Research Article

Self-Perceived Eating Habits and Food Skills

of Canadians
Joyce J. Slater, PhD; Adriana N. Mudryj, MSc

ABSTRACT
Objective: This study identified and described Canadians’ self-perceived eating habits and food skills
through the use of population-based data.
Design: Data from the Canadian Community Health Survey 2013 Rapid Response on Food Skills was
used to examine the eating quality and patterns of Canadians. Data were collected from all provinces in
January and February 2013.
Main Outcome Measures: Respondent variables (sex, age, Aboriginal/immigrant status) were exam-
ined to assess differentiations between socio-demographic groupings (family structure, marital status, ed-
ucation, and income).
Analysis: Logistic regression was used to determine whether demographic variables increased the likeli-
hood of certain responses.
Results: Forty-six percent of Canadians believe they have excellent/very good eating habits, with 51% cat-
egorizing their habits as good or fair. Similarly, the majority report having good food skills. Sex and age were
significantly associated with food skills, with women rating their cooking skill proficiency higher than men
(72% vs 55%), and older Canadians reporting higher food skill knowledge than their younger counterparts.
Conclusions and Implications: Results indicate that while portions of the Canadian population have
adequate food skills, others are lacking, which may negatively impact their diet. Findings from this study
have implications for education and health promotion programs focusing on foods skills, particularly
among vulnerable target groups.
Key Words: health surveys, food skills, eating habits, Canadian Community Health Survey (J Nutr Educ
Behav. 2016;48:486-495.)
Accepted April 24, 2016.

INTRODUCTION low nutritional profiles.11 The chronic disease. While still an emerging
increased intake of ultra-processed concept, some studies have shown
The rapidly growing rates of obesity foods is linked with rising obesity that having better food skills is associ-
and related chronic disease in global rates.12,13 The high use of ultra- ated with better diet quality16,17 and
populations1,2 have prompted many processed foods has also been impli- may help some food-insecure individ-
public health and education experts cated in reduced domestic food prepa- uals.18 Having sufficient food skills
to examine dietary and food behavior ration time, creating a cycle of may allow individuals to have more
patterns3,4 and the role of food skills dependence on convenience food control over their diet by preferentially
in protecting nutritional health.5-9 Eating products and a decline in basic food selecting and preparing basic foods
patterns in industrialized countries, skills.14,15 with favorable nutrition profiles.19
and increasingly around the globe, Possessing adequate food skills, or More research, however, is needed to
have been shifting in recent decades having the capabilities to plan, select, empirically demonstrate the linkages
to include disproportionate amounts prepare, and consume food, has been between food skills and diet quality.
of highly processed convenience proposed as a protective quality The steady and steep increase in the
foods,4,10 the majority of which have against obesity and nutrition-related consumption of highly processed
foods in recent decades, coinciding
with increased rates of obesity and
Human Nutritional Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada chronic disease, suggests that this is
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: The authors’ conflict of interest disclosures can be found online an important area that warrants exam-
with this article on www.jneb.org. ination.10,11,20
Address for correspondence: Joyce J. Slater, PhD, 409 Human Ecology Building, Depart- The purpose of this study was to
ment of Human Nutritional Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, identify and describe Canadians' self-
R3T 2N2, Canada; Phone: (204) 474-7322; Fax: (204) 474-7593; E-mail: joyce.slater@ perceived eating habits and food skills
umanitoba.ca through the use of population-based
Ó2016 Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior. Published by Elsevier, Inc. All rights data from the Canadian Community
reserved. Health Survey Rapid Response on
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2016.04.397 Food Skills (CCHS).

486 Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
Volume 48, Number 7, 2016
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
Volume 48, Number 7, 2016
METHODS
Setting and Participants
The CCHS is a federal cross-sectional
survey aimed at providing health infor-
mation at the national and provincial
levels. Beginning in 2007, major changes
were made to the survey design and as
a result, data collection now occurs
every year (although a ‘‘cycle’’ is now
considered to be a 2-year period).21
The rapid response component is
offered to organizations interested in
national estimates on an emerging or
specific issue related to the popula-
tion's health.22 This research is based
on results from Parts 1 and 2 of the
CCHS 2013 Rapid Response on Food
Skills, which collected data from a na-
tionally representative sample of
Canadians $ 12 years of age in all 10
provinces. Data collection took place
across the country in January and
February of 2013. Interviewers from
Statistics Canada, a government agency
that produces statistics to better under-
stand the population, administered
questions related to meal preparation,
the amount of basic versus processed
ingredients used, cooking and kitchen
skills levels, time spent on food prepa-
ration, frequency of family meals, and
children's participation in household
food activities. The addition of these
questions to the Canadian Commu-
nity Health Survey Annual Compo-
nent was sponsored by the Office of
Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Health
Canada. In total, 10,098 respondents
completed Part 1 (which assessed know-
ledge, planning, and transference of
skills) and 10,701 completed Part 2
(which focused on mechanical skills
and food conceptualization). The over-
all response rate was 67.3%.22 Further
details as well as the questionnaire
can be viewed on the Statistics Canada
website.21 Research for this study was
conducted at the Manitoba Research
Data Centre and is consistent with
Research Ethics Board Requirements.
Data were accessed in a secure environ-
ment and all output was first reviewed
by Statistics Canada to ensure disclo-
sure avoidance before release.
Measures
This study focused on the self-rated be-
haviors of Canadians regarding their
eating habits, meal preparation prac-
tices, ingredients used in cooking, and
kitchen skills as well as grocery shop-
ping routines and meal adjustments.
Self-reported eating habits were ranked
as ‘‘excellent or very good,’’ ‘‘good or
fair,’’ or ‘‘poor.’’ Similarly, self-assess-
ment of the respondent's mechanical
skills (ie, cutting, peeling, baking from
a recipe or from scratch) were ranked
by the respondent on a scale ranging
from ‘‘very limited’’ to ‘‘very good.’’ Re-
spondents were also asked to classify
their cooking skills and meal prepara-
tion habits on the basis of categories
chosen by Statistics Canada. This took
into account the types of foods most
often used in the meal of the day that
required the most preparation (ie,
whole/basic foods, easy-to-prepare
items, or take out/delivery) as well as
their ability to cook from basic ingredi-
ents, and the proportions of respon-
dents falling into these categories were
calculated. The food skills component
asked respondents about grocery shop-
ping habits, inquired about grocery
budgeting and use of grocery lists, and
whether or not respondents made
choices by using Canada's Food Guide
to Healthy Eating (CFGHE) when
choosing and purchasing ingredients.
Additionally, respondents were also
asked if they had ever adjusted a recipe
to make it healthier, and, if so, were
asked how this was done (ie, reducing
salt, sugar, or fat content, etc).22
Demographic variables such as sex,
age, and education status were used to
assess the variability of these practices
across Canada, and key variables were
examined to assess differentiations
between various socio-demographic
groups. Descriptive statistics were
used to describe differences between
sexes, in addition to Aboriginal status
(being of First Nations, Metis, or Inuit
as well as those with Registered or
Treaty Indian status), immigrant sta-
tus, and comparisons between family
structure, and other characteristics
were observed by looking at marital
status and respondent and house-
hold education. Income was also
examined as a factor, splitting res-
pondents into 4 groups on the basis
of their household income. Individ-
uals with invalid responses, such as
‘‘refusal to answer,’’ ‘‘don't know,’’ or
‘‘not applicable,’’ were excluded from
the study.
Slater and Mudryj 487
Statistical Analysis
Cross-tabulations and chi-square test-
ing were performed to compare propor-
tions among demographic groups.
Logistic regression was used to deter-
mine whether any of the aforemen-
tioned demographic variables increased
the likelihood of certain practices
such as recipe adjustment and grocery
planning. Odds ratios were calculated
and the significance level was set at
P < .05 for differences and .05 < P < .10
for trends. Reference groups were cho-
sen on the basis of hypotheses that
certain characteristics (such as higher
income or education) may be linked
with enhanced food skills. All analyses
were performed with the use of PASW
SPSS Statistics (version 13, IBM Corp,
Armonk, New York) and STATA Statis-
tical Software (version 22, StataCorp
LP, College Station, Texas). Because
the CCHS uses a multi-stage, stratified,
complex survey design and requires a
complex formula to calculate variance
estimates, Statistics Canada recom-
mends using bootstrapping to estimate
distribution from a sample's statistics.
Bootstrapping is an approach used to
estimate distribution from a sample's
statistics. It can also be defined as ‘‘sam-
pling within a sample’’ and involves
the selection of random samples
known as replicates and the calculation
of the variation in the estimates from
replicate to replicate.21 The bootstrap-
ping method was used in all the data
analyses for the present study via
STATA software. As well, the sampling
error of the estimates from the CCHS
(quantified by the coefficient of
variation, or CV) must be taken into
consideration when using CCHS data.
When the CV is between 16.6 and
33.3, the estimate should be inter-
preted with caution because of high
variability.
RESULTS
The majority of respondents reported
having good eating habits, with almost
half reporting ‘‘excellent’’ or ‘‘very
good’’ and more than half reporting
‘‘good’’ or ‘‘fair.’’ Older respondents
(65 years and over) were more likely
(P < .05) to report ‘‘excellent’’ or
‘‘very good’’ eating habits than those
12–29 years of age. Female respondents
 488 Slater and Mudryj
Table 1. Self-Reported Eating Habits, Meal Preparation, and Cooking Skills of Canadians

Eating Habits Meal Preparation Habits Cooking Skills

Mostly
Mix of Easy-to-Prepare, I Can Prepare
Easy-to-Prepare Ready-to-Eat, Simple Meals, Boil I Can Prepare
Excellent/ Mostly Foods and Whole/ Takeout, or an Egg, or Cook Most Dishes, Especially
Demographic Very Good/Fair Poor (%) Whole/Basic Basic Delivery a Grilled Cheese If I Have a Recipe
Characteristics Good (%) n (%) n n Foods (%) n Foods (%) n Foods (%) n Sandwich (%) n to Follow (%) n
Overall 46 (4,765) 51 (5,165) 3 (295) 75 (7,690) 20 (2,000) 5 (535) 21 (2,040) 63 (6,815)
Sex
Malea 44 (2,065) 53 (2,455) 3 (140) 72 (3,390) 21 (945) 7 (325) 32 (1,415) 55 (2,680)
Female 48* (2,700) 48* (2,710) 4 (155) 78* (4,300) 19 (1,055) 3E* (210) 11** (625) 72** (4,135)
Age

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
Volume 48, Number 7, 2016

12–29 ya 41 (955) 55 (1,255) 4 (80) 68 (1,590) 23 (555) 9E (145) 31 (695) 58 (1,380)
30–44 y 45* (800) 52 (1,035) 3 (65) 75* (1,350) 21 (455) 4E (95) 15** (250) 68* (1,350)
45–64 y 46* (1,540) 50 (1,710) 4 (130) 77* (2,615) 18* (600) 5E (165) 17** (505) 65* (2,305)
65þ y 56* (1,475) 42* (1,165) 2 (15) 81** (2,135) 15* (385) 3E (135) 25* (590) 64* (1,780)
Marital status
Marrieda 51 (2,240) 48 (2,045) 1 (25) – – – – –
Common law 44* (360) 54* (460) 2 (15) – – – – –
Widowed, separated, 44* (905) 51 (1,040) 5 (45) – – – – –
or divorced
Single 41* (1,245) 54* (1,620) 5 (145) – – – – –
Respondent education
< Post-secondarya 43 (1,905) 53 (2,300) 4 (170) 74 (2,870) 20 (710) 6E (160) 31 (1,030) 59 (2,415)
> Post-secondary 48* (2,790) 49 (2,790) 3 (165) 77 (n ¼ 4,250) 19 (n ¼ 1,095) 4E (130) 19* (935) 65* (3,840)
Household education
< Post-secondarya 40 (1,080) 55 (1,420) 5 (125) 70 (1,575) 20 (385) 10 (115) 25 (495) 62 (2,415)
> Post-secondary 48* (3,530) 49* (3,560) 3 (210) 77* (5,230) 20 (1,330) 3* (155) 23 (1,355) 63 (3,840)
Household income
< $30,000a 40 (900) 54 (1,235) 6 (130) 77 (1,615) 16 (380) 7 (100) 22 (495) 61 (1,430)
$30,000–59,999 43 (1,360) 54 (1,510) 3 (85) 75 (2,250) 21 (535) 4 (95) 26 (660) 61 (1,925)
$60,000–89,999 48* (975) 49* (1,000) 3 (60) 76 (1,525) 20 (390) 4 (55) 23 (405) 62 (1,305)
> $90,000 51 (1,530) 47* (1,420) 2 (60) 77 (2,030) 20 (555) 3* (55) 22 (495) 64 (1,810)
(continued)
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
Volume 48, Number 7, 2016 Slater and Mudryj 489

were more likely than male respon- female respondents to have a budget

Note: Numbers reflect proportions of Canadians who categorize themselves as having responses in each outcome category. Cross-tabulations and chi-square testing were
dents (P < .05) to have ‘‘excellent or or use a grocery list when shopping,
very good’’ or ‘‘good/fair’’ eating habits. and half as likely to use CFGHE recom-
As well, married Canadians were more mendations or select foods on the basis
likely than single, common-law, or of labels (P < .001). Younger Canadians
–
–

–
– widowed/divorced/separated Cana-
dians (P < .05) to have ‘‘excellent’’ or
‘‘very good’’ eating habits. Aboriginal
Canadians were significantly less likely
to report having ‘‘excellent’’ or ‘‘very
good’’ eating habits compared with
tis; EUse with caution (> 16.6% coefficient of variation < 33.3%).
were significantly more likely than older
Canadians to have a budget but less
likely to use a grocery list (P < .001).
Whereas almost two-thirds selected
foods on the basis of nutrition labels,
less than one-third used recommenda-

non-Aboriginals (37% vs 46%), as tions from CFGHE. Canadians over

were those with less education and 45 years of age were more likely to use
less income. Immigrants were more Food Guide recommendations than
–
–

–
–

likely to report better eating habits were younger Canadians.

than other Canadians (P < .05). Only
3% of all respondents reported having
‘‘poor’’ eating habits.
Almost two-thirds of all respondents
could prepare most dishes, although
those 12–29 years old were less able
(P < .05). Significantly more women
–
–
Respondents reported high rates of
competency with mechanical food
skills such as using a knife, peeling/
chopping, and cooking raw meat/
poultry/fish and soup/stew/casseroles
(Table 3). Women were significantly
more likely to report having good/

–
–

were able to prepare most dishes than
were men (72% vs 55%). Just over
one-fifth reported having basic skills
such as boiling an egg or making a
grilled cheese sandwich. However,
almost 3 times as many men responded
affirmatively to this as women (32% to
–
–
very good food preparation skills than
men, particularly when it came to cook-
ing raw meat, making a soup/stew or
casserole from scratch, and baking muf-
fins or cake (regardless of baking
method), and younger Canadians
were less likely to report these compe-

–
–

11%), and those with less than post-
secondary education had significantly
lower cooking skills compared with
those with more than post-secondary
education (Table 1).
Reference group; bRespondent identified self as First Nations, Inuit, or Me
tencies. Younger respondents (57%)
and men (64%) were less likely to report
‘‘good/very good’’ skills with cooking
soup/stew/casserole from scratch
(57%) than were older respondents.

Overall, the majority of respondents Just over two-thirds of all respondents

reported using ‘‘mostly whole/basic (72%) reported high proficiency in
–
–

–
–

foods’’ when cooking; this ranged baking muffins/cakes from a mix,

from 68% for those 12–29 years old to whereas just under one-third (66%)
performed to compare proportions among demographic groups.

81% for the cohort 65 years and older. could bake muffins/cakes from scratch.
Female respondents were more likely Two-thirds (67%) of respondents
3 (240)

4 (330)

than male respondents to use mostly stated they were ‘‘good/very good’’ at
7 (30)

2 (30)

whole/basic foods during meal prepara- freezing vegetables, whereas over one-
tion, as were older Canadians, in com- third (37%) reported having similar
parison to those < 30 years of age skills with canning from raw fruits and
51 (4,160)

51 (4,375)

(P < .05), although there were no major

56 (250)

49 (680)

vegetables (Table 3). Sixty-two percent

differences in meal preparation habits of Canadians reported having adjusted
between socio-demographic groups. a recipe to make it healthier (Table 4).
Only 5% used mostly easy-to-prepare, The main adjustment was reducing fat
46* (3,780)

45* (3,905)

ready-to-eat, or takeout/delivery foods; content (50%), followed by adding veg-

37 (175)

49 (745)

however, more than twice as many
men used mainly convenience/takeout
food, as did those in the lowest income
quartile compared with the highest
(7% vs 3%). Three times the number
*P < .05, **P < .01.
etables or fruit (47%), reducing sugar
(46%), reducing salt (41%), and
choosing whole-grain options (33%).
Canadians 30–64 years of age were
more likely to adjust recipes. Although

of those 12–29 years old (9%) re- women were more likely than men to
Immigration status

sponded affirmatively compared with modify recipes for health and choose
Aboriginal status

those 65 years and older (3%) (Table 1). whole-grain options (P < .001), men
Slightly fewer than half of respon- were more likely to reduce a recipe's
dents had a budget when grocery shop- salt content (P < .001).
Yesa,b

Yesa

ping, and three-quarters used a written Forty-two percent of respondents

No

No

list when grocery shopping (Table 2). grew vegetables, herbs, or fruits at
a

Male respondents were less likely than home or in a community garden.

490 Slater and Mudryj
There was no difference between men
and women, although younger re-
spondents (12–29 years of age) were
less likely to do so than older respon-
dents (results not shown).
DISCUSSION
Most Canadians thought they had fair
to excellent eating habits, which is
consistent with other survey reports,
such as ‘‘Tracking Nutrition Trends
2013,’’ in which 77% of respondents
felt they had ‘‘good’’ to ‘‘excellent’’
eating habits.23 These findings, how-
ever, contradict other empirical evi-
dence on Canadians' diets. According
to the latest population-based dietary
survey, the 2004 CCHS, 22% of total
calories were obtained from foods
‘‘other’’ than the 4 basic food groups,
typically having excess amounts of
fat, sugar, and salt (fats, oils, added
sugars, candy and snack foods, condi-
ments).24 In addition, over 25% of Ca-
nadians 31–50 years of age exceed the
upper limit for fat intake, and 24.9%
and 26.8% of Canadians 4–18 years
and 19 years of age and older have
the majority of total fat coming from
fast foods, baked goods, and other
snacks.25 Canadians also consume
more calories from snacks than break-
fast. Furthermore, fewer than half of
adults consume 5 or more servings of
fruits and vegetables per day (CCHS),
and only 15% are consuming the cur-
rent recommendation of 7 or more
servings per day.24 These trends are
corroborated in industry reports,
which state that snack foods are the
fastest-growing sector in the food
economy, increasing more than 50%
from 2000 to 2009, when snacks
made up 24% of all meals.26 Surveys
also consistently show that Canadians
seek convenience over nutrition.23,27
Notably, few Aboriginal Canadians
reported very good eating habits. This
may be reflective of high rates of food
insecurity, which are up to 3 times
that of the rest of Canadians.28-30 The
vast majority of Canadians report
that they are using mainly whole/
basic ingredients for their main meal.
As with eating habits, these data seem
somewhat contradictory to other
empirical data. Monteiro et al4 re-
ported that ultra-processed food drinks
(frozen foods such as prepared po-
tatoes, poultry, fish, and pizza, ready
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
Volume 48, Number 7, 2016
meals, and desserts; snacks including salty
snacks, candies, and ice cream); and soft
drinks have increased from 37% of
Canadians' calories in 1955 to 55% in
2009. Furthermore, in 2013, 52% of
Canadians' food expenditures were on
restaurant foods and non-‘‘whole/
basic’’ food items such as cookies, break-
fast cereals and bars, soft drinks,
candies, salty snacks, processed meat,
and frozen/ready-to-serve foods.31
It is possible that these ultra-proces-
sed foods were only being consumed at
times other than the ‘‘main meal.’’
However, other reports indicate that
the majority of Canadians value conve-
nience because of busy schedules27,32
and are spending less time than ever
in the kitchen. This would be consist-
ent with other surveys, which show
that self-reported desired dietary be-
haviors are over-reported, whereas
less-desired behaviors are reported less
frequently because of social desir-
ability.33,34 This was suggested in
M&M Meat Shops' 2014 survey and
campaign ‘‘Family Dinner is on the
Decline: M&M Meat Shops
Encourages Canadians to Bring Back
the Lost Art of Dinner.’’ The results of
their survey showed that only 30% of
Canadian families eat together every
night, a 30% decrease from the year
before.35 This prompted the company
to encourage Canadians to use their
prepared, frozen products as a conve-
nient way to ‘‘re-connect over dinner
and honor the tradition of the family
dinner.’’ This messaging indicates
that there may be confusion in peo-
ple's minds about what constitutes
‘‘whole/basic’’ food, and therefore re-
spondents may have misunderstood
the survey question.
Younger Canadians were more
likely to use convenience foods. This
may be because they are single and
less likely to have food preparation re-
sponsibilities for other family mem-
bers. This may also be reflective of
lower levels of food skills; fewer
younger Canadians were adept at
making more complex dishes such as
soups and stews. This was consistent
with reports of younger generations
having fewer food skills because of
lack of in-home learning and fewer
formal educational opportunities to
learn about food and nutrition.14,36,37
Almost one-third (32%) of men re-
ported only having basic cooking
skills, which suggests that a significant
gender gap in food skills persists. This
could be because of division of labor
within households, where women are
still taking on more household food re-
sponsibilities, but also because these
roles continue to be represented in me-
dia and other social narratives.38 The
food delivery service named ‘‘Mom's
Night Off’’ is just one example of the
normative discourse around domestic
food work.39 More information on
household division of labor is required,
in particular with respect to food shop-
ping and preparation.
The low number of respondents us-
ing CFGHE as a resource for choosing
foods brings into question the Food
Guide's value as an educational
resource. Respondents were more in-
clined to consult the nutrition label
of food products rather than use the
food guide; however, men were much
less likely than women to refer to
either the Food Guide or nutrition la-
bels. This could be due to women
consistently reporting higher engage-
ment in health-promoting behaviors
than men and having greater under-
standing of the relationship between
diet and health,40-42 whereas men
view eating as ‘‘fuel’’ and part of a
routine.43
The high rates of proficiency at can-
ning and freezing vegetables are sur-
prising, given the previously cited
reports of people's desire for conve-
nience and less time in the kitchen.26,27
However, it is to be noted that even
though the respondents may possess a
skill, it does not mean that they
utilize it. These results clearly warrant
further investigation, although 1
explanation may be a misunderstand-
ing of the question on respondents'
part. Respondents were asked about
their proficiency in ‘‘in freezing veget-
ables or fruit, from raw to bagged in
your home freezer.’’ Freezing fruits or
vegetables in plastic bags may seem
straightforward if one does not know
the requisite steps such as blanching.
The contradictions between some of
these results and other empirical data
can lead to several interpretations,
including: some of the survey ques-
tions were not valid (ie, respondents
misunderstood the meaning of the
questions); respondents did not answer
the questions accurately due to social
desirability (ie, they wanted to portray
themselves as having the ‘‘morally su-
perior’’ behaviors such as cooking
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
Volume 48, Number 7, 2016 Slater and Mudryj 491

from scratch and having ‘‘good’’ dietary

0.59** (0.50–0.70)

0.75* (0.61–0.92)
0.93 (0.76–1.13)
1.09 (0.91–1.31)
habits44,45; respondents believed they

Based on Nutrition Labels?

were engaging in better dietary habits

Ratio (CI)
Do You Select Foods

Odds
and food skill practices; or, finally,

1.00

1.00
that their responses are valid and the
other sources of empirical data are to
be questioned. To gain clarity into
these issues, it is first essential that
better data be generated on what
% Yes (n)
64 (5,665)

58 (2,185)
70 (3,475)

64 (1,165)
67 (2,150)
66 (1,640)
foods Canadians are in fact eating.

59 (710)
The upcoming 2015 Canadian Comm-
unity Health Survey (Nutrition), the
first national dietary survey since
2004, will provide new empirical
data to support or refute the self-
0.50** (0.43–0.59)

0.41** (0.32–0.52)
0.66** (0.53–0.82)
1.02 (0.86–1.23)
Do You Use Recommendations

reported assertion that Canadians'

Ratio (CI)

eating habits are good. Second, the

Odds

1.00

1.00 constructs used to determine people

From CFGHEa?

food habits should be better concep-

tualized and defined. Terms such as
‘‘whole foods,’’ ‘‘convenience,’’ and
‘‘ready-to-eat’’ are ambiguous and
open to much interpretation, as are
‘‘cooking’’ and ‘‘from scratch.’’
% Yes (n)
31 (3,110)

38 (2,150)

38 (1,255)

There are several limitations to this

24 (960)

19 (300)
28 (565)

37 (990)

study. The data were self-reported, and

it is well-accepted that desirable health
behaviors are over-reported and undesir-
able ones are under-reported.33,34 The
0.65** (0.55–0.77)

0.49** (0.39–0.62)
0.68** (0.55–0.85)
0.63** (0.51–0.79)

survey was cross-sectional, and this is

the first time these data have been
Ratio (CI)
Do You Use a Written

collected through any cycle of the

Odds

1.00

1.00

CCHS, so there are no comparative

Grocery List?

data. Finally, no dietary data were

collected from respondents; therefore
their self-reported dietary and meal prep-
aration habits and food skills cannot be
74 (6,725)

70 (2,680)
78 (4,050)

75 (1,380)
73 (2,430)
81 (2,085)

cross-checked with actual foods eaten.

% Yes

68 (835)

Nonetheless, this initial, nationally

(n)

representative survey provides impor-

Table 2. Self-Reported Grocery Planning Skills of Canadians

tant insights into Canadians' self-

perceived dietary habits and food skills.
0.70** (0.61–0.82)

2.86** (2.33–3.51)
1.84** (1.52–2.25)
1.50** (1.26–1.80)
When You Grocery Shop?

Ratio (CI)
Do You Have a Budget

Odds

CONCLUSIONS
1.00

1.00

Note: Using multivariate logistic regression.

Overall, the data in this study suggested

Canada’s Food Guide to Healthy Eating.

that Canadians believe they have good

eating habits and food skills, with
women having somewhat better food
% Yes (n)
48 (3,780)

43 (1,445)
52 (2,335)

45 (1,355)

skills than men. As shown, this is sup-

61 (700)
50 (885)

35 (840)

ported by other self-reported Canadian

survey data yet contradicted by other
empirical data including food disap-
*P < .01, **P < .001.

pearance data, population-based nutri-

tion survey data, and data from the
Characteristics
Demographic

food industry. Nonetheless, this

research suggests that there are still
12–29 y
30–44 y
45–64 y
Female

gender gaps with respect to food skills,

65þ y
Male
Overall

and some younger Canadians appear

Age
Sex

more disadvantaged than their older

a

counterparts with respect to food skills.

492 Slater and Mudryj Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
Volume 48, Number 7, 2016

Although the study was conducted on

Note: Using multivariate logistic regression. Numbers reflect proportions of Canadians who categorize themselves as having ‘‘good or very good’’ habits by food prepa-
Baking Muffins/Cake
Canadian data, it is likely that similar
results could be found in other coun-

From Scratch
Good/Very

66 (7,005)

49 (2,190)
83** (4,590)

65 (1,540)
69 (1,365)
68 (2,305)
61 (1,670)
tries, in particular industrialized coun-

Good (n)
tries that have undergone the nutrition
transition12 and exhibit high consu-
mption rates of ultra-processed foods.11
These findings have implications for
formal and non-formal food skills
training programs in schools and com-
Pre-Packaged Mix

munity settings. Policymakers should

Baking Muffins/
Cake From a

re-think policies leading to the removal

Good/Very

72 (6,965)

58 (2,210)
86** (4,755)

75 (1,575)
75 (1,390)
74 (2,345)
59* (1,655)
Good (n)

of school-based home economics food

and nutrition courses.46,47 Further-
more, all children should have access
to life-skill courses that include budg-
eting, planning, cooking, and shop-
ping. In addition, policies and programs
should be implemented to improve
Cooking a Soup,
Stew, Casserole
From Scratch

the food security status of Aboriginal

Good/Very

75 (7,110)

64 (2,585)
86** (4,530)

57 (1,805)
80* (1,500)
82* (2,315)
82* (1,495)
Good (n)

Canadians.48,49 More research is

needed to ascertain the dietary and
food habits of Canadians and the
drivers of these habits, as well as to
clarify food skill competencies and
associated measurement methods.
Cooking a Piece
of Raw Meat/
Chicken/Fish
Good/Very

88 (9,210)

85 (4,050)
91* (5,155)

75 (1,755)
93* (1,805)
94** (3,210)
89* (2,435)

IMPLICATIONS FOR
Good (n)

RESEARCH AND
PRACTICE
Although results suggested that the
Reference group; EUse with caution (> 16.6% coefficient of variation < 33.3%).

vast majority of Canadians believe

that they have ‘‘good’’ eating habits,
Raw Ingredients
Canning From

this study also found that certain

Good/Very

37 (3,995)

31 (1,410)
42* (2,585)

39* (1,425)
45* (1,205)
Good (n)

groups, such as Aboriginal Canadians,

31 (720)
34 (645)

reported lower rates of ‘‘good’’ eating

habits. Additionally, this study also
observed gender and age gaps when it
came to self-rated food skills, which
suggests that there are several opportu-
Vegetables
Good/Very

68 (7,050)

64 (2,915)
73* (4,135)

59 (1,410)
72* (1,350)
73* (2,410)
70* (1,880)

nities for dietitians and other health

Freezing

Good (n)

professionals to engage with Canadians

Table 3. Self-Rated Mechanical Skills of Canadians

around these issues. The results of this

study contribute to the emerging litera-
ture involving food skills. Findings
from this study have implications for
Good/Very
Peeling or

92 (9,485)

89 (4,225)
94* (5,260)

85 (1,975)
94* (1,800)
95* (3,220)
92* (2,495)
Chopping

Good (n)

education and health promotion pro-

grams focusing on foods skills in Can-
ada as well as encouraging ideas to
create specific programs to appeal to
and reach target groups who may be
Knife Skills

94 (9,730)

94 (4,435)
95 (5,295)

90 (2,090)
95E* (1,830)
96* (3,245)
95* (2,565)
Good/Very
Good (n)

particularly vulnerable.
*P < .05, **P < .01.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ration activity.

Financial support was provided Uni-

Rating (%)

versity of Manitoba/Social Sciences

12–29 ya
30–44 y
45–64 y
Female

and Humanities Research Council.

65þ y
Malea
Overall

The authors would like to extend

Age
Sex

thanks to Dr Ian Clara and Kelly

a

Cranswick at the Manitoba Research

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
Volume 48, Number 7, 2016 Slater and Mudryj 493

Data Centre for their statistical help

Whole Grain Options?

(0.61–0.88)

(0.92–1.47)

(1.02–1.55)

(1.05–1.61)
Ratio (CI)
and support. The authors also thank

0.73**

1.16

1.35

1.16
Odds
Did You Choose
the staff from the Office of Nutrition

1.00

1.00
Policy and Promotion at Health Can-
ada for their assistance.

33 (1920)

36 (1375)
% Yes

29 (545)

32 (335)

34 (445)

35 (720)

29 (415)
(n)
REFERENCES
1. World Health Organization. Obesity
and overweight. http://www.who.int/

(0.90–1.26)

(1.16–1.79)

(1.05–1.54)

(0.89–1.30)
Ratio (CI)
Vegetables or Fruit?
Did You Add More

1.07

1.44**

1.27

1.07
mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/. Up-
Odds

1.00

1.00
dated 2015. Accessed March 3, 2016.
2. Twells LK, Gregory DM, Reddigan J,
Midodzi WK. Current and predicted
% Yes (n)
47 (2,825)

47 (1,850)

45 (1,010)
prevalence of obesity in Canada: a trend
48 (975)

52 (580)

49 (650)

43 (585)
analysis. Can Med Assoc Open Access J.
2014;2:E18-E26.
3. Swinburn BA, Sacks G, Hall KD, et al.
The global obesity pandemic: shaped
(0.52–0.71)

(0.56–0.88)

(0.77–1.20)

(0.91–1.35)
Ratio (CI)
Did You Reduce Its

0.61**

0.70*

0.96

1.10
Odds

by global drivers and local environ-

Sugar Content?

1.00

1.00
ments. Lancet. 2011;378:804-814.
4. Monteiro CA, Moubarac JC,
Cannon G, Ng SW, Popkin B. Ultra-
% Yes (n)
46 (2,685)

51 (1,935)

50 (1,075)

processed products are becoming domi-

38 (750)

39 (425)

46 (560)

47 (630)

nant in the global food system. Obes

Rev. 2013;14(Suppl 2):21-28.
5. Smith LP, Ng SW, Popkin BM.
(1.11–15.6)

(0.55–0.92)

(0.63–1.02)

(0.88–1.33)

Trends in US home food preparation

Ratio (CI)
Did You Reduce Its

1.32**

0.71*

0.80***

1.08
Odds

and consumption: analysis of national

1.00

1.00
Salt Content?

nutrition surveys and time use studies

from 1965-1966 to 2007-2008. Nutr J.
2013;12.
% Yes (n)
41 (2,200)

38 (1,330)

6. Chu YL, Storey KE, Veugelers PJ.

45 (870)

35 (335)

38 (450)

45 (870)

43 (545)

Involvement in meal preparation at

home is associated with better diet qual-
ity among Canadian children. J Nutr
(0.69–0.96)

(0.74–1.15)

(1.07–1.64)

(1.10–1.65)

Educ Behav. 2014;46:304-308.

Ratio (CI)
Did You Reduce Its

Odds

0.73

0.92

1.32*

1.35*

7. Chenhall C. Improving cooking and food

1.00

1.00
Fat Content?

preparation skills: a synthesis of the evi-

dence to inform program and policy develop-
Table 4. Self-Reported Recipe Adjustments by Canadians

ment. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Public

% Yes (n)
50 (2,900)

52 (2,005)

53 (1,140)

Health Agency of Canada; 2010.

47 (895)

43 (460)

53 (685)

45 (615)

8. Hartmann C, Dohle S, Siegrist M.

Importance of cooking skills for
balanced food choices. Appetite. 2013;
Note: Using multivariate logistic regression.
(0.30–0.39)

(0.85–1.17)

(1.68–2.30)

65C:125-131.
to Make It Healthier?

Ratio (CI)
Adjusted a Recipe

0.34**

2.48**

1.99**
Odds

9. Laska MN, Larson NI, Neumark-

1.00

0.99

1.00
Have You Ever

*P < .01, **P < .001, ***.1 < P < .05.

Sztainer D, Story M. Does involvement

in food preparation track from adoles-
cence to young adulthood and is it asso-
Characteristics % Yes (n)
62 (6,285)

50 (2,185)

74 (4,100)

52 (1,180)

73 (1,370)

68 (2,310)

52 (1,425)

ciated with better dietary quality?

Findings from a 10-year longitudinal
study. Public Health Nutr. 2011;15:1-9.
10. Moubarac JC, Batal M, Martins AP,
et al. Processed and ultra-processed
Demographic

food products: consumption trends in

Canada from 1938 to 2011. Can J Diet
12–29 y

30–44 y

45–64 y
Female

Pract Res. 2014;75:15-21.

65þ y
Male
Overall

11. Luiten CM, Steenhuis IH, Eyles H,

Age
Sex

Mhurchu CN, Waterlander WE. Ul-

tra-processed foods have the worst
494 Slater and Mudryj
nutrient profile, yet they are the most
available packaged products in a sample
of New Zealand supermarkets. Public
Health Nutr. 2015;19:1-9.
12. Popkin BM, Adair LS, Ng SW. Global
nutrition transition and the pandemic of
obesity in developing countries. Nutr
Rev. 2012;70:3-21.
13. Pan American Health Organization.
Ultra-processed foods are driving the
obesity epidemic in Latin America, says
new PAHO/WHO Report. http://
www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option¼
com_content&view¼article&id¼11180
%3Aultra-processed-foods&Itemid¼1926
&lang¼en. Accessed January 5, 2016.
14. Jaffe J, Gertler M. Victual vicissitudes,
consumer deskilling and the transfor-
mation of food systems. Agric Hum
Values. 2006;23:143-162.
15. Caraher M, Lang T. Can’t cook, won’t
cook: a review of cooking skills and
their relevance to health promotion.
Int J Health Promot Educ. 1999;37:
89-100.
16. Laska MN, Larson NI, Neumark-
Sztainer D, Story M. Does involvement
in food preparation track from adoles-
cence to young adulthood and is it asso-
ciated with better dietary quality?
Findings from a 10-year longitudinal
study. Public Health Nutr. 2012;15:
1150-1158.
17. Archuleta M, VanLeeuwen D,
Halderson K, et al. Cooking schools
improve nutrient intake patterns of
people with type 2 diabetes. J Nutr
Educ Behav. 2012;44:319-325.
18. Engler-Stringer R, Stringer B,
Haines T. Complexity of food prepara-
tion and food security status in low-
income young women. Can J Diet Pract
Res. 2011;72:133-136.
19. Vidgen HA, Gallegos D. Defining food
literacy and its components. Appetite.
2014;76:50-59.
20. Moubarac J, Martins APB, Claro RM,
Levy RB, Cannon G, Monteiro CA.
Consumption of ultra-processed foods
and likely impact on human health: ev-
idence from Canada. Public Health Nutr.
2013;16:2240-2248.
21. Statistics Canada. Canadian Community
Health Survey - Nutrition (CCHS):
detailed information for cycle 2.2(2004).
http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV
.pl?Function¼getSurvey&Id¼7498. Up-
dated 2007. Accessed January 11, 2016.
22. Statistics Canada. Canadian Community
Health Survey (CCHS) Food Skills -
Mechanical skills and food conceptualiza-
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
Volume 48, Number 7, 2016
tion. http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/
pIX.pl?Function¼showStaticArchive
HTML&a¼1&fl¼http://www23.statcan.
gc.ca/imdb-bmdi/document/3226_D78_
T9_V1-eng.htm&Item_Id¼144173. Up-
dated 2013. Accessed January 10,
2016.
23. Canadian Foundation for Dietetic
Research. Tracking nutrition trends
2013. https://www.cfdr.ca/Downloads/
CCFN-docs/TNT-2013-Summary-Re
port.aspx. Updated 2013. Accessed
February 1, 2016.
24. Garriguet D. Canadians’ eating habits.
Health Rep. 2007;18:17.
25. Heart and Stroke Foundation. 2013
Report on the health of Canadians.
http://www.heartandstroke.com/atf/cf/
%7B99452D8B-E7F1-4BD6-A57D-B
136CE6C95BF%7D/Report-on-Cnd-
Health–D17.pdf. Updated 2013. Ac-
cessed January 4, 2016.
26. Government of Alberta. Consumer
corner: Snacking in Canada. 2012. http://
www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/dept
docs.nsf/all/sis13895. Accessed January
10, 2016.
27. Serecon Management Consulting. Cana-
dian food trends to 2020: a long range
consumer outlook. 2005. http://stayactive
eathealthy.ca/sites/default/files/resources/
Canadian_Food_Trends_2020.pdf. Ac-
cessed February 4, 2016.
28. Health Canada. Household food insecu-
rity in Canada in 2007–2008: Key statistics
and graphics. 2012. http://www.hc-sc.gc.
ca/fn-an/surveill/nutrition/commun/inse
curit/key-stats-cles-2007-2008-eng.php.
Accessed February 1, 2016.
29. Kirkpatrick SI, Tarasuk V. Food
insecurity is associated with nutrient
inadequacies among Canadian adults
and adolescents. J Nutr. 2008;138:
604-612.
30. McLaughlin C, Tarasuk V, Kreiger N.
An examination of at-home food prep-
aration activity among low-income,
food-insecure women. J Am Diet Assoc.
2003;103:1506-1512.
31. Statistics Canada. Average household
food expenditure, by province. http://
www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-
som/l01/cst01/famil132a-eng.htm. Ac-
cessed February 3, 2016.
32. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Market analysis report: consumer trend
report: convenience. https://www.gov.
mb.ca/agriculture/market-prices-and-
statistics/trade-statistics/pubs/canada_
convenience_trend_report_en.pdf. Ac-
cessed February 3, 2016.
33. Elgar FJ, Stewart JM. Validity of self-
report screening for overweight and
obesity: evidence from the Canadian
Community Health Survey. Can J Pub-
lic Health. 2008;99:423-427.
34. Elgar FJ, Roberts C, Tudor-Smith C,
Moore L. Validity of self-reported
height and weight and predictors of
bias in adolescents. J Adoles Health.
2005;37:371-375.
35. Family dinner is on the decline: M&M
meat shops encourages Canadians to
bring back the lost art of dinner. 2014.
http://www1.mmmeatshops.com/en/
aboutmm/mediaroom/pdf/NFDN_2014
.pdf. Accessed February 1, 2016.
36. Slater J. Is cooking dead? The state
of home economics food and nutri-
tion education in a Canadian prov-
ince. Int J Consum Studies. 2013;37:
617-624.
37. Lang T, Caraher M. Is there a culinary
skills transition? Data and debate from
the UK about changes in cooking cul-
ture. J Home Econ Inst Aust. 2001;8:2-14.
38. Statistics Canada. General Social Survey:
2010: overview of the time use of Cana-
dians; 2011. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/
pub/89-647-x/89-647-x2011001-eng.htm.
Accessed January 11, 2016.
39. Metro News. Ottawa women deliver so
mom doesn’t have to. Metro News.
2013. http://www.metronews.ca/news/
ottawa/2013/12/09/ottawa-women-deliver
-so-mom-doesnt-have-to.html. Accessed
January 11, 2016.
40. Lake AA, Hyland RM, Mathers JC,
Rugg AJ, Wood CE, Adamson AJ.
Food shopping and preparation among
the 30-somethings: whose job is it? (the
ASH30 study). Br Food J. 2006;108:
475-486.
41. Gough B. ‘Real men don’t diet’: an
analysis of contemporary newspaper
representations of men, food and
health. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:326-337.
42. Hess R, Visschers VHM, Siegrist M.
The role of health-related, motivational
and sociodemographic aspects in pre-
dicting food label use: a comprehensive
study. Public Health Nutr. 2012;15:
407-414.
43. Arganini C, Turrini A, Saba A,
Virgili F, Comitato R. Gender differ-
ences in food choice and dietary intake
in modern western societies. INTECH
Open Access Publisher; 2012.
44. Coveney J, Begley A, Gallegos D. ‘Sa-
voir fare’: are cooking skills a new mo-
rality? Aust J Adult Learn. 2012;52:
617-642.
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
Volume 48, Number 7, 2016 Slater and Mudryj 495

45. Bowen S, Elliott S, Brenton J. The joy
of cooking? Contexts. 2014;13:20-25.
46. Lichtenstein AH, Ludwig DS. Bring
back home economics education. J Am
Med Assoc. 2010;303:1857-1858.
47. Murphy G. The fall and rise of home eco-
nomics education: newly available home
economics archives at the women’s library.
Int J Consum Studies. 2011;35:595-600.
48. Power EM. Conceptualizing food secu-
rity for aboriginal people in Canada.
Can J Public Health. 2008;99:95-97.
49. Council of Canadian Academies.
Aboriginal food security in northern
Canada: an assessment of the state of
knowledge. 2014. http://www.sciencea
dvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and
%20publications%20and%20news%20
releases/food%20security/foodsecurity_
fullreporten.pdf. Accessed January
11, 2016.
495.e1 Slater and Mudryj Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
Volume 48, Number 7, 2016

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have not stated any con-
flicts of interest.