Is the EAT-Lancet Commission a Way to Feed the World Sustainably or Control What’s On Your Plate?

The latest EAT-Lancet Commission update arrives with a sweeping pitch: fix diets, protect the planet, and make food systems fairer. In its 2025 executive summary, The Lancet describes a science-driven roadmap to keep human nutrition “within safe and just planetary boundaries” while improving health and equity. It’s a bold vision. But as farmer and YouTuber Charlie Rankin argues on Yanasa TV, big visions can also mask big power grabs. Is this plan a blueprint for sustainable eating – or a play to decide your dinner for you?

What the Commission Actually Says

The document – led by researchers such as Johan Rockström, Shakuntala Haraksingh Thilsted, Walter Willett, Line Gordon, Mario Herrero, and Christina Hicks – lays out updated guidance on the planetary health diet, tools to measure food systems’ impacts on climate and nature, and a justice lens to look at who benefits and who pays. The report emphasizes “transformative and action-based recommendations and roadmaps” at global, regional, local, and individual levels. In short: match nutrition goals with environmental limits and do it in a way that’s fair.

The Diet at the Center

Though the 2025 executive summary keeps things high level, the Commission’s earlier framing of a “planetary health diet” has become a lightning rod. The goal, in their telling, is not to micromanage your meals but to shift overall patterns – more vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, and whole grains; less highly processed foods; and balanced animal-source foods – so that billions can eat well without breaking ecological systems. The update claims to offer new modeling and measurement so policymakers can tell if changes are actually working.

Rankin’s Core Concern: Control

In his video, Charlie Rankin doesn’t buy the benevolent framing. He characterizes the push as “the Great Food Transformation” – a project he says is backed by powerful philanthropic groups – and warns that it points toward technocratic control of production and consumption. Rankin argues the plan’s levers include subsidy shifts, taxes, labeling, and, eventually, digital monitoring of purchases. To him, this is not just about carrots and peas; it’s about who decides what lands on your plate.

The Flashpoint: Meat

Rankin zeroes in on red meat. He says the EAT-Lancet model effectively reduces beef to a token, “about 14 grams a day”, and calls that a bite, not a meal. He also claims red meat is nutrient dense in ways plants can’t match and accuses parts of the nutrition literature of leaning on weak correlations to justify policy. From his vantage, constraining beef is not a neutral health move; it’s reshaping culture, rural livelihoods, and personal autonomy.

The Commission’s Rationale

The Commission’s stance is broader than “meat bad.” Its authors argue that overall dietary patterns – including but not limited to animal products – drive land use, biodiversity loss, and emissions, all of which interact with human health. The update integrates “safe and just” thresholds: guardrails meant to keep ecosystems stable and ensure people’s needs are met. They position their diet as one path among many, paired with changes in farming practices, waste reduction, and access to nutritious foods.

Where Policy Meets the Pantry

Rankin worries about how this gets implemented. He points to the power of farm subsidies and tax codes to nudge entire markets. He warns that “high-carbon” labels could stigmatize beef and poultry, while subsidies swell the supply of plant-based or lab-grown alternatives until they become the default – regardless of what people actually want. If history is any guide, he adds, once a product is subsidized and scaled, it permeates the food system (as corn and soy have for decades).

The Digital Layer

Then comes the tech piece. Rankin sketches a future where digital IDs, programmable money, and carbon scores track food purchases in real time. In that world, he says, your spending could be throttled if your “food footprint” runs hot – “a data point with a quota,” as he puts it. Even if that sounds speculative, he notes pilot projects marrying payments and carbon metrics already exist. For him, the direction of travel is clear: from advice to enforcement.

Justice, According to Whom?

The Commission insists that justice is woven throughout: it talks about food access, affordability, and social foundations. It argues that transitions should protect vulnerable groups and create fairer systems. Rankin flips the question back: who gets to be the referee of “just”? He fears that global standards could flatten local realities, sidelining small producers, traditional diets, and community food cultures under the banner of uniform sustainability metrics.

The Knife’s Edge Between Standards and Steamrolling

Here’s where I land. Setting clear, transparent standards for measuring food impacts is useful. Without common yardsticks, we argue past each other. But metrics can morph into mandates – especially when tied to subsidies, procurement, or digital rails. The Commission’s science can inform decisions; it shouldn’t become a one-size-fits-all decree. If policymakers use the report as guidance, with opt-in incentives and room for regional variation, it can help. If they use it as a blunt instrument, the backlash will be fierce . and justified.

Keep Choice, Build Better Defaults

People deserve real choice. At the same time, better default options – tasty, affordable, nutritious foods with lower environmental loads – make it easier for families to eat well without pressure or tracking. That means investing in soil health, pasture-based systems, diverse rotations, food waste cuts, and shorter supply chains that raise quality while lowering impacts. It also means respecting cultural foods and regional agriculture instead of funneling everything into globalized “solutions” that taste like cardboard.

What Would a “Both/And” Approach Look Like?

A balanced path could combine several ideas:

• Use the Commission’s toolkit to measure impacts, publicly and clearly.
• Let communities set their own targets within broad planetary goals – no micromanaging portions from Geneva or Washington.
• Redirect incentives toward practices, not products: reward regenerative grazing, agroforestry, precision nutrient use, and biodiversity gains, whether the farm grows lentils or raises cattle.
• Keep data minimization and privacy non-negotiable. No carbon scores welded to your grocery cart.
• Protect small and mid-size producers with procurement, local processing, and fair markets so “sustainable” doesn’t just mean “consolidated.”

Back to the Core Question

The Lancet team frames the update as science in service of health and the planet – a set of evidence-based tools and pathways. Charlie Rankin hears something different: a central plan creeping from white paper to checkout counter. Both perspectives matter. We need solid science to steer a crowded planet – and strong guardrails to keep choice, culture, and local control intact. Feed the world? Yes. But not by taking the fork out of people’s hands.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.