summary of the functional foods and nutraceuticals survey · summary of the functional foods and...
TRANSCRIPT
Summary of the Functional Foodsand Nutraceuticals Survey
2
Summary of the Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals Survey
May 2006
Strategic ResearchPolicy and Planning TeamAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Prepared by Eileen Krakar and Shuhua Gao of the Agri-Food Chain Analysis and Integrated Risk Management Section.
Any policy views, whether explicitly stated, inferred or interpreted from the contents of this publication, should not be represented as reflecting the views of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
AAFC does not control the availability of Internet web sites featured in this report. Therefore, it does not take responsibility for severed hyperlinks or discontinued web pages mentioned herein. Links to these web sites are provided solely for the convenience of users. AAFC does not endorse these sites, nor is it responsible for the accuracy, the currency or the reliability of the content. Users should be aware that information offered by sites other than those of the Government of Canada are not subject to the Official Languages Act.
This publication reflects the latest data available as of May 2004.
Electronic versions of Research and Analysis publications are available on the Internet at http://www.agr.gc.ca/pol/index_e.php
Publication No. 10080BISBN No. 0-662-42169-8Catalogue #A38-4/5-2005E-PDFProject 05-019-r
Aussi disponible en français sous le titre de :Enquête sur les aliments fonctionnels et les nutraceutiques – Résumé
3
This report provides an overview of the Functional Food and Nutraceuticals (FFN) survey. The FFN survey was conducted by Statistics Canada on behalf of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The objective of the survey was to produce new statistical information on the functional food and nutraceutical sector and a profile of firms engaged in functional and/or nutraceutical-related activities in Canada. The information obtained will be useful to government departments and agencies to assist policy development and to the academic community for research purposes. The information may also be used by businesses and trade associations for economic, market or industry performance analyses.
This report is meant to describe the FNN industry and to establish baseline indicators and measurements.
It begins with a look at the structure of the Canadian FFN industry, then reviews the labour and capital inputs, the business relationships and intellectual property rights and ends with the impact of regulations in the Canadian FNN industry. Charts, figures and tables with brief accompanying texts are used to summarize the information and to provide baseline structure/performance indicators.
The report reveals that firms in the Canadian FNN industry are mostly made up of small Canadian controlled firms, with more firms engaged in nutraceutical activities than functional foods. Almost 90 percent of responding firms were engaged in partnerships or seeking partnerships. Trade secrets seem to be the most commonly used method to protect intellectual property. In general, most firms in the industry felt that the ability to use health claims on their FFN products would have a positive impact on both domestic and export sales.
Foreword
4
5
• Survey purpose:
To produce first-ever information on companies in the Canadian functional food and nutraceutical (FFN) industry.
• Respondents:
Senior managers of the companies involved in FFN activities.
• Sample size:
Approximately 600 companies across Canada.
• Number of total respondents:
276 respondents, which is a 48% overall response rate.
• Number of respondents qualifying as FFN industry participants:
147 respondents, which is 53% of the total number of respondents.
• Collection period:
Spring 2003.
Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals Survey Description
6
Functional foods: are similar in appearance to, or are conventional foods demonstrated to have physiological benefits and/or reduce the risk of chronic disease beyond basic nutritional functions.
Functional foods may be developed by adding active ingredients to basic food products (e.g., muffins with beta-glucan, foods with added soluble fibre, etc.) or by using special production techniques such as plant breeding, genetic modification and specialized feeding regimes (e.g., tomatoes with enhanced lycopene levels, omega-3 eggs, etc.)
Nutraceuticals: are products purified from foods that are generally sold in medicinal forms, such as powders, tablets or capsules, demonstrated to have physiological benefits or to provide protection against chronic disease.
Nutraceuticals can be derived from plants (e.g., antioxidants, echinacea, fenugreek, etc.), from animals and microorganisms (e.g. elk velvet, essential fatty acids, enzymes, etc.) and from marine sources (e.g., glucosamine, chitosan, fish oils, etc.).
What are functional foods and nutraceuticals?
7
Firms involved in: Scientific Research and Development (R&D)
Product Development / Scale Up
Ingredient Manufacturing
Consumer Product Manufacturing
Wholesaling
Technology Provision
Who makes-up the Canadian FFN Industry?
8
Structure of the Canadian FFN Industry
10
The majority of firms are small, but there are some large players in terms of both revenue and workforce size
• Two-thirds of the firms have only a small total workforce of less than 50 employees.
There are, however, a few large players with 4 firms (3%) reporting a total workforce of more than 1000 employees.
• Firms in the Canadian FFN industry vary widely in terms of total revenue.
Thirty percent of the firms reported total earnings from all sources exceeding $10 million in 2002, another 40% reported earnings between $1 to$10 million and the remaining 30% reported earnings of less than $1 million.
Chart 1Distribution of FFN Firms by Total Revenue
from All Sources, 2002
$1,000,000 to
$9,999,99938%
$10,000,000 to
$19,999,9998%
$100,000 to $999,999
23%
Less Than $100,000
8%
$20,000,000 or More
23%
Chart 2Distribution of FFN Firms by Total
Number of Employees, 20021
less than 10
Employees37%
1,000 or More
employees3%
300 to 999 Employees
9%
50 to 299 Employees
21%
10 to 49 Employees
31%
Note: 1) Includes permanent, seasonal, casual and contract employees.
11
FFN-related activities account for a large portion of total revenue and employment in some firms
• While there are a few firms (5%) that have more than 300 employees working directly with functional foods and nutraceuticals, most firms (55%) have less than 10 employees who spend time working in these areas.
• Twenty-six firms (17%) reported FFN-related revenues exceeding $10 million in 2002.
This implies that over one-half of the firms whose total revenue exceeds $10 million earn a substantial proportion of this revenue from functional foods and nutraceuticals.
There are, however, a significant number of firms (24%) that earn less than $100,000 from FFN-related activities.
Chart 3Distribution of FFN Firms by Revenue from
FFN Sales, 2002
$1,000,000 to
$9,999,99931%
$100,000 to $999,999
28%
$10,000,000 to
$19,999,9995%
$20,000,000 or More
12% Less Than $100,000
24%
Chart 4Distribution of FFN Firms by Number of
Employees with FFN-related Duties, 20021
300 to 999 Employees
4%
1,000 or More
Employees1%
50 to 299 Employees
8%
10 to 49 Employees
32%
less than 10
Employees55%
Note: 1) Includes permanent, seasonal, casual and contract employees.
12
The majority of firms are Canadian controlled private corporations that do not conduct R&D
• Individual firms engage in multiple activities throughout the value chain including scientific R&D, product development, ingredient manufacturing, product manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing and service provision.
Thirty-six percent of firms conduct R&D with respect to nutraceuticals and 34% conduct R&D with respect to functional foods.
Chart 5Distribution of FFN Firms by Ownership
Structure, 2002
Other3%
Unincorporated Partnership
1%
Sole Proprietorship
9%
Public Corporation
10%
Private Corporation
77%
• Eighty-five percent of the firms operating in the Canadian FFN industry are Canadian controlled and the remaining 15% foreign controlled.
Roughly three-quarters of the firms are private corporations and another 10% are publicallytraded corporations.
Eleven percent of the firms are part of multinationals.
Chart 6Percentage of FFN Firms by Value Chain
Activity, 2002
0 % 10 % 2 0 % 3 0 % 4 0 % 50 %
Ot her
Service Provision
R et ai l ing
W ho lesaling
F inal Product M anuf act ur ing
Ingred ient M anuf act ur ing
Product D evelopment and Scale- up
Scient if ic R &D
Percent ag e o f FFN F irms
N ut raceut icals
Funct ional Foods
1
Note: 1) Service provision includes the provision of equipment, software and clinical testing.
• In 2002 only 5 firms (3%) allocated more than $1 million of their R&D budget to FFN-related areas.
The relatively large percentage of firms that do not conduct FFN-related R&D explains in part the response that 64% of firms allocated less than $100,000 to FFN-related R&D.
Further analysis is needed to determine if the firms that do not conduct R&D are mostly wholesalers.
Chart 7Distribution of FFN Firms by FFN-Related
Scientific R&D Expenditures, 2002
$1,000,000 or Greater
3%
$500,000 to
$999,9997%
$100,000 to
$499,99925%
$50,000 to $99,999
10%
$10,000 to $49,999
43%
Less than $10,000
12%
13
• Plant-based nutraceuticals are the most common types of nutraceuticals with which firms deal.
Plant-based nutraceuticals include those that are purified from plants, such as beta-glucan from oats and antioxidants from blueberries, and those that are ground from dried plant materials, such as echinacea and ginseng.
• The most common type of functional foods that firms deal with are those produced by adding active ingredients, such as soluble fibres and beta-glucan, to basic food products.A smaller number of firms (21 firms) deal with functional foods developed via special production techniques.
Plant-based nutraceuticals are the most common product types
• More firms work with nutraceuticalsthan with functional foods.
Chart 8Distribution of FFN Firms by Type, 2002
Engaged in only
Functional Food-Related
Activities
Engaged in both
Functional Food and
Nutraceutical-Related
Activities
Engaged in only
Nutraceutical- Related
Activities
26%
28%
46%
Chart 9Distribution of FFN Firms by Nutraceutical Type, 2002
48%
28%
37%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Plant-basedNutraceuticals
Animal-basedNutraceuticals
Marine-basedNutraceuticals
Percentae of Firms
Chart 10Distribution of FFN Firms by Functional
Food Type, 2002
44%
14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Produced by Adding ActiveIngredients
Produced by SpecialProduction Techniques
Percentage of Firms
14
Most firms have only a limited number of product lines
• Most of the product lines that firms offer on the market have ‘general well-being’ as one of their focuses.
The immune system is the next most popular health aspect addressed by functional foods and nutraceuticals followed by heart disease and energy.
Product lines in development show a similar distribution with respect to health aspects targeted as those currently offered on the market.
• While there are some firms that offer more than 50 lines of FFN products, two-thirds of the firms offer less than 10 product lines.
Further research is needed to determine whether wholesalers make-up a large proportion of the number of firms offering more than 50 product lines.
Chart 11Distribution of FFN Firms by Number of
Product Lines Offered, 2002
50 or More Lines15%
10 to 49 Lines19%
6 to 9 Lines11%
2 to 5 Lines35%
1 Line21%
Chart 12Number of Product Lines by Disease State
or Health Aspect Targeted, 2002
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Sexual Performance
Eye Health
Diabetes
Cancer
Mental Ability
Weight Control
Gut Health
Bone Health
Energy
Vascular / Heart Health
Immune System
General Well Being
Number of Product Lines
On the MarketIn Development
Note: Firms were allowed to attribute individual product lines as targeting multiple disease states and health aspects. In addition, many of the same product lines may have been double counted by both manufacturers and wholesalers.
15
‘General well being’ products are the largest revenue generators for most firms
• Products that focus on general well being, followed by those addressing heart health and the immune system tend to generate the most revenue for firms.
• Wholesaling is the distribution channel that is most widely used by firms, followed by third party distributors, such as brokers.
Around one-quarter of firms are selling through the Internet, and one-fifth through mail order.
Chart 13Distribution of FFN Firms by the Product Area that Generates the Most Revenue,
2002
Gut Health 5%
Diabetes5%
Vascular and Heart
Health17%
Immune System
11%
Bone Health
4%
Other30%
General Well Being
27%
Chart 14Distribution of FFN Firms by Sales
Distribution Channels, 2002
7%
11%
19%
27%
39%
40%
45%
61%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Multi-level and Networkmarketing
Other
Mail Order
Internet Sales
Direct Selling to FinalConsumer
Retailer
Broker/Third PartyDistributor
Wholesaler
Percentage of Firms
16
Chart 15Percentage of FFN Firms by Source
Ingredients of Canadian Origin, 2002
3%
4%
8%
9%
11%
12%
29%
33%
37%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Other
M eat / A nimal P ro ducts
Vegetables
F ruits
D airy P ro ducts
P ulses / Legumes
Seafo o d/ M arine Species
Grains/ C ereals
Oilseeds
H erbs/ Spices
P ercentage o f F irms
The most common FFN source ingredients are herbs and spices
• Around one-third of firms that use source ingredients base some of their FFN products on Canadian-grown herbs, oilseeds, and grains.
• Many firms import some of their source ingredients for FFN manufacturing.
Chart 16Percentage of FFN Firms by Source
Ingredients of Foreign Origin, 2002
7%
8%
8%
12%
13%
14%
15%
19%
20%
37%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Other
Pulses / Legumes
Meat / Animal Products
Vegetables
Fruits
Dairy Products
Oilseeds
Grains / Cereals
Seafood / Marine Species
Herbs / Spices
Percentage of Firms
Note: These percentages apply only to the total number of firms that use FFN source ingredients. Data was not given on how many firms use FFN source ingredients.
Note: These percentages apply only to the total number of firms that use FFN source ingredients. Data was not given on how many firms use FFN source ingredients.
17
Firms are only beginning to tap export markets
• Although nearly 60% of firms export some FFN products, most firms are primarily focused on the domestic market.
Some firms have more than 30 product lines that are only available domestically. Wholesalers may make-up the majority of these firms, but this needs to be determined with further research.
Firms tend to have only a few product lines dedicated just to export sales.
• Most exporters (59 firms or 70%) earned less than $1 million from FFN export sales in 2002.
Another 15 firms (18%) earned between $1-$5 million. Only 9 firms (11%) earned more than $5 million in FFN export sales.
Chart 17Percentage of FFN Firms by Number of
FFN Product Lines Offered Only for Export or Domestic Sale, 2002
9% 11%
11%21%6%
12%
14%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Offered Only For ExportSale
Sold only in Canada
30 or more Lines6 to 29 Lines2 to 5 Lines1 Line
Total 27%
Total 57%
Percentage of Firms
Chart 18Percentge of Exporters by FFN Export
Sales, 2002
$100,000 to
$999,00043%
$1,000,000 to
$4,999,99918%
$5,000,000 and
Greater11%
Less Than $10,000
8%
$10,000 to $99,000
19%
Note: These percentages apply only to the total number of firms that export FFN products.
18
Most exports are focused on the US market
• Over three-quarters of exporters sell to the US and one-quarter to Japan. The top European destinations are the UK, Germany and Italy.
Around 20% of the exporters are actively investigating expanding into the China market within the next 2 years. Other areas being looked into include Oceania and other Asian and European countries.
• Products are exported at each stage in the FFN production chain, from raw materials to finished products, even technology.
Chart 20Percentage of Exporters by Product
Exported, 2002
2%
8%
77%
33%
44%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Other
Technology
Finished Products
Semi-Finished Products
Raw Materials
Percentage of Firms
Chart 19Percentage of Exporters by Export
Destination, 2002
7%
9%
11%
11%
15%
16%
17%
23%
77%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Italy
Germany
UK
China
Australia and New Zealand
Taiwan
Korea
Japan
US
Percentage of Firms
Note: These percentages apply only to the total number of firms that export FFN products.
Note: These percentages apply only to the total number of firms that export FFN products.
Labour and Capital Inputsin the Canadian FFN Industry
20
More marketing, research and production staff are needed
• The most common obstacle firms face in filling their FFN positions is lack of resources to attract qualified candidates.
One-third of the firms looking to hire FFN staff (12 firms) found that the job candidates that were available for work had insufficient expertise for their firm’s needs.
• Approximately one-quarter of firms have unfilled FFN-related positions. The majority of these firms are looking to fill marketing positions (23 firms), followed by scientific research positions (15 firms) and production positions (15 firms).
Only 4% of firms hired any FFN-related staff from outside Canada in 2002.
Chart 21Percentage of FFN Firms with Unfilled
FFN Positions by Competencies Needed, 2002
4%
10%
20%
23%
26%
35%
38%
45%
46%
70%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Other
Clinical Affairs
Management / Finance
Business Development
Technical / Engineering
Regulatory / IntellectualProperty
Quality Control
Production
Scientific R&D
Sales / Advertising
Percentage of Firms
Chart 22Percentage of FFN Firms with Unfilled FFN Positions by Obstacles Faced in Filling the
Positions, 2002
4%
20%
23%
23%
35%
51%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Other
Intense Competition forQualified Candidates
Compensation Requirementsby Candidates too High
Candidates Unwilling toRelocate
Candidates lack of Expertise
Capital / ResourcesInsufficient to Attract
Percentage of Firms
Note: These percentages apply only to the total number of firms with unfilled FFN positions.
Note: These percentages apply only to the total number of firms with unfilled FFN positions.
21
Firms are seeking funding to expand all facets of their FFN operations
• Forty-six firms (32%) attempted to raise capital specifically for FFN-related purposes in 2002.
These firms were seeking funding to expand all facets of their operations from the R&D lab, to production capacity, and sales.
Only two-thirds of the firms that attempted to raise capital were successful and less than half reached their targeted funding level.
Chart 23Distribution of Firms Attempting to Raise FFN-Related Capital by their
Success, 2002
10%
11%
11%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Received noFunding
Raised CapitalBut Didn’tReach Target
ReachedCapital Target
Total 32%
Percentage of Firms
• Of these, about one-half attempted to raise their FFN-related funding from conventional sources such as banks and IPO stock issues.
Other main sources for funding were Canadian-based venture capital firms, government and angel investors including family and friends. Very few firms (3 firms) used American and other foreign venture capital.
The amount of FFN-related capital raised by individual firms varied. Seven firms were able to obtain over $1 million. Another 13 firms were able to obtain between $100,000 and $1 million, and the remaining 10 firms less than $100,000.
Chart 24Percentage of Firms that Raised
FFN-Related Capital by Source, 2002
4%
5%
6%
18%
31%
33%
34%
50%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Other Foreign VentureCapital
American Venture Capital
Other
Strategic Alliance Partners
Angel Investors / Family
Government Sources
Canadian Venture Capital
Conventional
Percentage of Firms
Note: These percentages apply only to the total number of firms that raised some capital.
22
Funding is more difficult to obtain in the early stages of product development
• Twenty-seven firms (59%) that attempted to raise FFN-related capital had some of their requests in 2002 denied.
Reasons for these denials varied widely - the most common being capital unavailable due to market conditions and failure to meet lending criteria.
A significant number of firms (14 firms), however, were turned down because of insufficient proof of concept and product development. This may imply that funding may be more difficult to obtain in the early stages of FFN product development.
Chart 25Percentage of Firms Denied Capital by
Reasons, 2002
4 %
1 1 %
2 0 %
2 1 %
2 1 %
2 4 %
2 5 %
2 6 %
3 1 %
3 7 %
4 0 %
0 % 1 0 % 2 0 % 3 0 % 4 0 % 5 0 %
La c k of Long Te rm Stra te gicP la nning
La c k of Ma rke ting Ana lysis
Othe r
FFN Produc t Line or PortfolioLimite d in Sc ope
La c k of Evide nc e to SupportProje c tions
FFN Produc ts / P roc e sse s notSuffic ie ntly De ve lope d
La c k of Inte lle c tua l P rope rty
Furthe r Produc t De ve lopme nt orProof of Conc e pt re quire d
Le nde r Doe s not FundDe ve lopme nt Proje c ts
Fa ile d to Me e t Le nding Crite ria
Ca pita l not Ava ila ble due toMa rke t Conditions
Pe rc e nta ge of Firms
Note: These percentages apply only to the total number of firms that were denied a request for capital.
Business Relationships and Intellectual Property Rights
in the Canadian FFN Industry
24
Many partnerships are conducting R&D
• Most partnership arrangements (69%) are made with other Canadian-based companies and organizations.
• Seventy-three percent of the firms that are in partnership arrangements conduct some of their scientific R&D through these arrangements.
Firms also use their partnerships to arrange for the manufacture of FFN products (32 firms) and to gain access to distribution channels (32 firms).
• Over one-third of firms are involved in partnership arrangements with other companies and organizations and one -half are seeking to form new partnership arrangements.
Chart 26Percentage of FFN Firms by their
Involvement in Partnership Arrangements, 2002
38%
50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
In PartnershipArrangements
Seeking NewPartnerships
Percentage of Firms
Chart 27Percentage of Firms in Partnership
Arrangements by Type of Partner, 2002
30%
48%
69%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Other Foreign
American
Canadian
Percentage of Firms
Chart 28Percentage of Firms in Partnership
Arrangements by Purpose, 2002
2 %
6 %
1 4 %
1 9 %
3 2 %
5 7 %
5 8 %
7 3 %
0 % 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 %
Othe r
Ac c e ss Pa rtne rs' Pa te nts
Ac c e ss Ca pita l
Re gula tory Affa irs
Ac c e ss Pa rtne r's Inte lle c tua lPrope rty
Ac c e ss Distribution Cha nne ls
Ma nufa c turing
Conduc t Sc ie ntific R&D
Pe rc e nta ge of Firms
Note: These percentages apply only to the total number of firms in partnership arrangements.
Note: These percentages apply only to the total number of firms in partnership arrangements.
25
Contracts are used predominantly to fill production requirements
• Firms tend to retain exclusive control over their FFN-related intellectual property rights.
In 2002 only 10 firms (7%) granted licensing agreements to other firms and only 25 firms (17%) obtained intellectual property rights from other firms.
• Fifty-seven firms (39%) contracted out FFN-related activities in 2002.
Most of the contracts were related to the manufacture of products (40 firms) and the conducting of scientific R&D (29 firms).
Chart 29Percentage of Firms that Contracted Out
FFN-Related Activities by Contract Purpose, 2002
2%
16%
19%
19%
24%
30%
51%
70%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Other
Technical / Engineering
Market research
Regulatory / IntellectualProperty
Clinical
Marketing
Scientific R&D
Manufacturing
Percentage of Firms
Chart 30Percentage of FFN Firms by Intellectual
Property Right Trading, 2002
17%
7%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Obtained IntellectualProperty Rights from Other
Firms
Granted LicensingAgreements to Other Firms
Percentage of Firms
Note: These percentages apply only to the total number of firms that contracted out FFN-related activities.
26
Firms tend to use less formal means of intellectual property right protection such as trade secrets
• Trade secrets followed by registered trademarks are the most commonly used methods for protecting intellectual property rights.
Only 24 firms (17%) use patents.
• Over one-half of the patents that firms now have are registered with the European Patent Office.
Pending patents on the other hand, are more or less equally distributed across patent offices around the world.
Chart 31Percentage of FFN Firms by Method of
Intellectual Property Right Protection, 2002
17%
30%
38%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Patents or PendingPatents
Trademarks
Trade Secrets
Percentage of Firms
Chart 32Percentage of FFN Patents by Patent
Office, 2002
0% 20% 40% 60%
Other
Canadian IntellectualProperty Office (CIPO)
US Patent & TrademarkOffice (USPTO)
European Patent Office
Percentage of Patents
Pending Patents Existing Patents
Impact of Regulationsin the Canadian FFN Industry
28
Firms feel health claims could increase their sales
• In general, most firms feel that the ability to use health claims on their FFN products would have a positive impact on both their domestic and export sales.
Although there was no significant difference in the total positive response between the ability to use generic health claims versus specific disease risk reduction claims and structure and function specific health claims, firms were the most strongly positive about disease risk reduction claims.
• Over 60% of the firms feel that the ability to use any type of health claims would increase their willingness to conduct research to support these claims.
But firms think that the ability to use disease risk reduction claims would provide them with the greatest overall incentive.
Chart 33Percentage of FFN Firms That Felt that the Ability to Use Health Claims would have a Positive Impact on Sales, 2002
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Some wha t Positive Ve ry PositiveSome wha t Positive Ve ry Positive
Percentage of Firms
Generic Health Claims
Disease Risk Reduction
Claims
Structure & Function Specific Claims
Dome stic Sa le s:Export Sa le s:
Chart 34 Percentage of FFN Firms That Felt that the Ability to Use Health Claims would
have a Positive Impact on their Willingness to Conduct Research to
Support Health Claims, 2002
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
GenericH ealthC laims
D isease R iskR educt io n
C laims
Structure &F unct io nSpecif icC laims
P ercentage o f F irms
Very P o sit ive
So mewhat P o sit ive
29
Firms are mixed on what would be the impact of matching US standards
• Just over half the firms thought that changing compositional and labeling regulations to match US standards would have a positive impact on their domestic and export sales.
Roughly another 10% of the firms thought it would have a negative impact on domestic sales and 5% thought it would also hurt export sales.
The remaining firms were uncertain of the impact on their domestic sales (21 firms) and export sales (27 firms) or considered it to be null (25 firms).
Chart 35Percentage of FFN Firms According to
their Perception of the Impact of Matching US Standard, 2002
0% 20% 40% 60%
Somewhat Positive Very Positive
Somewhat Negative Very Negative
Percentage of Firms
Positive Impact
Negative Impact
Export Sales
Export Sales
Domestic Sales
Domestic Sales
30