EAT-Lancet 2.0: Ideology Masquerading as Science

On October 3, 2025, EAT and The Lancet published the second EAT-Lancet Commission report, “Food, Planet, Health,” described as a “major scientific update” and a guide to saving both humanity and the planet. This most recent EAT-Lancet report is not a neutral scientific consensus; It signifies another chapter in the ongoing effort to eliminate animal agriculture and control dietary preferences.

The EAT-Lancet Commission is a collaboration between the EAT Foundation, a global food-policy advocacy group, and The Lancet medical journal. In 2019, this Commission released its first “planetary health diet,” a proposed global eating pattern that called for sharp reductions in meat, dairy, and other animal-source foods. Although presented as a scientific roadmap for improving human and planetary health, the report sparked intense debate, particularly within the food, agriculture, and nutrition communities, due to its restrictive recommendations and the assumptions used to justify them. The 2025 EAT-Lancet 2.0 report continues and expands this agenda.

2050 EAT Lancet Goals Mean Real Consequences for Agriculture

The 2025 report’s scenario suggests a smaller global livestock system by 2050 if the EAT-Lancet guidelines are adopted. It highlights significant reductions in both value and output, especially for ruminant meat:

• 33% decrease in ruminant meat production compared to 2020.
• 43% drop in the terrestrial livestock sector's value.
• 50% reduction in livestock sector employment by 2050.

Unfortunately, EAT-Lancet’s recommendations don’t stay on paper. They show up as policy proposals: meat taxes, caps on livestock numbers, and other restrictions. It also includes pressure to convert working lands away from grazing and livestock. UC Davis Professor Frank Mitloehner warned that the first EAT Lancet report’s authors and allies were already contemplating taxes of more than 100 percent on selected cuts of meat to coerce consumers into compliance. We are already seeing evidence of its implementation in Denmark and in the Bureau of Land Management Policy regarding multiple use of federally managed public lands.

Animal Agriculture Alliance Responds

The Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA) put it bluntly in its October 3, 2025, statement on the new report:

“The EAT-Lancet Commission rehashing the same near-vegan diet it has been promoting for more than six years doesn’t change the facts about the many proven contributions of animal-source foods to nutrient-dense diets. Today’s animal protein is produced more efficiently than ever.”

“The new EAT-Lancet report admits this diet is not based on environmental criteria, and since we know the FAO has concluded animal-source foods provide critical nutrition not easily replaced from other sources, the diet would also put people at risk of serious nutrient deficiencies.”

“The good news is that 98% of American households purchase meat and numerous consumer studies show Americans are looking to further increase their intake of high-quality protein and other nutrients. The EAT-Lancet report six years ago didn’t change that, and we don’t expect this relaunch to do so, either.”

The Alliance’s FAQ explains just how extreme the EAT-Lancet “planetary health diet” really is. It allows, per day, between 0 and 30 grams of red meat (about one small meatball), 0–60 grams of poultry, 0–25 grams of egg (half an egg), and up to 500 grams of dairy, while assigning up to 410 calories from seed and vegetable oils and as many as 550 calories from nuts and beans. That is not a modest adjustment to current diets. It’s a prescription that, in practice, shifts animal-source foods from the center of the plate to the edges of a highly processed, oil-heavy, grain-heavy diet.

What the First EAT-Lancet Report Got Wrong, and How Scientists Answered

The 2019 EAT-Lancet Commission promised a “global planetary health diet that is healthy for both people and planet.” Professor Mitloehner and his team at UC Davis’s CLEAR Center were among the first to carefully analyze the report’s environmental claims. In a widely cited blog, Mitloehner called those claims “an epic fail,” noting that the Commission misused global livestock emission statistics, treated agrarian economies and industrialized nations as if they were the same, and effectively blamed cattle for problems caused by fossil fuels and land-use history.

Mitloehner’s core point is straightforward: when you correct those errors and use more accurate, region-specific data, the case for dismantling animal agriculture as a strategy to impact the planet’s climate falls apart.

The American Council on Science and Health summarized one of the main issues: “EAT-Lancet leaned heavily on the claim that livestock account for 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Mitloehner pointed out that this global figure hides significant differences between nations; in advanced economies like the United States, animal agriculture makes up closer to 4 percent of total emissions, with energy and transportation being the main contributors.”

Six Years Later, the Same Near-Vegan Diet

Mitloehner of the University of California–Davis warned as early as 2019 that the first EAT-Lancet report was “the most aggressive attempt I’ve ever seen prescribing what we shall eat,” including proposals for meat taxes of up to 130 percent. Six years later, the Commission has doubled down.

One of the most revealing details is that even EAT-Lancet itself has acknowledged that its meat limits were not based on environmental criteria. As the ACSH analysis notes, the Commission admitted that its meat caps were grounded in health guidelines, not climate models, meaning this was never truly a “climate diet.” Yet both the 2019 and 2025 rollouts have been presented as if eating less meat were a key tool for stabilizing the planet’s climate and ecosystems thus saving millions of lives. That’s a bait-and-switch: claiming climate necessity, then quietly shaping the numbers around a pre-decided anti-animal agriculture narrative.

The New Report Ignores the FAO and Real-World Nutrition

Since the first EAT-Lancet report, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has conducted a thorough, science-based review of animal-source foods. Its 2023 report on “Contribution of terrestrial animal source food to healthy diets for improved nutrition and health outcomes” states that foods from livestock offer high-quality proteins, essential fatty acids, and important micronutrients like iron, zinc, and vitamin B12, which are hard to get in sufficient quantity and quality from plant-based foods alone.

FAO’s summary is very clear: animal-source foods, when part of diverse and balanced diets, help meet global nutrition goals, especially for children, adolescents, pregnant women, and populations with micronutrient deficiencies. That is exactly what Hannah Thompson-Weeman emphasizes in the Animal Agriculture Alliance statement: if you compare the FAO’s findings with EAT-Lancet’s strict limits on meat, milk, and eggs, you end up with a diet that puts millions at risk of nutrient deficiencies, not a plan for global health.

However, the 2025 EAT-Lancet report acts as if this FAO work does not exist. The Commission again advocates for a mostly plant-based, animal-light diet and claims that switching to its updated “planetary health diet” could prevent up to 15 million deaths annually and reduce food-system emissions by more than half. By cherry-picking studies that support a preexisting narrative while ignoring major global reviews that highlight the vital role of animal-source foods, you are not practicing balanced science; you are acting as an activist.

The Ideological Agenda EAT is Working to Advance

Understanding the ideology behind EAT-Lancet requires examining the network supporting EAT itself. EAT was founded by Norwegian Gunhild Stordalen, an environmental activist who has been publicly involved in animal rights campaigns, including anti-fur advocacy and events with the Norwegian Animal Welfare Alliance. Her public profile is often framed around plant-based/vegan advocacy, and event bios sometimes label her “expertise” as agriculture. Her formal training and publications are medical, not agronomy, animal science, range management, ag economics, or veterinary medicine. In short: this is a policy and advocacy platform, not an agriculture extension service or producer-led organization.

The EAT Foundation was established in 2016 as a partnership between the Stordalen Foundation, the Stockholm Resilience Centre, and the Wellcome Trust, with each philanthropic group investing millions to “transform the way we eat." These organizations have strong ideological commitments, including explicit support for animal rights initiatives. The EAT-Lancet Commission operates within a well-funded alliance of foundations, activists, and sympathetic academics working toward the long-term goal of phasing out animal agriculture, particularly in developed countries. This means that EAT is not simply a neutral, unbiased body; rather, it subscribes to clear ideological commitments, including explicit support for implementing animal rights initiatives. The EAT-Lancet report is the outcome of a closely connected activist ecosystem.

Cameron English, writing for the American Council on Science and Health, goes so far as to describe The Lancet’s broader treatment of meat and agriculture as a “science-free campaign against meat”, arguing that the journal has embraced an openly Marxist narrative about capitalism, food systems, and environmental harm.

The Animal Agriculture Alliance has documented the explosive growth of radical vegan activism. Its 2025 analysis of animal-activist groups found that organizations seeking to “end animal agriculture and remove nutrient-dense animal-sourced foods from the menu” now pull in more than $865 million annually and are increasingly coordinated across legal, academic, and media channels.

Science and Respect for Choice

Its own authors admit EAT Lancet’s diet recommendations are not based on environmental factors. Their suggestions conflict with FAO’s thorough evaluation of the vital importance of animal-source foods. Moreover, the policy implications threaten the property rights and livelihoods of farmers and ranchers not only in the United States but worldwide. The EAT-Lancet model proposes that central authorities, funded by global foundations, should determine nearly universal diets, and that governments should impose taxes and regulations to ensure adherence. This approach ignores the FAO’s evidence that animal-source foods are nutritionally essential.

Everyone involved in agriculture understands that we must continue innovating, safeguard water resources, and responsibly steward the land for future generations. The adoption of innovations in agriculture has been continuous and is ongoing.

The right path forward respects choice and diversity in diets, recognizes the central role of livestock in sustainable systems, and bases policy on transparent, balanced science, not an ideological agenda.

As advocates for animal agriculture, we should be clear: Healthy people and a healthy planet do not require erasing livestock.

Links

UC Davis CLEAR Center - Eat Lancet's Claims are an Epic Fail HERE

Animal Agriculture Alliance Statement and FAQ on EAT-Lancet HERE, and HERE

Animal Agriculture Alliance - Expert Voices on EAT Lancet HERE (click on the images to read the articles)

American Council on Science and Health - Time to Eat Bugs, The Lancet's Science-Free Campaign Against Meat HERE

Brownfield Ag News - Miltoehner Issues Warning About Lancet Report HERE