EAT-Lancet FAQ

A report published October 2 in the Lancet medical journal rehashed claims that everyone in the world must drastically reduce consumption of animal-source foods to be healthy and benefit the environment. Just like the first time the authors proposed their near-vegan diet six years ago, this report may make for sensational headlines, but it completely ignores evidence about the positive role of nutrient-dense foods like meat, dairy, and eggs in healthy, sustainable diets.

At the Animal Agriculture Alliance, we believe that caring for our families, our health, and our homes unites people around the world. U.S. farmers and ranchers have a proven track record of producing more nutrient-dense food more efficiently than ever before, while protecting the natural resources we all share. We believe that choosing food that is good for people and the planet should be based on facts, not a one-sided agenda.

You can read our statement about the EAT-Lancet report here. Further information about animal agriculture and all aspects of sustainability as defined by the United Nations (economic, social, and environmental) is available in our Sustainability Impact Report and our SDG Report.

What is the EAT-Lancet report, who wrote it, and what does it say about eating animal-source foods?

The EAT Forum is a privately-funded think tank based in Norway that wants to lead the world’s thinking on food and climate. The Lancet is a UK-based medical journal.

EAT and the Lancet partnered to form the “EAT-Lancet Commission” – including just a small group of academics and advocates – who issued their first near-vegan global diet recommendations in 2019. On October 2, 2025, they published a new report, which included nearly identical recommendations.

The diet lists daily rations in grams or calories, which can be hard for people to visualize. It calls for:

  • Up to 60% of calories from whole grains
  • Up to 410 calories from seed and vegetable oils (olive, soybean, rapeseed, sunflower, palm, coconut, and peanut oil)
  • Up to 550 calories from nuts and beans (about 2.5 cups of cooked black beans or 48 walnut halves)
  • Between 200 and 600 grams of vegetables
  • Between 100 and 300 grams of fruit

While allowing just:

  • Between 0 and 30 grams (about 1 ounce) of red meat (no more than 3 small cubes of steak/pork or a single one-inch meatball)
  • Between 0 and 60 grams (about 2 ounces) of chicken (that would mean a piece of grilled chicken no bigger than half the size of an adult’s palm)
  • Between 0 and 500 grams of dairy (no more than 2 cups of milk)
  • Between 0 and 25 grams of eggs (no more than ½ egg)
  • Between 0 and 100 grams of fish (about 1 fish stick)
  • Between 0 and 10 grams of lard or tallow

Is the EAT-Lancet diet healthy?

As in 2019, the EAT-Lancet Commission calls its diet a “planetary health” diet, even though it admits any claimed benefits are purely based on human health.

The 2025 report states, “The [planetary health diet] is based entirely on the direct effects of different diets on human health, not on environmental criteria. The diet’s name arose from the evidence suggesting that its adoption would reduce the environmental impacts and nutritional deficiencies of most current diets.”

In fact, the EAT-Lancet diet and its severe restrictions on nutrient-dense foods like meat, dairy, and eggs contradicts dietary guidance in the United States and around the world. For example, according to the FAO: “Meat, eggs and milk offer crucial sources of much-needed nutrients which cannot easily be obtained from plant-based foods.”

Numerous scientific studies show that very low intake of animal-source foods may lead to nutrient deficiencies (e.g., of protein, iron, zinc, B12, and DHA), particularly in children, women of reproductive age, and others with high nutrient needs.

For example, one paper published in the Lancet in response to the 2019 EAT-Lancet report concluded: “We find that the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet could fall short in multiple micronutrients. Deficiencies in these micronutrients would contribute to substantial public health burdens compared with what would be achievable for a fully nourished population.”

The concern about micronutrient deficiencies has been reiterated more recently, for example a perspective published in 2024 in the journal Frontiers in Nutrition concludes: “…dramatic reductions in [animal-source foods], entailed by many plant-based diets, will worsen already prevalent micronutrient and protein deficiencies.”

See also “Is eating meat to blame for obesity and non-communicable diseases?”

Does the EAT-Lancet diet have environmental benefits?

Even the name of the EAT-Lancet diet is misleading. It is called a “planetary health” diet even though the Commission admits any claimed benefits are purely based on human health.

The 2025 report states, “The [planetary health diet] is based entirely on the direct effects of different diets on human health, not on environmental criteria. The diet’s name arose from the evidence suggesting that its adoption would reduce the environmental impacts and nutritional deficiencies of most current diets.”

In fact, the FAO and other authoritative bodies have repeatedly concluded that the most effective pathway to reduce livestock greenhouse gas emissions while achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2 (ending hunger) is to sustainably improve productivity across livestock production systems.

Is eating animal-source foods to blame for obesity and non-communicable diseases?

According to the FAO, “Meat, eggs and milk offer crucial sources of much-needed nutrients which cannot easily be obtained from plant-based foods.”

While the EAT-Lancet Commission repeats claims that eating animal-source foods is associated with risks of non-communicable diseases, scientific reviews have found that recommendations to reduce meat consumption are based on weak evidence and could have negative consequences.

As just one example, FAO has concluded that recent studies on meat consumption and health “have begun to cast doubt” on claims of negative consequences, noting that “even small increases in ASF intake provide nutritional benefits that far outweigh any acute or chronic disease risks associated with high consumption.”

As another example, World Cancer Research Federation experts wrote in the Lancet in 2022 that frequently-cited negative claims (made in the 2019 Global Burden of Disease report) about the health impact of eating meat “appear implausible” and are “unsupported by the evidence.” Conversely, they say: “In many diets worldwide, red meat is an important source of several nutrients. Removing meat from such diets is impractical and unrealistic, and carries a risk of nutritional deficiency judged to outweigh future cancer risk.”

Is animal agriculture the leading driver of climate change?

No. According to FAO’s latest data, direct and indirect livestock emissions account for 12% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In the United States, emissions from cattle and other ruminants account for less than 5% of GHG emissions.

If every single American adopted a vegan diet, GHG emissions would decrease just 2.6% while nutrient deficiencies would increase dramatically. Furthermore, livestock make use of land not suitable for growing crops. They turn grasses and grains people can’t eat into wholesome food people need and help reduce waste to achieve circularity.

The FAO has repeatedly concluded that the most effective pathway to reduce livestock GHGs while achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2 (ending hunger) is to sustainably improve productivity across livestock production systems.

Section

Empty section. Edit page to add content here.