Jordan vs Zimbabwe: Average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines

Jordan
111.93 kilograms per year per capita
in 2023
Zimbabwe
117.85 kilograms per year per capita
in 2023
Jordan rank
161st
Zimbabwe rank
158th

Average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines over time

  • Jordan
  • Zimbabwe
0100200300400500196119922023

How they compare

Zimbabwe currently reports 117.85 kilograms per year per capita against 111.93 kilograms per year per capita in Jordan, a difference of 5.92 kilograms per year per capita.

That makes Zimbabwe's figure about 1.1 times Jordan's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Jordan ahead.

Jordan ranks 161st and Zimbabwe ranks 158th of 192 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Jordan averaged higher in 6 and Zimbabwe in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Jordan Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
1960s 377.99 kilograms per year per capita 35.73 kilograms per year per capita 342.27 kilograms per year per capita Jordan
1970s 122.99 kilograms per year per capita 33.13 kilograms per year per capita 89.86 kilograms per year per capita Jordan
1980s 156.91 kilograms per year per capita 34.4 kilograms per year per capita 122.51 kilograms per year per capita Jordan
1990s 159.37 kilograms per year per capita 32.97 kilograms per year per capita 126.4 kilograms per year per capita Jordan
2000s 131.76 kilograms per year per capita 36.67 kilograms per year per capita 95.09 kilograms per year per capita Jordan
2010s 127.12 kilograms per year per capita 51.52 kilograms per year per capita 75.6 kilograms per year per capita Jordan
2020s 99.32 kilograms per year per capita 110.67 kilograms per year per capita 11.34 kilograms per year per capita Zimbabwe

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines, Jordan or Zimbabwe?
Zimbabwe, at 117.85 kilograms per year per capita against 111.93 kilograms per year per capita in Jordan as of 2023.
What is the difference in average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines between Jordan and Zimbabwe?
5.92 kilograms per year per capita, with Zimbabwe ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Jordan and Zimbabwe?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Jordan and Zimbabwe rank globally for average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines?
Jordan ranks 161st and Zimbabwe ranks 158th of 192 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2025) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Jordan vs Zimbabwe: Average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines. Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2025) – processed by Our World in Data. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/average-per-capita-fruit-intake-vs-minimum-recommended-guidelines/jordan/zimbabwe/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/average-per-capita-fruit-intake-vs-minimum-recommended-guidelines/jordan/zimbabwe/">Jordan vs Zimbabwe: Average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines
Unit
kilograms per year per capita
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2025) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
192 places, 10,214 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Quantity that is available for consumption at the end of the supply chain. It does not account for consumer waste, so the quantity that is actually consumed may be lower.