Planet at risk: New EAT-Lancet report warns food system overhaul is vital

Wholly transforming human diets and how food is produced could have massive benefits for people and the planet, helping avert some 15 million premature deaths each year and bringing the world back within the bounds of ecological thresholds for the Earth’s stability, according to an updated version of a groundbreaking 2019 study of the global food system. But getting there will require a complete transition away from fossil fuels, as well as enormous changes to sustainably produce the food required of a growing population. Our food choices and the ways we feed ourselves, the researchers say, are among the most influential keys to a healthier planet. Those are among the findings of the latest report by the EAT-Lancet Commission, a committee of 24 of the world’s foremost experts in nutrition, environmental sustainability, agriculture and livestock production, human health, behavior change, and food justice, who hail from 17 countries. EAT is an international nonprofit dedicated to food systems change. The report — released early Friday in Stockholm and published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed Lancet medical journal — builds on the commission’s landmark 2019 report, which first defined a “planetary health diet” as one that could nutritiously feed the world’s estimated population of 9.6 billion in 2050, while not breaching the limits of environmental sustainability. The diet focuses on plant-based foods and recommends only moderate amounts of fish, dairy, and meat — overconsumption of which is a leading cause of climate change and land overuse, the study shows. The 2019 report attracted criticism, too, from experts who said the diet went overboard in criticizing animal-sourced protein and was inaccessible or unaffordable for people in the global south. The commission’s main recommendations from 2019 on what constitutes a planetary health diet remain largely unchanged this time around. But the updated paper — entitled the “Report on Healthy, Sustainable, and Just Food Systems” — goes much deeper, while also stressing that food systems that are healthy and sustainable must also be rooted in human rights and justice. The report finds that food systems generate approximately 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions — and without drastic and urgent change, existing food systems could push the warming of the planet beyond the critical 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold laid out in the 2015 Paris climate agreement, even if fossil fuels are phased out. “Transforming the food system, on the other hand, can cut global emissions by more than half,” Johan Rockström, co-chair of the commission, told reporters. At present, seven of the nine planetary boundaries — a framework that highlights the rising risk of human pressure on critical processes that regulate the Earth’s stability — have been crossed. And according to the report, food systems are the largest driver for five of those breaches: land system change such as deforestation; biosphere integrity; changes in freshwater use; biogeochemical flows such as nitrogen and phosphorus pollution; and novel entities such as pesticides, antimicrobials, and microplastics. “This means that the conclusion of the Lancet report is that the food system is the single largest cause for breaching boundaries, risking the stability of the planet,” added Rockström, who is also the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. A turnaround is just barely possible by decarbonizing energy use, cutting food waste, switching to healthier diets, releasing pressure on many of the planetary boundaries — particularly land use — and realigning global financial incentives to support sustainable food systems. The report finds that doing all of that could cost between $200 billion and $500 billion in investment and could generate financial returns of $5 trillion a year through better health, a more resilient climate, and restored ecosystems. Yet in today’s political climate, achieving this kind of sweeping transformation is a tall order — the scale of change required is at odds with entrenched interests, politically polarized debates, and the short-term focus of many governments. The report was launched during the Stockholm Food Forum, where more than 700 scientists, policymakers, business leaders, and civil society leaders are gathered to discuss how the findings can be put into action. What is a planetary health diet? Both the 2019 report and its updated version set out a diet that can nutritiously feed the world’s growing population without causing catastrophic climate breakdown. This year’s report stresses the diet’s flexibility across cultures, dietary patterns, ages, traditions, health conditions, and geographies. It is predominantly plant-based, with nearly one-third of the estimated 2,400 calories per day coming from whole grains. The diet also stresses fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes, while advising against ultra-processed foods. It accounts for two servings of animal-source proteins per day, with one being dairy — such as a glass of milk, or an equivalent amount of cheese or yogurt — and the other being non-dairy, such as fish, poultry, red meat, or eggs. But red meat, which has major health and environmental impacts, should not exceed one serving of 100 grams once per week, explained Walter Willett, another commission co-chair. “It’s really not that different than 2019,” Willett said, adding that this year’s report offers more evidence for the commission’s previous recommendations and findings. Shifting to this diet, the report states, could reduce the rates of many noncommunicable diseases and lead to longer lifespans. But at present, no country is anywhere close to adhering to it. Many organizations — including the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Livestock Research Institute, and the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture — highlight the relative underconsumption of animal sources of protein in the global south compared to wealthier parts of the world, along with meat’s strong ties to local cultures and livelihoods. In addition, they often point out, these regions account for a far smaller proportion of climate change driven by greenhouse gas emissions. The biggest dietary changes in the planetary health diet, Willett said, would need to come from higher-income nations. “Some of the global south could actually increase modestly their consumption of animal sources of protein and still be aligned with the planetary health dietary targets,” Willett said. “But if the global south decided to adopt the diets of the global north, that is the path to environmental disaster as well as health disaster.” The initial EAT-Lancet report recommended a doubling of global consumption in healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes, and more than a 50% reduction in the global consumption of what it called “less healthy foods such as added sugars and red meat.” That latter part set off fierce online backlash, with sharp criticism coming from social media influencers and pro-meat doctors using the hashtags #Yes2Meat and #MeatHeals. Many of the scientists involved in the report were personally targeted online. Much of the online outrage came from the meat industry itself. For example, a leaked document seen by the climate news site DeSmog revealed that behind the backlash was a public relations firm called Red Flag that represents a meat and dairy industry alliance — and staff from Cargill and Smithfield Foods, two of the world’s five largest meat companies, sit on the alliance’s board. And just last week, a study by the Changing Markets Foundation, which aims to shift market share away from unsustainable products and companies, reiterated DeSmog’s findings: it identified 100 of what it calls “mis-influencers” responsible for the majority of the anti-EAT-Lancet backlash on social media sites. It also tracked how they amplified each other’s voices in a coordinated campaign to discredit the report. EAT-Lancet 2.0 will be published in an even more hostile environment than in 2019, as the popularity of many influencers who oppose plant-based diets has only grown, Changing Markets Foundation said. The commission is gearing up for another round of criticism: there were even some preemptive attacks before the 2.0 report’s release. Just food systems The second iteration of the EAT-Lancet report comes as climate change worsens, obesity is on the rise, and the pressures that food production exerts on the environment show no sign of letting up. Some 2.3 billion people worldwide struggle to access healthy diets, according to the United Nations. The inequalities inherent to food systems are stark, from the prevalence of child labor to gaps in wages between women and men, to power asymmetries as Big Food and Big Ag corporations control ever more of their respective markets. The report emphasizes justice as both a goal and driving force for food systems change. “In this 2025 EAT-Lancet Commission, we specified three human rights that food systems must support to avoid these harms. This was the right to food, the right to a healthy environment, and the right to decent work,” said Christina Hicks, a report commissioner, environmental social scientist, and professor at Lancaster University. The report finds that fewer than 1% of the world’s population is currently in the “safe and just” space where people’s rights and dietary needs are being met within safe planetary boundaries. It also finds that responsibility for breaching those boundaries is highly unequal, with the wealthiest 30% of the world’s population generating more than 70% of food-related environmental pressures. “The destabilising effect of unhealthy overconsumption on the Earth’s systems highlights the importance of viewing healthy diets not just as a human right, but also a shared responsibility,” the report states. Justice within the context of food systems transformation, Hicks said, “is about ensuring everyone’s human rights can be met, and ensuring the responsibility to do so within planetary boundaries is shared fairly.” Among the report’s recommendations for food systems that are healthy, sustainable, and just are promoting traditional and Indigenous healthy diets; reducing food loss and waste; stopping conversion of intact land into sites for agricultural production; securing decent labor conditions for people across the food system; and putting finance behind these reforms.