The Lancet: Diet and food production must radically change to improve health and avoid potentially catastrophic damage to the planet

From EurekAlert!

Public Release: 16-Jan-2019

The Lancet: Diet and food production must radically change to improve health and avoid potentially catastrophic damage to the planet

Feeding a growing population of 10 billion people by 2050 with a healthy and sustainable diet will be impossible without transforming eating habits, improving food production, and reducing food waste.

The Lancet

IMAGE: These are dietary targets based on a 2,500 kcal/day diet. Credit: The Lancet
  • Feeding a growing population of 10 billion people by 2050 with a healthy and sustainable diet will be impossible without transforming eating habits, improving food production, and reducing food waste. First scientific targets for a healthy diet that places healthy food consumption within the boundaries of our planet will require significant change, but are within reach.
  • The daily dietary pattern of a planetary health diet consists of approximately 35% of calories as 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 this new dietary pattern will require global consumption of foods such as red meat and sugar to decrease by about 50%, while consumption of nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes must double.
  • Unhealthy diets are the leading cause of ill-health worldwide and following the diet could avoid approximately 11 million premature deaths per year.
  • A shift towards the planetary health diet would ensure the global food system The diet can exists within planetary boundariess for food production such as those for climate change, biodiversity loss, land and freshwater use, as well as nutrient cycles.

Transformation of the global food system is urgently needed as more than 3 billion people are malnourished (including people who are undernourished and overnourished), and food production is exceeding planetary boundaries – driving climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution due to over-application of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers, and unsustainable changes in water and land use.

The findings are from the EAT-Lancet Commission which provides the first scientific targets for a healthy diet from a sustainable food production system that operates within planetary boundaries for food. The report promotes diets consisting of a variety of plant-based foods, with low amounts of animal-based foods, refined grains, highly processed foods, and added sugars, and with unsaturated rather than saturated fats.

Human diets inextricably link health and environmental sustainability, and have the potential to nurture both. However, current diets are pushing the Earth beyond its planetary boundaries, while causing ill health. This puts both people and the planet at risk. Providing healthy diets from sustainable food systems is an immediate challenge as the population continues to grow – projected to reach 10 billion people by 2050 – and get wealthier (with the expectation of higher consumption of animal-based foods).

To meet this challenge, dietary changes must be combined with improved food production and reduced food waste. The authors stress that unprecedented global collaboration and commitment will be needed, alongside immediate changes such as refocussing agriculture to produce varied nutrient-rich crops, and increased governance of land and ocean use.

“The food we eat and how we produce it determines the health of people and the planet, and we are currently getting this seriously wrong,” says one of the commission authors Professor Tim Lang, City, University of London, UK. “We need a significant overhaul, changing the global food system on a scale not seen before in ways appropriate to each country’s circumstances. While this is unchartered policy territory and these problems are not easily fixed, this goal is within reach and there are opportunities to adapt international, local and business policies. The scientific targets we have devised for a healthy, sustainable diet are an important foundation which will underpin and drive this change.” [1]

The Commission is a 3-year project that brings together 37 experts from 16 countries with expertise in health, nutrition, environmental sustainability, food systems, economics and political governance.

Scientific targets for a healthy diet – the planetary health diet

Despite increased food production contributing to improved life expectancy and reductions in hunger, infant and child mortality rates, and global poverty over the past 50 years, these benefits are now being offset by global shifts towards unhealthy diets high in calories, sugar, refined starches and animal-based foods and low in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds, and fish.

The authors argue that the lack of scientific targets for a healthy diet have hindered efforts to transform the food system. Based on the best available evidence, the Commission proposes a dietary pattern that meets nutritional requirements, promotes health, and allows the world to stay within planetary boundaries.

Compared with current diets, global adoption of the new recommendations by 2050 will require global consumption of foods such as red meat and sugar to decrease by more than 50%, while consumption of nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes must increase more than two-fold. 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. All countries are eating more starchy vegetables (potatoes and cassava) than recommended with intakes ranging from between 1.5 times above the recommendation in South Asia and by 7.5 times in sub-Saharan Africa.

“The world’s diets must change dramatically. More than 800 million people have insufficient food, while many more consume an unhealthy diet that contributes to premature death and disease,” says co-lead Commissioner Dr Walter Willett, Harvard University, USA. “To be healthy, diets must have an appropriate calorie intake and consist of a variety of plant-based foods, low amounts of animal-based foods, unsaturated rather than saturated fats, and few refined grains, highly processed foods, and added sugars. The food group intake ranges that we suggest allow flexibility to accommodate various food types, agricultural systems, cultural traditions, and individual dietary preferences – including numerous omnivore, vegetarian, and vegan diets.” [1]

Please view the image to see the dietary targets based on a 2,500 kcal/day diet [2].

The authors estimate that widespread adoption of such a diet would improve intakes of most nutrients – increasing intake of healthy mono and polyunsaturated fatty acids and reducing consumption of unhealthy saturated fats. It would also increase essential micronutrient intake (such as iron, zinc, folate, and vitamin A, as well as calcium in low-income countries), except for vitamin B12 where supplementation or fortification might be necessary in some circumstances.

They also modelled the potential effects of global adoption of the diet on deaths from diet-related diseases. Three models each showed major health benefits, suggesting that adopting the new diet globally could avert between 10.9-11.6 million premature deaths per year – reducing adult deaths by between 19-23.6%.

The authors highlight that evidence about diet, human health, and environmental sustainability is continually evolving and includes uncertainty, so they include ranges in their estimates, but are confident of the overall picture. Professor Lang says: “While major transformations to the food system occurred in China, Brazil, Vietnam, and Finland in the 20th century, and illustrate that diets can change rapidly, humanity has never aimed to change the food system this radically at such speed or scale. People might warn of unintended consequences or argue that the case for action is premature, however, the evidence is sufficient and strong enough to warrant action, and any delay will increase the likelihood of not achieving crucial health and climate goals.” [1]

Food sustainability

Since the mid-1950s, the pace and scale of environmental change has grown exponentially. Food production is the largest source of environmental degradation. To be sustainable, food production must occur within food-related planetary boundaries for climate change, biodiversity loss, land and water use, as well as for nitrogen and phosphorus cycles. However, production must also be sustainably intensified to meet the global population’s growing food demands.

This will require decarbonising agricultural production by eliminating the use of fossil fuels and land use change losses of CO2 in agriculture. In addition, zero loss of biodiversity, net zero expansion of agricultural land into natural ecosystems, and drastic improvements in fertiliser and water use efficiencies are needed.

The authors estimate the minimum, unavoidable emissions of greenhouse gases if we are to provide healthy food for 10 billion people by 2050 [3]. They conclude that non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions of methane and nitrous oxide [4] will remain between 4.7-5.4 gigatonnes in 2050, with current emissions already at an estimated 5.2 gigatonnes in 2010. This suggests that the decarbonisation of the world energy system must progress faster than anticipated, to accommodate the need to healthily feed humans without further damaging the planet.

Phosphorus use must also be reduced (from 17.9 to between 6-16 teragrams), as must biodiversity loss (from 100 to between 1-80 extinctions per million species each year).

Based on their estimates, current levels of nitrogen, land and water use may be within the projected 2050 boundary (from 131.8 teragrams in 2010 to between 65-140 in 2050, from 12.6 M km2 in 2010 vs 11-15 M km2 in 2050, and from 1.8 M km3 in 2010 vs 1-4 M km3, respectively) but will require continued efforts to sustain this level. The boundary estimates are subject to uncertainty, and will require continuous update and refinement.

Using these boundary targets, the authors modelled various scenarios to develop a sustainable food system and deliver healthy diets by 2050. To stay within planetary boundaries, a combination of major dietary change, improved food production through enhanced agriculture and technology changes [5], and reduced food waste during production and at the point of consumption will be needed, and no single measure is enough to stay within all of the limits.

“Designing and operationalising sustainable food systems that can deliver healthy diets for a growing and wealthier world population presents a formidable challenge. Nothing less than a new global agricultural revolution. The good news is that it is not only doable, we have increasing evidence that it can be achieved through sustainable intensification that benefits both farmer, consumer and planet,” says co-lead Commissioner Professor Johan Rockström, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Sweden and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany. [1]

“Humanity now poses a threat to the stability of the planet. Sustainability of the food system must therefore be defined from a planetary perspective. Five key environmental processes regulate the state of the planet. Our definition of sustainable food production requires that we use no additional land, safeguard existing biodiversity, reduce consumptive water use and manage water responsibly, substantially reduce nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, produce zero carbon dioxide emissions, and cause no further increase in methane and nitrous oxide emissions. There is no silver bullet for combatting harmful food production practices, but by defining and quantifying a safe operating space for food systems, diets can be identified that will nurture human health and support environmental sustainability.” Professor Rockström continues.

Transforming the global food system

The Commission proposes five strategies to adjust what people eat and how it is produced.

Firstly, policies to encourage people to choose healthy diets are needed, including improving availability and accessibility to healthy food through improved logistics and storage, increased food security, and policies that promote buying from sustainable sources. Alongside advertising restrictions and education campaigns, affordability is also crucial, and food prices must reflect production and environmental costs. As this may increase costs to consumers, social protection for vulnerable groups may be required to avoid continued poor nutrition in low-income groups.

Strategies to refocus agriculture from producing high volumes of crops to producing varied nutrient-rich crops are needed. Currently, small and medium farms supply more than 50% of the essential nutrients in the global food supply. Global agriculture policies should incentivise producers to grow nutritious, plant-based foods, develop programmes that support diverse production systems, and increase research funding for ways to increase nutrition and sustainability. In some contexts, animal farming is important to nutrition and the ecosystem and the benefits and risks of animal farming should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Sustainably intensifying agriculture will also be key, and must take into account local conditions to help apply appropriate agricultural practices and generate sustainable, high quality crops.

Equally, effective governance of land and ocean use will be important to preserve natural ecosystems and ensure continued food supplies. This could be achieved through protecting intact natural areas on land (potentially through incentives), prohibiting land clearing, restoring degraded land, removing harmful fishing subsidies, and closing at least 10% of marine areas to fishing (including the high seas to create fish banks).

Lastly, food waste must be at least halved. The majority of food waste occurs in low- and middle-income countries during food production due to poor harvest planning, lack of access to markets preventing produce from being sold, and lack of infrastructure to store and process foods. Improved investment in technology and education for farmers is needed. Food waste is also an issue in high-income countries, where it is primarily caused by consumers and can be resolved through campaigns to improve shopping habits, help understand ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ dates, and improve food storage, preparation, portion sizes and use of leftovers.

Dr Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief at The Lancet, says: “Poor nutrition is a key driver and risk factor for disease. However, there has been a global failure to address this. It is everyone’s and no-one’s problem.”

He continues: “The transformation that this Commission calls for is not superficial or simple, and requires a focus on complex systems, incentives, and regulations, with communities and governments at multiple levels having a part to play in redefining how we eat. Our connection with nature holds the answer, and if we can eat in a way that works for our planet as well as our bodies, the natural balance of the planet’s resources will be restored. The very nature that is disappearing holds the key to human and planetary survival.”

The EAT-Lancet Commission is one of several reports on nutrition being published by The Lancet in 2019. The next Commission – The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change – will publish later this month.

###

Peer-reviewed / Review, modelling, opinion

 

NOTES TO EDITORS

This study was funded by the Wellcome Trust and EAT (specifically funding from the Wellcome Trust and Stordalen Foundation). The Stockholm Resilience Centre was the scientific coordinator of the report.

The labels have been added to this press release as part of a project run by the Academy of Medical Sciences seeking to improve the communication of evidence. For more information, please see: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AMS-press-release-labelling-system-GUIDANCE.pdf if you have any questions or feedback, please contact The Lancet press office pressoffice@lancet.com

[1] Quote direct from author and cannot be found in the text of the Article.

[2] This takes into account the average global energy intake being around 2,370 kcal/day (with some countries being even higher than this) based on country-specific body weights. The diet corresponds to the average energy needs of a 70-kg man aged 30 years and a 60-kg woman aged 30 years whose level of physical activity is moderate to high. It is designed to meet nutritional requirements of healthy individuals over 2 years old (with energy intake depending on age, body size, and physical activity), but the authors note that there are special considerations for young children, adolescents and pregnant and breastfeeding women.

[3] This is based on the expectation that commitments to decarbonise the energy system by 2050 (no fossil-fuels for tractors, electricity, heat) will be met globally, there will be net-zero CO2 emissions from land-use change (through sustainable land management), and there will be improved nitrogen use efficiency and reduced methane emissions from ruminant livestock.

[4] The study focusses on methane and nitrous oxide and does not include carbon dioxide. This is because food production is a prime source of methane, and nitrous oxide, which have 56 times and 280 times the global warming potential (over 20 years) of carbon dioxide, respectively, and because it is assumed there are no net inputs of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels to agriculture by 2050.

[5] These estimates only include technologies that are currently available and proven at scale.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

198 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
WouldRatherNotSay
January 17, 2019 4:46 pm

My favorite line: “Humanity now poses a threat to the stability of the planet. ”
It left me wondering if the earth was going to wobble off its axis….

Patrick MJD
Reply to  WouldRatherNotSay
January 17, 2019 6:42 pm

Well the northern magnetic bearing is having a bit of a wobble at the moment and it is something to keep an eye on rather than CO2 or any of the suggestions in this study.

LdB
Reply to  WouldRatherNotSay
January 17, 2019 8:17 pm

Look up “Mao’s giant jump” .. it was a funny 1970’s physics article 🙂

At the time there were 1.5Billion in China so you get them to all jump off a 1m platform at the same time. These days there is 6Billion.

Energy released per person = mass * 9.8m/s/s * height
Plug in average mass and height and you have the energy released into the earth surface.

You go from a small but measurable tremor to a very small earthquake depending on mass and height.
http://www.convertalot.com/earthquake_power__calculator.html

There is another version called “Mao’s giant plunge” where everybody jumps into the ocean and the resulting displacement wave wipes out nations 🙂

PaulH
Reply to  WouldRatherNotSay
January 18, 2019 5:28 pm

The only threat to the food supply is from those who conspire to control it.

hunter
Reply to  PaulH
January 19, 2019 12:41 am

+10

Pat Lane
January 17, 2019 5:33 pm

You seldom meet anyone more arrogant than a doctor.

When these medical geniuses have eradicated disease from human beings they alter their focus to “fixing the planet”.

January 17, 2019 6:04 pm

These are the kind of people attracted to a movement against fossil fuels and capitalism. All those tree hugger eco wackos bring their little pet cause and tie it to the climate train.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/16/beef-and-climate-change/

PeterW
January 17, 2019 6:14 pm

Feeding material that humans cannot – or will not – eat, to animals is one of the classic ways of REDUCING waste.

We farmers don’t spend our time stuffing human-quality food down the necks of livestock, because we make more$$ selling it for human consumption. It is the less-edible produce, by-products and I edibles that go into livestock feed. If you think that this isn’t the case, spend three months eating grass and get back to me. Or try eating the protein meal left after the oil is extracted from canola. Or bread made from grain that was subject to prolonged wet weather, just before harvest.

Uneaten food used to be collected and fed to pigs, but now it is wasted, because health regulations have banned this practice due to concerns about propagating disease. That food is still tossed out because it is stale, moldy or passed its use-by date. Do any of these supposed experts think that forcing people to eat outdated food is the solution to our problems?

It’s easy to talk about “waste”, but not so easy to come up with a realistic solution.

Mike From Au
Reply to  PeterW
January 18, 2019 4:53 am

And the dill says “…………………………………………………Food waste is also an issue in high-income countries, where it is primarily caused by consumers and can be resolved through campaigns to improve shopping habits, help understand ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ dates,…….”

A stealth scanning electron microscope is required to see ‘best before’ (use by date) advice’s and ingredients that manufacturers do not, or legally not constrained to ‘clearly’ show in general….for example tobacco does not list ingredient additives, herbicide residue analysis and so on whatsoever.

For that matter

Gamecock
January 17, 2019 7:02 pm

‘Feeding a growing population of 10 billion people by 2050 with a healthy and sustainable diet will be impossible without transforming eating habits, improving food production, and reducing food waste.’

First, you have to find 10 billion people who want to eat a healthy and sustainable diet.

No chance of that. 10 billion people don’t want to eat Michelle Obama School Lunches. Millions of American kids didn’t either. As her legacy is undone, the Lancet wants to inflict it on everyone.

Maybe Project Veritas will do a secret video of the Lancet lunch room to see what these clowns eat.

‘A shift towards the planetary health diet would ensure the global food system’

A lie. There is no ‘global food system.’ This is a call for global government control of agriculture. Billions will die.

Kevin A
January 17, 2019 7:53 pm

It still amazes me how they can decide what is needed for a healthy diet:
The told me eggs were bad, I had high bad cholesterol and needed to take bad cholesterol lowering medication, then they told me my liver was being destroyed by the medication and finally they told me eggs are no longer a problem. As Emily Litella would say, never mind.

Gamecock
Reply to  Kevin A
January 18, 2019 7:22 am

I have to check every morning before I drink my coffee to make sure it is okay that day.

davidgmillsatty
January 17, 2019 8:22 pm

The case for animals (disregard the speaker’s belief in climate change and listen the the rest about the need for animals).

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
January 18, 2019 12:05 pm

Tell him to speak faster…had to turn it off after 15 seconds when he was on his third word.

Robert Capetola
January 17, 2019 8:29 pm

Seems the NEJM is in competition with the Lancet with respect to climate hystery.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1817067?query=TOC

January 18, 2019 12:16 am

Utter crap, Holand is the second biggest food exporter after the US in GROSS tonnage. It is a tiny country. How? Very high tech production. We can easily feed 10 billion. We could feed 100 billion if the entire world adopted these methods.

Gamecock
Reply to  MattS
January 18, 2019 7:24 am

Hey, if we* can’t feed 10 billion, there won’t be 10 billion.

*I don’t like “we” in this context. It implies a collective responsibility.

sonofametman
January 18, 2019 12:40 am

2500 kcal per day isn’t enough for outdour labouring work in a cold climate. In a previous carreer I was an oil-field mudlogger, on jobs from Australia to Shetland. When the roughnecks are ‘tripping’ in or out of the hole, it’s really hard physical work. With deep problematic wells you could be doing that for a full 12-hour shift. In the N. Sea roughnecks would eat over 5000 kcal per day , and not put on weight. When we had trouble on a well, I’d be idle after a couple of hours clearing up, so I’d go and spell the guys on the drill floor so they could get a rest and some food. Punishing physical labour. Steak tasted pretty good afterwards.
As for the composition of the rations these idiots are proposing…
50 g nuts per day fpr 7.7 billion people works up to 144 million metric tonnes per annum.
Current global nut production (tree and ground nuts) is about 44 million tonnes.
How’s that going to work?
Who gets the nuts?
Who’s gone nuts?

Steve O
January 18, 2019 4:17 am

I’m all for telling liberals they have to eat bugs to save the world.
Really, I am.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Steve O
January 18, 2019 8:06 am

And that they have to eat them when they are ALIVE.

Steve O
Reply to  AGW is not Science
January 18, 2019 8:48 am

That’s when it’s best for the environment.

Peta of Newark
January 18, 2019 4:39 am

That got things going.

And, as far as I see, indoctrination from primary school works, even among the skeptics.
Lovely example= pet cats
Everyone imagines that cats (and dogs in fact) are carnivores i.e. that they have to eat a diet revolving around meat. So that’s what we feed them and seemingly our pet cats especially wont touch anything else.

But then, many pet cats become ill and die from kidney failure. The Learned and Intelligent Ones assert that this is because of their diet – high in protein – and that the by/waste products of all that protein are to blame.

Good grief. Who in their right mind is gonna see Mother Nature creating a system like that?
Creating a creature that is effectively poisoned by its own diet.
Are you mad, drunk, high on sugar or some other mind bending drug?

Cats are Lipivores – they are fat eaters.
Out in the wild, the big cats will go out on wild killing sprees (as claimed by the likes of David Attenborough at least) and seemingly catch and eat meat flesh.
No. The scavengers get to eat the meat – the lions drink the blood, eat the brain, liver, kidneys, crunch the bones to get the bone-marrow and most determinedly, clear the carcass of fat.

And THAT is what we are supposed to eat.
We are Lipivores, like the cats and the dogs that became our ‘pets’ & friends, because, we shared the same diet. Fat.
Your, mine, our, everyone’s teacher at school got it wrong.
Like a few other things also…..

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/fatballs-food-trend-energy-protein-bliss-snack-healthy-foodie-butter-mct-oil-meal-replacement-a8095296.html

Fat has the beauty that it is not addictive like sugar is – hence it is self-limiting in its consumption and because of its high energy content, you only need very small amounts.
With just a modicum of care, it stores really well also.- – SATURATED fat that is.

Vegetable fat, with its carbon-carbon double bonds is in fact a potent poison – just one more method that plants use to ‘suggest’ to critters that eating them is NOT a good idea

January 18, 2019 4:57 am

“Humanity now poses a threat to the stability of the planet. Sustainability of the food system must therefore be defined from a planetary perspective. Five key environmental processes regulate the state of the planet. Our definition of sustainable food production requires that we use no additional land, safeguard existing biodiversity, reduce consumptive water use and manage water responsibly, substantially reduce nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, produce zero carbon dioxide emissions,…” Professor Rockström continues.

OK stop the presses! If these authors cannot even understand the basic elements of the Scientific Method, and insist on repeating falsehoods from global warming propaganda, then I do not have to read further.

Atmospheric CO2 is essential for plant life (and ~all life) on Earth – atmospheric CO2 is good and more is better – it IS that simple! Increasing CO2 is already having a major positive impact on crop yields – did they mention that?

What about the fact that 40% of the huge USA corn crop is devoted to producing fuel ethanol? What about re-allocating all food-to-fuel acreage to food production for human consumption?

If the authors cannot understand these concepts, then they have NO credibility.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 18, 2019 8:10 am

Agreed, they don’t – just like the pseudo “climate science” generally.

Alexander Vissers
January 18, 2019 5:35 am

Food production and security have always been highly political. Only the last decades the EU has allowed some market mechanisms in agricultural produce. Mostly the issue was overproduction and corresponding low farmer income requiring tariffs and export subsidies. Increasing demand should reduce those worries. Famine and hunger are not a result of the planet not being able to feed the human population but mostly of political and military conflicts. The issue should be monitored but no need for alarmism in that respect. The obesity and health issue is a different story, but I believe that once we really understand the problem and its causes it can be dealt with. So what does the Lancet story add but alarmism?

old white guy
January 18, 2019 6:06 am

If diet is the key to longevity I will eat as my parents and grandparents did. Beef, pork, lamb, chicken, fish of several varieties. Vegetables were potatoes, carrots, turnip, cabbage, parsnip. Bread was always white and homemade. Eggs, bacon, tea, no coffee, cereal was oatmeal with brown sugar and real cream.. My mother’s family all lived into their nineties, my mother passing this past year at 99. My father’s genes were not quite that good as he and his family only lived to their late 80s dad passing at 88 from pneumonia. All nonsense aside, genetics will prevail, unless of course you manage to abuse your body to an extent that causes an early death.

Reply to  old white guy
January 18, 2019 12:13 pm

For those of us who have one side of the family having a history of dying young (mid50s to mid60s…yikes), we hope to do better than them.
Yes…genetics, and some luck, and staying active and engaged in body and mind…and just using common sense: If there is a problem, go see a darn doctor. How many die because of stubbornness and the belief that everything can be toughed out? Modern medical technology is useless to those who fail to utilize it.

Hugh Mannity
January 18, 2019 6:36 am

Zoe Harcombe has an excellent rebuttal to the Lancet Here: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/
From the article:
Macronutrients

The “Healthy reference (EAT) diet (based on 2,500 calories, so for an adult male) has the following macronutrient composition:

Protein Fat Carbohydrates
Grams 90 100 329
Calories 358 903 1,316
As a % of calories 14% 35% 51%
Micronutrients

The EAT diet is based on an adult male. An adult female would likely consume four fifths of the above diet and thus four fifths of the above vitamins and minerals. Notwithstanding this, the above diet is deficient in the following nutrients:

Vitamin B12 – the US RDA is 2.4mcg, the EAT diet is slightly deficient in providing 2.27mcg. I would not mention this nutrient but for the comment in Table 1 that animal items can be replaced with plant protein options and these will not provide any B12. (There is an amusing error on p16 of the 51 page report. It says “The only exception is vitamin B12 that is low in animal-based diets.” I think they mean plant-based diets!)

Retinol (the form in which the body needs vitamin A – we cannot rely on carotene to be converted). The EAT diet provides just 17% of retinol recommended.

Vitamin D – the EAT diet provides just 5% of vitamin D recommendation and some of that provided will have come from plants and not be D3, which is the body’s preferred form.

Vitamin K – the USDA is not ideal when it comes to vitamin K. It does not distinguish between K1 (primarily found in leafy green vegetables) and K2 (primarily found in fermented foods and some foods of animal origin). 72% of the vitamin K in the EAT diet came from the broccoli (K1). As is the case with all nutrients, the animal form (K2) is better absorbed by the body.

Sodium – the EAT diet provides just 22% of the sodium recommendation. Sodium is so often demonised that people forget that it is a vital nutrient.

Potassium – the EAT diet provides just 67% of potassium recommended.

Calcium – more seriously, the EAT diet provides just 55% of calcium recommended.

Iron – the EAT diet provides 88% of iron recommended. Again, the body better absorbs heme iron, which comes from meat, poultry, seafood and fish. The US recommendations state: “The RDAs for vegetarians are 1.8 times higher than for people who eat meat. This is because heme iron from meat is more bioavailable than nonheme iron from plant-based foods, and meat, poultry, and seafood increase the absorption of nonheme iron” (Ref 2).

I have analysed separately the 7g beef, 7g pork, 29g chicken and 28g of fish, to find the maximum amount of heme iron (some of the iron in these foods is non-heme) and it amounts to 1.1mg – just 6% of the iron intake recommended. Given that the rest of the iron is non-heme, the deficiency is far greater than the number 88% suggests, as the requirement is 1.8 times higher.

Omega-3 – essential fatty acids. Unfortunately, the tool doesn’t aggregate to the fatty acid level, but this diet is highly likely deficient in omega-3 and highly likely (given the 350 calories of nutritionally poor, highly unsaturated, vegetable oils) has an unhealthy omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. Fish is the best source of omega-3 and the 28g of fish in the EAT diet provides 284mg of omega-3 fatty acids vs. an RDA of 1.6g for adult males (Ref 3).

There are numerous other issues with this plant-biased advice. Not least – what will all these plants be grown in when there is no top soil left because we have replaced soil-rejuvenating ruminants with soil-raping plants? (Ref 4)

However, the focus of this post was to highlight that the EAT diet is nutritionally deficient and that has been done
———————-

Also, the lead author, Walter Willet, has conflicts of interest (that’s putting it mildly — he’s a lifelong proponent of a vegetarian/vegan diet):

https://www.scribd.com/document/397606854/Walter-Willett-Potential-Conflicts-of-Interest

David Wells
Reply to  Hugh Mannity
January 18, 2019 7:40 am

Zoe excellent scrutiny. But why should anyone be surprised when the Rockefeller foundation is involved and Christiana Figueres ex UNFCC now has a nice comfortable chair at the Lancet.

Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health.

Prof Tim Lang lead commissioning author department of sociology. When the numbers didn’t fit ramped up methane’s relationship with our atmosphere to 56 times more potent than Co2 and N2O 280 times more potent than Co2. CH4 0.00017% and N2O 0.00003%.

This is about using deceit and prevarication to get Paris imposed across the board and like the muppets we are in the UK greens know we are a soft target with all political parties buying in to green propaganda. Lord Deben CCC remains intent on vaporising UK livestock farming because it represents 7% of UK greenhouse gas emissions but that 7% on a global basis represents 2 millionths of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. Infantilism.

Reply to  Hugh Mannity
January 18, 2019 10:25 am

Merely as a clarrification about Vitamin K, which is a co-factor to carboxylate 17 human proteins for metabolic functions. We humans can produce K2 in the form of menaquinon 4 configuration; this K2 is processed by us from plant K1 ingested. Animals products eaten will also provide K2 & mostly in the form of menaquinon-4.

privatecitizen
Reply to  Hugh Mannity
January 18, 2019 4:52 pm

I BROUGHT up this Lancet study in a low carb nutrition group..lots of replies and other posts by experts like Zoe. I DO believe people will put a stop to “erecting the planet” when it comes to being taxed by globalists to even get the food they don’t want! I think typical meat eating American males, and the meat eating low carb/ dieters who are growing by leaps (abandoning surgery, processed foods/grains) will HAVE to choose “Fight for my cheeseburgers or be forced to eat “cricket and termite” protein burgers.”

https://www.facebook.com/NinaTeicholz/posts/1065206050347443:0?hc_location=ufi

http://carnisostenibili.it/en/considerations-on-the-eat-lancet-commission-report/amp/?fbclid=IwAR06iCwf1U-2L_RnAnKt9qThTnR0GFFps-SD0E3ubzK0KUhgGQOGe1AzbIM

privatecitizen
Reply to  privatecitizen
January 18, 2019 4:58 pm

akkk typos : Protecting the planet Not: “erecting the planet”

and abandoning sugary not ” abandoning surgery,”

Can’t locate an edit or delete option… is there one?

Hugh Mannity
Reply to  RPT
January 18, 2019 7:48 am

Classic example of “Do what I say, not what I do!”

Reply to  Hugh Mannity
January 18, 2019 7:58 am

Reminds me of Dr. Suzuki’s lifestyle. Do as I say… etc. etc.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Cam_S
January 18, 2019 8:25 am

Or Gore, Or Leo DiCaprio, or any of the other Climate Snake Oil Salesmen.

ALL HYPOCRITES.

Viator
January 18, 2019 8:15 am

More bacon!

Jean Parisot
January 18, 2019 9:14 am

Sounds like it will be easier to burn off the methane clathrate deposits and get eh Earth back to at least 800ppm of CO2.

January 18, 2019 1:19 pm

Hard to know where to start: The hubris of believing one know’s exactly what constitutes a healthy diet? The ignorance in believing that we all have exactly the same nutritional requirements, ignoring the fact that each one of us is a unique ‘chemical factory’, using different catalysts, with differing absortion abilities, and hosting unique microbial populations?

It is of little matter. My big question is, we should make these dietary changes TO WHAT END? My parents were careful about maintaining healthy weights. They would occasionally diet, giving up favorite foods like ice cream; drinking disgusting (imo) liquid diet meals instead of having a proper lunch. My father died in his eighties after suffering dementia for several years; my mother in her nineties, having experienced a decade of Alzheimer’s.

They should have eaten the ice cream.

Steve O
January 18, 2019 1:54 pm

Hey Alarmists! Don’t tell me that I should pay carbon taxes if you’re not willing to eat a bug.

We all know that making insects a dietary staple is the best path to saving the world. If you’re not willing to do do that, then you’re not serious enough about global warming to do any preaching.

Valerie
January 18, 2019 3:49 pm

There are far too many comments for me to read, but of the large amount that I did see I note that people are indignant about the contents of this Lancet document. But more importantly, does nobody consider that this is part of AGENDA 21/2030, or Sustainabile Development – the latter is a less sinister sounding couple of words.

Agenda 2030 is to be implemented by 2030, and is being acted upon by at least 190 countries in the world. People, please Google it and find out how our governments are going to take away our property rights, tell us what to eat, put us in “stack and pack” tiny apartments in buildings near railway tracks because there will be no gas, therefore no cars. Why do you think there are bicycle ranks all over the place? We will need permission to travel anywhere…look, read what your country has in store for you. Google your city and “sustainable Development” and/or Agenda 21 and see what comes up. This is not conspiracy theory.

Valerie
January 18, 2019 3:52 pm

I’m not sure my post got published.

Check out Agenda 2030 – we are headed for “The Hunger Games” – predictive programming.

raygun
January 20, 2019 8:23 am

ANOTHER waste of human effort. Where do these IDIOTS come from ?!?! None other than the EU in association with …. wait for it ….the commie UN. I have my little home garden, ~400 sqft that supports plenty of three verities of tomatoes, bell peppers, onions and jalapenos, cucumbers and next to it are two giant pecan trees. The city doesn’t allow farm animals, otherwise I would have a couple of sheep, maybe a milking cow, all on ~1/2 acre. Hey, I’m an old hick farm boy from the panhandle of Texas, a retired engineer and a US Navy vet. Call me whatever you want, but remember Texas is STILL a red state and conservative. Remember Goliad, the Alamo and San Jacinto. Build the Damn Southern Border Wall, NOW. Other wise we vets and red bloodied hunters will have to compensate by occupying the border with our personal weapons of defense.

Aaron Watters
January 23, 2019 1:17 pm

Actually there are a lot of real (as opposed to imaginary) pollution problems caused by growing too many animals for meat. People really could be healthier and have a more benign influence on the environment if they ate more vegetables and less meat and grains. But maybe not on a first date: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3208257/Recipe-successful-date-Don-t-order-salad-pay-bill-make-sure-50.html