Executive
Summary
The mission of 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.
Mitigating risks to food safety is a top CFIA priority, and
the health and safety of Canadians is a key force behind the design and
development of CFIA programs. The CFIA, in collaboration and partnership with
industry, consumers, and federal, provincial, and municipal organizations,
continues to work towards protecting Canadians from preventable health risks
related to food and zoonotic diseases.
The current and future economic prosperity of the Canadian
agriculture and forestry sectors relies on a healthy and sustainable animal and
plant resource base. As such, the CFIA is continually improving its program
design and delivery in the animal health and plant resource areas in order to
minimize and manage risks. In an effort to protect the natural environment from
invasive animal and plant diseases and plant pests, the CFIA also performs
extensive work related to the protection of environmental biodiversity.
The reputation and credibility of the CFIA are vital to the
Agency’s ability to deliver on the mandate. As such, these variables are a key
part of the CFIA’s values and drive Agency actions, internally and externally,
so trust is preserved. The best way to communicate with stakeholders is
continually evolving and needs to be examined.
To assess these elements of reputation of the CFIA, a
comprehensive POR study is required using multiple methodologies. This is an
annual study on reputation, trust, messaging and other brand attributes that
allow the CFIA to manage and develop the CFIA brand. This POR will also capture
variables necessary for the POR Indicators required for the Departmental
Results Report and Treasury Board Submission Results Annexes.
Consumers
As was the case in previous iterations of this study, the research
conducted with both consumers and businesses each comprised both qualitative
and quantitative methods. The qualitative work conducted with Canadian
consumers consisted of six (6) online focus groups, two in French and four in
English of some 100 minutes in length with participants who are primarily
responsible for the food shopping in their households. Consumer participants
were offered $150 for their participation in the study as compensation for
their time.
The quantitative phase of the consumer research was conducted with
(N=3003) consumers via an online panel which took an average of 9 minutes to complete. An online survey was chosen
because of its capacity to deliver the survey to a broadly representative
sample of Canadians efficiently, and because it is well-adapted to Canadians’
communication habits. There are limitations to online panels for generalizing
the results to the target population, and caution should be taken when applying
inferential statistics.
Regulated Businesses
The qualitative work conducted with regulated Canadian businesses
consisted of five (5) online focus groups, one in French and four in English of
some 110 minutes in length. Qualitative research with businesspeople was
focused on companies that are involved in the growing, breeding or
transportation of living plants or animals.
The quantitative phase of the regulated business research was conducted
with Logit Group and gathered data from (N=1575) businesses via emailed invitations sent out from Agency
servers. These took approximately 13.5 minutes on average to complete.
Qualitative research is best used for broadening our understanding of
what matters to the target audiences and how they think. Qualitative research
reveals the diversity of perspectives among target audiences and highlights
issues that may not have previously been identified or recognized by the
research team. That said, the findings from qualitative inquiry are not and
should not be construed as statistically-representative of the populations
being studied.
The purpose of this study is to measure and compare Canadian
consumers’ perceptions of food, plant and animal health and safety in Canada as
well as to evaluate reputation and activities of the CFIA, including how the
CFIA is doing as a federal Agency to build consumer familiarity, trust, and
confidence in this realm. Another practical objective is to explore how the
public are receiving communication messaging, measure their awareness of the
CFIA’s activities in their daily lives, and perhaps gain some insights into
ways to improve messaging in their mission to regulate the safety and health of
food, plants and animals in Canada.
Year over year, Canadians awareness of the CFIA as the
organization responsible for food, plant and animal health and safety has
remained constant. As well, two in three
consumers claim to have heard or seen something related to the CFIA in the past
year. Sources of awareness are traditional media, the internet and word of
mouth. Digital tools such as
the CFIA website,
podcasts and online articles/ videos are having more impact on awareness and
familiarity with the CFIA than newsletters, notices or direct contact
with the Agency.
Another objective of this study is to measure the percentage
of Canadians who agree that CFIA’s activities help ensure food sold in Canada
is safe. Canadians have a high level of trust (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale)
in the CFIA to do what is right to ensure food is safe in Canada (71%). This is
steadily increasing year over year with last year’s trust score (70%), and the
initial score in 2021 being 66% for this metric. Of note, trust is higher among
those in the highest household income bracket, as well as those with higher
education.
While consumers still associate the CFIA brand with similar
attributes as last year, we are seeing a gradual decline in this agreement. The
strongest associations again were “Food recalls are an example of the food
system working” 70% (down 3 pts from last year, and 6pts from 2021), “The CFIA
looks out for the best interests of Canadians” 64% (down 3pts from last year,
and 8pts from 2021) and “The CFIA is effective in enforcing food safety
regulations” 61% (down 2 pts from last year and 4 pts from 2021).
Finally, a key driver analysis was conducted to determine
the relative importance of a list of variables for predicting familiarity,
trust, or confidence in the Agency. It found that the Agency should focus
messaging on issues specifically to affect familiarity, trust or confidence as
follows:
·
The
top way to increase familiarity include more communication about what
Agency does, and provide additional ways to access information about the
Agency’s activities
·
The
top drivers of Agency trust also remain consistent with last year’s
results; driving perceptions that the CFIA is “looking out” for the best
interests of Canadians, and that the CFIA is effective in enforcing food safety
regulations
·
Confidence
in the CFIA is driven
by consumers’ understanding of the Agency’s mandate, and their understanding
that food recalls are an example of the food system working.
The purpose of this study is to conduct research to measure
the CFIA’s reputation among key stakeholders, namely industries in the food,
plant and animal lines. The organizations interviewed fall within the purview
of the Agency and therefore may be more invested with the Agency as it pertains
to their business. We looked at organizational familiarity, trust and
confidence in the CFIA, as well as communication and brand imagery measures.
A new performance measure (NPS Net Promoter Score) was added
to the survey this year in order to have a one-score overall evaluation of the
CFIA by businesses. All lines of business gave quite different NPS scores, with
Food businesses giving the most favorable score of 48%, followed by Plant
businesses (33%) and then Animal (23%). The main difference is among the
negative scores (Detractors rating 0-6 on the scale)
We asked Canadian businesses how confident they are that
food, as well as animals and plants are safeguarded. An encouraging majority
gave a top 3 box score (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale) of 89%. Food businesses
rated confidence 91%, while animal and plant were slightly lower at 85% and 86%
respectively. Another
reassuring result shows strong confidence in the CFIA when rating their
company's level of confidence that food sold in Canada is safe; the top 3 box score (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale) shows very high
confidence across segments in the safety of food in Canada (total 92%, food
93%, animal 89%, plant 89%).
When rating the CFIA on a number of attributes and value
statements, Food businesses rated the CFIA higher than did Plant and Animal
businesses. Similar to last year the same 4 statements involving respect,
helpfulness, and fairness earned the highest scores. Encouragingly, businesses
with Indigenous owners or those with more than 50% of employees who are visible
minorities tended to agree significantly more with these statements about the
CFIA. Communication messaging is seemingly doing well at reaching these minority
groups.
A key driver analysis was also conducted to predict the most
important drivers of Agency familiarity, trust, and confidence among
businesses.
·
Similar
to the last 2 years, the top attributes that drive familiarity are clear
guidance on regulations, representatives carrying their duties in a respectful
manner, and engaging in open and honest dialogue about policies.
·
In
terms of driving Agency trust among businesses, the primary driver is
perceived “fairness”, and “sensitivity” to the specific needs of businesses.
·
The
top two drivers of businesses’ confidence in the CFIA are the same as
last year although flipped in importance. The Agency needs to communicate that
they are “Competent” and “Fair” in order to instill confidence among
businesses.
The principal findings from our discussions
with both consumer and business participants centre on the diversity of their views
about food safety and the CFIA and their implications for the Agency and its
communications strategy.
Consumers
We found consumer participants to vary in
their interest in food generally, varyingly concerned with the ecological and
environmental impact of food production, more or less required to adjust to the
rising costs of food, and of differing inclination to trust the organizations–
namely governments and food companies – involved in the making and supervision
of food. We found as well that Canadians
with dietary and health related restrictions on what they can eat have
particular and unique concerns about ingredients, transparency, and the safe
food practices in industry that make of them a distinct audience. In the very
simplest of senses, these influences contribute to broadly divergent
conceptions of food safety, opposing those who see it largely as a matter of
avoiding exposure to pathogens and their immediate threat of food poisoning and
those who’s conception includes longer term threats implications for the health
of humans, society and the planet.
A particularly challenging implication in this
swirl of influences is that participants hold them in different combinations
and to varying degrees – resulting in a mix that much complicates public-facing
communication for the CFIA. In sum, our
qualitative findings suggest very clearly that the CFIA’s reputation is likely
to improve if these differences are accounted for. This report describes these
differences in some detail and offers some insight into some of the more
evident ways Canadians might be clustered accordingly.
Business
Operators
The business operators we spoke to also
emerged as a heterogeneous group. In their case, we found that their views
about regulations and the CFIA vary as a function of their size, their
maturity, their particular area of activity, the degree to which they are
subject to regulatory oversight, and finally their organizational values. We encountered clear evidence that bigger
organizations are better equipped to deal with regulatory oversight, often
evolving their core structures accordingly.
Bigger companies – and especially highly regulated ones -- are more
likely to have people tasked specifically to regulatory compliance. These human
and financial resources investments contribute to the accumulation of
specialized knowledge about regulations, and in some cases the development of
personal contact with the Agency staff which in turn greatly enhance their
ability to navigate the regulation process. Not surprisingly, these bigger
companies are more likely to be autonomous in their efforts to keep abreast of
regulations and related changes, and more assertive in defending their
interests.
Smaller companies and those who experience
less frequent contact with the CFIA look very different. Many if not most are
preoccupied with securing their business and generally do so with fewer human
and financial resources. Operators of
smaller companies appear more likely to see regulations and compliance as one
priority among many others they must deal with and to deal with regulations reactively
as opposed to proactively. The issues of smaller and less regulated companies
are more likely to center on recognizing when and in which contexts they are
subject to regulations, and the challenges of keeping up with regulatory
changes. Although these smaller
companies appear to be less likely to encounter compliance issues (in no small
part because they are much less under scrutiny), there is some evidence to
suggest that when they are, they may be at risk of infractions that bigger
companies might well avoid.
Finally, we found varying inclinations among
both small and larger, highly and less highly regulated companies to see
compliance as a virtuous value. Some of
the operators we spoke to clearly see compliance as either good for business, or
simply as a social good, and sometimes both.
Other operators tend to see compliance as a burden - to be resisted in
some cases, more of an annoyance in some cases, and in others, as an obstacle
to doing business in a particular field.
Not surprisingly, where a company sits on these dimensions appears to
have a clear and powerful influence on compliance, on the quality of
communications with the Agency, and for the Agency’s reputation. This report also discusses the diversity of
businesses in more detail.
Ultimately, these findings on differentiation
across both consumer and business audiences suggest that the CFIA has both the
potential to improve to its reputation, business relations, and performance by
learning more about how these two audiences are segmented and configuring its
work accordingly.
Full
Research Findings
Consumer Qualitative Detailed Results
Any observer of the Canadian food landscape would be quick
to grasp that consumers are not all of the same mind about the food they
prefer. Our grocery stores and local markets provide Canadians with foods that
vary impressively in price, ethnic origin, caloric value and so on in an effort
to meet our different and evolving preferences. It should be of little surprise
then that Canadians are also of diverse minds about what constitutes “safe”
food. This section of the report is intended to describe the different ways
consumer participants conceive of food safety and how these differences may
come to bear on the Agency’s work, reputation and communication strategies.
Although our findings are exploratory and lacking quantified data about the
weight and influence of these differences across the Canadian consumer
landscape, they nonetheless point to a limited number of dimensions as central
to this understanding. These include ecological values, differences in
disposable income, different dietary and health-related imperatives, different
levels of trust in the various organizations involved, and finally, different
instincts about short versus long term health risks in food, both for humans
and the planet. As we hope to make clear, different combinations of these views
influence and, to a degree, likely predict how different Canadian consumer
segments understand safe food.
Our participants consider, to varying degrees, the
ecological implications of the food they choose to buy and eat. They range
between those who consider ecology very little or not at all to those for whom
ecological concerns influence most of what they buy. Generally, participants
who are the most motivated in this sense are more likely to buy organic
products, to avoid GMOs, pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and other
unpronounceable ingredients. These participants also lean toward locally produced
and seasonally available foods and avoid foods that must travel long distances
before they reach the supermarket shelves out of concern for related pollution.
These ecological considerations can, in some of the participants, be strong
enough to curb patronage of bigger supermarkets and the products of major food
manufacturers.
Participants at the opposite end of this spectrum may be
ecologically minded in other ways but are less inclined to consider their food
choices in this light. They tend to buy food based on convenience, price,
availability, quality and other such matters, and tend to see greater value
well-known brands, bigger stores and out of season foods. Although they may
express concerns about some ecological matters when prompted, they do not
generally factor such considerations into their purchases. Although this
research process does not provide us with any solid insight about how
spread-out Canadians are on this spectrum, there is nonetheless much to suggest
that the proportion of Canadians motivated by ecological considerations is
substantial and likely growing.
Our focus group participants were of very different
inclinations and capacities to spend on food and buy accordingly. Our
discussions show quite clearly that disposable as opposed to total
income is key to understanding these choices, as this helps us understand how a
family with relatively high levels of household income and several children may
face more constraints on how much they can spend on food than a smaller family
that earns less but has fewer children. We also encountered participants who
save on food for reasons of principle that may have little to do with
income: They may take advantage of
coupons, shift between retail outlets based on what’s “on special” and even
plan their meals accordingly because of ingrained habit, personal values or
simply a desire to avoid paying more than is necessary.
Our discussions this year clearly show that the food
inflation is a growing concern for many, increasingly an influence on what
kinds of food are being bought, and increasingly a consideration that raises
questions or concerns about the food industry. Interestingly, some contend that
some foods, notably organic produce, fresh vegetables, and the like are increasing
in price faster than more conventional fare in supermarkets. Although
participants were of mixed and often unclear opinions about where the
accountability for higher food prices lie, many are inclined to see “eating
healthy” as increasingly and disproportionately expensive relative to more
conventional (and by extension less healthy) options. In these ways,
disposable income and the costs of food have the potential to influence what
kinds of food are seen to be accessible and healthiest, and for some consumers,
provoke concerns about related health implications for the many Canadians who
are feeling the pinch of higher prices.
Our recruiting specifications were designed to ensure the
participation of Canadian consumers with dietary and health-related
imperatives. We learned from these participants about food safety concerns that
differ from those of most other Canadian consumers. Various intolerances
(lactose, gluten), food allergies (peanuts, shellfish, etc.) and conditions
such as diabetes and celiac disease can be debilitating. Not surprisingly,
these participants have elevated concern for what is in their food, and
accordingly tend to have higher interest in the food safety regime and elevate
concerns about industry’s practices. They tend also to see labelling and
transparency as highly important, especially about ingredients, manufacturing
process and marketing claims. We have also noted that the prospect of
innovative or novel forms of food is more concerning to people with these
issues.
Another dimension that seems to truly divide participants is
their relative curiosity about food. We encountered participants at either end
of this spectrum: some are highly
curious about food, and this of course is reflected in their purchasing
habits, meal composition instincts and their propensity to try new things.
People with such high levels of curiosity are much more likely to experiment
with exotic or novel foods, new recipes and cooking techniques from other parts
of the world. This in turn tends to elevate their curiosity about measures in
Canada to ensure that imported foods are safe. Participants of this inclination
also have a noticeably greater appetite to read labels, to learn about the
provenance of ingredients and the people or organizations that produce them.
Their curiosity extends to published literature about food, to food-related
science, and motivates some to build personal relationships with their food
suppliers.
Participants at the other end of this spectrum, namely those
who are not very or not at all curious about food, tend to eat the same things,
tend to avoid exotic foods, and experiment less with novel cooking techniques.
They also appear less likely to develop the same breadth of knowledge about
food and seem much more likely to view food in strictly utilitarian terms. We
have also noted that people with relatively low levels of food-related
curiosity also tend to be more trusting of food safety and see it as a
relatively simple matter of good food handling practices.
From our discussions we find that participants differ on
whether they see unsafe food primarily as a direct threat only to humans or as
something that also poses more indirect threats to and from our environment.
Our participants also differ in the degree to which they consider the threat of
unsafe food as a short versus longer-term concern. Most, it would appear, are
inclined toward the least complicated of these conceptions -- namely to see the
threats in food as principally a matter of contaminants, spoilage and getting
some form of food poisoning. While people of this inclination most often
recognize the potential seriousness of food poisoning, the threats from this
perspective are relatively contained to the short-term, and to a large extent
knowable. E-coli, listeria, salmonella, and the like are perhaps not always
easy to detect, but they are not seen as mysterious in any fundamental way.
Conversely, we also encountered a sizeable number of
participants who – in addition to recognizing these shorter-term, exclusively
human implications also have concerns about longer-term threats inherent
in food and its production for the health of our ecosystem and the general
welfare of Canadians as a whole. Their worries in this sense include
salmonella, E-coli and other contaminants and the immediate threat of food
poisoning, but also extend to much more mysterious and unknowable threats from
things like glyphosate, GMO’s, other pesticides, artificial hormones, some of
the practices of large food producers and so on that they fear can contribute
to environmental degradation (which in turn can pose a threat of its own to
human health), and elevated long-term health risks for Canadians of lower
incomes. Canadians who share these concerns are more likely to believe
degradations in the environment contribute to cancer, immune diseases and the
like, and are more likely to question the equity of the food supply chain. For
people of this inclination, the causal mechanisms involved in safe or unsafe
food are more numerous, more subtle, take longer to manifest and are
accordingly much more difficult to pin down. Not surprisingly, the participants
who think this way have more tenuous faith in the safety of the food supply if
only because the mechanisms in play are more ambiguous.
Finally, our conversations have revealed trust in
organizations and institutions is a strong influence on consumer faith in the
safety of food. Although we continue to encounter many (perhaps a majority) who
have enduring trust in the organizations responsible for the safety of their
food, we appear to be encountering increasing numbers inclined to distrust.
These people cite concerns about decreasing transparency about food
ingredients, provenance and manufacturing practices, concerns about excessive
pursuit of profit, and “cut corners” with respect to organizational
responsibilities and accountabilities. Some of this distrust stems from what is
perceived as deceptive marketing practices in the industry which can range from
more minor examples such as labeling fat-free goods “trans-fat free”, or hyping
nominally reduced sugar content in foods that are overly sweetened to begin
with, to more troubling examples like food fraud. These erode trust in food
producers, sow concern about ways food-related science can be manipulated and
cast doubt on the strength and adaptiveness of the food safety regulatory
regime.
On the whole - and has been the case for the last three
years of this study - we find that participants who have high levels of trust
in organizations, in science and in institutions are also more inclined to have
faith in the safety of their food. Those who are more distrusting have a more
complicated and fraught sense of food safety which ebbs and flows depending on
their disposition toward different players in the food system. Some question
the integrity of individual suppliers. Others have suspicions about complicity
and “coziness” between regulators and industry, whereas others still worry that
a building regulatory burden is hurting Canadian businesses – with some
particularly concerned about the effects on the smaller and more
locally-focused businesses that they see as essential to a more environmentally
sound food supply chain. Others still are leery of government bureaucracy’s
capacity for self-sustaining practices and suspect that much of the fuss about
food safety is overcooked and perhaps designed to keep people employed. Although
our methodology does not allow us any grounded perspective on how prevalent
these views are, it is clear that trust in organizations has ebbed and is an
increasingly important influence on the food safety discussion.
The difficulty in these varied ways of thinking, of course,
is that they reside in different people to different degrees and in different
combinations. The concerns, beliefs and values we have described so far vary
considerably in strength from person to person depending on their personal
relevance. One consumer’s preoccupation with the cost of food, for example, may
be dominant because of their underlying economic circumstances, whereas another
might see cost equally as important, but as one consideration among many
others. We see also from this entangled body of considerations that the very
notion of “unsafe food” is an elastic one – conceived and considered in
significantly different ways. For example, some may see safe food largely as a
matter of controlling pathogenic contaminants like listeria or E-coli, while
others might see it largely as a matter of avoiding spoilage. Others might
consider both of these in addition to other considerations that the
previous two might never consider, including pesticide use, GMO’s, allergens
and so on and in light of their potential to affect long term health in humans
either directly, their impact on the environment or their implications for
Canadian society as a whole.
Another measure of complexity in this variance is in the
degrees to which Canadians share common ways of thinking in recognizable
patterns. For example, we have found that people with higher levels of trust in
organizations are also more likely to presume Canada’s food is safe. We might
also surmise from our conversations that people who have very low levels of
curiosity about food are more inclined to see food safety as largely a
short-term affair, whereas people with high levels of dietary or health related
restrictions around food might be more inclined to the opposite. Another
correlation hinted at from our conversations suggests that people whose food
choices are much influenced by ecological concerns and/or dietary restraints and
who have lower levels of disposable income are likely much concerned about the
costs of food and are accordingly more vigilant and critical about aspects of
Canada’s food supply chain that contribute to elevated costs.
Although our discussions have been useful for uncovering and
unravelling these complex strands of consumer thinking, they are of limited
practical help to the Agency for communication or reputation management
purposes. What is required -- and what remains beyond the scope of this
exercise -- is segmentation analysis that would take these different strands
and weave them into a limited number of distinct consumer target audience
segments. Properly executed, such work would define target audience segments
that are internally homogenous yet collectively different from one another.
These could then be prioritized and communicated with on the specific concerns
and imperatives that animate their views on food safety and by extension, their
views of the Agency. As we have noted, such segmentation is beyond our means at
this stage, but it is possible to develop a hypothetical model if only to
illustrate some of the ways these segments might emerge.
The following illustrates four different ways Canadians might
segment as a function of the influences described above. The reader is
cautioned that these are hypothetical constructs intended for illustrative
purposes only.
Hypothetical Segment A: Health and
Dietary Disciplinarians
One hypothetical segment/target audience – provisionally
labelled “Health and Dietary Disciplinarians” would conform to the following of
defining values and motives:
·
High dietary and health related
restrictions as a result of food and weight
related concerns in the family.
· High
levels of budgetary restrictions.
· Moderately
low levels of trust in institutions, especially for food producers,
distributors, and retailers.
· A
moderate inclination to equate food safety with short-term threats.
· A
moderate inclination to equate food safety with the healthiness of food
generally.
· Moderately
high curiosity about food.
We might expect that consumers who are so motivated would be
more likely to shop in “big box” or discount food retailers, but mostly out of
need due to their limited disposable income for food. Their meals would likely be planned, and they
would likely maintain a high degree of vigilance about food preparation and
ingredients. Awareness of the CFIA would
likely be low yet be seen as a somewhat comforting overseer of food producers,
distributors, and retailers. Effective messaging from the CFIA for this group
would emphasize oversight of allergens, new food types, transparency of
labelling, traceability and ensuring safe food handling practices in the
industry.
Hypothetical Segment B: Cost-Conscious
Food Balancers
One hypothetical segment/target audience – provisionally
labelled “Cost-Conscious Food Balancers” would conform to the following of
defining values and motives:
·
Low dietary and health related
restrictions.
· Moderately
High levels of budgetary restrictions.
· Moderately
low levels of trust in institutions, especially for governments.
· A
strong inclination to equate food safety with short-term threats.
· A
weak inclination to equate food safety with the healthiness of food generally.
· Moderately
low curiosity about food.
We might expect that consumers so motivated would be likely
to shop in mid-to high end food retailers, largely for the variety of foods and
brands available there and their capacity to make weekly food shopping an
efficient, one-stop affair. Meals and shopping both would likely be planned
given the limited amount of time they have, and the foods from freezer would
figure prominently in their meals. This group might be vigilant about food
preparation practices, but not so much about ingredients or where their food
comes from. Awareness of the CFIA would
likely be low. Effective messaging from the CFIA for this group might be that
which “humanizes” the agency and imparts some understanding about the science,
care, and diligence in Agency employees’ work.
Hypothetical Segment C: The
Disengaged
One very likely segment/target audience – provisionally
labelled “The Disengaged” -- would gather the many Canadians for whom food is a
minor concern and conform to the following of defining values and motives:
·
Low dietary and health related
restrictions.
· Moderately
low levels of budgetary restrictions.
· A
moderate inclination to equate food safety with short-term threats.
· A
weak inclination to equate food safety with the healthiness of food generally.
· Very
low curiosity about food.
We might expect that consumers motivated like this to see
food, food shopping and food preparation in very practical terms. Their
shopping and meal preparation would be all about efficiency and convenience. Pre-prepared
foods and food from the freezer would figure prominently in their meals. This
group might be rather casual about food preparation practices, but very
indifferent about ingredients or where their food comes from. Awareness of the CFIA would likely be low.
Efforts by the Agency to reach this segment would be difficult and unlikely to
change much in their beliefs or practices.
Hypothetical Segment D: Health and Ecological-Minded Foodies
One hypothetical segment/target audience – provisionally
labelled “Health and Ecological-Minded Foodies” would conform to the following
of defining values and motives:
·
Low dietary and health related
restrictions.
· Low
levels of budgetary restrictions.
· Low
levels of trust in institutions, for food producers, distributors, retailers,
and regulators.
· A
strong inclination to equate food safety with both short and long-term threats.
· A
very strong inclination to equate food safety with the healthiness of good
generally.
· A
very strong inclination to equate food safety with the health of the ecosystem.
· High
curiosity about food.
We might easily imagine such consumers as “foodies” given
the interest and care that they have for food generally. Meals and shopping for this group would be
very spontaneous, shopped for almost daily and inspired by the provenance and
quality of the ingredients they find in food markets, local producers, and
specialty shops. Awareness of the CFIA
would likely be higher than most Canadians, yet the Agency might well be
distrusted as a force that abets the consolidation and concentration of food
production. Effective messaging from the CFIA for this group would counter such
concerns by providing concrete examples of the Agency’s work to support small,
local producers, the health of the environment, and a focus on long-term
threats in food to the health of humans and the planet.
Even this fictional profile of different Canadian consumer
groups has implications that warrant consideration:
·
First,
these profiles should make clear the limited utility that can be expected from
generic “one-size-fits-all” messaging from the Agency. Our findings make very
clear that Canadians are of varied mindsets, different, and sometimes opposing
views about food safety and how it should be achieved. In this context,
messages designed to reach all Canadians risk being perceived superficially
meaningful or alienating to some consumer segments animated by more pointed
concerns.
·
Second,
even these fictitious profiles show how some messaging is likely to be
inherently controversial. For an example, an Agency that conveys a more
assertive stance about long-term threats to the environment or human health
might mollify some, and at the same time trigger concerns about bureaucratic
overreach among others. In the same vein, an Agency that signals support for
“industry” might exacerbate concerns about the marginalization of smaller,
local and non-industrial producers among others, or worries about “coziness”
between regulators and the regulated for still others. These views also suggest
that targeted messaging is something of a necessity.
·
Finally,
we have encountered very clear evidence that the CFIA has inherent potential
influence on Canadians’ views about food safety and its many underpinning in
our food system -- when its identity and role is recognized, and when it
succeeds in capturing their attention with messages that address their specific
concerns and motives. In this, we see
very strong evidence that communication with Canadian consumers and the
business community is critically
important.
Consumer
Quantitative Detailed Results
Consumer
awareness of the CFIA as the organization in Canada dedicated to food safety
remains stable with the previous 2 years (11%), and slightly more Ontarians
named CFIA (13%) as did those in Atlantic Canada (14%). When asked the same
question with regards to animal health and plant health, unaided awareness of
CFIA is substantially lower; only 3% cited CFIA as the organization tasked with
animal health vs 2% last year, and 4% as the organization tasked with plant
health (same as the last 2 years). Canadians have moderate aided awareness of
the CFIA overall (63%), this is trending down slightly from last year (68%).
Awareness is lower amongst Millennials; under age 35 (49%) and Quebecers (50%).
Canadians’
awareness of CFIA’s responsibilities increased slightly over last year, as more
than half of Canadians (53%) are aware that moving untreated firewood from a
campground or cottage can spread invasive species. Also up from last year, 1 in
5 (19%) Canadians are aware that the CFIA is responsible for regulating the
importation of dogs. 1 in 3 (36%) are aware that the CFIA plays an important
role in preventing the spread of pests such as Japanese beetle in Vancouver and
Emerald Ash Borer in Eastern Canada.
Approximately
1 in 5 (21%) consumers consider themselves to be very familiar (5, 6 or 7 on a
7-point scale) with the activities of CFIA, which is slightly higher than what
was observed last year. Those under age 35 tend to have somewhat higher levels
of familiarity (27%) as do Indigenous (37%) and Visible Minorities (29%). While
familiarity with the activities of the CFIA is relatively low, 1 in 3 (35%)
recall seeing/hearing about the CFIA through traditional media, and another 1
in 5 (21%) recall information via the Internet. One third of Canadians (35%) do
not recall hearing or seeing anything related to the CFIA in the past year (vs
51% last year).
|
A2 - How familiar would you say you are with the
activities of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)?
|
|
|
%
|
|
1 Not familiar at all
|
26%
|
|
2
|
16%
|
|
3
|
18%
|
|
4
|
19%
|
|
5
|
12%
|
|
6
|
5%
|
|
7 Very familiar
|
3%
|
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
21%
|
Base: consumer total N = 3003
|
A3. Where have you seen, heard, or read about the
CFIA? Select all that apply.
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
Traditional media (newspapers, TV, radio)
|
35%
|
|
Internet (includes online news sites but not social
media)
|
21%
|
|
Word of mouth (friends, family, etc.)
|
20%
|
|
Social media (not including CFIA social media)
|
12%
|
|
Direct contact from the CFIA (includes CFIA social
media and visiting the CFIA website)
|
4%
|
|
Podcasts
|
3%
|
|
A digital assistant (for example, Alexa, Siri,
Google)
|
3%
|
|
Not applicable: have not seen, heard, or read anything
about the CFIA
|
35%
|
Base: consumer total N = 3003
Among those
who had heard about the CFIA and its activities, understanding of the information
was moderate. Digital assistants (74%) are the source of information with the
highest comprehension rate (rated 5,6, or 7 on a 7pt scale), though it had
lowest recall overall. Other sources of information including traditional media
(72%), direct contact from the CFIA (71%) and the internet (excluding social
media) (70%), all provide clear information about the CFIA for those who recall
seeing messaging. Information coming from social media (69%) and podcasts (68%)
was somewhat less clear, and the clarity of information via “word of mouth”
(64%) was the lowest of all sources.
|
A4 - Thinking about what you have seen, read or
heard about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, indicate how well you
understood the information
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
1
Not at
all
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7 Understand
completely
|
T3B rated (5,6,7)
|
N
|
|
A digital assistant (for example,
Alexa, Siri, Google)
|
2%
|
1%
|
8%
|
14%
|
33%
|
19%
|
22%
|
74%
|
85
|
|
Traditional media (newspapers,
TV, radio)
|
1%
|
2%
|
6%
|
18%
|
31%
|
22%
|
20%
|
72%
|
1059
|
|
Direct contact from the CFIA (includes
CFIA social media and visiting the CFIA website)
|
4%
|
1%
|
6%
|
17%
|
19%
|
18%
|
34%
|
71%
|
118
|
|
Internet (includes online news
sites but not social media)
|
2%
|
2%
|
6%
|
19%
|
27%
|
23%
|
20%
|
70%
|
633
|
|
Social media (not including CFIA
social media)
|
3%
|
2%
|
7%
|
20%
|
31%
|
19%
|
19%
|
69%
|
344
|
|
Podcasts
|
2%
|
1%
|
5%
|
24%
|
31%
|
22%
|
15%
|
68%
|
88
|
|
Word of mouth (friends, family,
etc.)
|
1%
|
3%
|
8%
|
24%
|
29%
|
15%
|
20%
|
64%
|
600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base:
Consumer, those who recall having seen/heard/read about CFIA (base differs by
where information was recalled)
Please
note that the acronym "T3B” is used throughout this report to identify
where respondents have selected a score of 5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale.
We learned
that two in three (65%) Canadians report having seen, heard or read about the
activities of the CFIA. Nearly half of them (47%) cite reading articles,
watching videos, or listening to podcasts from CFIA’s Inspect and Protect, and
34% say they have visited the CFIA website. Less than 1 in 10 follow the CFIA
on social media (8%) subscribe to food recall notices (7%) or have a
friend/family member who works at the CFIA (7%). Direct contact in person (5%),
via email (4%) or phone (3%) are minimal. Only 2% say they subscribe to the
Inspect and Protect newsletter. This implies the wider reaching digital tools such
as the website, podcasts and online articles/ videos are having more impact on
awareness and familiarity with the CFIA.
|
A3a. Select all the following that apply to you:
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
I have read articles, watched videos, or listened to
podcasts from CFIA's Inspect and Protect
|
47%
|
|
I have visited the CFIA website
|
34%
|
|
I follow the CFIA on a social media platform
|
8%
|
|
I subscribe to CFIA food recall notices
|
7%
|
|
I have a friend or family member who works at the
CFIA
|
7%
|
|
I submitted a food safety or labelling concern
|
6%
|
|
In person interaction with a CFIA employee
|
5%
|
|
I have contacted the CFIA by email or through the
website
|
4%
|
|
I have contacted the CFIA by phone
|
3%
|
|
I subscribe to the CFIA's Inspect and Protect
newsletter
|
2%
|
Base: Consumers who recall
seeing/ hearing reading about CFIA n = 1942
The favourability score (rated 5,6, or 7 on a 7pt scale) for the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency is 58% among consumers, second only to Health
Canada at 64%. The organizations with the lowest favourability are the Canada
Revenue Agency (47%), and the Canadian Transportation Agency (43%).
|
AX When you review the
following list of government and non-government organizations, how favourable
of an impression do you have overall of each organization
|
|
|
T3B (5,6,7)%
|
|
Health Canada
|
64%
|
|
Canadian Food
Inspection Agency
|
58%
|
|
Public Health Agency
of Canada
|
57%
|
|
Canada Border Services
Agency
|
51%
|
|
Canada Department of
Fisheries and Oceans
|
49%
|
|
Canada Revenue Agency
|
47%
|
|
Canadian
Transportation Agency
|
43%
|
Among those
who recall seeing/ reading or hearing information about the CFIA and their
activities, the highest satisfaction (8, 9, 10 on a 10-point scale) was for
“CFIA issues food recall notices in a timely manner” (63%), representing an
increase over last year (+12%). Satisfaction with “the CFIA’s handling of the
food safety or labelling concern you reported” (59%) is also increased over
last year (+9%). The “usability of the CFIA website” had a satisfaction rate of
45% while “the CFIA content on Social Media” had the lowest satisfaction rate
at 43%.
|
A3A1 How satisfied are you...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
0
Not at
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10 Very
|
T3B Rated
(8,9,
10)
|
N
|
|
that the CFIA issues food recall
notices in a timely manner
|
0%
|
0%
|
1%
|
2%
|
3%
|
11%
|
4%
|
16%
|
21%
|
12%
|
30%
|
63%
|
141
|
|
with the CFIA handling of the
food safety or labelling concern you reported
|
1%
|
1%
|
3%
|
3%
|
2%
|
11%
|
7%
|
13%
|
25%
|
19%
|
16%
|
59%
|
105
|
|
with the usability of the CFIA
website
|
0%
|
1%
|
0%
|
1%
|
2%
|
17%
|
13%
|
20%
|
24%
|
9%
|
13%
|
45%
|
651
|
|
with the CFIA content on social
media
|
2%
|
1%
|
2%
|
3%
|
2%
|
15%
|
9%
|
24%
|
20%
|
8%
|
15%
|
43%
|
155
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base: Consumers who recall
seeing/ hearing reading about CFIA n = 1942, base differs by statement selected
Consistent
with the past two years, just over three quarters (77%) of Canadians have
considerable confidence in the safety of Canada’s food supply (5, 6 or 7 on a
7-point scale). Like past results, age and income appear to be an influence on
views; those 55+ have a higher rate of confidence in the safety of Canada’s
food supply (79%), as do those in the highest household income bracket, greater
than $100,000 (81%), and similarly those with higher education (81%).
|
A7 - Please rate your level of confidence that food
sold in Canada is safe.
|
|
|
%
|
|
1 Not at all confident
|
2%
|
|
2
|
2%
|
|
3
|
5%
|
|
4
|
15%
|
|
5
|
25%
|
|
6
|
34%
|
|
7 Very confident
|
18%
|
|
T3B (5 , 6 , 7)
|
77%
|
Base: Consumer total sample
N=3003
Canadians
have a high level of trust (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale) in the CFIA to do
what is right to ensure food is safe in Canada (71%). This is consistent with
last year’s trust score (70%). This year, trust is higher among those in the
highest household income bracket, greater than $100,000 (75%), as well as those
with higher education; university degree or higher (76%). When asked about
their trust that food product labels identify ingredients that may cause
allergy/food sensitivity, again 70% of Canadians had a high level of trust (5,
6, or 7 on a 7-point scale). Among only those who report having food
allergies/sensitivities themselves or a family member in their household (39%
of Canadians, +8% over last year), the level of trust is consistent at 69%.
|
A5 - Please indicate how much you trust the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to do what is right to help ensure that food is
safe in Canada?
|
|
|
%
|
|
1 Do not trust at all
|
3%
|
|
2
|
2%
|
|
3
|
5%
|
|
4
|
20%
|
|
5
|
30%
|
|
6
|
26%
|
|
7 Trust completely
|
15%
|
|
T3B (5 ,6 ,7)
|
71%
|
Base: Consumer total sample
N=3003
|
A6 - How much do you trust the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) to inspect that food product labels have indications
regarding ingredients that may cause allergy/food sensitivity?
|
|
|
%
|
|
1 Do not trust at all
|
2%
|
|
2
|
2%
|
|
3
|
6%
|
|
4
|
20%
|
|
5
|
28%
|
|
6
|
27%
|
|
7 Trust completely
|
15%
|
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
70%
|
Base: Consumer total sample N=3003
Three
quarters of Canadians (75%) rate the CFIA highly (5, 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale)
verifying that food sold in Canada is safe. Those in BC give a slightly higher
rating (79%) as do Canadians with a university degree or higher (80%).
Consistent with last year’s results, the perception that the CFIA is doing well
(5, 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) to safeguard plant health (69%) and animal
health (71%) are slightly lower than confidence around food.
|
A7a - When it comes to verifying that food sold in
Canada is safe, how well to you believe the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
is doing?
|
|
|
%
|
|
1 Not doing well
|
2%
|
|
2
|
2%
|
|
3
|
5%
|
|
4
|
16%
|
|
5
|
29%
|
|
6
|
30%
|
|
7 Doing well
|
16%
|
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
75%
|
Base:
Consumer total sample N=3003
|
A7b - When it comes to safeguarding plant health
(regulating invasive insects, plants, and other plant pests), how
well do you believe the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is doing?
|
|
|
%
|
|
1 Not doing well
|
2%
|
|
2
|
2%
|
|
3
|
6%
|
|
4
|
21%
|
|
5
|
30%
|
|
6
|
26%
|
|
7 Doing well
|
13%
|
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
69%
|
Base:
Consumer total sample N=3003
|
A7c - When it comes to safeguarding animal health
and preventing the spread of animal diseases, how well do you believe the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency is doing?
|
|
|
%
|
|
1 Not doing well
|
2%
|
|
2
|
2%
|
|
3
|
6%
|
|
4
|
20%
|
|
5
|
31%
|
|
6
|
25%
|
|
7 Doing well
|
14%
|
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
71%
|
Base:
Consumer total sample N=3003
Brand attributes assessment
Scores on
CFIA brand attributes are similar but slightly lower than last year. We
measured agreement (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale) with statements about the
CFIA, and most respondents agree to a considerable extent with important
statements like “Food recalls are an example of the food system working” (70%
vs 73% last year), and “The CFIA looks out for the best interests of Canadians”
(64% vs 67% last year). In terms of being effective and fair, scores were
notably lower; “The CFIA is effective in enforcing food safety regulations”
(61% vs 63% last year), and “All businesses are treated fairly by the CFIA”
(48% vs 52% last year).
Some of the
statements had even less agreement, and consistent with last year less than
half of respondents “understand what the CFIA does” (46% vs 47% last year), or
thinks that “getting more information about food, plant or animal safety from
the CFIA is easy” (44% vs 45% last year).
|
A8r - Below are several statements about the CFIA.
For each statement, please indicate how much you agree or disagree
|
|
|
%
|
1
Disagree completely
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
Agree
completely
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
N/A
|
|
Food recalls are an example of
the food system working
|
1%
|
2%
|
6%
|
15%
|
25%
|
23%
|
22%
|
70%
|
7%
|
|
The CFIA looks out for the best
interests of Canadians
|
1%
|
2%
|
6%
|
17%
|
24%
|
22%
|
19%
|
64%
|
9%
|
|
The CFIA is effective in
enforcing food safety regulations
|
1%
|
2%
|
6%
|
18%
|
27%
|
21%
|
13%
|
61%
|
12%
|
|
CFIA veterinarians are among the
best in their field
|
1%
|
2%
|
5%
|
17%
|
21%
|
17%
|
11%
|
49%
|
26%
|
|
All businesses are treated fairly
by the CFIA
|
2%
|
3%
|
6%
|
18%
|
20%
|
16%
|
11%
|
48%
|
24%
|
|
I understand what the CFIA does
|
3%
|
6%
|
11%
|
22%
|
24%
|
13%
|
9%
|
46%
|
12%
|
|
Getting more information about
food, plant, or animal safety from the CFIA is easy
|
2%
|
3%
|
8%
|
19%
|
21%
|
14%
|
9%
|
44%
|
24%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base:
Consumer total sample N =3003
A Key
driver analysis was completed again this year to determine the relative
importance of variables (using the 7 attributes at A8) for predicting
familiarity, trust, or confidence in the Agency. This analysis will help the
Agency to focus messaging on issues likely to increase consumers general trust
in its efforts.
As was the
case last year, the top ways to increase familiarity is to communicate more
about what Agency does (45%) and provide additional ways to access information
about the Agency’s (21%) activities.
|
CFIA – all attribute drivers of A2 familiarity
(total sample)
|
|
Statement
|
Share of Importance
(%)
|
|
I understand what the CFIA does
|
44.8
|
|
Getting more information about food, plant, or animal safety
from the CFIA is easy
|
21.0
|
|
CFIA veterinarians are among the best in their field
|
11.9
|
|
All businesses are treated fairly by the CFIA
|
7.0
|
|
The CFIA is effective in enforcing food safety
regulations
|
6.8
|
|
The CFIA looks out for the best interests of
Canadians
|
4.7
|
|
Food recalls are an example of the food system
working
|
3.7
|
The top
drivers of trust in the Agency, are identical to last year’s analysis. The top
driver is “The CFIA looks out of the best interests of Canadians” (24%),
followed by “The CFIA is effective in enforcing food safety regulations” (19%)
and then “Food recalls are an example of the food system working” (17%).
|
CFIA – all attribute drivers of A5 trust (total
sample)
|
|
Statement
|
Share of Importance
(%)
|
|
The CFIA looks out for the best interests of
Canadians
|
23.5
|
|
The CFIA is effective in enforcing food safety
regulations
|
19.4
|
|
Food recalls are an example of the food system
working
|
16.9
|
|
All businesses are treated fairly by the CFIA
|
12.5
|
|
CFIA veterinarians are among the best in their field
|
12.0
|
|
Getting more information about food, plant, or animal safety
from the CFIA is easy
|
9.5
|
|
I understand what the CFIA does
|
6.3
|
Key drivers
of consumer confidence include feeling assured and seeing evidence that the
CFIA is working for them. The top driver is consumers’ understanding of the
Agency’s mandate; “the CFIA looks out for the best interests of Canadians”
which has an 23% share of importance, followed by the understanding that food
recalls are the enactment of that mandate; “Food recalls are an example of the
food system working” 22% share of importance, and also that “the CFIA Is
effective in enforcing food safety regulations” with a 21% share of importance.
|
CFIA – all attribute drivers of A7 confidence (total
sample)
|
|
Statement
|
Share of Importance
(%)
|
|
The CFIA looks out for the best interests of
Canadians
|
23.2
|
|
Food recalls are an example of the food system
working
|
21.8
|
|
The CFIA is effective in enforcing food safety
regulations
|
20.7
|
|
All businesses are treated fairly by the CFIA
|
11.7
|
|
CFIA veterinarians are among the best in their field
|
10.3
|
|
Getting more information about food, plant, or animal safety
from the CFIA is easy
|
7.8
|
|
I understand what the CFIA does
|
4.6
|
Canadians have very similar agreement (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale)
with the same messages shown last year regarding the CFIA’s regulations and
enforcement activities. Messages that generate the most agreement include “By
protecting Canada's food, animals and plants, the CFIA is contributing to the
health and well-being of Canadians, the environment and the economy.” (74%) and
“As a science-based regulator, the CFIA is increasingly using data and
technology to be agile and responsive to new risks.” (70%), “The CFIA issues
food recalls in a timely manner” (68%), and “The CFIA enforces regulations that
help ensure Canada's plant resources are protected” (67%). Secondary messaging
with lower agreement scores includes “The CFIA enforces regulations that helps
ensure animals are transported humanely” (63%), “CFIA enforcement activities
are strong enough to encourage companies to comply with the regulations” (63%),
and “CFIA helps to facilitate international trade” (59%).
|
B1 - How much do you agree or disagree with each of
the
following statements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
1
Disagree
completely
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
Agree
completely
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
|
By protecting Canada's food,
animals, and plants, the CFIA is contributing to the
health and well-being of Canadians, the environment and the economy
|
2%
|
1%
|
5%
|
18%
|
25%
|
27%
|
22%
|
74%
|
|
As a science-based regulator, the
CFIA is believable when it issues a statement
|
2%
|
2%
|
5%
|
21%
|
26%
|
26%
|
18%
|
70%
|
|
The CFIA issues food recall
warnings in a timely manner
|
2%
|
2%
|
6%
|
21%
|
27%
|
24%
|
17%
|
68%
|
|
The CFIA enforces regulations
that help ensure Canada's plant resources are protected
|
2%
|
2%
|
7%
|
22%
|
28%
|
24%
|
15%
|
67%
|
|
The CFIA enforces regulations
that help ensure animals are transported humanely
|
3%
|
2%
|
7%
|
24%
|
28%
|
22%
|
14%
|
63%
|
|
CFIA enforcement activities are
strong enough to encourage companies to comply with the regulations
|
3%
|
2%
|
8%
|
24%
|
28%
|
21%
|
13%
|
63%
|
|
CFIA helps to facilitate
international trade
|
3%
|
2%
|
8%
|
28%
|
26%
|
20%
|
13%
|
59%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base:
Consumer total sample N = 3003
Canadians
were then asked to list the following list of priorities for the CFIA in order
of most important to least important. The most important priority by a large
margin was “Verifying safe food is sold to consumers” by 51% of the sample, an
increase of +6% over the same priority last year. Next in priority was “Helping
to keep foreign animal diseases out of Canada” (12%), and the third priority
was “Verifying importers do not import contaminated or fraudulent foods”(10%).
|
B1ar - Please rank what you personally believe the
priorities of the CFIA should be in order of most important to least
important
|
|
%
|
Rank 1
|
Rank 2
|
Rank 3
|
|
Verifying safe food is sold to consumers
|
51%
|
13%
|
10%
|
|
Helping to keep foreign animal diseases out of
Canada
|
12%
|
17%
|
17%
|
|
Verifying importers do not import contaminated or fraudulent
foods
|
10%
|
23%
|
17%
|
|
Helping prevent the spread of plant pests and animal
diseases in Canada
|
8%
|
14%
|
18%
|
|
Verifying the safety and quality of feed,
fertilizer, veterinarian biologics, and seeds in Canada
|
8%
|
16%
|
15%
|
|
Helping prevent plant pests and invasive species
from entering Canada
|
7%
|
11%
|
15%
|
|
Helping to keep international markets open to
Canadian food, plant, and animal products
|
5%
|
6%
|
8%
|
Base:
Consumer total N = 3003
A TURF
analysis (Total Unduplicated Reach and Frequency) was used to measure which
individual and unique messages contribute most to what consumers hear about the
Agency. Consistent with the 2021 and 2022 results, the most effective message
overall was “By protecting Canada's food, animals and plants, the CFIA is
contributing to the health and well-being of Canadians, the environment and the
economy” which met with agreement from 745% of respondents. The next most
unique and effective message (identified by removing all participants who
selected the first message) is “As a science-based regulator, the CFIA is
believable when it issues a statement” which adds an incremental 6%.
Incremental reach levels off at this point, showing that these 2 messages have
the potential to reach 80% of consumers.
|
B1: Below are some statements to describe the
activities of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). How much do you
agree or disagree with each of the following statements?
|
|
TURF - Incremental reach (T3B%)
|
|
|
By protecting Canada's food,
animals, and plants, the CFIA is contributing to the
health and well-being of Canadians, the environment and the economy
|
74%
|
|
As a science-based regulator, the
CFIA is believable when it issues a statement
|
6%
|
|
The CFIA issues food recall
warnings in a timely manner
|
2%
|
|
The CFIA enforces regulations
that help ensure animals are transported humanely
|
1%
|
|
CFIA enforcement activities are
strong enough to encourage companies to comply with the regulations
|
1%
|
|
CFIA helps to facilitate
international trade
|
1%
|
|
The CFIA enforces regulations
that help ensure Canada's plant resources are protected
|
0%
|
Base: Consumer total N = 3003
Respondents
were asked to choose from a list of attributes those that best describe the
CFIA. At the top of the list are “Scientific” (51%), “Trusted” (45%),
“Dedicated” (38%), “Responsive” (38%), “Informative” (37%) and “Efficient”
(36%). About one in four selected “Service oriented” (27%), “Consistent” (26%),
“Fair” (25%), “Respectful” (23%) and “Caring” (23%). Some of the words not
generally associated with the CFIA are “Punitive” (5%), “Innovative” (14%) and
“Global Leader” (16%).
|
B5. Please look at the following list of words, and
select the ones that in your view, describe the CFIA. Please select all that
apply.
|
|
|
%
|
|
Scientific
|
51%
|
|
Trusted
|
45%
|
|
Dedicated
|
38%
|
|
Responsive
|
38%
|
|
Informative
|
37%
|
|
Efficient
|
36%
|
|
Service oriented
|
27%
|
|
Consistent
|
26%
|
|
Fair
|
25%
|
|
Respectful
|
23%
|
|
Caring
|
23%
|
|
Transparent
|
20%
|
|
Collaborative
|
19%
|
|
Global Leader
|
16%
|
|
Innovative
|
14%
|
|
Punitive
|
5%
|
|
None of the above
|
8%
|
Base:
Consumer total N = 3003
Most Canadians believe that the CFIA is mainly involved in
situations at the border, checking food, plants and animals coming into the
country: “Checking food products being imported into the country” (78%), and
“Checking plant products coming into the country” (75%). About half of
consumers think the CFIA is involved in regulating “insects, fungus and other
pests that affect plant health, but do not have a direct impact on the ability
of consumers to eat the plant as food” (60%). Roughly half of consumers
perceive the CFIA to be involved in situations involving animals being imported
or exported, whether as pets, for food, or for other reasons. About 1 in 3
believe the CFIA is involved in food safety at restaurants, whether it be
sanitary conditions or food poisoning.
|
B6. From the following list, indicate which of the
following situations you believe the CFIA is involved in?
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
Checking food products being imported into the
country
|
78%
|
|
Checking plant products coming into the country
|
75%
|
|
Insects, fungus, and other pests that affect
plant health, but do not have a direct impact on the ability of consumers to
eat the plant as food
|
60%
|
|
Live animals being exported from Canada to other
countries to be consumed as food
|
56%
|
|
A dog being brought into Canada to be permanently
adopted by a person living in Canada
|
56%
|
|
Live animals being exported from Canada to other
countries for reasons other than to be consumed as food
|
50%
|
|
A dog being brought into Canada by a vacationing
family
|
44%
|
|
A restaurant has a complaint of a dirty kitchen
|
34%
|
|
A person gets food poisoning from cooking and eating
undercooked meat
|
29%
|
|
|
|
Base:
Consumer total N = 3003
The
representatives of CFIA regulated businesses we spoke to are also of varying
opinions about the Agency as is natural given the deeper and more involved nature
of their interactions. Generally, we have found a more limited number of
dimensions account for this variance, namely the amount of time the regulated
organization has been in business, the nature of the industry (which in turn
dictates the extent and nature of the oversight the Agency exercises), the
organization’s size, and finally, the organization’s values or culture. The
reader will note that in contrast to the consumer piece, the CFIA is in
possession of a formal segmentation of regulated businesses along these lines.
This year’s qualitative work with regulated businesses validates and somewhat
deepens our understanding of this work.
It is quite clear that the length of time a food-related
business has been in operation influences perceptions of the Agency and its
reputation. Older and more established businesses are generally staffed with
people who have a wealth of experience with regulations, inspectors, and the
Agency’s messaging. People who have been working with the Agency over long
periods of time are uniquely aware of evolutions in the ways the Agency
operates and of changes in regulations themselves. Typically, more experienced
businesspeople compare and contrast
more recent evolutions to the practices of the past, and as a result are
quicker to notice inconsistencies, degradations in service, shifts in Agency
priorities and a host of other reputational attributes that are generally less
noticeable to less experienced operators. Critically, more experienced
operators have had more time to learn about and adjust to being regulated, and
the adjustment appears to de-mystify the Agency as a whole: its people, practices, and ways of
interacting are simply better known.
Newer, less experienced operators and especially those who
work for recently established businesses are confronted with a steep learning
curve, and requirements that are more mystifying. These newer operators often
do not fully understand the rationale behind some regulatory requirements and
tend to be more reactive to the occasional inconsistencies in how the rules are
interpreted and applied. Newer and less experienced operators also show some
tendency to see inspections and potential non-compliance issues as
intimidating. Although more established businesses can be both big and small,
startup food companies are often smaller in size and staffed by personnel who
have multiple roles and responsibilities. These conditions inhibit the
acquisition of specific regulatory know-how and Agency relationship management
skill that might otherwise make interactions more manageable. In contrast, we
see quite clearly that the more regulated bigger organizations delegate and
thus concentrate regulatory know-how in people who are more singularly focused.
These people greatly facilitate the organization’s capacity to navigate the
regulatory regime, ensure compliance and interact more proficiently and capably
with the Agency. Such people are much more likely to develop personal contact
with Agency personnel or outside partners that can help them manage
ambiguities, learn about changes and avoid compliance related issues.
Even within the confines of the “plant” and “animal”
business lines (which are the focus of this study), different degrees of
oversight from business to business has considerable influence on the Agency’s
reputation. Generally, we found that organizations that experience more
oversight tend to have the same patterns as more established ones in that they are
more familiar, more comfortable, more confident in their capacity to know and
operate within the rules and to interact productively with the Agency. Less
regulated organizations tend to more tenuous confidence, confront a steeper
learning curve, encounter greater ambiguity in the rules and tend to see
regulations and the Agency as more mysterious, if not intimidating.
Organizations that are less regulated are much more prone to confusion about
conflicts between different regulatory bodies and regimes. In sum, then, we
found that an experienced operator of a cattle transportation firm has views
and ways of seeing the Agency that differ dramatically from those of a newly
minted small-scale organic vegetable greenhouse operator. The former will tend
to understand the rules and be more tolerant of subjective interpretation of
rules by different inspectors, in part because he or she has encountered such
things previously. The newly minted organic grower, in contrast, is likely to
be less disciplined and attentive about rules and regulations, to imagine the
consequences of non-compliance incorrectly, and to see and consider regulations
and compliance as only one among many other priorities, and to find the Agency
remote and the rules more intimidating and/or opaque.
Finally, we see that business organizations and their
operators are different in their inclination to embrace regulations: some approach learning the rules, dealing
with the Agency and compliance more eagerly, whereas others tend to the
opposite. Quite clearly, those organizations that embrace the regulatory regime
are more open to Agency staff, work harder at learning the rules, and tend to
see compliance as a facilitator of their fortunes. Conversely, organizations
that resist regulations tend to the opposite – to work less hard at learning
the rules and to see the Agency as an impediment to their fortunes. The forces
behind the embrace of regulatory insight are quite clear and split in two ways.
One mindset sees compliance as a matter of self-interest. This view holds
compliance – and particularly avoiding the issues related to non-compliance as
good for business. Business operators who adhere to this mindset are more
likely to view the impact of non-compliance negatively, seeing it as
detrimental to their reputation, brand equity or operating profit. Learning the
rules and developing good relations with the Agency are more likely to be
accepted as a cost of doing business and a measure of cost-savings in the long run.
Another view that underpins organizations who embrace regulatory oversight is
altruistic. From this perspective, learning about and adhering to the rules is
simply the right thing to do, especially because it can prevent or reduce the
risks of unsafe food harming consumers or the environment. We have found that
these two motives for compliance are not incompatible with each other, as
indeed some organizations manifest both altruistic and self-interested values
at once.
Resistance to regulatory oversight, on the other hand, seems
to stem from more diverse and complicated sources. Some resistance stems from
the steepness of the regulatory learning curve, which can be especially
daunting to new, inexperienced or firms struggling to establish themselves. Such
people may view the effort as simply too time-consuming or insufficiently
important relative to the many other challenges they confront. Other kinds of
resistance seem to reflect the personal values of owner-operators who may be
resistant to authority or what they feel is meddling in their affairs. Others
may have had interactions with the Agency that were alienating. Still others
may simply fail to recognize that they are, in fact, in a business line that is
subject to regulations in the first place.
The following sections inventories some new or recurring issues and
complaints we heard about, and what sorts of businesses mentioned them. These
are inventoried in no particular order and are not quantified in terms of
prevalence:
Frictions and Complains Attributable to Perceived Shifts in Agency
Priorities and Modes
Decreased Access to Live Agency Personnel
As was the case last year, some business operator
participants mentioned the increasing difficulty in reaching real, live Agency
personnel to help them with problems. Although some new business operators
noted this, this complaint was more often voiced by experienced and established
operators who noted this as a contrast – and a degradation – relative to years past.
This reduced access – though occasionally seen as simply a result of reductions
in staff – was also at times equated with an Agency intent on shifting the onus
for learning about and decoding complexly worded regulations onto businesses
and a retreat from an emphasis on partnership with industry toward a posture of
enforcement. This perception, while more likely to be noted by well-established
operators, was nonetheless particularly problematic for new ones. It fuels
impressions that regulations and their underlying purposes are hard to
understand and something they have to figure out on their own. Better established
operators have had time to learn and develop the contacts within the Agency to
better manage this perceived shift.
Arbitrary and Subjective Rule Interpretation by Inspectors
Although there are signs that this problem noted last year
is perhaps stabilizing if not diminishing, we continued to hear about
inspectors – new or otherwise new to their charges’ business– who issue
inconsistent interpretations of the regulations. This problem is occasionally
associated with Agency staff who are viewed as authoritarian or closed-minded
and resistant to discussion or challenge. Again, these problems seem less
pronounced for more established or experienced operators (who are more familiar
with and comfortable challenging the inspectors) and more vexing for less
experienced or established ones. A related and important complaint -and one
sometimes associated with the above, is that the Agency is in some corners as
less inclined offer recourse to those operators deemed non-compliant and is
seen as decreasingly inclined to offer clarifications to ambiguous regulations
in favor of simply emailing the complex regulation text and leaving it to the
operator to figure out.
A Burdensome Regulatory Regime
We repeatedly encountered operators who feel that they are
simply over-regulated. This view is often accompanied by a sense that the
Agency isn’t sufficiently aware of their operating realities, increasingly
remote or otherwise prone to adding complexity rather than simplifying things.
Many operators continue to question the level of detail that is required in
certain paperwork and complain about the burden that results. “The CFIA treats
every company as if they were a multinational” is how one participant put it.
Some businesspeople (often in exporting) feel the Agency is too slow to
transition to electronic documents and other digital modes of operating. Other
complain about overlap or contradictions between the regulations of different
industries, levels of Canadian government or between Canada and other
countries. Another complaint is about generic rules, for example those written
for relatively easy to handle cows that are imposed on much wilder Bison. Some
operators also feel that they must put the onus of compliance on personnel who
are neither equipped nor willing to deal with them. This problem was well
articulated by a cattle transporter who complained that his drivers all need to
be veterinarians these days lest they fail to recognize the occasional cow
that’s showing subtle signs of struggling.
An Agency that Sometimes Falls Short of Meeting its Own Commitments
As was the case in years past, some operators of regulated
businesses were put off by the Agency’s occasional incapacity to meet its own
commitments. Promised paperwork, interpretations or even commitments to
recontact business who may have called or sent an email are occasionally not
provided within the stipulated timeframes or even at all. These complaints were
more often cited by business operators that work in more specialized or unusual
industries and appear to fuel a sense that the Agency is developing a bias in
favor of its biggest and most heavily regulated charges.
Access to Abattoirs and Meat Processing Facilities
Finally, we
noted a persistent and apparently increasing issue with the consolidation of
abattoirs and meat-processing factories, which is apparently an increasing
challenge to the viability of small-scale organic meat producers or grass-fed
cattle growers. Although we encountered some recognition that this
consolidation may be attributed to larger forces beyond the Agency’s influence,
there remains a clear tendency to see the Agency’s regulatory regime as a root
cause. Regulations are often cited as an important barrier to these more local,
smaller-scale and less structured food producers. As a result, small scale
producers appear more likely to give up on their plans, noting that they are
unlikely to make a living if they must transport their cattle hundreds of
kilometers to a plant that is already struggling to keep up with demand. This problem, which we noted three years ago,
is clearly an increasing concern and barrier to smaller farmers who seek to
exploit opportunities they see in growing consumer demand for the kinds of
meats they can produce.
Positive Signs
Finally, we
also noted some more positive views and perspectives on the Agency and its ways
of working:
· The
Agency “MY CFIA” web portal is increasingly described as a functional, useful
and efficiency enhancing tool for businesses inclined to use it. Some also
noted that the portal might yet evolve into something even more useful.
·
Several participants noted having encountered new
inspectors who exhibited openness to learning about the operators’ realities, a
willingness to discuss the rules and generally good communication skills.
Businesses
whose operations are regulated by the CFIA were surveyed about their
perceptions and opinions of the CFIA and its activities. Being more familiar
with the CFIA, these businesses tend to be more invested in the performance of
the Agency given its relevancy to their business.
Please note
that throughout the report, the Agency’s terminology for differentiated
business is used. “Food line” refers to businesses that transform food from raw
form to products that are sold to consumers. In this sense, beef and a beef
processor are considered part of the “food” line as soon as the animal crosses
the farm or ranch gate but remains a feature of the “animal” line up until it
crosses that gate. Similarly, soybeans, for example, are “plant” up until they
cross the farm gate and are on their way to processing into tofu and so on.
Canadian
businesses were asked a new performance evaluation question this year. This is
commonly known as a Net Promoter Score (NPS); How likely would you be to
recommend the agency to similar businesses as yours? This metric will be useful to compare over
time as another measurement of how the Agency has moved the needle as a whole
rather than only comparing the single metrics such as Familiarity, Trust and
Confidence.
All lines
of business have quite different NPS scores, with Food businesses giving the
most favourable score of 48%, followed by Plant businesses at 33% and then
Animal at 23%. The main difference is among the negative scores (Detractors
rating 0-6 on the scale).
|
A0 - 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. How likely would you be to
recommend the agency to similar businesses as yours?
|
|
|
Total
|
Food
|
Animal
|
Plant
|
|
0 Not at all likely
|
4%
|
4%
|
6%
|
5%
|
|
1
|
1%
|
1%
|
3%
|
2%
|
|
2
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
|
3
|
2%
|
1%
|
4%
|
1%
|
|
4
|
2%
|
1%
|
4%
|
1%
|
|
5
|
7%
|
7%
|
8%
|
8%
|
|
6
|
3%
|
3%
|
3%
|
6%
|
|
7
|
8%
|
8%
|
11%
|
7%
|
|
8
|
11%
|
11%
|
10%
|
12%
|
|
9
|
10%
|
11%
|
8%
|
10%
|
|
10 Very likely
|
51%
|
54%
|
43%
|
47%
|
|
9-10 Promoters
|
61%
|
65%
|
51%
|
57%
|
|
7-8 Passives
|
19%
|
18%
|
21%
|
19%
|
|
0-6 Detractors
|
20%
|
17%
|
28%
|
24%
|
|
NPS
|
41
|
48
|
23
|
33
|
Most
businesses surveyed have strong familiarity (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale)
with the activities of the CFIA. The overall score is 77% for food, which is
down slightly from last year (-4%), 83%
for animal, and 75% for plant businesses (-5% from previous year). Overall, 78%
of businesses are familiar, this is down slightly from 2022 (81%), but still up
from the year before (72%).
|
A1 - How familiar would you say your company is with
the activities of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)?
|
|
|
|
1 Not familiar at all
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7 Very familiar
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
|
|
Total
|
2%
|
3%
|
5%
|
12%
|
23%
|
25%
|
30%
|
78%
|
|
|
Food businesses
|
2%
|
3%
|
5%
|
12%
|
22%
|
25%
|
30%
|
77%
|
|
|
Animal health
businesses
|
0%
|
4%
|
5%
|
8%
|
27%
|
25%
|
31%
|
83%
|
|
|
Plant health
businesses
|
3%
|
2%
|
5%
|
15%
|
22%
|
25%
|
28%
|
75%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base:
Total sample N=1575, Food N=1010, Animal N=277, Plant N=288
Communication
received from the CFIA to businesses was largely via Email (85%). This is
consistent with last year’s report, and similar across business lines. Another
common source of communication is Portal notices in My CFIA (34%) and the CFIA
website (34%) though both are higher amongst the animal line (49%, and 43% respectively).
One in four recall a personal interaction with a CFIA representative (27%) and
one in five had telephone communication (21%).
|
B4. How has your company received information from
the CFIA in the past year? Select all that apply.
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
Food
|
Animal
|
Plant
|
|
Email (including CFIA Listservs)
|
85%
|
86%
|
82%
|
86%
|
|
Portal notices in My CFIA
|
34%
|
30%
|
49%
|
36%
|
|
CFIA website
|
34%
|
32%
|
43%
|
31%
|
|
Personal interaction with a CFIA representative
|
27%
|
23%
|
38%
|
33%
|
|
Telephone communications
|
21%
|
19%
|
30%
|
22%
|
|
Mailed documents
|
15%
|
14%
|
16%
|
18%
|
|
Through an industry association
|
10%
|
8%
|
14%
|
11%
|
|
Social media
|
5%
|
6%
|
3%
|
4%
|
|
CFIA's Inspect and Protect newsletter
|
4%
|
4%
|
3%
|
3%
|
|
Podcasts
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
0%
|
|
Other
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
|
Not applicable
|
3%
|
3%
|
2%
|
3%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base:
Total sample N=1575, Food N=1010, Animal N=277, Plant N=288
When asked
about the information received from the CFIA, all methods of communication
generate strong rates of understanding (5, 6, or 7 on 7-point scale), with most
scores for all listed sources being greater than 80% overall and across all
lines of business. Consistent with last year’s understanding scores, the Portal
Notices in My CFIA had lower scores than the other communication methods (total
73%, food 76%, animal 71%, plant 68%), as did the CFIA website (total 72%, food
77%, animal 63%, plant 66%).
|
B5: T3B Please rate how well your company
understands the information when it is received from the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA)?
|
|
%
|
1
No understanding at all
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7 Understands
completely
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
Row n
|
|
Podcasts
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
10%
|
50%
|
40%
|
100%
|
10*
|
|
Personal interaction with CFIA
representative
|
0%
|
1%
|
3%
|
6%
|
16%
|
28%
|
46%
|
90%
|
430
|
|
CFIA's Inspect and Protect
newsletter
|
0%
|
2%
|
2%
|
9%
|
22%
|
28%
|
38%
|
88%
|
58
|
|
Telephone communications
|
1%
|
1%
|
2%
|
7%
|
15%
|
28%
|
44%
|
88%
|
335
|
|
Social media
|
1%
|
1%
|
3%
|
8%
|
17%
|
28%
|
42%
|
87%
|
78
|
|
Through an industry association
|
0%
|
1%
|
3%
|
12%
|
26%
|
30%
|
28%
|
85%
|
152
|
|
Mailed documents
|
1%
|
2%
|
4%
|
8%
|
18%
|
28%
|
39%
|
85%
|
240
|
|
Email (including CFIA Listservs)
|
1%
|
2%
|
4%
|
12%
|
22%
|
27%
|
31%
|
80%
|
1340
|
|
Portal notices in My CFIA
|
1%
|
4%
|
7%
|
15%
|
22%
|
26%
|
25%
|
73%
|
538
|
|
CFIA website
|
1%
|
3%
|
7%
|
18%
|
22%
|
26%
|
24%
|
72%
|
536
|
Base: Business;
those who received specific communication methods; base size differs by method
“*”Indicates small
base size
Business trust in CFIA to do “what is right”
An
encouraging finding shows that a strong majority of Canadian businesses “trust
the CFIA to do what is right”. Strong trust scores (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point
scale) overall at 84%, (food 88%, animal 73%, plant 79%) which are all up over
last year’s scores overall and across all lines of business.
|
A3 - Please indicate how much your company trusts
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to do what is right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
Food
|
Animal
|
Plant
|
|
1 Do not trust at all
|
3%
|
2%
|
5%
|
3%
|
|
2
|
2%
|
1%
|
4%
|
2%
|
|
3
|
3%
|
2%
|
7%
|
2%
|
|
4
|
8%
|
6%
|
10%
|
14%
|
|
5
|
16%
|
15%
|
20%
|
15%
|
|
6
|
30%
|
31%
|
27%
|
31%
|
|
7 Trust completely
|
38%
|
42%
|
26%
|
33%
|
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
84%
|
88%
|
73%
|
79%
|
Base:
Total sample N=1575, Food N=1010, Animal N=277, Plant N=288
Business
confidence in Canadian food safety
Another
reassuring result shows strong confidence in the CFIA; just under half of all
business respondents (47%) feel very confident (7 on a 7-point scale) that food
sold in Canada is safe. The top 3 box score (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale)
shows very high confidence across segments in the safety of food in Canada
(total 92%, food 93%, animal 89%, plant 89%). Less than 5% of businesses had
low confidence in the food sold in Canada (rating of 1,2 or 3 on a 7-point
scale).
|
A4 - Please rate your company's level of confidence
that food sold in Canada is safe. Please provide your opinion even if you are
not primarily a food business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
Food
|
Animal
|
Plant
|
|
1 Not confident at all
|
1%
|
1%
|
2%
|
0%
|
|
2
|
1%
|
0%
|
1%
|
1%
|
|
3
|
2%
|
2%
|
3%
|
2%
|
|
4
|
5%
|
4%
|
5%
|
8%
|
|
5
|
13%
|
11%
|
17%
|
17%
|
|
6
|
31%
|
30%
|
37%
|
31%
|
|
7 Very confident
|
47%
|
52%
|
35%
|
41%
|
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
92%
|
93%
|
89%
|
89%
|
Base:
Total sample N=1575, Food N=1010, Animal N=277, Plant N=288
Business
confidence in safeguarding of food, plant, and animals
In the
expanded confidence question we asked about how confident businesses are that
food, as well as animals and plants are safeguarded, there is a decrease in top
box confidence, down to 41% very confident (7 on a 7-point scale). However the
top 3 box score (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale) for confidence in safeguarding
food, plant and animals is still very high at 89% of total businesses (food
91%, animal 85%, plant 86%). Again, the number of businesses that rated
confidence at a 1 or 2 score remains inconsequential (less than 5%), and is
consistent with results in the past two years.
|
A5 - Please rate your company's level of confidence
that food, plants and animals in Canada are safeguarded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
Food
|
Animal
|
Plant
|
|
1 Not confident at all
|
1%
|
1%
|
2%
|
0%
|
|
2
|
1%
|
1%
|
3%
|
2%
|
|
3
|
2%
|
1%
|
3%
|
3%
|
|
4
|
6%
|
5%
|
7%
|
9%
|
|
5
|
16%
|
14%
|
19%
|
20%
|
|
6
|
32%
|
31%
|
36%
|
33%
|
|
7 Very confident
|
41%
|
46%
|
30%
|
33%
|
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
89%
|
91%
|
85%
|
86%
|
Base:
Total sample N=1575, Food N=1010, Animal N=277, Plant N=288
Agency
performance in safeguarding safety of food among businesses
Diving
deeper into the confidence scores, we asked food industry companies how they
believe the CFIA is doing with respect to safeguarding the safety of food sold
in Canada. Relative to last year, food businesses had improved perceptions with
45% rating the CFIA a perfect 7 on a 7-point scale. Top 3 box scores (5, 6, or
7 on a 7-point scale) were like last year at 89% among food businesses.
|
A6 - When it comes to safeguarding the safety of
food sold in Canada, how well do you believe the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency is doing?
Please answer even if you
are not primarily a food company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Food
|
|
1 Not doing well
|
2%
|
|
2
|
1%
|
|
3
|
2%
|
|
4
|
6%
|
|
5
|
14%
|
|
6
|
30%
|
|
7 Doing well
|
45%
|
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
89%
|
Base: Business Food N=1010
Similarly,
plant industry businesses rate the CFIA highly (5, 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale)
with a score of 86% in safeguarding the health of plants in Canada, and a top
box score (7 on a 7-point scale) of 35%, which is notably lower than the
confidence businesses have in food safeguarding by the CFIA.
|
A7 - When it comes to safeguarding the health of
plants in Canada how well do you believe the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
is doing?
Please answer even if you
are not primarily a plant company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant
|
|
1 Not doing well
|
1%
|
|
2
|
2%
|
|
3
|
3%
|
|
4
|
9%
|
|
5
|
21%
|
|
6
|
30%
|
|
7 Doing well
|
35%
|
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
86%
|
Base: Business Plant N=288
Agency
performance in safeguarding safety of animal health among businesses
When it
comes to animal safeguarding, there is lower confidence overall among Animal
industry businesses, at 80% T3B (5, 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale). They also had a
lower top box confidence score than the food and plant industries at only 23%
(7 on a 7-point scale), which signifies an area of perception improvement for
the CFIA.
|
A8 - When comes to safeguarding
the health of animals in Canada how well do you believe the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency is doing?
Please answer even if you
are not primarily an animal company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Animal
|
|
1 Not doing well
|
3%
|
|
2
|
2%
|
|
3
|
5%
|
|
4
|
10%
|
|
5
|
21%
|
|
6
|
36%
|
|
7 Doing well
|
23%
|
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
80%
|
Base: Business Animal N=277
The survey
asked businesses to rate the CFIA across a number of attributes and value
statements. On most attributes, Food businesses rated the CFIA higher than did
Plant and Animal businesses. Similar to last year the same 4 statements
involving respect, helpfulness, and fairness had the highest T3B box scores
(5,6 or 7 on a 7 pt scale). Scores on total were; “Representatives of the CFIA
are respectful in carrying out their duties” (80%), “Representatives of CFIA
are helpful when providing information on regulations” (72%), “Overall, the CFIA is a fair regulatory
Agency” (71%), and “Information received from the CFIA helps to stop future
non-compliance” (69%). Businesses with Indigenous owners or that have more than
50% of employees who are visible minorities tended to agree significantly more
with these statements about the CFIA.
Several
statements about the fairness of the way the CFIA operates and enforces
regulations across industries and business type received middling scores; “The
CFIA is properly equipped to manage the complexity of Canada's food, animal,
and plant supply chain” (58%), “It is easy to have open and honest dialogue
with the CFIA about regulatory priorities” (57%), “CFIA regulations have been
implemented in a way that is fair to all businesses” (57%), “The CFIA is
sensitive to the reality of how things work in your specific industry” (57%)
and “The CFIA does business in the same way for everyone within their mandate”
(56%). The scores could be due to not knowing how the CFIA works for businesses
outside of the realm these businesses are aware of.
Statements
that received lower T3B scores referenced understanding the regulations and
services provided; “The decision-makers
in my company feel that CFIA regulations are very complicated” (54%), “The CFIA
listens to industry views when it comes to understanding industry's specific
regulatory priorities” (51%), “The CFIA listens to industry when it comes to
understanding specific innovation and competitiveness needs” (49%), “The CFIA
provides better service compared to food inspection agencies in other developed
countries” (46%), “CFIA regulations are too basic for my company to be
concerned about” (19%).
|
|
A9 - Below are several statements about the CFIA.
Please indicate your level of agreement on a 7-point scale.
|
|
|
|
% in
agreement (5, 6 or 7 out of a 7-point scale)
|
|
Representatives of the CFIA are
respectful in carrying out their duties
|
80%
|
|
Representatives of the CFIA are
helpful when providing information on regulations
|
72%
|
|
Overall, the CFIA is a fair
regulatory agency
|
71%
|
|
Information received from the
CFIA helps to stop future non-compliance
|
69%
|
|
The CFIA is transparent in how
they operate
|
60%
|
|
CFIA guidance on regulations is
clear
|
59%
|
|
The CFIA is properly equipped to
manage the complexity of Canada's food, animal, and plant supply chain
|
58%
|
|
It is easy to have open and
honest dialogue with the CFIA about regulatory priorities
|
57%
|
|
CFIA regulations have been
implemented in a way that is fair to all businesses
|
57%
|
|
The CFIA is sensitive to the
reality of how things work in your specific industry
|
57%
|
|
The CFIA does business in the
same way for everyone within their mandate
|
56%
|
|
The decision-makers in my company
feel that CFIA regulations are very complicated
|
54%
|
|
The CFIA listens to industry
views when it comes to understanding industry's specific regulatory
priorities
|
51%
|
|
The CFIA listens to industry when
it comes to understanding specific innovation and competitiveness needs
|
49%
|
|
The CFIA provides better service compared
to food inspection agencies in other developed countries
|
46%
|
|
CFIA regulations are too basic
for my company to be concerned about
|
19%
|
Base:
Total sample N=1575
Again, this
year, a key driver analysis was conducted to predict the outcome variable
(familiarity, trust, or confidence) using the attributes at A9. The analysis
shows that for each of the 3 key metrics, there are uniquely important drivers
that the CFIA should focus communication on in an effort to increase
familiarity, trust and confidence among businesses.
In
assessing the primary driver of familiarity, the top two attributes are “CFIA
guidance on regulations is clear” (16% share of importance) and
“Representatives of the CFIA are respectful in carrying out their duties” (15%
share). The next driver in order of importance is “It is easy to have open and
honest dialogue with the CFIA about regulatory policies” (10.5%). This analysis
reveals that familiarity with the Agency is driven by clear guidance on
regulations, representatives carrying their duties in a respectful manner, and
engaging in open and honest dialogue about policies.
|
CFIA – A9 attribute drivers of A1 familiarity (total
sample)
|
|
|
Statement
|
Share of importance
(%)
|
|
CFIA guidance on regulations is clear
|
16.1
|
|
Representatives of the CFIA are respectful in
carrying out their duties
|
15.0
|
|
It is easy to have open and honest dialogue with the
CFIA about regulatory priorities
|
10.5
|
|
Information received from the CFIA helps to stop
future non-compliance
|
9.0
|
|
Representatives of the CFIA are helpful when
providing information on regulations
|
7.7
|
|
The CFIA is properly equipped to manage the
complexity of Canada's food, animal, and plant supply chain
|
5.9
|
|
The CFIA listens to industry when it comes to
understanding specific innovation and competitiveness needs
|
5.3
|
|
The CFIA is sensitive to the reality of how things
work in your specific industry
|
4.6
|
|
The decision-makers in my company feel that CFIA
regulations are very complicated
|
4.3
|
|
CFIA regulations have been implemented in a way that
is fair to all businesses
|
4.1
|
|
Overall, the CFIA is a fair regulatory agency
|
4.0
|
|
The CFIA is transparent in how they operate
|
3.8
|
|
The CFIA listens to industry views when it comes to understanding
industry's specific regulatory priorities
|
3.5
|
|
The CFIA provides better service compared to food
inspection agencies in other developed countries
|
2.9
|
|
The CFIA does business in the same way for everyone
within their mandate
|
2.7
|
|
CFIA regulations are too basic for my company to be
concerned about
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
Base:
Total sample N=1575
In
predicting trust in the CFIA among businesses, the primary drivers are again
fairness and sensitivity this year. “Overall, the CFIA is a fair regulatory
Agency” 12%, down slightly in terms of importance from last year, and “The CFIA
is sensitive to the reality of how things work in your specific industry” (9%
share), and “CFIA regulations have been implemented in a way that is fair to
all businesses” (8%).
|
CFIA – A9 attribute drivers of A3 trust (total
sample)
|
|
|
Statement
|
Share of importance
(%)
|
|
Overall, the CFIA is a fair regulatory agency
|
12.3
|
|
The CFIA is sensitive to the reality of how things
work in your specific industry
|
8.9
|
|
CFIA regulations have been implemented in a way that
is fair to all businesses
|
8.4
|
|
The CFIA listens to industry views when it comes to
understanding industry's specific regulatory priorities
|
7.8
|
|
Information received from the CFIA helps to stop
future non-compliance
|
7.6
|
|
The CFIA is transparent in how they operate
|
7.4
|
|
It is easy to have open and honest dialogue with the
CFIA about regulatory priorities
|
6.8
|
|
Representatives of the CFIA are respectful in
carrying out their duties
|
6.6
|
|
The CFIA listens to industry when it comes to
understanding specific innovation and competitiveness needs
|
6.5
|
|
The CFIA does business in the same way for everyone
within their mandate
|
6.0
|
|
The CFIA is properly equipped to manage the
complexity of Canada's food, animal, and plant supply chain
|
5.9
|
|
CFIA guidance on regulations is clear
|
5.6
|
|
Representatives of the CFIA are helpful when
providing information on regulations
|
5.0
|
|
The CFIA provides better service compared to food
inspection agencies in other developed countries
|
3.3
|
|
The decision-makers in my company feel that CFIA
regulations are very complicated
|
1.2
|
|
CFIA regulations are too basic for my company to be
concerned about
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
Base:
Total sample N=1575
Lastly, the
top two drivers of businesses’ confidence in the CFIA are the same as last year
although flipped in importance. “The CFIA is properly equipped to manage the
complexity of Canada’s food, animal and plant supply chain” sits at the top
with 15% share of importance and
“Overall the CFIA is a fair regulatory Agency” (13% share of importance)
moved to second position in terms of predicting of organizational confidence.
The Agency needs to communicate that they are Competent and Fair to instill
confidence among businesses.
|
CFIA – A9 attribute drivers of A6 confidence (total
sample)
|
|
|
Statement
|
Share of importance
(%)
|
|
The CFIA is properly equipped to manage the
complexity of Canada's food, animal, and plant supply chain
|
15.2
|
|
Overall, the CFIA is a fair regulatory agency
|
13.2
|
|
CFIA regulations have been implemented in a way that
is fair to all businesses
|
8.5
|
|
The CFIA does business in the same way for everyone
within their mandate
|
7.5
|
|
The CFIA listens to industry views when it comes to
understanding industry's specific regulatory priorities
|
7.4
|
|
The CFIA is sensitive to the reality of how things
work in your specific industry
|
7.1
|
|
Information received from the CFIA helps to stop
future non-compliance
|
6.9
|
|
It is easy to have open and honest dialogue with the
CFIA about regulatory priorities
|
6.2
|
|
The CFIA listens to industry when it comes to
understanding specific innovation and competitiveness needs
|
6.0
|
|
The CFIA provides better service compared to food
inspection agencies in other developed countries
|
5.2
|
|
The CFIA is transparent in how they operate
|
4.8
|
|
CFIA guidance on regulations is clear
|
4.8
|
|
Representatives of the CFIA are respectful in
carrying out their duties
|
3.7
|
|
Representatives of the CFIA are helpful when
providing information on regulations
|
2.9
|
|
CFIA regulations are too basic for my company to be
concerned about
|
0.4
|
|
The decision-makers in my company feel that CFIA
regulations are very complicated
|
0.2
|
Base: Total sample N=1,575
Business
impression of CFIA staff / leadership and effectiveness
Consistent with previous years, CFIA Inspectors and
Enforcement staff are notably considered the most credible and reliable members
of the organization, with Senior management a close second place. Call Centre
staff have the lead on being most responsive by nature of their role in the
Agency.
|
A10 Consider your interactions with the CFIA and its
leadership structure. Select the responses that you feel describe each:
|
|
|
|
Is credible
|
Is responsive
|
Is reliable
|
N=
|
|
CFIA inspectors / enforcement staff
|
51%
|
52%
|
54%
|
1214
|
|
CFIA Senior Management
|
48%
|
46%
|
51%
|
947
|
|
Call Centre Staff
|
36%
|
60%
|
46%
|
757
|
Base: Differs by
presence of interactions with staff
Across
business lines, between 73% and 85% (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale) agree that
“CFIA enforcement activities encourage companies to comply with the
regulations”. Similarly, 75% and 81% of businesses agree that “The CFIA is
contributing to the health and well-being of Canadians, the environment and the
economy by protecting Canada's food, animals and plants”. About 3 in 4 believe that “As a science-based
regulator, the CFIA is believable when it issues a statement”.
In terms of
specific lines of business statements, “The CFIA issues food recall warnings in
a timely manner” gets 77% agreement from Food businesses, and equivalently “The
CFIA enforces regulations that help to ensure that Canada's plant resources are
protected” gets 78% from Plant businesses. However, Animal businesses only give
an agreement rating of 62% for “The CFIA enforces regulations that help to
ensure that animals are transported humanely”.
|
B1 How much do you agree or disagree with each of
the following statements?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
Food
|
Animal
|
Plant
|
|
CFIA enforcement activities encourage companies to
comply with the regulations
|
81%
|
85%
|
73%
|
77%
|
|
The CFIA is contributing to the health and
well-being of Canadians, the environment and the economy by protecting
Canada's food, animals and plants
|
80%
|
81%
|
75%
|
81%
|
|
As a science-based regulator, the CFIA is believable
when it issues a statement
|
77%
|
80%
|
69%
|
77%
|
|
The CFIA issues food recall warnings in a timely
manner
|
73%
|
77%
|
64%
|
67%
|
|
The CFIA enforces regulations that help to ensure
that Canada's plant resources are protected
|
70%
|
71%
|
58%
|
78%
|
|
The CFIA enforces regulations that help to ensure
that animals are transported humanely
|
61%
|
61%
|
62%
|
58%
|
Base:
Total sample N=1575, Food N=1010, Animal N=277, Plant N=288
An important metric measured again this year is
Transparency. Businesses believe that the CFIA is transparent 75% (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale) when it comes to assessing non-compliance
with regulations. This is an increase of 5% over last year’s rating. Likewise,
there is a similar increase by line of
business; Food business (79%, +7%) and Animal (65%, +3%) and Plant (70%, +3%)
businesses. Among businesses owned by Indigenous persons, the transparency
rating was significantly higher (88%).
|
B2 - In your opinion, how transparent do you think
the CFIA is when it comes to assessing non-compliance with regulations?
|
|
|
Total
|
Food
|
Animal
|
Plant
|
|
1 Not at all transparent
|
2%
|
2%
|
4%
|
1%
|
|
2
|
2%
|
1%
|
4%
|
1%
|
|
3
|
3%
|
3%
|
5%
|
3%
|
|
4
|
18%
|
15%
|
22%
|
23%
|
|
5
|
23%
|
22%
|
28%
|
25%
|
|
6
|
27%
|
29%
|
23%
|
25%
|
|
7 Very transparent
|
24%
|
28%
|
14%
|
21%
|
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
75%
|
79%
|
65%
|
70%
|
Base:
Total sample N=1575, Food N=1010, Animal N=277, Plant N=288
In thinking about transparency in reporting (publishing)
non-compliance, businesses gave a similar rating 73% (5, 6, or 7 on a 7-point scale). This is consistent with the previous
year’s results. Food business (78%) rated this metric higher than Animal
businesses (62%) and Plant (65%) businesses. Once again the Indigenous-owned
businesses gave a higher rating for transparency of CFIA reporting (87%).
|
B3 - How transparent do you think the CFIA is when
it comes to reporting (publishing) non-compliance?
|
|
|
Total
|
Food
|
Animal
|
Plant
|
|
1 Not at all transparent
|
3%
|
2%
|
4%
|
2%
|
|
2
|
2%
|
1%
|
3%
|
1%
|
|
3
|
3%
|
3%
|
5%
|
4%
|
|
4
|
20%
|
16%
|
27%
|
27%
|
|
5
|
22%
|
21%
|
28%
|
22%
|
|
6
|
25%
|
28%
|
20%
|
23%
|
|
7 Very transparent
|
25%
|
29%
|
14%
|
20%
|
|
T3B (5,6,7)
|
73%
|
78%
|
62%
|
65%
|
Base:
Total sample N=1575, Food N=1010, Animal N=277, Plant N=288
Next
businesses were asked to rank the importance of services offered by the CFIA.
Among the top ranked services are “I can contact a CFIA representative for
clarification” (35% ranked #1 and 78% ranked 1,2 or 3), followed by “Services
are available when I need them” (22% ranked #1 and 70% ranked 1,2 or 3) and “I
can access all of the services offered by CFIA in one place” (15% ranked #1 and
53% ranked 1,2 or 3). The Agency should focus on contact and service
availability awareness as they are of utmost importance to businesses when it
comes to CFIA services.
|
B8 - Please rank the top 3 service elements. When
your company assesses the services offered by the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency (CFIA), which elements are the most important?
|
|
|
Rank 1
|
Rank 2
|
Rank 3
|
Rank 1,2,or 3
|
|
I can contact a CFIA representative for
clarification
|
35%
|
26%
|
17%
|
78%
|
|
Services are available when I need them
|
22%
|
24%
|
24%
|
70%
|
|
I can access all the services offered by the CFIA in
one place
|
15%
|
18%
|
21%
|
53%
|
|
The services are easy to understand
|
14%
|
16%
|
18%
|
49%
|
|
The services offered by CFIA help prevent
non-compliance
|
13%
|
16%
|
15%
|
43%
|
|
Other
|
2%
|
1%
|
4%
|
7%
|
Base: Total sample N=1575, Food N=1010, Animal
N=277, Plant N=288
A TURF analysis was used to understand the reach of satisfaction with
different modes of communication with the CFIA. Comparing top 3 box scores (5,
6, or 7 on a 7-point scale) show that most of the satisfaction is driven
through email (71%) again this year. An additional 4% is contributed from
Personal interaction with CFIA representative, then an additional 3% from the
CFIA website, and 2% from the Portal notices in My CFIA. At this point the
incrementality levels off, indicating that a focus on the top 3-4 modes of
communication is the most efficient way to drive satisfaction.
|
Business B7
Satisfaction with Communication - Incremental Reach (T3B%)
|
|
Source
|
Incremental Reach
|
Cumulative Reach
|
|
Email (including CFIA
Listservs)
|
70.4%
|
70.4%
|
|
Personal interaction
with CFIA representative
|
4.6%
|
75.1%
|
|
CFIA website
|
3.3%
|
78.4%
|
|
Portal notices in My
CFIA
|
2.1%
|
80.5%
|
|
Mailed documents
|
1.9%
|
82.4%
|
|
Telephone
communications
|
1.2%
|
83.6%
|
|
Through an industry
association
|
0.8%
|
84.4%
|
|
Social media
|
0.1%
|
84.5%
|
|
CFIA's Inspect and
Protect newsletter
|
0.1%
|
84.5%
|
|
Podcasts
|
0.0%
|
84.5%
|
Base: Total sample N=1575
In thinking about overall satisfaction with
CFIA communications (8, 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale) shows that nearly 6 in 10
(57%) businesses are very satisfied with the tools the CFIA uses to
communicate. This year the scale of this question was changed, and so does not
compare to past results. The food industry businesses have the highest
satisfaction (62%) vs the animal
industry (44%) and plant industry (53%).
|
B6 - What is your
overall level of satisfaction regarding the communication tools that are used
by the CFIA?
|
|
|
Total
|
Food
|
Animal
|
Plant
|
|
0 Not at all satisfied
|
2%
|
1%
|
4%
|
3%
|
|
1
|
1%
|
1%
|
3%
|
0%
|
|
2
|
2%
|
1%
|
2%
|
3%
|
|
3
|
3%
|
2%
|
5%
|
3%
|
|
4
|
3%
|
2%
|
4%
|
4%
|
|
5
|
8%
|
8%
|
8%
|
10%
|
|
6
|
9%
|
8%
|
10%
|
10%
|
|
7
|
15%
|
14%
|
19%
|
15%
|
|
8
|
20%
|
20%
|
17%
|
21%
|
|
9
|
16%
|
16%
|
15%
|
13%
|
|
10 Very satisfied
|
22%
|
25%
|
13%
|
19%
|
|
T3B (8,9,10)
|
57%
|
62%
|
44%
|
53%
|
Base: Total sample N=1575,
Food N=1010, Animal N=277, Plant N=288
Across all three industries, businesses are
divided on the best way to have more open and clear discussions with the CFIA.
Conducting informal quarterly consultations (33%), Conducting formal consultations (31%), and
industry association events (25%) were all equally chosen.
|
B10 - When trying to
understand new requirements and regulatory priorities, what is the best way
to have more open and clear discussions with CFIA regulators?
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Informal quarterly
consultations
|
33%
|
|
Formal consultations
|
31%
|
|
Industry association
events
|
25%
|
|
Other
|
5%
|
|
Not applicable: I wish
the CFIA would not send me any future communications
|
5%
|
Base: Total sample N=1575
Webinars on “Import requirements” were chosen
again this year as the most interesting of the topics displayed (46% overall)
and 55% of animal businesses would be interested. Additional topics of interest
were “How to use my CFIA portal to apply for licences and other permissions”
(44%), Labelling (39%) which had more interest among food business and lower
interest among plant and animal businesses. Less interesting topics were
“Preventive control plans” (37%) overall, and “Traceability” (29%) overall. Once
again both topics were more interesting to the Food businesses.
|
B11. If the CFIA was
holding webinars, what topics would drive the most interest? Select all that
interest you.
|
|
|
Total
|
Food
|
Animal
|
Plant
|
|
Import requirements
|
46%
|
42%
|
55%
|
51%
|
|
How to use MY CFIA
portal to apply for licences and other permissions
|
44%
|
42%
|
51%
|
48%
|
|
Labelling
|
39%
|
45%
|
27%
|
32%
|
|
Preventive control
plans
|
37%
|
44%
|
24%
|
25%
|
|
Traceability
|
29%
|
34%
|
21%
|
21%
|
|
Other
|
3%
|
2%
|
4%
|
4%
|
|
Don't know / Prefer
not to say
|
12%
|
12%
|
12%
|
14%
|
Base: Total sample N=1575,
Food N=1010, Animal N=277, Plant N=288
Sample profiles
S1a Would you
be willing to indicate in which of the following age categories you belong?
|
|
|
Region
|
|
|
|
|
Age
|
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
Column %
|
NET
|
BC
|
Prairies
|
Ontario
|
Quebec
|
Atlantic
|
18-34
|
35-54
|
55+
|
Male
|
Female
|
|
Column
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
A
|
B
|
|
Base size
|
3003
|
410
|
564
|
1178
|
657
|
194
|
841
|
991
|
1171
|
1349
|
1639
|
|
(1) 18 to 24
|
11%
|
11%
|
11%
|
11%
|
11%
|
11%
|
39% BC
|
0%
|
0%
|
7%
|
14% A
|
|
(2) 25 to 34
|
17%
|
17%
|
17%
|
17%
|
17%
|
17%
|
61% BC
|
0%
|
0%
|
11%
|
22% A
|
|
(3) 35 to 44
|
17%
|
17%
|
17%
|
17%
|
17%
|
17%
|
0%
|
52% AC
|
0%
|
15%
|
19% A
|
|
(4) 45 to 54
|
16%
|
16%
|
16%
|
16%
|
16%
|
16%
|
0%
|
48% AC
|
0%
|
19% B
|
14%
|
|
(5) 55 to 64
|
17%
|
17%
|
17%
|
17%
|
17%
|
17%
|
0%
|
0%
|
44% AB
|
19% B
|
16%
|
|
(6) 65 or older
|
22%
|
22%
|
22%
|
22%
|
22%
|
22%
|
0%
|
0%
|
56% AB
|
30% B
|
16%
|
S2 In which
province or territory do you live?
|
|
|
Region
|
|
|
|
|
Age
|
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
Column %
|
NET
|
BC
|
Prairies
|
Ontario
|
Quebec
|
Atlantic
|
18-34
|
35-54
|
55+
|
Male
|
Female
|
|
Column
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
A
|
B
|
|
Base size
|
3003
|
410
|
564
|
1178
|
657
|
194
|
841
|
991
|
1171
|
1349
|
1639
|
|
(1) British Columbia
|
14%
|
100% BCDE
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
14%
|
14%
|
14%
|
14%
|
13%
|
|
(2) Alberta
|
11%
|
0%
|
60% ACDE
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
12%
|
11%
|
11%
|
11%
|
11%
|
|
(3) Manitoba
|
4%
|
0%
|
22% ACDE
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
4%
|
4%
|
5%
|
5%
|
4%
|
|
(4) Saskatchewan
|
3%
|
0%
|
18% ACDE
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
3%
|
4%
|
3%
|
3%
|
4%
|
|
(5) Ontario
|
39%
|
0%
|
0%
|
100% ABDE
|
0%
|
0%
|
39%
|
39%
|
39%
|
39%
|
39%
|
|
(6) Quebec
|
22%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
100% ABCE
|
0%
|
22%
|
22%
|
22%
|
22%
|
22%
|
|
(7) New Brunswick
|
2%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
33% ABCD
|
3%
|
2%
|
2%
|
2%
|
2%
|
|
(8) Prince Edward Island
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
2% ABCD
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
(9) Nova Scotia
|
3%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
42% ABCD
|
2%
|
3%
|
3%
|
2%
|
3%
|
|
(10) Newfoundland and Labrador
|
1%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
23% ABCD
|
1%
|
2%
|
1%
|
1%
|
2%
|
|
(11) Yukon
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
(12) Northwest Territories
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
(13) Nunavut
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
(14) Outside Canada
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
(15) Prefer not to answer
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
C1 Which of
the following statements best describes your role and responsibility when it
comes to grocery shopping for your family or household?
|
|
|
Region
|
|
|
|
|
Age
|
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
Column %
|
NET
|
BC
|
Prairies
|
Ontario
|
Quebec
|
Atlantic
|
18-34
|
35-54
|
55+
|
Male
|
Female
|
|
|
Column
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
A
|
B
|
|
|
Base size
|
3003
|
410
|
564
|
1178
|
657
|
194
|
841
|
991
|
1171
|
1349
|
1639
|
|
|
(1) I am solely responsible
|
54%
|
53%
|
50%
|
54%
|
56%
|
59% B
|
46%
|
58% A
|
56% A
|
47%
|
59% A
|
|
|
(2) I share in this responsibility
|
40%
|
41%
|
45% CD
|
39%
|
38%
|
38%
|
44% B
|
38%
|
40%
|
47% B
|
35%
|
|
|
(3) Somebody else in my family or
household looks after grocery shopping
|
4%
|
6% E
|
4%
|
5% E
|
4%
|
2%
|
8% BC
|
3%
|
3%
|
5% B
|
4%
|
|
|
(4) Prefer not to say
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
2%
|
1%
|
2% C
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
2% A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X2 What is the
highest level of formal education that you have completed?
|
|
|
Region
|
|
|
|
|
Age
|
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
Column %
|
NET
|
BC
|
Prairies
|
Ontario
|
Quebec
|
Atlantic
|
18-34
|
35-54
|
55+
|
Male
|
Female
|
|
Column
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
A
|
B
|
|
Base size
|
3003
|
410
|
564
|
1178
|
657
|
194
|
841
|
991
|
1171
|
1349
|
1639
|
|
(1) Less than a high school diploma
or equivalent
|
3%
|
2%
|
4% AC
|
2%
|
5% AC
|
3%
|
3%
|
3%
|
3%
|
4%
|
3%
|
|
(2) High school diploma or equivalent
|
23%
|
22%
|
28% CD
|
21%
|
22%
|
23%
|
27% B
|
18%
|
24% B
|
22%
|
24%
|
|
(3) Registered apprenticeship or
other trades certificate or diploma
|
6%
|
4%
|
6% C
|
4%
|
11% ABC
|
10% AC
|
4%
|
6%
|
8% A
|
7%
|
6%
|
|
(4) College, CEGEP or other
non-university certificate or diploma
|
25%
|
23%
|
24%
|
24%
|
27%
|
26%
|
21%
|
24%
|
28% A
|
23%
|
27% A
|
|
(5) University certificate or diploma
below bachelor's level
|
5%
|
6%
|
6%
|
5%
|
6%
|
4%
|
6% C
|
6%
|
4%
|
5%
|
5%
|
|
(6) Bachelor's degree
|
26%
|
31% BC
|
22%
|
30% BD
|
20%
|
24%
|
27% C
|
30% C
|
22%
|
27%
|
25%
|
|
(7) Graduate degree above bachelor's
level
|
11%
|
11%
|
8%
|
14% BD
|
8%
|
10%
|
10%
|
12%
|
10%
|
12% B
|
10%
|
|
(8) Prefer not to answer
|
1%
|
1% E
|
1%
|
0% E
|
1% E
|
0%
|
1%
|
1%
|
0%
|
0%
|
1% A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X3 What
language do you speak most often at home?
|
|
|
Region
|
|
|
|
|
Age
|
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
Column
%
|
NET
|
BC
|
Prairies
|
Ontario
|
Quebec
|
Atlantic
|
18-34
|
35-54
|
55+
|
Male
|
Female
|
|
Column
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
A
|
B
|
|
Base
size
|
3003
|
410
|
564
|
1178
|
657
|
194
|
841
|
991
|
1171
|
1349
|
1639
|
|
(1)
English
|
77%
|
94% D
|
97% ACD
|
94% D
|
13%
|
97% ACD
|
78%
|
77%
|
77%
|
77%
|
77%
|
|
(2)
French
|
22%
|
2%
|
2%
|
3%
|
90% ABCD
|
7% ABC
|
21%
|
22%
|
23%
|
22%
|
22%
|
|
(3)
Other
|
5%
|
9% BDE
|
4% E
|
6% BDE
|
2% D
|
0%
|
8% BC
|
4%
|
3%
|
4%
|
5%
|
|
(4)
Prefer not to answer
|
0%-
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
1%
|
1% BC
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
X4 Which of
the following best describes your total household income last year, before
taxes, from all sources for all household members?
|
|
|
Region
|
|
|
|
|
Age
|
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
Column
%
|
NET
|
BC
|
Prairies
|
Ontario
|
Quebec
|
Atlantic
|
18-34
|
35-54
|
55+
|
Male
|
Female
|
|
Column
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
A
|
B
|
|
Base
size
|
3003
|
410
|
564
|
1178
|
657
|
194
|
841
|
991
|
1171
|
1349
|
1639
|
|
(1)
Under $20,000
|
7%
|
6%
|
7%
|
6%
|
8%
|
13% ABC
|
12% BC
|
6% C
|
4%
|
6%
|
8% A
|
|
(2)
$20,000 to just under $40,000
|
17%
|
16%
|
16%
|
15%
|
20% C
|
18%
|
17% B
|
11%
|
21% B
|
14%
|
19% A
|
|
(3)
$40,000 to just under $60,000
|
17%
|
16%
|
17%
|
16%
|
17%
|
23%
|
16%
|
14%
|
20% AB
|
17%
|
17%
|
|
(4)
$60,000 to just under $80,000
|
14%
|
13%
|
17% D
|
14%
|
13%
|
14%
|
16% C
|
15%
|
13%
|
14%
|
15%
|
|
(5)
$80,000 to just under $100,000
|
13%
|
14% E
|
12%
|
13% E
|
14% E
|
8%
|
12%
|
14%
|
13%
|
14%
|
12%
|
|
(6)
$100,000 to just under $150,000
|
17%
|
17%
|
15%
|
19% BE
|
16%
|
13%
|
16%
|
21% AC
|
14%
|
19% B
|
15%
|
|
(7)
$150,000 and above
|
10%
|
12% DE
|
11% D
|
11% D
|
7%
|
7%
|
6%
|
15% AC
|
8%
|
11%
|
9%
|
|
(8)
Prefer not to answer
|
6%
|
6%
|
5%
|
6%
|
6%
|
5%
|
5%
|
5%
|
7% AC
|
5%
|
6%
|
X5 Are you an
Indigenous person?
|
|
|
Region
|
|
|
|
|
Age
|
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
Column
%
|
NET
|
BC
|
Prairies
|
Ontario
|
Quebec
|
Atlantic
|
18-34
|
35-54
|
55+
|
Male
|
Female
|
|
Column
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
A
|
B
|
|
Base
size
|
3003
|
410
|
564
|
1178
|
657
|
194
|
841
|
991
|
1171
|
1349
|
1639
|
|
(1)
Yes
|
5%
|
4%
|
8% ACD
|
4%
|
3%
|
7%
|
10% BC
|
4% C
|
1%
|
4%
|
6% A
|
|
(2)
No
|
95%
|
96% B
|
92%
|
96% B
|
97% B
|
93%
|
90%
|
96% A
|
99% AB
|
96% B
|
94%
|
X6 You
indicated that you are an Indigenous person. Please specify the group to which
you belong.
|
|
|
Region
|
|
|
|
|
Age
|
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
Column
%
|
NET
|
BC
|
Prairies
|
Ontario
|
Quebec
|
Atlantic
|
18-34
|
35-54
|
55+
|
Male
|
Female
|
|
Column
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
A
|
B
|
|
Base
size
|
145
|
16
|
48
|
48
|
20
|
13
|
85
|
42
|
17
|
50
|
91
|
|
First
Nations (North American Indian)
|
51%
|
59%
|
48%
|
53%
|
53%
|
46%
|
51% C
|
63% C
|
22%
|
61%
|
44%
|
|
Métis
|
37%
|
33%
|
47%
|
30%
|
32%
|
36%
|
35%
|
27%
|
68% AB
|
28%
|
43%
|
|
Inuk
(Inuit)
|
5%
|
8%
|
4%
|
5%
|
11%
|
0%
|
5%
|
3%
|
10%
|
8%
|
4%
|
|
Other
(Specify)
|
7%
|
0%
|
2%
|
12%
|
4%
|
18%
|
8% C
|
7%
|
0%
|
4%
|
9%
|
X7 Are you a
member of a visible minority group?
|
|
|
Region
|
|
|
|
|
Age
|
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
Column
%
|
NET
|
BC
|
Prairies
|
Ontario
|
Quebec
|
Atlantic
|
18-34
|
35-54
|
55+
|
Male
|
Female
|
|
Column
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
A
|
B
|
|
Base
size
|
3003
|
410
|
564
|
1178
|
657
|
194
|
841
|
991
|
1171
|
1349
|
1639
|
|
(1)
Yes
|
20%
|
26% BDE
|
19% DE
|
26% BDE
|
10%
|
9%
|
32% BC
|
23% C
|
9%
|
19%
|
21%
|
|
(2)
No
|
80%
|
74%
|
81% AC
|
74%
|
90% ABC
|
91% ABC
|
68%
|
77% A
|
91% AB
|
81%
|
79%
|
X8 You
indicated that you are a member of a visible minority group. Please select the
box(es) that apply to you.
|
|
|
Region
|
|
|
|
|
Age
|
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
Column
%
|
NET
|
BC
|
Prairies
|
Ontario
|
Quebec
|
Atlantic
|
18-34
|
35-54
|
55+
|
Male
|
Female
|
|
Column
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
A
|
B
|
|
Base
size
|
599
|
108
|
105
|
303
|
67
|
17
|
269
|
227
|
103
|
258
|
337
|
|
Chinese
|
27%
|
37% DE
|
24% E
|
27% DE
|
17%
|
5%
|
17%
|
35% A
|
33% A
|
27%
|
27%
|
|
South
Asian/East Indian
|
20%
|
23% D
|
16%
|
24% D
|
7%
|
8%
|
27% B
|
12%
|
20%
|
24%
|
18%
|
|
Black
|
17%
|
5%
|
15% A
|
19% A
|
28% A
|
25%
|
17%
|
19% C
|
11%
|
15%
|
18%
|
|
Filipino
|
8%
|
9%
|
16% C
|
5%
|
8%
|
6%
|
8%
|
8%
|
6%
|
9%
|
7%
|
|
Other
visible minority group (specify)
|
6%
|
7% B
|
1%
|
5% B
|
12% B
|
21% B
|
4%
|
8%
|
6%
|
6%
|
6%
|
|
Person
of mixed origin (with 1 parent in 1 of the visible minority groups)
|
7%
|
9%
|
4%
|
8%
|
3%
|
21%
|
9%
|
5%
|
7%
|
5%
|
8%
|
|
Southeast
Asian
|
4%
|
4% E
|
6% E
|
3% E
|
3%
|
0%
|
4%
|
2%
|
5%
|
4%
|
3%
|
|
Non-White
West Asian, North African or Arab
|
5%
|
3%
|
6% E
|
4% E
|
14% ACE
|
0%
|
6%
|
5%
|
4%
|
5%
|
5%
|
|
Non-White
Latin American
|
8%
|
7%
|
10%
|
5%
|
11%
|
27%
|
11% BC
|
4%
|
5%
|
6%
|
9%
|
|
Japanese
|
3%
|
4% E
|
2%
|
3% E
|
2%
|
0%
|
2%
|
2%
|
6%
|
2%
|
3%
|
|
Korean
|
2%
|
3%
|
4%
|
1%
|
1%
|
7%
|
2%
|
1%
|
4%
|
2%
|
2%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile of business sample (S3, X1-X13)
Specific profiling details of the sample used for the business section
of this report is detailed below in table form which outlines the differences
across the 3 lines of industry; food, animal and plant. Significance testing is
shown by column letters indicating that a value is significantly higher than
another at a 95% confidence interval.
S3 What industry
segments does your company operate in?
|
Column
%
|
Total
|
FOOD
|
ANIMAL
|
PLANT
|
|
Food
preparation
|
13%
|
13%
|
|
|
|
Food
importing
|
43%
|
43%
|
|
|
|
Food
exporting
|
20%
|
20%
|
|
|
|
Interprovincial
trade of food
|
16%
|
16%
|
|
|
|
Food
manufacturing
|
27%
|
27%
|
|
|
|
Farming
|
13%
|
13%
|
|
|
|
Food/beverage
manufacturing or processing
|
19%
|
19%
|
|
|
|
Meat
and poultry slaughter
|
2%
|
2%
|
|
|
|
Live
animal importing
|
36%
|
|
36%
|
|
|
Live
animal exporting
|
23%
|
|
23%
|
|
|
Germplasm
(genetic material) import
|
9%
|
|
9%
|
|
|
Germplasm
(genetic material) export
|
6%
|
|
6%
|
|
|
Animal
product or by-product importing
|
23%
|
|
23%
|
|
|
Animal
product or by-product exporting
|
12%
|
|
12%
|
|
|
Live
animal domestic management
|
9%
|
|
9%
|
|
|
Animal
product or by-product preparation or manufacture
|
8%
|
|
8%
|
|
|
Animal
feed (including feed mills and feed sellers)
|
10%
|
|
10%
|
|
|
Pet
food import
|
6%
|
|
6%
|
|
|
Pet
food export
|
3%
|
|
3%
|
|
|
Animal
transportation (including freight forwarders)
|
7%
|
|
7%
|
|
|
Artificial
insemination centres
|
3%
|
|
3%
|
|
|
Veterinary
biologics
|
5%
|
|
5%
|
|
|
Horse
owners
|
6%
|
|
6%
|
|
|
Small
flock owners (including bird collections)
|
3%
|
|
3%
|
|
|
Fertilizers
and supplements
|
17%
|
|
|
17%
|
|
Forestry
products
|
6%
|
|
|
6%
|
|
Horticulture
(greenhouse, nursery, bulbs, fruit trees, grapevines)
|
31%
|
|
|
31%
|
|
Crops
(grains, oilseeds)
|
15%
|
|
|
15%
|
|
Potatoes
|
7%
|
|
|
7%
|
|
Seed
growing (other than seed potato)
|
9%
|
|
|
9%
|
|
Seed
establishments/ handling
|
6%
|
|
|
6%
|
|
Plant
breeding
|
10%
|
|
|
10%
|
|
Plant
breeders' rights (intellectual property)
|
6%
|
|
|
6%
|
|
Invasive
species prevention and management
|
1%
|
|
|
1%
|
|
Other
(specify)
|
16%
|
9%
|
23% A
|
33% AB
|
|
NET
|
100% -
|
100% -
|
100% -
|
100% -
|
|
Column
Population
|
1575
|
1010
|
277
|
288
|
|
Column
Names
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
X1 Approximately how many people are employed by your company?
|
|
|
Industry
Segment
|
|
|
|
Column
%
|
Total
|
FOOD
|
ANIMAL
|
PLANT
|
|
(1)
Sole proprietor / just me
|
12%
|
13%
|
12%
|
9%
|
|
(2)
2 to 9
|
38%
|
40% BC
|
33%
|
33%
|
|
(3)
10 to 49 employees
|
27%
|
25%
|
29%
|
33% A
|
|
(4)
50 to 99 employees
|
8%
|
9%
|
9%
|
6%
|
|
(5)
100 to 499 employees
|
8%
|
8%
|
8%
|
10%
|
|
(6)
500 to 999 employees
|
1%
|
1%
|
2%
|
1%
|
|
(7)
1000 to 4999 employees
|
1%
|
1%
|
2%
|
1%
|
|
(8)
5000+ employees
|
2%
|
1%
|
4% A
|
3% A
|
|
(9)
I do not know/ Prefer not to answer
|
3%
|
3%
|
2%
|
3%
|
|
NET
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
Column
Population
|
1575
|
1010
|
277
|
288
|
|
Column
Names
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
X2 What is the
approximate annual revenue of your company?
|
|
|
Industry
Segment
|
|
|
|
Column
%
|
Total
|
FOOD
|
ANIMAL
|
PLANT
|
|
(1)
Less than $100,000
|
16%
|
17%
|
13%
|
15%
|
|
(2)
$100,000 to $499,999
|
16%
|
18% BC
|
11%
|
11%
|
|
(3)
$500,000 to $999,999
|
9%
|
9%
|
8%
|
11%
|
|
(4)
$1 million to less than $25 million
|
32%
|
31%
|
31%
|
33%
|
|
(5)
$25 million to less than $100 million
|
5%
|
4%
|
6%
|
6%
|
|
(6)
$100 million or more
|
3%
|
2%
|
5% A
|
3%
|
|
(7)
I do not know/ Prefer not to answer
|
20%
|
17%
|
27% A
|
21%
|
|
NET
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
Column
Population
|
1575
|
1010
|
277
|
288
|
|
Column
Names
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
X3 How long
has your company been in operations?
|
|
|
Industry
Segment
|
|
|
|
Column
%
|
Total
|
FOOD
|
ANIMAL
|
PLANT
|
|
(10)
Less than a year
|
4%
|
5%
|
3%
|
3%
|
|
(11)
More than 1 but less than 5 years
|
15%
|
15% B
|
8%
|
18% B
|
|
(12)
5 or more years but less than 10 years
|
14%
|
16% BC
|
9%
|
8%
|
|
(13)
10 or more years but less than 25 years
|
27%
|
27%
|
27%
|
25%
|
|
(14)
More than 25 years
|
39%
|
34%
|
52% AC
|
42% A
|
|
(15)
I do not know/ Prefer not to answer
|
2%
|
2%
|
1%
|
3%
|
|
NET
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
Column
Population
|
1575
|
1010
|
277
|
288
|
|
Column
Names
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
X5r In which
regions does your company currently do business?
|
|
|
Industry Segment
|
|
|
|
Column %
|
Total
|
FOOD
|
ANIMAL
|
PLANT
|
|
British
Columbia
|
33%
|
33%
|
35%
|
33%
|
|
Alberta
|
28%
|
26%
|
39% AC
|
27%
|
|
Saskatchewan
|
18%
|
14%
|
26% A
|
23% A
|
|
Manitoba
|
18%
|
16%
|
23% A
|
21% A
|
|
Ontario
|
50%
|
49%
|
49%
|
53%
|
|
Quebec
|
34%
|
31%
|
36%
|
40% A
|
|
New
Brunswick
|
13%
|
11%
|
20% AC
|
14%
|
|
Prince
Edward Island
|
11%
|
9%
|
16% A
|
11%
|
|
Nova
Scotia
|
15%
|
13%
|
21% AC
|
14%
|
|
Newfoundland
and Labrador
|
9%
|
8%
|
15% AC
|
8%
|
|
Yukon
|
4%
|
4%
|
6%
|
4%
|
|
Nunavut
|
3%
|
3%
|
5%
|
3%
|
|
Northwest
Territories
|
4%
|
4%
|
5%
|
4%
|
|
United
States of America
|
21%
|
17%
|
28% A
|
26% A
|
|
Outside
of the United States of America or Canada
|
11%
|
8%
|
18% A
|
15% A
|
|
NET
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
Column
Population
|
1575
|
1010
|
277
|
288
|
|
Column
Names
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
X6r And in
which regions does your company have offices/facilities where CFIA food safety regulations
are applicable?
|
|
|
Industry Segment
|
|
|
|
Column %
|
Total
|
FOOD
|
ANIMAL
|
PLANT
|
|
British
Columbia
|
20%
|
20%
|
18%
|
21%
|
|
Alberta
|
14%
|
13%
|
21% AC
|
13%
|
|
Saskatchewan
|
6%
|
4%
|
8% A
|
9% A
|
|
Manitoba
|
6%
|
6%
|
7%
|
7%
|
|
Ontario
|
37%
|
36%
|
38%
|
39%
|
|
Quebec
|
21%
|
20%
|
21%
|
24%
|
|
New
Brunswick
|
4%
|
3%
|
6% A
|
4%
|
|
Prince
Edward Island
|
3%
|
2%
|
4%
|
3%
|
|
Nova
Scotia
|
5%
|
5%
|
8% AC
|
3%
|
|
Newfoundland
and Labrador
|
1%
|
1%
|
3% A
|
1%
|
|
Yukon
|
1%
|
0%
|
1%
|
0%
|
|
Nunavut
|
0%
|
0%
|
1% A
|
0%
|
|
Northwest
Territories
|
0%
|
0%
|
1%
|
1%
|
|
United
States of America
|
8%
|
8%
|
8%
|
10%
|
|
Outside
of the United States of America or Canada
|
3%
|
3%
|
3%
|
6% A
|
|
NET
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
Column
Population
|
1575
|
1010
|
277
|
288
|
|
Column
Names
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
X7 What is the
ownership status of your company?
|
|
|
Industry
Segment
|
|
|
|
Column
%
|
Total
|
FOOD
|
ANIMAL
|
PLANT
|
|
(1)
Publicly-traded
|
4%
|
4%
|
5%
|
5%
|
|
(2)
Privately-held
|
83%
|
85% B
|
79%
|
82%
|
|
(3)
Government/Crown
|
1%
|
0%
|
4% A
|
3% A
|
|
(4)
Not sure
|
11%
|
11%
|
13%
|
10%
|
|
NET
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
Column
Population
|
1575
|
1010
|
277
|
288
|
|
Column
Names
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
X8 Is your company
based in Canada, or does it have its headquarters elsewhere?
|
|
|
Industry
Segment
|
|
|
|
Column
%
|
Total
|
FOOD
|
ANIMAL
|
PLANT
|
|
(1)
Headquarters located in Canada
|
88%
|
88%
|
89%
|
89%
|
|
(2)
Headquarters located outside of Canada
|
10%
|
10%
|
10%
|
10%
|
|
(3)
Not sure
|
2%
|
2%
|
1%
|
1%
|
|
NET
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
Column
Population
|
1575
|
1010
|
277
|
288
|
|
Column
Names
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
X9 Would you
consider the organization to be a family-owned organization?
|
|
|
Industry
Segment
|
|
|
|
Column
%
|
Total
|
FOOD
|
ANIMAL
|
PLANT
|
|
(1)
Yes
|
67%
|
69% BC
|
62%
|
63%
|
|
(2)
No
|
27%
|
24%
|
34% A
|
33% A
|
|
(3)
Do not know / Not sure
|
6%
|
7% B
|
4%
|
5%
|
|
NET
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
Column
Population
|
1575
|
1010
|
277
|
288
|
|
Column
Names
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
X10 Would you
describe your company as Indigenous managed or owned?
|
|
|
Industry
Segment
|
|
|
|
Column
%
|
Total
|
FOOD
|
ANIMAL
|
PLANT
|
|
(1)
Yes
|
6%
|
8% BC
|
4%
|
2%
|
|
(2)
No
|
87%
|
84%
|
92% A
|
93% A
|
|
(3)
Unsure
|
7%
|
9% BC
|
3%
|
4%
|
|
NET
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
Column
Population
|
1575
|
1010
|
277
|
288
|
|
Column
Names
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
X11 For
statistical purposes only, what is your gender?
|
|
|
Industry
Segment
|
|
|
|
Column
%
|
Total
|
FOOD
|
ANIMAL
|
PLANT
|
|
(1)
Male
|
54%
|
55%
|
53%
|
51%
|
|
(2)
Female
|
35%
|
36%
|
32%
|
33%
|
|
(3)
Other
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
|
(4)
Prefer not to answer
|
10%
|
8%
|
14% A
|
14% A
|
|
NET
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
Column
Population
|
1575
|
1010
|
277
|
288
|
|
Column
Names
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
X12
Approximately, what percentage of individuals might identify as a visible
minority in senior management (including owner) roles?
|
|
|
Industry
Segment
|
|
|
|
Column
%
|
Total
|
FOOD
|
ANIMAL
|
PLANT
|
|
0%
|
29%
|
25%
|
32% A
|
39% A
|
|
1-19%
|
4%
|
4%
|
5%
|
3%
|
|
20-39%
|
5%
|
4%
|
6%
|
6%
|
|
40-59%
|
7%
|
8% B
|
4%
|
5%
|
|
60-79%
|
1%
|
2% C
|
1%
|
0%
|
|
80-100%
|
12%
|
14% BC
|
7%
|
8%
|
|
Don’t
know
|
42%
|
42%
|
45%
|
38%
|
|
NET
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
Column
Population
|
1575
|
1010
|
277
|
288
|
|
Column
Names
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
X13 Please describe the approximate percentages of individuals with a
senior management position who identify as female.
|
|
|
Industry
Segment
|
|
|
|
Column
%
|
Total
|
FOOD
|
ANIMAL
|
PLANT
|
|
0%
|
14%
|
14%
|
10%
|
15%
|
|
1-19%
|
8%
|
8%
|
7%
|
11%
|
|
20-39%
|
11%
|
11%
|
9%
|
14%
|
|
40-59%
|
23%
|
22%
|
29% AC
|
21%
|
|
60-79%
|
5%
|
6%
|
5%
|
5%
|
|
80-100%
|
9%
|
10% B
|
6%
|
8%
|
|
Don’t
know
|
29%
|
30%
|
33%
|
26%
|
|
NET
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
Column
Population
|
1575
|
1010
|
277
|
288
|
|
Column
Names
|
A
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
Statistical
analysis definitions
Included here are definitions and explanations of how the TURF and key
driver analysis were conducted.
TURF
TURF is an acronym for “Total Unduplicated Reach and Frequency.” It is
an optimization algorithm for finding subsets of items/attributes that “reach”
the maximum number of respondents possible. In the context of TURF, “reach” can
be defined in various ways. For example, it may be defined as ratings of “4” or
“5” (for Top 2 Box) on a 5-point scale.
Once reach has been defined, TURF is applied to respondent-level data to
analyze reach (and frequency) for all possible subsets of a certain size. The
TURF algorithm counts how many respondents are reached by each possible subset
and then rank orders the subsets in terms of overall reach. As a result, TURF
is typically used to answer questions like, “Which subset of 5 attributes out
of 30 is best in terms of maximizing reach?”
The “frequency” part of TURF simply refers to the number of times
respondents are reached for a particular combination of items/attributes. If 2
subsets have equal reach, then the subset with higher frequency should be
preferred. Accordingly, the TURF algorithm rank-orders subsets in terms of
reach first, followed by frequency.
In practice, TURF often reveals multiple solutions with equal or nearly
equal reach. At face value, this may seem problematic in terms of identifying
an optimal subset. This can also be seen as an opportunity, however, because it
allows for other relevant business information to help “break the tie”. For
example, if subsets “A” and “B” result in roughly equal reach but subset “A”
would be quicker and more inexpensive to implement, then subset “A” should be
preferred.
Key driver analysis
The basic problem in a derived relative importance analysis (for
example, drivers analysis) is to assess the contribution of each driver’s
influence on an outcome of interest. An intuitive way to quantify driver
contribution is to use the portion of explained variance (for example,
R-squared) attributed to each driver. Variance decomposition techniques, such
as LMG and Johnson's Relative Weights, are computationally intensive analyses
that are used to measure relative importance in the context of marketing
research studies. These techniques define driver "relative
importance" as the share of explained variance (for example, R-squared)
attributed to each driver in the model.
The CFIA Reputation study involved two
surveys, one for businesses and the other for consumers.
The consumer portion of the study was
conducted as an online web survey using the Dynata panel of respondents. The
desired sample structure is available below. A total of 3,003 completed surveys
were collected across Canada between February 24th and March 6th, 2023. The
average survey length among consumers was 9 minutes.
|
|
Target Competes
|
Actual Completes
|
|
Total
|
3000
|
3003
|
|
Age
|
|
|
|
18
to 24
|
320
|
246
|
|
25
to 34
|
520
|
517
|
|
35
to 44
|
504
|
515
|
|
45
to 54
|
490
|
468
|
|
55
to 64
|
488
|
530
|
|
65+
|
679
|
727
|
|
Region
|
|
|
|
British
Columbia
|
409
|
410
|
|
Prairies
|
549
|
564
|
|
Ontario
|
1164
|
1178
|
|
Quebec
|
678
|
657
|
|
Atlantic
|
193
|
194
|
|
Territories
|
Track
|
0
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
|
Male
|
1428
|
1372
|
|
Female
|
1531
|
1617
|
|
Other
|
Track
|
12
|
|
Prefer
not to answer
|
Track
|
2
|
Weighting
Data from the consumer quantitative survey was weighted to balance the
sample so that it represents the characteristics of the Canadian population.
The Consumer sample (N=3003) was weighted using Stats Can proportions for age
and gender. This weighting was carried across regions to account for regional
differences during fielding.
Results were weighted to reflect the following:
|
Region
|
Population %
|
|
Alberta
|
12%
|
|
Atlantic
|
6%
|
|
British Columbia
|
14%
|
|
Manitoba
|
4%
|
|
Ontario
|
39%
|
|
Quebec
|
23%
|
|
Saskatchewan
|
3%
|
|
Territories
|
0%
|
|
Grand Total
|
100%
|
|
Gender
|
Population %
|
|
Male
|
50%
|
|
Female
|
50%
|
|
Grand Total
|
100%
|
|
Age Groups
|
% of Total
|
|
18-24
|
11%
|
|
25-34
|
17%
|
|
35-44
|
17%
|
|
45-54
|
16%
|
|
55-64
|
17%
|
|
65+
|
22%
|
|
Grand Total
|
100%
|
The
business survey consisted of an online survey where respondents were sent email
invitations directly by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), with three
rounds of reminders sent. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) sent out
email invitations to recruit their customers to the survey using the links
provided by the Logit Group for each category – Food, Animal and Plant. A total
of 36,078 links were provided. There were a total of 2700 clicks from which
1575 respondents completed the survey.
The
average survey length for the business study was 13.5 minutes. Data was
collected between February 20th and March 9th, 2023.
Below is a breakdown of responses for
the Business study:
|
|
Total
|
Food businesses
|
Animal health businesses
|
Plant health businesses
|
|
Total
|
1575
|
1010
|
277
|
288
|
|
English
|
83%
|
84%
|
82%
|
79%
|
|
French
|
17%
|
16%
|
18%
|
21%
|
There was no weighting
applied to the business quantitative data.
Qualitative methodology
Given the objectives set out for this study, the
time and resources available, online focus group methodology was chosen as the
optimum approach. All participants were met in focus groups of between 3 and 5
participants each – a somewhat smaller than usual size, but necessary given the
constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to conduct these interviews
over the Internet.
For this year’s study, the qualitative process was organized as follows:
· 8
focus groups with consumers. These consumers were recruited via cold-call
contacts and were designed to ensure that Canadians from different areas of the
country, walks of life, ages and income levels participated. 6 of these groups
were held in English and 2 in French.
· 8
focus groups with different representative of businesses that work in the plant
and animal lines (as defined by the Agency). These participants were recruited
either from the survey (from those who volunteered to participate in follow-up
research), invitations emailed to Agency contacts, or via cold-calls to
pre-identified businesses.
Recruiting screening questionnaires designed to facilitate the recruiting
process were developed prior to the start of the process and approved by the
contracting authority. Copies of these are appended to this report.
Consumers were offered $150 for their participation – in order to
encourage participation in our request that they undertake modest research of
plant and animal safety related issues prior to our discussions. Business
operators and association personnel were offered $200 for their participation.
John Patterson moderated all interviews and was solely responsible for
the analysis of results and related reporting.
Qualitative instruments
Consumer Screener
Final Version
February
2023
Dates: February
7, 8 (13:00 and 17:00), 9: 17:30 and
19:30
Client: Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA)
Locations: National: Mini Focus Groups with Canadian Consumers on
Food Safety, Plant & Animal Health and the Agency’s reputation
Qualitative research with consumers is
required to understand the diverse ways they evaluate the safety of the
Canadian food supply, the health of Canadian crops and animals, and the role
that the CFIA plays in that. Qualitative data will be collected through virtual
mini focus groups and that reflect the diversity of Canadians.
Research Objectives:
- Explore Canadians’ understanding of
food safety.
- Explore Canadians’ understanding of
animal health.
- Explore Canadians’ understanding of
plant health.
- Explore Canadians’ understanding of the
CFIA and its repuation.
- Understand
what consumer concerns, value and beliefs are contributing to these
questions and how.
Introduction (15-20 min.)
1. Introduction
of moderator, name and type of research firm: (i.e. John representing the
marketing research firm Patterson Langlois)
2. Set
up: We're here to talk about the safety of Canada’s food supply. The purpose of these discussions is to help
the Government of Canada better understand how Canadians understand safe food
and their trust that Canada’s food supply is indeed safe. Your input is important and very much
appreciated.
3. Explanation
of the process:
Conversation
recorded: This conversation will be recorded, but will be used per the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronics Documents Act.
·
Voluntary
participation and consent to recording: Before we begin, I
will turn on the recording for this group. This is just a working tool for me
and allows me to focus on the conversation and not take too many notes.
Assuming you are ok with that? By the way, you are of course free to leave this
discussion at any time.
Anonymity:
Although we mean to listen to and use your opinions here, you have a strict
guarantee of anonymity. The fact that
you participated in this process or what you say will not be made public.
Disclaimer
of observers: Observers may be on this call and hidden from view. Their presence is to directly hear what you
have to say but mostly to ensure that I ask the right questions, cover all of
the bases, etc.
Role
of moderator and participants: I am
here as a professional researcher. I am
not a Government employee and I am here precisely because I am neutral and
objective. I have no vested interest in
how you respond to my questions. I am
here to ask questions, not provide answers. You are here to speak for
yourselves.
Expression
of opinions: there are no wrong or
right answers, and no expectation that you agree with each other.
Length: we will be here for about 90 minutes.
·
Assess
familiarity with Zoom. For focus
groups: Be aware that having a group discussion on Zoom requires us to use the
available features if we want this to go smoothly. Please “raise your hand” using the Zoom
feature if you have something to say.
4. Round-table
introduction of participants:
Please start by introducing yourself and
your household.
Probes:
What do you --- and your spouse --- do
for a living?
What’s the size and composition of your
family?
Do you have any allergies, dietary and/or
other food related intolerances?
What kind of lifestyle do you live?
PART 1: Food in your life (15-20
minutes)
Although I know we
said that we wanted you here to discuss food safety and related topics, we also
know and want to spend some time understanding you as a group and the different
ways you think about food, buy your food, make your food and so on.
First, let’s start with a
quick exercise.
1.
Off
the top of your head, what are some things you associate with when you think of
the term “bad food”?
Probe: what would you do if you found a foreign
object in food you had purchased
2.
And
what are some things you associate with when you think of “good food”?
[If not mentioned,
please PROBE for the following concepts] How much of what you consider “good food” is determined by:
·
Price
·
Source
·
Season/Time of the year
·
Food group (e.g.,
protein, starches, sugars, etc)
·
Culture and/or your
family background
·
Variety (would you
usually stay with what your family likes or are you willing to try new things a
lot?)
·
Size and location of
producers (Do you prefer buying/eating food that’s produced locally?)
·
Dietary implications
(calories, fat content, etc.)
·
Taste
·
Freshness
-
Would you say that you are adventurous or are you
less willing to try new things when it comes to food?
-
Do you care a lot about food or is it just something
you take care of with minimum effort?
-
Is the cost of food a big deal for you or not?
-
Do you read, think or worry about ingredients or
nutritional value? What are you looking for?
-
What would I learn from watching you buy food? Where do you go? What do you think guides
those choices? Etc.
Food
Related Worries:
-
Okay, so what kind of things do you worry about when
it comes to food?
[Round table,
probes]
·
Any worries specific to
the kind of food you’re buying:
o
Meats
o
Vegetables
o
Dairy
o
Fish
o
Etc.
·
Anything about farming
practices? Do you think about the treatment of farm livestock/animals – whether
they’re ethical or not?
·
Do you think about animal
or plant diseases?
·
Do you think about how
farms are regulated?
·
What about dietary/
health related worries?
·
Anything about where ---
or what kind of company --- your food comes from?
·
Anything else?
PART 2 -
Food Safety Regulation: (15-20 minutes)
Let’s now talk
about how food safety is assured in Canada.
I want to make it clear right up front that I don’t expect anyone to
have detailed knowledge of this topic: this is more about the way you think
about food safety and related regulations, and the different ways we might
imagine this. Of course, we can also talk about what you know or have strong
impressions about….
-
Can someone paint the
picture they have off the top of their minds about how food is made safe in
Canada? [Round table, probes as follows]
·
Responsible
parties: What
organizations and at what level of government are responsible for ensuring that
food is safe in Canada? How big do you think are these organizations?
[Probe for
details and divergent opinions. Check for unaided CFIA awareness.]
·
Presumed
activities: What do these organizations do? (Again,
reassure that we’re ok with impressions). How involved are they in the
businesses they regulate?
-
Generally-speaking, do
you think enough is being done? Why? Why
not? Let’s think specifically about
different kinds of food [probe for meats,
fish, vegetables, etc.].
Anything else?
·
Examples
of Unsafe Food (incidents or otherwise): What kinds of things signal “unsafe” food to you? How about those of you that worry about
“X”? [PROBE: food fraud instances.]
Fines levied against food related busineses? Contaminations? What else?
-
How would you define food recall? When do they happen? What do they mean about the safety of
Canada’s food supply? Is this a sign
that the system is working or not working?
What kind of dangers to Canadians’ health do you associate with a
recall?
-
What kind of dangers to Canadians’ health do you
associate with a recall? How do you find out about food recalls? For example,
through news media (TV, newspapers, radio)? Social media? Do you subscribe to
the CFIA’s food recall alerts?
-
Has anyone heard about restrictions about seeds and
borders or traveling overseas with pets?
-
Would you say that there is a difference
between “safe food” and “unhealthy food”?
-
What about between “unsafe” and “poor quality”? Where do they interect? How has your
thinking about this changed over time, if at all?
Have you heard
anything lately that caused you to reconsider any of this?
Understanding
of CFIA Mandates (10-15 Minutes)
Does anyone have
an idea about other food related activities and regulations that Government
(Agency) might be accountable for? What
might they be?
[Probe for the following, if not mentioned
and discussed thoroughly]
·
Monitoring the health of animals and plants imported
to and exported from Canada
·
Overseeing the transportation of animals
·
Overseeing seed and breeding stock and the genetic
health of plants and animals
·
Artificial insemination of animals
·
Oversight of fertilizer and pesticide use
·
Invasive pests, parasites, etc. such as the Emerald
Ash Borer or Japanese Beetle
·
Transportation of pets across international border
·
Probe for Potato Wart
·
Probe for Avian Influenza
WRAP UP (10 Minutes)
So by now I suppose it’s clear that this
research is being commissioned by the CFIA (“Canadian Food Inspection
Agency”).
What do you think we’ve learned about this
agency, its reputation and the how reputation is being communicated?
[PROBE along the following topics]
o
Specific Role: What is it accountable for?
o
Comprehensiveness: How wide and broad is its mandate?
o
Organization: What do you understand of how the CFIA is
structured and how it operates? How
long has it been there for? Awareness of the 25th anniversary that
happened in April 2022? Seen any content on social media about Inspect and
Protect, such as articles, artistic cartoons/trading cards? How big is it? Etc.
o
Credibility?
o
Authorship: How much it owns
it’s communications and how much of it seems colored by other sources?
o
Institutional priority topics and audiences: As you recall all of the things we’ve
discussed, what do you think the CFIA is focused on – either in terms of issues
or audiences? What do we think about
that? How do people expect to hear from the CFIA on the issues they care about?
How they want the info packaged/shared? Awareness of CFIA emails/newsletters,
social media presence, videos, an official podcast – under the Inspect and
Protect umbrella
o
Any additional topics, concerns or issues?
Before we end this,
allow me to remind you that this is Government research, and that you are
entitled to both protection under the Privacy Act, and access to this research
once the process has run its course. A
report will be available under the Access to Information Act or from Library
and Archives Canada. Most of all,
please accept my thanks for your time and good will.
THANK AND TERMINATE
Have you heard of any of the following new or emerging foods?
- Insect protein (that is, protein made
from insects)
- Cultured meat (that is, meat that has
been created or grown in a laboratory)
- Cultured dairy (that is, dairy that has
been created or grown in a laboratory)
- Genetically modified fruit or vegetables
- Genetically modified meat or dairy
- 3D printed foods
How confident would you be in the safety of the following foods if you
saw them for sale in Canadian shops and
supermarkets?
- Insect protein (that is, protein made
from insects)
- Cultured meat (that is, meat that has
been created or grown in a laboratory)
- Cultured dairy (that is, dairy that has
been created or grown in a laboratory)
- Genetically modified fruit or vegetables
- Genetically modified meat or dairy
- 3D printed foods
Consumer Discussion Guide
Patterson, Langlois
Consultants
Draft Version
December
2023
Dates: February 7, 8, 9: 17:30 and 19:30
Client: Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
Locations: National: Mini Focus Groups with Canadian Consumers on
Food Safety, Plant & Animal Health and the Agency’s reputation
Qualitative research with
consumers is required to understand the diverse ways they evaluate the safety
of the Canadian food supply, the health of Canadian crops and animals, and the
role that the CFIA plays in that. Qualitative
data will be collected through virtual mini focus groups and that reflect the
diversity of Canadians.
Research
Objectives:
- Explore Canadians’
understanding of food safety.
- Explore Canadians’
understanding of animal health.
- Explore Canadians’ understanding
of plant health.
- Explore Canadians’
understanding of the CFIA and its repuation.
- Understand what consumer concerns, value and beliefs are
contributing to these questions and how.
Introduction (15-20 min.)
1. Introduction
of moderator, name and type of research firm: (i.e. John representing the
marketing research firm Patterson Langlois)
2. Set
up: We're here to talk about the safety of Canada’s food supply. The purpose of these discussions is to help
the Government of Canada better understand how Canadians understand safe food
and their trust that Canada’s food supply is indeed safe. Your input is important and very much
appreciated.
3. Explanation
of the process:
Conversation
recorded: This conversation will be recorded, but will be used in
accordance with the Privacy Act and
the Personal Information Protection and
Electronics Documents Act.
·
Voluntary participation and consent to recording: Before we begin, I am going to turn on the recording for this
group. This is just a working tool for
me and allows me to focus on the conversation and not take too many notes. Assuming you are ok with that? By the way, you are of course free to leave
this disuccion at any time. .
Anonymity:
Although we mean to listen to and use your opinions here, you have a strict
guarantee of anonymity. The fact that
you participated in this process or what you personally say will not be made
public.
Disclaimer
of observers: Observers may be on this call and hidden from view. Their presence is to directly hear what you
have to say but mostly to ensure that I ask the right questions, cover all of
the bases, etc.
Role
of moderator and participants: I am
here as a professional researcher. I am
not a Government employee and I am here precisely because I am neutral and
objective. I have no vested interest in
how you respond to my questions. I am
here to ask questions, not provide answers. You are here to speak for
yourselves.
Expression
of opinions: there are no wrong or
right answers, no expectation that you agree with each other.
Length:
we will be here about 90 minutes.
·
Assess familiarity with Zoom. For focus groups: Be
aware that having a group discussion on Zoom requires us to use the available
features if we want this to go smoothly.
Please “raise your hand” using the Zoom feature if you have something to
say.
4. Round-table
introduction of participants:
Please start by introducing yourself and
your household.
Probes:
What you (and your spouse?) do for a living?
Size and composition of family
Allergies, dietary and other food
related imperatives?
Briefly describe your lifestyle?
PART 1: Food
in your life (15-20 minutes)
Although
I know we said that we wanted you here to discuss food safety and related
topics, we also know and want to spend some time understanding you as a group
and the different ways you think about food, buy your food, make your
food and so on. Canadian consumers are
pretty diverse in these respects – we have different ideas about what makes for
“good food”. We buy with very different
ideas about food quality, cost, convenience and so on. So, let’s start with this topic with a mind
to uncovering the differences between you on this topic… Let’s just have someone
start us off by giving us a high level summary of what “good food” is in your
house – then I’ll want to hear from each of the rest of you…
As the discussion
unfolds, inventory food dimensions for follow up questions:
PROBES (if not brought up):
What is “good food” in
your house? (Or, conversely, what qualifies as “bad food”?)
How much of what you consider “good food” is
determined by:
·
Price
·
Provenance
·
Seasonality
·
Food
group (protein, starches, sugars, etc)
·
Your
family’s background
·
Variety (prone to stay with what your family likes or
try new things a lot?)
·
Size
and location of producers
·
Dietary
implications (calories, fat content, etc.)
·
Taste
·
Freshness
·
Etc.
-
Are you adventurous with food or tend to be
more conservative?
-
Do you care a lot about food or is it just
something you take care of with minimum effort
-
Is the cost of food a big deal or not?
-
Do you read, think or worry about
ingredients? What are you looking for?
-
What would I learn from watching you buy
food? Where do you go? What guides those choices? Etc.
Food Related Worries:
Ok, so what kind of things do you worry about
as you’re buying food? (Round table,
probes)
·
Any
worries specific to the kind of food you’re buying:
o
Meats
o
Vegetables
o
Dairy
o
Fish
o
Etc.
·
Anything
about how farming practices?
·
What
about dietary/health related worries?
·
Anything
about where (or what kind of company) food comes from?
·
Antyhing
else?
PART 2 - Food Safety
Regulation: (15-20 minutes)
Let’s
talk about how food safety is assured in Canada. I want to make it clear right up front that
I don’t expect anyone to have detailed knowledge of this topic – this is more
about the way you think about food safety and related regulations, and again,
the different ways we might imagne this.
Of course, we can also talk about what you know or have strong
impressions about…. SO once again, can
someone just paint the picture they have in their minds about how food is made
safe in Canada? (Round table, probes as
follows)
·
Responsible parties: What organizations and at what level of
government are responsible for ensuring that food is safe in Canada? How big/sizeable is this/ are these
organizations? Probe for details and
divergent opinions. Check for unaided
CFIA awareness.
·
Presumed activities: What do these organizations do? (Again, reassure that we’re ok with
impressions). How involved are they in
the businesses they regulate?
Generally-speaking, do you think enough is being done? Why?
Why not? Let’s think specifically
about different kinds of food (probe for meats, fish, vegetables, etc.). Anything else?
·
Examples of Unsafe Food (incidents or otherwise): What kinds of things signal “unsafe” food to
you? How about those of you that worry
about “X”? PROBE: food fraud instances. Fines levied against food related
busineses? Contaminations? What else?
-
What is a food recall? When do they happen? What do they mean about the safety of
Canada’s food supply? Is this a sign
that the system is working or not working?
What kind of dangers to Canadians’ health do you associate with a
recall?
-
What kind of dangers to Canadians’ health do
you associate with a recall? How do you find out about food recalls? For
example, through news media (TV, newspapers, radio)? Social media? Do you
subscribe to the CFIA’s food recall alerts?
-
Has anyone heard about restrictions about
seeds and borders or traveling overseas with pets?
-
Is there a difference
between “safe food” and “unhealthy food”? what about between “unsafe” and “poor
quality”? Where do they interect? How has your thinking about this changed over
time, if at all? Have you heard anything
lately that caused you to reconsider any of this?
Understanding of CFIA Mandates
Does
anyone have an idea about other food related activities and regulations that Government
(Agency) might be accountable for? What
might they be:
Probe,
if not mentioned and discussed thoroughly:
·
Monitoring the health of animals and plants
imported to and exported from Canada
·
Overseeing the transportation of animals
·
Overseeing seed and breeding stock and the
genetic health of plants and animals
·
Artificial insemination of animals
·
Oversight of fertilizer and pesticide use
·
Invasive pests, parasites, etc.
·
Transportation of pets across international
border
·
Etc.
WRAP UP
So by now I suppose it’s
clear that this research is being commissioned by the CFIA. What do you think we’ve learned about this
agency, its reputation and the how reputation is being communicated?
PROBES along the
following topics:
o
Specific
Role: What is it accountable for?
o
Comprehensiveness: How wide and broad is its mandate?
o
Organization: What do you understand of how the CFIA is
structured and how it operates? How
long has it been there? How big is it? Etc.
o
Credibility?
o
Authorship: How much it owns it’s communications and how much of it seems colored
by other sources?
o
Institutional priority topics and audiences: As you recall all of the things we’ve
discussed, what do you think the CFIA is focused on – either in terms of issues
or audiences? What do we think about
that?
o
Any additional topics, concerns or issues?
Before
we end this, allow me to remind you that this is Government research, and that
you are entitled to both protection under the Privacy Act, and access to this
research once the process has run its course.
A report will be available under the Access to Information Act or from
Library and Archives Canada. Most of
all, please accept my thanks for your time and good will.
THANK AND TERMINATE
Business Screener
Patterson Langlois Consultants Recruiting Screener
Project: CFIA
Compliance Messaging
Recruiting instrument for industry association
and businesses
(11 IDI’s)
2665
Sainte-Cunégonde, suite 201
Montréal
(Qc.) Preliminary version
H3J 2X3 February 2023
Tel.:
(514)943-1645
Your
business and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
DATES/TIMES: Tentatively
scheduled for March 7-10 (7-11 In-depth Interviews)
CLIENT: Government
of Canada – CFIA regulatory compliance related communications
TOPIC: Industry
experience with food regulations and the CFIA
INCENTIVE: $200
RECRUITING BY EXECUTIVE
RECRUITER
WITH PRE-SCREENED CANDIDATE
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR
EACH BUSINESS/RECRUITEE (established in advance)
Musts:
The business is regulated by the CFIA
q
The business adheres to the
at least one of the following:
The business transforms plant or animal products
into food q
The business grows plants or raises animals q
The business deals with pests, parasites, or
fertilizers q
The business imports or exports outside of
Canada q
The business deals with seed or breeding stocks q
The business has a primary function in animal or
plant transport q
RECRUIT 1 for 1 to show
each IDI
Hello/Bonjour:
My name is _______ and I work for Patterson, Langlois Consultants, a
research company working on behalf of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The purpose of this call is to see if you
would participate in some research with food businesses we are doing on behalf
of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
The purpose of this research is to evaluate CFIA communications about
compliance with food safety regulations.
Can you help me? I need to speak
to the right person in your organization for this research. This would be the person in your shop that
has the best understanding of the regulations you comply with and who can speak
with knowledge and authority on the subject for your organization. Is that you? If not, can you direct me to
that person?
LEAVE
YOUR CONTACT INFO IF NECESSARY AND REPEAT INTRO AS NECESSARY FOR THE NEW PERSON
ONCE CONTACT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
Please be mindful of the fact that you are in effect working on behalf
of the government.
INDICATE: Male o1 Female o2 č A good mix
REPEAT INTRODUCTION IF NECESSARY
Q.1 I got your name (from
_____) because you indicated that you were willing to be interviewed on this
topic in a survey that you answered. Can
I just verify: We are looking for someone
in your organization that can speak with knowledge and authority about the
regulations you are expected to follow and your organization’s experience with
the CFIA?
Yes q1
No q2 č Would it be
possible to speak with that person?
(Re-engage or set
up a call-back)
Q.2 Would you be willing to be interviewed on this topic and
speak on behalf of your organization?
These interviews will be conducted on Zoom during
business hours and take roughly 90 minutes
with up to 5 other colleagues in your industry from around the country (if necessary, reassure: You will
not be asked anything of a confidential or competitive nature)
Yes q1
No q2 č THANK AND END
Q.3 Can you tell me: How long has your company been in
operation?
Less than 1 year o1 MAX 1 PER GROUP
Between 2 and 5 years o2
5 years or longer o3 GOOD MIX:
Don’t know / won’t
answer o9 THANK AND TERMINATE.
Q.4A Roughly how many
employees work for this organization? (in normal times)
Less than 10 q1
Between
10 and 50 q2
Between 50-200 q3 Not more than
half
Over 200 q4 THANK AND TERMINATE
DK/NA q9 THANK AND
TERMINATE
Q4.B To your knowledge has your
company ever experienced any of the following after an inspection by the CFIA:
Been required to take
corrective actions in your operations or repairs to your facility q1
Been
issued a written notice of violation with or without penalty q2
Been issued an administrative monetary penalty q3
None of the above q4 THANK AND TERMINATE
DK/NA q9 THANK
AND TERMINATE
Q.5 Have you ever
participated in CFIA related research before?
Yes q1 č Determine topic and recency of
participation in last 5 years. Exclude
anyone who has done CFIA sponsored groups or who has attended three or more
studies in the last 5 years, or within the last month.
No q2
Q.6 The topic of discussion will be
the communications that CFIA sends to you about regulations. This research is being done on behalf of the
CFIA. There is no intention to sell you
a product or to change your views about anything, but rather to gather opinions
from the industry to help the CFIA perform its functions better. Participation is strictly on a voluntary
basis and the information provided will be administered in strict accordance
with the provisions of the Privacy Act. Because we recognize that this is going
to take some of your valuable time, we will offer you $200 as compensation at
the end fo the discussion. Could we count on you?
Yes q1 č CONTINUE
No q2 č THANK AND END
Q.7 Would you be available to
talk to our research on _____ at ______?
SKIP TO CONTACT DETAILS
Q.8 Great! The interview will be on Zoom with a
professional moderator from the research firm (Patterson, Langlois Consultants)
whose role is to solicit your opinions.
Determine that the person is comfortable with Zoom or is willing to use
it.
The topic of
discussion will be food regulations and the regulating agency. This research is being done on behalf of the
CFIA. There is no intention to sell you
a product or to change your views about anything, but rather to gather opinions
from the industry to help the CFIA perform its functions better. Participation is strictly on a voluntary
basis and the information provided will be administered in strict accordance
with the provisions of the Privacy Act. To thank you for your participation, we
will give you $200 compensation at the end of the interview. Could we count on
you?
Yes q1 č CONTINUE
No q2 č THANK AND END
CONTACT DETAILS
Name: _________________________________________
EMAIL: _________________________________________
May I please have a
phone number where I can reach you ?
House: (_____)-_____-__________ Work: (_____)-_____-__________
THANK YOU!
Your co-operation is greatly
appreciated!
RECRUITED BY: _____________________ CONFIRMED
BY: ______________________
Business Discussion Guide
REPUTATION POR:
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Focus Groups with Plant and Animal Business
Company Personnel
SUMMARY
Dates: Commencing TBD
Client: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA)
Locations: National in-depth interviews
and focus groups with Plant and Animal organization professionals on Zoom
In order to understand impressions and opinions about the CFIA,
qualitative research is required with businesses in the Plant and Animal
Business Line. Qualitative data will be collected through virtual focus groups
recruited from the Reputation tracking survey.
Research
Objectives:
- Gather background data on reputation,
trust and other brand attributes that allows the Agency to manage and
develop the CFIA brand over plant and animal business lines.
- Examine thoughts on CFIA messages,
brand attributes and service quality
- Explore views on stakeholders’ access
to services and assessment of those services
- Explore factors contributing to
different levels of satisfaction with existing communication tools and
tactics
- Explore preferred methods of
communication for each stakeholder segment
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Introduction (15 min.)
- Introduction of moderator,
name and type of research firm: (i.e. John
representing the marketing research firm Patterson Langlois)
Subject for animal business line interviews/focus groups: As you are aware from the
initial survey, we're here to talk about Canada's animal health regulations and
the federal animal health regulator, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA). The purpose of these discussions is to help the CFIA recognize how
individual companies experience the regulations and how companies view the CFIA
as a regulator. More specifically, your input from these discussions will
assist future communications and messages the CFIA uses to deliver on its mandate.
Your input is important and very much appreciated.
Subject for plant business line interviews/focus groups: As you are aware from the
initial survey, we're here to talk about Canada's plant safety regulations and
the federal plant safety regulator, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
The purpose of these discussions is to help the CFIA recognize how individual
companies experience the regulations and how companies view the CFIA as a
regulator. More specifically, your input from these discussions will assist
future communications and messages the CFIA uses to deliver on its mandate.
Your input is important and very much appreciated.
Explanation of the focus group process:
-
Conversation recorded: This conversation will be recorded, and
will be used in accordance with the Privacy Act and the Personal Information
Protection and Electronics Documents Act.
-
Voluntary participation: Participants are free to leave or
refuse to participate at any time.
-
Anonymity: Although we mean to listen to and use your opinions here, you have
a strict guarantee of anonymity. The fact that you participated in this process
or what you personally say will not be made public.
-
Disclaimer of observers: Observers may be on this call and
hidden from view. Their presence is to directly hear what you have to say but
mostly to ensure that I ask the right questions, cover all of the bases, etc.
-
Role of moderator and participants: I am here as a
professional researcher. I am not a Government employee and I am here precisely
because I am neutral and objective. I have no vested interest in how you
respond to my questions. I am here to ask questions, not provide answers. You
are here to speak for yourselves and your organization.
-
Role of moderator continued: Although I have done my
homework and read up on regulations, I am no expert – please bear with me if I
ask naďve questions or ask that you explain things that may seem obvious to
you.
-
Expression of opinions: There are no wrong or right answers,
and no expectation that you agree.
-
Length: We will be here about 90 minutes – more if you think it necessary.
(60 minutes for in-depth with representatives of industry associations).
-
Assess familiarity with Zoom.
- Round-table introduction of
participants:
-
Please start by introducing yourself. Tell us a little about yourself.
Then, tell us a bit about your current work and the industry that you’re
working in.
Probes:
o
How would you describe the current state of
your industry as a whole?
o
How has this impacted your business specifically?
o
Do you see it changing within the following
year? Why?
PART
1: Discussion on Regulations (15 Minutes)
Let’s
first talk about regulations for businesses in your industry.
o
Do you believe food, plant and/or animal
regulations have had any effects on businesses in your industry? If so, could
you mention them?
o
Would you say that these effects have been
beneficial or detrimental? [Probe for why]
o
Could you think of any challenges your business has
faced with current regulations? [Probe
for why or why not]
o
In general, do you trust that the government ---
specifically, federal regulatory agencies --- will do the right thing towards
businesses in your industry?
PART
2: Awareness and Views Towards the CFIA as a Regulator (approx. 30 minutes)
Opinions
on the CFIA and its service
So,
let’s talk about your thoughts on the CFIA.
o
What do you think of their organization as a whole?
[Probe for more detail on their
assumptions]
o What were
your impressions of the CFIA representatives you’ve come across in the past?
o
Would you say that they were polite, professional
and/or helpful? [Probe for what they
thought their strengths/weaknesses were.]
o What do you
feel about what you hear/see about the CFIA in the media?
o In your
opinion, what can the CFIA do to improve their service?
o How much
interaction have you had with the CFIA in the past?
o
How would you describe your previous interactions
with the CFIA? [Probe for why.]
o Did you
speak with a CFIA representative in person, or through the phone, or
online?
o
Do you believe that the CFIA is a trustworthy
regulator? [Probe for what makes them
think, e.g., attributes, that the CFIA is trustworthy or untrustworthy.]
o
Do you think they do the right thing for Canadian
businesses? [Probe for why.]
o
Are they efficient in balancing the needs of
Canadians and those in your industry? [Probe
for why.]
o
Are they efficient in fixing problems they try to
address? Or, do you see them creating hurdles/burdens/competitive disadvantages
for businesses in your industry? [Probe
for why.]
o
Do you think that they are consistent in providing
the best service for you? [Probe for why.]
o
Do they provide you clear guidance on regulations?
[Probe for more detail.]
o
Do you trust their spokespersons or subject matter
experts? For example, in meetings, technical briefings, media quotes, etc. [Probe for why.]
o
What do you think of their responses to evolutions
in your industry and/or the economy itself? Do you think they were fast in
this? [Probe for why.]
Getting
Information from the CFIA
Now,
let’s talk about how you usually get your information from the CFIA.
o In the
past, how did you access CFIA services and/or access information from the CFIA,
e.g., information on food, animal and/or plant regulations? Was it mostly in
person or digitally (i.e., through the CFIA website)?
o
Have you ever been subscribed to and read CFIA’s
listservs, email lists, social media posts? [Probe for reasons they have or have not.]
o
Let’s say that one day you are planning to apply
for a permit or a license. Ideally, would you consider doing so in person or
online? [Probe for why.]
o
Have you ever used services, such as the My CFIA
portal, in the past? If yes, what your experience with it? [Probe for why did they felt this way about
it.]
o
If you had the ability to include any feature or
service on the My CFIA portal, which one would it be? [Probe for their reasons.]
o If there
was a newsletter to businesses, what would it look like? What topics would you
hope it covered? [Probe for if they would read it, why or why not]
Re-state the
list of regulatory challenges not mentioned previously: Ok,
these are the regulatory topics you brought up earlier. Let's talk about these.
If you think of anything else along the way, this would be the time to bring it
up.
Explore each topic:
· In what other ways does it
affect your business?
·
What were its impacts on costs, competitiveness, ability to export or
sell between provinces, human resources, etc.?
·
How has this changed over the last years, if at all? (query re: above →
changes in commerce, competitive challenges, nature of opportunities, etc.)
· Do you feel these things are
stable, changing still? How do you think it might change 5 years from now?
PART 3: Communications (15
Minutes)
Let’s now talk about your experience with any communications you have
had with the CFIA.
· Could you tell us about your
recent communications have you had with them?
[Round table, probes]
o Do you
usually have a preferred way of getting in touch with them? Why?
o
Would you say that they were fast in getting back
to you for any questions or concerns you had in the past? [Probe for more detail.]
o
What were the effective way in which the CFIA has
sent messages to you? [Probe for reasons.]
o
Do you think that they are usually effective in
communicating and/or providing information on food, animal or plant
regulations? [Probe for why.]
o
Do you have any concerns about communicating with
the CFIA? If yes, what are they? [Probe
for why.]
o
If you could change something about how the CFIA
communicates, what would it be? [Probe
for why.]
o
In your view, what
types of communication as the most effective in breaking through the clutter? [Probe for why.]
Inspect and
Protect podcast series
So, the CFIA actually has a podcast series called “Inspect and Protect,”
where they talk about things such as food safety, animal health and plant
protection. Have you heard of it before?
·
[If
respondent answers no] Would you be interested in listening to it?
·
What were your impressions of it?
·
What type of content would you like to see included
in it?
·
In your view, what are the most important features
for a podcast like “Inspect and Protect”?
[Probe for
the following, if not mentioned]
-
Length.
-
Topics
-
Background music
-
Sound effects
-
Invited guests
·
What type of content do you believe would make
others in your industry more engaged?
ADDITIONAL TOPICS TO BE PROBED
IF NOT MENTIONED
- Introduction of any new policy,
programs, legislation or updates to the regulations they must follow (E.g.
Fertilizer regulations or Animal Transport).
- Follow up for both businesses lines:
- Characterization: What kind of change
did this represent?
- Comprehensiveness: Is it adapted to the
realities faced by your specific line of business? If not, how so?
- Overall impact and
unexpected or unforeseen consequences: What did you expect
from this change in legislation/regulations? Did it deliver positive or
negative results? How so and how not? Did anything get unexpectedly worse
or better after the introduction of the legislation related to plant or
animal health? Please explain?
- Was the regulation adjustment easier or
harder than you anticipated? Why?
- Are you satisfied or not with the way
these regulations were introduced? Why? Why not?
- In the end, has this proved to be more
or less of an improvement than you thought?
- Did you have the chance to be heard in
the process or were you at least aware of the comments other members in
your industry had on the new policies/regulations?
Before we end this, allow me to remind you that this is government
research, and that you are entitled to both protection under the Privacy Act,
and access to this research once the process has run its course. A report will
be available under the Access to Information Act or from Library and Archives
Canada. Most of all, please accept my thanks for your time and good will.
Quantitative Instruments
Introductory text:
To take survey in French
The objective of this research is to help the Government of
Canada understand the perceptions that Canadians have regarding the safety of
food and the protection of plant and animal health in Canada.
This is entirely voluntary, and your responses will remain
confidential and anonymous. There is no attempt here to sell or market
anything. It will take approximately 10 minutes of your time to complete.
Would you like to participate in our survey?
Contact us for an alternative method to take the survey.
To verify the legitimacy of this survey you can contact
Pollara Strategic Insights (mailto: https://www.pollara.com/privacy/) or the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) at CFIA.information.ACIA@canada.ca
ASK ALL
S1: In what year were you born?
[DROP DOWN BOX 1900-2021] ŕ IF 2005-2023, TERMINATE
99. Prefer not to answer
IF RESPONDENT SELECTS “PREFER NOT TO ANSWER” AT S1, ASK
S1A:
S1A: Would you be willing to indicate in which of the
following age categories you belong?
1.
Younger
than 18 years old TERMINATE
2.
18
to 24
3.
25
to 34
4.
35
to 44
5.
45
to 54
6.
55
to 64
7.
65
or older
8.
Prefer
not to answer TERMINATE
S2: In which province or territory
do you live?
1.
British
Columbia
2.
Alberta
3.
Saskatchewan
4.
Manitoba
5.
Ontario
6.
Quebec
7.
New
Brunswick
8.
Prince
Edward Island
9.
Nova
Scotia
10. Newfoundland and Labrador
11. Yukon
12. Northwest Territories
13. Nunavut
14.
Outside
Canada ŕ
TERMINATE
15.
Prefer
not to answer ŕ TERMINATE
ASK ALL
S2A: Please indicate your gender.
1.
Male
2.
Female
3.
Other
4.
Prefer
not to answer
ASK ALL
S3. Does anyone in your household have any food
allergies or sensitivities? If so, please indicate the severity of these
allergies/sensitivities.
1.
Yes,
myself [Ask S3A]
2.
Yes,
somebody in my household [Ask S3A]
3.
No
4.
DK
ASK S3A ask if either
code 1 or 2 at S3
S3A You said that you or somebody in your household has one
or more food allergy or sensitivity. Please indicate the type and severity of
any applicable food allergies or sensitivities in your household.
COLUMNS
·
Show
7-point scale
·
Anchor
“Not sensitive or allergic at all” over 1
·
Anchor
“Very sensitive or very allergic” over 7
ROWS (RANDOMIZE)
1.
Milk
2.
Eggs
3.
Tree
nuts
4.
Peanuts
5.
Shellfish
6.
Fin
Fish
7.
Soy
8.
Wheat
9.
Sesame
10. Caffeine
11. Sulfites
12. Salicylates
13. Amines
14. Mustard
ASK S3B IF S3=CODE 1 OR 2 AT S3
S3B What
other food allergies/sensitivities do you or somebody in your household have?
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
There are no other food allergies / sensitivities in my
household ⎕
MAIN SURVEY
SECTION A – CFIA KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
ASK ALL – DO NOT SHOW HEADERS Rotate start
UNAIDED AWARENESS
A0F: When you think of organizations in Canada that
are dedicated to food safety, which
organizations come to mind?
Please type one organization per
box for as many organizations as you can think of.
None come to mind ⎕
PROVIDE 5 BOXES. RECORD THE ORDER THAT THE BRANDS ARE
MENTIONED.
UNAIDED AWARENESS
A0A: When you think of organizations in Canada that
are dedicated to safeguarding animal health and protecting against animal
diseases, which organizations come to mind?
Please type one organization per
box for as many organizations as you can think of.
None come to mind ⎕
PROVIDE 5 BOXES. RECORD THE ORDER THAT THE BRANDS ARE
MENTIONED.
UNAIDED AWARENESS
A0P: When you think of organizations in Canada that
are dedicated to safeguarding and protecting plant health, which
organizations come to mind?
Please type one organization per
box for as many organizations as you can think of.
PROVIDE 5 BOXES. RECORD THE ORDER THAT THE BRANDS ARE
MENTIONED.
None come to mind ⎕
AIDED AWARENESS
A1[M]: When thinking of organizations that are
responsible for safeguarding the nation’s supply of food, animals, and
plants, which of the following have you heard of before today?
RANDOMIZE
1. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
2. Municipal inspectors (for example, public
health inspectors)
3. Provincial food safety regulators (Provincial
or Territorial governments)
4. Health Canada
5. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
6. Public Health Agency of Canada
7. Businesses
None of the above ⎕ ANCHOR
FAMILIARITY WITH THE CFIA
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. Reducing risks to food
safety, plant health and animal health are CFIA priorities, and the health and
safety of Canadians are key forces behind the design and development of CFIA
programs.
ASK ALL
A2: How familiar would you say you are with the
activities of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)?
Please use the 7-point scale below for your response. A
rating of 7 indicates ‘very familiar’. A rating of 1 indicates ‘not familiar at
all’.
COLUMNS
·
Show
7-point scale
·
Anchor
“Not familiar at all” over 1
·
Anchor
“Very familiar” over 7
ASK ALL
A3: Where have you seen, heard, or read about the
CFIA? Select all that apply
1.
Word
of mouth (friends, family, etc.)
2.
Social
media (not including CFIA social media)
3.
Podcasts
4.
A
digital assistant (for example, Alexa, Siri, Google)
5.
Traditional
media (newspapers, TV, radio)
6.
Internet
(includes online news sites but not social media)
7.
Direct
contact from the CFIA (includes CFIA social media and visiting the CFIA
website)
99 Not applicable: have not seen, heard, or read anything about the
CFIA
SELECTING 99 SHOULD UNSELECT ALL OTHER RESPONSES [skip A3a]
A3a. Select all the following that apply to you:
1. I
subscribe to CFIA food recall notices
2. I
submitted a food safety or labelling concern
3. I
follow the CFIA on a social media platform
4. I
have visited the CFIA website
5. I
have contacted the CFIA by phone
6. I
have contacted the CFIA by email or through the website
7. I
subscribe to the CFIA’s Inspect and Protect newsletter
8. I
have read articles, watched videos, or listened to podcasts from CFIA’s Inspect
and Protect
9. In
person interaction with a CFIA employee
10. I have a friend or family member who
works at the CFIA
If A3a is selected,
ask A3A1-A3A8.
·
Show
11-point scale (0-10)
·
Anchor
“Not at all satisfied” over 0
·
Anchor
“Very satisfied” over 10
ASK IF CODE 1 at A3a
A3A1: How satisfied are you that the CFIA issues food
recall notices in a timely manner? Use a scale of 0-10 where 0 is “not at all
satisfied” and 10 is “very satisfied”.
ASK IF CODE 2 at A3a
A3A2: How satisfied are you with the CFIA handling of the
food safety or labelling concern you reported? Use a scale of 0-10 where 0 is
“not at all satisfied” and 10 is “very satisfied”.
ASK IF CODE 3 at A3a
A3A3: How satisfied are you with the CFIA content on
social media? Use a scale of 0-10 where 0 is “not at all satisfied” and 10 is
“very satisfied”.
ASK IF CODE 4 at A3a
A3A4: How satisfied are you with the usability of the CFIA
website? Use a scale of 0-10 where 0 is “not at all satisfied” and 10 is “very
satisfied”.
ASK IF CODE 5 at A3a
A3A5: How satisfied are you with the CFIA phone
interaction you had? Use a scale of 0-10 where 0 is “not at all satisfied” and
10 is “very satisfied”.
ASK IF CODE 6 at A3a
A3A6: How satisfied are you with the CFIA email or website
interaction you had? Use a scale of 0-10 where 0 is “not at all satisfied” and
10 is “very satisfied”.
ASK IF CODE 8 at A3a
A3A7: How satisfied are you with the articles, videos, or
podcasts from CFIA’S Inspect and Protect? Use a scale of 0-10 where 0 is “not
at all satisfied” and 10 is “very satisfied”.
ASK IF CODE 7 at A3a
A3A8: How satisfied are you with the Inspect and Protect
monthly newsletter? Use a scale of 0-10 where 0 is “not at all satisfied” and
10 is “very satisfied”.
ASK A4 IF A3 = ANY EXCEPT 99. IF A3 = 99, SKIP TO AX
A4: Thinking about
what you have seen, read, or heard about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency,
indicate how well you understood the information.
Please use the 7-point scale below for your response. A
rating of 7 indicates ‘understood completely. A rating of 1 indicates ‘not at
all’.
COLUMNS
·
Show
7-point scale
·
Anchor
“Not at all” over 1
·
Anchor
“Understand completely” over 7
ROWS
SHOW SELECTIONS
FROM A3
ASK ALL
AX: When you
review the following list of government and non-government organizations, how favourable
of an impression do you have overall of each organization?
COLUMNS:
·
Show
7-point scale
·
Anchor
“Not favourable at all” over 1
·
Anchor
“Extremely favourable” over 7
·
Add “I
don’t know / Not sure”
ROWS (RANDOMIZE)
1.
Canadian
Food Inspection Agency
2.
Health
Canada
3.
Canada
Revenue Agency
4.
Canada
Border Services Agency
5.
Canadian
Transportation Agency
6.
Public
Health Agency of Canada
7.
Canada
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
ASK ALL - TRUST
A5: Please indicate how much you trust the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to do what is right to help ensure that food is
safe in Canada?
Please use the 7-point scale below for your response. A
rating of 7 indicates ‘trust completely’. A rating of 1 indicates ‘not at all’.
COLUMNS
·
Show
7-point scale
·
Anchor
“Do not trust at all” over 1
·
Anchor
“Trust completely” over 7
ASK ALL
A6: How much do you trust the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) to inspect that food product labels have indications
regarding ingredients that may cause allergy/food sensitivity?
Please use the 7-point scale below for your response. A
rating of 7 indicates ‘trust completely’. A rating of 1 indicates ‘not at all’.
COLUMNS
·
Show
7-point scale
·
Anchor
“Do not trust at all” over 1
·
Anchor
“Trust completely” over 7
ASK ALL
A7: Please rate your level of confidence that food
sold in Canada is safe.
Please use the 7-point scale below for your response. A
rating of 7 indicates ‘very confident’. A rating of 1 indicates ‘not at all
confident’.
COLUMNS
·
Show
7-point scale
·
Anchor
“Not at all confident” over 1
·
Anchor
“Very confident” over 7
ASK ALL
A7a:
When it comes to verifying that food sold in Canada is safe, how well to you
believe the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is doing?
A7b: When it comes to safeguarding plant health (regulating
invasive insects, plants, and other plant pests), how well do you believe the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency is doing?
A7c: When it comes to safeguarding animal health and
preventing the spread of animal diseases, how well do you believe the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency is doing?
Please use the 7-point scale below for your response. A
rating of 7 indicates ‘doing well’. A rating of 1 indicates ‘not doing well’.
COLUMNS
·
Show
7-point scale
·
Anchor
“Not doing well” over 1
·
Anchor
“Doing well” over 7
CFIA BRAND ATTRIBUTES ASSESSMENT
(DO NOT SHOW HEADER)
A8. Below are a
number of statements about the CFIA. For each statement, please indicate how
much you agree or disagree. A rating of 7 means ‘Agree completely’. A rating of
1 means ‘Disagree completely’.
COLUMNS
·
Show
7-point scale
·
Anchor
“Disagree completely” over 1
·
Anchor
“Agree completely” over 7
·
Add “Not
sure/Not applicable”
RANDOMIZE
1. The CFIA looks out for the best
interests of Canadians
2. The CFIA is effective in enforcing
food safety regulations
3. All businesses are treated fairly by
the CFIA
4. Food recalls are an example of the
food system working
5. I understand what the CFIA does
6. Getting more information about food,
plant or animal safety from the CFIA is easy
7. CFIA veterinarians are among the best
in their field
SECTION B – CFIA MESSAGE EVALUATION
ASK ALL
B1: Below are some statements to describe
the activities of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). How much do you
agree or disagree with each of the following statements?
COLUMNS
·
Show
7-point scale
·
Anchor
“Disagree completely” over 1
·
Anchor
“Agree completely” over 7
ROWS - RANDOMIZE
- By
protecting Canada’s food, animals and plants, the CFIA is contributing to
the health and well-being of Canadians, the environment and the economy
- As
a science-based regulator, the CFIA is believable when it issues a statement
- The
CFIA issues food recall warnings in a timely manner
- The
CFIA enforces regulations that help ensure animals are transported
humanely
- The
CFIA enforces regulations that help ensure Canada’s plant resources are
protected
- CFIA
enforcement activities are strong enough to encourage companies to comply
with the regulations
- CFIA
helps to facilitate international trade
B1A. Please rank what you personally believe the
priorities of the CFIA should be in order of most important to least important
·
Verifying
safe food is sold to consumers
·
Verifying
importers do not import contaminated or fraudulent foods
·
Helping
to keep international markets open to Canadian food, plant, and animal products
·
Helping
to keep foreign animal diseases out of Canada
·
Helping
prevent the spread of plant pests and animal diseases in Canada
·
Verifying
the safety and quality of feed, fertilizer, veterinarian biologics, and seeds
in Canada
·
Helping
prevent plant pests and invasive species from entering Canada
B2. Were you aware
that moving untreated firewood from a campground or a cottage can spread
invasive species?
1. Yes
2. No
B3. Were you aware (before this survey) that the CFIA was
responsible for regulating the importation of dogs into Canada?
1.
Yes
2.
No
B4. Were you aware that the CFIA plays an important role in
preventing the spread of pests such as Japanese beetle in Vancouver and emerald
ash borer in eastern Canada?
1.
Yes
2.
No
B5. Please look at the following list of words, and select
the ones that in your view, describe the CFIA
(PLEASE SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)
RANDOMIZE
Efficient
Transparent
Innovative
Informative
Scientific
Fair
Dedicated
Consistent
Trusted
Responsive
Respectful
Punitive
Caring
Global Leader
Service oriented
NONE OF THE ABOVE
Scenario questions /
Awareness of CFIA activities
B6. From the following list, indicate which of the following
situations you believe the CFIA is involved in?
[Randomize list]
1.
Checking
food products being imported into the country
2.
A
restaurant has a complaint of a dirty kitchen
3.
A
person gets food poisoning from cooking and eating undercooked meat
4.
Checking
plant products coming into the country
5.
Insects,
fungus and other pests that affect plant health, but do not have a direct
impact on the ability of consumers to eat the plant as food
6.
A
dog being brought into Canada by a vacationing family
7.
A
dog being brought into Canada to be permanently adopted by a person living in
Canada
8.
Live
animals being exported from Canada to other countries for reasons other than to
be consumed as food
9.
Live
animals being exported from Canada to other countries to be consumed as food
Lifestyle / Activities
C1. Which of the following statements best describes
your role and responsibility when it comes to grocery shopping for your family
or household?
1.
I
am solely responsible
2.
I
share in this responsibility
3.
Somebody
else in my family or household looks after grocery shopping
4. Prefer not to say
C2. Which of the
following descriptions would you say describe you at least somewhat?
COLUMNS
·
Show 4
columns: “Does not describe me at all”, “Describes me somewhat”, “Describes me
completely”, and “Don’t know/Not sure”
RANDOMIZE
Foodie
Camper
Cottager
Hobby farmer
Gardener
Nature enthusiast
Hiker
Outdoorsy
Pet owner
Animal lover
DEMOGRAPHICS
The following information is collected for classification
purposes only.
ASK ALL
X2: What is the highest level of formal education that you
have completed?
1.
Less
than a high school diploma or equivalent
2.
High
school diploma or equivalent
3.
Registered
apprenticeship or other trades certificate or diploma
4.
College,
CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma
5.
University
certificate or diploma below bachelor's level
6.
Bachelor's
degree
7.
Graduate
degree above bachelor's level
8.
Prefer
not to answer
ASK ALL
X3: What language do you speak most often at home? Select
all that apply
1.
English
2.
French
3.
Other
(Specify) ___________________
4.
Prefer
not to answer
ASK ALL
X4: Which of the following best describes your total
household income last year, before taxes, from all sources for all household
members?
1.
Under
$20,000
2.
$20,000
to just under $40,000
3.
$40,000
to just under $60,000
4.
$60,000
to just under $80,000
5.
$80,000
to just under $100,000
6.
$100,000
to just under $150,000
7.
$150,000
and above
8.
Prefer
not to answer
ASK ALL
X5. Are
you an Indigenous person?
An Indigenous person is a member of a
First Nation, a Métis, or an Inuk (Inuit). First Nations (North American
Indians) include Status and Non-Status Indians.
- Yes (Go to next question)
- No (Go to X7)
IF X5 = 1, ASK X6. IF X5 = 2, SKIP TO X7
X6. You indicated that you are an Indigenous person. If you
wish to provide further details, please specify the group to which you belong.
- First Nations (North American Indian)
- Métis
- Inuk (Inuit)
- Other (Specify) ______
ASK ALL
X7. Are you a member of a visible minority group?
A member of a visible minority in Canada may be defined
as someone (other than an Aboriginal person) who is non-white in colour or
race, regardless of place of birth. For example: Black, Chinese, Filipino,
Japanese, Korean, South Asian or East Indian, Southeast Asian, non-white West
Asian, North African or Arab, non-white Latin American, person of mixed origin
(with one parent in one of the visible minority groups in this list), or other
visible minority group.
1.Yes
2.No
IF X7 = 1, ASK X8. IF X7 = 2, SKIP TO X9
X8. You indicated that you are a member of a visible
minority group. If you wish to provide further details, please select the
box(es) that apply to you. (Mark all that apply.)
1.Black
2.Chinese
3.Filipino
4.Japanese
5.Korean
6.South Asian/East Indian (including: Indian from India;
Bangladeshi; Pakistani; East Indian from Guyana, Trinidad, East Africa; etc.)
7.Southeast Asian (including: Burmese; Cambodian; Laotian;
Thai; Vietnamese; etc.)
8.Non-White West Asian, North African, or Arab (including:
Egyptian; Libyan; Lebanese; Iranian; etc.)
9.Non-White Latin American (including: indigenous persons
from Central and South America, etc.)
10.Person of mixed origin (with one parent in one of the
visible minority groups)
11.Other visible minority group (specify)
ASK ALL
X9: Please enter the first three digits of your postal code?
[Code as rural and urban]
[ALLOW 3 DIGITS FOR ENTRY]
99. Prefer not to answer
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for taking the time to
participate in this survey. The objective of this research is to allow you, a
CFIA regulated party, to tell us how you see the Agency and to share what you
think about the CFIA and its services. This survey will help the Agency to
improve its program delivery and communication with businesses. It is also
voluntary, and responses will remain confidential and anonymous. There will be
no attempt to market or sell anything. It will take approximately 15 minutes of
your time to complete.
All of your responses to the survey will be strictly confidential and will be
reported only in the aggregate.
If you get interrupted while doing the survey, you can click on the same link, and you will be able to continue the
survey in the same spot where you left off.
Contact us for an alternative method to take the survey.
To verify the legitimacy of this survey you can contact
Pollara Strategic Insights (mailto: https://www.pollara.com/privacy/or the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) at CFIA.information.ACIA@canada.ca
Customer NAICS code should assign the
respondent into one of these 3 groups. Please only show the responses for the
respective business line (i.e. food/plant/animal)]
S3 What
industry segments does your company operate in?
Select all that apply
SHOW ANSWERS 1 to 9
IF SAMPLE NAICS FOOD BUSINESS
|
|
Food
businesses
|
|
|
1. Food
preparation
|
|
|
2. Food
importing
|
|
|
3. Food
exporting
|
|
|
4. Interprovincial
trade of food
|
|
|
5. Food
manufacturing
|
|
|
6. Farming
|
|
|
7. Food/beverage
manufacturing or processing
|
|
|
8. Meat
and poultry slaughter
|
|
|
9. Other
(specify)
__________________________________________________
|
|
|
SHOW ANSWERS 10 to 26 IF
SAMPLE NAICS ANIMAL BUSINESS
Animal
health businesses:
|
|
|
10. Live
animal importing
|
|
|
11. Live
animal exporting
12. Germplasm
(genetic material) import
13. Germplasm
(genetic material) export
|
|
|
14. Animal
product or by-product importing
|
|
|
15. Animal
product or by-product exporting
|
|
|
16. Live
animal domestic management (for example, producers, assembly yards, includes
terrestrial and aquatic)
|
|
|
17. Animal
product or by-product preparation or manufacture (including renderers and
skin tanners)
|
|
|
18. Animal
feed (including feed mills and feed sellers)
19. Pet
food import
20. Pet
food export
|
|
|
21. Animal
transportation (including freight forwarders)
22. Artificial
insemination centres
|
|
|
23. Veterinary
biologics
24. Horse
owners
25. Small
flock owners (including bird collections)
|
|
|
26. Other
(specify) __________________________________________________
|
|
|
SHOW ANSWERS 27 to 37 IF SAMPLE NAICS PLANT HEALTH
BUSINESS
Plant
health businesses:
|
|
|
27. Fertilizers
and supplements
|
|
|
28. Forestry
products
|
|
|
29. Horticulture
(greenhouse, nursery, bulbs, fruit trees, grapevines)
|
|
|
30. Crops
(grains, oilseeds)
|
|
|
31. Potatoes
|
|
|
32. Seed
growing (other than seed potato)
|
|
|
33. Seed
establishments/ handling
|
|
|
34. Plant
breeding
|
|
|
35. Plant
breeders’ rights (intellectual property)
|
|
|
36. Invasive
species prevention and management
|
|
|
37. Other
(specify) __________________________________________________
|
S4 Does your business sell products
online?
Yes
No
Not sure
IF S4 = YES, ASK S4A
& S4B, OR ELSE SKIP TO A0
S4A Approximately what percentage of
your business’ total revenue comes from online sales?
ADD NUMERIC ENTRY
FIELD, ALLOW 3 DIGITS. ACCEPT ONLY WHOLE NUMERIC VALUES BETWEEN 0 AND 100, ADD
“%” SIGN TO THE RIGHT OF ENTRY BOX.
__________________%
S4B Does your business have its own
e-commerce site, or does it use other platforms (for example, Amazon)?
Own site
Another platform
Both
Don’t not know / not
sure
Page SecA – ASK ALL IN THIS SECTION
A0
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. How likely would
you be to recommend the agency to similar businesses as yours?
|
❍
10
|
10 Very
likely
|
|
❍
9
|
9
|
|
❍
8
|
8
|
|
❍
7
|
7
|
|
❍
6
|
6
|
|
❍
5
|
5
|
|
❍
4
|
4
|
|
❍
3
|
3
|
|
❍
2
|
2
|
|
❍
1
|
1
|
|
❍
0
|
0 Not at all
likely
|
A1
How familiar would you say your company is with the activities of the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)?
Please use the 7-point scale below for
your response. A rating of 7 indicates ‘Very familiar.” A rating of 1 indicates
“Not familiar at all”.
|
❍
7
|
7 Very
familiar
|
|
❍
6
|
6
|
|
❍
5
|
5
|
|
❍
4
|
4
|
|
❍
3
|
3
|
|
❍
2
|
2
|
|
❍
1
|
1 Not
familiar at all
|
A2
When you review the following list of government and non-government
organizations, overall, how favourable of an impression do you
have of each organization?
COLUMNS:
· Show 7-point scale
· Anchor “Not favourable at all” over 1
·
Anchor “Extremely favourable” over 7]
ROWS (RANDOMIZE)
1. Canadian
Food Inspection Agency
2. Health
Canada
3. Canada
Revenue Agency
4. Canada
Border Services Agency
5. Canadian
Transportation Agency
6. Public
Health Agency of Canada
7. Canada
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
A3
Please indicate how much your
company trusts the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to do what is
right?
Please use the 7-point scale below for
your response. A rating of 7 indicates ‘trust completely’. A rating of 1
indicates ‘do not trust at all’.
|
❍
7
|
7 Trust
completely
|
|
❍
6
|
6
|
|
❍
5
|
5
|
|
❍
4
|
4
|
|
❍
3
|
3
|
|
❍
2
|
2
|
|
❍
1
|
1 Do not
trust at all
|
A4
Please rate your company’s
level of confidence that food sold in Canada is safe.
Please provide your opinion even if you are not primarily a food business.
|
❍
7
|
7 Very
confident
|
|
❍
6
|
6
|
|
❍
5
|
5
|
|
❍
4
|
4
|
|
❍
3
|
3
|
|
❍
2
|
2
|
|
❍
1
|
1 Not
confident at all
|
A5
Please rate your company’s
level of confidence that food, plants, and animals in Canada are safeguarded.
|
❍
7
|
7 Very
confident
|
|
❍
6
|
6
|
|
❍
5
|
5
|
|
❍
4
|
4
|
|
❍
3
|
3
|
|
❍
2
|
2
|
|
❍
1
|
1 Not
confident at all
|
A6
When it comes to safeguarding the safety
of food sold in Canada, how well do you believe the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency is doing?
Please answer even if you are not primarily a food company.
|
❍
7
|
7 Doing
well
|
|
❍
6
|
6
|
|
❍
5
|
5
|
|
❍
4
|
4
|
|
❍
3
|
3
|
|
❍
2
|
2
|
|
❍
1
|
1 Not
doing well
|
A7
When it comes to safeguarding the health
of plants in Canada how well do you believe the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency is doing?
Please answer even if you are not primarily a plant company.
|
❍
7
|
7 Doing
well
|
|
❍
6
|
6
|
|
❍
5
|
5
|
|
❍
4
|
4
|
|
❍
3
|
3
|
|
❍
2
|
2
|
|
❍
1
|
1 Not doing
well
|
A8
When comes to safeguarding the health
of animals in Canada how well do you believe the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency is doing?
Please answer even if you are not primarily an animal company.
|
❍
7
|
7 Doing
well
|
|
❍
6
|
6
|
|
❍
5
|
5
|
|
❍
4
|
4
|
|
❍
3
|
3
|
|
❍
2
|
2
|
|
❍
1
|
1 Not
doing well
|
A9
Below are several statements about
the CFIA.
For each statement, please indicate your
level of agreement on a 7-point scale where, a rating of 7 means “strongly
agree”, 1 means “strongly disagree”, and 4 means “neither agree nor disagree”.
|
❍
7
|
7
Strongly agree
|
|
❍
6
|
6
|
|
❍
5
|
5
|
|
❍
4
|
4 Neither
agree nor disagree
|
|
❍
3
|
3
|
|
❍
2
|
2
|
|
❍
1
❍
99
RANDOMIZE
ROWS
|
1
Strongly disagree
99 I
don’t know/Not applicable
|
|
1.
|
The
decision-makers in my company feel that CFIA regulations are very
complicated.
|
|
2.
|
The CFIA
is transparent in how they operate.
|
|
3.
|
The CFIA
does business in the same way for everyone within their mandate.
|
|
4.
|
CFIA
regulations have been implemented in a way that is fair to all businesses.
|
|
5.
|
CFIA
guidance on regulations is clear.
|
|
6.
|
CFIA
regulations are too basic for my company to be concerned about.
|
|
7.
|
Representatives
of the CFIA are helpful when providing information on regulations.
|
|
8.
|
Information
received from the CFIA helps to stop future non-compliance.
|
|
9.
|
Representatives
of the CFIA are respectful in carrying out their duties.
|
|
10.
|
Overall,
the CFIA is a fair regulatory agency.
|
|
11.
|
The CFIA
is properly equipped to manage the complexity of Canada’s food, animal, and
plant supply chain.
|
|
12.
|
The CFIA
listens to industry when it comes to understanding specific innovation and
competitiveness needs.
|
|
13.
|
The CFIA
listens to industry views when it comes to understanding industry’s specific
regulatory priorities.
|
|
14.
|
It is
easy to have open and honest dialogue with the CFIA about regulatory
priorities.
|
|
15.
16.
|
The CFIA
provides better service compared to food inspection agencies in other
developed countries.
The CFIA
is sensitive to the reality of how things work in your specific industry.
|
A10.
Consider
your interactions with the CFIA and its leadership structure. Select the
responses that you feel describe each:
COLUMNS (RANDOMIZE
ORDER)
1. Is
credible
2. Is
responsive
3. Is
reliable
4. Don’t
Know / Not sure (ANCHOR AT END; EXCLUSIVE)
ROWS (RANDOMIZE)
- CFIA senior management
- CFIA inspectors/enforcement
staff
- Call centre staff
Page SecB – ASK ALL IN THIS SECTION
B1
Below are some statements to
describe the activities of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). How much
do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?
|
RANDOMIZE
|
|
|
1.
|
The CFIA
is contributing to the health and well-being of Canadians, the environment, and the economy by protecting Canada’s food, animals, and plants.
|
|
2.
|
As a science-based
regulator, the CFIA is believable when it issues a statement.
|
|
3.
|
The CFIA
issues food recall warnings in a timely manner.
|
|
4.
|
The CFIA
enforces regulations that help to ensure that animals are transported
humanely.
|
|
5.
|
The CFIA
enforces regulations that help to ensure that Canada’s plant resources are
protected.
|
|
6.
|
CFIA
enforcement activities encourage companies to comply with the regulations.
|
|
❍
7
|
7
Strongly agree
|
|
❍
6
|
6
|
|
❍
5
|
5
|
|
❍
4
|
4 Neither
agree nor disagree
|
|
❍
3
|
3
|
|
❍
2
|
2
|
|
❍
1
|
1
Strongly disagree
|
|
|
|
B2
In your
opinion, how transparent do you think the CFIA is when it comes to assessing
non-compliance with regulations? Please answer on a scale of 1-7 with 1 being
not at all transparent, and 7 being very transparent.
|
❍
7
|
7 Very
transparent
|
|
❍
6
|
6
|
|
❍
5
|
5
|
|
❍
4
|
4
|
|
❍
3
|
3
|
|
❍
2
|
2
|
|
❍
1
|
1 Not at
all transparent
|
B3
How
transparent do you think the CFIA is when it comes to reporting (publishing)
non-compliance? Please answer on a scale of 1-7 with 1 being not at all
transparent, and 7 being very transparent.
|
❍
7
|
7 Very
transparent
|
|
❍
6
|
6
|
|
❍
5
|
5
|
|
❍
4
|
4
|
|
❍
3
|
3
|
|
❍
2
|
2
|
|
❍
1
|
1 Not at
all transparent
|
B4
How has your company received
information from the CFIA in the past year?
Select all that apply
|
❑
1
|
Mailed
documents
|
|
❑
2
|
Telephone
communications
|
|
❑
3
|
Email
(including CFIA Listservs)
|
|
❑
4
|
Portal
notices in My CFIA
|
|
❑
5
|
Personal
interaction with a CFIA representative
|
|
❑
6
|
CFIA
website
|
|
❑
7
|
Social
media
|
|
❑
8
|
Podcasts
|
|
❑
9
|
CFIA’s
Inspect and Protect newsletter
|
|
❑
10
|
Through
an industry association
|
|
❑
11
|
Other
(specify): __________________________________________________
|
|
❑
99
|
Not
applicable: I have never received or do not remember receiving information
from the CFIA [Exclusive - deselect
other options]
|
B4A. Show if B4 answered (i.e., does not select
code 99 at B4)
Do you feel the frequency of communication from the CFIA is…
|
❍
7
|
7 Much
too frequent
|
|
❍
6
|
6
|
|
❍
5
|
5
|
|
❍
4
|
4 Just
right
|
|
❍
3
|
3
|
|
❍
2
|
2
|
|
❍
1
|
1 Much
too infrequent
|
|
|
|
B5 Show
if B4 answered (i.e., does not select code 99 at B4)
Please rate how well your company
understands the information when it is received from the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA)?
Please use the 7-point scale below for
your response. A rating of 7 indicates ‘understands completely’. A rating of 1
indicates ‘no understanding at all’.
|
1.
|
Mailed
documents (Show if B4 1 Mailed document)
|
|
2.
|
Telephone
communications (Show if B4 2 Telephone)
|
|
3.
|
Email
(including CFIA Listservs) (Show if B4 3 Email)
|
|
4.
|
Portal
notices in My CFIA (Show if B4 4 Portal notices )
|
|
5.
|
Personal
interaction with CFIA representative (Show if B4 5 Personal interaction)
|
|
6.
|
CFIA
website (Show
if B4 6 CFIA website)
|
|
7.
|
Social
media (Show
if B4 8 Social media)
|
|
8.
|
Podcasts (Show if B4 8 Podcasts)
|
|
9.
|
CFIA’s
Inspect and Protect newsletter (Show if B4 9 I and P newsletter)
|
|
10.
|
Through
an industry association (Show if B4 10 Industry Association)
|
|
11.
|
<<B4.specify(11)>>
__________________________________________________ (Show if B4 11 Other
Specify)
|
|
|
|
|
❍
7
|
7
Understands completely
|
|
❍
6
|
6
|
|
❍
5
|
5
|
|
❍
4
|
4
|
|
❍
3
|
3
|
|
❍
2
|
2
|
|
❍
1
|
1 No
understanding at all
|
B6 Show if B4 answered (i.e., does not select code
99 at B4)
What is your overall level of
satisfaction regarding the communication tools that are used by the CFIA? Note
the scale is now 0 is not at all satisfied and 10 is very satisfied.
Please use the 10-point scale below for
your response. A rating of 10 indicates ‘very satisfied’. A rating of 0
indicates ‘not at all satisfied’’.
|
❍
10
|
10 Very
satisfied
|
|
❍
9
|
9
|
|
❍
8
|
8
|
|
❍
7
|
7
|
|
❍
6
|
6
|
|
❍
5
|
5
|
|
❍
4
|
4
|
|
❍
3
|
3
|
|
❍
2
|
2
|
|
❍ 1
❍
0
|
1
0 Not at
all satisfied
|
B7 Show
if B4 answered (i.e., does not select code 99 at B4)
How satisfied are you with the
following communication tools used by the CFIA?
Please use the 10-point scale below for your response. A rating of 10
indicates ‘very satisfied’. A rating of 0 indicates ‘not at all satisfied’’.
|
1.
|
Mailed
documents (Show if B4 1 Mailed document)
|
|
2.
|
Telephone
communications (Show if B4 2 Telephone)
|
|
3.
|
Email
(including CFIA Listservs) (Show if B4 3 Email)
|
|
4.
|
Portal
notices in My CFIA (Show if B4 4 Portal notices )
|
|
5.
|
Personal
interaction with CFIA representative (Show if B4 5 Personal
interactions)
|
|
6.
|
CFIA
website (Show
if B4 6 CFIA website)
|
|
7.
|
Social
media (Show
if B4 7 Social media)
|
|
8.
|
Podcasts (Show if B4 8 Podcasts)
|
|
9.
|
CFIA’s
Inspect and Protect newsletter (Show if B4 9 I and P newsletter)
|
|
10.
|
Through
an industry association (Show if B4 8 Industry Association)
|
|
11.
|
<<B4.specify(11)>>
__________________________________________________ (Show if B4 11 Other
Specify)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
❍
10
|
10 Very
satisfied
|
|
❍
9
|
9
|
|
❍
8
|
8
|
|
❍
7
|
7
|
|
❍
6
|
6
|
|
❍
5
|
5
|
|
❍
4
|
4
|
|
❍
3
|
3
|
|
❍
2
|
2
|
|
❍ 1
❍
0
|
1
0 Not at
all satisfied
|
B8
Please rank the top 3 service elements. When your company
assesses the services offered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA),
which elements are the most important?
Start by selecting the reason that you consider to be most important. Continue
to rank (up/down) in order of importance. Please rank order the top 3.
|
RANDOMIZE
|
|
|
_____
|
The
services are easy to understand *
|
|
_____
|
I can
access all the services offered by the CFIA in one place *
|
|
_____
|
The
services offered by CFIA help prevent non-compliance *
|
|
_____
|
I can
contact a CFIA representative for clarification *
|
|
_____
|
Services
are available when I need them*
|
|
_____
|
Other
(Specify) __________________ANCHOR
|
B8other Show
if B8 Other in top 3
Do you feel that any other service
offered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is more important?
Please do not enter personally identifying information (e.g., name,
email address, phone number, mailing address), as anything you enter may be
shared with the sponsor of this research.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
B9
How would you prefer the CFIA
communicate with you in the future? Select any that apply.
RANDOMIZE
|
❍
1
|
Mailed
documents
|
|
❍
2
|
Telephone
communications
|
|
❍
3
|
Virtual
chat from the CFIA website or My CFIA
|
|
❍
4
|
Email
(including CFIA Listservs)
|
|
❍
5
|
Portal
notices in My CFIA
|
|
❍
6
|
In person
interaction with CFIA representative
|
|
❍
7
|
CFIA
website
|
|
❍
8
|
Social
media
|
|
❍
9
|
Podcasts
|
|
❍
10
|
CFIA’s
Inspect and Protect newsletter
|
|
❍
11
|
Through
an industry association
|
|
❍
12
|
Other
(specify): __________________________________________________
|
|
❍
99
|
Not
applicable: I wish the CFIA would not send me any future communications
|
B10
When trying to understand new
requirements and regulatory priorities, what is the best way to have more open
and clear discussions with CFIA regulators?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
❍
|
Informal
quarterly consultations *
|
|
❍
|
Formal consultations*
|
|
❍
|
Industry
association events *
|
|
❍
|
Other
(specify): __________________________________________________
|
|
❍
|
Not
applicable: I wish the CFIA would not send me any future communications
|
Levels marked with *
are randomized
B11. If the CFIA was holding webinars, what topics
would drive the most interest? Select all that interest you.
RANDOMIZE
1.
How to use MY CFIA portal to apply for licences and
other permissions (i.e., export certificates, permit to
import, certificate of free sale)
2.
Preventive control plans
3.
Traceability
4.
Import requirements
5.
Labelling
6. Other______ (ANCHOR
AT BOTTOM)
7. Don’t
know/Prefer not to say (ANCHOR AT BOTTOM)
B12
Do you have any other opinions or
comments that you would like to share about food safety or the CFIA?
No comments
⎕
OPEN END
Page SecX
X1
The following information is collected for
classification purposes only. Please answer the following questions about your
company:
Approximately how many people are
employed in your company?
|
❍
1
|
Sole proprietor
/ just me
|
|
❍
2
|
2 to 9
employees
|
|
❍
3
|
10 to 49
employees
|
|
❍
4
|
50 to 99
employees
|
|
❍
5
|
100 to
499 employees
|
|
❍
6
|
500 to
999 employees
|
|
❍
7
|
1000 to
4999 employees
|
|
❍
8
|
5000+
employees
|
|
❍
9
|
I don’t
know/ prefer not to answer
|
X2
What is the approximate annual revenue
of your company?
|
❍
1
|
Less than
$100,000
|
|
❍
2
|
$100,000
to $499,999
|
|
❍
3
|
$500,000
to $999,999
|
|
❍
4
|
$1
million to less than $ 25 million
|
|
❍
5
|
$25
million to less than $100 million
|
|
❍
6
|
$100
million or more
|
|
❍
7
|
I don’t
know/prefer not to answer
|
X3
How long has your company been in
operations?
|
❍
10
|
Less than
a year
|
|
❍
11
|
More than
1 but less than 5 years
|
|
❍
12
|
5 or more
years but less than 10 years
|
|
❍
13
|
10 or
more years but less than 25 years
|
|
❍
14
|
More than
25 years
|
|
❍
15
|
I don’t
know/prefer not to answer
|
X5
In which regions does your company
currently do business?
Select all that apply
|
❑
1
|
British
Columbia
|
|
❑
2
|
Alberta
|
|
❑
3
|
Saskatchewan
|
|
❑
4
|
Manitoba
|
|
❑
5
|
Ontario
|
|
❑
6
|
Quebec
|
|
❑
7
|
New
Brunswick
|
|
❑
8
|
Prince
Edward Island
|
|
❑
9
|
Nova
Scotia
|
|
❑
10
|
Newfoundland
and Labrador
|
|
❑
11
|
Yukon
|
|
❑
12
|
Nunavut
|
|
❑
13
|
Northwest
Territories
|
|
❑
14
|
United
States of America
|
|
❑
15
|
Outside
of the United States of America or Canada
|
X6
Please check the different regions
where your company offices or facilities are located and where CFIA food safety
regulations are applicable.
Select all that apply
|
❑
1
|
British
Columbia
|
|
❑
2
|
Alberta
|
|
❑
3
|
Saskatchewan
|
|
❑
4
|
Manitoba
|
|
❑
5
|
Ontario
|
|
❑
6
|
Quebec
|
|
❑
7
|
New
Brunswick
|
|
❑
8
|
Prince
Edward Island
|
|
❑
9
|
Nova
Scotia
|
|
❑
10
|
Newfoundland
and Labrador
|
|
❑
11
|
Yukon
|
|
❑
12
|
Nunavut
|
|
❑
13
|
Northwest
Territories
|
|
❑
14
|
United
States of America
|
|
❑
15
|
Outside
of the United States of America or Canada
|
X7
What is the ownership status of your
company?
|
❍
1
|
Publicly
traded
|
|
❍
2
|
Privately
held
|
|
❍
3
|
Government/Crown
|
|
❍
4
|
Not sure
|
X8
Is your company based in Canada, or
does it have its headquarters elsewhere?
|
❍
1
|
Headquarters
located in Canada
|
|
❍
2
|
Headquarters
located outside of Canada
|
|
❍
3
|
Not sure
|
X9 – Would you consider the organization to be a
family-owned organization?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t
know / Not sure
X10
Would you describe your company as
Indigenous managed or owned?
|
❍
1
|
Yes
|
|
❍
2
|
No
|
|
❍
3
|
Unsure
|
X11
For statistical purposes only
What is your gender?
|
❍
1
|
Male
|
|
❍
2
|
Female
|
|
❍
3
|
Other
|
|
❍
4
|
Prefer
not to answer
|
X12.
Approximately, what percentage of individuals might identify as a visible
minority in senior management (including owner) roles? Please note your percentage within the
following range: a minimum of “0” and a
maximum of “100.”
[If
Respondent hovers over/clicks the word “Visible Minority”, show the following:
The Government of Canada has a policy that is designed to ensure that the
diverse population of Canada is equally supported. To better understand the
composition of leadership within Canadian food businesses, we are asking about
race and other demographic characteristics of the leadership group. An estimate
is fine for this question and if you do not know that is fine as well.]
|
·
Visible minority __________ %
|
|
·
I don't know
|
X13
Please
describe the approximate percentages of individuals with a senior management
position who identify as female
Please note
your percentage within the following range:
a minimum of “0” and a maximum of “100.”
[If
Respondent hovers over/clicks the word “Female”, show the following: The Government of Canada has a policy that is
designed to ensure that the diverse population of Canada is equally supported.
To better understand the composition of leadership at Canadian food businesses
we are asking about gender and other demographic characteristics of the
leadership group. An estimate is fine for this question and if you do not know
that is fine as well.]
I don’t
know
Thanks for completing this survey.
If you have any questions you can contact the CFIA using any of the methods on
this page.
https://www.inspection.gc.ca/about-cfia/contact-us/eng/1546627816321/1546627838025
Ending page
https://inspection.canada.ca/eng/1297964599443/1297965645317
