EAT-Lancet diet shift could cut global agriculture CO2 emissions 85% by 2050, researchers find

An international team of over 40 researchers suggests that a global shift to healthy, sustainable diets can reshape global agriculture. They compared a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario with a transformation scenario involving the adoption of the EAT-Lancet diet, finding that the change could reduce agriculture-related net CO2 emissions by 85% by 2050. 

Nutrition Insight speaks with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) to learn how these changes could impact nutrition and health.

The BAU reflects current food systems. Research collaborator Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) explains that this accounts for roughly one-third of all food loss or waste and one-third of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

The alternative scenario factored in improved farm productivity and reduced food waste alongside healthy diets. As a result, it could cut global agricultural land use by 6% by 2050, according to the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK.

It adds that by 2050, results show decreasing global livestock production value by 42% (US$630 billion) from 2020 levels. By the same year, a 70% (US$274 billion) decrease in the production value of ruminant animals (beef cattle, sheep, and goats) is estimated, with a 57% (US$890 billion) increase in the value of vegetable, fruit, nut, and legume production.

Plant-based diets and alternative proteins

The Nature study found that the livestock production value could fall by 49–83% when shifting to healthier and more sustainable food systems by 2050.

The healthy scenario predicts a 70% decrease in ruminant animal production value and a 57% increase in the value of plant-based production by 2050.“The scenarios analyzed in the paper pose ‘what-if’ questions of how things might look if the world achieved a shift to diets aligned with the 2025 EAT-Lancet recommendations. The main assumption is to largely refocus diets on plant-based sources for a healthier diet that is also better for the environment,” Timothy Sulser, senior scientist of Foresight and Policy Modeling at IFPRI, tells us. 

Although the study did not look into what this would mean for plant-based proteins, he says this sector is part of the picture. 

“Looking at the current landscape in this sector and thinking about the scenario run in this analysis, you could imagine that there would be a mix of expansion in consumption of minimally processed proteins, such as whole grains complemented with legumes,” comments Sulser. 

There would also likely be a strong expansion of convenience specialty products, he adds, such as packaged heat-and-eat products available in many grocery stores now, which would include interest in novel protein sources.

Meanwhile, study co-author Hermann Lotze-Campen, head of PIK’s research department, says that continuing the BAU path is an expensive option. Instead, providing healthy diets for a growing population by 2050 is expected to keep agricultural production near 2020 levels, while also benefiting the environment and health.

Affordable for all?

The study created a scenario built on the 2025 EAT-Lancet recommendations, which suggested that global adoption of a flexitarian Planetary Health Diet could prevent around 15 million premature adult deaths per year.

Sulser says that industry manufacturers and ingredient suppliers can tackle food waste by focusing on logistics and processing along the value chain, from farm to consumer.However, these have drawn criticism over affordability and cultural relevance in some regions, which the study did not directly address, clarifies Sulser.

“The EAT-Lancet Commission explains in their 2025 publication how they made adjustments to their process to address the affordability and cultural relevance issues in their recommendations associated with the 2019 EAT-Lancet report.” 

“Since the scenarios in our research are based on the updated process from the EAT-Lancet Commission itself, improved affordability and cultural relevance are implicitly included in our analysis.” 

He spotlights IFPRI’s contribution to that special issue, implying that an EAT-Lancet-type diet could be more affordable than continuing current dietary patterns. However, nutritional inadequacy in some regions remains. 

Preventing food waste

The study models a 50% cut in food loss and waste as one of the three pillars. For industry manufacturers and ingredient suppliers, Sulser says that practical approaches would involve logistics (transport and cold storage) and processing along the value chain (from farm to consumer).

“If consumers can make adjustments to minimize how much of their food ends up in the waste bin, that would be helpful, too. However, exploration of the ways to achieve reductions in food loss and waste was beyond the scope of this analysis.”

Furthermore, lead author Dr. Matt Gibson, who began the work at Cornell University, US, before joining the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, calls on governments to make tough decisions for human health and the planet by confronting powerful groups that profit from the status quo. This includes changing the system that currently “fails” food producers and those nourished by it.

From possibility to reality

IFRI describes the required transformation as “historically unprecedented,” with roughly US$1.6 trillion less in agricultural production value by 2050.

Sulser argues that achieving the alternative scenario needs extraordinary commitment and coordination from politicians, governments, the private sector, and consumers.To turn the scenario into a reality is complex, notes Sulser. “The magnitude of the shift necessary to achieve a new agri-food system aligned with the 2025 EAT-Lancet recommendations is, as the paper emphasizes, a true ‘break with historical trends.’” 

“There are ways to achieve these goals, but they would require extraordinary commitment and coordination on the part of politicians, governments, the private sector, and consumers.” 

“At the same time, this also illustrates why such a shift has been out of reach so far,” he adds. “The BAU scenarios that are the comparison point for this analysis demonstrate what we see as a more likely outcome with continued growth in demand for animal-source foods in many regions, with cereals for feed following closely.”

Some BAU scenarios show interest in healthier foods, but it is not as strong as the EAT-Lancet vision, adds Sulser. In his personal perspective, he sees that the world’s trajectory is not aligning with the EAT-Lancet vision over the next couple of decades.

“But there are certainly opportunities for improvements within this grand vision that are attainable, such as repurposing subsidies to support broader access to healthier and more environmentally friendly food.”

Cornell University’s study co-author, Daniel Mason-D’Croz, underscores that action on a large scale cannot begin in 2050; the scenarios should be used as an early guide instead.