WHO withdraws endorsement of EAT-Lancet diet
A UN official warned that widespread adoption of the diet could risk jobs and traditional diets linked to cultural heritage
16 Apr 2019 --- The World Health Organization (WHO) has pulled out of supporting the EAT-Lancet diet, touted as being a “diet for planetary health.” The global initiative calls for a dramatic reduction in meat consumption and an increased focus on plant-based ingredients for human health. After receiving widespread attention, the diet has come under pressure from an Italian UN official who raised concerns about the impact of the diet on people’s health and livelihoods, leading to the global body to drop its endorsement.
Launched in January 2019, the EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet and Health was the result of a range of prominent academics working to solve the impending issue of how we will feed a growing population of 10 billion people by 2050, without “dramatically transforming the global population’s eating habits, improving food production and reducing food waste.”
The WHO dropped its planned sponsorship after Gian Lorenzo Cornado, Italy’s Ambassador and permanent representative of Italy to the international organizations in Geneva, questioned the scientific basis for the diet. The retraction occurred before the launch event for the diet in Geneva, Switzerland, on March 28. However, the event, sponsored by the government of Norway, still went ahead.
Cornado warned that a global move to such a diet could lead to the loss of millions of jobs linked to animal husbandry and the production of “unhealthy” foods, and destroy traditional diets which are part of global and cultural heritages. He also notes that nutritionally the “dietary regime” could be nutritionally deficient for human health.
In the diet, approximately 35 percent of calories would come from whole grains and tubers, protein sources mainly from plants.
The report calls for a new globalized food production and consumption system, urging for a centralized control of our dietary choices, he claims. By reintroducing and enforcing the controversial and non-scientific distinction between “healthy and unhealthy foods,” the EAT-Lancet Commission “quantitatively describes a universal healthy reference diet, based on an increase in consumption of healthy foods (such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes and nuts), and a decrease in consumption of unhealthy foods (such as red meat, sugar and refined grains).” The prescription looks very close to a vegetarian or vegan diet, he notes.
In the diet, approximately 35 percent of calories would come from whole grains and tubers, protein sources mainly from plants – but including approximately 14g of red meat per day – and 500g per day of vegetables and fruits.
Moving to the new dietary pattern would also require a drastic reduction of about 50 percent in the global consumption of foods such as red meat and sugar, while the consumption of nuts, fruits, vegetables and legumes would have to double.
However, the report did acknowledge that global targets will need to be applied locally. For example, countries in North America eat almost 6.5 times the recommended amount of red meat, while countries in South Asia eat only half the recommended amount.
The authors also estimated that widespread adoption of such a diet would improve intakes of most nutrients. It would also increase essential micronutrient intake, such as iron, zinc, folate and vitamin A, as well as calcium in low-income countries. The exception is vitamin B12, where supplementation or fortification might be necessary for some circumstances.
How did industry respond?
Following its launch, industry experts and academics aired mixed responses. Although many welcomed the study’s goals and scientific approach, questions were posed as to the viability of the far-stretching policy changes it proposed, as well as the utility of one set of dietary recommendations deemed to be suitable for everyone.
The commission was applauded for supplying a thorough “menu of actions,” which has not been done before, says Dr. Howard Frumkin, Head of Wellcome Our Planet Our Health program. However, he did note the massive changes that would be 
The UK farming industry also called for the report to be looked at through a “local-lens.”required at the policy level to implement the recommendations.
Meanwhile, The British Dietetic Association (BDA) put forward that while the study rightly links food systems to decreasing global health and environmental issues, one set of dietary recommendations, as recommended in the report, may not be suitable for everyone.
“The BDA supports the findings of EAT Lancet, namely that our food systems have a significant impact on the environment and that our current dietary patterns are having a negative effect on our health as well,” Tom Embury, Public Affairs Officer at British Dietetic Association, tells NutritionInsight.
“However, we would stop short of endorsing the specific diet they recommend because we do not believe that one set of dietary recommendations is suitable for everyone. The skill of dietitians is in translating the evidence around sustainable diets into practical, personalized advice for individuals,” he says.
The UK farming industry also called for the report to be looked at through a “local-lens.”
“There are significant differences in farming methods and consumption patterns across the globe and it is important that we recognize that the British livestock industry is one of the most efficient and sustainable in the world,” says Stuart Roberts, Vice President of the National Farmers Union (NFU).
Additionally, critics have noted that the report fails to make any persuasive case as to how its ambitious goals should be achieved, failing to mention the role of GM crops and importance of fertilizers and herbicides, among several other issues.
Edited by Laxmi Haigh
