Background
This 2023 research explores consumers’ current and future use and perception of assurance systems and labels. Assurance systems refer to the processes and procedures that provide confidence and trust that associated risks along the food supply chain are adequately addressed and claims can be proven. For instance, that the food is safe, and meets market requirements.
Methodology
The research was conducted from January 23 to 25, 2023. The research was comprised of 12 focus groups with Canadian adults (18+) who have joint/sole responsibility for grocery shopping in their household. Qualitative research results are not representative of all consumer and producer opinions, but bring more depth to research findings.
Key findings
Trust in Canada’s agriculture and food sector
- Overall, most participants trust in Canada’s food system, which largely extends to producing foods sustainably
- Trust in producers is often tied to how “corporate” participants feel the producer is. The smaller the producer is assumed to be, the more trustworthy they are assumed to be
- To build trust in the sector, some suggested more transparency and information on regulations
“I tend to trust the small and local farmers more, and less the big production stuff.” - Focus group participant
Environmental sustainability
- The term “sustainable” was not universally understood and meant different things to different participants
- Most were unable to say if Canadian food is produced in an environmentally sustainable way, but many assumed it was
- Many were unsure how sustainability related to their own purchases
- Many participants deemed a product as environmentally sustainable by:
- Less packaging, recyclable or biodegradable packaging
- Non-GMO
- Locally produced
- Pesticide free
“I’m geared toward the price but also the packaging. If they have a lot of single–use plastic, I probably won’t go that way.” – Focus group participant
Food assurance labels
Impressions
- Unaided recall of food assurance labels was limited. After showing examples many said they had seen at least one of the labels
- Credibility of existing food assurance labels varied widely
- Trust in assurance systems was related to level of experience, knowledge or information participants had about each label
- Roughly half felt assurance labels were helpful to varying degrees. A few were strongly in favour of assurance labels, others described them as “better than nothing”, or marketing tools
Purchase intentions
- Few said assurance labels have impacted their purchasing behaviours, often saying price outweighs the assurance claims
- Price, lack of understanding and trust in what the assurance label claimed, were common barriers to purchase intentions
“We need more information to understand them, otherwise it’s just a slogan.” – Focus group participant
A common assurance label
Participants appreciated the idea of a single, common assurance label that credibly indicates the food is produced with standards that meet their expectations
- The desired role for government was around subsidization, public awareness/education, regulation, inspection and enforcement
- Preference for oversight was for a partnership between industry, farmers, consumers, scientists, nongovernment organizations, and government officials
- Proper oversight of an assurance system is key to gaining confidence and instilling value
- Most participants clearly indicated that it would be beneficial to have a common assurance system and labels in Canada, similar to the U.K.’s Red Tractor system
“I love the concept; I think it’s great. The only concern for me is the transparency.” – Focus group participant
