Could your diet help save 15 million lives and the planet?

The 2025 EAT-Lancet Commission report states that we could prevent up to 15 million premature deaths per year and significantly reduce environmental damage. Here, we explore how this would work for the public and whether it is an idealistic framework or a real call for change. 

The 2025 EAT-Lancet Commission report has reignited a global conversation: could changing what we eat really save both lives and the planet? According to its findings, a mostly plant-based ‘planetary health diet’ could prevent up to 15 million premature deaths every year while cutting the environmental toll of industrial food production – an undeniably bold claim for sure. But while the science is persuasive, the practical reality isn’t as simple as swapping steak for spinach.

The planetary health diet is all about moderation. Half the plate is meant to be fruit and vegetables, with the rest made up of whole grains, legumes, nuts and small portions of meat or dairy. It’s closer to a Mediterranean diet than it is militant veganism – or at least the strict veganism we usually see when promoting diets on the internet. It is more of an invitation to eat a little less animal product and introduce a little more variety into our lives. Advocates of the diet say this shift could lower rates of heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers, while easing the strain on land, water and emissions. A winner, right?

But translating that ideal into everyday life is complicated. Critics argue that the diet assumes a level of access and affordability that doesn’t exist everywhere. In some regions, meat and dairy remain vital sources of nutrients; in others, fresh produce is scarce or expensive. There’s also cultural resistance, where changing the plates of nations can erase history and a way of life. And although plant-based diets are generally lighter on emissions, imported avocados, almonds, and soy have their own environmental footprints.

Nutrition scientists also caution against oversimplifying the message. Plant-based doesn’t automatically mean healthy if it relies on ultra-processed meat substitutes or heavily refined carbs. The planetary health diet asks us to zoom out, but it also demands a level of nutritional literacy many people don’t have the access or time to master.

That said, the concept does offer a framework for progress rather than perfection. Even partial adoption (replacing red meat a few times a week, cooking from scratch more often, wasting less food) can deliver real benefits. Governments are beginning to weave environmental goals into dietary guidelines, and the food industry is slowly responding, reformulating products and promoting planet-friendly menus. Still, systemic change moves slowly, and without broader policy shifts from governments (such as making sustainable foods cheaper and more accessible) the desired outcome is unachievable for most individuals.

Perhaps the value of the planetary health diet lies less in its rules and more in its reminder that food choices are never neutral. It's a reminder that they shape our bodies, economies and ecosystems at the same time. The promise of this approach is significant, but so are its blind spots. The real challenge isn’t convincing people to eat plants, but rather creating a food system where doing so is possible and affordable.