Table 3.

Main theme 2: pros and cons of consumer involvement

Sub-theme	Quote (identification reference, country, stakeholder group)
2a. Interests	‘What do not belong to the process, in my opinion, are for example interest associations […] it could compromise the objectivity’ (23, GE, PRO)
	‘We sometimes deal with consumers’ questions about foods in our consumers’ association. But they are more connected to food safety and quality. So DG aren't very important for us. Consumers don't approach us with these questions’ (1, CZ, NGO)
2b. Credibility and trust	‘But I do not see that the consumers have a large role in the development of the DG. That is scientific based, but it is extremely important that the consumers have trust in the process of making the DG’ (33, NO, SAB)
	‘[…] part of their [consumer representatives] responsibility is to ensure that we are operating in a way that is accessible. All of the processes that we engage in are open for public scrutiny, and there are explicit invitations at the start of many of the process for people to provide information’ (69, UK, GOV)
	‘We can still learn from consumers, their wishes and their habits, good and bad’ (42, SE, PRO)
2c. Process complications	‘I don't think there are any disadvantages other than, it might take longer, because obviously a bigger group, you're going to have more discussion. You're going to have, you know, more views to take into account’ (70, UK, PRO)
	‘The disadvantage is that consumers complicate scientists’ work […]’ (2, CZ, SAB)

GE, Germany + D-A-CH countries’ recommendation representatives; PRO, professional/academic; DG, dietary guidelines; CZ, Czech Republic; NGO, non-governmental organisation; NO, Norway + one Danish Nordic nutrition recommendation representative; SAB, scientific advisory body; UK, United Kingdom; GOV, government; SE, Serbia.