I attended EAT Stockholm Food Forum a few weeks ago, and just finished reading the new EAT-Lancet report. Here’s a high level report summary, before diving into the full reflections:

And with that out of the way, let’s dive in!

When the first EAT-Lancet report was published in 2019, it didn’t just make headlines — it redrew the map of how scientists, policymakers, and consumers thought about food. The report was groundbreaking because it defined, for the first time, a “planetary health diet” (PHD)—a single science-based framework linking human health and environmental sustainability. In other words, it showed how food can be produced within planetary boundaries — as well as what dietary patterns are desirable to prevent diet-related diseases — and then combined the two. It was groundbreaking, and Dr. Gunhild Stordalen of EAT should truly be recognized for catalyzing and convening this important work.

The PHD showed how shifting to mostly plant-based diets could feed 10 billion people within planetary boundaries while reducing disease risk and halving food-related greenhouse gas emissions.

Six years later, the world looks different — it’s hotter, and even more polarized. Just to share one example example from the updated EAT-Lancet 2.0 report, global food systems emit 16 to 18 gigatonnes of CO₂ equivalents per year — nearly a third of total emissions. Even if we decarbonised all energy systems tomorrow, current food production alone could still push global warming past 1.5°C.

All of this makes the new EAT-Lancet report feel both urgent and unsettling. The numbers are clearer, the tone sharper, and the ambition higher.

The report’s new focus is justice. The wealthiest 30% of the global population drive more than 70% of food-related environmental impacts. Less than 1% of people live in the “safe and just space” where everyone’s food needs are met without breaching planetary boundaries.

That imbalance runs deep through every layer of the food system. Women still earn half as much as men in agricultural work. Nearly one in three food system workers earns below a living wage. And as men move out of farming into better-paid jobs, women — often without land rights or access to finance — carry more of the burden of feeding the world.

In 2019, critics accused EAT-Lancet of being too technocratic, too global, too detached from local realities. And of course, critics were upset about EAT-Lancet’s recommendations to cut meat consumption quite drastically, not least in high-income countries. The so-called “15-gram problem” — the now-famous daily meat allowance, roughly a forkful — sparked headlines even before the launch. The new version seems to have listened. While the dietary recommendations remain largely the same — more plants, less meat, modest dairy — the framing has shifted.

The updated model is the work of 70 scientists from 35 countries, spanning nutrition, sustainability, agriculture, and social equity. It shows that a shift to the planetary health diet could prevent up to 15 million premature deaths every year — the equivalent of saving 41,000 lives a day. It could also halve food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and reduce agricultural land expansion, one of the key drivers of biodiversity loss.

The PHD isn’t actually austere. It’s vibrant, varied, and flexible. It doesn’t ban meat or dairy; it simply right-sizes them within planetary limits. It’s a diet rich in vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, nuts, and seeds — the foods scientifically proven to lower the risk of e.g. cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cognitive decline.

On the conference lunch tables, those ideas came alive, thanks to top chefs such as Jessie Sommarström, Frida Ronge, and Alicia Dahl — plus their culinary teams, of course. Some examples:

The “whole grain miracle” of Denmark was also highlighted on stage. Since 2008, average daily whole grain consumption there has more than doubled, from 36 grams to 82 grams — now the highest in Europe (it’s something I’ve covered in the past, e.g. here). It’s a powerful reminder that large-scale dietary change is possible when science, policy, and culture pull in the same direction.

If 2019’s EAT-Lancet meeting felt like a manifesto, 2025 felt more like a town hall. The atmosphere was still charged with ambition, but grounded by humility.

Sessions explored how public procurement can drive systemic change — how cities like Copenhagen have shown that schools, hospitals, and care homes can be catalysts for healthier, lower-emission diets. A New York representative explained how the city was inspired by Copenhagen’s model to reduce the climate impact of its public kitchens. Others spoke about integrating indigenous food traditions into modern food systems — not as nostalgia, but as living knowledge about biodiversity, soil, and resilience.

Not everyone was — or is — convinced. Outside the bright halls of EAT Stockholm Food Forum, a coordinated campaign — reminiscent of the backlash in 2019 — was already brewing. Reports by DeSmog (here) and the Changing Markets Foundation (here) revealed how PR firms linked to the meat and dairy industry were preparing another “counter-offensive,” spreading misinformation and personal attacks on the scientists involved.

EAT isn’t perfect — and no one claims it has all the answers — but it remains the most ambitious, science-based attempt to align human health with planetary limits. What’s striking is that despite all the criticism, the loudest opponents, oftentimes from the meat and dairy sector, have yet to offer any credible, data-driven alternative. Until they do, EAT-Lancet stands as the best framework we have for transforming food systems.

Johan Rockström sums things up fairly well:

“What we put on our plates can save millions of lives, cut billions of tonnes of emissions, halt the loss of biodiversity, and create a fairer food system. We now have robust global guardrails for food systems, and a reference point that policymakers, businesses, and citizens can act on together. The evidence is undeniable: transforming food systems is not only possible, it’s essential to securing a safe, just, and sustainable future for all.”

My sense from chatting with people around the the coffee tables at EAT is that many felt that the EAT-Lancet 2.0 report had matured — it was less prescriptive, more participatory.

Perhaps that’s what makes it hopeful. Not a perfect model, but an evidence-based compass. A recognition that food is both deeply personal and profoundly political — the most everyday act through which we shape the future of the planet.

As Line Gordon of Stockholm Resilience Centre noted: “It’s up to our politicians to make smarter choices for a better world. How you then decide to live your life is up to you.”