A Diet Designed in Davos, Paid For in Delhi: The Equity Concerns of the EAT-Lancet Planetary Health Diet

The EAT-Lancet Planetary Health Diet, initially published in 2019 and updated in 2025, aims to sustainably feed a growing global population whereas mitigating non-communicable diseases. While lauded as a landmark achievement, the diet faces increasing scrutiny regarding its potential impact on low- and middle-income countries, raising concerns about nutritional justice and food sovereignty. This article examines the criticisms leveled against the EAT-Lancet Commission, highlighting the asymmetry between those who design global dietary guidelines and those who bear the burden of their implementation.

The Origins and Scope of the EAT-Lancet Diet

The EAT-Lancet Commission brought together researchers to develop a dietary pattern that balances human health with planetary sustainability. The 2025 update builds upon the original framework, offering a more comprehensive and scientifically documented approach. Yet, critics argue that despite the good intentions of the researchers, the diet disproportionately impacts nations already grappling with food security and nutritional deficiencies. The Commission itself acknowledges that low-income and middle-income regions – including India, China, Brazil, and sub-Saharan Africa – will face the largest dietary changes, increased food prices, and reductions in agricultural land use [1].

Representation and the Question of Who Was in the Room

A central criticism revolves around the representation of researchers involved in formulating the EAT-Lancet recommendations. While the 2025 Commission involved 70 authors, analysis reveals a significant underrepresentation of individuals from the very regions expected to be most affected by the diet. A group of African nutrition researchers noted that of the 70 authors, only a small fraction were originally from low- and middle-income countries: one from Ethiopia, one from Mexico, one from Colombia, none from China, one from Indonesia, and two from India [2].

Even adjusting the count based on current citizenship, the disparity remains. This lack of diverse representation raises concerns that the framework reflects the priorities and assumptions of researchers based in North America, Northern Europe, and international institutions, potentially overlooking crucial contextual factors.

The Science Behind the Mortality Projections

The Commission claims that adopting the Planetary Health Diet could prevent approximately 15 million premature deaths per year. However, this projection has been challenged by nutrition scientists who identify flaws in the underlying methodology. The mortality model compares the Planetary Health Diet to a “business-as-usual” diet, but assumes that individuals adopting the PHD automatically achieve optimal caloric intake, eliminating all weight-related mortality instantaneously. This is not a realistic comparison [1].

When the model was reconstructed with this asymmetry corrected, the mortality benefit of the PHD was found to be no greater than simply correcting for caloric excess or deficiency. The Commission has not released its modeling code, hindering independent verification and scrutiny.

The Micronutrient Challenge and Real-World Adherence

The Planetary Health Diet restricts animal-source foods (ASFs), which contribute approximately 13% of total calories. This restriction creates potential micronutrient deficiencies, particularly for populations reliant on ASFs as their primary source of essential nutrients. Independent analysis identifies potential shortfalls in Vitamin B12, zinc, iodine, and calcium [1].

The Commission suggests addressing these deficiencies through fortification or supplementation, but this is not a viable solution in many low-income countries with limited distribution systems. The MyPlanetDiet randomized controlled trial in 2025 found that diets modeled on the PHD increased several micronutrient inadequacies even with modest inclusion of animal-source foods [1].

The Indian Context: Protein Deficiency and the Role of Eggs

In India, where 73% of the population is protein-deficient and 18.7% of children suffer from wasting, the PHD’s restrictions on animal-source foods pose a significant challenge. The egg, a readily available and affordable source of complete protein, could become a luxury for many. Restricting eggs in the name of planetary health represents a tax on poverty [4].

poultry production, relative to ruminant livestock, has a lower environmental footprint. A nuanced approach that differentiates between protein sources is crucial.

Food Sovereignty and the Need for Localized Solutions

Critics argue that the EAT-Lancet Commission focuses on global nutrient targets without adequately addressing the underlying issues of the industrial food system. A genuinely just framework would prioritize food sovereignty, empowering local communities to develop food systems adapted to their specific ecological, cultural, and nutritional needs. The Commission acknowledges the importance of agroecological principles, but these principles are not central to the framework’s specific food recommendations.

Toward a More Equitable Global Dietary Framework

A truly equitable global dietary framework requires:

• Designing guidelines with, not for, affected populations.
• Differentiating between protein sources based on their environmental impact.
• Addressing micronutrient deficiencies in real-world conditions.
• Ensuring transparency by releasing modeling code for independent verification.
• Prioritizing the immediate needs of those suffering from undernutrition.

The EAT-Lancet Commission’s work represents a valuable contribution to the conversation on sustainable food systems. However, a commitment to nutritional justice and food sovereignty is essential to ensure that global dietary policies do not exacerbate existing inequalities. A diet designed in Davos should not be paid for in Delhi.