Compare it to this: https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/archived_proje...
Even though it's technically 'no nonsense' - it actually is effectively 'nonsense' from a communications perspective.
It's almost meaningless, and un-actionable, and I don't think it will have any effect, on any group. I wonder if this should simply be a single page of points urging us to 'eat healthy' and that should be it.
Consider the main takeaway points:
'Enjoy your food' 'Eat protein' 'Eat lots of vegetables' 'Chose whole grain foods'
Seriously?
This is essentially very traditional approach to food, with noticeably less focus on carbs (we don't work on farms anymore), and also the absence milk, cheese and almost absence of meat which I believe is likely a shade ideological as opposed to nutritional.
It surely is good advice, but it's not specific at all, and essentially boils down to 'eat healthy, don't each junk food'.
Seriously consider this:
https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/healthy-eating-recommendatio...
It's the page on 'how to enjoy your food'.
"tasting the flavours" "being open to trying new foods" "developing a healthy attitude about food"
Seriously - a page devoted to instructing us to 'taste the flavours' of food.
Here the section on your 'eating environment':
Influences on eating and drinking. These can include:
distractions where you eat who you eat with what you are doing while you are eating
Eating environments can affect:
what you eat and drink the amount you eat and drink ow much you enjoy eating
It's really an eerie thing to read.
I should add: the recipes look really good however.
Finally someone here notice it. Have you also noticed how Canada's New Food Guide looks eerily similar to the much-criticized EAT-Lancet recommendation (reportedly fueled by Vegan propaganda): https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/20190...