Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although 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. METHODS: To 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSION: The 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.