Public Opinion Research with Food Businesses to Support Compliance with Food Safety Regulations: 2018-2019

Awareness of CFIA and the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations

Over three quarters of businesses are at least somewhat familiar with CFIA. More specifically, 51% would rate their level of familiarity either a 6 or a 7 on a 7-point scale (where 1 meant not at all familiar and 7 meant very familiar). Another 32% would consider themselves somewhat familiar (a rating of 4 or 5) and 16% feel they are not very familiar (a rating of 1 to 3). Familiarity seems slightly lower from Wave 1 to Wave 2 (87% vs. 83% giving a rating from 4 to 7), however the difference is not statistically significant.

Respondents were asked if they had heard, seen or read any advertisements related to CFIA in the three to four weeks prior to participating in the survey. Of all businesses, 50% of respondents recall being exposed to CFIA advertisements. This includes 5% of respondents who remembered SFCR spontaneously (unaided awareness), 39% who remembered SFCR when asked specifically about it, and 6% who remember other CFIA ads but not specific to SFCR.

Among those having heard, seen or read something about SFCR who are in a business not exclusively in retail (59% of respondents), the most common sources were email (27%), colleagues and industry events (25%), the CFIA website (21%), followed by an online general source (18%). In Wave 1, among those having heard, seen or read something about SFCR who are in a business not exclusively in retail (50% of respondents), the most common sources were colleagues and industry events (30%), a CFIA employee or inspector (21%), the CFIA website (20%), followed by an online general source (18%).

Confidence in Meeting Food Safety Regulations

The majority (91%) of businesses felt very confident that they would meet food safety regulations and requirements if they were to be inspected. Among the remaining respondents, 8% felt somewhat confident and only 1% were not very confident. This is a statistically significant increase from 86% of businesses feeling very confident in meeting food safety regulations and requirements in Wave 1.

Commonly Conducted Food Safety Activities

A list of various food safety-related measures and activities was presented to survey respondents in both waves and they were asked to note the ones that apply to their company. The most popular food safety activities include documenting standard operating procedures on food safety, establishing a traceability program and internal training programs on food safety. Each of these was noted by over three-quarters of businesses in both waves. Additionally, 60% of businesses have preventive controls in place, which are outlined in a written plan.

Over two thirds of businesses not exclusively in retail (68%) have a high understanding of the food safety regulations that apply to their foods. This is a lower rating compared to that observed in Wave 1 (78%).

Survey respondents were provided with three potential challenges that food businesses might encounter and then asked to select the one that, from their perspective, would be the biggest challenge. Just over two in five food businesses (45%) selected traceability of food products as the biggest food safety challenge. This was followed by written preventive controls (30%), and 16% selected licencing.

Contact with CFIA

Over 7 in 10 (73%) businesses that are not exclusively in retail have had some sort of contact with CFIA over the past 12 months. The most common interaction with CFIA over the past 12 months was looking for information about food safety regulations or requirements on the CFIA’s website (57%) while 42% claim to have been inspected, 34% contacted CFIA directly for information or technical advice on food safety regulations or regulatory interpretation, or requested a permission, licence, registration, or certificate from CFIA, and 33% contacted CFIA for information on (rather than requesting) a permission licence or certificate.

Businesses having contacted CFIA over the past 12 months most often did so through CFIA website (63%), followed by contacting CFIA by phone (48%), or by email (48%). A smaller proportion contacted CFIA in person (21%) and only a few did so via social media (1%). These results suggest that businesses in general are using multiple channels to contact CFIA.

Businesses were asked to rate the extent of helpfulness of the website when contacting CFIA for information. Half find the website very helpful.

Website users were asked to suggest what could be done to CFIA’s inspection.gc.ca site to improve it. The main items identified for improvement are to make it easier to navigate and more user-friendly (21%), and to provide clearer information (17%).

Respondents were also asked to rate the helpfulness of email, phone and in-person service received when contacting CFIA for information. Nearly three quarters (75%) of those who contacted CFIA by phone found the support very useful and an additional 20% found it somewhat useful. Nearly two thirds (64%) of those who used email to contact CFIA found it very useful, and 28% somewhat useful. Of those who contacted CFIA in person, 54% found the information very useful and 15% found it somewhat useful. However, 30% did not know how to rate the service received.

Businesses were asked to indicate their preferred method to request and receive regulatory information from CFIA. The preferred method to receive this information is by email, as indicated by 78% of respondents, followed by 47% of respondents indicating to prefer this information by phone. A little over one third of respondents (35%) prefer a live customer service-based chat on the CFIA website, while just over a quarter (27%) prefer using a chatbot (27%). Less than a fifth prefer social media (15%), mail (7%), or in-person service (4%).

When asked the preferred method to receive CFIA services, 74% of businesses prefer to receive them by email, 52% on the CFIA website, 25% prefer to go to a CFIA office and receive them in person, and less than one fifth prefer to receive them by fax (17%), mail (10%), on social media (8%), or by phone (6%).

General Impressions of CFIA

Roughly half of businesses strongly agree that CFIA is fair when inspecting food businesses (54%), that it is easy to understand the information CFIA provides food businesses (52%), and that it provides enough information to meet regulatory obligations (48%). Agreement drops slightly to 40% when asked if CFIA is efficient in its operations. Between 8% and 15% of businesses did not know enough about CFIA to be able to rate them across these five dimensions and about one in ten seem to disagree with each evaluation criteria.

My CFIA

The survey also examined awareness and likelihood to use the new digital service developed for convenient service delivery My CFIA.

Nearly half of respondents (44%) are aware of the My CFIA portal, from which 32% have used it. Both awareness and usage are significantly higher in Wave 2 than in Wave 1. Awareness increased from 26% to 44%, and usage more than doubled from 14% to 32%.

Among the 32% of businesses that have used My CFIA, 68% did so to request a new licence, 44% to register their business, 32% to renew their licence, 28% to obtain a permit, 15% to obtain an export certificate, and 10% only to enroll without using any other portal features.

Overall, satisfaction with the portal is positive, nearly half of users (46%) are very satisfied and 38% are somewhat satisfied. Satisfaction in Wave 1 was much lower, likely due to the higher number of respondents who had only enrolled and had not had the opportunity to experience the services that are now available.

According to participants who provided a lower satisfaction score for My CFIA, the most common reason was that the design was not user-friendly.

The study explored the likely use of My CFIA in the future. a little over, half (53%) of all businesses, not only in retail, are very likely to use My CFIA in the future and another 26% are somewhat likely.

Compliance Burden

Results reveal that over a quarter (28%) of businesses find the paperwork associated with food regulations very burdensome while one quarter (25%) find it not very burdensome.

Nearly one in three (29%) strongly agree that CFIA takes the needs of businesses into account when developing new information products, and a similar proportion (26%) strongly agrees that over the past 12 months they have spent less time searching for food safety information.

Overall Satisfaction with CFIA

Over two in five respondents (45%) felt very satisfied with the overall service received from CFIA in the past 12 months. Another 33% were somewhat satisfied and roughly one in 10 were not very satisfied. An important proportion (13%) did not provide a rating, probably because they had not interacted with CFIA over the past 12 months or they never interact with CFIA.

Finding Food Safety Information

Roughly one in three respondents (34%) indicated they do not have any challenges when it comes to finding information on food safety regulations or requirements. The main challenges for businesses when it comes to finding food safety information are the lack of clear information (15%), too much information (11%), and the CFIA website not being easy to navigate (11%). Other common challenges included time-consuming researching information, lack of notifications or updates, among others.

When asked specifically to identify the topics about which information was difficult to find, nearly half (48%) of all respondents felt there was no topic in particular that proved challenging. Some topics identified included new regulations or changes to rules (16%), labelling (9%), and food products (6%).

Methodology

All research work was conducted in accordance with the professional standards established by the Government of Canada Public Opinion Research Standards, as follows:

• The survey consisted of two national telephone surveys with businesses in the food industry in Canada based on a selected list of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes provided by CFIA. The sample frames were selected from a list of businesses from InfoCanada, a common and reputable list provider in the industry.
• Quorus designed the survey instruments in English in conjunction with CFIA Project Authority. Quorus translated the client-approved English versions of the survey. Respondents had the choice to complete the interview in English or French.
• The survey was conducted following the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research – Telephone Surveys. Quorus informed respondents of their rights under the Privacy and Access to Information Acts and ensured that those rights were protected throughout the research process.
• The approved final questionnaires were programmed for computer-based telephone data collection. For Wave 2, a total of 700 businesses participated in the survey, from which 200 were “Retail Only”. As for Wave 1, 670 businesses participated in the survey, from which 300 were “Retail Only”. Most of the results in this report are based on businesses that are not exclusively retailers (Wave 2, n=500; Wave 1, n=370) as the key target audience are food businesses that import or prepare food for export or to be sent across provincial or territorial boundaries.
• Data collection for Wave 2 occurred between February 4, 2019, and March 1, 2019. Wave 1 data collection occurred between October 24 and November 9, 2018.
• The margin of error of this sample size is +/- 3.8%, 19 times out of 20. The data was weighted according to the population counts per industry vertical and province as per InfoCanada information.
• This study saw a response rate of 14% across the entire sample in Wave 1 and of 17% in Wave 2.

Awareness of CFIA and the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations

Over three quarters of businesses are at least somewhat familiar with CFIA. More specifically, 51% would rate their level of familiarity either a 6 or a 7 on a 7-point scale (where 1 meant not at all familiar and 7 meant very familiar). Another 32% would consider themselves somewhat familiar (a rating of 4 or 5) and 16% feel they are not very familiar (a rating of 1 to 3). Familiarity seems slightly lower in Wave 2 compared to Wave 1 (83% vs. 87% giving a rating from 4 to 7), although it should be noted that the difference is not statistically significant.

B1: On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means not at all familiar and 7 means very familiar, how familiar would you say that you are with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, also known as the CFIA? Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, n=500.

The chart representing the level of familiarity of the businesses with CFIA in wave 2 infers the following data: Very familiar (6 to 7)- 51 percent, Somewhat familiar (4 to 5)- 32 percent, Not very familiar (1 to 3)- 16 percent, and Don’t know- 16 percent.

B1: On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means not at all familiar and 7 means very familiar, how familiar would you say that you are with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, also known as the CFIA? Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, n=370.

The chart representing the level of familiarity of the businesses with CFIA in wave 1 infers the following data: Very familiar (6 to 7)- 58 percent, Somewhat familiar (4 to 5)- 29 percent, Not very familiar (1 to 3)- 12 percent, and Don’t know- 1 percent. Note: Very familiar, somewhat familiar, not very familiar, and don’t know are represented in colors of denim, aegean, blue, and stone, respectively.

By looking at the results from the most recent wave of surveys, businesses in the processor and manufacturer segment and those in the wholesaler and distributor segment were the most familiar with CFIA (65% and 63% respectively), followed by those in agriculture (52%) and then those in retail, among whom one-quarter (32%) positioned their level of familiarity at the lower end of the scale (from a 1 to a 3). Results also reveal that familiarity with CFIA increases with the size of the company, ranging from 36% in the micro segment rating their familiarity either a 6 or a 7, up to 73% among large businesses.

These results are similar from Wave 1 to Wave 2.

¹ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

² When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

From a regional perspective, and as observed in Wave 1, familiarity is highest in Atlantic Canada (73%) and the lowest in Quebec (39%), while results in Ontario and in Western Canada are fairly similar.

³ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

⁴ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

Recall of CFIA Advertising

Respondents were asked if they had heard, seen or read any advertisements related to CFIA in the three to four weeks prior to participating in the survey. In order to explore unaided awareness of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations through advertising, those who had been exposed to CFIA advertisements were asked what they remembered from the ads. Respondents who did not mention the SFCR spontaneously as well as those who said not remembering being exposed to CFIA advertising were asked specifically if they had heard, seen or read something about the new regulations.

Results across all businesses interviewed during Wave 2 reveal that half (50%) recall hearing, seeing or reading advertisement from CFIA. This includes 5% of respondents who remembered SFCR spontaneously (unaided awareness), 39% who remembered SFCR when asked specifically about it, and 6% who remember other CFIA ads but not specific to SFCR. The graphic below shows the distribution of CFIA advertising awareness among all respondents.

B1a: Over the past three to four weeks, have you seen, read or heard any advertising from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency? B1b. Thinking specifically about the ad or ads that come to mind, what do you remember about the ads. B2. Have you heard, seen or read anything about the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, which introduces new requirements for food safety and came into force January 15, 2019? Base: All Respondents, Wave 2: n=700.

The pie chart for the distribution of CFIA advertising awareness among respondents is sectioned into four sectors, which infers the following data: Safe food for Canadian regulations (Unaided awareness)- 5 percent, Safe food for Canadian regulations (Aided awareness)- 39 percent, Other (food recalls, new regulations, other CFIA)- 6 percent, and Have not seen/heard CFIA ads- 50 percent.

Other mentions among respondents who remembered seeing CFIA advertisements include general mentions about safe food new regulations, recall information, or other CFIA programs.

In Wave 1, businesses not only in retail were asked specifically if they had heard, seen or read something about the SFCR. When comparing to the results obtained in Wave 2 from businesses not only in retail, there is an increase from 50% to 59%.

B1b. Thinking specifically about the ad or ads that come to mind, what do you remember about the ads. B2: Have you heard, seen or read anything about the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, which introduces new requirements for food safety and comes into force January 15, 2019? Base: Businesses not only in retail, n=500.

The chart representing the survey result of the respondents when asked if they have heard, seen, or read something about the SFCR in wave 2 infers the following data: Yes- 59 percent, and No- 41 percent.

B2: Have you heard, seen or read anything about the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, which introduces new requirements for food safety and comes into force January 15, 2019? Base: Businesses not only in retail, n=370.

The chart representing the survey result of the respondents when asked if they heard, seen, or read something about the SFCR in wave 1 infers the following data: Yes- 50 percent, and No- 50 percent.

Sub-group trends related to aided awareness of the SFCR are similar to those related to familiarity with CFIA overall. Results show relatively stronger awareness of the SFCR among processors and manufacturers (77%), followed by businesses in agriculture (47%), wholesalers and distributors (47%) and finally, among those in retail (40%).

Awareness of the SFCR generally is greater among large businesses (44%). There are no significant differences from a regional perspective.

Wave 2 - Seen, Read or Heard any Advertising About SFCR
B1b. Thinking specifically about the ad or ads that come to mind, what do you remember about the ads? B2: Have you heard, seen or read anything about the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, which introduces new requirements for food safety and comes into force January 15, 2019? Base: in Businesses not exclusively in retail indicating seeing ads about SFCR at B1b, n=500.

		Industry Sector				Company Size
	Total (n=500)	Agriculture (n=99)	Processor/Manufacturer (n=198)	Wholesaler/Distributor (n=137)	Retailer (n=66)	Micro (n=98)	Small (n=105)	Medium (n=224)	Large (n=70)
Yes	59%	61%5	80%5	60%5	43%	41%	53%	68%	73%
No	41%	39%5	20%	40%5*	57%5	59%5	47%	32%	27%
Don’t know	<1%	-	<1%	-	-	-	-	<1%	-

⁵ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

Wave 2 - Seen, Read or Heard any Advertising About SFCR
B1b. Thinking specifically about the ad or ads that come to mind, what do you remember about the ads? B2: Have you heard, seen or read anything about the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, which introduces new requirements for food safety and comes into force January 15, 2019? Base: in Businesses not exclusively in retail indicating seeing ads about SFCR at B1b, n=500.

		Region
	Total (n=500)	Atlantic (n=47)	Quebec (n=150)	Ontario (n=134)	West (n=169)
Yes	59%	66%	54%	60%	60%
No	41%	34%	46%	40%	49%
Don’t know	<1%	-	-	-	<1%

Wave 1 - Safe Food for Canadians Regulations Awareness
B2: Have you heard, seen or read anything about the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, which introduces new requirements for food safety and comes into force January 15, 2019? Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, n=370.

		Industry Sector				Company Size
	Total (n=370)	Agriculture (n=49)	Processor/Manufacturer (n=170)	Wholesaler/Distributor (n=87)	Retailer (n=64)	Micro (n=63)	Small (n=90)	Medium (n=179)	Large (n=37)
Yes	50%	43%6	73%6	49%6	26%	40%	36%	57%6	82%6
No	50%	57%6	26%	51%6	73%6	58%6	63%6	43%6	18%
Don’t know	1%	-	1%	-	1%	1%	1%	-	-

⁶ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

Wave 1 - Safe Food for Canadians Regulations Awareness
B2: Have you heard, seen or read anything about the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, which introduces new requirements for food safety and comes into force January 15, 2019? Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, n=370.

		Region
	Total (n=370)	Atlantic (n=40)	Quebec (n=59)	Ontario (n=106)	West (n=165)
Yes	50%	57%7	36%	56%7	47%
No	50%	43%	64%7	43%	52%
Don’t know	1%	-	-	1%	1%

⁷ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

Wave 2 – What you Remember About the Advertisements
B1b: Thinking specifically about the ad or ads that come to mind, what do you remember about the ads? Base: Respondents who have seen, read or heard advertising from CFIA, Wave 2, n=215.

		Industry Sector				Company Size
	Total (n=215)	Agriculture (n=38)	Processor/Manufacturer (n=96)	Wholesaler/Distributor (n=42)	Retailer (n=39)	Micro (n=43)	Small (n=36)	Medium (n=98)	Large (n=37)
Safe Food or new regulations/ rule general mention	24%	30%	30%	33%	15%	27%	18%	27%	19%
Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR) specific mention	21%	21%	30%8	20%	15%	19%	12%	21%	37%8
Recall information	14%	14%	12%	17%	13%	10%	18%	13%	16%
Other CFIA program	6%	6%	8%	10%	3%	5%	6%	5%	7%
Other	13%	6%	10%	13%	17%	17%	7%	16%	5%
Don’t know/Can’t Recall	22%	23%8	9%	6%	38%8	22%	39%8	18%	15%

⁸ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

Wave 2 – What you Remember About the Advertisements
B1b: Thinking specifically about the ad or ads that come to mind, what do you remember about the ads? Base: Respondents who have seen, read or heard advertising from CFIA, Wave 2, n=215.

		Region
	Total (n=215)	Atlantic (n=23)	Quebec (n=66)	Ontario (n=46)	West (n=80)
Safe Food or new regulations/ rule general mention	24%	12%	26%	29%	22%
Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR) specific mention	21%	22%	18%	23%	21%
Recall information	14%	40%9	12%	13%	9%
Other CFIA program	6%	5%	3%	7%	7%
Other	13%	14%	10%	4%	22%9
Don’t know/Can’t Recall	22%	7%	32%9	23%	20%

⁹ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

Among those having heard, seen or read something about SFCR who are in a business not exclusively in retail (59% of respondents), the most common sources were email (27%), colleagues and industry events (25%), the CFIA website (21%), followed by a general, unspecified online source (18%). Recall of this sort of information is often vague for respondents so it is not uncommon to see various “general” responses such as “online (general)”, email, a pamphlet, etc. In Wave 1, among those having heard, seen or read something about SFCR who are in a business not exclusively in retail (50% of respondents), the most common sources were colleagues and industry events (30%), a CFIA employee or inspector (21%), the CFIA website (20%), followed by an online general source (18%).

B2A: Where did you hear, see or read about the regulations? Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail that have heard of Safe Food for Canadians Regulations, Wave 2, n= 324, Wave 1, n=204.

A horizontal bar graph presents the source of information on regulations among the respondents who have heard, seen, or read something about the SFCR. The graph shows a set of two bars for each source that represents both wave 1 and wave 2, with the following data:

For Wave 1, the source of information on regulations among the respondents who have heard, seen, or read something about the SFCR are:

• Through email (other): 15%
• Colleagues/ industry events (general): 30%
• Online – CFIA website: 20%
• Online – (general): 18%
• Through a pamphlet/ print material (general): 7%
• CFIA employee/ inspector: 21%
• Through CFIA email: 10%
• From the CFIA (unspecified): 11%
• Other: 11%
• Don't know/ Refused: 2%

For Wave 2, the source of information on regulations among the respondents who have heard, seen, or read something about the SFCR are:

• Through email (other): 27%
• Colleagues/ industry events (general): 25%
• Online – CFIA website: 21%
• Online – (general): 18%
• Through a pamphlet/ print material (general): 15%
• CFIA employee/ inspector: 10%
• Through CFIA email: 7%
• From the CFIA (unspecified): 6%
• Other: 6%
• Don't know/ Refused: 2%

Irrespective of whether they had seen, read or heard anything about the new regulations, in Wave 1 businesses were asked if they thought the new regulations would apply to their business. A majority (63%) of businesses believed the new regulations would apply to their business, which suggests that many businesses assume the new regulations apply to their business even if they have not heard about them. One in ten believed the regulations would not apply to their business while 26% did not know.

B3: As far as you know, do you think the new Safe Food for Canadians Regulations will apply to your business? Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, Wave 1, n=370.

The chart representing the perceived relevance of new regulations infers, Yes- 63 percent, No- 11 percent, and Don’t know- 26 percent.

Across the various sub-groups, results (from Wave 1) reveal that perceived relevance is highest among processors and manufacturers (74%) and lowest among businesses in agriculture (51%) and retail (55%). Perceived relevance also increased with the size of the business, ranging from 49% among micro businesses, to 83% among large ones. Smaller businesses were more prone to believe that the new regulations would not apply to their business (rather than simply not knowing). Regionally, perceived relevance was highest in Atlantic Canada (77%) and lowest in Quebec (56%), with results in Ontario and Western Canada fairly similar. Additionally, 22% of those in Quebec did not believe the new regulations would apply to their business.

Wave 1 - Perceived Relevance of New Regulations
B3: As far as you know, do you think the new Safe Food for Canadians Regulations will apply to your business? Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, Wave 1, n=370.

		Industry Sector				Company Size
	Total (n=370)	Agriculture (n=49)	Processor/Manufacturer (n=170)	Wholesaler/Distributor (n=87)	Retailer (n=64)	Micro (n=63)	Small (n=90)	Medium (n=179)	Large (n=37)
Yes	63%	51%	74%10	63%	55%	49%	62%	65%10	83%10
No	11%	16%10	6%	11%	14%	24%10	10%10	7%	2%
Don’t know	26%	33%10	20%	26%	31%10	27%	28%	27%10	15%

¹⁰ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

Wave 1 - Perceived Relevance of New Regulations
B3: As far as you know, do you think the new Safe Food for Canadians Regulations will apply to your business? Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, Wave 1, n=370.

		Region
	Total (n=370)	Atlantic (n=40)	Quebec (n=59)	Ontario (n=106)	West (n=165)
Yes	63%	77%11	56%	65%	60%
No	11%	-	22%11	7%	12%
Don’t know	26%	23%	22%	28%	27%

¹¹ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

In Wave 1, when specifically asked about three requirements under the new regulations, results reveal that nearly three quarters (74%) of businesses were aware that the new regulations required regulated businesses to have product traceability processes, 60% were aware that they require a written preventive control plan and 52% were aware that they require a licence from CFIA.

B4: Were you aware that the proposed Safe Food for Canadians Regulations require most businesses regulated by CFIA to: Have a licence from the CFIA. / B5: Have a written preventive control plan. / B6: Have product traceability processes. Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, Wave 1, n=370.

The chart depicting the awareness of safe food for Canadians regulation requirements infers the following data: Have product traceability processes- 74 percent, Have a written preventive control plan- 60 percent, and Have a licence from the CFIA- 52 percent.

Awareness of these three requirements was consistently lower among businesses in the retail sector and became progressively lower as the size of the business decreased. Furthermore, the requirement for regulated businesses to have a licence from CFIA was also relatively lower among businesses in the agriculture segment (46%) although not as low as in the retail segment (33%).

Wave 1 - Awareness of Safe Food for Canadians Regulations Requirements
B4: Were you aware that the proposed Safe Food for Canadians Regulations require most businesses regulated by CFIA to: Have a licence from the CFIA. / B5: Have a written preventive control plan. / B6: Have product traceability processes. Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, Wave 1, n=370.

		Industry Sector				Company Size
	Total (n=370)	Agriculture (n=49)	Processor/Manufacturer (n=170)	Wholesaler/Distributor (n=87)	Retailer (n=64)	Micro (n=63)	Small (n=90)	Medium (n=179)	Large (n=37)
Have a licence from CFIA
Yes	52%	46%	69%12	55%12	33%	29%	46%12	62%12	78%12
No	43%	46%12	27%	37%	64%12	68%12	45%12	34%12	19%
Don’t know	5%	7%	4%	8%	3%	3%	10%	4%	3%
Have a written preventive control plan
Yes	60%	63%12	76%12	64%12	36%	34%	49%12	74%*12	90%12
No	35%	33%	21%	31%12	56%12	63%12	39%12	24%12	8%
Don’t know	5%	3%	3%	4%	9%	3%	12%12	2%	1%
Have product traceability processes
Yes	74%	81%12	87%12	75%12	50%	67%	63%	79%12	94%12
No	25%	19%	12%	24%12	45%12	32%12	33%12	20%12	6%
Don’t know	2%	-	1%	1%	4%	1%	4%	1%	-

¹² When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

From a regional perspective, awareness of each of the three requirements was consistently highest in Atlantic Canada and, with the exception of the requirement to have product traceability processes, awareness was consistently lowest in Quebec.

Wave 1 - Awareness of Safe Food for Canadians Regulations Requirements
B4: Were you aware that the proposed Safe Food for Canadians Regulations require most businesses regulated by CFIA to: Have a licence from the CFIA. / B5: Have a written preventive control plan. / B6: Have product traceability processes. Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, Wave 1, n=370.

	Region
	Total (n=370)	Atlantic (n=40)	Quebec (n=59)	Ontario (n=106)	West (n=165)
Have a licence from CFIA
Yes	52%	71%13	44%	55%	49%
No	43%	27%	50%13	40%	44%13
Don’t know	5%	2%	7%	4%	6%
Have a written preventive control plan
Yes	60%	80%13	51%	63%	59%
No	35%	19%	42%13	33%13	36%13
Don’t know	5%	1%	7%	4%	6%
Have product traceability processes
Yes	74%	84%13	77%	76%13	67%
No	25%	16%	19%	24%	30%13
Don’t know	2%	-	4%	-	3%

¹³ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

In Wave 1, separate questions related to the traceability of food products and to the SFCR were dedicated to businesses that self-identified as “retail-only” businesses. Results from these questions reveal the following:

• Three-quarters of retailers (74%) have a process in place to trace food back to the company that supplied it.
• Roughly half (52%) are aware of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations.
• About four in ten (41%) claim to be aware of the new regulation’s requirement for most food companies to be able to trace where their food products were purchased.

S4: Do you have a process in place that will allow you to trace back your food to the company that supplied it? S4a: Have you heard of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations? S4b: Do you know that the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations that come into force January 15, 2019 require most food companies to be able to trace where their food products were purchased? Base: Businesses exclusively in retail, Wave 1, n=300.

The chart depicting the traceability processes and SFCR awareness among businesses exclusively in retail infers the following data: Have process in place to trace food back to the supply company- 74 percent, Aware of safe food for Canadians regulations- 52 percent, and Know safe food for Canadians regulations requires food company to be able to trace where products were purchased- 41 percent.

S4: Do you have a process in place that will allow you to trace back your food to the company that supplied it? S4a: Have you heard of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations? S4b: Do you know that the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations that come into force January 15, 2019 require most food companies to be able to trace where their food products were purchased? Base: Businesses exclusively in retail, Wave 1, n=300.

Wave 1	Has a Processes to Trace Back Food	Heard of Safe Food for Canadians Regulations	Understands Traceability Requirements Under New SFCR
Yes	74%	52%	41%
No	24%	42%	58%
Not sure	1%	6%	-
Don’t know/Refused	1%	-	1%

Confidence in Meeting Food Safety Regulations

The majority (91%) of businesses felt very confident that they would meet food safety regulations and requirements if they were to be inspected. Among the remaining respondents, 8% felt somewhat confident (gave a rating of 4 or 5 on a 7-point scale) and only 1% were not very confident (gave a rating of 1 to 3). This is a statistically significant increase from 86% of businesses feeling very confident in meeting food safety regulations and requirements in Wave 1. Virtually all large companies are very confident (99%), while medium-sized companies are the most likely to be somewhat confident (10%). Businesses in Quebec are the most likely to be very confident. There were no statistically significant differences across industry verticals.

A1: If your business was subject to a CFIA inspection today, how confident are you that you would meet food safety regulations and requirements? Please rate your view on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 means not at all confident and 7 means very confident. Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, Wave 2, n=500.

The chart depicting the percentage of confidence in meeting food safety regulations in wave 2 infers the following data: Very confident (6 to 7)- 91 percent, Somewhat confident (4 to 5)- 8 percent, Not very confident (1 to 3)- 1 percent, and Don’t know- 1 percent.

G5: If your business was subject to a CFIA inspection today, how confident are you that you would meet food safety regulations and requirements? Please rate your view on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 means not at all confident and 7 means very confident. Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, Wave 1, n=370.

The chart depicting the percentage of confidence in meeting food safety regulations in wave 1 infers the following data: Very confident (6 to 7)- 86 percent, Somewhat confident (4 to 5)- 11 percent, Not very confident (1 to 3)- 2 percent, and Don’t know- 1 percent.

¹⁴ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

¹⁵ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

¹⁶ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

Those very confident that they would meet regulations and requirements if they were inspected today attribute this confidence mostly to the fact that they believe they follow the rules and /or comply with regulations (33%). Another 28% are confident because they are inspected regularly / have received positive feedback, and 11% feel they make an effort and try to meet food safety regulations. Response patterns are quite similar when we consider the confidence drivers among those who provided lower confidence ratings.

Commonly Conducted Food Safety Activities

A list of various food safety-related measures and activities was presented to survey respondents in both waves and they were asked to note the ones that apply to their company. Results from this revealed that the most popular food safety activities include documenting standard operating procedures on food safety, establishing a traceability program and internal training programs on food safety. Each of these was noted by over three-quarters of businesses in both waves. Additionally, 60% of businesses have preventive controls in place, which are outlined in a written plan. Over half of businesses regularly send staff on food safety training (57%) or have a food licence or registration with CFIA. Slightly fewer have preventive controls in place not written or documented in a plan (45%), or use a food safety or quality control certification system (40%). Results from Wave 1 are quite similar to those in Wave 2.

A3: Which of the following, if any, applies at your company? Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, Wave 2, n=500, Wave 1, n=370.

A horizontal bar graph presents a list of various food safety-related measures and activities that respondents in both waves applied to their company. The graph shows a set of two bars for each source that represents both wave 1 and wave 2, with the following data:

For Wave 1, the following list of various food safety-related measures and activities respondents indicated they apply to their company.

• Has written/ documented standard operating procedures on food safety: 78%
• Has a traceability program established: 77%
• Has an internal training program on food safety: 77%
• Has preventive controls in place, which are outlined in a written plan such as a HACCP based plan, QMP or other program: 64%
• Regularly sends staff on food safety training: 54%
• Has a food licence or registration with CFIA: N/A
• Has preventive controls in place, but not written or documented in a plan: 41%
• Uses a food safety or quality control certification system such as GFSI, ISO or QMP: 47%
• None of the above: 2%

For Wave 2, the following list of various food safety-related measures and activities was presented to respondents to note the ones that apply the following to their company.

• Has written/ documented standard operating procedures on food safety: 78%
• Has a traceability program established: 76%
• Has an internal training program on food safety: 75%
• Has preventive controls in place, which are outlined in a written plan such as a HACCP based plan, QMP or other program: 60%
• Regularly sends staff on food safety training: 57%
• Has a food licence or registration with CFIA: 57%
• Has preventive controls in place, but not written or documented in a plan: 45%
• Uses a food safety or quality control certification system such as GFSI, ISO or QMP: 40%
• None of the above: 1%

Results are dependent on the industry sector and frequently based on the size of the company.

From an industry sector perspective, businesses whose primary activity is retail or wholesale/distribution are the least likely to have food safety measures in place. For retailers, the exceptions are having an internal training program on food safety, regularly sending staff on food safety training and having preventing controls without being written or documented in a plan. Retailers stand out from the other sectors in terms of being more likely to regularly send staff on food safety training. Another noteworthy trend from an industry sector perspective reveals the incidence for nearly each of the measures is highest among processors and manufacturers. These businesses are more likely to:

have an internal training program on food safety (91%); have preventive controls in place outlined in a written plan such as a HACCP based plan, QMP or other program (80%); regularly send staff on food safety training (63%); use a food safety or quality control certification system such as GFSI, ISO or QMP (59%)

From a company size perspective, the larger the business, the more likely they are to have most of the measures in place. As seen below, the incidence of six of the measures exceeds 80% among large businesses. Conversely, the smaller the business, the more likely they are to have preventive controls in place but not written or documented in a plan – this measure reaches 56% among micro businesses. Furthermore, 6% of micro businesses indicate they do not have any of the measures in place at all.

Trends per industry vertical and company size remain similar in Wave 2 compared to those observed in Wave 1.

¹⁷ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

¹⁸ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

From a regional perspective, results suggest a lower level of adoption of the various measures in Quebec. The results on the previous page show that these are in fact two segments where the adoption of the various measures tends to be relatively lower.

Results also show that over three-quarters of the businesses in Atlantic Canada have adopted many of the measures listed, results that are higher than what is seen in the other regions. The adoption of the various measures is very consistent between businesses in Ontario and those in the West.

Results are also similar between Wave 2 and Wave 1.

¹⁹ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

²⁰ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

Businesses not exclusively in retail were asked to rate their level of understanding of food regulations that apply to their foods. By using a 7-point scale, where 1 meant not at all and 7 meant very clearly, results reveal that in the second wave of the survey, 68% of businesses not exclusively in retail would rate their understanding of the food safety regulations that apply to their foods a 6 or a 7. This is a lower rating compared to that observed in Wave 1 (78%). However, most of the remaining businesses (25% in Wave 2 and 18% in Wave 1) would give a rating of 4 or 5, which shows how there is a decrease from the “very clear” proportion and an increase to the “somewhat clearly” proportion from Wave 1 to Wave 2 – when combining the top scores provided, we can see the understanding of these regulations is clear to respondents in both waves (93% in Wave 2 and 96% in Wave 1).

B3: 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 foods? Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, Wave 2, n=500.

The chart illustrating the understanding of food regulations among businesses in wave 2 infers the following data: Very clearly (6 to 7)- 68 percent, Somewhat clearly (4 to 5)- 25 percent, and Not very clearly (1 to 3)- 6 percent.

A2: 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 foods? Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, Wave 1, n=370.

The chart illustrating the understanding of food regulations among businesses in wave 1 infers the following data: Very clearly (6 to 7)- 78 percent, Somewhat clearly (4 to 5)- 18 percent, and Not very clearly (1 to 3)- 3 percent. Note: very clearly, somewhat clearly, and not very clearly are represented in colors of denim, blue, and stone, respectively.

Reported understanding of the food safety regulations that apply to their foods is stronger among processor/manufacturer businesses (74% selected a rating of 6 or 7). Understanding seems to wane as the size of the businesses decreases in Wave 1. As the tables below indicates, 90% of large businesses gave themselves a rating of 6 or 7 in Wave 1, a score that gradually drops to 69% among micro businesses. From a regional perspective, businesses in Atlantic Canada are more likely to report understanding the food safety regulations that apply to their foods.

²¹ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

²² When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

²³ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

In Wave 1, businesses not exclusively in retail were asked who they believe is responsible for food safety in Canada. Results indicate nearly 2 in 5 businesses think it is the food industry that has the most responsibility to ensure food sold in Canada is safe. Another 24% believe it is the federal government, 11% believe it is Canadian farmers and 10% believe the provincial governments have the most responsibility.

A1: Thinking about food safety in general, who do you think has the most responsibility to ensure the food sold in Canada is safe. Is it… Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, Wave1, n=370.

The horizontal bar graph represents the survey response of the businesses in wave 1 when asked about the responsibility of food safety in Canada. The graph infers the following data: The food industry- 40 percent, The federal government- 24 percent, Canadian farmers- 11 percent, The provincial government- 10 percent, Consumers- 3 percent, All of the above/everyone- 5 percent, Other- 3 percent, and Don’t know- 3 percent

The attribution of responsibility does differ depending on the industry sector. For instance, a majority of those who identify as processors and manufacturers are inclined to believe that most of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the food industry itself (57%).

The perception is fairly different among those in agriculture, among whom 40% believe most of the responsibility lies with Canadian farmers, followed by 30% who believe it is the food industry and 20% believe it is the federal government.

The picture is different still among retailers where a provincial government is more likely to be identified (20%), over one quarter believe it is the federal government (27%) and relatively few (at 24%) believe it is the food industry.

Most businesses that are primarily wholesalers and distributors either believe it is the food industry (40%) or the federal government (35%).

From a company size perspective, we can see that the larger the company, the more likely they are to believe that the food industry has the most responsibility.

There are not many regional differences – businesses in Atlantic Canada are much more likely to believe the food industry is primarily responsible.

²⁴ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

²⁵ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

Businesses not exclusively in retail from both waves of surveys were provided with three potential challenges that food businesses might encounter and then asked to select the one that, from their perspective, would be the biggest challenge. Just over two in five food businesses (45%) selected traceability of food products as the biggest food safety challenge. This was followed by written preventive controls (30%), and 16% selected licencing. In Wave 2, nearly 1 in 10 did not know which represented the biggest challenge for food businesses.

B7: From your perspective which of the following three key food safety elements would be the biggest challenge for food businesses? Would it be… Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, Wave 2, n=500, Wave 1, n=370.

A horizontal bar graph presents challenges businesses not exclusively in retail might encounter. From their perspective, the following three potential challenges were the biggest. The graph shows a set of two bars for each source that represents both wave 1 and wave 2, with the following data:

For Wave 1, the following challenges were identified as the biggest.

• Traceability of food products: 42%
• Written preventive controls: 26%
• Licencing: 24%
• Don't know/None of the above: 8%

For Wave 2, the following challenges were identified as the biggest.

• Traceability of food products: 45%
• Written preventive controls: 30%
• Licencing: 16%
• Don't know/None of the above: 9%

In the most recent wave of surveys, traceability was still most likely to be considered the biggest challenge among businesses in the retail sector. Notably, businesses in the processor/manufacturer segment were split between traceability (37%) and written preventive controls (38%). The larger the company size, the greater the perceived challenge to have written preventive controls (only 22% for micro businesses compared to 41% for large businesses). These results are somewhat similar to those observed in Wave 1.

²⁶ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

²⁷ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

From a regional perspective, traceability of food products was the most common challenge in all regions, especially among businesses in Quebec (54%) and in Ontario (49%). Written preventive controls was more likely to be a challenge among businesses in Atlantic Canada compared to businesses in other regions. In Wave 1, traceability was also the most common challenge in all regions, particularly in Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

²⁸ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

²⁹ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

Contact with CFIA

Based on results from Wave 2, over 7 in 10 (73%) businesses that are not exclusively in retail have had some sort of contact with CFIA over the past 12 months. The most common interaction with CFIA over the past 12 months was looking for information about food safety regulations or requirements on the CFIA’s website (57%) while 42% claim to have been inspected, 34% contacted CFIA directly for information or technical advice on food safety regulations or regulatory interpretation, or requested a permission, licence, registration, or certificate from CFIA, and 33% contacted CFIA for information on (rather than requesting) a permission licence or certificate. Other results include:

• 27% searched for operational guidance using the Guidance Finder (which was not explored in Wave 1);
• 15% initiated a product recall either voluntarily or ordered.

These results are generally quite similar to those observed in Wave 1, except there are less businesses that have not looked for information from or had any personal contact with CFIA in the previous 12 months.

C1a: I will read several statements. Please tell me which activities apply to you or your business over the last 12 months. Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail, Wave 2, n=500, Wave 1, n=370.

A horizontal bar graph presents information of the most common interaction with CFIA over the past 12 months and what information businesses were looking for about food safety regulations or requirements on the CFIA's website. The graph shows a set of two bars for each source that represents both wave 1 and wave 2, with the following data:

For Wave 1, the following list presents the most common information businesses were looking for about food safety regulations or requirements on the CFIA's website.

• Looked for information about food safety regulations or requirements on the CFIA's website: 56%
• Have been inspected by the CFIA within the past 12 months: 47%
• Contacted the CFIA directly for information or technical advice on food safety regulations or regulatory interpretation: 33%
• Requested a permission, licence, registration, or certificate from the CFIA: 24%
• Contacted the CFIA for information [not requesting] on a permission, licence or certificate: 26%
• Searched for operational guidance using the Guidance Finder: N/A
• Initiated a product recall either voluntary or ordered: 21%
• I have not looked for information from or had any personal contact with the CFIA over the last 12 months: 24%
• Don't know/ Refused: 3%

For Wave 2, the following list presents the most common information businesses were looking for about food safety regulations or requirements on the CFIA's website.

• Looked for information about food safety regulations or requirements on the CFIA's website: 57%
• Have been inspected by the CFIA within the past 12 months: 42%
• Contacted the CFIA directly for information or technical advice on food safety regulations or regulatory interpretation: 34%
• Requested a permission, licence, registration, or certificate from the CFIA: 34%
• Contacted the CFIA for information [not requesting] on a permission, licence or certificate: 33%
• Searched for operational guidance using the Guidance Finder: 27%
• Initiated a product recall either voluntary or ordered: 15%
• I have not looked for information from or had any personal contact with the CFIA over the last 12 months: 1%
• Don't know/ Refused: 2%

The most recent survey results reveal that most of these activities or types of contact with CFIA are more common among businesses in the processor and manufacturer segment and many are also more common among those in the wholesaler and distributor segment. Businesses in the retail segment are the least likely to have contact with CFIA, except for searching for operational guidance using the Guidance Finder (34%). Results also show that product recalls are more common among businesses in the wholesale/distributor segment (24%).

As well, the larger the company, the more likely they are to contact CFIA in many ways, except for searching for operational guidance using the Guidance Finder which seems to be more popular among smaller companies.

³⁰ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

³¹ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

From a regional perspective, contact with CFIA is particularly high among businesses in Atlantic Canada. Businesses not exclusively in retail in Ontario and Western Canada are also more likely to have looked for information about food safety regulations or requirements on CFIA’s website.

What is also noteworthy about the extent of contact among businesses in Atlantic Canada is that the incidence of all forms of contact, except recalls and the use of the Guidance Finder, was noticeably higher among these businesses, especially the incidence of inspections, which was noted by 73% of these businesses.

All these results align with what was observed in Wave 1.

³² When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

³³ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

Additional analysis does in fact reveal that businesses that were inspected over the past 12 months were significantly more likely to have undertaken the other activities, as seen in the tables below. This seems to suggest that the likelihood of contacting CFIA is in large part determined by whether or not a company gets inspected.

³⁴ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

³⁵ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

Businesses not exclusively in retail having contacted CFIA over the past 12 months most often did so through the CFIA website (63%), followed by contacting CFIA by phone (48%), or by email (48%). A smaller proportion contacted CFIA in person (21%) and only a few did so via social media (1%). These results suggest that businesses in general are using multiple channels to contact CFIA. The preference order of ways to contact CFIA remained similar from Wave 1 to Wave 2, although the proportion of those using the CFIA website, phone, and email is higher in Wave 2, while contacting CFIA in person was slightly less common in Wave 2. The use of webinars was only asked in Wave 2.

C1: You stated that you contacted the CFIA for information or a service. How did you access or request the service or information from the CFIA? Was it… Base: Businesses not exclusively in retail that had an interaction with CFIA, Wave 2, n=348, Wave 1, n=248.

A horizontal bar graph presents how information was accessed or requested from the CFIA for businesses not exclusively in retail over the past 12 months. The graph shows a set of two bars for each source that represents both wave 1 and wave 2, with the following data:

For Wave 1, the following list presents how information was accessed or requested from the CFIA:

• On the CFIA website: 52%
• Over the phone: 44%
• Email: 41%
• In person at a CFIA office: 28%
• Webinar: N/A
• Social media: 3%
• Other: 3%
• Don't know/ Refused: 2%

For Wave 2, the following list presents how information was accessed or requested from the CFIA:

• On the CFIA website: 63%
• Over the phone: 48%
• Email: 48%
• In person at a CFIA office: 21%
• Webinar: 10%
• Social media: 1%
• Other: 3%
• Don't know/ Refused: 1%

Retailers are the most likely to contact CFIA via the website whereas processors and manufacturers are more likely to use the telephone, contact CFIA in person, or participate in a webinar. Small companies are also more likely to contact CFIA via the website, while medium companies would use email, contact in person or use a webinar, and large companies are most likely to contact CFIA over the phone and are relatively more likely to access a webinar.

³⁶ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

³⁷ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

Regionally, contact over the phone or email is more likely to happen in Atlantic Canada compared to other regions. Other results reveal that Quebec businesses report using the website more frequently businesses in other regions of the CFIA website and are also more likely to go to a CFIA office.

³⁸ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

³⁹ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

In Wave 2, businesses were asked to rate the helpfulness of the CFIA website. Half find the website very helpful, giving it a score of 6 or 7. An additional 34% rate the website somewhat helpful (rating of 4 or 5), and 10% found it was not helpful.

QC1B: To what extent was the information on the CFIA’s website useful in helping you find the information you were looking for? Base: Businesses that have used the CFIA website, Wave 2, n=239.

The chart presenting the ratings of businesses on the perceived helpfulness of the CFIA’s website in wave 2 infers the following data: Very helpful (6 to 7)- 54 percent, Somewhat helpful (4 to 5)- 34 percent, Not very helpful (1 to 3)- 10 percent, and Don’t know- 2 percent.

Retailers, the largest reported users of the website, are the most likely to find it very helpful, while businesses in the agriculture, processor or manufacturer, wholesaler or distributor sectors find it somewhat helpful. Large businesses rate the website somewhat helpful as well. Micro businesses are more likely to find the website not useful. Regionally, businesses in Quebec and Ontario are more likely to find the website useful.

⁴⁰ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

⁴¹ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

Website users were asked to suggest what could be done to CFIA’s inspection.gc.ca site to improve it. The main suggestions included making it easier to navigate and more user-friendly (21%) and providing clearer information (17%). Other suggestions, which also speak to navigation and being user-friendly, included providing more accessible information (10%) and simplifying the website (7%). Nearly two in five (39%) did not have any suggestions while 14% added that they are satisfied with the site as-is.

C1c. How could the CFIA improve their website? Base: Businesses that have used the CFIA website, Wave 2: n=239.

The horizontal bar graph presenting the suggestions of the users that need to be done to improve the CFIA’s website infers the following data: Provide easier navigation/user-friendly website- 21 percent, Provide clearer information- 17 percent, Nothing to improve-satisfied- 14 percent, Provide more accessible information- 10 percent, Nothing to improve- prefer other methods- 8 percent, Provide simpler website (general)- 7 percent, and Don’t know- 39 percent.

Respondents were also asked to rate the helpfulness of the Agency’s email, phone, and in-person service when contacting CFIA for information. Nearly three quarters (75%) of those who contacted CFIA by phone found the support very useful and an additional 20% found it somewhat useful. Nearly two thirds (64%) of those who used email to contact CFIA found it very useful, and 28% somewhat useful. Of those who contacted CFIA in person, 54% found the information very useful and 15% found it somewhat useful. However, 30% did not know how to rate the service received.

C1D. To what extent was the information provided by email useful in helping you find the information you were looking for? Base: Respondents who have contacted the CFIA by email, Wave 2: n=194. C1E. To what extent was the information provided by phone useful in helping you find the information you were looking for? Base: Respondents who have contacted the CFIA by phone, Wave 2: n=201. C1F. To what extent was the information obtained in person at a CFIA office useful in helping you find the information you were looking for? Base: Respondents who have contacted the CFIA in person, Wave 2: n=88.

The stacked horizontal bar graph depicts the ratings of the respondents on the helpfulness of information obtained via email, phone, and in person services of CFIA. The graph shows a set of four bars incorporated with each source of information representing very helpful (6 to 7), somewhat helpful (4 to 5), not very helpful (1 to 3), and don’t know, and which infers the following data: Email- 64, 28, 5, and 3; Phone support- 74, 20, 4, and 2; In-person at CFIA’s office- 54, 15, 0, and 30.

Results by various business segments suggest that the perceived helpfulness of email information is similar across all business verticals and sizes. Results are presented in the tables below however caution is warranted since many results are based on small sample sizes.

⁴² When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.

⁴³ When data tables are presented, the asterisks indicate that the result is statistically significantly different from results in other columns.