The Planetary Health Diet is rich in plants, and moderate in animal products, and proposes a blueprint for ways of eating that differ substantially in different parts of the world. (Photo: iStock) 
The 2025 EAT-Lancet Commission report, put together by 70 experts from 35 countries, unveils an updated version of the Planetary Health Diet that would prevent 15 million premature deaths from non-communicable diseases every year, while putting a huge brake on the rate at which the planet is warming — cutting food-related greenhouse gas emissions in half, from the current 30% to 15%. (Aviation, which gets a lot more press, is responsible for 2.5% of CO₂ emissions, and for 4% of total global warming.)
Though the report’s authors say that the diet “is based entirely on the direct effects of different diets on human health, not on environmental criteria”, the impact of worldwide adoption of (or a move closer to) the Planetary Health Diet “would substantially reduce environmental pressures on climate, biodiversity, water and pollution”, with the overall aim of achieving “healthy, sustainable, and just food systems” in which 9.6 billion people will have access to healthy, adequate food within critical environmental limits by 2050.
The diet’s main aim — to improve human health — is based on stronger evidence and analysis showing that the Planetary Health Diet reduces the risks of type 2 diabetes (South Africa’s second-biggest killer), cardiovascular disease, obesity, many types of cancer, and cognitive decline.
The report, launched on 2 October 2025 at the Stockholm Food Forum and published online in the scientific journal The Lancet, spans 76 packed and often technical pages, and builds on the first EAT-Lancet Commission report from 2019, in which a “Planetary Health Diet” was first described. While the “diet” in both is much the same, the 2025 report is underpinned by broader and deepened scientific research and analysis, including modelling of human-health and planetary impacts and open access to the data, along with interactive tools to enable any individual, organisation or country to tailor the Planetary Health Diet according to their specific setting.
The “diet” itself, which is rich in plants, and moderate in animal products (one serving of dairy and one serving of animal-based protein per day, with red meat once per week), proposes a blueprint for ways of eating that differ substantially in different parts of the world, though the food-group building blocks of the diet are the same for all.
What that looks like in India, Vietnam, Nigeria, Brazil, Lebanon, the United States or Spain will look very different — but the report emphasises that the Planetary Health Diet needs to be available, affordable, convenient and appealing in all cultural contexts.
“This is not a deprivation diet,” Professor Walter Willett of the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, and one of the report’s authors, told The Guardian. “This is something that could be delicious, aspirational and healthy. It also allows for cultural diversity and individual preferences, providing flexibility.”
And what adoption, or adaptation, of a “customised” Planetary Health Diet would mean for different countries — which food groups they would need to increase or reduce in their consumption — also varies enormously. In North America, red meat consumption is exponentially higher than anywhere else (more than seven times the Planetary Health Diet’s recommended amount); in Europe, dairy consumption is relatively very high and would need to be reduced; in sub-Saharan Africa, the consumption of starchy roots (e.g. cassava) outstrips all other food groups several times over, but an increase in chicken, dairy and eggs would be necessary for better nutrition.
The knock-on effect is that industries in different parts of the world (including small-scale to commercial producers) would also need to downsize or scale up, with implications for all people involved in aspects of food production: for example, global meat production of ruminant animals, i.e. cows, sheep and other grazers) would need to downscale by 33%, while farmers of fruits, vegetables and nuts would need to expand production by 63%, compared with 2020 production levels. (The report also gives open access to its data, in an interactive format where you can explore and visualise what to eat, those foods’ nutritional values, and their planetary impacts at global, regional and demographic levels.)
What is different in the 2025 report?
The new report has more evidence and analysis: on diet and health, on the effects of food production systems, on establishing the foundations of a “just” food system, on quantifying the consequences of a global food systems transformation, and underpinning its proposed solutions and actions.
And, crucially, food justice is central: “By adding a focus on justice, we place people at the centre of food systems,” the report states.
A “comment” article in The Lancet, published alongside the report, says: “Food justice is the beating heart of the new commission,” and describes the “negative and powerful influences, which are commercially and politically driven” that threaten the successful implementation of a plan such as the Planetary Health Diet.
The report itself points to injustices that are the result of unbalanced power dynamics in the global food system, saying that one of the barriers to global changes in dietary patterns is “the exercise of corporate power in ways that undermine public interests. The high degree of corporate concentration across food systems remains an intractable governance issue, which is partly due to the vast influence of large transnational food and beverage companies with considerable power.”
Though our world is awash in diets, this is one with a huge, global twist: shared responsibility in helping right the wrongs we have done to the planet through irresponsible overconsumption.
“The destabilising effect of unhealthy overconsumption on the Earth’s systems highlights the importance of viewing health diets not just as a human right, but also as a shared responsibility,” the report states.
So while the report highlights the health and environmental impacts of the Planetary Health Diet, it also places equity firmly in the spotlight. It points out that food systems are the single biggest cause of “planetary boundary transgressions”, responsible for breaches of five of the six planetary boundaries transgressed (out of nine in total). One of those is the 30% of greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change, another is loss of biodiversity. And it also points out a shocking imbalance in the responsibility for those transgressions: “The diets of the richest 30% of the global population contribute to more than 70% of the environmental pressures from food systems.”
One of the key messages emerging from the report is that national policies to address “inequities in the distribution of both benefits and burdens of current food systems would aid in ensuring food-related human rights are met”.
What will it cost to fix food systems and rein in climate crisis?
The food systems transformation necessary to shift global diets to prevent up to 15 million premature deaths per year (27% of total deaths globally), and to halve the greenhouse gas emissions caused by food systems (from 30% to 15%) that are accelerating our climate catastrophe are estimated at between $200- to $500-billion per year. But the report’s evidence says that “the price of action is much lower than the cost of inaction”. Right now, the report estimates, food-related damages to health and the environment costs society $15-trillion a year, and that the investments made in fixing our food systems would quickly turn into economic benefits, saving $5-trillion per year.
Even at this time of increasing global instability, the report says: “Food systems still offer an unprecedented opportunity to build the resilience of environmental, health, economic and social systems, and are uniquely placed to enhance human wellbeing” while contributing to the stability of the earth’s natural systems.
Professor Johan Rockström, one of the commission’s co-chairs, told a briefing to journalists: “The evidence is undeniable: transforming food systems is not only possible, it’s essential to securing a safe, just and sustainable future for all.” DM