Language selection

Search

Nutrition Surveillance Data Tool from Health Canada

The Nutrition Surveillance Data Tool was developed by the Bureau of Food Surveillance and Science Integration (BFSSI) at Health Canada. This tool presents usual intakes of energy, nutrients and other dietary components using data collected in the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey – Nutrition. It highlights where Canadians’ intakes fall relative to Dietary Reference Intakes established by the Institute of Medicine of The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine.

On this page


The data presented in this tool were collected in the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey – Nutrition (CCHS – Nutrition).

About the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey – Nutrition(CCHS –Nutrition)

The 2015 CCHS-Nutrition is a nationally representative survey of the nutrition of people in Canada. The survey provides detailed information on food consumption using a 24-hour dietary recall for the total sample and a repeat sub-sample, nutrient supplement intake, physical measurements, household food insecurity, and other topics that support the interpretation of the 24-hour recall. The survey excludes those living in the three territories, individuals living on reserves, residents of institutions, full‐time members of the Canadian Armed Forces and residents of certain remote regions.

Information to support the interpretation of the data

We encourage users to read the following Health Canada publications: 

The following notes apply to the graphs and tables presented in this Data Tool.

  1. The data presented in graphs and table exclude pregnant and breastfeeding females, subject to another set of nutritional recommendations. The sample of pregnant and breastfeeding females is not large enough to allow for reliable estimates at the provincial level.
  2. Sample size is based on the first 24‐hour dietary recall (first day of interview) only. 
  3. Intakes are based on food consumption only. Intakes from vitamin and mineral supplements are not included. Inferences about the prevalence of nutrient excess or inadequacy based on intakes from food alone may respectively underestimate or overestimate the prevalence based on total nutrient intakes from both food and supplements.
  4. The intake distribution (percentiles and percentage above or below a cut‐off when applicable) was adjusted using the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Method as described in the Methodology Document.
  5. Bootstrapping techniques were used to produce the coefficient of variation and the standard error (SE).
  6. AMDR is the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range, expressed as a percentage of total energy intake. Intakes inside the range (shown in the AMDR columns) are associated with a reduced risk of chronic disease while providing adequate intakes of essential nutrients. For further information on AMDR in assessing population groups, see the Health Canada publication Reference Guide to Understanding and Using the Data - 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey- Nutrition, Section 2.2.6 page 28.
  7. EAR is the Estimated Average Requirement. In the context of reporting results in a population-based survey such as the 2015 CCHS-Nutrition, the primary use of the EAR is to estimate the prevalence of inadequacy of some nutrients in a group. For further information on EAR and how to interpret the prevalence of inadequacy in a population see the Health Canada publication Reference Guide to Understanding and Using the Data - 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey – Nutrition, Section 2.2.2, page 24.
  8. AI is the Adequate Intake. The level of intake at the AI (shown in the AI columns) is the recommended average daily intake level based on observed or experimentally determined approximations or estimates of nutrient intake by a group or groups of apparently healthy people that are assumed to be adequate. It is developed when an EAR cannot be determined. The percentage of the population having a usual intake above the AI almost certainly meets their needs. The adequacy of intakes below the AI cannot be assessed, and should not be interpreted as being inadequate. For further information on AI and how to interpret the prevalence of inadequacy in a population, see the Health Canada publication  Reference Guide to Understanding and Using the Data - 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey – Nutrition, Section 2.2.4, pages 25-26.
  9. UL is the Tolerable Upper Intake Level. The level of intake at the UL is the highest average daily intake level that is likely to pose no risk of adverse health effects to almost all individuals in the general population. For further information on UL and how to interpret the prevalence of intakes above the UL in a population, see the Health Canada publication Reference Guide to Understanding and Using the Data - 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey – Nutrition, Section 2.2.5, page 28. In 2017, the Guiding Principles for Developing Dietary Reference Intakes Based on Chronic Disease recommended that the UL be retained in the expanded Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) model, but that it should characterize toxicological risk.
  10. The Chronic Disease Risk Reduction Intake (CDRR) is the range of intake for which there is sufficient strength of evidence to characterize a chronic disease risk reduction. For more detailed understanding of the CCDR and its interpretation when assessing intakes of particular nutrients, consult the 2017 National Academies report, Guiding Principles for Developing Dietary Reference Intakes Based on Chronic Disease and the 2019 National Academies report, Dietary Reference Intakes for Sodium and Potassium.
  11. For a more detailed understanding of DRIs and their interpretation when assessing intakes of particular nutrients, consult the summary of the series of publications on DRIs published by the Institute of Medicine: Dietary Reference Intakes: The Essential Guide to Nutrient Requirements, 2006.
  12. For more detailed understanding of DRIs and their interpretation when assessing intakes of sodium and potassium, consult the Dietary Reference Intakes for Sodium and Potassium, 2019. 
  13. Data on trans-fat intake cannot be obtained from the 2015 CCHS-Nutrition dataset and therefore are not reported separately. However, the estimates for percent energy from total fat comprise all fats, including trans-fats. Note that the estimates provided for energy intake from the individual types of fat will not add up to the estimates provided for total fat due to measurement error as well as the lack of data on trans-fat intake.
  14. In terms of precision, the estimate 0.0 with a SE of 0.0 refers to a standard error smaller than 0.1%.
  15. Data with a coefficient of variation from 16.6% to 33.3% are identified as follows: (E) use with caution.
  16. Data with a coefficient of variation greater than 33.3% with a 95% confidence interval entirely between 0 and 3% are identified as follows:  <3 interpret with caution. 
  17. Data with a coefficient of variation greater than 33.3% were suppressed due to extreme sampling variability and are identified as follows: (F) too unreliable to be published.


Notes for Specific Nutrients

• Folacin: There are two chemical forms in foods that contribute to folate bioactivity: naturally occurring folate called “food folate” and the added synthetic form of folate called “folic acid”. The term “folacin” is a measuring unit referring to the simple arithmetic sum of the content of both food folate and folic acid in foods (in micrograms).

• Folate: Folate is a generic term that includes the naturally occurring form found in food and folic acid found in supplements and fortified foods. The requirements for folate are based on the amount of dietary folate equivalents (DFEs) needed to maintain red blood cell folate concentrations. DFEs adjust for differences in absorption between naturally-occurring food folate and synthetic folic acid. While there appears to be a relatively high prevalence of inadequate intakes of folate, red blood cell folate measures, an indicator of folate status, suggest a very low prevalence of folate deficiency in the Canadian population.1,2

Women capable of becoming pregnant require special consideration when it comes to folate intake. To reduce the risk of neural tube defects, women who could become pregnant should take a multivitamin containing 400 µg of folic acid per day in addition to the amount of folate in a healthy diet. Red blood cell folate measures suggest that some Canadian women of childbearing age have levels below that considered optimal for greatest reduction of risk of neural tube defects .1,2

References:

  1. Statistics Canada. Table 13-10-0336-01 Nutritional status of the household population. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/1310033601-eng
  2. Colapinto, Cynthia K., Deborah L. O’Connor and Mark S. Tremblay. 2011. "Folate status of the population in the Canadian Health Measures Survey." Canadian Medical Association Journal. Vol. 183, no. 2. February. pp. E100 to E106. http://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/2/E100.full.pdf+html



• Iron: Iron inadequacy was estimated using the full probability method as described in section 2.3.4 of the Methodology Document.

• Linolenic acid: Linolenic acid is an alternative name for α‐linolenic acid (n‐3).

• Moisture: The term “moisture” includes water from all food and beverage sources.

• Protein: Although DRIs for protein have been established on a “per kg body weight” basis, no DRIs have been established for the absolute amount of protein.

• Sodium: For more information on sodium intakes, please consultHealth Canada's Sodium intake of Canadians in 2017 report.

• Total dietary fibre: Although the Institute of Medicine has established an Adequate Intake (AI) for total dietary fibre, no comparison is presented in the table (IOM, 2005). In addition to the fact that the AI for any nutrient has limited uses in assessing groups (Health Canada, 2017), the AI for dietary fibre was determined in relation to coronary heart disease risk. Health Canada’s definition for dietary fibre recognizes the role that fibre plays in supplying fermentation products to colonocytes and on laxation (Health Canada, 2010). No DRIs have been established for these effects. For more information on the methods used to analyze dietary fibre for this survey, please refer to the Canadian Nutrient File – Users Guide.

References:




• Total energy intake: The interpretation of self-reported energy intake should be done with caution as energy intake tends to be underestimated by survey respondents. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) suggests using indicators of relative body weight, such as the Body Mass Index (BMI), as markers of energy intake adequacy within groups. Statistics Canada has released 2015 CCHS – Nutrition results for measured BMI in adults1 and children2.

References:

  1. Statistics Canada. Table 13-10-0794-01 Measured adult body mass index (BMI) (World Health Organization classification), by age group and sex, Canada and provinces, Canadian Community Health Survey – Nutrition. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/1310079401-eng
  2. Statistics Canada. Table 13-10-0795-01 Measured children and youth body mass index (BMI) (World Health Organization classification), by age group and sex, Canada and provinces, Canadian Community Health Survey – Nutrition. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/1310079501-eng

• % of total EI (energy intake) from saturated fat: Canada’s Dietary Guidelines recommend that Canadians consume less than 10% of total energy intake from saturated fat.

• Vitamin A: No prevalence of intakes above the UL are shown for vitamin A. The UL for vitamin A applies to preformed vitamin A only, and those estimates had not yet been conducted at the time these tables were produced.

• Vitamin D: Vitamin D is unique as it can be obtained from diet and supplements and can also be synthesized by the body from sunlight (UVB radiation). Vitamin D intake from supplements has not been considered in this assessment. While there appears to be a high prevalence of inadequate intakes of vitamin D from dietary sources, blood biomarker measures do not suggest widespread vitamin D deficiency in the Canadian population.1,2,3 While there appears to be a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, some sub-populations may warrant further consideration.

Estimates of the prevalence of inadequate intakes of vitamin D from food must be interpreted with caution.

References:

  1. Langlois K, Greene-Finestone L, Little J, Hidiroglou N, Whiting S. Vitamin D status of Canadians as measured in the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey. Health Rep. 2010;21(1):47–55.
  2. Whiting SJ, Langlois KA, Vatanparast H, Greene-Finestone LS. The vitamin D status of Canadians relative to the 2011 Dietary Reference Intakes: an examination in children and adults with and without supplement use. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94(1):128–135. doi:10.3945/ajcn.111.013268
  3. Statistics Canada. Canadian Health Measures Survey: Non-environmental laboratory and medication data, 2016 and 2017. The Daily. 2019.



Report a problem on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, please contact us.

Date modified: