The EAT-Lancet Commission closes its doors

The EAT-Lancet Commission was launched in 2019 as a partnership between the Norway-based EAT Foundation and the medical journal, The Lancet. Its stated goal was to design a “planetary health diet” capable of feeding a growing global population while reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint. The Commission argued that transforming global food systems could improve public health, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and generate trillions of dollars in annual economic savings.

Central to its framework was a shift toward predominantly plant-based diets, with significantly reduced consumption of red meat and dairy. The Commission’s reports were widely cited in climate, nutrition, and public policy circles, and its work aligned with broader food system reform efforts promoted by institutions such as the World Economic Forum and climate-focused city networks like C40 Cities.

Read more about the “Planetary Health Diet”: https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet/the-planetary-health-diet/

However, the Commission’s recommendations were sharply criticized by independent physicians, farmers, and food sovereignty advocates. Dr. Meryl Nass, among others, argued that the proposed dietary patterns were protein-deficient, minimized animal agriculture without sufficient nutritional justification, and relied heavily on modeling assumptions about economic and climate savings. Concerns were also raised about the concentration of influence among large philanthropic and global health institutions, including the Wellcome Trust and the Rockefeller Foundation, as well as the broader “One Health” framework championed by figures such as Lancet editor Richard Horton.

In early 2026, the EAT Foundation announced it would wind down operations in its current form, citing shifts in funding and the international donor landscape. The closure effectively ends the institutional home of the EAT-Lancet Commission, though its reports remain publicly available and continue to influence food policy discussions.

For farmers and food freedom advocates, the Commission’s shutdown represents more than the closing of a nonprofit. It underscores the fragility of top-down global food redesign efforts that rely on centralized funding streams through agencies such as the World Health Organization, USAID, and various United Nations bodies.

Whether similar initiatives will re-emerge under new banners remains to be seen. What is clear is that the debate over who controls the future of food — and what ends up on our plates — is far from over.