The EAT–Lancet Commission: a flawed approach?

Zagmutt, Francisco J.; Pouzou, Jane G.; Costard, S.

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31903-8

Cited by 36 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Advocating global adherence to a 'flexitarian' EAT-Lancet diet (with lower bound intake values for animal-source food groups set at 0 g/d) has generated mixed responses and criticism within the global research and development community (17) . The state-of-the-art scientific basis for a predominately plant-based (or low animal-source food) universal reference diet (1) , focused on promoting a diversity of whole grains, vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts and unsaturated oils, low-to-moderate amounts of seafood and poultry, and no or low quantities of red meat, processed meat, added sugar, refined grains and starchy vegetables, is controversial (38,45,(49)(50)(51) , socially polarised (17,52) and has been questioned for vulnerable population groups in LMIC (41,(53)(54)(55) . To illustrate, increased intakes of nutrient-dense foods, such as animal-source foods, are known to provide vital nutritional benefits, including protein and essential micronutrients (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

EAT–Lancetdiet score requires minimum intake values to predict higher micronutrient adequacy of diets in rural women of reproductive age from five low- and middle-income countries

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health promulgated a universal reference diet. Subsequently, researchers constructed an EAT-Lancet diet score (0-14 points), with lower bound intake values for various dietary components set at 0 g/d, and reported inverse associations with risks of major health outcomes in a high-income population. We assessed associations between EAT-Lancet diet scores, without or with (>0 g/d) minimum intake values, and the Mean Probability of Micronutrient Adequacy (MPA) in food and nutrition insecure women of reproductive age (WRA) from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We analysed single 24-h diet recall data (n=1,950) from studies in rural Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Kenya, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. Associations between EAT-Lancet diet scores and MPA were assessed by fitting linear mixed-effects models with random intercept and slope. EAT-Lancet diet scores (mean ± SD) were 8.8 ± 1.3 and 1.9 ± 1.1 without or with minimum intake values, respectively. Furthermore, pooled MPA was 0.58 ± 0.22 and total energy intake was 2521 ± 1100 kcal/d. One-point increase in the EAT-Lancet diet score, without minimum intake values, was associated with a 2.6 ± 0.7 percentage points decrease in MPA (P<0.001). In contrast, the EAT-Lancet diet score, with minimum intake values, was associated with a 2.4 ± 1.3 percentage points increase in MPA (P=0.07). Further analysis indicated positive associations between EAT-Lancet diet scores and MPA adjusted for total energy intake (P<0.05). Our findings indicate that the EAT-Lancet diet score requires minimum intake values for nutrient-dense dietary components to avoid positively scoring non-consumption of food groups and subsequently predicting lower MPA of diets, when applied to rural WRA in LMICs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

EAT–Lancetdiet score requires minimum intake values to predict higher micronutrient adequacy of diets in rural women of reproductive age from five low- and middle-income countries

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, the methodology applied in determining the diet is neither sufficiently described, nor in alignment with scientific standards normally required for peer‐reviewed publications of this nature. These are the findings of an independent review of EAT‐Lancet undertaken by EpiX Analytics funded by MatPrat (Zagmutt et al ., 2019a, 2019b, ). The authors of EAT‐Lancet do not describe the methodology used for selecting literature to quantify specific intake levels of different foods; neither how this literature was used to arrive at the specific intake levels, nor an assessment of mortality prevention potential.…”

Section: Lack Of Transparencymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Proof is Not in the EATing

Thorkildsen

Reksnes²

2020

EuroChoices

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary One of the most widely discussed reports addressing sustainable food production and healthy diets is Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT‐Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems (EAT‐Lancet) launched in January 2019. The report is stated to be based on best available science but unfortunately the methodology applied is not transparent or in alignment with certain scientific standards. The diet prescribed by EAT‐Lancet is based on health considerations alone, before looking at certain environmental aspects, but no description is given as to how the very specific intake levels for each food were set. The diet is especially restrictive for animal sourced foods, even though evidence‐based dietary guidelines in many countries have concluded that these foods can be part of a health‐promoting diet. Furthermore, an independent review has found several flaws and weaknesses in the report. EAT‐Lancet also fails to account for national differences in natural opportunities for food production. Implementation of their recommendations will make many countries more reliant on imports which contrast with the recommendations by the FAO and the IPCC. Taking these issues into account warrants caution before taking on trust the recommendations by EAT‐Lancet into business and policy.

show abstract

“…The group then used three different methods to analyze the effects of proposed dietary changes on diet-related disease mortality. Results of these analyses showed generally positive effects of these changes expressed in terms of predicted diet-related deaths per year, although there has been some controversy in the literature since the publication of these proposals [13] .…”

Section: A Diet For the Planet And A Framework For Addressing Global mentioning

confidence: 99%

Can crop science really help us to produce more better-quality food while reducing the world-wide environmental footprint of agriculture?

Davies¹,

Ward²,

Wilson³

2020

Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews recent developments in crop science that can be the basis of a revolution in the global food system but it is also emphasized that such a revolution requires more than changes in food production and supply. We must more effectively feed a growing global population with a healthy diet while also defining and delivering the kinds of sustainable food systems that will minimise damage to our planet. There are exciting new developments in crop production biology but much existing crop science can be exploited to increase yields with the aid of a knowledge exchange (KE) framework requiring the use of new technology now available to most people across the globe. We discuss novel approaches at both the plant and the crop level that will enhance nutrient and water productivity and we also outline ways in which energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be reduced and labor shortages combatted. Exploitation of new biology and new engineering opportunities will require development of public-private partnerships and collaborations across the disciplines to allow us to move effectively from discovery science to practical application. It is also important that consumers contribute to the debate over proposed changes to food and farming and so effective KE mechanisms are required between all relevant communities.

show abstract

The EAT–Lancet Commission: a flawed approach?

Cited by 36 publications

References 5 publications

EAT–Lancetdiet score requires minimum intake values to predict higher micronutrient adequacy of diets in rural women of reproductive age from five low- and middle-income countries

EAT–Lancetdiet score requires minimum intake values to predict higher micronutrient adequacy of diets in rural women of reproductive age from five low- and middle-income countries

The Proof is Not in the EATing

Can crop science really help us to produce more better-quality food while reducing the world-wide environmental footprint of agriculture?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About