Poland vs Tanzania: Average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines

Poland
183.25 kilograms per year per capita
in 2023
Tanzania
184.07 kilograms per year per capita
in 2023
Poland rank
125th
Tanzania rank
124th

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

  • Poland
  • Tanzania
50100150200250196119922023

How they compare

Tanzania currently reports 184.07 kilograms per year per capita against 183.25 kilograms per year per capita in Poland, a difference of 0.82 kilograms per year per capita.

The two have swapped places 6 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Tanzania ahead.

Poland ranks 125th and Tanzania ranks 124th of 192 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Poland averaged higher in 1 and Tanzania in 6.

Head to head by decade

Decade Poland Tanzania Difference Ahead
1960s 68.8 kilograms per year per capita 145.75 kilograms per year per capita 76.96 kilograms per year per capita Tanzania
1970s 94.65 kilograms per year per capita 136.88 kilograms per year per capita 42.24 kilograms per year per capita Tanzania
1980s 91.96 kilograms per year per capita 124.96 kilograms per year per capita 33 kilograms per year per capita Tanzania
1990s 116.84 kilograms per year per capita 106.82 kilograms per year per capita 10.02 kilograms per year per capita Poland
2000s 139.16 kilograms per year per capita 191.96 kilograms per year per capita 52.8 kilograms per year per capita Tanzania
2010s 163.98 kilograms per year per capita 209.34 kilograms per year per capita 45.36 kilograms per year per capita Tanzania
2020s 188.03 kilograms per year per capita 188.96 kilograms per year per capita 0.9385 kilograms per year per capita Tanzania

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines, Poland or Tanzania?
Tanzania, at 184.07 kilograms per year per capita against 183.25 kilograms per year per capita in Poland as of 2023.
What is the difference in average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines between Poland and Tanzania?
0.82 kilograms per year per capita, with Tanzania ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Poland and Tanzania?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Poland and Tanzania rank globally for average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines?
Poland ranks 125th and Tanzania ranks 124th 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

Poland vs Tanzania: 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 24 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/average-per-capita-fruit-intake-vs-minimum-recommended-guidelines/poland/tanzania/

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/poland/tanzania/">Poland vs Tanzania: 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.