Misguided criticisms: flawed claims against the EAT Planetary Health Diet addressed

The EAT Lancet Commission has provided a robust response to the recent criticism of the EAT Planetary Health Diet by Beal et al.(1) In their analysis, Beal et al. suggested increasing animal foods while reducing high-fibre foods to prevent micronutrient deficiencies.(2)

Springmann, a member of the EAT Lancet Commission, addressed this criticism in a comment published in the EAT Lancet Plant Health special edition. Springmann highlighted significant flaws in the analysis by Beal et al. and their proposed adaptation to the EAT Lancet Planetary Health Diet.

The Beal diet adaptation suggested a substantial increase from current global intakes in beef and fish consumption by 57% and 370% respectively whilst also recommending significantly lower levels of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains compared to the EAT Lancet planetary health diet.

Springmann acknowledged that micronutrient needs vary among different population subgroups, but stressed that the Commission's analysis took this into account. He welcomed further analysis to better plan and develop policies specifically tailored to population groups with higher nutritional needs. Furthermore, Springmann emphasized that a more thorough analysis by the Beal group would have identified other nutrient-dense foods with healthier nutrient profiles and lower environmental impact than those proposed. Springmann went on to cite publications that clearly demonstrate how well-planned 100% plant-based dietary patterns can meet all micronutrient requirements, contrary to the claims made by Beal et al.

Using an accredited new impact assessment model, Springmann illustrated the detrimental consequences of the Beal recommendations to both human and planetary health, showing that they would lead to:

• One million additional diet-related deaths annually compared to the EAT recommendations

• A 43-64% increase in greenhouse gas emissions compared to current levels

• A 26% increase in cropland use compared to current levels

In conclusion, Springmann not only reaffirms the credibility of the EAT Lancet Planetary Health Diet in promoting both human and planetary health but he also highlights how the poorly thought-out analysis and recommendations by the Beal group would worsen global warming, environmental destruction, and diet-related ill-health.

Save article as PDF

Save article as PDF