Governing evidence use in the nutrition policy process: evidence and lessons from the 2020 Canada food guide

Abstract

Nutrition guideline development is traditionally seen as a mechanism by which evidence is used to inform policy decisions. However, applying evidence in policy is a decidedly complex and politically embedded process, with no single universally agreed-upon body of evidence on which to base decisions, and multiple social concerns to address. Rather than simply calling for “evidence-based policy,” an alternative is to look at the governing features of the evidence use system and reflect on what constitutes improved evidence use from a range of explicitly identified normative concerns. This study evaluated the use of evidence within the Canada Food Guide policy process by applying concepts of the “good governance of evidence” – an approach that incorporates multiple normative principles of scientific and democratic best practice to consider the structure and functioning of evidence advisory systems. The findings indicated that institutionalizing a process for evidence use grounded in democratic and scientific principles can improve evidence use in nutrition policy making.

Comparing the perceptions and opinions of the 2007 and 2019 Canada's food guides among parents of young children

“…In a study conducted by Weldon and Parkhurst that compared the 2019 CFG to the principles of good governance, it was found that the 2019 Food Guide's development process met 21 out of the 28 measurable indictors of good governance ( 33 ). To compare, the authors found that only 6 of the 28 indicators were met by the 2007 CFG ( 33 ). Overall, Weldon and Parkhurst concluded that legitimizing good governance like stewardship, transparency, and contestability through the institutionalization of evidentiary processes can help in maintaining public trust of CFG's healthy eating information, which may have significant ramifications for implementing and achieving dietary outcomes ( 33 ).…”

“…To compare, the authors found that only 6 of the 28 indicators were met by the 2007 CFG ( 33 ). Overall, Weldon and Parkhurst concluded that legitimizing good governance like stewardship, transparency, and contestability through the institutionalization of evidentiary processes can help in maintaining public trust of CFG's healthy eating information, which may have significant ramifications for implementing and achieving dietary outcomes ( 33 ). To further understand the impact of Health Canada's revised evidence review process for dietary guidance, future research should explore the relationship between Canadians' trust and adherence and use of CFG's healthy eating guidelines.…”

“…These opinions were also noted in a qualitative study among Southwestern Ontario parents, with some parents viewing the 2019 CFG as focusing less on industry interests than previous food guides and acknowledging Health Canada's efforts in creating an evidence-based Food Guide (36). The significant change in opinions of CFG's trustworthy information could be the result of the deliberate effort of Health Canada to work toward more transparent reporting on the CFG development process (30)(31)(32)(33). In a study conducted by Weldon and Parkhurst that compared the 2019 CFG to the principles of good governance, it was found that the 2019 Food Guide's development process met 21 out of the 28 measurable indictors of good governance (33).…”

“…The significant change in opinions of CFG's trustworthy information could be the result of the deliberate effort of Health Canada to work toward more transparent reporting on the CFG development process (30)(31)(32)(33). In a study conducted by Weldon and Parkhurst that compared the 2019 CFG to the principles of good governance, it was found that the 2019 Food Guide's development process met 21 out of the 28 measurable indictors of good governance (33). To compare, the authors found that only 6 of the 28 indicators were met by the 2007 CFG (33).…”

“…The specific recommendations for number of servings per food group based on individual's age and sex in the 2007 CFG was replaced with one universal recommendation for all Canadians based on the proportions of a plate (30,31). Health Canada also revised the policy process to develop the 2019 CFG by including new rules for advisory committee membership, new and regular evidence review cycles, as well as new stakeholder consultation processes which precluded direct consultation with industry stakeholder and regulated interactions with stakeholders by publishing any communication between Health Canada and stakeholders online (30)(31)(32)(33).…”