The surge of activity challenging the first Eat-Lancet report back in 2019 might have been fierce, but it was certainly not without cause. The dietary recommendations in the initial report – which was backed by some of the world’s largest conglomerates and foundations with both commercial and ideological vested interests – have been proved to have serious flaws and adverse implications for human health if implemented around the world.

Since then, we’ve seen a significant body of robust scientific evidence, including the collective Dublin Declaration from a group of eminent scientists from around the world, that refutes much of what is claimed in the Eat-Lancet Planetary Health Diet. Furthermore, the ambition of the EAT-Lancet Commission to function as an independent “IPCC for food systems” is misplaced unless underpinned by scientific evidence from actors spanning all interests.

While those on the Eat-Lancet side of the debate may not like being challenged so rigorously, they must concede that there is a genuine science-led debate still to be had. And they may also concede that their own PR and promotional activities closely resemble those from the opposite side as well as appearing substantially better funded. 

Looking toward the October 2025 launch of EAT – Lancet 2.0 and given the commitment to a science-based approach and the publication of a revised planetary health diet, we will hold EAT to their vision of “a fair and sustainable global food system for healthy people and planet — leaving no one behind” and expect that in support of this a balanced, transparent, and science-based debate is conducted.