mislabelling of food products was most likely to occur.

The most commonly suspected source of mislabelling was the domestic processor/ manufacturer (26%). Fewer suspected the mislabelling happens from the importer (15%), pre-import in another country (12%), at retail (10%), at restaurants (10%), or at wholesale (9%). Many (16%) were unsure where mislabelling was most likely to occur.

The horizontal bar graph illustrates where businesses in the supply chain suspect food product mislabeling is most likely to occur

The most commonly suspected point is the domestic processor or manufacturer, cited by 26% of respondents. The importer is the second most suspected, mentioned by 15% of respondents. Pre-import in another country is a concern for 12% of respondents. Both retail and restaurant points in the supply chain are suspected by 10% of respondents each. Wholesale is suspected by 9% of respondents. Additionally, 1% of respondents believe that mislabeling could occur at any point in the supply chain or mentioned other unspecified points. A notable 16% of respondents either did not know or preferred not to say. This data highlights the areas within the supply chain where businesses are most concerned about the potential for food product mislabeling, with domestic processors or manufacturers being the primary focus of suspicion.

QFF9. At what step of the supply chain do you think mislabelling of food products is most likely to occur? Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

Respondents who were more likely to believe that mislabelling occurs at the domestic processor/manufacturer included:

• Those in Atlantic Canada (47%), Western Canada (36%) or Ontario (27%) compared to those in Quebec (14%)

• Wholesalers/distributors (35%) and retailers (31%) compared to businesses in agriculture (14%) and processors/manufacturers (17%)

Respondents who were more likely to believe that mislabelling occurs at the importer included:

• Those in Quebec (19%) and Ontario (18%) compared to those in Western Canada (8%)

• Businesses in agriculture (22%) compared to retailers (14%) or wholesalers/distributors (9%)

Processors/manufacturers (14%), wholesalers/distributors (13%), and retailers (13%) were more likely to believe that mislabelling occurs pre-import in another country compared to businesses in agriculture (5%).

Processors/manufacturers (17%), businesses in agriculture (14%) and wholesalers/distributors (14%) were more likely to believe that mislabelling occurs at retail compared to retailers (6%).

Processors/manufacturers (15%) were more likely to believe that mislabelling occurs at the restaurant compared to wholesalers/distributors (6%).

Key findings

• Large businesses (24%) were more likely to report looking for information about food safety daily compared to small (13%) or micro businesses (4%)

• Businesses in agriculture (32%) were more likely to report looking for information about food safety annually compared to wholesalers/distributors (12%), processors/manufacturers (11%) and retailers (9%)

• Micro businesses (22%) were more likely to report looking for information about food safety annually compared to small (16%), medium (11%) and large businesses (4%)

When it comes to sources of information related to food safety regulations or requirements most often used, the internet is the most common choice (22%) followed by internal resources such as head office or company policies (15%).

Fewer reported using sources such as the CFIA website (7%), the CFIA (general, 6%), government websites (general, 4%), distributors, retailers, suppliers or wholesalers (3%), the Public Health Department (3%), MAPAQ (3%), recalls (3%), media such as magazines, television or radio (2%), Google searches (2%) or other emails (2%).

Roughly 1 in 10 (11%) were unsure of the specific sources of information used by their business.

The horizontal bar graph illustrates the primary sources of information for food safety regulations according to respondents

The most frequently cited source is the Internet, online, or unspecified websites, utilized by 22% of respondents. Following this, head office, internal resources, or company policies are the primary source for 15% of respondents. The CFIA website is used by 7%, while the CFIA itself is relied upon by 6% of respondents. Government websites serve as a primary source for 4% of respondents. Other notable sources include distributors, retailers, suppliers, and wholesalers, each accounting for 3% of responses, the same percentage as the Public Health Department and MAPAQ (Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation). Recalls are a primary source for 3% of respondents. Media sources, such as magazines, TV, and radio, along with Google search, are each used by 2% of respondents, as are other email communications. Less frequently mentioned sources, each cited by 1% of respondents, include CanadaGAP, industry associates or consultants, labeling, the MAPAQ website, association memberships, provincial agriculture websites, CFIA emails, food safety course materials, other inspectors, Health Canada, and distributor/retailer/supplier/wholesaler websites. Temperature control materials and GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative) are each used by less than 1% of respondents. Additionally, 4% of respondents selected “Other” as their primary source, and 11% either did not know or preferred not to say. This data highlights the diverse range of primary sources for food safety regulations, with a significant reliance on online and internal company resources.

QI2. What specific source of information about food safety regulations or requirements do you go to most often? Base: All respondents, n=850.

When asked about other sources of information related to food safety used in the past, those most frequently mentioned included networks of colleagues/other food producers (19%), the CFIA (15%), Google searches (12%), industry associations (10%), media (9%), the Government of Canada (9%) and the Provincial government (7%).

Roughly a fifth (22%) were unsure which additional sources of information were used by their business.

The horizontal bar graphdetails additional sources of information for food safety regulations as identified by respondents

The most frequently mentioned source is colleagues, other producers, or personal networks, cited by 19% of respondents. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is the second most common source, used by 15% of respondents. Google search is a primary source for 12% of respondents, while industry associations are utilized by 10%. Media sources, such as TV, newspapers, and magazines, along with the Government of Canada, are each relied upon by 9% of respondents. Provincial government sources are used by 7% of respondents. Other internet or online websites account for 5% of responses, and unspecified internet or online sources are cited by 4%, the same percentage as the MAPAQ website. The CFIA website is a source for 3% of respondents. Other inspectors, food safety course materials, the Public Health Department, and government websites are each used by 2% of respondents. Less frequently mentioned sources, each cited by 1% of respondents, include the Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation (MAPAQ), social media platforms such as NET, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration), CanadaGAP, the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), and Health Canada. Additionally, the GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative), CFIA inspectors, and CFIA emails are each used by less than 1% of respondents. Other unspecified sources are mentioned by 5% of respondents, while 22% either did not know or preferred not to say. This data underscores the diversity of additional sources for food safety regulations, with a significant reliance on personal networks, the CFIA, and online search engines.

QI3. What other sources or types of information about food safety regulations do you use or have you used in the past? Base: All respondents, n=850.

Business representatives were asked whether they had received any information from the CFIA within the past year. More than a third (36%) recalled receiving information from the CFIA while nearly 3 in 5 (58%) did not. Another 6% were unsure.

QI4A. Have you received any information from the CFIA in the past year? Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

Across sub-segments, those more likely to report receiving information from the CFIA included:

• Those in Ontario (42%) and Western Canada (37%) compared to those in Quebec (25%)

• Processors/manufacturers (66%) and wholesalers/distributors (60%) compared to businesses in agriculture (31%) and retailers (24%)

Those who had received information from the CFIA within the past year were asked how they received this information. Most respondents (71%) reported receiving email notifications from the CFIA.

Nearly a fifth (18%) had a personal interaction with a CFIA representative while fewer cited telephone calls (13%), mailed documents (9%), the CFIA website (6%), notices in the MyCFIA portal (3%), information through an industry association (3%), information forwarded from head office (3%) or through CFIA’s social media (<1%).

The horizontal bar graph illustrates the sources of information received from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) as reported by respondents

The most frequently cited source is email notifications, utilized by 71% of respondents. Personal interaction with a CFIA representative is the second most common source, mentioned by 18% of respondents. Telephone calls are used by 13% of respondents, while 9% receive information through mail documents or letters. The CFIA website is a source for 6% of respondents. Notices in the My CFIA portal, industry associations, and information forwarded by head offices are each cited by 3% of respondents. Less than 1% of respondents use CFIA social media as a source of information. Other unspecified sources are mentioned by 5% of respondents, while 2% either did not know or preferred not to say. This data highlights a strong preference for digital communication, particularly email notifications, while personal interactions and traditional telephone calls also play significant roles in information dissemination from the CFIA.

QI4B. How has your business received information from the CFIA in the past year? Base: Businesses that received information from the CFIA in the past year, n=333.

Key findings

• Wholesalers/distributors (88%), processors/manufacturers (80%) and businesses in agriculture (74%) were more likely to report receiving email notifications compared to retailers (54%)

• Those in Atlantic Canada (46%) were more likely to have received information from the CFIA through personal interaction with a CFIA representative compared to those in Ontario (16%) or Quebec (14%)

• Processors/manufacturers (31%) and businesses in agriculture (21%) were more likely to have received information from the CFIA through personal interaction with a CFIA representative compared to retailers (15%) or wholesalers/distributors (7%)

• Micro businesses (17%) were more likely to report receiving mailed documents/letters from the CFIA compared to large businesses (3%)

Those who had received information from the CFIA within the past year were asked to rate their satisfaction with these communications. An 11-point scale was used with 10 representing “very satisfied” and 0 representing “not at all satisfied”.

More than 2 in 5 (44%) reported high satisfaction with CFIA communications (scores of 9 or 10) and another third (33%) reported moderate satisfaction (scores of 7 or 8). Conversely, a fifth (21%) reported low satisfaction with communications from the CFIA (scores of 6 or lower). Another 1% were unsure.

The graph displays the levels of satisfaction among respondents regarding communications received from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

According to the data, 44% of respondents are very satisfied, which is denoted by the scores 10 and 9. Another 33% are somewhat satisfied, reflected by scores ranging from 8 to 7. Conversely, 21% of the participants are not very satisfied, with ratings between 6 and 0. Only 1% of respondents opted for “Do not know / Prefer not to say” regarding their satisfaction with the communications from CFIA.

QI5. Overall, how satisfied are you with the communications you have received from CFIA? Please use a number between 0 and 10, where 0 means “not at all satisfied” and 10 means “very satisfied”. Base: Businesses that received information from the CFIA in the past year, n=333.

Key findings

• Retailers (54%) were more likely to report being very satisfied with CFIA communications compared to processors/manufacturers (39%) and wholesalers/distributors (37%)

Respondents were then asked to provide a reason for their rating.

Those who provided a high satisfaction score (9 or 10) most frequently cited: no issues with communication and felt well-informed (51%), clear information (30%), responsive staff (19%), accessible communications (15%), timely updates (9%), and direct communications (8%).

Among those who provided a moderate satisfaction score (7 or 8), reasoning included a mix of positive feedback and areas for improvement. These respondents most often cited no issues with communications (17%), vague communications (13%), slow responses (13%), previous communication issues (12%), clear information (11%), and communications that are not direct (11%).

Those who provided lower satisfaction scores (6 or below) most often referred to vague communications (38%), previous communication issues or lack of information (23%), room for improvement (13%), slow responses (12%), and communications that are not direct (12%).

When asked about the frequency of communications from the CFIA, a majority felt it was about right (75%). Among remaining respondents, more than twice as many felt there was not enough communication (16%) as there were who felt there was too much (6%).

The graph illustrates the perceptions of respondents regarding the frequency of communications from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

A majority, 75% of the respondents, believe the frequency of communications is about right. However, 16% feel that the communications are not often enough, indicating a desire for more frequent updates. On the other end, a small group, 6%, think the communications occur too often. Additionally, 3% of respondents chose “Do not know / Prefer not to say” when asked about the frequency of communications from CFIA.

QI7. Would you say the frequency with which you get communications from the CFIA is…? Base: Businesses that received information from the CFIA in the past year, n=333.

Most business representatives who had received information from the CFIA in the past year (91%) agreed that these communications are helpful and provide the information they need to know (specifically, 52% strongly agreed while 39% somewhat agreed).

Similarly, 85% agreed that communications from the CFIA are clear and easy to understand (specifically, 49% strongly agreed while 37% somewhat agreed).

Agreement scores were consistent across sub-segments.

The data presents respondents’ impressions of communications from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

The first statement, assessing whether the communications are helpful and provide necessary information, shows that 52% of respondents strongly agree, and 39% somewhat agree, totaling 91% agreement. Only 4% somewhat disagree, 1% strongly disagree, and 3% chose “Do not know / Prefer not to say.” The second statement, which evaluates if the communications are clear and easy to understand, reveals that 49% strongly agree and 37% somewhat agree, resulting in 85% agreement overall. In contrast, 9% somewhat disagree, 2% strongly disagree, and 4% opted for “Do not know / Prefer not to say.” These results indicate a high level of satisfaction with the clarity and helpfulness of the CFIA’s communications.

QI8. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about communications from CFIA? Do you strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, or strongly agree that… Base: Businesses that received information from the CFIA in the past year, n=333.

Business representatives were asked about preferred channels of communication moving forward.

Email was the most preferred channel for communication from the CFIA (68%) followed at a distance by mail (11%). All other options were selected by no more than 4% of respondents.

The horizontal bar graph illustrates the preferred channels for receiving information from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) as identified by respondents

The most preferred channel is email, with a substantial 68% of respondents indicating this as their choice. By mail is the second most preferred channel, selected by 11% of respondents. The CFIA website is preferred by 4% of respondents, while telephone communications are favored by 3%. Channels such as through the head office, personal interaction with a CFIA representative, social media (general), and through an industry association are each preferred by 2% of respondents. General internet or website sources are preferred by 1% of respondents, as are those who indicated they do not want the CFIA to send future communications, and those who either did not know or preferred not to say. Newsletters and notices in the My CFIA portal are each preferred by less than 1% of respondents. Additionally, 2% of respondents selected other unspecified channels. This data underscores a strong preference for digital communication, particularly email, while traditional mail remains a significant channel for some respondents.

QI9. In the future, how would you most prefer that CFIA get you the information you need to know? Base: All respondents, n=850.

When business representatives were asked whether they have had difficulty getting the information they needed from the CFIA over the past few years, 10% reported difficulties while 84% did not have any difficulties.

The graph examines the difficulties experienced by respondents in accessing information from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

A small portion of the respondents, 10%, reported experiencing difficulty accessing the information they needed. In contrast, a large majority, 84%, indicated they had no difficulty in accessing information from the CFIA. Meanwhile, 5% of respondents were unsure or preferred not to say whether they found it difficult to access the information. This data suggests that most respondents find CFIA’s information accessible.

QI12. Over the past few years, have you had difficulty getting information you needed from CFIA? Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

• Processors/manufacturers (23%), wholesalers/distributors (18%) and businesses in agriculture (11%) were more likely than retailers (5%) to report having had difficulty accessing information from the CFIA

Those who reported experiencing difficulties getting information from the CFIA (n=99) were asked to list which topics they had difficulty getting information on.

The most cited topics included regulations or regulatory changes (20%), labelling (17%), general information (13%), and industry and product specific topics (12%).

The horizontal bar graph illustrates the specific topics on which businesses had difficulty obtaining information from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

The most frequently cited topic is regulations and regulatory changes and updates, noted by 20% of respondents. Labelling is the second most difficult topic to obtain information on, cited by 17% of respondents. General information or topics pose a challenge for 13% of respondents, while 12% have difficulty with industry and product-specific topics that apply to their business. Licensing information is challenging for 9% of respondents to obtain. Both product recalls and import information are cited by 5% of respondents each. Export information is difficult to obtain for 4% of respondents, and certifications pose a challenge for 3%. Other unspecified topics are mentioned by 13% of respondents, while 12% either did not know or preferred not to say. This data highlights the various areas where businesses face challenges in accessing information from the CFIA, with regulations, labeling, and general topics being the most significant areas of difficulty.

QI13. What specific topics did you have difficulty getting information on? Businesses that reported difficulty getting information from the CFIA, n=99.

Business representatives were asked about their knowledge and perceptions of “outcome-based” regulations.

A 7-point scale was used to measure how clear the concept of “outcome-based” regulations is, with 7 representing “very clear” and 1 representing “not at all clear”.

Nearly two fifths of respondents (39%) believed that the concept of “outcome-based” regulations was clear to them (scores of 6 or 7) while it was somewhat clear (scores of 4 or 5) for 32% of businesses. Conversely, 23% felt the concept was not very clear (scores of 1, 2 or 3) and another 7% were unsure.

The bar chart you’ve shown displays survey results on people’s understanding of “outcome-based” regulations

Here’s a breakdown of the results: 39% of respondents have a “Very clear” understanding of outcome-based regulations. This is represented by the darkest shade of green on the left. 32% have a “Somewhat clear” understanding, indicated by the slightly lighter green next to it. 23% stated that their understanding is “Not very clear,” shown by the even lighter green. Finally, 7% either don’t know or prefer not to say, which is represented by the lightest green shade on the far right. This chart provides a visual representation of the varying levels of knowledge about outcome-based regulations among the respondents.

QI14. Some food safety regulations are “outcome-based”. How clear is the concept of “outcome-based” regulations to you personally? Please answer on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being not at all clear and 7 being very clear. Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

Across sub-segments, businesses more likely to view the concept of “outcome-based” regulations as very clear included:

• Processors/manufacturers (45%), retailers (42%) and wholesalers/distributors (37%) compared to businesses in agriculture (25%)

• Large (46%), medium (41%) and small businesses (42%) compared to micro businesses (29%)

When asked to consider whether the SFCR are “outcome-based” regulations, nearly two thirds (64%) believed so while 12% did not. Nearly a quarter (24%) were unsure.

The bar chart you provided shows survey results regarding perceptions of SFCR (presumably a specific regulation) as an “outcomes-based” regulation

Here’s a breakdown of the responses: 64% of respondents believe SFCR is an outcomes-based regulation, represented by the darkest shade of green on the left. 12% do not believe SFCR is an outcomes-based regulation, indicated by the lighter green next to it. 24% either don’t know or prefer not to say, shown by the lightest green on the right. This chart illustrates the majority perception that SFCR is aligned with outcome-based regulatory principles, with a notable portion of respondents unsure or unwilling to classify it as such.

QI16. To the best of your knowledge, would you say the SFCR are an outcomes-based regulation? Base: All respondents, n=850.

Key findings

Across sub-segments, businesses more likely to have used the Ask CFIA service included:

• Those in Ontario (12%) compared to those in Quebec (7%)

• Wholesalers/distributors (27%) and processors/manufacturers (26%) compared to businesses in agriculture (7%) and retailers (4%)

Those who had used the Ask CFIA service in the past (n=113) were asked how many times they had used the service in the past year.

More than a fifth (22%) had used the service just once, while a similar proportion (23%) had used the service twice in the past year. Another 12% had used the service three times, 4% had used it four times and 19% had used the service 5 or more times within the past year.

Less than 1 in 10 (8%) had not used the service within the past year while a slightly larger proportion (11%) were unsure.

The bar chart you provided illustrates the frequency of usage of the “Ask CFIA” service over the past year by respondents

Here’s a breakdown of the data: 22% used the service 1 time, indicated by the darkest green. 23% used it 2 times, shown in a slightly lighter green. 12% used it 3 times, represented by the next shade of green. 4% used it 4 times, shown in another shade of green. 19% used it 5 or more times, represented by the light green. 19% did not use the service in the past year, indicated by the pink color. 8% either don’t know or prefer not to say, shown in the lightest pink. 11% of the respondents also either don’t know or prefer not to say, represented by the lightest shade on the far right. The chart highlights that while a majority have used the service at least once, a significant percentage did not engage with it at all in the past year.

QC5. In the past year, how many times have you used the Ask CFIA service? Base: Businesses that have used the Ask CFIA service, n=113.

Those who had used the Ask CFIA service in the past were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with the service. A 7-point scale was used with 7 representing “very satisfied” and 1 representing “not at all satisfied”.

More than half of respondents (54%) reported high satisfaction (scores of 6 or 7) and more than a third (36%) reported moderate satisfaction (scores of 4 or 5). On the other hand, 9% reported low satisfaction (scores of 1, 2 or 3) and another 1% were unsure.

The bar chart shows the overall satisfaction levels of respondents with the “Ask CFIA” service

Here’s the breakdown: 54% are “Very satisfied” with the service, represented by the darkest green color. 36% are “Somewhat satisfied”, shown in a lighter shade of green. 9% are “Not very satisfied”, depicted in the lightest green. 1% either don’t know or prefer not to say, represented by the very lightest green. This data suggests that a majority of the users who have utilized the service are satisfied, with a significant majority being very satisfied.

QC7. Rate your overall level of satisfaction with the Ask CFIA service. Please use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means “not at all satisfied” and 7 means “very satisfied”. Base: Businesses that have used the Ask CFIA service, n=113.

Those who provided a satisfaction rating for the Ask CFIA service were asked to provide the reason behind their rating.

Responses that were more positive included clear responses/helpful information (25%), satisfied with the service (17%), fast responses (17%) and easy to access/user-friendly (5%).

On the other hand, responses that were more constructive included delayed service/slow responses (16%), unclear/unhelpful responses (15%), dissatisfied with the service (8%), and difficulty to use/navigate the service (6%).

Additionally, 17% of those who rated Ask CFIA did not provide a reason for their rating.

Overview

The research consisted of two surveys: a national online consumer survey and a national telephone food business survey. The consumer survey consisted of 1,503 completions with Canadians 18 years or older conducted between March 13 and March 22, 2024. The food business survey consisted of 850 completions with businesses in the food industry in Canada from February 26 to March 27, 2024.

Questionnaire Design

The questions utilized in this study were provided by CFIA. Quorus reviewed the questions, providing suggestions and preparing them in a format suitable for each data collection mode. As required by Government of Canada standards, English and French pre-test surveys were conducted (more details related to the pre-tests are provided further in this methodology section).

Food safety consumer survey

Food business survey

Sampling

The survey consisted of a national telephone survey with businesses in the food industry in Canada based on a selected list of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes approved by CFIA.

The sampling was designed to be administered to a random sample of 850 industry representatives. Specifically:

• Employees responsible for regulatory compliance from small, medium, and large-sized food businesses

• Food importers

• Food import brokers

• Food exporters

• Employees responsible for regulatory compliance from businesses in the manufactured food sector

• Representation from all provinces and territories in Canada.

The sample frames were selected from a list of businesses from InfoCanada, a common and reputable list provider in the industry. The list of NAICS codes used are listed below.

The table you provided lists various industries within the agricultural and manufacturing sectors along with their corresponding NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) codes

Here’s a summary of the information: 1. Agricultural Industries: The table breaks down various types of farming activities, such as vegetable, fruit, livestock, and crop farming. Each specific type, like Citrus Farming or Beef Cattle Ranching, is assigned a unique NAICS code, ranging from 111219 to 114210. These codes help in categorizing and standardizing the types of agricultural activities for statistical and administrative purposes. 2. Manufacturing Industries: Similar to the agricultural section, the manufacturing section details different types of food and beverage manufacturing processes. It includes industries such as Seafood Product Preparation & Packaging, Dairy Product Manufacturing, and Soft Drink Manufacturing, with NAICS codes from 311111 to 312112. This part of the table also serves to standardize and categorize manufacturing industries for regulatory and statistical tracking. The table is likely used for official classification, regulatory purposes, and economic analysis, helping to organize and describe the diversity of activities within the broader sectors of agriculture and manufacturing.

The table you’ve shared categorizes various industries within the wholesale and retail sectors according to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

It is split into two main sections: 1. Wholesale Trade (440000): This section lists types of goods wholesalers specialize in, such as groceries, frozen foods, dairy products, meats, confectionery, and fresh produce, among others. Each category further specifies the type of wholesale business, offering a detailed classification for tracking and regulatory purposes. 2. Retail Trade (450000): This section details various types of food stores including supermarkets, convenience stores, meat markets, seafood markets, and fruit and vegetable markets. Each store type is categorized to highlight the specific nature of their retail offerings. Overall, the table is a detailed classification tool that helps in organizing and identifying businesses within the wholesale and retail food industries for statistical analysis and economic tracking.

General population

A. Introduction

Hello/Bonjour, my name is [NAME] and I am with Quorus Consulting Group, a national public opinion research company. We’re planning a series of online discussion groups on behalf of the Government of Canada with people in your area. Would you prefer to continue in English or French? / Préférez-vous continuer en anglais ou en français?

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: FOR ENGLISH GROUPS, IF PARTICIPANT WOULD PREFER TO CONTINUE IN FRENCH, PLEASE RESPOND WITH, “Malheureusement, nous recherchons des gens qui parlent anglais pour participer à ces groupes de discussion. Nous vous remercions de votre intérêt.” FOR FRENCH GROUPS, IF PARTICIPANT WOULD PREFER TO CONTINUE IN ENGLISH, PLEASE RESPOND WITH, “Unfortunately, we are looking for people who speak French to participate in this discussion group. We thank you for your interest.”]

[INTERVIEWER NOTE 2: IF SOMEONE IS ASKING TO PARTICIPATE IN FRENCH/ENGLISH BUT NO GROUP IN THIS LANGUAGE IS AVAILABLE IN THIS AREA, TALK TO YOUR SUPERVISOR.]

As I was saying – we are planning a series of online discussion groups on behalf of the Government of Canada with people in your area. The research will focus on food product packaging and labelling. The groups will last up to 90 minutes (one and a half hours) and people who take part will receive a cash gift to thank them for their time.

Participation is completely voluntary. We are interested in your opinions. No attempt will be made to sell you anything or change your point of view. The format is a group discussion held using an online web conferencing platform similar to Zoom, led by a research professional with about six to eight other participants invited the same way you are being invited. The use of a computer or a tablet (not a smartphone) in a quiet room is necessary for participation, as the moderator will be gauging reactions to concepts and materials. All opinions will remain anonymous and will be used for research purposes only in accordance with laws designed to protect your privacy.

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF ASKED ABOUT PRIVACY LAWS, SAY: “The information collected through the research is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act, legislation of the Government of Canada, and to the provisions of relevant provincial privacy legislation.”]

1. Before we invite anyone to attend, we need to ask you a few questions to ensure that we get a good mix of people in each of the groups. This will take 5 minutes. May I continue?

   Yes	1	CONTINUE
   No	2	THANK/DISCONTINUE

B. Qualification

2. To what extent are you responsible for purchasing groceries for your household? Please choose a value from 0% to 100%

   AT LEAST HALF OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN EACH GROUP SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 50% OR MORE

3. Do you or does anyone in your immediate family or household work in any of the following areas? [READ LIST]

   	Yes	No
   A marketing research firm	1	2
   A magazine or newspaper, online or print	1	2
   A radio or television station	1	2
   A public relations company	1	2
   An advertising agency or graphic design firm	1	2
   An online media company or as a blog writer	1	2
   The government, whether federal, provincial or municipal	1	2
   Commercial farming (including livestock), fishing, or growing fruit, vegetables or grains for commercial purposes	1	2
   Food processing, treating, manufacturing or preparation	1	2

   IF YES TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, THANK AND TERMINATE

4. In which province or territory do you live in?

   Ontario	1
   Quebec	2
   Saskatchewan	3
   Manitoba	4
   Alberta	5
   British Columbia	6
   New Brunswick	7
   Nova Scotia	8
   Prince Edward Island	9
   Newfoundland and Labrador	10
   Yukon	11
   Nunavut	12
   Northwest Territories	13
   Prefer not to say	99 THANK AND TERMINATE

   FOR SESSIONS COVERING MULTIPLE PROVINCES (ATLANTIC AND PRAIRIES), AIM FOR A MIX ACROSS PROVINCES WITHIN EACH GROUPING. FOR SESSIONS THAT INCLUDE TERRITORIES, AIM FOR 1-2 FROM THE TERRITORY IN EACH SESSION.

5. What city or town do you live in? RECORD: ______________

6. What is your gender identity? [If you do not feel comfortable disclosing, you do not need to do so] [DO NOT READ LIST]

   Male	1
   Female	2
   Transgender Male	3
   Transgender Female	4
   Non-Binary	5
   Prefer to self-describe, please specify: _____	6
   Prefer not to say	7

   AIM FOR 50/50 SPLIT OF MALE AND FEMALE, WHILE RECRUITING OTHER GENDER IDENTITIES AS THEY FALL

7. We are looking to include people of various ages in the group discussion. May I have your age please? RECORD AGE: ______________

   AGE	GROUP	RECRUITMENT SPECIFICATIONS
   18-34	YOUNG ADULT GROUPS	Under 18 THANK/DISCONTINUE 18-34 MIX OF AGES
   35+	ADULT GROUPS	35+ MIX OF AGES

8. What is the highest level of education that you have completed?

   Some high school	1
   Completed high school	2
   Some college	3
   Graduated from college	4
   Some university	5
   Graduated from university	6

9. Do you…

   1. have any food allergies, intolerances or sensitivities? (IF NEEDED: This would include intolerance to gluten, lactose, etc.)

   2. follow a special diet unrelated to food allergies or sensitivities? (IF NEEDED: This could include vegetarian, vegan, kosher, halal, keto, etc.)

   Yes	1
   No	2

10. Do you currently live in… [READ LIST]

    A city or metropolitan area with a population of at least 100,000	1
    A city with a population of 30,000 to just under 100,000	2
    A city or town with a population of 10,000 to just under 30,000	3
    A town or rural area with a population of less than 10,000	4

    FOR EACH GROUP, RECRUIT ~2 INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVE IN A CITY OR TOWN WITH A POPULATION OF NO MORE THAN 30,000 (Q10=3 or 4)

11. We want to make sure we speak to a diversity of people. Do you identify as any of the following? SELECT ONE

    An Indigenous person from Canada (First Nations, Inuit or Métis)	1
    A member of an ethnocultural or a visible minority group other than an Indigenous person	2
    None of the above	3

    AIM FOR REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENOUS AND RACIALIZED COMMUNITIES ACROSS ALL SESSIONS COMBINED

12. [ASK ONLY IF Q11=2] What is your ethnic background?

    RECORD ETHNICITY: ______________

13. Have you ever attended a discussion group or taken part in an interview on any topic that was arranged in advance and for which you received money for participating?

    Yes	1
    No	2	GO TO Q17

14. When did you last attend one of these discussion groups or interviews?

    Within the last 6 months	1	THANK & TERMINATE
    Over 6 months ago	2

15. Thinking about the groups or interviews that you have taken part in, what were the main topics discussed?

    RECORD: _______________

    THANK/TERMINATE IF RELATED TO FOOD SAFETY/ FOOD FRAUD/ CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY

16. How many discussion groups or interviews have you attended in the past 5 years?

    Fewer than 5	1
    Five or more	2	THANK & TERMINATE

17. Participants in group discussions are asked to voice their opinions and thoughts, how comfortable are you in voicing your opinions in an online group discussion? Are you… READ OPTIONS

    Very comfortable	1	MIN 5 PER GROUP
    Fairly comfortable	2
    Not very comfortable	3	THANK & TERMINATE
    Very uncomfortable	4	THANK & TERMINATE

18. Do you have access to a stable internet connection, capable of sustaining a 90-minute online video conference?

    Yes	1
    No	2	THANK & TERMINATE

19. Participants will be asked to provide their answers through an online web conferencing platform using a computer or a tablet (not a smartphone) in a quiet room. It is necessary for participation, as the moderator will be gauging reactions to advertising concepts and materials. Is there any reason why you could not participate? (No access to computer or tablet, internet, etc.) If you need glasses to read or a device for hearing, please remember to wear them.

    Yes	1
    No	2	SKIP TO INVITATION

20. Is there anything we could do to ensure that you can participate?

    Yes	1
    No	2	THANK AND TERMINATE
    DK/NR	9	THANK AND TERMINATE

21. What specifically? [OPEN END]

    INTERVIEWER TO NOTE FOR POTENTIAL ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEW

RECRUITER NOTE: WHEN TERMINATING AN INTERVIEW, SAY: “Thank you very much for your cooperation. We are unable to invite you to participate because we have enough participants who have a similar profile to yours.”

C. INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE

22. I would like to invite you to participate in an online focus group session where you will exchange your opinions in a moderated discussion with other individuals in your region. The discussion will be led by a researcher from the national public opinion research firm, Quorus Consulting. The session will be recorded but your participation will be confidential. The group will be hosted using an online web conferencing platform, taking place on [DAY OF WEEK], [DATE], at [TIME]. It will last 90 minutes (one and a half hours). People who attend will receive $125 to thank them for their time.

    Would you be interested in taking part in this study?

    Yes	1
    No	2	THANK & TERMINATE

23. The discussion group will be video-recorded. These recordings are used to help with analyzing the findings and writing the report. The results from the discussions will be grouped together in the research report, which means that individuals will not be identified in anyway. Is this acceptable?

    Yes	1
    No	2	THANK & TERMINATE

24. Individuals from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and/or the Government of Canada involved in this research project may be observing the session. They will not take part in the discussion, and they will not know your full name. Is this acceptable?

    Yes	1
    No	2	THANK & TERMINATE

25. The recordings may also be used by the CFIA client team solely for presenting research findings internally however you would not be identified by name and nobody from the client team would contact you as a result of any feedback you provide. Is this acceptable?

    Yes	1
    No	2	THANK & TERMINATE

26. Thank you. Just to make sure, the group will take place on [DAY OF WEEK], [DATE], at [TIME] and it will last 90 minutes (one and a half hours). Following your participation, you will receive $125 to thank you for your time. Are you interested and available to attend?

    Yes	1
    No	2	THANK & TERMINATE

To conduct the session, we will be using a screen-sharing application called Zoom. We will need to send you by email the instructions to connect. The use of a computer or a tablet (not a smartphone) in a quiet room is necessary.

We recommend that you click on the link we will send you a few days prior to your session to make sure you can access the online meeting that has been setup and repeat these steps at least 10 to 15 minutes prior to your session.

As we are only inviting a small number of people to attend, your participation is very important to us. If for some reason you are unable to attend, you cannot send someone to participate on your behalf - please call us so that we can get someone to replace you. You can reach us at [INSERT NUMBER] at our office. Please ask for [INSERT NAME].

So that we can contact you to remind you about the focus group or in case there are any changes, can you please confirm your name and contact information for me? [READ INFO AND CHANGE AS NECESSARY.]

First name ___________________________________________

Last Name ___________________________________________

Email _______________________________________________

Day time phone number ________________________________

Night time phone number _______________________________

Thank you!

If the respondent refuses to give his/her first or last name or phone number please assure them that this information will be kept strictly confidential in accordance with the privacy law and that it is used strictly to contact them to confirm their attendance and to inform them of any changes to the focus group. If they still refuse THANK & TERMINATE.

A. Introduction

Hello, my name ________________. I’m calling from Quorus Consulting, a Canadian public opinion research company and we are calling on behalf of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

Would you prefer to continue in English or French? / Préférez-vous continuer en anglais ou en français?

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: FOR ENGLISH GROUPS, IF PARTICIPANT WOULD PREFER TO CONTINUE IN FRENCH, PLEASE RESPOND WITH, “Malheureusement, nous recherchons des gens qui parlent anglais pour participer à cette recherche. Nous vous remercions de votre intérêt.” FOR FRENCH GROUPS, IF PARTICIPANT WOULD PREFER TO CONTINUE IN ENGLISH, PLEASE RESPOND WITH, “Unfortunately, we are looking for people who speak French to participate in this research. We thank you for your interest.”]

From time to time, we solicit opinions by sitting down and talking with people and the business community. We are preparing to conduct a series of these discussions on behalf of the Government of Canada and the CFIA and I would like to speak to the individual in your organization who is most responsible for food safety of the food products that your business sells or produces. Please note this is not a sales call, this important research will help the Government understand industry’s views on food safety practices and regulations.

This could be the owner of the company or a manager who oversees the sale of food products, the food safety manager or the quality assurance manager. Are you the right person to speak with?

ONCE APPROPRIATE CONTACT HAS BEEN REACHED – REPEAT INTRO IF NEEDED AND CONTINUE:

We are reaching out to you today to invite you to a research session to share your feedback on the opportunities and challenges the food industry and your company face and the role the Government of Canada plays in relation to these.

Other decision makers from companies located in Canada will be taking part in this research. It is a first-name basis only discussion so nobody, including the Government of Canada, will know the companies being represented. For their time, participants will receive a cash compensation.

Participation is voluntary and all opinions will remain anonymous and will be used for research purposes only in accordance with laws designed to protect your privacy, including the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. We are simply interested in hearing your opinions, no attempt will be made to sell you anything. The format would be an online discussion lead by a research professional.

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF ASKED ABOUT PRIVACY LAWS, SAY: “The information collected through the research is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act, legislation of the Government of Canada, and to the provisions of relevant provincial privacy legislation.”]

But before we invite you to attend, we need to ask you a few questions to ensure that we get a good mix/variety of businesses. This should only take about 5 minutes. In case you are uncertain, all my questions pertain to your company’s Canadian operations. May I ask you a few questions?

B. Business and participant profile

1. How would you rate your own level of familiarity with the food safety protocols of the food products that your business sells or produces? Would you say you are…

   Very familiar	1
   Fairly familiar	2
   Not very familiar	3
   Not at all familiar	4

   RECRUIT A MIX OF THOSE VERY FAMILIAR AND FAIRLY FAMILIAR

   IF NOT VERY OR NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR, ASK: “Since this will be one of the themes discussed, is there someone else in your company who would be more familiar with these protocols?”

   IF YES, ASK TO SPEAK WITH THAT PERSON INSTEAD

   IF NO, THANK AND DISCONTINUE

2. In what province or territory is your company located?

   Newfoundland and Labrador	1
   Nova Scotia	2
   Prince Edward Island	3
   New Brunswick	4
   Quebec	5
   Ontario	6
   Manitoba	7
   Saskatchewan	8
   Alberta	9
   British Columbia	10
   Yukon	11
   Nunavut	12
   Northwest Territories	13

3. Which of the following activities apply to your business [READ LIST - SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]?

   Import food products	1
   Export food products	2
   Prepare, process, treat, manufacture or preserve food for export or to be sent across provincial or territorial borders	3
   Grade, label or package food for export or to be sent across provincial or territorial borders	4
   Grow fruit, vegetables or grains for export or to be sent across provincial or territorial borders	5
   Send or convey food products across provincial or territorial borders (wholesaler/ distributors)	6
   Sell food products at retail directly to consumers	7
   Produce organic food [interviewer note: includes organic meats, dairy, etc.]	8
   None of the above	9

   IF ONLY CODE “7” AT Q3, FLAG AS “RETAIL ONLY”

   RECRUIT A MAXIMUM OF 2 “RETAIL ONLY” PER GROUP

4. [IF “NONE OF THE ABOVE” IN Q3: Ask] What would you say is your company’s main business activity?

   ________________________________________________________________________________

   ________________________________________________________________

   IF BUSINESS IS RELATED TO FOOD BUSINESS RECODE Q3 AND CONTINUE, OTHERWISE THANK AND TERMINATE

   Flag as “FOOD IMPORTERS/EXPORTERS” if SELECTED 1,2,4,5 AT Q3

   Flag as “MANUFACTURED FOOD SECTOR” if SELECTED “3” AT Q3

5. Which of the following best represents the number of people your company employs in Canada, including yourself? If you are a franchisee, please only consider your location. [READ LIST] [Just total number of employees is acceptable including part-time and casual]

   1 – [Self-employed]	1	“MICRO”
   2-4 employees	2	“MICRO”
   5-10 employees	3	“SMALL”
   11-99 employees	4	“SMALL”
   100-499 employees	5	“MEDIUM”
   500 employees or more	6	“LARGE”
   Don’t know [DO NOT READ]	8	TERMINATE
   Refused [DO NOT READ]	9	TERMINATE

   IN EACH GROUP, AIM FOR THE FOLLOWING MIX: 4 MICRO/SMALL, 1 MEDIUM, 1 LARGE

6. And which of the following reflects the approximate size of your business by gross annual revenue for your Canadian operations? Again, if you are a franchisee, please only consider your location. [READ LIST] [IF REFUSE: Just as a reminder, please understand that we use this information for classification purposes only and do not record or share the identity of any company participating in the study.]

   $30,000 or less per year	1
   Between $30,000 and less than $100,000 per year	2
   Between $100,000 and less than $500,000 per year	3
   Between $500,000 and less than $1 million per year	4
   Between $1 million and less than $5 million per year	5
   $5 million or more per year	6
   Don’t know [DO NOT READ]	8	TERMINATE
   Refused [DO NOT READ]	9	TERMINATE

7. [IF Q5 = 1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5] Are you an owner or manager of this business?

   Yes, business owner	1
   Yes, a manager of the business	2
   No	3

8. Can you please provide me with your job title? _____________________________________

9. What is your gender? [If you do not feel comfortable disclosing, you do not need to do so] [DO NOT READ LIST]

   Male	1
   Female	2
   Prefer to self-describe, please specify: _____	3
   Prefer not to answer	4

   AIM FOR 50/50 SPLIT OF MALE AND FEMALE, WHILE RECRUITING OTHER GENDER IDENTITIES AS THEY FALL

   IF Q7= 1 OR 2, RECORD AS FEMALE OWNER/MANAGER – AIM FOR AT LEAST 1 IN EACH GROUP

10. [ASK IF Q7 = 1 OR 2] We are looking to invite business owners and managers with different backgrounds as well. In which of the following categories do you belong?

    You were born in Canada	1
    You immigrated to Canada within the past 5 years	2 “NEWCOMER”
    You immigrated to Canada over 5 years ago	3

    AIM FOR A MINIMUM OF 6 NEWCOMERS ACROSS ALL FOCUS GROUPS COMBINED

11. Participants in discussion groups are asked to voice their opinions and thoughts, how comfortable are you in voicing your opinions in front of others? Are you… READ OPTIONS

    Very comfortable	MIN 5 PER GROUP
    Fairly comfortable
    Not very comfortable	TERMINATE
    Not at all comfortable	TERMINATE

12. Have you ever attended a discussion group or interview on any topic that was arranged in advance and for which you received money for your participation?

    Yes	MAXIMUM 5 PER GROUP
    No	GO TO INVITATION

13. When did you last attend one of these discussion groups or interviews?

    Within the last 6 months	TERMINATE
    Over 6 months ago

14. How many discussion groups or interviews have you attended in the past 5 years?

    Fewer than 5
    5 or more	TERMINATE

C. INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE

15. I would like to invite you to participate in an online focus group session where you will exchange your opinions in a moderated discussion with other individuals in your region. The discussion will be led by a researcher from the national public opinion research firm, Quorus Consulting. The session will be recorded but your participation will be confidential. The group will be hosted using an online web conferencing platform, taking place on [DAY OF WEEK], [DATE], at [TIME]. It will last 90 minutes (one and a half hours). People who attend will receive $200 to thank them for their time.

    Would you be interested in taking part in this study?

    Yes	1
    No	2	THANK & TERMINATE

16. The discussion group will be video-recorded. These recordings are used to help with analyzing the findings and writing the report. The results from the discussions will be grouped together in the research report, which means that individuals will not be identified in anyway. Is this acceptable?

    Yes	1
    No	2	THANK & TERMINATE

17. Individuals from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and/or the Government of Canada involved in this research project may be observing the session. They will not take part in the discussion, and they will not know your full name. Is this acceptable?

    Yes	1
    No	2	THANK & TERMINATE

18. The recordings may also be used by the CFIA client team solely for presenting research findings internally however you would not be identified by name and nobody from the client team would contact you as a result of any feedback you provide. Is this acceptable?

    Yes	1
    No	2	THANK & TERMINATE

19. Thank you. Just to make sure, the group will take place on [DAY OF WEEK], [DATE], at [TIME] and it will last 90 minutes (one and a half hours). Following your participation, you will receive $200 to thank you for your time. Are you interested and available to attend?

    Yes	1
    No	2	THANK & TERMINATE

To conduct the session, we will be using a screen-sharing application called Zoom. We will need to send you by email the instructions to connect. The use of a computer or a tablet (not a smartphone) in a quiet room is necessary.

We recommend that you click on the link we will send you a few days prior to your session to make sure you can access the online meeting that has been setup and repeat these steps at least 10 to 15 minutes prior to your session.

As we are only inviting a small number of people to attend, your participation is very important to us. If for some reason you are unable to attend, you cannot send someone to participate on your behalf - please call us so that we can get someone to replace you. You can reach us at [INSERT NUMBER] at our office. Please ask for [INSERT NAME].

So that we can contact you to remind you about the focus group or in case there are any changes, can you please confirm your name and contact information for me? [READ INFO AND CHANGE AS NECESSARY.]

First name ___________________________________________

Last Name ___________________________________________

Email _______________________________________________

Day time phone number ________________________________

Night time phone number _______________________________

Thank you!

If the respondent refuses to give his/her first or last name or phone number please assure them that this information will be kept strictly confidential in accordance with the privacy law and that it is used strictly to contact them to confirm their attendance and to inform them of any changes to the focus group. If they still refuse THANK & TERMINATE.