The initial report received wide media coverage and praise until some independent investigations (including from me) found the the proposed new diet was woefully deficient in multiple nutrients (include vitamin B12, vitamin D, vitamin K, sodium, potassium, calcium, iron, omega-3 fats, protein and amino acids, and more!) which was not sustainable for anyone to avoid health conditions.
The EAT-Lancet diet was in effect an optional-almost-no-meat, plant-based diet, but included manufactured or highly processed plant-based foods. The extremely low animal products would comprise 1/5 of an egg, 2/3 of a fish finger, 1/4 of a rasher of bacon, 1/16 of a burger pattie, or 1.5 chicken nuggets! And even then, animal-based foods are optional! No wonder it was so nutrient deficient! A subsequent investigation into the financial requirements of the EAT-Lancet diet concluded that approximately 1.5 BILLION of the world's 7 billion population today would not be able to afford the EAT-Lancet diet! (Hirvonen, Bai, Headey & Masters, 2019). The EAT-Lancet new world diet was a failure.
EAT-Lancet is an interesting collaboration of the EAT Foundation Group, founded by a billionnaire vegan couple, and The Lancet, a medical and scientific journal. The EAT-Lancet Commission and report was funded by The Wellcome Trust, a charity with pharmaceutical company roots (Eat Forum, 2019). Almost all of the report's authors and contributors were vegans - it was a highly biased group, and their report showed this. The group is attempting to meet the Umited Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement (for climate change) (EAT-Lancet Commission, 2021).
Recently, EAT-Lancet group is back with a new report, full of wonderful quotes and proposals, which deserve to be investigated again, so here are some key points:
• They make many unsubstantiated claims why the future of the planet is dire if we don't all make huge changes to the food supply system and improving nutrition for everyone. They claim that a diet rich in plant-based foods and fewer animal sources will improve health and environmental benefits. But offers no scientific references to back this claim.
• They make no differentiation between organic or grass-fed animal sources of food, versus factory-raised (and grain-fed and other garbage-fed) animals or processed meats, which can give significant differences in health.
• They forget that animals IMPROVE the soil with nutrients and bacteria, and even sequester more "carbon" into the soil (and meat) from the air than what they give out. They also forget that roaming animals do not need vast clearing of native forests, unlike mass mono-plant agriculture (ie, plant farming is more damaging to the environment, than animal farming).
• They make no differentiation between highly processed factory-produced plant sources of food (ie plant protein, soy, GMOs etc) and fresh, whole plant foods.
• They make no mention of the huge transportation issues of getting plant foods to people, or encouraging many people with gardens to grow their own foods!
• Their dietary recommendations are still based on useless calories, but it can be used as a good comparison, for example they recommend 811 calories PER DAY from grains (wow! An epidemic of Diabetes here we come), 78 calories from vegetables, 153 calories from dairy (and never mind the many cultures who traditionally haven't accessed or consumed dairy, and shouldn't), just 30 calories from beef, lamb and pork, 62 from chicken, 19 from eggs (remember just 1/5 of one!), a huge 284 calories from legumes (and again many can't tolerate these or the pea protein powder it mostly comes from), and a whopping 354 from unsaturated plant-based oils, and even 120 calories PER DAY from sugar.
• Their aim is to double the consumption of plant-based foods (except starchy vegetables which are to be limited, despite them being rich source of fibre...), limit red meat (highly nutrient-dense), and with eggs, chicken and dairy being optional.
• Reducing food waste is a goal too, and a good one as up to 45% of food produced is wasted or thrown out because of picky choosing by supermarkets and other food companies, limited resources for picking or processing, not being consumed quickly enough, or other causes. However reducing waste is a much later goal, when it should be done first...
The EAT-Lancet Commission haven't learnt from their earlier failure - no change has been done to their original plan to fix the issues with their "new world diet", to correct the obvious and highly damaging nutrient deficiencies that are present in it. On one hand the report says it is about trying to improve food quality and quantity to feed everyone in a sustainable way, but doesn't actually provide the nutrients it claims.
With all the other political and health agendas going on at the moment and for the past 12 months, this is another part of it. A committee of a few people cannot realistically come up with a plan that will address or fix the entire planet or improve the health of the entire population. These co-called experts did a terrible job of putting together the original report and the "study" of their proposed "one world diet" being the EAT-Lancet diet, with massive issues that were found by independent investigations, but still haven't been fixed 2 years later. I'm sure these experts won't personally be relying on 1/5 of an egg for their daily animal-based protein intake...
This is a plan for CAUSING chronic nutrient deficiencies and disease in the ENTIRE population, while pretending to save the planet and improve health. Pretty much the same as another agenda going on at the moment...
Yes the food supply needs improving in many ways, but this diet or plan is not the way it can be done.
#foodcanfixit #fktheEATLancetdiet #fkthenewworlddiet
EAT Forum. (2019). How was the EAT-Lancet Commission funded? Retrieved 8th March 2021 from https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet.../eat-lancet-funding/
EAT-Lancet Commission. (2021). Healthy Diets From Sustainable Food Systems: Summary Report from the EAT-Lancet Commission. Retrieved 6th March 2021 from https://eatforum.org/content/uploads/2019/01/EAT-Lancet_Commission_Summary_Report.pdf
Hirvonen, K., Bai, Y., Headey, D., & Masters, W.A. (2019). Affordability of the EAT–Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. The Lancet, 8 (1), E59-E66. Doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30447-4