Canadian Consumer Perspectives on Food Fortification
Help on accessing alternative formats, such as PDF, MP3 and WAV files, can be obtained in the alternate format help section.
(69K)
Executive Summary
Twenty-three focus groups were conducted between July 19 and
July 22, 2004 in seven cities across Canada . The goals of
the research were: to understand how discretionary
fortification may affect consumer behaviors; whether there
was general support or opposition to discretionary
fortification; and the perception of the role that Health
Canada should play in discretionary fortification.
The specific research objectives were as follows :
-
To examine participant's current food choice criteria,
exploring whether participants have enough choice, how
they weight various nutrition factors when purchasing
food, how they incorporate vitamins and minerals in their
diets and if they purchase fortified food.
-
To determine basic awareness and opinion towards fortified
food. Participants were asked what foods in the market are
fortified, how important fortification is to them in
choosing a product, what information they need to know to
purchase a fortified product, what – if anything
– participants trade-off when purchasing a fortified
food and if their food choices would change if there is a
greater array of fortified food available to them.
-
To explore opinions about discretionary fortification.
Participants were read a policy concept statement and
asked to discuss what it means, how it would influence
their decisions, what other information they need to know,
whether discretionary fortification would make food
healthier, what foods they want to see fortified, if they
want food of low nutritional value fortified and what type
of labelling should be available on packaging of food
fortified at the discretion of manufacturers.
-
To discuss Health Canada's role in discretionary
fortification. Participants were asked about where they
get their nutrition information, what Health Canada's
role is in general regarding foods and healthy eating,
whether opinion/credibility of Health Canada would be
affected and where participants would go to get more
information on discretionary fortification.
The locations of the tests and participant characteristics
were as follows:
General Population
|
LOW SES*
|
HIGH SES**
|
Seniors
|
Parents
|
Teens
|
St John's,NFLD
|
10 included some rural representation
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
Trois Rivières
|
4 included some rural and low SES representation
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
Montreal
|
9
|
9
|
8
|
8
|
7
|
7
|
Toronto
|
9
|
7
|
8
|
10
|
8
|
6
|
Winnipeg
|
10 included some aboriginal representation
|
|
|
|
10 included some aboriginal representation
|
|
Calgary
|
10
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Vancouver
|
9
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
*Low SES: Low Socioeconomic Status-those with a household
income of $30, 000 or less and have at most a secondary
school education.
** High SES: High Socioeconomic Status-those with a household
income of over $50,000 in Montreal, and over $75,000 in
Toronto, and at least a university education.
Participants were led through a guided discussion about food
choices, food fortification in general, and discretionary
fortification. The moderator followed a guide and also
pursued themes and questioning based on responses in the
group that helped shed light on the objectives of the
research.
Each group was conducted by one of three moderators: one
moderated groups in Trois-Rivières and Montréal
in French, one in Winnipeg and the west, and one in St
John's and Toronto.
Consumers Somewhat Accepted The Proposed Discretionary
Fortification Policy. There Are, However, Qualifications To
The Acceptance, And Consumers Said That Discretionary
Fortification Will Not Change The Way They Evaluate Their
Food Choices.
For the most part, the fortification of foods at the
discretion of manufacturers, with limits on nutrients and
amounts set by Health Canada was accepted among participants
in the focus groups. This support though can be characterized
as qualified acceptance. That is, in order to accept the
policy, participants needed to know:
-
The effect fortification would have on price and taste of
the food. If either significantly change, participants
will have more difficulty accepting the policy and
choosing fortified food at the discretion of the
manufacturer.
-
That labelling would be mandatory and they would be
provided with enough information and reassurance about the
fortification process, including providing information
about excessive intake and the health benefits of the
added nutrients. Participants saw labelling as a
fundamental aspect of this policy. Many said they would
reject it if labels are not mandatory and do not contain
enough information. Participants felt that honest
labelling will be what gives the consumer the opportunity
to make an informed choice, and this is fundamental to
them.
-
The nutritional information necessary to make proper food
choices under discretionary fortification. Those who said
they would consider foods fortified at the discretion of
the manufacturer needed to know information like the
benefits of the fortified nutrients to them and whether or
not they run the risk of excessive intake. They expected
Health Canada to do this through education in general, and
mandating labelling that would inform them of this.
-
That manufacturers will be monitored on two fronts: on the
one front, participants want Health Canada to monitor the
amount of nutrients added and check it against the amounts
manufacturers claim on labels. On the second front, the
monitoring concerns the actual quality or source of the
nutrient. Participants want Health Canada to ensure that
the source of nutrients comes from safe, natural and
non-chemical sources.
Even if these questions are answered, participants indicated
that it is quite likely that discretionary fortification
would not really change the way they currently purchase food.
That is, they indicated their intention to continue to
consider their regular choice factors like salt, fat, sugar,
calories, taste and price before they consider added
nutrients, even if they happen to be specifically looking for
that vitamin or mineral as part of their diet. Moreover, if
they needed to get vitamins and minerals, they would first
look to their existing sources, which include fruits,
vegetables and vitamin/mineral pills. The fact that
participants expressed an intention to continue to employ
their existing choice standards also underscores the fact
that for the most part, participants do not currently make
specific attempts to purchase fortified food in the
marketplace.
There Are, However, Strong Ideological Concerns About
Discretionary Fortification. These Concerns Definitely Impact
Support For The Policy.
It is important to note that there were definitely those who
either do not support the policy or at the very least think
that an extremely cautious approach needs to be taken towards
it. These people cited ideological concerns about the policy.
Some of those concerns included the fact that Health Canada
should be spending money on encouraging a more healthy diet,
rather than on discretionary fortification, or at the very
least providing strong educational messages that focus on
placing fortified foods in context of the food in its
entirety (i.e. even though a packaged food is fortified, it
is not the healthiest choice).
Other ideological concerns included unease about tampering
with food too much, what increased fortification really says
about the nutritional state of the food supply, the exact
source of the added nutrients, marketing low nutrient food as
healthy and who exactly is driving this policy – the
manufacturers or Health Canada. Generally participants that
held these views did so quite strongly, and in a few
instances were able to sway others away from supporting the
policy. While focus groups are not quantitative research, by
basic observation, it appears as if ideological rejection or
concern is vocal, but it is not as prevalent among
participants as is qualified acceptance of the policy.
Finally, in terms of ideology, some of those who expressed
support for the policy, feel that discretionary fortification
is a pro-active stance. They say that Health Canada is both
controlling discretionary fortification, setting limits and
conditions for nutrient addition by manufacturers, and is
also protecting our welfare, and reducing health-care costs
by helping Canadians prevent disease in the future.
Participants Indicated They Would Choose A Fortified Food If
That Food Met Their Current Food Choice Criteria. However,
Even Though They Would Choose A Fortified Food, They Stated
The Policy Is Not About Choice.
As mentioned, discretionary fortification will not
necessarily change food choices. However, participants
indicated that for the most part they would purchase a
fortified food if all their other decision factors were
equal. That is, if they saw a fortified food and it meets
their current requirements, they would purchase it and feel
that they have received a "bonus".
The reason for this, again, comes from the way participants
stated they presently choose their packaged food.
Specifically, participants indicated that they do not look at
packaged food as a source of vitamins and minerals, and for
the most part they would not start to do so, even if they had
a wider selection of fortified food available to them.
It is also important to note that participants were probed on
whether they feel the policy would give them more choices in
where they get their vitamins and minerals. Since
participants currently do not look for vitamins and minerals
in packaged food, they do not feel this is a policy about
choice. What did come through in the groups though is that
participants want the choice not to choose a fortified food
if they do not want it. This is driven by concerns about
excessive intake, as well as changes to the taste and price
of food. Also, those with ideological concerns about
discretionary fortification vehemently demand that there be a
choice to choose equivalent non-fortified foods.
Fortifying Food Of Low Nutritional Value Has Some Support,
Though It Raises A Lot Of Issues, Especially For Parents
Much like general attitudes towards fortification, if a food
of low nutritional value is fortified, participants felt that
it would be a bonus to them, as long as it did not affect the
taste. Participants were quick to point out that they would
not be swayed into buying a low nutritional value food just
because it is fortified. Rather, they say that if they were
going to make the choice to begin with, fortification would
not be such a bad thing.
There are two concerns though. The first is a general one
about marketing and labelling. If anything, the issue around
fortifying food of low nutritional value is seen as one of
marketing. Participants do not want manufacturers to abuse
fortification as a marketing tool, and they were very
concerned about this.
The other issue comes from parents who have concern for their
children. For the most part, parents felt that at present,
they are in good control of how their children eat, and felt
this will remain the same under discretionary fortification.
They were more concerned about the fact that discretionary
fortification will mean that their children need more
education about food, either from them or the school system.
That is, parents said that they will have to explain that
just because a food is fortified does not make it any more or
less healthy on other attributes such as fat, sugar and salt.
Also, parents felt that they will have to explain why it is
better to get vitamins and minerals from fruits and
vegetables, as opposed to packaged snack food. Some parents
were alright with having to explain this, while others were
quite concerned that they did not want the possibility of the
issue to even arise.
The Role Of Health Canada Is Education And Regulation
Participants strongly requested that Health Canada provide a
significant amount of information to the public in the face
of discretionary fortification. They wanted to know:
-
The exact reasons for the policy
-
How the added nutrients improve health
-
The risk of excessive intake, and what acceptable intake
levels are
-
That Health Canada will monitor manufacturers in terms of
verifying the amount of added nutrients, and ensuring that
manufacturers will not abuse fortification as a marketing
tool.
-
That Health Canada will set strict labelling guidelines
that provide Canadians with all the information they need
to know
There Is A General Belief That Health Canada's
Credibility Will Not Be Affected
Health Canada wanted to gauge whether perceptions of its
credibility would change as a result of discretionary
fortification. Overall, Health Canada does not have a
credibility issue in regards to discretionary fortification,
even when participants were directly questioned about Health
Canada permitting fortification of low nutritional value
foods. In the context of discretionary fortification, Health
Canada is viewed positively, with the general sentiment that
it is looking out for the health of Canadians with this
policy, and is doing its best to be pro-active in setting
controls which would put safe limits on what manufacturers
can do .
However, the research did identify an underlying trust issue
with food manufacturers. When Health Canada communicates
about discretionary fortification, it must be open and honest
about if, and how, food manufacturers influenced the
decision. Participants in most groups indicated that it is
alright that food manufacturers have input and influence into
discretionary fortification. What they needed to hear, and
what they wanted to believe, is that Health Canada is looking
after the best interests of consumers and not the
manufacturers. Anything less than this will call Health
Canada's credibility into question.
It is important to note that individuals will give more
weight towards what Health Canada does, as opposed to what it
says about discretionary fortification. Specifically, if
Health Canada is perceived in any way to be endorsing (as
opposed to controlling /setting limits) the marketing of
foods of low nutritional value, an assumption will likely be
made that Health Canada is looking out more for manufacturers
than Canadians in general, regardless of what Health Canada
may say to the contrary. This will raise questions about
Health Canada's credibility in the future.
|