Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Comparison of methodological quality between the 2007 and 2019 Canadian dietary guidelines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2020

Zhaoli Dai
Affiliation:
Charles Perkins Centre, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia
Cynthia M Kroeger
Affiliation:
Charles Perkins Centre, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia
Mark Lawrence
Affiliation:
Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
Gyorgy Scrinis
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
Lisa Bero
Affiliation:
Charles Perkins Centre, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia
Corresponding

Abstract

Objective:

With significant shifts in the dietary recommendations between the 2007 and 2019 Canadian dietary guidelines, such as promoting plant-based food intake, reducing highly processed food intake and advocating the practice of food skills, we compared their differences in guideline development methods.

Design:

Two reviewers used twenty-five guided criteria to appraise the methods used to develop the most recent dietary guidelines against those outlined in the 2014 WHO Handbook for Guideline Development.

Setting:

Canada.

Participants:

2007 and 2019 dietary guidelines.

Results:

We found that the 2019 guidelines were more evidence-based and met 80 % (20/25) of the WHO criteria. For example, systematic reviews and health organisation authoritative reports, but not industry reports, constituted the evidence base for the dietary recommendations. However, recommendations on food sustainability and food skill practice were driven primarily by stakeholders’ interests. By contrast, less information was recorded about the process used to develop the 2007 guidelines, resulting in 24 % (6/25) consistency with the WHO standards.

Conclusions:

Our analysis suggests that a more transparent and evidence-based approach is used to develop the 2019 Canadian dietary guidelines and that method criteria should support further incorporation of nutrition priorities (food sustainability and food skills) in future dietary guideline development.

Type
Short Communication
Copyright
© The Authors 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

World Health Organization (2019) Evidence-informed nutrition guidelines. https://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/guideline-development/en/ (accessed 12 June 2019).Google Scholar
Health Canada (2019) Canada’s Dietary Guidelines for Health Professionals and Policy Makers. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada.Google Scholar
Blake, P, Durao, S, Naude, CE et al. (2018) An analysis of methods used to synthesize evidence and grade recommendations in food-based dietary guidelines. Nutr Rev 76, 290300.10.1093/nutrit/nux074CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bush, MA, Martineau, C, Pronk, JA et al. (2007) Eating well with Canada’s food guide: “A tool for the times”. Can J Diet Pract Res 68, 9296.10.3148/68.2.2007.92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, M & Amparo-Santos, L (2018) Food-based dietary guidelines: a comparative analysis between the Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population 2006 and 2014. Public Health Nutr 21, 210217.10.1017/S1368980017000428CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Health Canada (2007) Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide – A Resource for Educators and Communicators, pp. 60 [Mo Health, editor]. Ottawa, Ontario: Health Canada.Google Scholar
Health Canada (2019) History of Canada’s Food Guides, pp. 118. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada.Google Scholar
Health Canada (2019) Food, Nutrients and Health: Interim Evidence Update 2018, pp. 114. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada.Google Scholar
Health Canada (2016) Canada’s Food Guide Consultation Phase 1, pp. 37. Ottawa: Ipsos Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Health Canada (2017) Canada’s Food Guide Consultation Phase 2, pp. 69. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada.Google Scholar
Health Canada (2019) Revision Process for Canada’s Food Guide. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-food-guide/about/revision-process.html (accessed May 2019).Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2014) WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, 2nd ed. WHO Library. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Woolf, S, Schunemann, HJ, Eccles, MP et al. (2012) Developing clinical practice guidelines: types of evidence and outcomes; values and economics, synthesis, grading, and presentation and deriving recommendations. Implement Sci 7, 61.10.1186/1748-5908-7-61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forouhi, NG, Krauss, RM, Taubes, G et al. (2018) Dietary fat and cardiometabolic health: evidence, controversies, and consensus for guidance. BMJ 361, k2139.10.1136/bmj.k2139CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, AG, Ford, NA, Hu, FB et al. (2017) A healthy approach to dietary fats: understanding the science and taking action to reduce consumer confusion. Nutr J 16, 53.10.1186/s12937-017-0271-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, MA & Baker, PI (2019) Ultra-processed food and adverse health outcomes. BMJ 365, l2289.10.1136/bmj.l2289CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, KD, Ayuketah, A, Brychta, R et al. (2019) Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake. Cell Metab 30, 6777 e63.10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aleksandrowicz, L, Green, R, Joy, EJ et al. (2016) The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: a systematic review. PLoS One 11, e0165797.10.1371/journal.pone.0165797CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mills, S, White, M, Brown, HS et al. (2017) Health and social determinants and outcomes of home cooking: a systematic review of observational studies. Appetite 111, 116134.10.1016/j.appet.2016.12.022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Lamas, C, de Castro, MJ, Gil-Campos, M et al. (2019) Effects of dairy product consumption on height and bone mineral content in children: a systematic review of controlled trials. Adv Nutr 10, S88S96.Google ScholarPubMed
Kouvelioti, R, Josse, AR & Klentrou, P (2017) Effects of dairy consumption on body composition and bone properties in youth: a systematic review. Curr Dev Nutr 1, e001214.10.3945/cdn.117.001214CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matia-Martin, P, Torrego-Ellacuria, M, Larrad-Sainz, A et al. (2019) Effects of milk and dairy products on the prevention of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures in Europeans and non-hispanic whites from North America: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis. Adv Nutr 10, S120S143.10.1093/advances/nmy097CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Agree Collaboration (2003) Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care 12, 1823.10.1136/qhc.12.1.18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WHO/FAO – United Nations (1996) Preparation and Use of Food-Based Dietary Guidelines – Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation Nicosia, Cyprus. WHO: Geneva.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (2010) Scientific opinion on establishing food-based dietary guidelines. EFSA J 8, 1460.Google Scholar
The AGREE Next Steps Consortium (2013) Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II: AGREE II Instrument. http://www.agreetrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/AGREE-II-Users-Manual-and-23-item-Instrument_2009_UPDATE_2013.pdf (accessed May 2019).Google Scholar
Bero, LA, Norris, SL & Lawrence, MA (2019) Making nutrition guidelines fit for purpose. BMJ 365, l1579.10.1136/bmj.l1579CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dai et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S3

File 56 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 16
Total number of PDF views: 86 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 17th June 2020 - 16th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-77fc7d77f9-g622z Total loading time: 0.251 Render date: 2021-01-16T16:15:36.932Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Sat Jan 16 2021 16:00:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": true, "languageSwitch": true, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Comparison of methodological quality between the 2007 and 2019 Canadian dietary guidelines
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Comparison of methodological quality between the 2007 and 2019 Canadian dietary guidelines
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Comparison of methodological quality between the 2007 and 2019 Canadian dietary guidelines
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *