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

Sri Lanka
117.9 kilograms per year per capita
in 2023
Zimbabwe
117.85 kilograms per year per capita
in 2023
Sri Lanka rank
157th
Zimbabwe rank
158th

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

  • Sri Lanka
  • Zimbabwe
0100200300196119922023

How they compare

Sri Lanka currently reports 117.9 kilograms per year per capita against 117.85 kilograms per year per capita in Zimbabwe, a difference of 0.05 kilograms per year per capita.

Across all 63 years both countries report, Sri Lanka has been ahead every year.

Sri Lanka ranks 157th and Zimbabwe ranks 158th of 192 countries.

Sri Lanka has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Sri Lanka Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
1960s 118.55 kilograms per year per capita 35.73 kilograms per year per capita 82.83 kilograms per year per capita Sri Lanka
1970s 161.7 kilograms per year per capita 33.13 kilograms per year per capita 128.57 kilograms per year per capita Sri Lanka
1980s 173.42 kilograms per year per capita 34.4 kilograms per year per capita 139.03 kilograms per year per capita Sri Lanka
1990s 109.05 kilograms per year per capita 32.97 kilograms per year per capita 76.08 kilograms per year per capita Sri Lanka
2000s 93.67 kilograms per year per capita 36.67 kilograms per year per capita 57.01 kilograms per year per capita Sri Lanka
2010s 100 kilograms per year per capita 51.52 kilograms per year per capita 48.49 kilograms per year per capita Sri Lanka
2020s 127.39 kilograms per year per capita 110.67 kilograms per year per capita 16.72 kilograms per year per capita Sri Lanka

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines, Sri Lanka or Zimbabwe?
Sri Lanka, at 117.9 kilograms per year per capita against 117.85 kilograms per year per capita in Zimbabwe as of 2023.
What is the difference in average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines between Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe?
0.05 kilograms per year per capita, with Sri Lanka ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe rank globally for average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines?
Sri Lanka ranks 157th 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

Sri Lanka 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/sri-lanka/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/sri-lanka/zimbabwe/">Sri Lanka 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.