Iceland vs Mauritius: Average per capita vegetable intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines

Iceland
432.04 kilograms per year per capita
in 2023
Mauritius
420.18 kilograms per year per capita
in 2023
Iceland rank
42nd
Mauritius rank
44th

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

  • Iceland
  • Mauritius
0100200300400196119922023

How they compare

Iceland currently reports 432.04 kilograms per year per capita against 420.18 kilograms per year per capita in Mauritius, a difference of 11.86 kilograms per year per capita.

The two have swapped places 7 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Mauritius ahead.

Iceland ranks 42nd and Mauritius ranks 44th of 192 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Iceland averaged higher in 2 and Mauritius in 5.

Head to head by decade

Decade Iceland Mauritius Difference Ahead
1960s 33.78 kilograms per year per capita 93.52 kilograms per year per capita 59.74 kilograms per year per capita Mauritius
1970s 51.32 kilograms per year per capita 72.19 kilograms per year per capita 20.87 kilograms per year per capita Mauritius
1980s 81.15 kilograms per year per capita 82.27 kilograms per year per capita 1.12 kilograms per year per capita Mauritius
1990s 115.36 kilograms per year per capita 164.96 kilograms per year per capita 49.61 kilograms per year per capita Mauritius
2000s 171.65 kilograms per year per capita 206.36 kilograms per year per capita 34.71 kilograms per year per capita Mauritius
2010s 369.57 kilograms per year per capita 280.84 kilograms per year per capita 88.73 kilograms per year per capita Iceland
2020s 413.01 kilograms per year per capita 356.88 kilograms per year per capita 56.13 kilograms per year per capita Iceland

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher average per capita vegetable intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines, Iceland or Mauritius?
Iceland, at 432.04 kilograms per year per capita against 420.18 kilograms per year per capita in Mauritius as of 2023.
What is the difference in average per capita vegetable intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines between Iceland and Mauritius?
11.86 kilograms per year per capita, with Iceland ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Iceland and Mauritius?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Iceland and Mauritius rank globally for average per capita vegetable intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines?
Iceland ranks 42nd and Mauritius ranks 44th 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 vegetable 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

Iceland vs Mauritius: Average per capita vegetable 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-vegetable-intake-vs-minimum-recommended-guidelines/iceland/mauritius/

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-vegetable-intake-vs-minimum-recommended-guidelines/iceland/mauritius/">Iceland vs Mauritius: Average per capita vegetable intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Average per capita vegetable 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.