When a group of leading scientists and nutrition experts unveiled a global diet plan several years ago, few expected it to ignite one of the fiercest food debates in recent memory. Their central prescription seemed innocuous: For an increasingly populous planet to thrive, wealthy nations should eat less meat and more plants.
But soon after publication, the report from the EAT-Lancet Commission became a lightning rod. The authors were subjected to threats, accused of elitism and targeted in social media campaigns backed by the meat industry. Some policymakers embraced its recommendations, while others, particularly in the US, dismissed it as a “woke” attempt to take away meat from people’s plates.
Round two of that debate has now arrived. Pulling from fresh data and input from experts in more than 30 countries, the commission released a second version of its report on Friday, doubling down on largely the same message: Eat less meat, and more beans, nuts and vegetables – especially if you live in the rich world. The shift could prevent about 15 million premature deaths a year globally and cut farm emissions by 15%.
“By improving diets we would improve the environment,” said Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard University and co-chair of the commission. “There’s an element of urgency here that has only grown since the last time.”
Food systems account for about a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, driven largely by animal farming, which is a major source of methane and a drain on land and water resources. Even if the world transitions away from fossil fuels, food alone could push temperatures past the 1.5°C threshold needed to limit warming. The onus falls disproportionately on the wealthy: The richest 30% of the world’s population are responsible for more than 70% of food-related pressures, the report said.
The commission’s so-called “planetary health diet” resembles the Mediterranean diet and other traditional ones around the world, with recommendations presented as ranges that allow flexibility, according to Willett. It’s not pushing veganism, but simply supporting the idea that animal-sourced foods should be optional, moderate and guided by a “1+1” principle: one dairy serving and one other animal protein source daily. “It allows for cultural diversity and individual preferences,” Willett said.
The biggest changes will hit the meat and dairy industries. Production of beef, goat and lamb must fall by one-third from 2020 levels through 2050, the report says, and global herds of cattle and other ruminants have to shrink by about a quarter. Still, the report makes clear that diet change alone won’t be enough. Reducing food waste and increasing agricultural productivity are also crucial.
The updated commission report, dubbed EAT-Lancet 2.0, was prepared by a panel that included experts in livestock, economics, nutrition and climate. It underwent peer review and was funded by organizations including the Rockefeller Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation.
The first version was widely cited after its publication in 2019, appearing in more than 600 policy documents. Cities such as Milan, London and Tokyo pledged to align public food procurement with its recommendations. Policymakers saw it as a “go-to” guide for integrating sustainability into dietary guidelines, said Tim Benton, professor at the University of Leeds and a food security expert.
Yet its rollout has been limited. Global meat consumption is still climbing and alternative protein sales are faltering. The pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and soaring food prices have eroded political and consumer appetite for sustainability. Meanwhile, the political climate has shifted with the rise of right-wing populism. The manosphere and MAGA-influenced machismo have fueled the popularity of the carnivore diet.
“The political power of the livestock sector and then this kind of right-wing populism that ‘no one’s gonna tell me that I can’t eat meat ’- all of those things come together to mean that the EAT-Lancet was quite a juicy target for what we now would call the anti-woke agenda,” Benton said.
For some of the report’s leading figures, the backlash has been deeply personal.
Gunhild Stordalen, the physician who co-founded the EAT Foundation and coordinated funding for the report, was cast online as part of a “Davos elite.” An investigation later found evidence of orchestrated efforts to discredit the study. Critical social media posts, amplified by a network of “misinfluencers” with ties to the livestock industry, used the hashtag #yes2meat, according to the nonprofit Changing Markets Foundation, which warned last week of a fresh campaign against the update.
The new report attempts to answer some earlier criticism, including claims that its focus was too Western and ignored local diets or affordability. This time, the emphasis is on “just” food systems: Almost half of the world’s population does not have access to affordable healthy diets, fair wages and safe environments.
The commission says that while the Global North must cut back sharply, parts of the Global South may need to increase animal protein intake to address malnutrition – though not to the levels seen in wealthy countries.
Delivering those changes, the report argues, will require new policies, from subsidy reforms to taxes, to ensure that healthy food is affordable and accessible. Stordalen said the commission will take the updated report on a global roadshow to highlight its impact in different regions and cultures. It’s also set to host dialogues with anyone from farmers and chefs to consumers and doctors.
“We are bringing all key stakeholders to the table to have conversations, brave conversations, and really trying to change mindsets,” she said.
Eat less meat is still the message from flagship diet report
