. 2022 Jan 19;80(3):467–478. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuab105

Table 3.

Summary of indicators present in the 2007 and 2020 Canada Food Guide Process

Principle	2007 process	2020 process
Appropriateness	Goals sufficiently clarified	Goals sufficiently clarified
	Relevant decision criteria not stated at outset^a	Relevant decision criteria stated at outset
	A variety of considerations prioritized	A variety of considerations prioritized
	Little indication of critical questioning of evidence sources in terms of their relevance and use^a	Critical questioning of evidence sources in terms of their relevance and use
	Application of methods akin to those of multicriteria decision analysis	Application of methods akin to those of multicriteria decision analysis
	Little indication of differentiation between internal and external validity of evidence^a	Differentiation between internal and external validity of evidence
	No required assessment of local applicability prior to utilization^a	Local applicability assessed prior to utilization
Quality	Unclear how quality criteria were applied^a	Application of strict quality criteria that were appropriate to the research question and in accordance with methods akin to GRADE
	Food intake pattern relied on data modeling	Evidence of impacts ordered according to evidential hierarchies
	No statement and strategy for dealing with and assessing the quality of industry-funded research^a	A clear statement indicating that industry-funded research was explicitly excluded from the evidence base
Rigor	Unclear whether or what practices were used for systematic review, rapid review, realist review, or other synthesis methods^a	Process followed good practices for systematic review and other synthesis methods
	Criteria for evidence selection and inclusion unclear^a	Selection and inclusion criteria clearly described
	Methods for formulating recommendations unclear^a	Methods for formulating recommendations clearly described
Stewardship	The role of democratically elected agents or their representatives in the design or alteration of government evidence advisory bodies unclear^a	The role of democratically elected agents or their representatives in the design or alteration of government evidence advisory bodies unclear^a
	Unclear whether and how agents were accountable to the public^a	Unclear whether and how agents were accountable to the public^a
	Unclear how conflicts of interest were handled or mitigated^a	Process explicitly banned conflicts of interest
	Lack of robust defenses against imposition of institutional structures by nonmandated or unaccountable agents^a	Process included robust defenses against imposition of institutional structures by nonmandated or unaccountable agents
Representation	Unclear if decision authority was with public representatives^a	Unclear if decision authority was with public representatives^a
Representation	Unclear whether legislatures and representatives had ability to veto or override technical agencies when necessary^a	Unclear whether legislatures and representatives had ability to veto or override technical agencies when necessary^a
Transparency	No links to the journal articles that overview the review process and intake pattern^a	Information easily accessible
	One journal article was behind a paywall^a	Information free to access
	Unable to locate publication of transcripts or minutes of expert body deliberations^a	Unable to locate publication of transcripts or minutes of expert body deliberations^a
Deliberation	Process sought passive public input on an ad hoc basis	Process sought passive public input through formalized deliberative mechanisms
Deliberation	No active public engagement^a	No active public engagement^a
Contestability	Review process not subject to peer review^a	Review process subject to peer review
	Expert conclusions subject to peer review	Expert conclusions subject to peer review
	No established formal appeals procedures or rules for decisions of evidence-synthesizing bodies^a	No established formal appeals procedures or rules for decisions of evidence-synthesizing bodies^a
	No inclusion or publication of dissenting opinions or alternative viewpoints^a	Dissenting opinions and alternative viewpoints gathered during process available

Indicators that were absent in the documents analyzed are noted with an ‘a’.