What happens when members of a group have interests that may conflict with the stated goals of the group? What sort of norms might develop in that context? And how will those norms impact group decision making?

The story of the development of Canada’s Food Guide provides some interesting insights into these questions.

The Guide is published by Health Canada and is intended to be a guideline to healthy eating for teachers, healthcare workers, and everyday people. It influences everything from grade-school health class curriculum development to food choices in hospitals and other institutions. It is the second most frequently downloaded federal document after income tax forms.

The most recent version of Canada’s Food Guide was released in 2007 to widespread criticism from medical practitioners, health researchers, and academics. The Guide has been criticized for being scientifically unsound, biased toward foods important for Canada’s agriculture and food science industries, and overly focused on individual nutrients rather than whole foods.

For example, the Guide recommends consuming larger amounts of red meat and dairy products than scientific studies suggest are warranted.

Both of these industries are important throughout Canada, particularly in Quebec and the Prairies. The Guide implies that juice and whole fruit are equivalent, which is not true, as the former does not include dietary fibre and lacks other important nutrients. The Guide also recommends daily serving quantities that, if followed, would be highly likely to lead to excess calorie consumption and obesity.

How does something like this happen? There are many contributing factors.

The development of the Canada’s Food Guide is heavily influenced by a 12-

member Food Guide Advisory Committee. Fully 25 percent of the people on that committee were employed (at the time they sat on the committee)

by corporations whose financial interests would be affected by the Guide’s recommendations. Both the dairy industry and the grain/cereals industry have been perceived as influencing the Guide’s recommendations, which continue to include milk and grain consumption in quantities and forms not supported by nutrition research. For example, research clearly indicates that whole grains are superior to refined grains, yet the Guide recommends that only half of the daily recommended servings of grain come from whole-grain sources. It recommends refined grains due to the inclusion of added supplements such as folic acid, despite the need for such supplements being questionable in the general population (although they are important for childbearing women). Similarly, the Guide recommends large quantities of dairy products largely for their calcium, while underplaying alternative calcium sources such as leafy greens.

Canada’s Food Guide remains controversial, and its recommendations are often discussed in the press. Perhaps it would be better to change how the Advisory Committee is structured, in favour of something more likely to lead to unbiased decision making. Specifically, the Guide’s compilers might …

Sources: M. Wente, “A Big Fat Surprise for Dietary Dogma,” Globe and Mail (March 14, 2015), accessed July 24, 2015 at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/a-big-fat-surprise-fordietary-

dogma/article23440389; Y. Freedhoff, “Canada’s Food Guide to Unhealthy Eating,”

Weighty Matters (November, 2006), accessed July 22, 2015 at http://www.weightymatters.ca/

2006/11/canadas-food-guide-to-unhealthy-eating.html; Y. Freedhoff, “Canada’s Food Guide Is Broken,” Globe and Mail (April 26, 2015), accessed July 20, 2015 at http://

www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health-advisor/canadas-food-guide-is-brokenand-

no-one-wants-to-fix-it/article24111642.

Discussion Questions

1. Outline the main reasons that the existing Guide might reflect biased decision making. Refer to group size, composition, status, role conflict, and potential for norm development when answering.

2. What might be changed about the Advisory Committee or the associated development process to minimize the chances of biased or poor decision making?

3. Is the Advisory Committee’s decision making an example of group polarization? Defend your answer.