Many studies refer to the EAT-Lancet diet when comparing different diets. But what exactly is the EAT-Lancet diet? Can it offer any benefits to us? What are the challenges associated with this diet? Let’s find out.
Summary
- The EAT-Lancet diet is beneficial to both the planet and our health. This diet primarily consists of whole grains, vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and includes only small optional quantities of animal products.
- From an environmental perspective, the EAT-Lancet diet reduces greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, nitrogen pollution, and biodiversity loss.
- From a health perspective, the EAT-Lancet diet can lower our overall risk of death as well as public health care costs.
- The EAT-Lancet report is somewhat vague about how to both realistically and globally implement this diet. It may be challenging for low-income countries to adopt this way of eating. In an upcoming post, I will discuss plant-based diets and food security in more detail.
What is the EAT-Lancet diet?
The EAT-Lancet report1,2 is a set of guidelines provided by 37 experts in the fields of health, agriculture, politics, and environment from 16 different countries. With the potential for the global population to reach 10 billion by 2050, these guidelines aim to define sustainable and healthy diets for the future. The goals of the EAT-Lancet diet are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, nitrogen pollution, and biodiversity loss associated with food production. Simultaneously, it is designed to provide a healthy diet for everyone without surpassing the environmental boundaries of the Earthy. Hence, EAT-Lancet offers a diet that promotes both the health of the planet and its inhabitants. The graph below illustrates the recommended diet by EAT-Lancet, providing a breakdown of 2500 calories per person. The diet is presented both in terms of food portions by calorie and by weight.
In this context, the whole grains category include foods such as brown rice, whole wheat, and corn. Starchy vegetables include foods such as potatoes and sweet potatoes. The EAT-Lancet diet consists of 65% plant-based foods, 12 percent animal products, and 23% added oil and sugars on a caloric basis. Due to the higher calorie density of animal products, when the weight and volume of these foods is considered, the EAT-Lancet diet actually recommends quite small portions. The only exception to this is dairy, which takes up a larger portion of the weight-based graph due to the high water content in milk. When looking at the graph per unit weight, the bulk of the recommended foods that would be on your plate are whole grains, vegetables, and fruits. In contrast, only small percentages of the plate would consist of meat and eggs. Following these guidelines would equate to having a beef burger once a week or having a barbecue once every 2-3 weeks, with the rest being primarily plant based. The EAT-Lancet diet emphasises that the primary sources of protein should be legumes, whole grains, nuts, and seeds.
So, if processed foods are not healthy and animal-based foods are both unsustainable and somewhat unhealthy, why did the EAT-Lancet commission include a small quantity of these foods? Well actually the EAT-Lancet report stated that including animal products and processed foods is completely optional. They included these foods for practical reasons and because some people may not want to completely eliminate these foods from their diets. They did not choose to include them because eating this quantity of these foods is healthier or more sustainable. By allowing a small percentage of animal products and processed foods, it is still possible for us to achieve sustainability and health goals. Adaptations can be made to these guidelines based on regional needs. However, by reducing our consumption of animal products and processed foods, we have the potential to mitigate adverse environmental and health effects to a greater extent.
What are the benefits of the EAT-Lancet diet?
If the EAT-Lancet diet was adopted worldwide, it could potentially save between 10.8 to 11.6 million human lives annually. This represents a reduction of 19-23.6% in annual adult mortality.2 Another study analysing dietary guidelines from 85 countries, found that none of the countries’ guidelines were sufficient to simultaneously achieve international health and environmental goals. Aligning these guidelines with the EAT-Lancet recommendations could potentially lead to a 34% decrease in overall mortality in these countries. If developing countries have the opportunity to adopt the EAT-Lancet diet, they could potentially reduce child mortality and malnutrition as the diet ensures sufficient calorie and nutrient intake.3
Furthermore, most dietary guidelines do not align with the Paris Climate Agreement. dietary guidelines were brought closer to the EAT-Lancet recommendations, dietary greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced by over threefold while simultaneously achieving various other health and environmental objectives.4 In high-income countries, adopting the EAT-Lancet diet could lead to a 61% reduction in dietary greenhouse gas emissions, saving emissions equivalent to 98.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide. This is equivalent to the total emissions from agriculture over the past 14 years. Consuming less beef has the greatest potential impact on carbon storage.5
If countries were to follow these guidelines, the economic health benefits would equate to 10-25% of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP). However, countries invest significantly less than this into preventative healthcare. Therefore, investing more in disease prevention through improved dietary practices could lead to even greater economic benefits. Of course, achieving these results requires citizens to actually adhere to these guidelines, which is a challenge in and of itself. In addition, governments would have to enact policies that promote these guidelines, while ensuring that the policies of agricultural and food industries do not contradict them. Although there are limitations to achieving these results, setting effective goals in important.4
How can the world realistically start eating like this?
To achieve this diet on a global scale, the EAT-Lancet report recommended several strategies. For example, focusing on providing healthier food rather than focusing on increasing the supply of food. They also suggested utilising existing farmland instead of expanding agricultural land. As explained in this post, animal agriculture uses a lot of land which in turn results in a significant amount of deforestation associated with expansion. So, if we want to prevent this, we would have to consume fewer animal-based foods. Additionally, the report advocates for the protection of our remaining ecosystems, reducing food waste, improving agricultural technologies and practices, and implementing policy changes. Another study recommended strategies such as influencing consumer behaviour by offering discounts on healthy foods for low-income individuals and placing taxes on unhealthy food packaging.6 The strategies outlined by the EAT-Lancet report are somewhat vague and reality is a bit more complex. Therefore, more specific plans need to be developed to overcome the unique challenges of different populations. In a future post, I will discuss these methods as well as food security in more detail.
Is the EAT-Lancet diet sustainable worldwide?
The EAT-Lancet diet includes less meat compared to typical diets in developed countries, but more meat than what poorer individuals can afford.7 Hence, if developed countries were to adopt the EAT-Lancet diet, there would be a reduction in dietary greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, if low-income and middle-income countries were to adopt the EAT-Lancet diet, their dietary greenhouse gas emissions could increase by 12-283%. However, overall if the world were to adopt the EAT-Lancet diet, there would still be a reduction in dietary greenhouse gas emissions.3 Achieving food security and reducing emissions simultaneously is a challenge. Developed countries have a greater responsibility to consume fewer animal products as their diets have a more negative environmental impact. However, developing countries also aspire to eat with abundance, just like developed nations. Therefore, it is crucial to encourage nutritionally adequate plant rich diets in developing countries.
Conclusion
Of course, a group of experts gathering together to discuss and develop dietary guidelines, does not conclusively prove the EAT-Lancet diet is the most sustainable and healthy. However, these guidelines are based on current scientific evidence. The EAT-Lancet report serves as a concise summary of current knowledge regarding food, sustainability, and health. From an environmental standpoint, the EAT-Lancet diet reduces greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water consumption, nitrogen pollution, and biodiversity loss. From a health perspective, it can lower overall mortality rates and public health care costs. While EAT-Lancet does not recommend a strictly vegan diet for environmental or health reasons, it does suggest a plant-centred diet. If we aim to further minimise the environmental impact of our food choices, consuming fewer animal products is beneficial. If we aspire to reduce animal exploitation, consuming as few animal products as possible is the best way to go.
References
1. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet. 2019;393(10170):447-492.
2. EAT-Lancet Commission. Summary Report of the EAT-Lancet Commission. 2019.
3. Semba RD, de Pee S, Kim B, McKenzie S, Nachman K, Bloem MW. Adoption of the ‘planetary health diet’ has different impacts on countries’ greenhouse gas emissions. Nature Food. 2020;1(8):481-484.
4. Springmann M, Spajic L, Clark MA, et al. The healthiness and sustainability of national and global food based dietary guidelines: modelling study. BMJ. 2020:m2322.
5. Sun Z, Scherer L, Tukker A, et al. Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend. Nature Food. 2022;3(1):29-37.
6. Béné C, Fanzo J, Haddad L, et al. Five priorities to operationalize the EAT–Lancet Commission report. Nature Food. 2020;1(8):457-459.
7. Hirvonen K, Bai Y, Headey D, Masters WA. Affordability of the EAT–Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. The Lancet Global Health. 2020;8(1):e59-e66.