Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39425106›Full record

ReviewNutrition journal2024

An unbiased, sustainable, evidence-informed Universal Food Guide: a timely template for national food guides.

Elizabeth Dean, Jia Xu, Alice Yee-Men Jones, Mantana Vongsirinavarat, Constantina Lomi, Pintu Kumar, Etienne Ngeh, Maximilian A Storz

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrition journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Elizabeth DeanFaculty of Medicine, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. elizabeth.dean@ubc.ca.
Jia XuHealing Without Medicine, Shenzhen, China.
Alice Yee-Men JonesSchool of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Mantana VongsirinavaratMahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Constantina LomiKarolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Pintu KumarAll India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Etienne NgehLouis University Institute, Douala, Cameroon.
Maximilian A StorzDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Centre for Complementary Medicine, Medical Center, and Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough national food guides are designed, ostensibly, to translate scientific evidence with respect to food, dietary patterns, and health, their development has increasingly become a corporate/political process as well as scientific one; often with corporate/political influences overriding science. Our aim was to construct an unbiased, sustainable, evidence-informed Universal Food Guide to serve as a template for countries to develop their unique guides, thereby, provide a valid resource for health professionals, health authorities, and the public.

methodsTo address our aim, we conducted an integrative review of multiple evidence-informed sources (e.g., established databases, evidence syntheses, scholarly treatises, and policy documents) related to four areas: 1. Food guides' utility and conflicts of interest; 2. The evidence-based healthiest diet; 3. Constituents of the Universal Food Guide template; and 4. Implications for population health; regulation/governance; environment/climate/planetary health; and ethics.

resultsThe eating pattern that is healthiest for humans (i.e., most natural, and associated with maximal health across the life cycle; reduced non-communicable disease (NCD) risk; and minimal end-of-life illness) is whole food, low fat, plant-based, especially vegan, with the absence of ultra-processed food. Disparities in national food guide recommendations can be explained by factors other than science, specifically, corporate/political interests reflected in heavily government-subsidized, animal-sourced products; and trends toward dominance of daily consumption of processed/ultra-processed foods. Both trends have well-documented adverse consequences, i.e., NCDs and endangered environmental/planetary health. Commitment to an evidence-informed plant-based eating pattern, particularly vegan, will reduce risks/manifestations of NCDs; inform healthy food and nutrition policy regulation/governance; support sustainable environment/climate and planetary health; and is ethical with respect to 'best' evidence-based practice, and human and animal welfare.

conclusionThe Universal Food Guide that serves as a template for national food guides is both urgent and timely given the well-documented health-harming influences that corporate stakeholders/politicians and advisory committees with conflicts of interest, exert on national food guides. Such influence contributes to the largely-preventable NCDs and environmental issues. Policy makers, health professionals, and the public need unbiased, scientific evidence as informed by the Universal Food Guide, to inform their recommendations and choices.

Indexed as

Nutrition PolicyDietDiet, HealthyHumansChronic low-grade systemic inflammationDisease preventionEthicsEvidence-informed nutritionFood based dietary guidelinesHealthNon-communicable diseasesPopulation health

Identifiers

PMID39425106
PMCPMC11487974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.