Public Opinion Research with Canadians on Food Fraud: 2021-2022
Final Report
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
March 2022
Prepared for:
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Supplier name: Quorus Consulting Group Inc.
Contract award date: November 18, 2021
Delivery date: March 2022
Contract amount (incl. HST): $112,854.44
Contract number: 39903-220784/001/CY
Public opinion research number: POR-041-21
For more information, please contact:
Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.
Copyright Page
Public Opinion Research with Canadians on Food Fraud: 2021-2022
Final Report
Prepared for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Supplier name: Quorus Consulting Group Inc.
March 2022
This public opinion research report presents the results of quantitative and qualitative research conducted by Quorus Consulting Group Inc. on behalf of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency during January 2022.
Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre : Recherche sur l’opinion publique auprès des Canadiens sur la fraude alimentaire : 2021-2022 - Rapport final
This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. For more information on this report, please contact the Canadian Food Inspection Agency at: Information@inspection.gc.ca or at:
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
1400 Merivale Road
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0Y9
Catalogue number:
A104-200/2022E-PDF
International standard book number (ISBN):
978-0-660-42589-4
Related publications (registration number: POR-041-21):
catalogue number: A104-200/2022F-PDF (final report in French)
ISBN: 978-0-660-42590-0
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Health, 2022
Political neutrality certification
I hereby certify as senior officer of Quorus Consulting Group Inc. that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Policy on Communications and Federal Identity and the Directive on the Management of Communications - Appendix C.
Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.
Signed:
Rick Nadeau, President Quorus Consulting Group Inc.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Research purpose and objectives
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is dedicated to safeguarding food, animals and plants which enhances the health and well-being of Canada’s people, environment, and economy. The CFIA continually works to improve the overall health of Canadians.
Canadian law prohibits the labelling, packaging, treating, processing, selling or advertising of any food in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive to consumers. When food is misrepresented, it can be a form of food fraud. Food fraud can mislead consumers and can also be a food safety issue (for example, when products contain undeclared allergens). The CFIA works to protect consumers from food misrepresentation by conducting inspections, analyzing food samples and taking enforcement action. Combatting food fraud is a shared responsibility between government, industry and consumers. Since food fraud is meant to deceive consumers, it is not always easy to know whether a food is fraudulent or not. Even so, consumers play an important role in identifying and tackling food fraud.
This research builds upon previous quantitative research on food safety and food fraud conducted by Quorus for the CFIA in 2019-2020. In 2022, research was expanded to conduct further quantitative and qualitative research in order to meet the CFIA’s objective of collecting up-to-date opinion data from the public on a variety of topics related to the accurate representation of food.
The results of this research will be used to further inform the CFIA’s communications, and policy and program efforts regarding food fraud.
The objectives of this research were as follows:
Quantitative
measure Canadians’ awareness and understanding of food fraud
measure Canadians’ habits and concerns about food fraud
measure Canadians’ sources of information on food fraud
measure Canadians’ perceptions about food fraud
compare and contrast findings with previous research findings and where possible consider differences from other public opinion research
Qualitative
gather opinions and feelings of Canadians surrounding messaging and communications about food fraud
better understand the thoughts and opinions of Canadians on food fraud by allowing Canadians from all different backgrounds to elaborate and fully explain their experience with or awareness of food fraud
The quantitative research consisted of an online survey with Canadians at least 18 years of age, who reflected the distribution of the Canadian population. On average, the survey took 10 minutes to complete. A total of 1,000 online surveys were completed with data collection occurring between January 20th and January 28th, 2022. For this study, quotas by province were established to generate sufficient data regionally for robust analysis. Data was monitored to aim for a 50/50 gender split in each province, and to ensure that no specific age cohort was under-represented. The equivalent margin of error for a probability study of 1,000 cases would be +/- 3.1%. Data were weighted by region, gender and age to ensure that the final distributions within the final sample mirror those of the Canadian population according to the latest Census data.
The qualitative research methodology consisted of 10 online focus groups with Canadians aged 18 and older representing different regions across the country, aiming for representation across gender, employment status, education level and minority status. The focus groups were conducted online from January 24th to January 31st, 2022. The groups took an average of 90 minutes. Quorus was responsible for coordinating all aspects of the research project including designing and translating the recruitment screener and the moderation guide, coordinating all aspects of participant recruitment, coordinating the online focus group platform and related logistics, moderating all sessions, and delivering required reports at the end of data collection.
Quantitative research results
Food fraud
Just over one-quarter of the respondents reported being aware of food fraud. Food fraud was defined to respondents as occurring when food is misrepresented. Concern for food fraud was somewhat higher with 4 in 10 fairly concerned about food fraud and just under one-quarter who were very concerned. Half of respondents saw this as a fairly important issue including one-third who rated this as a very important issue.
Just 1 in 5 had personally encountered misrepresented food. Of those who encountered misrepresented food or food fraud the main commodities were with processed food, meat, organic foods, and fish.
Examples of what was considered misrepresented food included labelling issues, product issues, and specific food issues. The main cause of food fraud was seen as a deliberate use of lower quality ingredients so that some companies may try to get an advantage over other companies. Nearly a third of Canadians felt that mistakes can happen along the food supply chain and very few felt that food fraud is a blatant attempt to mislead or take advantage of consumers.
More than half claimed they would report an issue if they thought that a food product was fraudulent or misrepresented. One-third of Canadians would just throw the product away.
If a company was found guilty of misrepresenting food, almost half of respondents felt that imposing a fine was the appropriate enforcement action. Canadians seem to be generally forgiving as severe penalties such as jail time and closing businesses were seen as much less acceptable.
Almost everyone (93%) agreed that the CFIA should publish the names of companies that have been found to have misrepresented food.
The great majority of Canadians felt that food fraud is a health safety risk for consumers and over three-quarters felt it is the responsibility of companies in the food industry to make sure their products are not misrepresented. One-third felt regulators heavily punish companies caught misrepresenting food.
The federal government was seen by over two-thirds of Canadians as the main source of information about food fraud or potential food fraud. Industry associations would be the choice for one-quarter of Canadians, followed by the companies in the supply chain (food retailers, food manufacturers, and food distributors).
Canadians preferred to interact with the Government of Canada via digital channels (either through a website, social media or email) when searching for information about food fraud or potential food fraud.
Most Canadians indicated they were likely to encounter food fraud with products imported from other countries to Canada, while food products made in Canada were least likely to be seen as misrepresented.
Canadians were confident in the ability of the Government of Canada to manage food fraud. They also felt the government is the most responsible for this issue (39%). Over a quarter felt that food manufacturers are the most responsible for managing food fraud (26%).
Labelling
There was a high level of confidence in the truthfulness of product labels. Canadians were most confident in obvious product identifiers such as, what the food is, the amount of food in the package, and the best-before date. The least amount of confidence was shown in labels making health or organic claims.
Food labelling claims were fairly important for half of Canadians in their food purchasing decisions. While Canadians felt the responsibilities for food labelling claims lie with regulators and manufacturers, very few take precautions to ensure they purchase food with food labelling claims that are well understood and truthful. Almost half take no precautions at all, and one- quarter could not name any precautions they take.
Qualitative research results
General discussion
Discussion of food fraud
Familiarity with the term “food fraud” is moderate, with most participants indicating they had not heard the term before. However, when challenged to venture a guess, many gave appropriate examples that boiled down to the idea of something not being accurate or being omitted on a food product’s label.
While the term “misrepresentation” was regularly used by participants in the initial discussion to explain what they thought food fraud is, upon further probing, it was often seen as something slightly different – less serious - than food fraud.
Packaged foods (with more ingredients and health claims), products from certain countries, as well as “unhealthy” foods were generally perceived to be more susceptible to food fraud than fresh fruits and vegetables.
Food fraud in Canada
Awareness of actual instances of food fraud in Canada was also quite low. In most groups, only 1 or 2 participants had heard of a particular incidence of food fraud. No one had personally encountered food fraud or bought a product they later learned was fraudulent.
Information about food fraud generally came from (unspecified) media sources or documentaries. It was not a topic that was proactively researched: only a few participants who had read or seen something on the topic said they followed up with more online research.
Level of concern about food fraud in day-to-day life and shopping behaviour was low to medium. There is a solid sense of trust in the brands they buy and the stores they shop at.
Hypothetically speaking, if they were to encounter food fraud, some would take action – but many would not. The action they described taking, if any, was often derived from what they typically do if they bought something that was bad or spoiled before the best-before date. For most, the action was passive rather than very active.
Knowledge about how food fraud is managed and regulated in Canada is very limited, with awareness of the CFIA as the regulator being quite low. However, many assume that the CFIA is doing a good job, as “no news is good news.”
Online advertising testing
Visual and GIF concepts can be found in the Moderation Guide located in the Appendices.
Feedback on visual Concept 1
Concept 1 received less than enthusiastic feedback from most participants. While the main message to “stop food fraud” was clear, it lacked clarity of exactly what food fraud was and how exactly consumers could be expected to stop it.
Elements receiving positive feedback were the inclusion of the full food cart with a variety of foods in the image (which helped to understand the grocery retail context), the obvious message on the stop sign, the Government of Canada wordmark (which made it clearly a federal government ad) and the eye-catching colours used.
Elements receiving criticism were the lack of a clear call to action, the lack of basic information about food fraud, the simplistic design and execution, and the absence of a URL and a tagline.
Feedback on visual Concept 2
Concept 2 was not very well received. While again, the main message to “stop food fraud” was clear, this concept was not something that would peek many participants’ interest. As it contained only 1 of the 2 key elements seen in Concept 1 (the stop sign), it lacked the context of the grocery retail environment.
Elements receiving positive feedback were the obvious message on the stop sign, the Government of Canada wordmark and the eye-catching red colour used.
Elements receiving criticism were again the lack of a clear call to action, the lack of basic information about food fraud, the overly simplistic or amateurish design and execution, and the absence of a URL and a tagline.
Feedback on visual Concept 3
Concept 3 received lukewarm feedback overall. The main message from the visual concept was derived from the question mark on the grocery bag, making participants think about their food or groceries – and potentially wanting to find our more.
Elements receiving positive feedback were the colour blue used, the question mark, the clear call to action and the Government of Canada wordmark.
Elements receiving criticism were again the overly simplistic or amateurish design and execution, and the absence of a URL and a tagline. The fact that only fresh fruits and vegetables were shown also often received negative feedback.
Preferred visual concept
Concept 1 and Concept 3 were virtually tied for the best concept, with barely anyone choosing Concept 2. Among the younger cohort (18-34), Concept 1 held a slight edge, while among the older cohort (35+), Concept 1 and 3 were in dead heat. However, there were clearly common missing elements, as described above, that made neither of the “winning” concepts highly effective.
Feedback on GIF concept
The GIF was generally well received.
Elements receiving positive feedback were the movement and use of bright colours, which were said to grab people’s attention, the clear call to action, the cross-section of food in the grocery cart, the URL, the messages that set expectations about website content and the Government of Canada wordmark.
Elements receiving criticism were that the scenes moved too fast and that it does not compel the viewer to take action.
Feedback on messaging
The most popular message was A, followed by messages B and C in a tie for second. Among the younger cohort (18-34), message A was by far the most preferred with B and C barely gaining any traction, whereas among participants 35 and older, there was a more even split between preferences for A, B or C.
The key strength of message A was that it made participants think and question something that they may have not thought about in the past. On the other hand, those who liked messages B or C were likely to point to the fact that they wanted to learn what they could do to help out – either how to report food fraud (message B) or how to help the government prevent it (message C).
However, as was seen when discussing the static images, the general feedback for all 3 messages was that there should be more information – either a longer tag line, more text (such as combining messages A and B, for example), and a URL.
Qualitative research disclaimer
Qualitative research seeks to develop insight and direction rather than quantitatively projectable measures. The purpose is not to generate “statistics” but to hear the full range of opinions on a topic, understand the language participants use, gauge degrees of passion and engagement and to leverage the power of the group to inspire ideas. Participants are encouraged to voice their opinions, irrespective of whether or not that view is shared by others.
Due to the sample size, the special recruitment methods used, and the study objectives themselves, it is clearly understood that the work under discussion is exploratory in nature. The findings are not, nor were they intended to be, projectable to a larger population.
Specifically, it is inappropriate to suggest or to infer that few (or many) real world users would behave in one way simply because few (or many) participants behaved in this way during the sessions. This kind of projection can only be made based on quantitative research.
These results are presented and discussed in-depth throughout the detailed results section of the report.
Detailed results
Research purpose and objectives
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is dedicated to safeguarding food, animals and plants which enhances the health and well-being of Canada’s people, environment, and economy. The CFIA continually works to improve the overall health of Canadians.
Canadian law prohibits the labelling, packaging, treating, processing, selling or advertising of any food in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive to consumers. When food is misrepresented, it can be a form of food fraud. Food fraud can mislead consumers and can also be a food safety issue (for example, when products contain undeclared allergens). The CFIA works to protect consumers from food misrepresentation by conducting inspections, analyzing food samples and taking enforcement action. Combatting food fraud is a shared responsibility between government, industry and consumers. Since food fraud is meant to deceive consumers, it is not always easy to know whether a food is fraudulent or not. Even so, consumers play an important role in identifying and tackling food fraud.
The CFIA commissioned Quorus to collect up-to-date opinion data from the public on a variety of topics related to the accurate representation of food.
This research builds upon previous quantitative research on food safety and food fraud conducted by Quorus for the CFIA in 2019-2020. In 2022, research was expanded to conduct further quantitative and qualitative research in order to meet the CFIA’s objective of collecting up-to-date opinion data from the public on a variety of topics related to the accurate representation of food.
The objectives of the research were as follows:
Quantitative
measure Canadians’ awareness and understanding of and food fraud
measure Canadians’ habits and concerns about food fraud
measure Canadians’ sources of information on food fraud
measure Canadians’ perceptions about food fraud
measure Canadians’ understanding of communications messaging and images
compare and contrast findings with previous research findings and where possible consider differences from other public opinion research
Qualitative
gather opinions and feelings of Canadians surrounding messaging and communications about food fraud
better understand the thoughts and opinions of Canadians on food fraud by allowing Canadians from all different backgrounds to elaborate and fully explain their experience with or awareness of food fraud
Quantitative research results
General impressions of food fraud
Food fraud was defined for respondents as occurring when food is misrepresented. Just over one-quarter of Canadians had some awareness (28%) of food fraud, including those who had read or heard about food fraud “a great deal” (4%). Approximately one-third (36%) indicated not reading or hearing much about it or indicated they have not heard about the topic at all (35%).
Reported awareness of food fraud was highest among males (some or a great deal of awareness, 30%) respondents under 25 years old (33% some or a great deal).
Figure 1 – Awareness of food fraud – tracking
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| A great deal | 4% | 5% |
| Some | 24% | 27% |
| Not much | 36% | 39% |
| Nothing at all | 35% | 27% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 1% | 3% |
Figure 2 – Awareness of food fraud – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A great deal | 4% | - | 5% | 5% | 3% | 9% | 3% | 1% | 6% | 2% |
| Some | 24% | 25% | 28% | 21% | 24% | 24% | 20% | 27% | 24% | 23% |
| Not much | 36% | 25% | 39% | 35% | 38% | 37% | 36% | 36% | 36% | 37% |
| Nothing at all | 35% | 50% | 28% | 38% | 34% | 28% | 39% | 35% | 33% | 37% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 1% | - | 1% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 2% | <1% | 2% | 1% |
While many Canadians were not informed a great deal about food fraud they were relatively concerned. 4 in 10 (40%) Canadians indicated they were fairly concerned about food fraud (those who responded indicated 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) including almost one-quarter (22%) who were very concerned. A further one-third (36%) were moderately concerned about food fraud while half that amount (18%) showed little or no concern.
Those who were fairly concerned about food fraud were also the ones who were most aware of it (40% had some or a great deal of awareness). On the other hand, a majority of those who showed little or no concern for food fraud knew nothing at all (53%) or not much about food fraud (39%). Concern for food fraud was highest among females (44% are fairly concerned) and those over 55 years of age (50% fairly concerned). On a regional basis, concern was highest in Atlantic Canada (44%) and it decreased when moving west across Canada where it was lowest (36%) in BC.
Figure 3 – Concerns surrounding food fraud
| Total | |
|---|---|
| Fairly concerned (7,6) | 40% |
| Some concern (5,4) | 36% |
| Little or no concern (3,2,1) | 18% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 6% |
Figure 4 – Awareness of food fraud – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A great deal | 4% | 7% | 3% | 1% |
| Some | 24% | 33% | 26% | 5% |
| Not much | 36% | 33% | 40% | 39% |
| Nothing at all | 35% | 25% | 32% | 53% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 1% | - | <1% | 1% |
Figure 5 – Concerns surrounding food fraud – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly concerned (7,6) | 40% | 44% | 43% | 41% | 36% | 31% | 36% | 50% | 36% | 44% |
| Some concern (5,4) | 36% | 24% | 38% | 34% | 38% | 46% | 36% | 28% | 36% | 35% |
| Little or no concern (3,2,1) | 18% | 19% | 17% | 18% | 20% | 18% | 22% | 15% | 23% | 14% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 6% | 13% | 2% | 7% | 7% | 5% | 5% | 8% | 5% | 7% |
Importance of food fraud slightly exceeded the level of concern as half (49%) saw this as a fairly important issue (those who responded indicated 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) including one-third (32%) who rated this as a very important issue. More of those age 55 years or more (63%) saw this as fairly important compared to other age cohorts. Those who were fairly concerned also placed a high degree of importance (85% see this as fairly important) on food fraud when buying food.
Figure 6 – Importance of food fraud when buying food
| Total | |
|---|---|
| Fairly important (7,6) | 49% |
| Some importance (5,4,3) | 34% |
| Little or no importance (2,1) | 9% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% |
Figure 7 – Importance of food fraud when buying food – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly important (7,6) | 49% | 51% | 48% | 48% | 49% | 37% | 41% | 63% | 46% | 51% |
| Some importance (5,4,3) | 34% | 26% | 36% | 33% | 35% | 45% | 37% | 23% | 37% | 31% |
| Little or no importance (2,1) | 9% | 14% | 8% | 9% | 10% | 9% | 12% | 7% | 11% | 7% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 10% | 7% | 10% | 6% | 9% | 9% | 7% | 6% | 10% |
Figure 8 – Importance of food fraud when buying food – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=383) | Some concern (n=335) | Little or no concern (n=172) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly important (7,6) | 49% | 85% | 32% | 11% |
| Some importance (5,4,3) | 34% | 11% | 60% | 36% |
| Little or no importance (2,1) | 9% | <1% | 2% | 46% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 3% | 6% | 7% |
Survey participants were asked to provide examples of what they considered misrepresented food. Labelling and misrepresentation issues were cited by one-third (34%) of Canadians as examples of misrepresented food. Product issues (17%) and specific food issues (16%) made up the rest of the bulk of the examples.
Figure 9 – Examples of misrepresented food – tracking
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Labelling / misrepresentation issues | 34% | 42% |
| Product issues | 17% | 11% |
| Specific food issues | 16% | 29% |
| Other | 3% | 6% |
| DK/No answer | 39% | 42% |
Figure 10 – Examples of misrepresented food – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labelling / misrepresentation issues | 34% | 36% | 35% | 34% | 33% | 35% | 34% | 33% | 30% | 38% |
| Product issues | 17% | 16% | 22% | 14% | 16% | 17% | 15% | 17% | 16% | 17% |
| Specific food issues | 16% | 6% | 16% | 16% | 18% | 9% | 13% | 23% | 18% | 14% |
| Other | 3% | 2% | 3% | 3% | 2% | 4% | 3% | 1% | 3% | 3% |
| DK/No answer | 39% | 48% | 31% | 41% | 39% | 42% | 40% | 35% | 40% | 37% |
Figure 11 – Examples of misrepresented food – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labelling / misrepresentation issues | 34% | 38% | 33% | 32% |
| Product issues | 17% | 19% | 17% | 11% |
| Specific food issues | 16% | 20% | 16% | 10% |
| Other | 3% | 4% | 3% | 2% |
| DK/No answer | 39% | 28% | 39% | 51% |
The main cause of food fraud was seen as a deliberate use of lower quality ingredients (72% mention this) as some companies may try to get an advantage over other companies (59%). Nearly one-third of Canadians (29%) offered a more forgiving response, feeling that mistakes can happen along the food supply chain. Very few felt that food fraud is a blatant attempt to mislead or take advantage of consumers (2%) however, the deliberate use of low-quality ingredients was considered misleading.
Those who were more concerned about food fraud were more likely to feel that it was a deliberate use of lower quality ingredients (78%) as companies try to get an advantage over other competitors (65%).
Figure 12 – Causes of food fraud
| Total | |
|---|---|
| Deliberate use of lower quality ingredients | 72% |
| Companies trying to get an advantage over other companies | 59% |
| Mistakes may happen along the food supply chain | 29% |
| Companies wanting to increase profits / corporate greed | 3% |
| Attempt to mislead consumers / fraudulent companies taking advantage of consumers | 2% |
| Other | 4% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 10% |
Figure 13 – Causes of food fraud – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate use of lower quality ingredients | 72% | 76% | 70% | 71% | 75% | 75% | 71% | 72% | 73% | 72% |
| Companies trying to get an advantage over other companies | 59% | 66% | 60% | 55% | 62% | 60% | 59% | 59% | 59% | 59% |
| Mistakes may happen along the food supply chain | 29% | 29% | 28% | 29% | 29% | 38% | 25% | 25% | 30% | 28% |
| Companies wanting to increase profits / corporate greed | 3% | 8% | 2% | 2% | 3% | 1% | 2% | 5% | 2% | 3% |
| Attempt to mislead consumers / fraudulent companies taking advantage of consumers | 2% | 1% | 1% | 3% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 3% | 2% | 2% |
| Other | 4% | 2% | 6% | 4% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 7% | 4% | 4% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 10% | 6% | 8% | 11% | 10% | 7% | 11% | 10% | 9% | 11% |
Figure 14 – Causes of food fraud – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate use of lower quality ingredients | 72% | 78% | 73% | 65% |
| Companies trying to get an advantage over other companies | 59% | 65% | 59% | 51% |
| Mistakes may happen along the food supply chain | 29% | 28% | 27% | 33% |
| Companies wanting to increase profits / corporate greed | 3% | 5% | 2% | 1% |
| Attempt to mislead consumers / fraudulent companies taking advantage of consumers | 2% | 3% | 1% | 2% |
| Other | 4% | 6% | 3% | 1% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 10% | 6% | 8% | 17% |
Experience with food fraud
1 in 5 (20%) had personally encountered misrepresented food or food fraud (16%). Of those who encountered misrepresented food or food fraud the main commodities were with processed food (35%), meat (32%), organic foods (30%) and fish (30%). Fruits and vegetables (18%), oils (16%), poultry (15%), fruit juices (15%), honey (15%), dairy (11%), coffee/tea (11%), and eggs were reported as misrepresented by between 1 and 2 out of 10.
Figure 15 – Encountering misrepresented food / food fraud – tracking
| 2022 (n=500) | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 20% | 36% |
| No | 51% | 64% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 29% | - |
| 2022 (n=500) | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 16% | - |
| No | 55% | - |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 30% | - |
Figure 16 – Encountering misrepresented food / food fraud – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=500) | ATL (n=33) | QC (n=110) | ON (n=201) | WEST (n=156) | 18-34 (n=139) | 35-54 (n=180) | 55+ (n=181) | Male (n=239) | Female (n=259) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 20% | 13% | 22% | 18% | 23% | 22% | 21% | 18% | 24% | 17% |
| No | 51% | 64% | 54% | 47% | 52% | 53% | 49% | 52% | 53% | 49% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 29% | 23% | 24% | 35% | 25% | 25% | 31% | 29% | 23% | 33% |
| Total (n=500) | ATL (n=35) | QC (n=132) | ON (n=184) | WEST (n=149) | 18-34 (n=133) | 35-54 (n=187) | 55+ (n=180) | Male (n=255) | Female (n=244) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 16% | 12% | 17% | 13% | 18% | 15% | 13% | 18% | 18% | 13% |
| No | 55% | 51% | 58% | 55% | 52% | 58% | 55% | 52% | 53% | 56% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 30% | 37% | 25% | 31% | 31% | 27% | 32% | 30% | 29% | 31% |
Figure 17 – Encountering misrepresented food / food fraud – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=500) | Fairly concerned (n=197) | Some concern (n=186) | Little or no concern (n=89) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 20% | 28% | 19% | 11% |
| No | 51% | 42% | 53% | 70% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 29% | 30% | 27% | 19% |
| Total (n=500) | Fairly concerned (n=198) | Some concern (n=172) | Little or no concern (n=97) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 16% | 21% | 16% | 7% |
| No | 55% | 50% | 52% | 66% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 30% | 29% | 32% | 27% |
Figure 18 – Encountering misrepresented food commodities – tracking
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Processed products | 35% | 27% |
| Meat | 32% | 20% |
| Organic foods | 30% | 23% |
| Fish | 30% | 33% |
| Fresh fruits and vegetables | 18% | 15% |
| Oils | 16% | 16% |
| Poultry | 15% | 12% |
| Fruit juices | 15% | 25% |
| Honey | 15% | 20% |
| Dairy | 11% | 12% |
| Coffee and tea | 11% | 11% |
| Eggs or processed egg | 10% | 9% |
| Spices | 9% | 10% |
| Maple | 3% | 9% |
| Bread | 3% | - |
| Boxed items | 2% | - |
| Cereal | 1% | - |
| Canned food | 1% | - |
| Other | 4% | - |
| DK/Prefer not to say | <1% | - |
Figure 19 – Encountering misrepresented food commodities – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=182) | ATL (n=10) | QC (n=48) | ON (n=62) | WEST (n=62) | 18-34 (n=52) | 35-54 (n=63) | 55+ (n=67) | Male (n=101) | Female (n=81) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Processed products | 35% | 18% | 28% | 42% | 34% | 28% | 40% | 35% | 32% | 37% |
| Meat | 32% | 31% | 36% | 32% | 29% | 33% | 32% | 31% | 33% | 31% |
| Organic foods | 30% | 40% | 27% | 29% | 33% | 29% | 23% | 37% | 32% | 28% |
| Fish | 30% | 39% | 31% | 35% | 24% | 21% | 28% | 39% | 29% | 32% |
| Fresh fruits and vegetables | 18% | 19% | 14% | 18% | 21% | 23% | 11% | 19% | 24% | 10% |
| Oils | 16% | 9% | 17% | 22% | 10% | 11% | 12% | 22% | 21% | 9% |
| Poultry | 15% | 41% | 13% | 16% | 13% | 15% | 22% | 10% | 16% | 15% |
| Fruit juices | 15% | 20% | 18% | 14% | 13% | 20% | 15% | 12% | 12% | 19% |
| Honey | 15% | 17% | 14% | 15% | 14% | 7% | 20% | 16% | 14% | 16% |
| Dairy | 11% | 9% | 9% | 14% | 11% | 18% | 10% | 8% | 12% | 11% |
| Coffee and tea | 11% | 20% | 6% | 12% | 12% | 16% | 10% | 7% | 12% | 9% |
| Eggs or processed egg | 10% | 11% | 5% | 8% | 17% | 10% | 9% | 11% | 8% | 13% |
| Spices | 9% | 9% | 5% | 9% | 12% | 11% | 4% | 12% | 8% | 11% |
| Maple | 3% | 11% | 2% | 4% | 2% | 5% | 5% | - | 4% | 1% |
| Bread | 3% | - | 5% | 2% | 3% | 3% | 2% | 3% | 3% | 2% |
| Boxed items | 2% | - | 2% | 2% | 2% | - | 1% | 3% | 2% | 1% |
| Cereal | 1% | - | 3% | 2% | - | - | 2% | 2% | - | 3% |
| Canned food | 1% | - | - | 3% | - | - | - | 3% | 1% | 1% |
| Other | 4% | - | 2% | 3% | 6% | 1% | 5% | 4% | 3% | 5% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | <1% | - | 2% | - | - | 1% | - | - | - | 1% |
Figure 20 – Encountering misrepresented food commodities – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=182) | Fairly concerned (n=99) | Some concern (n=64) | Little or no concern (n=18) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Processed products | 35% | 32% | 39% | 34% |
| Meat | 32% | 37% | 28% | 16% |
| Organic foods | 30% | 32% | 24% | 45% |
| Fish | 30% | 31% | 30% | 25% |
| Fresh fruits and vegetables | 18% | 21% | 12% | 21% |
| Oils | 16% | 17% | 17% | 5% |
| Poultry | 15% | 17% | 15% | 10% |
| Fruit juices | 15% | 10% | 19% | 32% |
| Honey | 15% | 16% | 14% | 11% |
| Dairy | 11% | 13% | 8% | 11% |
| Coffee and tea | 11% | 5% | 18% | 16% |
| Eggs or processed egg | 10% | 13% | 7% | 6% |
| Spices | 9% | 12% | 8% | - |
| Maple | 3% | 3% | 2% | 6% |
| Bread | 3% | 1% | 4% | 5% |
| Boxed items | 2% | 2% | 2% | - |
| Cereal | 1% | 1% | - | 8% |
| Canned food | 1% | 1% | 2% | - |
| Other | 4% | 3% | 3% | 14% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | <1% | - | 1% | - |
The main reported issues with misrepresented food centered on questioning the purity or authenticity of the product (10%). Issues with ingredients, either mislabelling or omitting ingredients (9%) and mislabelling in general (7%) were also experienced by some Canadians. Products of low quality (8%), different type of product than claimed (8%), product freshness (5%), and false organic/eco-friendly claims (7%) were product-related misrepresentations experienced by slightly less consumers. All other claims were experienced by less than 5% of Canadians.
Figure 21 – Issue with misrepresented food
| Total | |
|---|---|
| It wasn’t a real/ pure product / questionable authenticity | 10% |
| Mislabelling ingredients / ingredients omitted / ingredients | 9% |
| Low quality product | 8% |
| It was a different type of product | 8% |
| Mislabelling (general) | 7% |
| Claimed to be organic/eco-friendly but wasn’t | 7% |
| Lack of freshness of the product | 5% |
| Fake expiry date / product expired | 4% |
| Claimed to be free range/wild but wasn’t | 4% |
| Claimed it was a local product but wasn’t / not 100% Canadian | 4% |
| Additive / antibiotics / GMO | 4% |
| Small quantity of the product in the package | 3% |
| Price fixing / increased price | 3% |
| Commercial vs reality | 3% |
| Product weight is reduced but the prices stays the same | 2% |
| Bad taste of the product | 2% |
| Wrong weight | 2% |
| No disclosure of the origin of the product | 2% |
| Allergic ingredients | 2% |
| Being promoted as healthier | 1% |
| Other | 9% |
| Don’t know/Prefer not to say | 13% |
Figure 22 – Issue with misrepresented food – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=181) | ATL (n=10) | QC (n=47) | ON (n=62) | WEST (n=62) | 18-34 (n=51) | 35-54 (n=63) | 55+ (n=67) | Male (n=101) | Female (n=80) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| It wasn’t a real/ pure product / questionable authenticity | 10% | 9% | 15% | 6% | 12% | 12% | 12% | 8% | 7% | 15% |
| Mislabelling ingredients / ingredients omitted / ingredients | 9% | - | 3% | 14% | 11% | 7% | 6% | 14% | 7% | 13% |
| Low quality product | 8% | 22% | 3% | 12% | 7% | 3% | 13% | 8% | 9% | 8% |
| It was a different type of product | 8% | 18% | 9% | 6% | 8% | 3% | 11% | 9% | 11% | 4% |
| Mislabelling (general) | 7% | 19% | 8% | 6% | 6% | 8% | 10% | 4% | 11% | 3% |
| Claimed to be organic/eco-friendly but wasn’t | 7% | - | 9% | 3% | 9% | 12% | 4% | 5% | 5% | 8% |
| Lack of freshness of the product | 5% | 11% | 5% | 5% | 6% | 3% | 5% | 8% | 5% | 7% |
| Fake expiry date / product expired | 4% | - | 10% | 4% | - | 2% | 6% | 4% | 5% | 2% |
| Claimed to be free range/wild but wasn’t | 4% | - | 3% | 3% | 6% | 2% | 2% | 7% | 2% | 6% |
| Claimed it was a local product but wasn’t / not 100% Canadian | 4% | - | 4% | 3% | 5% | - | 1% | 9% | 3% | 4% |
| Additive / antibiotics / GMO | 4% | - | 5% | 5% | 2% | - | 5% | 5% | 2% | 6% |
| Small quantity of the product in the package | 3% | - | 9% | - | 2% | 7% | 1% | 1% | 4% | 2% |
| Price fixing / increased price | 3% | - | 2% | 2% | 5% | 2% | 4% | 3% | 3% | 3% |
| Commercial vs reality | 3% | - | 2% | - | 6% | 5% | 4% | - | 4% | 2% |
| Product weight is reduced but the prices stays the same | 2% | - | 10% | - | - | - | 1% | 5% | 2% | 3% |
| Bad taste of the product | 2% | - | - | 3% | 3% | 1% | 1% | 3% | 2% | 2% |
| Wrong weight | 2% | - | 3% | 1% | 2% | - | 1% | 4% | 2% | 2% |
| No disclosure of the origin of the product | 2% | - | - | 3% | 2% | - | - | 5% | 2% | 2% |
| Allergic ingredients | 2% | - | - | 5% | - | - | 3% | 2% | - | 4% |
| Being promoted as healthier | 1% | 10% | - | - | 1% | - | 3% | - | 1% | 1% |
| Other | 9% | 11% | 7% | 13% | 8% | 11% | 12% | 6% | 7% | 13% |
| Don’t know/Prefer not to say | 13% | 22% | 7% | 20% | 9% | 34% | 5% | 4% | 15% | 10% |
Figure 23 – Issue with misrepresented food – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=181) | Fairly concerned (n=99) | Some concern (n=63) | Little or no concern (n=18) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| It wasn’t a real/ pure product / questionable authenticity | 10% | 12% | 7% | 15% |
| Mislabelling ingredients / ingredients omitted / ingredients | 9% | 12% | 6% | 6% |
| Low quality product | 8% | 9% | 9% | 5% |
| It was a different type of product | 8% | 7% | 8% | 10% |
| Mislabelling (general) | 7% | 3% | 12% | 16% |
| Claimed to be organic/eco-friendly but wasn’t | 7% | 6% | 4% | 20% |
| Lack of freshness of the product | 5% | 8% | 3% | 0% |
| Fake expiry date / product expired | 4% | 5% | 1% | 5% |
| Claimed to be free range/wild but wasn’t | 4% | 3% | 6% | - |
| Claimed it was a local product but wasn’t / not 100% Canadian | 4% | 4% | 3% | 5% |
| Additive / antibiotics / GMO | 4% | 6% | 1% | - |
| Small quantity of the product in the package | 3% | 1% | 6% | 5% |
| Price fixing / increased price | 3% | 1% | 6% | 4% |
| Commercial vs reality | 3% | 1% | 2% | 16% |
| Product weight is reduced but the prices stays the same | 2% | 4% | - | 6% |
| Bad taste of the product | 2% | 2% | 3% | - |
| Wrong weight | 2% | 2% | 2% | - |
| No disclosure of the origin of the product | 2% | 3% | - | - |
| Allergic ingredients | 2% | 1% | 3% | - |
| Being promoted as healthier | 1% | 2% | - | - |
| Other | 9% | 11% | 8% | 8% |
| Don’t know/Prefer not to say | 13% | 12% | 18% | - |
More than half (57%) claimed they would report an issue if they thought that a food product they purchased was fraudulent or misrepresented. Another third (33%) felt they would just throw the product away. Conversely, nearly 1 in 5 Canadians (17%) said that they likely would not take any action.
Canadians in Atlantic Canada (74%), Quebec (62%) and those who are age 55 years or more (64%) were more likely to indicate they would report the issue whereas those in Ontario (38%), the West (34%) and those who were 18-24 years of age (41%) were more likely to say they would throw the product away.
Figure 24 – Actions taken when encountering misrepresented food
| Total | |
|---|---|
| Report the issue | 57% |
| Throw the product away | 33% |
| Stop purchasing said product from store | 3% |
| Return product to store | 3% |
| Ask for refund | 1% |
| Contact store/management/company | 1% |
| Other | 1% |
| None of the above. I probably would not take any action | 17% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 11% |
Figure 25 – Actions taken when encountering misrepresented food – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Report the issue | 57% | 74% | 62% | 57% | 51% | 56% | 51% | 64% | 57% | 58% |
| Throw the product away | 33% | 26% | 24% | 38% | 34% | 41% | 31% | 28% | 32% | 33% |
| Stop purchasing said product from store | 3% | 3% | 2% | 3% | 4% | 1% | 3% | 4% | 2% | 4% |
| Return product to store | 3% | 1% | 1% | 3% | 4% | <1% | 1% | 6% | 3% | 2% |
| Ask for refund | 1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 1% | - | 1% | 2% | 1% | 1% |
| Contact store/management/company | 1% | - | <1% | 1% | 1% | <1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Other | 1% | - | <1% | 1% | 1% | <1% | 1% | 1% | <1% | 1% |
| None of the above. I probably would not take any action | 17% | 11% | 18% | 16% | 18% | 19% | 21% | 12% | 16% | 17% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 11% | 6% | 8% | 12% | 14% | 7% | 15% | 11% | 13% | 9% |
Figure 26 – Actions taken when encountering misrepresented food – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Report the issue | 57% | 70% | 53% | 40% |
| Throw the product away | 33% | 38% | 31% | 25% |
| Stop purchasing said product from store | 3% | 4% | 2% | 2% |
| Return product to store | 3% | 3% | 2% | 2% |
| Ask for refund | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Contact store/management/company | 1% | 1% | 1% | <1% |
| Other | 1% | <1% | 1% | <1% |
| None of the above. I probably would not take any action | 17% | 7% | 19% | 34% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 11% | 7% | 13% | 13% |
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (53%) and the retailer (35%) were chosen as the preferred places for reporting suspected food fraud issues.
Manufacturers (21%) and other regulators such as, provincial (21%) or local public health authorities (19%), the Better Business Bureau (18%) and other government departments (17%) were next in line for receiving reports of food fraud. Turning the issue over to a legal authority such as the police was seen as an option for very few (3%).
Figure 27 – Reporting food fraud issues
| Total | |
|---|---|
| Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) | 53% |
| Retailer | 35% |
| Manufacturer | 21% |
| Provincial public health authority | 21% |
| Local/regional public health authority | 19% |
| Better Business Bureau | 18% |
| A Government of Canada department other than the CFIA | 17% |
| Police | 3% |
| Other | 1% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 12% |
| Would not report the issue | 10% |
Figure 28 – Reporting food fraud issues – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) | 53% | 60% | 59% | 48% | 52% | 48% | 49% | 59% | 56% | 50% |
| Retailer | 35% | 30% | 39% | 35% | 34% | 25% | 30% | 47% | 35% | 36% |
| Manufacturer | 21% | 26% | 21% | 21% | 21% | 23% | 23% | 18% | 17% | 26% |
| Provincial public health authority | 21% | 33% | 15% | 22% | 23% | 17% | 17% | 28% | 23% | 20% |
| Local/regional public health authority | 19% | 24% | 14% | 22% | 17% | 11% | 17% | 26% | 19% | 19% |
| Better Business Bureau | 18% | 33% | 9% | 19% | 21% | 14% | 18% | 21% | 21% | 16% |
| A Government of Canada department other than the CFIA | 17% | 22% | 14% | 16% | 20% | 17% | 17% | 18% | 20% | 15% |
| Police | 3% | 9% | 3% | 3% | 2% | 3% | 3% | 4% | 5% | 2% |
| Other | 1% | - | <1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | <1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 12% | 9% | 9% | 13% | 15% | 11% | 16% | 9% | 11% | 13% |
| Would not report the issue | 10% | 8% | 11% | 11% | 7% | 13% | 12% | 5% | 8% | 11% |
Figure 29 – Reporting food fraud issues – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) | 53% | 60% | 50% | 40% |
| Retailer | 35% | 41% | 34% | 29% |
| Manufacturer | 21% | 25% | 23% | 15% |
| Provincial public health authority | 21% | 25% | 19% | 16% |
| Local/regional public health authority | 19% | 22% | 17% | 15% |
| Better Business Bureau | 18% | 22% | 17% | 13% |
| A Government of Canada department other than the CFIA | 17% | 21% | 17% | 10% |
| Police | 3% | 4% | 3% | 2% |
| Other | 1% | 1% | 1% | <1% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 12% | 8% | 13% | 15% |
| Would not report the issue | 10% | 6% | 9% | 19% |
Regulation of food fraud
If a company was found guilty of misrepresenting food, imposing a fine seemed to be the appropriate enforcement action for almost half of Canadians (46%). Canadians seemed to be generally forgiving as severe penalties such as jail time (6%) and closing businesses (5%) were less acceptable. Media exposure or publicity was acceptable (8%) although imposing a large fine or laying charges that lead to imprisonment would certainly come with some level of media presence.
Other stop gap solutions were offered up by less respondents in terms of refunds (6%), product recall (5%), loss of license or permit (4%), investigating and rectifying problem (4%), and prohibiting future production of fraudulent activity (4%).
When asked directly if the CFIA should publish the names of companies that have been found to have misrepresented food, almost all (93%) agreed.
Those with little or no concern for food fraud were twice as likely (41%) than those who were fairly concerned (22%) to be unsure or to refuse to answer when asked what enforcement action should be taken. However, nearly all of the concerned segments, when asked directly, thought the CFIA should publish the names of companies that have been found to have misrepresented food.
Figure 30 – Enforcement actions for food fraud
| Total | |
|---|---|
| Impose a fine / Large fine | 46% |
| Media exposure / Let public know / Publicity | 8% |
| Charges / Imprisonment/jail time | 6% |
| Refund / Compensation | 6% |
| Close down the business | 5% |
| Recall / Pull product from shelves | 5% |
| Cancel/Loss of license/permit | 4% |
| Fix the problem / Stop production until rectified/investigated | 4% |
| Prohibit them from future endeavors/importation | 4% |
| Subject to more inspections/regulations | 3% |
| Class action suit | 2% |
| Other | 3% |
| None / Nothing | <1% |
| DK / Refused | 31% |
Figure 31 – Enforcement actions for food fraud – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Impose a fine / Large fine | 46% | 49% | 43% | 49% | 43% | 41% | 39% | 55% | 48% | 43% |
| Media exposure / Let public know / Publicity | 8% | 9% | 11% | 7% | 6% | 6% | 5% | 12% | 6% | 10% |
| Charges / Imprisonment/jail time | 6% | 2% | 3% | 9% | 5% | 5% | 6% | 6% | 6% | 6% |
| Refund / Compensation | 6% | 3% | 5% | 6% | 7% | 10% | 6% | 3% | 6% | 6% |
| Close down the business | 5% | 4% | 5% | 6% | 4% | 3% | 7% | 4% | 4% | 6% |
| Recall / Pull product from shelves | 5% | 7% | 6% | 4% | 5% | 7% | 4% | 5% | 4% | 6% |
| Cancel/Loss of license/permit | 4% | 6% | 3% | 4% | 5% | 2% | 3% | 6% | 6% | 2% |
| Fix the problem / Stop production until rectified/investigated | 4% | 2% | 2% | 4% | 5% | 7% | 2% | 3% | 3% | 5% |
| Prohibit them from future endeavors/importation | 4% | 4% | 3% | 3% | 5% | 5% | 4% | 3% | 3% | 4% |
| Subject to more inspections/regulations | 3% | 5% | 3% | 2% | 3% | 3% | 2% | 3% | 2% | 4% |
| Class action suit | 2% | 1% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 4% | 2% | <1% | 2% | 2% |
| Other | 3% | - | 4% | 3% | 2% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 4% | 2% |
| None / Nothing | <1% | - | 1% | <1% | <1% | 1% | - | 1% | 1% | <1% |
| DK / Refused | 31% | 29% | 28% | 29% | 35% | 34% | 36% | 24% | 29% | 32% |
Figure 32 – Enforcement actions for food fraud – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Impose a fine / Large fine | 46% | 49% | 47% | 42% |
| Media exposure / Let public know / Publicity | 8% | 10% | 6% | 7% |
| Charges / Imprisonment/jail time | 6% | 8% | 5% | 2% |
| Refund / Compensation | 6% | 7% | 7% | 4% |
| Close down the business | 5% | 7% | 4% | 2% |
| Recall / Pull product from shelves | 5% | 3% | 7% | 6% |
| Cancel/Loss of license/permit | 4% | 5% | 4% | 1% |
| Fix the problem / Stop production until rectified/investigated | 4% | 3% | 5% | 3% |
| Prohibit them from future endeavors/importation | 4% | 5% | 5% | 1% |
| Subject to more inspections/regulations | 3% | 2% | 4% | 3% |
| Class action suit | 2% | 2% | 1% | 3% |
| Other | 3% | 4% | 3% | 2% |
| None / Nothing | <1% | 1% | - | 1% |
| DK / Refused | 31% | 22% | 33% | 41% |
Figure 33 – Publishing names of companies misrepresenting food
| Total | |
|---|---|
| Yes | 93% |
| No | 4% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 4% |
Figure 34 – Publishing names of companies misrepresenting food – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 93% | 93% | 95% | 92% | 91% | 89% | 92% | 96% | 92% | 93% |
| No | 4% | 2% | 2% | 3% | 5% | 9% | 3% | 1% | 4% | 3% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 4% | 5% | 3% | 4% | 4% | 3% | 6% | 3% | 4% | 4% |
Figure 35 – Publishing names of companies misrepresenting food – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 93% | 95% | 93% | 91% |
| No | 4% | 3% | 5% | 4% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 4% | 3% | 2% | 5% |
Overwhelmingly Canadians felt that food fraud was a safety risk for consumers (65% answered 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale). Canadians also felt that it is the responsibility of companies in the food industry to make sure their products are not misrepresented (78% answered 6 or 7) and that regulators heavily punish companies caught misrepresenting food (31% answered 6 or 7).
Only a small portion of Canadians (9%) thought that food fraud could be a benefit to Canadians because of the lower cost and similar food quality.
Figure 36 – Agreement with food fraud statements
| Agree (7,6) | Neutral (5,4,3) | Disagree (2,1) | DK/Prefer not to say | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| It is the responsibility of companies in the food industry to make sure products are not misrepresented. | 77% | 17% | 3% | 3% |
| Food fraud is a safety risk to consumers. | 65% | 27% | 2% | 6% |
| Regulators heavily punish companies that are caught misrepresenting food products. | 31% | 29% | 15% | 25% |
| I am not concerned about food fraud. | 10% | 41% | 45% | 4% |
| Food fraud may actually benefit consumers because they can get a lower-cost product that is similar in quality to the original item. | 9% | 31% | 49% | 10% |
Figure 37 – Agreement with food fraud statements – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree (7,6) | 77% | 74% | 80% | 77% | 77% | 68% | 77% | 84% | 73% | 82% |
| Neutral (5,4,3) | 17% | 23% | 14% | 17% | 18% | 27% | 17% | 10% | 21% | 13% |
| Disagree (2,1) | 3% | 1% | 2% | 2% | 4% | 2% | 2% | 4% | 3% | 2% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 3% | 1% | 4% | 4% | 1% | 3% | 5% | 2% | 3% | 3% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree (7,6) | 65% | 78% | 63% | 67% | 61% | 57% | 62% | 73% | 63% | 66% |
| Neutral (5,4,3) | 27% | 15% | 28% | 24% | 33% | 36% | 28% | 20% | 29% | 26% |
| Disagree (2,1) | 2% | 4% | 3% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 3% | 2% | 3% | 2% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 6% | 4% | 6% | 7% | 5% | 5% | 8% | 5% | 5% | 6% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree (7,6) | 31% | 29% | 25% | 35% | 31% | 25% | 27% | 39% | 31% | 31% |
| Neutral (5,4,3) | 29% | 20% | 32% | 28% | 31% | 42% | 30% | 20% | 31% | 28% |
| Disagree (2,1) | 15% | 22% | 18% | 13% | 13% | 10% | 13% | 20% | 16% | 13% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 25% | 29% | 24% | 24% | 25% | 23% | 29% | 21% | 21% | 28% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree (7,6) | 10% | 6% | 6% | 11% | 11% | 12% | 9% | 8% | 12% | 7% |
| Neutral (5,4,3) | 41% | 46% | 36% | 42% | 43% | 51% | 45% | 30% | 42% | 40% |
| Disagree (2,1) | 45% | 43% | 55% | 42% | 42% | 33% | 41% | 58% | 43% | 48% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 4% | 5% | 3% | 5% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 3% | 5% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree (7,6) | 9% | 6% | 16% | 7% | 9% | 11% | 12% | 6% | 9% | 10% |
| Neutral (5,4,3) | 31% | 29% | 30% | 28% | 35% | 39% | 29% | 27% | 31% | 31% |
| Disagree (2,1) | 49% | 58% | 43% | 54% | 46% | 38% | 45% | 60% | 50% | 48% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 10% | 7% | 11% | 11% | 10% | 12% | 14% | 7% | 9% | 11% |
Figure 38 – Agreement with food fraud statements – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree (7,6) | 77% | 85% | 74% | 70% |
| Neutral (5,4,3) | 17% | 10% | 22% | 23% |
| Disagree (2,1) | 3% | 4% | 2% | 2% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 3% | 1% | 2% | 5% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree (7,6) | 65% | 82% | 64% | 35% |
| Neutral (5,4,3) | 27% | 11% | 32% | 52% |
| Disagree (2,1) | 2% | 3% | 1% | 5% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 6% | 4% | 4% | 9% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree (7,6) | 31% | 42% | 26% | 18% |
| Neutral (5,4,3) | 29% | 22% | 35% | 39% |
| Disagree (2,1) | 15% | 17% | 14% | 13% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 25% | 19% | 24% | 30% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree (7,6) | 10% | 11% | 6% | 15% |
| Neutral (5,4,3) | 41% | 17% | 57% | 61% |
| Disagree (2,1) | 45% | 71% | 35% | 18% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 4% | 1% | 2% | 6% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree (7,6) | 9% | 13% | 8% | 4% |
| Neutral (5,4,3) | 31% | 24% | 36% | 38% |
| Disagree (2,1) | 49% | 57% | 46% | 40% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 10% | 5% | 10% | 17% |
Canadians overwhelmingly (68%) would turn to the federal government for information about food fraud or potential food fraud. Industry associations would be the choice for one-quarter (25%) of Canadians, followed by the companies in the supply chain (food retailers 18%, food manufacturers 18%, and food distributors 14%).
Figure 39 – Information sources for food fraud
| Total | |
|---|---|
| Government of Canada | 68% |
| Industry Associations | 25% |
| Food retailers | 18% |
| Food manufacturers/ processors | 18% |
| Food distributors | 14% |
| Media (various) | 4% |
| Google / Internet | 2% |
| Consumer groups / watchdogs | 1% |
| Other | 1% |
| Don’t know / Prefer not to say | 18% |
Figure 40 – Information sources for food fraud – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government of Canada | 68% | 83% | 70% | 67% | 64% | 68% | 60% | 75% | 69% | 67% |
| Industry Associations | 25% | 37% | 20% | 26% | 25% | 26% | 25% | 24% | 25% | 25% |
| Food retailers | 18% | 23% | 15% | 19% | 20% | 26% | 17% | 14% | 17% | 19% |
| Food manufacturers/ processors | 18% | 19% | 13% | 18% | 20% | 22% | 18% | 15% | 15% | 20% |
| Food distributors | 14% | 12% | 9% | 14% | 16% | 21% | 11% | 11% | 10% | 17% |
| Media (various) | 4% | 4% | 5% | 4% | 3% | 1% | 5% | 5% | 3% | 5% |
| Google / Internet | 2% | - | 2% | 2% | 2% | 1% | <1% | 4% | 1% | 2% |
| Consumer groups / watchdogs | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | - | <1% | 2% | 1% | 1% |
| Other | 1% | - | 1% | <1% | 1% | <1% | 1% | <1% | <1% | 1% |
| Don’t know / Prefer not to say | 18% | 10% | 16% | 18% | 22% | 11% | 27% | 15% | 18% | 19% |
Figure 41 – Information sources for food fraud – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government of Canada | 68% | 72% | 68% | 61% |
| Industry Associations | 25% | 29% | 24% | 21% |
| Food retailers | 18% | 21% | 16% | 21% |
| Food manufacturers/ processors | 18% | 18% | 20% | 15% |
| Food distributors | 14% | 15% | 13% | 15% |
| Media (various) | 4% | 5% | 4% | 4% |
| Google / Internet | 2% | 3% | 1% | - |
| Consumer groups / watchdogs | 1% | 1% | 1% | - |
| Other | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Don’t know / Prefer not to say | 18% | 12% | 20% | 25% |
Canadians preferred to interact with the Government of Canada in a digital fashion when searching for information about food fraud or potential food fraud, either through a website (75%), social media (43%) or via email (27%). Television also ranked highly among a good portion of Canadians (42%) for gathering information about food fraud.
Figure 42 – Preferred information channels
| Total | |
|---|---|
| Website | 75% |
| Social media | 43% |
| Television | 42% |
| 27% | |
| Telephone information line | 9% |
| In-person | 7% |
| Radio | 1% |
| Newspaper | 1% |
| Media / news (unspecified) | 1% |
| In store | <1% |
| Other | <1% |
| Don’t know / Prefer not to say | 5% |
While websites were high on the list of preferred information sources across all age groups, those who were 18-34 years of age were more likely than older cohorts (35-54 and 55 plus) to turn to social media for information (59% versus 41% and 35%, respectively). Conversely, those 55 years or older (55%) were more likely than Canadians 18-34 and 35-54 years of age (27% and 39%, respectively) to rely on the television as the preferred source of information on food fraud.
Figure 43 – Preferred information channels – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Website | 75% | 74% | 69% | 74% | 80% | 71% | 77% | 75% | 74% | 75% |
| Social media | 43% | 46% | 46% | 45% | 39% | 59% | 41% | 35% | 40% | 47% |
| Television | 42% | 44% | 52% | 41% | 35% | 27% | 39% | 55% | 43% | 41% |
| 27% | 30% | 29% | 29% | 23% | 22% | 27% | 30% | 27% | 27% | |
| Telephone information line | 9% | 9% | 9% | 8% | 11% | 5% | 9% | 12% | 9% | 9% |
| In-person | 7% | 8% | 4% | 8% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 6% | 8% | 5% |
| Radio | 1% | - | 1% | 2% | 1% | - | - | 3% | 1% | 2% |
| Newspaper | 1% | - | 2% | 1% | 1% | <1% | <1% | 2% | 1% | 1% |
| Media / news (unspecified) | 1% | - | <1% | 1% | 1% | <1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| In store | <1% | - | - | 1% | - | - | - | <1% | 1% | - |
| Other | <1% | - | <1% | <1% | <1% | <1% | 1% | - | <1% | <1% |
| Don’t know / Prefer not to say | 5% | 1% | 4% | 7% | 6% | 5% | 8% | 3% | 6% | 5% |
Figure 44 – Preferred information channels – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Website | 75% | 78% | 75% | 72% |
| Social media | 43% | 46% | 45% | 38% |
| Television | 42% | 49% | 39% | 32% |
| 27% | 35% | 27% | 13% | |
| Telephone information line | 9% | 12% | 7% | 8% |
| In-person | 7% | 9% | 6% | 4% |
| Radio | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Newspaper | 1% | 2% | <1% | 1% |
| Media / news (unspecified) | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| In store | <1% | <1% | <1% | - |
| Other | <1% | <1% | <1% | 1% |
| Don’t know / Prefer not to say | 5% | 2% | 4% | 9% |
Not surprisingly, after some consideration of food fraud, the great majority of Canadians (92%) were interested in finding out more about how food fraud affects them, including half (55%) who were fairly interested. Those with the greatest interest were older (69%), female (62%), and living in Quebec (63%).
The vast majority of those who were fairly concerned about food fraud also showed the greatest interest (84% are fairly interested). Only 20% of those who showed little or no concern for food fraud showed a high interest in finding out more about the effects of food fraud.
Figure 45 – Interest in food fraud information
| Total | |
|---|---|
| Fairly interested (7,6) | 55% |
| Some interest (5,4,3) | 37% |
| Little or no interest (2,1) | 6% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 2% |
Figure 46 – Interest in food fraud information – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly interested (7,6) | 55% | 56% | 63% | 57% | 46% | 43% | 48% | 69% | 48% | 62% |
| Some interest (5,4,3) | 37% | 36% | 31% | 35% | 44% | 47% | 40% | 27% | 41% | 33% |
| Little or no interest (2,1) | 6% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 9% | 9% | 7% | 3% | 9% | 4% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 2% | 3% | 2% | 3% | 2% | 1% | 4% | 1% | 3% | 2% |
Figure 47 – Interest in food fraud information – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly interested (7,6) | 55% | 84% | 43% | 20% |
| Some interest (5,4,3) | 37% | 16% | 53% | 52% |
| Little or no interest (2,1) | 6% | <1% | 2% | 25% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 2% | <1% | 2% | 2% |
Expectations for food fraud
Respondents were asked to rate how confident they are that certain types of food commodities they buy are accurately represented, using a 5-point scale. Ratings for the highest confidence levels were assigned to dairy (top-two value of 61%) and fresh fruits and vegetables (60%).
Eggs and processed eggs (55%), maple (54%), coffee and tea (55%), and honey (50%) were thought to be accurately represented by half or more of Canadians.
Just under half felt that poultry (49%), spices (47%), meat (44%), and oils (40%) were accurately represented. Food commodities that were seen as accurately represented by one-third or less of Canadians were fruit juices (35%), fish (33%), organic foods (28%), and processed foods (22%).
Figure 48 – Confidence in food being accurately represented – tracking
| 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 61% | 76% |
| Some confidence (3) | 23% | 17% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 9% | 6% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 7% | 2% |
| 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 60% | 75% |
| Some confidence (3) | 26% | 19% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 8% | 4% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 6% | 2% |
| 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 55% | 68% |
| Some confidence (3) | 26% | 22% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 12% | 7% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 7% | 2% |
| 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 54% | 72% |
| Some confidence (3) | 23% | 16% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 11% | 4% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 13% | 8% |
| 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 55% | 76% |
| Some confidence (3) | 29% | 17% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 8% | 4% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 9% | 3% |
| 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 50% | 70% |
| Some confidence (3) | 26% | 20% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 16% | 7% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 4% |
| 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 49% | 63% |
| Some confidence (3) | 30% | 26% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 13% | 9% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 2% |
| 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 47% | 65% |
| Some confidence (3) | 28% | 24% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 16% | 7% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 10% | 4% |
| 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 44% | 64% |
| Some confidence (3) | 33% | 25% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 16% | 9% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 2% |
| 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 40% | 57% |
| Some confidence (3) | 32% | 29% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 19% | 11% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 3% |
| 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 35% | 53% |
| Some confidence (3) | 33% | 29% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 24% | 15% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 3% |
| 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 33% | 46% |
| Some confidence (3) | 28% | 29% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 29% | 21% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 10% | 4% |
| 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 28% | 46% |
| Some confidence (3) | 27% | 27% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 34% | 22% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 11% | 5% |
| 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 22% | 35% |
| Some confidence (3) | 28% | 36% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 42% | 26% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 7% | 3% |
Figure 49 – Confidence in food being accurately represented – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 61% | 66% | 65% | 59% | 59% | 52% | 58% | 69% | 63% | 59% |
| Some confidence (3) | 23% | 21% | 22% | 27% | 21% | 30% | 24% | 19% | 23% | 24% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 9% | 5% | 10% | 8% | 11% | 11% | 9% | 9% | 7% | 11% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 7% | 8% | 4% | 6% | 9% | 8% | 9% | 4% | 7% | 6% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 60% | 61% | 65% | 62% | 53% | 55% | 57% | 66% | 60% | 61% |
| Some confidence (3) | 26% | 27% | 24% | 24% | 29% | 32% | 24% | 23% | 24% | 28% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 8% | 6% | 8% | 7% | 10% | 7% | 10% | 7% | 9% | 7% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 6% | 6% | 3% | 6% | 8% | 6% | 8% | 3% | 7% | 5% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 55% | 58% | 57% | 57% | 52% | 48% | 54% | 61% | 59% | 52% |
| Some confidence (3) | 26% | 18% | 27% | 26% | 27% | 30% | 27% | 22% | 23% | 28% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 12% | 16% | 11% | 11% | 13% | 13% | 10% | 13% | 9% | 14% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 7% | 7% | 5% | 7% | 8% | 9% | 10% | 3% | 8% | 6% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 54% | 61% | 73% | 50% | 43% | 58% | 54% | 51% | 55% | 53% |
| Some confidence (3) | 23% | 19% | 14% | 25% | 27% | 24% | 22% | 22% | 23% | 23% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 11% | 11% | 9% | 11% | 12% | 8% | 11% | 13% | 11% | 11% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 13% | 9% | 4% | 14% | 18% | 10% | 13% | 15% | 12% | 13% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 55% | 58% | 56% | 54% | 54% | 53% | 52% | 59% | 55% | 55% |
| Some confidence (3) | 29% | 29% | 31% | 29% | 28% | 31% | 27% | 29% | 29% | 29% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 8% | 4% | 7% | 8% | 8% | 5% | 10% | 7% | 7% | 8% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 9% | 9% | 6% | 9% | 10% | 10% | 12% | 5% | 9% | 8% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 50% | 62% | 52% | 48% | 48% | 51% | 46% | 53% | 51% | 49% |
| Some confidence (3) | 26% | 15% | 26% | 29% | 26% | 30% | 26% | 24% | 26% | 26% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 16% | 16% | 17% | 14% | 17% | 12% | 18% | 17% | 13% | 18% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 7% | 5% | 9% | 10% | 8% | 9% | 7% | 10% | 6% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 49% | 45% | 49% | 54% | 45% | 45% | 48% | 54% | 52% | 47% |
| Some confidence (3) | 30% | 37% | 31% | 28% | 30% | 30% | 29% | 30% | 29% | 30% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 13% | 9% | 14% | 11% | 16% | 16% | 13% | 12% | 11% | 16% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 9% | 6% | 7% | 9% | 9% | 10% | 5% | 9% | 7% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 47% | 55% | 48% | 46% | 44% | 56% | 44% | 42% | 46% | 47% |
| Some confidence (3) | 28% | 29% | 30% | 27% | 27% | 24% | 27% | 32% | 30% | 26% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 16% | 9% | 15% | 16% | 17% | 10% | 18% | 18% | 13% | 18% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 10% | 7% | 7% | 10% | 12% | 10% | 11% | 9% | 11% | 9% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 44% | 44% | 42% | 45% | 43% | 40% | 43% | 47% | 50% | 38% |
| Some confidence (3) | 33% | 33% | 35% | 32% | 32% | 33% | 32% | 33% | 30% | 36% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 16% | 14% | 17% | 15% | 16% | 17% | 15% | 16% | 12% | 19% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 9% | 6% | 8% | 9% | 10% | 10% | 5% | 9% | 7% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 40% | 40% | 40% | 39% | 41% | 50% | 40% | 34% | 43% | 38% |
| Some confidence (3) | 32% | 38% | 33% | 33% | 29% | 27% | 29% | 39% | 30% | 35% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 19% | 11% | 21% | 19% | 20% | 15% | 21% | 21% | 18% | 21% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 11% | 6% | 8% | 9% | 8% | 11% | 6% | 10% | 6% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 35% | 35% | 37% | 34% | 35% | 37% | 35% | 34% | 40% | 30% |
| Some confidence (3) | 33% | 33% | 35% | 31% | 33% | 32% | 31% | 35% | 30% | 35% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 24% | 25% | 23% | 25% | 22% | 22% | 25% | 24% | 21% | 26% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 8% | 4% | 11% | 9% | 8% | 10% | 7% | 8% | 9% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 33% | 38% | 32% | 32% | 34% | 34% | 35% | 29% | 35% | 31% |
| Some confidence (3) | 28% | 32% | 29% | 29% | 26% | 33% | 24% | 29% | 26% | 31% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 29% | 24% | 31% | 29% | 29% | 22% | 30% | 34% | 29% | 29% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 10% | 7% | 8% | 10% | 11% | 11% | 11% | 8% | 10% | 9% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 28% | 37% | 35% | 25% | 26% | 41% | 29% | 19% | 28% | 28% |
| Some confidence (3) | 27% | 21% | 27% | 28% | 26% | 31% | 22% | 28% | 26% | 27% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 34% | 34% | 31% | 34% | 37% | 20% | 36% | 42% | 35% | 34% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 11% | 9% | 7% | 13% | 12% | 8% | 13% | 11% | 11% | 10% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 22% | 19% | 21% | 24% | 22% | 27% | 25% | 18% | 26% | 19% |
| Some confidence (3) | 28% | 25% | 28% | 26% | 31% | 26% | 28% | 30% | 30% | 26% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 42% | 48% | 46% | 41% | 38% | 38% | 38% | 48% | 35% | 48% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 7% | 8% | 4% | 8% | 9% | 10% | 10% | 4% | 8% | 6% |
Figure 50 – Confidence in food being accurately represented – by concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 61% | 62% | 56% | 67% |
| Some confidence (3) | 23% | 21% | 31% | 17% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 9% | 7% | 8% | 13% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 7% | 4% | 5% | 8% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 60% | 59% | 57% | 67% |
| Some confidence (3) | 26% | 28% | 32% | 15% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 8% | 10% | 6% | 9% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 6% | 3% | 5% | 8% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 55% | 56% | 49% | 69% |
| Some confidence (3) | 26% | 25% | 32% | 18% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 12% | 16% | 11% | 5% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 7% | 3% | 8% | 8% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 54% | 57% | 50% | 56% |
| Some confidence (3) | 23% | 22% | 27% | 20% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 11% | 13% | 10% | 8% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 13% | 8% | 13% | 16% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 55% | 60% | 48% | 57% |
| Some confidence (3) | 29% | 27% | 35% | 25% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 8% | 9% | 8% | 6% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 9% | 4% | 8% | 12% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 50% | 51% | 47% | 50% |
| Some confidence (3) | 26% | 27% | 28% | 28% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 16% | 17% | 18% | 11% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 5% | 7% | 11% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 49% | 50% | 45% | 57% |
| Some confidence (3) | 30% | 29% | 35% | 24% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 13% | 17% | 12% | 9% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 4% | 8% | 10% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 47% | 47% | 45% | 51% |
| Some confidence (3) | 28% | 29% | 30% | 25% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 16% | 18% | 16% | 12% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 10% | 6% | 9% | 12% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 44% | 44% | 40% | 52% |
| Some confidence (3) | 33% | 31% | 38% | 29% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 16% | 21% | 14% | 9% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 4% | 7% | 10% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 40% | 40% | 39% | 44% |
| Some confidence (3) | 32% | 32% | 36% | 28% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 19% | 24% | 18% | 16% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 4% | 7% | 13% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 35% | 32% | 34% | 44% |
| Some confidence (3) | 33% | 33% | 35% | 30% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 24% | 29% | 23% | 18% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 5% | 8% | 9% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 33% | 33% | 30% | 40% |
| Some confidence (3) | 28% | 28% | 31% | 24% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 29% | 33% | 32% | 21% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 10% | 6% | 8% | 15% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 28% | 30% | 28% | 27% |
| Some confidence (3) | 27% | 27% | 28% | 25% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 34% | 36% | 34% | 34% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 11% | 7% | 9% | 14% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (5,4) | 22% | 19% | 21% | 34% |
| Some confidence (3) | 28% | 26% | 31% | 28% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 42% | 51% | 41% | 29% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 7% | 4% | 7% | 10% |
When asked to rate the likeliness of encountering misrepresented food in Canada, the majority (82% assigning a rating of at least 3 on a 7-point scale) indicated they were somewhat likely (42%) or likely (40%) to encounter food fraud with products imported from other countries to Canada. One-third (34%) indicated they were likely to encounter misrepresented food when purchasing online food products while approximately one-quarter encountered misrepresented food products in restaurants (27%) and with products labelled as a food product of Canada (22%).
Food products made in Canada were least likely to be seen as misrepresented (15%).
Canadians who showed the most concern for food fraud were also more likely to feel that food was misrepresented across all channels.
Figure 51 – Likeliness of encountering misrepresented food – tracking
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Likely (7,6) | 40% | 31% |
| Somewhat likely (5,4,3) | 42% | 49% |
| Unlikely (2,1) | 8% | 11% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 10% | 9% |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Likely (7,6) | 34% | - |
| Somewhat likely (5,4,3) | 43% | - |
| Unlikely (2,1) | 9% | - |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 14% | - |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Likely (7,6) | 27% | - |
| Somewhat likely (5,4,3) | 51% | - |
| Unlikely (2,1) | 11% | - |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 11% | - |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Likely (7,6) | 22% | - |
| Somewhat likely (5,4,3) | 53% | - |
| Unlikely (2,1) | 14% | - |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 11% | - |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Likely (7,6) | 15% | 12% |
| Somewhat likely (5,4,3) | 60% | 52% |
| Unlikely (2,1) | 15% | 25% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 11% | 11% |
Figure 52 – Likeliness of encountering misrepresented food – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likely (7,6) | 40% | 54% | 20% | 44% | 47% | 29% | 36% | 51% | 40% | 40% |
| Somewhat likely (5,4,3) | 42% | 29% | 47% | 40% | 44% | 57% | 42% | 32% | 44% | 41% |
| Unlikely (2,1) | 8% | 7% | 24% | 4% | 2% | 5% | 8% | 10% | 6% | 10% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 10% | 11% | 9% | 12% | 7% | 9% | 14% | 7% | 10% | 10% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likely (7,6) | 34% | 31% | 23% | 35% | 42% | 28% | 30% | 41% | 34% | 33% |
| Somewhat likely (5,4,3) | 43% | 41% | 41% | 45% | 43% | 57% | 44% | 34% | 44% | 42% |
| Unlikely (2,1) | 9% | 6% | 25% | 5% | 3% | 7% | 8% | 12% | 7% | 11% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 14% | 21% | 12% | 16% | 12% | 9% | 18% | 14% | 14% | 14% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likely (7,6) | 27% | 36% | 15% | 31% | 30% | 25% | 24% | 33% | 29% | 25% |
| Somewhat likely (5,4,3) | 51% | 44% | 48% | 50% | 56% | 58% | 50% | 46% | 50% | 51% |
| Unlikely (2,1) | 11% | 6% | 29% | 6% | 5% | 9% | 12% | 11% | 10% | 12% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 11% | 14% | 8% | 13% | 9% | 8% | 14% | 10% | 10% | 11% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likely (7,6) | 22% | 28% | 8% | 28% | 23% | 15% | 19% | 29% | 22% | 22% |
| Somewhat likely (5,4,3) | 53% | 49% | 55% | 48% | 59% | 60% | 51% | 50% | 55% | 51% |
| Unlikely (2,1) | 14% | 11% | 26% | 11% | 8% | 13% | 14% | 13% | 12% | 15% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 11% | 13% | 11% | 13% | 10% | 12% | 15% | 7% | 11% | 11% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likely (7,6) | 15% | 17% | 9% | 16% | 18% | 15% | 13% | 16% | 15% | 15% |
| Somewhat likely (5,4,3) | 60% | 55% | 60% | 58% | 62% | 64% | 56% | 60% | 61% | 58% |
| Unlikely (2,1) | 15% | 16% | 22% | 14% | 10% | 11% | 14% | 18% | 14% | 16% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 11% | 12% | 9% | 12% | 10% | 10% | 16% | 7% | 10% | 11% |
Figure 53 – Likeliness of encountering misrepresented food – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likely (7,6) | 40% | 50% | 35% | 28% |
| Somewhat likely (5,4,3) | 42% | 35% | 48% | 49% |
| Unlikely (2,1) | 8% | 8% | 7% | 12% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 10% | 7% | 10% | 11% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likely (7,6) | 34% | 43% | 31% | 20% |
| Somewhat likely (5,4,3) | 43% | 37% | 47% | 54% |
| Unlikely (2,1) | 9% | 10% | 8% | 12% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 14% | 10% | 14% | 14% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likely (7,6) | 27% | 37% | 25% | 16% |
| Somewhat likely (5,4,3) | 51% | 44% | 54% | 61% |
| Unlikely (2,1) | 11% | 11% | 10% | 12% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 11% | 7% | 11% | 11% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likely (7,6) | 22% | 31% | 19% | 10% |
| Somewhat likely (5,4,3) | 53% | 48% | 59% | 57% |
| Unlikely (2,1) | 14% | 13% | 11% | 20% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 11% | 8% | 11% | 13% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likely (7,6) | 15% | 20% | 14% | 6% |
| Somewhat likely (5,4,3) | 60% | 58% | 64% | 60% |
| Unlikely (2,1) | 15% | 14% | 12% | 23% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 11% | 8% | 10% | 12% |
When asked to rate their level of confidence in the Government of Canada in managing food fraud, more than half (54%) of respondents indicated some confidence while 20% felt very confident. Only 1 in 10 showed little or no confidence and 15% did not know or preferred to not respond.
Figure 54 – Confidence in Government of Canada managing food fraud – tracking
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 20% | 26% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 54% | 54% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 11% | 9% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 15% | 11% |
Figure 55 – Confidence in Government of Canada managing food fraud – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 20% | 32% | 19% | 20% | 19% | 20% | 17% | 24% | 21% | 20% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 54% | 46% | 57% | 55% | 53% | 59% | 51% | 53% | 55% | 53% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 11% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 13% | 7% | 13% | 12% | 12% | 10% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 15% | 12% | 14% | 15% | 16% | 15% | 19% | 11% | 12% | 17% |
Figure 56 – Confidence in Government of Canada managing food fraud – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 20% | 30% | 11% | 16% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 54% | 47% | 64% | 56% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 11% | 12% | 9% | 11% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 15% | 10% | 16% | 17% |
The study explored the perceptions of Canadians regarding who they thought was most responsible for ensuring food in Canada was accurately represented. Results show the Government of Canada was perceived as the most responsible stakeholder: 4 in 10 respondents (39%) ranked the Government of Canada as number 1 - with most responsibility on this issue. Food manufacturers were seen as being most responsible by just over one-quarter of Canadians (26%). All other stakeholders were ranked as most responsible by less than 10% of Canadians.
When all rankings are considered together the Government of Canada and food manufacturers were seen as the top 2 stakeholders most responsible with over half of Canadians (59%) ranking both in the top 3 for responsibility.
Companies that import foods into Canada (44%) and provincial governments (42%) were ranked in the top 3 as responsible by just under half of Canadians while one-third ranked food distributors (33%) in the top 3 followed by less than one-quarter (22%) who ranked farmers as most responsible.
To a much lesser extent, Canadians felt grocery stores (19%) and consumers (6%) were ranked in the top-3 places for responsibility on this matter.
Those who were most concerned about food fraud were more likely to rank the Government of Canada as the most responsible (47% rank as number 1) while those with little of no concern for food fraud were more likely to place the responsibility with the food manufacturers (35%).
Responsibility assigned to the federal government on this aspect was also higher among older respondents, while younger respondents tended to rank the food manufacturers higher.
Figure 57 – Ranking responsibility for ensuring food in Canada is accurately represented – tracking
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 39% | 56% |
| Rank 2 | 12% | 12% |
| Rank 3 | 8% | 10% |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 26% | 15% |
| Rank 2 | 16% | 19% |
| Rank 3 | 17% | 29% |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 8% | 16% |
| Rank 2 | 6% | 6% |
| Rank 3 | 8% | 11% |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 5% | 3% |
| Rank 2 | 26% | 43% |
| Rank 3 | 11% | 15% |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 5% | 7% |
| Rank 2 | 18% | 15% |
| Rank 3 | 21% | 24% |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 5% | - |
| Rank 2 | 10% | - |
| Rank 3 | 18% | - |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 5% | 2% |
| Rank 2 | 5% | 4% |
| Rank 3 | 9% | 9% |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 2% | 2% |
| Rank 2 | 2% | 2% |
| Rank 3 | 3% | 2% |
Figure 58 – Ranking responsibility for ensuring food in Canada is accurately represented – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 39% | 55% | 35% | 37% | 40% | 28% | 33% | 51% | 40% | 38% |
| Rank 2 | 12% | 8% | 12% | 11% | 13% | 14% | 11% | 10% | 10% | 13% |
| Rank 3 | 8% | 7% | 7% | 10% | 8% | 8% | 9% | 8% | 8% | 9% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 26% | 12% | 27% | 28% | 26% | 31% | 29% | 21% | 26% | 27% |
| Rank 2 | 16% | 24% | 18% | 14% | 14% | 12% | 17% | 17% | 15% | 17% |
| Rank 3 | 17% | 21% | 12% | 18% | 18% | 18% | 13% | 20% | 17% | 17% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 8% | 13% | 10% | 6% | 7% | 8% | 10% | 6% | 7% | 8% |
| Rank 2 | 6% | 9% | 5% | 6% | 6% | 7% | 7% | 4% | 6% | 6% |
| Rank 3 | 8% | 8% | 11% | 5% | 8% | 6% | 10% | 7% | 7% | 8% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 5% | 6% | 5% | 5% | 4% | 6% | 5% | 3% | 4% | 5% |
| Rank 2 | 26% | 32% | 26% | 25% | 26% | 20% | 22% | 33% | 26% | 26% |
| Rank 3 | 11% | 5% | 10% | 12% | 12% | 13% | 10% | 12% | 10% | 13% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 5% | 2% | 3% | 6% | 5% | 4% | 5% | 6% | 4% | 6% |
| Rank 2 | 18% | 13% | 17% | 20% | 19% | 17% | 19% | 19% | 18% | 19% |
| Rank 3 | 21% | 28% | 23% | 19% | 20% | 17% | 22% | 23% | 20% | 22% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 5% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 8% | 6% | 6% | 4% | 5% | 5% |
| Rank 2 | 10% | 1% | 9% | 14% | 9% | 12% | 12% | 8% | 12% | 9% |
| Rank 3 | 18% | 17% | 16% | 19% | 19% | 15% | 21% | 17% | 19% | 17% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 5% | 3% | 5% | 6% | 5% | 6% | 6% | 4% | 7% | 3% |
| Rank 2 | 5% | 6% | 4% | 3% | 7% | 6% | 6% | 3% | 6% | 4% |
| Rank 3 | 9% | 8% | 10% | 9% | 7% | 11% | 8% | 7% | 11% | 7% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 2% | 1% | 3% | 2% | 1% | 3% | 2% | 1% | 3% | 1% |
| Rank 2 | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 3% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 1% |
| Rank 3 | 3% | 1% | 3% | 2% | 3% | 4% | 2% | 2% | 4% | 1% |
Figure 59 – Ranking responsibility for ensuring food in Canada is accurately represented – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 39% | 47% | 38% | 32% |
| Rank 2 | 12% | 13% | 13% | 10% |
| Rank 3 | 8% | 6% | 10% | 13% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 26% | 24% | 30% | 35% |
| Rank 2 | 16% | 16% | 15% | 19% |
| Rank 3 | 17% | 19% | 17% | 14% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 8% | 8% | 9% | 4% |
| Rank 2 | 6% | 6% | 5% | 9% |
| Rank 3 | 8% | 9% | 8% | 6% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 5% | 5% | 5% | 5% |
| Rank 2 | 26% | 30% | 28% | 19% |
| Rank 3 | 11% | 12% | 14% | 9% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 5% | 7% | 4% | 5% |
| Rank 2 | 18% | 22% | 20% | 18% |
| Rank 3 | 21% | 17% | 23% | 24% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 5% | 4% | 7% | 6% |
| Rank 2 | 10% | 11% | 11% | 13% |
| Rank 3 | 18% | 18% | 18% | 27% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 5% | 5% | 5% | 8% |
| Rank 2 | 5% | 4% | 6% | 7% |
| Rank 3 | 9% | 9% | 9% | 9% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank 1 | 2% | 2% | 2% | 3% |
| Rank 2 | 2% | 3% | 2% | 1% |
| Rank 3 | 3% | 3% | 2% | 4% |
Labelling
Canadians were asked about their confidence level on how truthful and accurate food labels are. Canadians were most confident with obvious product identifiers such as, what the food is (35% are fairly confident), the amount of food in the package (31%) and the best before date (28%).
Information on nutrition (28%) and ingredients (26%) also had high degrees of confidence. Slightly fewer were fairly confident in labels referencing where the food is from (22%) and the way the food is produced (15%). The least amount of confidence was shown in labels making health (13%) or organic claims (13%). Confidence in these labeling claims seemed to be somewhat lower across the board since 2019.
Figure 60 – Confidence in food product labelling – tracking
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 35% | 44% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 54% | 49% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 6% | 4% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 3% |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 31% | - |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 54% | - |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 10% | - |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | - |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 28% | 34% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 59% | 53% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 8% | 10% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 3% |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 28% | 35% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 59% | 57% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 8% | 6% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 3% |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 26% | 35% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 62% | 56% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 8% | 6% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 2% |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 22% | 31% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 62% | 57% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 11% | 10% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 3% |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 15% | 20% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 65% | 62% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 12% | 11% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 7% |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 13% | 17% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 55% | 62% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 26% | 19% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 6% | 3% |
| 2022 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 13% | 17% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 54% | 57% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 26% | 22% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 4% |
Figure 61 – Confidence in food product labelling – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 35% | 30% | 34% | 36% | 35% | 42% | 31% | 34% | 35% | 35% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 28% | 29% | 30% | 24% | 32% | 25% | 30% | 28% | 29% | 27% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 6% | 3% | 6% | 6% | 5% | 3% | 5% | 7% | 6% | 5% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 10% | 3% | 6% | 5% | 5% | 6% | 4% | 6% | 5% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 31% | 41% | 24% | 34% | 32% | 30% | 28% | 36% | 34% | 29% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 54% | 41% | 63% | 51% | 54% | 60% | 54% | 49% | 52% | 55% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 10% | 11% | 11% | 10% | 8% | 6% | 11% | 11% | 9% | 11% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 8% | 2% | 5% | 6% | 4% | 7% | 3% | 5% | 5% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 28% | 33% | 22% | 30% | 29% | 24% | 28% | 31% | 27% | 29% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 55% | 53% | 60% | 55% | 53% | 65% | 53% | 51% | 58% | 53% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 12% | 7% | 16% | 10% | 12% | 6% | 12% | 15% | 11% | 12% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 8% | 2% | 5% | 6% | 4% | 7% | 3% | 4% | 5% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 28% | 37% | 34% | 27% | 23% | 27% | 27% | 30% | 28% | 28% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 59% | 52% | 58% | 60% | 62% | 63% | 60% | 56% | 59% | 60% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 8% | 4% | 6% | 8% | 10% | 5% | 7% | 10% | 8% | 8% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 8% | 2% | 6% | 6% | 5% | 6% | 4% | 6% | 4% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 26% | 29% | 29% | 27% | 20% | 27% | 23% | 27% | 27% | 25% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 62% | 60% | 62% | 59% | 66% | 65% | 65% | 57% | 60% | 63% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 8% | 4% | 7% | 9% | 8% | 3% | 6% | 13% | 9% | 7% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 8% | 2% | 4% | 6% | 4% | 6% | 3% | 5% | 4% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 22% | 24% | 21% | 21% | 24% | 28% | 23% | 16% | 24% | 20% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 62% | 55% | 67% | 62% | 61% | 60% | 62% | 64% | 62% | 62% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 11% | 12% | 9% | 12% | 10% | 6% | 7% | 17% | 9% | 12% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 9% | 3% | 5% | 5% | 6% | 7% | 3% | 5% | 6% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 15% | 12% | 15% | 17% | 13% | 18% | 14% | 14% | 17% | 13% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 65% | 70% | 66% | 62% | 68% | 68% | 67% | 62% | 65% | 66% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 12% | 6% | 15% | 12% | 11% | 9% | 10% | 16% | 11% | 13% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 12% | 4% | 9% | 8% | 6% | 9% | 8% | 7% | 8% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 13% | 15% | 10% | 17% | 9% | 16% | 13% | 10% | 14% | 12% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 55% | 58% | 57% | 52% | 57% | 62% | 55% | 51% | 56% | 55% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 26% | 18% | 28% | 25% | 27% | 17% | 25% | 33% | 25% | 27% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 6% | 9% | 4% | 6% | 7% | 6% | 8% | 5% | 6% | 7% |
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 13% | 17% | 13% | 13% | 11% | 18% | 13% | 9% | 13% | 12% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 54% | 54% | 54% | 53% | 55% | 61% | 52% | 50% | 55% | 53% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 26% | 18% | 28% | 26% | 26% | 16% | 26% | 32% | 26% | 26% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 11% | 5% | 9% | 8% | 5% | 9% | 8% | 7% | 8% |
Figure 62 – Confidence in food product labelling – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 35% | 36% | 31% | 43% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 28% | 29% | 29% | 26% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 6% | 8% | 5% | 2% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 3% | 4% | 5% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 31% | 33% | 26% | 36% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 54% | 50% | 63% | 51% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 10% | 14% | 8% | 8% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 3% | 3% | 5% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 28% | 29% | 24% | 34% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 55% | 49% | 66% | 55% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 12% | 18% | 8% | 7% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 4% | 3% | 4% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 28% | 29% | 25% | 31% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 59% | 57% | 65% | 58% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 8% | 11% | 7% | 5% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 3% | 3% | 3% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 26% | 27% | 21% | 34% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 62% | 58% | 70% | 59% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 8% | 12% | 6% | 2% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 2% | 3% | 5% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 22% | 24% | 18% | 28% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 62% | 59% | 68% | 62% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 11% | 15% | 9% | 4% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 5% | 3% | 4% | 6% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 15% | 17% | 10% | 21% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 65% | 61% | 74% | 67% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 12% | 17% | 11% | 5% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 6% | 5% | 7% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 13% | 15% | 9% | 15% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 55% | 53% | 60% | 56% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 26% | 29% | 26% | 22% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 6% | 3% | 5% | 7% |
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly confident (7,6) | 13% | 16% | 11% | 10% |
| Some confidence (5,4,3) | 54% | 50% | 57% | 58% |
| Little to no confidence (2,1) | 26% | 29% | 26% | 21% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 8% | 4% | 6% | 10% |
Food labelling claims were fairly important (6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) for half (49%) of Canadians in their decision to purchase certain types of foods. A further 43% placed some importance on the labelling claims when making food purchases. Older respondents aged 55 years or more (59%) and females (54%) were more likely to place labelling claims as an important criterion in food purchase decisions. Not surprisingly, 7 in 10 (71%) of those who were concerned about food fraud feel labelling claims were an important part of the decision to purchase food.
Figure 63 – Importance of labelling claims for purchasing decisions
| Total | |
|---|---|
| Fairly important (7,6) | 49% |
| Some importance (5,4,3) | 43% |
| Little or no importance (2,1) | 4% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 4% |
Figure 64 – Importance of labelling claims for purchasing decisions – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly important (7,6) | 49% | 57% | 42% | 54% | 47% | 43% | 43% | 59% | 44% | 54% |
| Some importance (5,4,3) | 43% | 37% | 48% | 38% | 47% | 48% | 49% | 34% | 48% | 39% |
| Little or no importance (2,1) | 4% | 4% | 6% | 3% | 4% | 3% | 4% | 5% | 5% | 4% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 4% | 1% | 4% | 5% | 3% | 6% | 4% | 2% | 4% | 4% |
Figure 65 – Importance of labelling claims for purchasing decisions – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairly important (7,6) | 49% | 71% | 38% | 27% |
| Some importance (5,4,3) | 43% | 26% | 57% | 57% |
| Little or no importance (2,1) | 4% | 2% | 2% | 12% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 4% | 2% | 3% | 5% |
While one-quarter of Canadians felt the responsibility for making sure food claims are correct lies with the regulators, the Government of Canada (26%), or the food manufacturers (25%), another one-third saw the responsibility falling on the government, the manufacturers and everyone in the supply chain (32%).
Figure 66 – Responsibility for accuracy of food labelling claims
| Total | |
|---|---|
| Government of Canada | 26% |
| Food manufacturers | 25% |
| Industry Associations | 5% |
| Food distributors | 4% |
| Food retailers | 3% |
| Consumers | 1% |
| All of the above | 32% |
| None of the above | <1% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 4% |
Figure 67 – Responsibility for accuracy of food labelling claims – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government of Canada | 26% | 32% | 36% | 21% | 25% | 20% | 24% | 33% | 30% | 23% |
| Food manufacturers | 25% | 19% | 22% | 26% | 28% | 30% | 28% | 19% | 23% | 27% |
| Industry Associations | 5% | 6% | 5% | 5% | 3% | 8% | 3% | 4% | 5% | 4% |
| Food distributors | 4% | 5% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% |
| Food retailers | 3% | 2% | 3% | 3% | 2% | 3% | 3% | 2% | 3% | 2% |
| Consumers | 1% | - | 1% | 1% | 1% | 3% | 1% | <1% | 2% | 1% |
| All of the above | 32% | 35% | 26% | 34% | 33% | 27% | 30% | 37% | 27% | 36% |
| None of the above | <1% | - | - | - | <1% | - | <1% | - | <1% | - |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 4% | 1% | 3% | 5% | 4% | 4% | 7% | 1% | 5% | 3% |
Figure 68 – Responsibility for accuracy of food labelling claims – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government of Canada | 26% | 31% | 24% | 21% |
| Food manufacturers | 25% | 23% | 27% | 28% |
| Industry Associations | 5% | 3% | 7% | 4% |
| Food distributors | 4% | 5% | 3% | 5% |
| Food retailers | 3% | 2% | 2% | 3% |
| Consumers | 1% | 1% | 1% | - |
| All of the above | 32% | 32% | 32% | 33% |
| None of the above | <1% | <1% | - | - |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 4% | 2% | 4% | 5% |
Given Canadians felt the responsibilities for food labelling claims lie with regulators and manufacturers, very few took precautions to ensure they purchase food with food labelling claims that are well understood and truthful. Almost half (45%) took no precautions at all, and one-quarter (28%) could not come up with anything they do.
Reading labels (11%), being cautious and researching as much as possible (5%) seemed to be what most consumers turned to as a safeguard.
Figure 69 – Consumer precautions for validity of labelling claims
| Total | |
|---|---|
| I read labels / look at the label closely | 11% |
| I research/check more information/reviews | 5% |
| I only buy reputable/trusted brands | 2% |
| I read/check the ingredients lists | 2% |
| I am careful / I take all precautions / avoid vague claims | 2% |
| I examine/look at the product / look to the product quality | 2% |
| I prefer to buy local products / I avoid foreign products | 1% |
| I choose where to shop from / shop at reputable places | 1% |
| I read the nutrition labels carefully / I avoid unhealthy products | 1% |
| I minimize processed foods/ready made products | 1% |
| I read where the food is originated from | 1% |
| I only buy what I know / buy the same brand | 1% |
| I read the expiry date | 1% |
| I read the ingredients because I have an allergy | 1% |
| I search for certification/official logos/government endorsement | 1% |
| I ask the retailer | <1% |
| I compare to similar products | <1% |
| Other | 1% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 28% |
| None / nothing / It is impossible | 1% |
| No precautions taken as a consumer | 45% |
Figure 70 – Consumer precautions for validity of labelling claims – by region, age and gender
| Total (n=1,000) | ATL (n=68) | QC (n=242) | ON (n=384) | WEST (n=305) | 18-34 (n=272) | 35-54 (n=367) | 55+ (n=361) | Male (n=494) | Female (n=503) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I read labels / look at the label closely | 11% | 9% | 12% | 13% | 7% | 7% | 8% | 16% | 9% | 12% |
| I research/check more information/reviews | 5% | 4% | 5% | 6% | 6% | 7% | 5% | 5% | 4% | 7% |
| I only buy reputable/trusted brands | 2% | - | 2% | 2% | 4% | 1% | 2% | 3% | 1% | 3% |
| I read/check the ingredients lists | 2% | - | 3% | 3% | 1% | 2% | 1% | 3% | 2% | 2% |
| I am careful / I take all precautions / avoid vague claims | 2% | 4% | 1% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 3% | 1% |
| I examine/look at the product / look to the product quality | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | <1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 2% | 1% |
| I prefer to buy local products / I avoid foreign products | 1% | 3% | 3% | 1% | <1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 1% | 2% |
| I choose where to shop from / shop at reputable places | 1% | - | 2% | <1% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| I read the nutrition labels carefully / I avoid unhealthy products | 1% | - | <1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | - | 1% | <1% | 1% |
| I minimize processed foods/ready made products | 1% | - | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | <1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| I read where the food is originated from | 1% | 2% | <1% | 1% | 1% | <1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| I only buy what I know / buy the same brand | 1% | - | - | 1% | 1% | - | <1% | 2% | 1% | 1% |
| I read the expiry date | 1% | - | 1% | 1% | <1% | 1% | 1% | <1% | <1% | 1% |
| I read the ingredients because I have an allergy | 1% | - | 1% | 1% | <1% | 1% | <1% | <1% | - | 1% |
| I search for certification/official logos/government endorsement | 1% | 3% | 1% | <1% | - | - | 1% | 1% | <1% | 1% |
| I ask the retailer | <1% | - | 1% | <1% | <1% | - | 1% | 1% | <1% | 1% |
| I compare to similar products | <1% | 1% | <1% | <1% | <1% | <1% | 1% | <1% | <1% | <1% |
| Other | 1% | - | 2% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 2% | 1% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 28% | 21% | 29% | 28% | 29% | 28% | 30% | 26% | 29% | 28% |
| None / nothing / It is impossible | 1% | - | 2% | <1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| No precautions taken as a consumer | 45% | 52% | 41% | 45% | 48% | 50% | 48% | 40% | 47% | 43% |
Figure 71 – Consumer precautions for validity of labelling claims – by general concern for food fraud
| Total (n=1,000) | Fairly concerned (n=395) | Some concern (n=358) | Little or no concern (n=186) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I read labels / look at the label closely | 11% | 17% | 7% | 4% |
| I research/check more information/reviews | 5% | 8% | 5% | 1% |
| I only buy reputable/trusted brands | 2% | 2% | 3% | 2% |
| I read/check the ingredients lists | 2% | 3% | 2% | - |
| I am careful / I take all precautions / avoid vague claims | 2% | 1% | 2% | 2% |
| I examine/look at the product / look to the product quality | 2% | 2% | 1% | 3% |
| I prefer to buy local products / I avoid foreign products | 1% | 2% | 2% | - |
| I choose where to shop from / shop at reputable places | 1% | 2% | 1% | 1% |
| I read the nutrition labels carefully / I avoid unhealthy products | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| I minimize processed foods/ready made products | 1% | 1% | <1% | - |
| I read where the food is originated from | 1% | 1% | <1% | 1% |
| I only buy what I know / buy the same brand | 1% | 1% | - | - |
| I read the expiry date | 1% | 1% | <1% | - |
| I read the ingredients because I have an allergy | 1% | 1% | 1% | - |
| I search for certification/official logos/government endorsement | 1% | <1% | 1% | 1% |
| I ask the retailer | <1% | <1% | 1% | - |
| I compare to similar products | <1% | <1% | 1% | <1% |
| Other | 1% | 2% | 2% | <1% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 28% | 27% | 30% | 19% |
| None / nothing / It is impossible | 1% | 1% | 1% | - |
| No precautions taken as a consumer | 45% | 35% | 46% | 68% |
Qualitative research results
Familiarity and awareness
The focus group discussions about food fraud started off by asking participants top-of mind what the words “food fraud” meant to them.
Familiarity with the term was moderate, with many participants indicating they had not necessarily heard it before. However, when challenged to venture a guess, many gave appropriate examples, including:
false claims about products being organic, natural or “green”
false claims about food origin or sourcing, including land of origin or claims of products being fair trade
false claims about ingredients - what is or is not in products, such as being sugar free, fat free or free of artificial colouring, flavours
false claims about how food is grown or produced, including eggs or meat being “free run” or “cage free”
false claims about the quality or grade of food
false claims about an item being fresh (rather than previously frozen)
false health claims in general
generally, “something mislabeled” or “misrepresented” on packaging or in advertising
“…making it seem more organic or healthier or ethical.” Participant, 18-34, Ontario
“I’m seeing people lying on the labels…caloric content, protein content, carbohydrates content….” Participant, 18-34, Atlantic Canada
“Would it be like a misrepresentation on what the food actually is? I’m not really sure.” Participant, 35+, Atlantic Canada
Some identified it as a white-collar crime. But for the most part, in this initial discussion, there was not a lot of mention of criminality.
In addition, participants shared these examples of what they thought food fraud meant:
price gouging or extreme price markups
someone being “ripped off”
claims of a product being “healthy” or “healthier” than another product
food safety, quality or contamination issues (e-coli, salmonella, etc.)
nutritional labels representing “unrealistic” portion sizes
dubious information that could be misinterpreted (such as “packaged in Canada,” which may be interpreted as “made in Canada.”?)
Following this initial discussion, the following definition of food fraud was shared: “Food fraud occurs when food is misrepresented.”
While the term “misrepresentation” was regularly used by participants in the initial discussion to explain what they thought food fraud is, upon further probing, it was often seen as something slightly different than food fraud. Generally, “misrepresentation” was interpreted as less severe, less nefarious or illegal than “fraud.” Some also felt that “fraud” is more likely to imply (criminal) intent, while “misrepresentation” could, in their minds, also be unintentional. It was said to feel a bit softer.
“Fraud seems much worse than misrepresentation.” Participant, 18-34, Atlantic Canada
“Well, food fraud is something that I would think you could legally pursue. Misrepresentation is, […] bending the rules a little bit.” Participant, 35+, Ontario
When asked whether an undeclared food allergen, or the omission of a clear warning that a product included a known allergen, would be considered food fraud, there was a fair amount of discussion in most groups. While on the one hand there were those who felt it would absolutely be food fraud, there were others who weren’t sure or who said it would depend on circumstances. Those who labelled it fraud often said that there were likely rules or laws about what allergens needed to be declared, and that it would be fraud if that was purposely omitted. Those who were on the fence tended to say that it would depend on the potential impact of the omission; if the consequence for someone with an allergy of unwittingly ingesting it would be serious – illness or death – then it would be more likely to be labelled as fraud than if it were something that would have less serious consequences. There was also some sense that it would be virtually impossible to list all possible allergens in a product separately and that as long as all ingredients were listed accurately in the ingredient list, there would not necessarily have to be a separate warning about allergens it may (or does not) contain.
Awareness of actual food fraud in Canada was also quite low. In most groups, only 1 or 2 participants felt they had heard of particular incidences which they perceived to be examples food fraud, including:
fish or other seafood: not being the type that it was claimed to be, not being caught where/how it was claimed to be, or farmed fish being sold as wild fish
cooking oils, such as olive oil being misrepresented
fresh meat expiration dates
questionable or untrue (or “bought off”) labelling of organic certification, including on corn
honey being “just sugar”
maple syrup incidents
“Just like mislabelling like of fish…not really getting what you’re purchasing like the type of fish […], I’ve heard.” Participant, 35+, Atlantic Canada
“They were […] reselling their corn as organic and they were able to mark it up at like twice the price.” Participant, 18-34, Ontario
“Maple syrup, some people have been accused of doctoring maple syrup with like a corn syrup or a glucose and selling it at the higher price associated with maple syrup.” Participant, 35+, Ontario
Information about food fraud generally came from (unspecified) media sources or documentaries. Very few had done further research unless it was about a food that they were particularly interested in because it was something they would often eat. 1 or 2 participants who had seen the documentary “Seaspiracy” mentioned they had done some follow-up reading online about the issue and a few indicated that hypothetically, if they were to hear about food fraud in the media related to a product they buy, they may “look into it some more.”
Some participants said they would hypothetically do some research if they or someone in their family had a food sensitivity or allergy.
“If I had a child that I was worried about what I was feeding them, I’d want to make sure that the ingredients and that the labels match what they’re actually consuming.” Participant, 18-34, Ontario
Level of concern
Level of concern about food fraud was low to medium. For most, there is a routine and familiarity – with the stores they shop in, the brands they buy, who they buy from such as store owners they know or local farmers they know, that create a sense of trust.
“I haven’t really heard of anything here but again a lot of what I purchase I do purchase from local fishermen, not from a supermarket.” Participant, 35+, Atlantic Canada.
“…when you have a company that has a grocery chain that you’ve been going to since you were a kid, well I think you trust it at some point.” Participant, 18-35, Quebec
“I just don’t think about it. You’re the first one that’s ever said, hey, food fraud. So, do I care? Yeah, I care that we get the right food at the right prices at the right time and all that sort of stuff, but I don’t go out deliberately and worry about it.” Participant, 35+, Ontario
Not all products are created or seen as equal when it comes to potential food fraud. Generally, there was some sense that packaged products are likely more susceptible to food fraud than fresh fruits and vegetables, since they contain more ingredients, health claims or marketing claims that could potentially be fraudulent. It would be less evident and easier to misrepresent something in a can or packaged product than in a loose or fresh product that is easier to inspect.
“…but the more claims a product makes, probably the more concerned I’d be.” Participant, 35+, Ontario
Some also seemed to equate food fraud with a product being unhealthy, or at least unhealthier than claimed; from this followed the idea that by buying healthy or whole foods, consumers would be less likely to encounter food fraud than when buying unhealthy, packaged or processed foods.
Local or Canadian products were also seen as more trustworthy and believed to be less susceptible to food fraud than products from other countries, such as China. A few participants said they trusted “Canada” to regulate foods more strictly.
“I’m also being more reliant on the health inspectors and the Canada health agencies acting and playing their part as well.” Participant, 18-34, BC
“I feel like the majority of us maybe have a trust […] because whoever lives here, who is the regulator, whoever is doing the rules and laws, they have to eat here too.” Participant, 18-34, Ontario
Those aware of seafood fraud were more concerned about this category.
Trust also stems from the fact that participants had not, to their knowledge, encountered food fraud or at least they had not encountered it very much.
Experiences and actions
No one had personally encountered food fraud or bought a product they later learned was fraudulent. However, a few participants indicated that food fraud was probably more widespread than they may think and that they expected that it was likely that they would have been unwittingly exposed to it. In most groups, it was questioned how consumers would know what to look for or how they would discover it themselves without it already being reported and publicized. There was a sense that beyond carefully reading labels, there would not be much else consumers could really do to protect themselves.
“I don’t think you really would know if the labels were misrepresented because […] you have really no way of knowing.” Participant, 18-34, BC
“You know, we don’t have a lab on hand.” Participant, 35+, BC
“…it’s not something you could really prove 1 way or another, right. It says it’s halal, you just kind of take their word for it and move on with your life. Participant, 18-34, Prairies
Hypothetically, if encountering food fraud, some would take action. But, because it has never happened to them, they would likely do the same as what they do if they bought something that was bad or spoiled before the best-before date.
There were different levels of action that participants said they would likely undertake:
For the most part, the action would be passive: the item would be thrown out and likely not purchased again. This was more prevalent among younger participants.
Some said they may return it to the store for a refund or to alert the store of the fraud. This was more likely among the older cohort.
A small group would raise awareness by telling friends or posting on social media.
An even smaller group would contact the manufacturer.
A few participants said they would want to report it to authorities.
“I may bring it back to like customer service or I would probably either throw it out and just like forget about it, to be honest.” Participant, 18-34, Atlantic Canada
“I am telling everybody at the office that I have been wronged and I can’t believe it, but I wouldn’t call anybody else. I might call them if it is a matter of principle like the grocery store, get my 5 bucks back and then move on from there.” Participant, 18-34, Ontario
“I would think about taking it right to the manufacturer like beyond the store level. If it’s labeled incorrectly, it’s you know, if it’s a manufacturer’s label then not a stores’ responsibility.” Participant, 35+, Atlantic Canada
The type of action taken or the level of escalation considered also largely depended on the circumstances. For many, the value of the product purchased would be a factor, with a higher likelihood of taking action if it were a more expensive item. In this case, recuperating those costs from the store would be a more likely action. Whether the food fraud led to any impact on their health would also be taken into consideration – they would be more likely to take action if there were a health impact, and especially if the negative impact was serious. This was often correlated with allergens or where people had health issues that require them to eat or avoid certain ingredients, such as individuals with celiac disease or diabetes. In those cases, higher levels of action or escalation would be more likely.
“If there is food poisoning that comes with this, […]. You know, we take the example again of a product with an allergen, well there, I think I may call, at worst, the company, I may do something a little more serious, but if I have nothing, nothing physically, I may not take any action.” Participant, 18-34, Quebec
The likelihood of reporting the incident to federal or provincial agencies was quite low and would likely only happen if they were quite certain about the incident being food fraud, and/or the health consequences were serious. It was often said that even if they’d want to report it, they wouldn’t know how to do this or where to go without doing research. In order to make it easier for consumers to report, it was suggested that a website, email address or toll-free phone number on packaging or on grocery store receipts would help raise awareness, or signage at grocery stores with the same information.
On the other hand, some were generally not interested in reporting it to government agencies, because they expected the task to be complicated or tedious.
Management and regulations
Knowledge about how food fraud is managed and regulated in Canada was very limited.
However, upon probing, participants generally believed that regulations and monitoring must exist, and likely at the federal government level. In Quebec, there was good awareness of the provincial authority responsible for food safety, the Ministere de l’Agriculture, des Pecheries et de l’Alimentation du Quebec (MAPAQ).
“I had a general idea that there was an agency that did that, but I couldn’t place a name to it specifically.” Participant, 18-34, Prairies
Awareness of the CFIA as the regulator was quite low across the board, with only a few participants able to mention it by name. When mentioned, some recognized it as the source of food recalls that they may have heard of in the past; in this case, it made sense that it was the same agency who would be responsible for food fraud.
However, in the absence of real knowledge – and in the absence of negative news stories and general outrage about the issue – many defaulted to the position that the CFIA was likely doing a good enough job. Some, often those who were generally more skeptical of government regulations, believed that there may be an untold or hidden story suggesting that food fraud is more prevalent than consumers are led to believe. However, there was not a real sense that this is something to be overly alarmed about.
“As far as we know, I guess, it’s managed pretty good because none of us were overly familiar with food fraud and we hadn’t experienced it a lot. I think myself I trust the government agencies in that inspectors make sure that this doesn’t happen.” Participant, 35+, Atlantic Canada
“I think it’s fine, but there’s probably some errors along the way, but I don’t know much about the agency, honestly.” Participant, 35+, Ontario
If caught, participants generally would want the manufacturer to be forced to change the practices that were found to be fraudulent, and they would want the company name to be made public. Some called for fines or for the company to be shut down.
Advertising testing
The second section of the focus groups was devoted to testing of digital advertising, consisting of visuals and messages:
Visual concepts:
3 visual concepts and 1 GIF were first tested individually
the order of concepts was changed for each session (GIF always shown last)
favourite concept selected
Messaging:
3 messages were tested
favourite message selected
Combination exercise:
favourite combination of visual and message selected
Concept 1
The discussion on each concept started with participants rating it on a 10-point scale where 10 is the best score possible.
The overall, top-of-mind feedback was that this was not the strongest ad participants would see online. It received mostly low to mid-range ratings, with mostly ratings of 5 and under, but with some really liking it.
The main message of this concept, to “stop food fraud,” was clear to participants. The stop sign with the text made this easily understood. It was also noted that the image of the full shopping cart made it clear that this concept was about food bought at grocery stores, rather than in restaurants or elsewhere. The Canada wordmark also made it immediately clear that this was a Government of Canada ad.
“I think it’s pretty effective because the fact that it’s a stop sign sends a pretty clear message that they’re trying to stop food fraud without having to say stop.” Participant, 18-34, Prairies
“Yes, I liked it because it really indicates that food fraud is at the grocery store.” Participant, 35+, Quebec
In terms of what this ad would be trying to get Canadians to do, respondents were a bit less clear. While some felt that they were the ones being called on to stop food fraud, others felt that it was the Government of Canada doing this. There was no further information that would clearly point to resources to find out about this, or about resources available to people who encounter food fraud. As well, many felt that there was no clear call to action to click on the ad or to go online to find out more information about food fraud. As a result, most said they would not click on this if they were to encounter it online. A few said that the fact that there was not a lot of information may actually compel them to try to find out more, but this was not the overwhelming feedback.
“I wouldn’t click on this, but if I did, I feel like I would find information about how fruits and vegetables are being misrepresented.” Participant, 35+, Atlantic Canada
“Well, I would be tempted to click on it because if I had never heard about food fraud before today, I would see the grocery in the basket next to it, and think, you know, there’s something I should know about this…because it makes you wonder what in that grocery cart might be a fraud?” Participant, 35+, Ontario
While seeing this ad may make them more aware of the existence of something called “food fraud,” it left most participants with questions. In this context it was often mentioned that many Canadians would not know what food fraud actually is, making the words somewhat meaningless.
Given this, participants thought that the concept needed a tagline that provided some more information, as well as a URL to either click on directly or to remember for later.
“Usually, when you see in the ads, there is like a slogan, there is like a sentence after. So, that’s what’s missing, that’s for sure, maybe at the top left.” Participant, 18-34, Quebec
The look-and-feel of the ad got mixed reviews. The execution with bold red and yellow colours was generally said to be attention-grabbing and the mix of types of products in the cart was appreciated and said to enhance the message. It was said that the boldness would potentially help it cut through the clutter on websites in terms of it catching one’s eye. On the other hand, the overall concept was also said to look too simple or amateurish and while the yellow may be attention-grabbing, it was not necessarily appealing. Some participants mentioned that the colours reminded them of specific grocery store branding colours (Maxi in Quebec) or of McDonalds.
“It just looks a little too cartoony so it doesn’t look like it’s super, super real, like it doesn’t seem like something that would be from a government agency.” Participant, 18-34, Atlantic Canada
“My initial thoughts include that the yellow is eye-catching.” Participant, 18-34, Prairies
| Key Strengths | Key Weaknesses |
|---|---|
|
|
Concept 2
Top-of-mind, this concept was not very well received, with mostly low ratings on the 10-point scale.
As was seen from the previous, similar concept with the same stop sign, the main message of this concept, to “stop food fraud,” was clear to participants. However, as this did not contain any other images, namely lacking a depiction of food or groceries, it was not clear from this concept that it was about food fraud in the context of what one would buy in the grocery store only – it could also be about restaurant food. The Canada wordmark once again made it immediately clear that this was a Government of Canada ad.
“Stop food fraud. It’s just…it doesn’t give you any ideas on how or what to expect.” Participant 18-34, Atlantic Canada.
In terms of what this ad would be trying to get Canadians to do, this ad fell very flat. Again, it was not clear who would stop the food fraud or how. The lack of further information, whether provided through visuals or text directly on the ad or through a clear pointer towards further resources through a URL or message (for example to “click here / click on this ad to find out more”) made it so that most participants would not be compelled to pay much attention to this concept, let alone to undertake any action as a result of seeing it online. It also did not do much to make people more aware of food fraud.
“It doesn’t evoke any sort of emotion or curiosity. I would just ignore it.” Participant, 35+, Ontario
The look-and-feel of the ad got mixed reviews, much like the previous ad. While the colours were attention-grabbing, the yellow in particular did not speak to everyone. The concept’s simplicity was also said to show a “lack of effort” or that it was “thrown together quickly,” making it less appealing overall.
“Visually it’s very boring. It’s not very eye-catching. For me, I don’t find it appealing at all.” Participant, 35+, Atlantic Canada
| Key Strengths | Key Weaknesses |
|---|---|
|
|
Concept 3
Overall, at first look, this concept received mostly low to mid-range ratings on the 10-point scale, with most giving it a score of 5 or less. There were once again some who liked it, giving it ratings in the 6-to-8 range.
“I put 7 because it’s a very beautiful image, a very nice presentation. But when I thought about it again, I thought “maybe I should have put a 4 on it” because there is no context. It’s not marked “click here to report fraud.” Is it just to get information? The image does not say what it is for.” Participant, 35+, Quebec
The main message of this ad was for most related to the question mark on the bag of food: to question what we may be consuming. The question mark on a yellow “warning sign” prompts a reflection of “What is in my food?” Combined with the words “food fraud,” the question then quickly becomes “is there food fraud in what I consume?”
In terms of what this ad would be trying to get Canadians to do, there was a clear sense here that it was prompting people to ask themselves this question, and to go find out more. The call to action was for the most part understood as finding out more from the Government of Canada, as the word mark once again clearly indicated the sponsor of the ad. There was a general expectation that by clicking on the ad, one would find a Government of Canada website that would help consumers understand what food fraud is. However, it was again suggested that this call to action would be clearer with a strong tagline and a URL.
“I think the main message is, do you know what food fraud is? Like when you look at the question mark, like what is food fraud? And then you would click on it and find out, hopefully, they give you an idea of what it is and some examples.” Participant, 35+, Ontario
“I think personally I would need like maybe 1 or 2 statement sentences and that would maybe catch my attention more. I think the food fraud phrase if I saw it, would kind of be at the back of my mind while I scroll past it, but I wouldn’t actually click on it.” Participant, 18-34, BC
The look and feel held some general appeal in terms of the colour used. While not everyone felt it was overly attention-grabbing, the softer colour blue generally received positive feedback (although to some, mainly older participants, the black font on the blue was hard on their eyes). As well, the bright colours of the items in the bag were seen as pleasant and nicely designed. However, the overall concept was also often said to be quite simplistic and ho-hum.
“I like the blue background versus the red, but it doesn’t hold the same negative connotation that I think they’re trying to convey. Participant, 18-34, Prairies
As well, many participants pointed out that the foods shown were all of the same category – fresh fruits and vegetables – and that more variety would be preferred. This was not only said from a design standpoint, but in particular because the foods shown were those that were least expected to be associated with food fraud. Therefore, (also) showing packaged and canned goods would send a stronger and clearer message. Some suggested that this could be accomplished by showing a clear grocery bag containing more items.
“Not enough, not enough variety. It’s just fruits and veggies.” Participant, 35+, Ontario
“An apple is an apple, a banana is a banana, like, what’s fraudulent about that? There’s no way to mess up the expiration date or the nutritional content or whatever, it’s just the fruit or the vegetable.” Participant, 18-34, Prairies
| Key Strengths | Key Weaknesses |
|---|---|
|
|
Preferred concept and overall feedback
After discussing the 3 static concepts individually, participants were asked to choose their preferred concept.
When looking across the board, Concept 1 and Concept 3 were virtually tied for the win, with barely anyone choosing Concept 2.
Among the younger cohort (18-34), Concept 1 held a slight edge, while among the older cohort (35+), Concept 1 and 3 were in dead heat.
General feedback from everyone about all 3 concepts was that there was a lack of information about food fraud and the absence of a clear call to action and/or URL.
In terms of information messages that participants wanted to see on the ad, they mostly wanted basic information that explained what food fraud is. Everything else, including how to identify it, what to do about it or how to report it, was secondary to this and seen as a “next step” – but not at the core of what consumers are currently looking to learn first and foremost.
With respect to the URL, not only did participants feel that it would make them more likely to click on the ad if there was a URL, write it down somewhere to look later or open a new browser with that link, simply because they would know where to go for information, many also pointed out that a URL containing “.gc.ca” would legitimize the ad. Given the lack of information in the current concepts and the feeling the designs were overly simplistic or amateurish, there was a sense that the ads would be seen as mere click bait, making people wary of clicking on it, even despite the Government of Canada wordmark. Therefore, a recognizable government URL would help to reinforce that the ad is legitimate and could go a long way to get more click-throughs.
“And not all URLs work the way they’re supposed to either so it’s nice to have an actual address you can maybe copy/paste if need to be.” Participant, 35+, Atlantic Canada
“I really think the link is important. You know we’re always taught to not click on random things and so if you can actually see that it’s the Government of Canada and I can see what I’m clicking on…” Participant, 35+, BC
Some said that seeing an ad about food fraud – irrespective of the ad’s execution – would make them think a bit about the issue and would make them question whether this is something serious that they were previously not aware of. The ads were generally not seen as too alarmist.
The information they hoped to see on the website would include:
What is food fraud (a clear definition)
Examples of past cases / a full list of past cases to search / Canadian statistics on food fraud – information and data to help put the prevalence and seriousness of this issue into perspective
How to detect it
How to report it
What the government is doing against it
GIF Concept
Six posters are shown
1. A Yellow background. 2. A blurred image of front portion of the food cart. 3. A food cart with a variety of items is on the right. A text on the left reads, HELP US PREVENT. 4. A stop sign labeled FOOD FRAUD is on the right. A text on the left reads, HELP US PREVENT. 5. A text on the center reads, Learn more about, FOOD Fraud. Logo of the Canada is on the footer. 6. A text on the center reads, inspection dot g c dot c a forward slash food hyphen fraud. Logo of the Canada is on the footer.
After the 3 static concepts, a GIF was shown to participants. Initial reactions were quite positive, with mid-range to high scores on the 10-point scale.
“I liked how they put, “help us prevent” […] food fraud, and then they gave us the link after to click on. I liked this a lot.” Participant, 35+, Ontario
As the images and look-and-feel were the same as those used in Concept 1 (yellow background with a red stop sign, a food cart with a variety of items that moved through the scene), feedback mirrored that of the static image when it came to those aspects. Not only were the colours, and mainly the yellow colour, said to be attention-grabbing, the movement of the images as well as the text also reinforced this, drawing the eye to the ad. However, feedback on the movement also included that it went too fast and should be slowed down in order for the messages to have the time to be displayed long enough to sink in.
“The message is definitely there. Like I get it and everything’s there now, but it was just moving a little too quick for me.” Participant, 35+, Prairies
The addition of the written messages made this ad more compelling for participants, mainly because it hit on the elements that were seen to be lacking in the static ads. There were some clear calls to action including for consumers to do their part (through the text “help us prevent”) and to go online to a specific Government of Canada website to find out more (through the text “learn more about food fraud” and the URL.) Moreover, the text “learn more about food fraud” created a clear expectation of what would be on the website, namely information about what food fraud is – something that many Canadians were not necessarily overly familiar with.
“Well, I like it, I like it because we are given a site to go to get information: Government of Canada. … But I have the downside of “help us prevent”, how to help? Well, maybe the site will explain [this].” Participant, 35+, Quebec
While this concept did more to draw people in and made them more likely to pay attention to it and to click than any of the static concepts, it still did little to compel those who were not sure what the role of consumers could be in stopping food fraud – those who simply did not see it as their job but rather that of the Government of Canada were not convinced this is “for them.”
| Key Strengths | Key Weaknesses |
|---|---|
|
|
Messaging
After the concepts, 3 messages that could potentially be included in a final ad were discussed:
| Messages |
|---|
A: Is your food what you think it is? Learn more about food fraud B: Do you suspect food fraud? Report it! Learn more C: Help us prevent food fraud. Learn more |
Overall, the most popular message was A, followed by messages B and C in a tie for second. Among the younger cohort (18-34), message A was by far the most preferred with B and C barely gaining any traction, whereas among participants 35 and older, there was a more even split between preferences for A, B or C.
The first key strength of message A was that it made participants think and question something that they may have not thought about in the past – what is (in) their food, or “is your food what you think it is?” The first sentence also gave some indication as to what food fraud may be and started to answer the core question many had – that it is related to food not being as it may be presented. Moreover, the word “your” in particular was said to make this personal connection to something that everyone relates to. The second key strength came from the fact that it played into the fact that most participants did not really know a lot about food fraud; therefore, “learning more about food fraud” was the natural starting point for many.
“We need to educate the population, “help us prevent fraud”, yes that is correct, but the one that is much more suitable, I think, is “is your food what you think it is? Learn more about food fraud”, there is nothing better than that, because we have to educate the population first!” Participant, 35+, Quebec
Younger participants in particular were drawn to this because they tended to be more interested in learning about food fraud, less focused on reporting it in general and more likely to resist the idea that they are being “recruited” to help the government.
“The other 2 messages seem like they’re policing rather than something that’s going to actually help me. I don’t really want to go out and start policing for everyone else. There should be, you know, an agency to deal with this, whereas with option A like it’s actually asking you to look into it rather than policing it for other people.” Participant, 18-34, Atlantic Canada
On the other hand, those who liked messages B or C (mostly the older participants), were likely to point to the fact that they wanted to learn what they could do to help out – whether how to report food fraud (message B) or how to help the government prevent it (message C).
Moreover, message B suggested that they will learn more about food fraud, which many in the older groups also wanted and felt they needed in order to do anything further, and then also pointed them to possible next steps.
“So, is this something you’ve ever thought about before … don’t let it go, report it. It’s kind of like a two-part. It’s making you think and then it’s like, oh yeah, what’s my call to action? Let’s report it.” Participant, 35+, Prairies
Message C was often appreciated by the older cohort because it was “short and sweet” with less to read, while still clearly conveying what is expected of consumers, both in terms of helping the government and helping themselves understand the issue better.
“Well, it’s short and it’s simple. Help us prevent food fraud and if you wanted to learn more, it’s right there to learn more. I like keeping things simple.” Participant, 35+, Atlantic Canada
However, as was seen when discussing the static images, in the absence of anything else that can help frame these messages, the general feedback for all 3 messages was that there should be more information – whether that be a longer tag line, more text (such as combining messages A and B, for example), and a URL.
“And I think they’re fairly easy to combine by saying something like, is your food what you think it is, help us prevent food fraud by reporting. And that kind of nails, all 3 big sections that we liked.” Participant, 18-34, BC
Best combination
When asked what combination of static images and messages would be the most compelling, virtually all participants gravitated to the combination of the image they liked best and the message they liked best, resulting in a tie between 1a and 3a for first place. Especially among the younger cohort, there 2 combinations were almost exclusively chosen as their preferred combination.
Two posters are shown
Poster 1. A poster shows a stop sign labeled Food Fraud is on the center. Logo of the Canada is on the right bottom. Text, is your food what you think it is question mark learn more about food fraud. Poster 2. A poster shows a bag filled with grocery items on the right. A text on the left reads, Food Fraud. Logo of the Canada is on the right bottom. Text, is your food what you think it is question mark learn more about food fraud.
“I went with A3…because it’s showing, making you think is everything in your bag actually as it is. So, it makes you want to go and click on the website because you imagine there’d be a link there to see what products that the government may be listing as fraud.” Participant, 35+, Ontario
Distant second, and mainly chosen by those 35 and older, were combinations that included message B:
Two posters are shown
Poster 1. A poster shows a stop sign labeled Food Fraud is on the center. Logo of the Canada is on the right bottom. Text, Do you suspect food fraud question mark report it exclamation mark learn more. Poster 2. A poster shows a bag filled with grocery items on the right. A text on the left reads, Food Fraud. Logo of the Canada is on the right bottom. Text, Do you suspect food fraud question mark report it exclamation mark learn more.
Appendices
Methodology
All research work was conducted in accordance with the professional standards established by the Government of Canada Public Opinion Research Standards, as follows:
Quantitative
The research consisted of an online survey with Canadians at least 18 years of age, reflective of the distribution of the Canadian population. The survey was conducted through an online panel of households.
Quorus collaborated with the CFIA to finalize the survey instrument in English to meet the research objectives. Quorus translated the client-approved English version of the survey. Respondents had the choice to complete the survey in English or French.
All research work was conducted in accordance with the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research – Online Surveys. More specifically, Quorus informed participants of their rights under the Privacy and Access to Information Acts and ensure that those rights are protected throughout the research process. This includes: informing participants of the purpose of the research; identifying both the sponsoring department or agency and research supplier; informing participants that the study will be made available to the public in 6 months after field completion through Library and Archives Canada and informing participants that their participation in the study is voluntary and the information provided will be administered according to the requirements of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
The survey took on average 10 minutes to complete.
A total of 1,000 surveys were completed through the online survey, with data collection occurring between January 20th and January 28th, 2022.
Data collection included a pretest of 19 surveys with English respondents and 10 with French respondents. The pretest helped to assess the flow of the survey, understanding of the questions, language, data integrity, and particularly the length of the survey.
For this study, quotas were established for each province to ensure there was adequate representation to generate sufficient data regionally, which would allow for a more robust analysis. Data was monitored to aim for a 50/50 gender split in each province, and that no specific age cohort was under-represented. A margin of error could not be calculated for the online results due to the use of a non-probability sample, as respondents were only selected from those who had registered to participate in online surveys through a panel. The equivalent margin of error for a probability study of 1,000 cases would be +/- 3.1%.
The online survey participation rate was approximately 16%.
Non-response bias is a possible issue since certain types of people may be more willing to respond to a survey request than others.
Data were weighted by region, gender and age to ensure that the final distributions within the final sample mirror those of the Canadian population according to the latest census data.
| Age | Unweighted | Weighted | 2016 Canada population estimates |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18-34 | 27.2% | 26.7% | 27.3% |
| 35-54 | 36.7% | 34.7% | 34.1% |
| 55+ | 36.1% | 38.6% | 38.6% |
| Gender | Unweighted | Weighted | 2016 Canada population estimates |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 49.4% | 48.3% | 48.6% |
| Female | 50.3% | 51.4% | 51.4% |
| Region | Unweighted | Weighted | 2016 Canada population estimates |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newfoundland | 1.2% | 1.5% | 1.5% |
| Prince Edward Island | 0.5% | 0.4% | 0.4% |
| Nova Scotia | 2.9% | 2.7% | 2.7% |
| New Brunswick | 2.2% | 2.2% | 2.2% |
| Quebec | 24.2% | 23.5% | 23.5% |
| Ontario | 38.5% | 38.4% | 38.4% |
| Manitoba | 3.7% | 3.5% | 3.5% |
| Saskatchewan | 2.6% | 3.0% | 3.0% |
| Alberta | 10.9% | 11.2% | 11.2% |
| British Columbia | 13.3% | 13.6% | 13.6% |
Qualitative
The research methodology consisted of 10 online focus groups with Canadians aged 18 and older representing different regions across the country and a variety of specific populations. The focus groups were conducted online from January 24th to January 31st, 2022. The groups took an average of 90 minutes. Quorus was responsible for coordinating all aspects of the research project including designing and translating the recruitment screener and the moderation guide, coordinating all aspects of participant recruitment, coordinating the online focus group platform and related logistics, moderating all sessions, and delivering required reports at the end of data collection.
Ten focus groups were completed with members of the general population located in 5 regions in Canada:
Atlantic Canada
Ontario / Nunavut
Quebec
Prairies / Northwest Territories
British Columbia / Yukon
In each of these regions, participants were segmented into 2 age groups: 18 to 34, and 35 years of age and older.
Across all focus groups, recruitment efforts aimed for a mix across age, gender, employment status, urban and rural populations, and education level with some representation of visible minorities. For sessions that covered more than 1 province or territory, efforts aimed for representation from each individual province and territory within the given region.
Participants invited to participate in the focus groups were recruited by telephone from the general public as well as from an opt-in database.
In the design of the recruitment screener, specific questions were inserted to clearly identify whether participants qualify for the research program and to ensure a good representation across demographic dimensions.
In addition to the general participant profiling criteria noted above, additional screening was done to ensure quality respondents, such as:
No participant (nor anyone in their immediate family or household) may work in an occupation that has anything to do with the research topic area, in related government departments/agencies, nor in advertising, marketing research, public relations or the media (radio, television, newspaper, film/video production, etc.), nor may respondents themselves ever have worked in such occupations.
No participants acquainted with each other may be knowingly recruited for the same study, unless they are in different sessions that are scheduled separately.
No participants may be recruited who have attended a qualitative research session within the past 6 months.
No participant may be recruited who has attended 5 or more qualitative research sessions in the past 5 years.
No participant should be recruited who has attended, in the past 2 years, a qualitative research session on the same general topic as defined by the researcher/moderator.
Data collection consisted of online focus groups, each lasting 1.5 hours. For each focus group, Quorus recruited 8 participants to achieve 6 to 8 participants per focus group.
All focus groups were held in the evenings on weekdays using the Zoom web conferencing platform, allowing the client team to observe the sessions in real-time. The research team used the Zoom platform to host and record sessions (through microphones and webcams connected to the moderator and participants electronic devices, for example laptops and tablets) enabling client remote viewing. Recruited participants were offered an honorarium of $100 for their participation.
The recruitment of focus group participants followed the screening, recruiting and privacy considerations as set out in the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research–Qualitative Research. Furthermore, recruitment respected the following requirements:
All recruitment was conducted in the participant’s official language of choice, English and French, as appropriate.
Upon request, participants were informed on how they can access the research findings.
Upon request, participants were provided with Quorus’ privacy policy.
Recruitment confirmed each participant had the ability to speak, understand, read and write in the language in which the session was to be conducted.
Participants were informed of their rights under the Privacy and Access to Information Acts and ensured those rights were protected throughout the research process. This included: informing participants of the purpose of the research, identifying both the sponsoring department or agency and research supplier, informing participants the study will be made available to the public 6 months after field completion through Library and Archives Canada, and informing participants that their participation in the study is voluntary and the information provided will be administered according to the requirements of the Privacy Act.
At the recruitment stage and at the beginning of each focus group, participants were informed that the research was for the Government of Canada. Participants were informed of the recording of their session in addition to the presence of Government of Canada observers. Quorus ensured that prior consent was obtained at the recruitment stage.
A total of 10 online focus groups were conducted with 70 Canadians, as per the table below:
| Location | Language | Segment | Date and Time | Participants |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlantic | English | 18-34 | January 24, 5:30 pm AST | 7 |
| 35+ | January 24, 7:30 pm AST | 6 | ||
| Ontario / Nunavut | English | 18-34 | January 25, 5:30 pm EST | 7 |
| 35+ | January 25, 7:30 pm EST | 8 | ||
| Quebec | French | 18-34 | January 26, 5:30 pm EST | 6 |
| 35+ | January 26, 7:30 pm EST | 7 | ||
| West Canada / Yukon / NWT | English | 18-34 | January 27, 7:00 pm CST | 5 |
| 35+ | January 27, 9:00 pm CST | 8 | ||
| British Columbia / Northwest Territories | English | 18-34 | January 31, 5:00 pm PST | 8 |
| 35+ | January 31, 7:00 pm PST | 8 | ||
| Total | - | - | - | 70 |
Additional analysis
Figure 72 – Food allergies or sensitivities
| Total | |
|---|---|
| I have a food allergy | 10% |
| I have a food sensitivity | 15% |
| [Net: Food allergy and/or sensitivity] | 22% |
| No food allergies or sensitivities | 78% |
Figure 73 – Severity of food allergies or sensitivities
| Fairly sensitive / allergic (7,6) | Somewhat sensitive / allergic (5,4,3) | Little or no sensitivity / allergy (2,1) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shellfish | 18% | 13% | 69% |
| Milk | 16% | 34% | 49% |
| Sulfites | 9% | 24% | 67% |
| Fin Fish | 9% | 11% | 80% |
| Wheat | 9% | 20% | 71% |
| Eggs | 7% | 14% | 79% |
| Peanuts | 5% | 13% | 81% |
| Amines | 5% | 9% | 87% |
| Soy | 6% | 16% | 77% |
| Mustard | 4% | 8% | 88% |
| Caffeine | 4% | 20% | 75% |
| Salicylates | 3% | 13% | 84% |
| Sesame | 3% | 10% | 87% |
| Tree nuts | 5% | 15% | 80% |
| Other (n=26) | 60% | 35% | 5% |
Respondent profile
A variety of questions were asked to study participants to obtain their demographic information. This information not only allowed the research team to understand the profile of those participating in the study, but also to weight the data and ensure results are representative of the population.
| Segment | Unweighted | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 49% | 48% |
| Female | 50% | 51% |
| Transgender | <1% | <1% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | <1% | <1% |
| Segment | Unweighted | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| English | 78% | 79% |
| French | 22% | 21% |
| Segment | Unweighted | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| 18-24 | 11% | 10% |
| 25-34 | 16% | 16% |
| 35-54 | 37% | 35% |
| 55-64 | 17% | 18% |
| 65+ | 19% | 20% |
| Segment | Unweighted | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 21% | 21% |
| 2 | 37% | 37% |
| 3 | 18% | 18% |
| 4 | 15% | 14% |
| 5+ | 8% | 7% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 3% | 3% |
| Segment | Unweighted | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| British Columbia | 13% | 14% |
| Alberta | 11% | 11% |
| Saskatchewan | 3% | 3% |
| Manitoba | 4% | 4% |
| Ontario | 39% | 38% |
| Quebec | 24% | 23% |
| Atlantic | 7% | 7% |
| Segment | Unweighted | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Urban | 85% | 85% |
| Rural | 12% | 12% |
| Not answered | 3% | 3% |
| Segment | Unweighted | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 22% | 21% |
| No | 77% | 78% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 1% | 1% |
| Segment | Unweighted | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Working full-time | 45% | 43% |
| Working part-time | 9% | 9% |
| Self-employed | 5% | 5% |
| Unemployed | 3% | 3% |
| Student | 9% | 8% |
| Retired | 22% | 24% |
| Not Working | 6% | 6% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 1% | 1% |
| Segment | Unweighted | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Some high school | 3% | 3% |
| High school diploma | 20% | 20% |
| Apprenticeship/College | 30% | 30% |
| Univ. Certif./Bachelor’s degree | 33% | 33% |
| Post graduate degree | 14% | 13% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 1% | 1% |
| Segment | Unweighted | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Single | 30% | 30% |
| Married/common law | 57% | 57% |
| Separated/divorced | 8% | 9% |
| Widowed | 4% | 4% |
| Other | <1% | <1% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 1% | 1% |
| Segment | Unweighted | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Under $20,000 | 7% | 7% |
| $20,000 - $40,000 | 14% | 14% |
| $40,000 - $60,000 | 16% | 16% |
| $60,000 - $80,000 | 12% | 12% |
| $80,000 - $100,000 | 13% | 13% |
| $100,000 - $150,000 | 16% | 16% |
| $150,000 and above | 13% | 12% |
| DK/Prefer not to say | 10% | 10% |
| Segment | Unweighted | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| 0-25 | 6% | 6% |
| 26-50 | 26% | 25% |
| 51-75 | 7% | 8% |
| 76-100 | 59% | 60% |
| Not answered | 2% | 1% |
Survey instrument
Public Opinion Research with Canadians on Food Fraud: 2021-22
[Draft Survey – information in square brackets is not displayed to respondents]
[Introduction:]
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey.
Vous pouvez également répondre au sondage en français. [link to the French version]
Quorus Consulting Group, a Canadian market research firm, is conducting this survey on behalf of the Government of Canada. The survey will ask you questions about how you see food in Canada, how and why it is shown and sold and other questions about how food is represented. The survey should take 10 to 15 minutes to complete.
Your participation is voluntary and completely confidential, and all of your responses will remain anonymous. The information you provide will be managed in accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. The final report describing the results of this study will be available through Library and Archives Canada (LAC) within 6 months of the survey work’s completion.
If you have any questions about the survey content or if you require an alternative format, an accessibility accommodation, or technical assistance, please contact [contact email and phone].
Note: If you see any words underlined, you can hover over them to see additional information.
[Section 1: Screening]
To what extent are you responsible for purchasing the household groceries (enter a percentage between 0 and 100)?
Don’t know/Prefer not to say 999 In what year were you born?
[INSERT YEAR. IF YOUNGER THAN 18 YEARS OR PREFER NOT TO SAY, TERMINATE]
GENDER: Please indicate the gender you identify with?
Male 1 Female 2 Other (please specify): ____________ 77 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 99 Which province or territory do you live in?
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 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 99
[Section 2: Food Fraud]
The questions that follow are related to food fraud. Food fraud occurs when food is misrepresented. How much, if any, have you read or heard about food fraud? [HOVER DEFINITION: “Food fraud occurs when food is misrepresented.” ANYWHERE “FOOD FRAUD” APPEARS FROM NOW ON]
A great deal 1 Some 2 Not much 3 Nothing at all 4 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 9
4a. When you hear about food fraud, how concerned are you that it could affect you?
Not at all concerned Very concerned Don’t Know/Prefer not to say 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 4b. How important is the issue of food fraud to you when buying food?
Not at all important Very important Don’t Know/Prefer not to say 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
Please provide some examples of what you would consider to be misrepresented food.
___________________
___________________
___________________
Don’t know/Prefer not to say 99
Q5A. In your opinion, why do you think food fraud happens? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY
Mistakes may happen along the food supply chain 1 Deliberate use of lower quality ingredients 2 Companies trying to get an advantage over other companies 3 Other (please specify): ____________ 77 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 99 Q6. If a company was found guilty of misrepresenting food, what enforcement action would you consider to be appropriate?
___________________
___________________
___________________
Don’t know/Prefer not to say 99 As you may or may not know, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is responsible for monitoring and regulating food in Canada.
Q6A. Do you think CFIA should publish the names of companies that have been found to have misrepresented food?
Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 9 Q6B. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: [RANDOMIZE]
Food fraud may actually benefit consumers because they can get a lower-cost product that is similar in quality to the original item.
Food fraud is a safety risk to consumers.
Regulators heavily punish companies that are caught misrepresenting food products.
It is the responsibility of companies in the food industry to make sure products are not misrepresented.
I am not concerned about food fraud.
Do not agree at all Strongly agree Don’t Know/Prefer not to say 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
Where would you turn to find information about food fraud or potential food fraud? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY [RANDOMIZE ITEMS 1 TO 5]
Government of Canada 1 Industry Associations 2 Food manufacturers/processors 3 Food distributors 4 Food retailers 5 Other (please specify): ____________ 77 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 99 How would you like to find information about food fraud or potential food fraud from the Government of Canada? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY
Website 1 Social media 2 Email 3 Telephone information line 4 In-person 5 Television 6 Other (please specify): ____________ 77 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 99 How interested are you in finding out more about food fraud and how it affects Canadians?
Not interested Very interested Don’t Know/Prefer not to say 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 When purchasing the following types of food commodities, how confident are you that they are accurately represented? [RANDOMIZE]
Meat
Poultry
Fish
Eggs or processed egg [HOVER TEXT: Includes frozen egg, frozen egg mix, liquid egg, liquid egg mix, dried egg, dried egg mix and egg product]
Dairy [HOVER TEXT: includes milk, butter, ice cream and cheese]
Processed products [HOVER TEXT: i.e. canned, cooked, frozen, etc.]
Honey
Maple
Oils
Fruit juice
Spices
Coffee and tea
Fresh fruits and vegetables
Organic foods
Not at all confident Very confident Don’t Know/Prefer not to say 1 2 3 4 5 9
11AB. [SPLIT SAMPLE] To the best of your knowledge have you personally encountered misrepresented food? / To the best of your knowledge, have you personally encountered food fraud?
Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 9
[IF YES AT Q11AB ASK Q12]
Which of the following commodities were misrepresented? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY
Meat 1 Poultry 2 Fish 3 Eggs or processed egg [HOVER TEXT: Includes frozen egg, frozen egg mix, liquid egg, liquid egg mix, dried egg, dried egg mix and egg product] 4 Dairy [HOVER TEXT: includes milk, butter, ice cream and cheese] 5 Processed products [HOVER TEXT: i.e. canned, cooked, frozen, etc.] 6 Honey 7 Maple 8 Oils 9 Fruit juices 10 Spices 11 Coffee and tea 12 Fresh fruits and vegetables 13 Organic foods 14 Other (please specify): ____________ 77 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 99 [IF ANY AT Q12 ASK Q13]
Please expand on your experience with misrepresented food. What was the specific issue?
___________________
___________________
___________________
Don’t know/Prefer not to say 99 In your opinion how likely is it that you will encounter the following? [RANDOMIZE]
Misrepresented food with products made in Canada
Misrepresented food with products labelled as a “Product of Canada”
Misrepresented food products imported from other countries
Misrepresented food products in restaurants
Misrepresented food products when purchasing online food products
Not at all likely Very likely Don’t Know/Prefer not to say 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 What action would you take if you thought that a food product you purchased was fraudulent or misrepresented? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY
Throw the product away 1 Report the issue 2 Other (please specify): ____________ 77 None of the above. I probably would not take any action 98 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 99 Who would you report the food fraud issue to? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY [RANDOMIZE ITEMS 1 TO 8]
Manufacturer 1 Retailer 2 Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) 3 A Government of Canada department other than the CFIA 4 Provincial public health authority 5 Local/regional public health authority 6 Police 7 Better Business Bureau 8 Other (please specify): ____________ 77 Would not report the issue 98 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 99 Please rate your level of confidence in how the Government of Canada manages food fraud.
Not at all confident Very confident Don’t Know/Prefer not to say 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 Please rank the following in order of who you think has the most responsibility for ensuring that food sold in Canada is accurately represented. [RANDOMIZE]
RESPONSIBILITY RANK a. Farmers b. The Government of Canada c. Provincial governments d. Food manufacturers or processors [HOVER TEXT: i.e. companies that make or process food] e. Food distributors f. Grocery stores g. Businesses that import foods into Canada h. Consumers Don’t know/Prefer not to say 99 How confident are you that the following types of labelling information or claims are truthful and accurate on food labels? [RANDOMIZE]
What the food is (common name)
Organic claims
Where the food is from
Nutrition information
Health claims
The best before date of the food
Ingredient information
The way the food is produced (method of production)
The amount of food in the package (net quantity)
Not at all confident Very confident Don’t Know/Prefer not to say 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 How important are food labelling claims in your decision to purchase specific types of food?
Not at all important Very important Don’t Know/Prefer not to say 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 Who should be responsible for making sure food labelling claims are correct? SELECT ONLY 1 [RANDOMIZE ITEMS 1 TO 6]
Government of Canada 1 Industry Associations 2 Food manufacturers 3 Food distributors 4 Food retailers 5 Consumers 6 All of the above 7 None of the above 98 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 99 As a consumer, what precautions, if any, do you take to ensure you purchase food with food labelling claims that are well understood and truthful?
___________________
___________________
___________________
No precautions taken as a consumer 98 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 99
[Section 3: Demographics]
The last few questions are strictly for statistical purposes. All of your answers are completely confidential.
Do you have any food allergies or sensitivities? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY
I have a food allergy 1 I have a food sensitivity 2 No food allergies or sensitivities [EXCLUSIVE] 3
[IF Q36=1 OR 2 ASK Q37]
Please indicate the severity of the following food allergies or sensitivities you have: [RANDOMIZE]
Milk
Eggs
Tree nuts
Peanuts
Shellfish
Fin Fish
Soy
Wheat
Sesame
Caffeine
Sulfites
Salicylates
Amines
Mustard
Other (please specify): ___________
Not sensitive or allergic at all Very sensitive or very allergic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Which of the following best describes your current employment status?
Working full-time, that is, 35 or more hours per week 1 Working part-time, that is, less than 35 hours per week 2 Self-employed 3 Unemployed, but looking for work 4 A student attending school full-time 5 Retired 6 Not in the workforce (full-time homemaker, unemployed, not looking for work) 7 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 9 What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
Some high school 1 High school diploma or equivalent 2 Registered apprenticeship or other trades certificate or diploma 3 College, CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma 4 University certificate or diploma below bachelor’s level 5 Bachelor’s degree 6 Postgraduate degree above bachelor’s level 7 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 9 What is your marital status?
Single 1 Married/living with someone/common law 2 Separated/divorced 3 Widowed 4 Other, please specify _________________ 77 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 99 How many individuals, including yourself, currently live in your household?
[NUMERICAL OPEN-END]
Don’t know/Prefer not to say 99 Are you a parent or guardian of a child under the age of 18?
Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 9 Which of the following categories best describes your total household income for 2021? That is, the total income of all persons in your household combined, before taxes.
Under $20,000 1 $20,000 to just under $40,000 2 $40,000 to just under $60,000 3 $60,000 to just under $80,000 4 $80,000 to just under $100,000 5 $100,000 to just under $150,000 6 $150,000 and above 7 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 9 What are the first 3 digits of your postal code?
[INSERT FIRST 3 DIGITS OF POSTAL CODE. FORMAT A1A]
Don’t know/Prefer not to say 999 [CODE RURAL VS URBAN]
This concludes the survey. Your answers have been submitted. Thank you for your participation!
This research is being contracted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). The purpose of the research is to capture Canadians’ perceptions of food fraud so that Agency communications on this topic can remain effective in addressing areas of concern or misunderstanding.
The survey results will be posted on Library and Archives Canada.
For more information on food safety, food fraud or to sign up for email notification of food recalls please visit the Canadian Food Inspection Agency website. (Inspection.gc.ca)
Focus group screener
Specifications
Recruit 8 participants per group, for 6 to 8 to show
Participants to be paid $100
Efforts will be made to recruit members of visible minorities and indigenous communities in all groups
10 online focus groups with individuals at least 18 years of age, from across Canada who are at least 25% responsible for buying groceries for their household
2 participants in each session should live in a town with a population no higher than 30,000
Efforts to be made to recruit ~2 participants who have food allergies or sensitivities in each group.
All times are stated in local area time unless specified otherwise.
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 |
| Atlantic Young Adults (18-34) | Atlantic Adults (35+) | Ontario/Nunavut Young Adults (18-34) | Ontario/Nunavut Adults (35+) |
| January 24 5:30 pm AST | January 24 7:30 pm AST | January 25 5:30 pm EST | January 25 7:30 pm EST |
| Group 5 | Group 6 | Group 7 | Group 8 |
| Quebec Young Adults (18-34) | Quebec Adults (35+) | Prairies (MB/SK/AB) / NWT Young Adults (18-34) | Prairies (MB/SK/AB) / NWT Adults (35+) |
| January 26 5:30 pm EST FRENCH | January 26 7:30 pm EST FRENCH | January 27 6:00 pm CST | January 27 8:00 pm CST |
| Group 9 BC/Yukon Young Adults (18-34) January 31 5:00 pm PST | Group 10 BC/Yukon Adults (35+) January 31 7:00 pm PST |
Questionnaire
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 the food Canadians consume and how they perceive its authenticity and representation. 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 6 to 8 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.”]
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
To what extent are you responsible for purchasing groceries for your household? Please choose a value from 0% to 100%
IF LESS THAN 25%, THANK AND TERMINATE
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
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
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 What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
In the process of completing high school 1 Completed high school 2 Currently in college 3 Graduated from college 4 Currently in university 5 Graduated from university 6 Do you have any food allergies or sensitivities?
Yes 1 RECRUIT ~2 PER GROUP No 2 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 (Q8=3 or 4)
We want to make sure we speak to a diversity of people. Do you identify as any of the following?
An Indigenous person (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 RECRUIT MEMBERS OF VISIBLE MINORITIES IN EACH GROUP AND APPROXIMATELY 5-6 MEMBERS OF INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES ACROSS ALL FOCUS GROUPS COMBINED
[ASK ONLY IF Q9=2] What is your ethnic background? RECORD
RECORD ETHNICITY: ______________
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 Q15 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 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
How many discussion groups or interviews have you attended in the past 5 years?
Fewer than 5 1 5 or more 2 THANK & TERMINATE 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 Do you have access to a stable internet connection, capable of sustaining a 90-minute online video conference?
Yes 1 No 2 THANK & TERMINATE 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 THANK & TERMINATE No 2
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
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 $100 to thank them for their time.
Would you be interested in taking part in this study?
Yes 1 No 2 THANK & TERMINATE 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 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 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 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 $100 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 [PLATFORM]. We will need to send you by email the instructions to connect. The use of a computer or tablet (not a smartphone) in a quiet room is necessary since the moderator will want to show material to participants to get their reactions – that will be an important part of the discussion.
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, 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!
Focus group moderation guide
Introduction to procedures (10 minutes)
Thank you all for joining this online focus group!
Introduce moderator/firm and welcome participants to the focus group
Thanks for attending.
My name is [INSERT MODERATOR NAME] and I work with Quorus Consulting, and we are conducting research on behalf of the Government of Canada.
Today we will be talking about the food you consume and how you perceive its authenticity and accurate representation.
The discussion will last approximately 90 minutes.
If you have a cell phone or other electronic device, please turn it off.
Describe focus group
A discussion group is a “round table” discussion, meaning we will discuss something and everyone has an equal chance to express an opinion. We may also be asking you to answer survey questions from time to time to help guide the discussion.
My job is to facilitate the discussion, keeping us on topic and on time.
Your job is to offer your opinions on the topics I’ll be presenting to you tonight/today.
Your honest opinion is valued. There are no right or wrong answers. This is not a knowledge test.
Everyone’s opinion is important and should be respected.
We want you to speak up even if you feel your opinion might be different from others. Your opinion may reflect that of other consumers.
To participate in this session, please make sure your webcam and your microphone are on and that you can hear me clearly. If you are not speaking, I would encourage you to mute your line to keep background noise to a minimum…just remember to remove yourself from mute when you want to speak!
We might use the chat function. [MODERATOR EXPLAINS HOW TO ACCESS THE ZOOM CHAT FEATURE DEPENDING ON THE DEVICE THE PARTICIPANT IS USING]. Let’s do a quick test right now - please open the chat window and send the group a short message (e.g., Hello everyone). If you have an answer to a question and I don’t get to ask you specifically, please type your response in there. We will be reviewing all chat comments at the completion of this project.
Explanations
Please note that anything you say during these groups will be held in the strictest confidence. We do not attribute comments to specific people. Our report summarizes the findings from the groups but does not mention anyone by name. Please do not provide any identifiable information about yourself.
The final report for this session, and others, can be accessed through the Library of Parliament or Library and Archives Canada once it’s posted.
Your responses will in no way affect your dealings with the Government of Canada.
The session is being audio-video recorded for report writing purposes / verify feedback. Short portions of the recordings will also be used internally by the client research team to support their internal communication of the research results.
Some of my colleagues involved in this project are watching this session and this is only so they can hear the comments first-hand.
Please note that I am not an employee of the Government of Canada and may not be able to answer questions about what we will be discussing. If questions do come up over the course of the group, we will try to get answers for you before we wrap up the session.
Any questions?
Overall views on and experiences with food fraud (35 minutes)
Tonight we are going to talk a bit about the foods you purchase and consume from retail establishments, such as a grocery store. We are not referring to anything you would order from a restaurant.
Defining food fraud and looking for information
What comes to mind when you hear the term “food fraud?”
Just so we are all on the same page…[SHOW ON SCREEN] Food fraud occurs when food is misrepresented.
What if I say “food misrepresentation” – is this in any way different from “food fraud?”
MODERATOR TO EXPLAIN: For the rest of the session, I will use food fraud and food misrepresentation interchangeably. They are the same thing.
Have you seen, read or heard anything about food fraud over the past year or so?
What did you see, read or hear?
Where did you see, read or hear that?
Have any of you actively looked for information about food fraud?
IF YES:
What were the reasons for that research?
Where did you look for information?
What information were you looking for exactly and did you find what you were looking for?
Was it a recent situation?
In your opinion, what constitutes “food fraud?”
Please provide some examples, even if they are fictitious.
Level of concern with food fraud
When you do your grocery shopping, how concerned are you about food fraud?
Help me understand your position on this a bit more.
Has your level of concern changed at all over time?
…if so, in which way(s)?
…if so, what has explained this shift over time?
Are you more concerned with certain types of foods being subject to fraud/misrepresentation, and if so which ones?
Help me understand your position on this a bit more.
Personal experiences
Thinking of your own personal experiences, have you ever encountered food fraud?
How did you find out about it / discover that it was food fraud?
What did you do as a result?
Do you know if your actions led to anything in particular (outcomes, consequences, changes, etc.)? How satisfied were you with the outcome of your actions?
Taking action
What action would you take if you thought that a food product you purchased was fraudulent or misrepresented? What steps would you follow?
In what circumstances would these steps be different? Walk me through the different paths you might take based on the situation.
In your opinion, what would be the ideal way for consumers to take action when they encounter food fraud?
And what consequences would you expect for the food company responsible for the food fraud?
Views on how food fraud is managed in Canada
Overall, what are your thoughts on how food fraud is “managed” in Canada?
Have your views on this changed at all over time?
If so, in which way(s)?
If so, what has explained this shift over time?
As you may or may not know, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is responsible for monitoring and regulating food in Canada.
SHOW OF HANDS: How many of you would have instinctively thought to go to the CFIA if you ever encountered food fraud?
In terms of how food fraud is monitored and addressed in Canada, what, if anything, do you feel needs to change?
PROBE AS NEEDED: What about in terms of…
how closely food companies are monitored? Help me understand what needs to happen/change here.
the consequences or penalties companies face for committing food fraud? Help me understand what needs to happen/change here.
how well consumers need to be informed about food fraud? Help me understand what needs to happen/change here.
the role consumers play, if any, when it comes to food fraud.
Concept testing – set up (2 minutes)
I would now like to share with you some visual advertisement concepts that are related to food fraud. I’m going to show you 3 static ad concepts and 1 GIF concept being considered by the Government of Canada.
If selected, these concepts would become ads that could eventually appear on digital media such as social media or on websites. I want to emphasize that these concepts are drafts at this stage and have not been finalized.
Concept testing (20 minutes, or 5 minutes per concept)
I’ll show you 1 of the concepts and then we will have a short discussion about that concept. Once we are done discussing that concept, we will move on to the next one.
MODERATOR SHOWS THE CONCEPT
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY:
| Concept 1 = STYLE-01-A [STATIC IMAGE] | 
|
| Concept 2 = STYLE 01-A2 [STATIC IMAGE] | 
|
| Concept 3 = STYLE-03-C4 [STATIC IMAGE] | 
|
Concept D = GIF [GIF] Link to GIF
RANDOMIZE PRESENTATION OF CONCEPTS A, B AND C FOR EACH GROUP (ALWAYS TEST THE GIF AT THE END GIVEN THE DIFFERENT FORMAT USED)
Here is the first advertising concept – it is called Concept A/B/C (NOTE: Concept D will be shown at the end).
MODERATOR SHOWS THE CONCEPT
In the chat box, I’d like you to rate the concept I just showed you. Using a scale from 1 to 10 (where 10 is the best score possible), how would you rate this advertising concept?
Overall, what are your initial thoughts and feelings about this concept? PROBE: Why did you give it this rating?
Do you find this ad easy to understand? Does the idea and message make sense to you?
[MAIN MESSAGE] In a few words, what do you think is the main message of this ad? What are they trying to tell us?
[CALL TO ACTION] What do you think this ad is trying to get us to do?
How effective is this ad in terms of:
getting you to think about food fraud any differently?
making you more aware of food fraud?
making you more aware of resources you can use if you encounter food fraud?
Do you have any feedback on the look and feel of the ad? This could be regarding the graphic used, the use of colour, the overall layout, etc.
How well does the message and the overall look and feel fit together?
[CUT THROUGH THE CLUTTER] Do you think this is an ad you would actually notice?
[RELEVANCE] Do you think this ad was designed for you and consumers like you in mind?
What, if anything, could be changed to make this ad better?
If you saw an advertisement with this visual show up on a website or a social media page, would you be willing to click on it? What type of webpage would you expect it to bring you to? What do you expect to find out when going to the link provided?
In seeing this ad, what impression does it give on how well industry complies with food regulations?
Does this ad impact/affect your confidence in the marketplace?
TIME PERMITTING – SHOW ALL 3 STATIC CONCEPTS ON THE SCREEN WITH THE ASSOCIATED LETTERS: Among all the concepts tested, which one do you feel the Government of Canada should use?
Help me understand your choice
Messaging testing – set up (2 minutes)
I would now like to share with you some advertisement concepts that are related to food fraud. I’m going to show you 3 messages being considered by the Government of Canada.
If selected, these messages would be used in ads that could eventually appear on digital media such as social media or on websites. I want to emphasize that these messages are drafts at this stage and have not been finalized.
Messaging testing (10 minutes)
MODERATOR SHOWS ALL MESSAGES ON THE SCREEN
MESSAGE A = Is your food what you think it is? Learn more about food fraud
MESSAGE B = Do you suspect food fraud? Report it! Learn more
MESSAGE C = Help us prevent food fraud. Learn more
In the chat box, I’d like you to say which of the messages would be the most likely to get your attention or compel you to want to learn more about food fraud?
PROBE: Why did you pick this one?
Do you find this message easy to understand? Does the message make sense to you?
[RELEVANCE] Do you think this message was designed for you and consumers like you in mind?
What, if anything, could be changed to make this message better?
What are your initial reactions to seeing any of these 3 messages? Any words that immediately come to mind?
In the chat box, I’d like you to say which of the messages would be the least likely to get your attention or compel you to want to learn more about food fraud?
PROBE: Why did you pick this one?
Do you find this message easy to understand? Does the message make sense to you?
[RELEVANCE] Do you think this message was designed for you and consumers like you in mind?
What could be changed to make this message better?
Now considering each of the messages:
If this was used as a link, what do you expect to find out when going to the link provided?
In seeing this message, what impression does it give on how well industry complies with food regulations?
Does this message impact/affect your confidence in the marketplace?
Combination of messaging and visuals together (Approximately 10 minutes)
MODERATOR SHOWS THE CONCEPTS AND THE MESSAGES IN SEPARATE LISTS
You have now seen 3 images and 3 text messages – which message and which visual, when combined, would work best together to get your attention and compel you to want to learn more about food fraud?
Are there any other combinations that you think would work well?
Any combinations that you think would not work well together?
If you saw this combination used for an advertisement on a webpage or social media page, how likely would you be to click on it to learn more about food fraud?
Wrap-up (2 minutes)
Thanks again! The team that invited you to participate in this session will contact you regarding the manner in which you can receive the incentive we promised you.
Thank you – have a nice evening!
Concept testing
Concept 1
Concept 2
Concept 3
GIF Concept
Six posters are shown
1. A Yellow background. 2. A blurred image of front portion of the food cart. 3. A food cart with a variety of items is on the right. A text on the left reads, HELP US PREVENT. 4. A stop sign labeled FOOD FRAUD is on the right. A text on the left reads, HELP US PREVENT. 5. A text on the center reads, Learn more about, FOOD Fraud. Logo of the Canada is on the footer. 6. A text on the center reads, inspection dot g c dot c a forward slash food hyphen fraud. Logo of the Canada is on the footer.
Messaging
| Messages |
|---|
A: Is your food what you think it is? Learn more about food fraud B: Do you suspect food fraud? Report it! Learn more C: Help us prevent food fraud. Learn more |