Can Eat-Lancet convince the world to eat less red meat?

The second Eat-Lancet report has reiterated stark warnings on the impact of meat and dairy consumption.

Published last week, it argues failing to curb intake will exacerbate already “devastating consequences for public health and the environment”.

The words are strong – yet the report appears to have attracted less ire than the Eat-Lancet Commission’s first landmark study in 2019, which sparked a counter-campaign by the meat lobby. So what are the key takeaways and what has been the reaction across the industry?

A worrying picture

From the outset, the 2025 Eat-Lancet report paints a worrying picture of the planet. It has already passed six of the nine so-called planetary boundaries measured by the commission: climate, biodiversity, land, freshwater, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, plus novel entities (pesticides, antimicrobials and microplastics).

Much of the blame is levelled squarely at the agrifood sector. Described as the “single most influential driver of planetary boundary transgression”, it contributes about 30% of greenhouse gas emissions globally.

That figure could be reduced – and population health improved – if diets are changed, the study argues.

The commission recommends a widespread switch to its Planetary Health Diet – which involves increased production and consumption of wholegrains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes. Meanwhile, red meat consumption should fall to just 15g a day – or about one serving per week.

The report’s findings have been welcomed by the likes of the vegan Society, which hails the recommendations as “a step in the right dietary direction”, and Greenpeace, which backs the“urgent message” for the planet’s future.

Jasmijn de Boo, global CEO of ProVeg International, calls on governments to “ incorporate recommendations of this diet into their national guidelines”.

The report – a far more measured critique of the food industry than its previous iteration – has also gained positive reaction from more unlikely sources. Like AHDB, whose defence of the meat sector has previously come under fire from the vegan lobby. Its head of nutrition Kate Arthur says the study “continues the important discussion about improving the health of the global population and the planet”.

However, Arthur points out the report doesn’t delve into the circumstances of individual countries. Less than 1% of the UK population follows the government’s Eatwell Guide recommendations, she highlights, meaning a “greater focus on encouraging better adherence is a public health priority”. Arthur also stresses the “central role” of lean red meat and dairy in balanced diets in the UK.

NFU president Tom Bradshaw highlights efficiencies in British farming as another important consideration. “UK beef production emissions are at half the global average, dairy more so, and agriculture is responsible for just 11% of UK greenhouse gas emissions,” he says.

Still, like AHDB, he finds positives in the report. Crucially, Bradshaw backs the need for greater collaboration.

Government departments must work together to “deliver co-ordinated policies that will help build resilience, profitability and productivity in the farming sector and allow farmers to invest”, he argues.

That need to support farmers is echoed by Chris Hilson, professor of law at the University of Reading.

“Any changes to how we grow and eat food must ensure farmers can make a decent living, everyone can afford nutritious meals, and no communities get left behind,” he says.

Radical change

Collaboration is just one part of the puzzle, however. There must also be political will for a radical shake-up of diets.

Ali Morpeth, co-founder of campaign group Planeatry Alliance, believes incremental changes won’t be enough. “We need bold systemic shifts that rewire supply chains around planetary health,” she says.

That bold shift could be tricky at a time of widespread rollbacks on the environmental agenda. Just two weeks ago, the EU’s landmark Deforestation regulation suffered a second major delay and the US president called climate change “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world” at the UN.

So before examining details, the report throws up a more basic question: is there desire to make change happen?