The 2025 Commission is a major update that expands the scope from a focus on “healthy diets from sustainable food systems” to “healthy, sustainable, and just food systems.” The key additions are:

• A Central Focus on Justice: For the first time, we analyze food systems through the lens of distributive, representational, and recognitional justice, grounded in human rights to food, a healthy environment, and decent work. We specify the social foundations that enable these human rights and find that nearly half of the world’s population lives below these foundations.
• Quantified Food System Boundaries: We have quantified the food system’s share of all nine planetary boundaries, confirming it is the single largest driver of transgression for five of them.
• Stronger Health Evidence: New analysis shows that adopting the Planetary Health Diet could prevent about 15 million deaths per year (27% of global mortality), a higher estimate than in 2019, based on a more robust “PHD index.”
• Robust Modeling: We used an ensemble of eleven global models to project outcomes, providing a more reliable and nuanced picture of the transformation needed.
• A “Safe and Just Space” Analysis: We show that only 1% of the global population currently lives in a space where people’s rights and food needs are met without exceeding planetary boundaries.

• Food systems are at the heart of solving the interconnected health, climate, biodiversity, and justice crises.
• Shifting to the Planetary Health Diet could prevent about 15 million deaths per year. This equals more than 40,000 deaths per day. 
• Food is the primary driver of transgression for five of the nine planetary boundaries (land system change, biosphere integrity, freshwater change, biogeochemical flows, and novel entities) and is a major contributor to climate change.
• Human rights linked to food are not being met for nearly half the world’s population, while the diets of the wealthiest 30% are responsible for over 70% of the food system’s environmental pressures.
• No single solution is enough. A combined transformation of diets, production practices, and food loss/waste is essential and achievable, but only through combined actions can we bring the food system within or close to the food system boundaries.

No. This is a misconception. The Planetary Health Diet (PHD) is not a one-size-fits-all prescription but a flexible dietary pattern designed to support optimal health across diverse populations and contexts.

It emphasizes a diet rich in plants—whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes form the foundation—while allowing for modest amounts of animal-sourced foods, including dairy, fish, and meat, depending on cultural preferences. Red and processed meat is limited due to strong evidence of health risks.

The core principle is adaptability: the PHD can align with local food cultures while encouraging nearly universal increases in consumption of whole grains, fruits, nuts, and vegetables, alongside regionally appropriate reductions in meat intake. It’s often described as “flexitarian”—plant-forward, diverse, and adaptable—while setting healthy boundaries against both under- and over-consumption.

The planetary health diet (PHD) is based entirely on the direct effects of different diets on human health, not on environmental criteria. The diet’s name arose from the evidence suggesting that its adoption would reduce the environmental impacts and nutritional deficiencies of most current diets.

This estimate comes from a new, comprehensive analysis. Researchers created a “PHD index” score that measures how closely a person’s diet aligns with the PHD pattern. They then analyzed data from over 200,000 people followed for more than 30 years. By combining the powerful link between alignment with the PHD (i.e. higher PHDI scores) and lower mortality with data on current global diets, they calculated that achieving a high alignment with the PHD globally could prevent about 15 million premature deaths annually. This estimate did not even include the additional benefits from reducing overweight and obesity, meaning the true potential is likely even higher.

Our analysis shows that the global food system is the dominant driver of transgression for five of the six breached planetary boundaries: land-system change, biosphere integrity, freshwater change, and biogeochemical flows (nitrogen and phosphorus pollution). It is also responsible for about 30% of greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change and has a notable impact on ocean acidification. No other human activity exerts such widespread and intense pressure on the Earth’s systems.

Food system boundaries are science-based targets representing the food system share of the safe operating space within planetary boundaries. This “safe operating space” is based on earth systems science (water, carbon, nutrient cycles), and aims to keep climate, biodiversity, water, and land systems within a space (stocks and flows for nutrients and energy) for humanity. The commission examines all nine planetary boundaries: (1) Climate, (2) Biodiversity, (3) Land, (4) Freshwater, (5) Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), (6) Ocean Acidification, (7) Ozone, (8) Aerosol Pollution, and (9) Novel Entities (Chemical, biological, and material pollution).

These food system boundaries are based on the available evidence representing the degree of contribution needed for the food system to return or remain within planetary boundaries, estimates of minimum environmental impacts from food systems that are hard to abate (ie, through optimisation modelling across sectors), and estimates of reduced Earth system impact while also retaining productive agricultural systems.

Globally, around 775 kcal per capita per day is lost or wasted, representing approximately 20% of agricultural land use. When we waste food, we also waste all the resources that went into producing it (land, water, energy, and fertiliser) and generate unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. More than 10% (1.9 Gt CO2e per year) of global food system emissions are attributed to food that is lost or wasted. Halving food loss and waste is a powerful lever to reduce the environmental footprint.

Both. A fair food system requires that everyone everywhere has their rights to food, a healthy environment, and decent work realised. This implies that everyone have the right to access to affordable, healthy, culturally appropriate, and sustainably produced food; that everyone have the right to live in a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment; and that everyone have the right to work in just and favourable conditions; to be free to choose their work, with a salary that allows them to live and support a family; and to receive equal pay.

The Commission emphasizes that everyone has the right to a stable environment. It recognizes a deeply unjust that the overconsumption of many of us, imposes environmental instability and degradation on others, often those with the least ability to adapt.

Evidence shows that in many places the Planetary Health Diet is already more affordable than a diet high in animal products. To make the PHD affordable globally it is critical for governments to lift people out of poverty. We recognise that in a just food system, increasing the purchasing power, especially of the poorest parts of the population, is more important than reducing food prices. Among the billions of people who cannot afford a healthy diet, farmers, fishers, and other food systems workers are highly represented.

Our modelling shows that the transformation we propose could lead to a less resource- and labour-intensive and slightly less costly food system overall. The multi-model ensemble projects a moderate reduction (8%) in average agricultural producer prices for the EAT-Lancet scenario by 2050 compared with the business-as-usual scenario, which could lead to lower food prices. However, targeted policies are essential to ensure affordability and ensure living incomes for farmers, including:

• Repurposing government subsidies to support the production and consumption of healthy, sustainable foods.
• Using taxes and subsidies to make healthier foods relatively cheaper than unhealthy ones.
• Implementing social protection programs (e.g., cash transfers) to bolster the purchasing power of the most vulnerable.

We recognize this transformation has profound implications on different agricultural sectors. A “just transition” is required. Our models project that a shift to healthy diets would lead to a 36% reduction in livestock labour demand by 2050 compared with the business-as-usual scenario. This means:

• Providing support for farmers to shift to producing more plant-based foods (e.g., fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts), including financial support for new investments and lower income during the transition phase, and support for training and learning new skills.
• Offering retraining programs and social safety nets for workers in contracting sectors.
• Ensuring that expanding sectors, like fruit and vegetable production, provide decent wages and working conditions.

Key actions include ensuring payment of a living wage (currently, 32% of the food system workforce earns below this level), protecting the right to collective bargaining (2.6 billion people lack access to it), eliminating child and forced labour, and improving occupational safety. This requires strong regulations, enforcement, and corporate accountability throughout supply chains.

• Providing support for farmers to shift to producing more plant-based foods (e.g., fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts).
• Offering retraining programs and social safety nets for workers in contracting sectors.
• Ensuring that expanding sectors, like fruit and vegetable production, provide decent wages and working conditions.

The social foundations are the conditions that enable the rights to food, a healthy environment, and decent work to be met. The Commission specifies the threshold for each of the social foundations and estimates the number of people falling below the social foundations globally.

Your choices matter. You can:

• Shift your diet: Embrace a more plant-based diet, reducing red meat and increasing diversity of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes.
• Reduce food waste: Plan meals, store food correctly, and compost scraps.
• Vote with your wallet: Support businesses that are transparent about their sustainability and ethical practices.
• Become a citizen advocate: Call on your political representatives and local institutions to support policies for a healthy, sustainable, and just food system.

The Commission’s modelling confirms that a transformation is biophysically and technically possible. It is not idealistic, but essential. The report states that “achieving access to healthy diets for all, which are produced, processed, distributed, and consumed fairly within planetary boundaries, largely remains biophysically possible.” The question is one of political will and social choice. Substantial financial resources, estimated between US$200 billion and $500 billion per year, are needed, but evidence suggests investments would rapidly shift to economic benefits of at least $5 trillion per year. The cost of inaction, in human lives, environmental degradation, and economic damage, is far greater than the cost of action.

The most striking example is the profound inequality in both impacts and responsibilities. Our analysis reveals that: The most striking example is the profound inequality in both impacts and responsibilities. Our analysis reveals that:

• 3.7 billion people live in countries that fall below the social foundations, meaning their basic rights to food, a healthy environment, and decent work are not met.
  
  

• Simultaneously, 6.9 billion people live in countries whose dietary patterns, if adopted globally, would transgress planetary boundaries.
  
  

• Critically, the diets of the wealthiest 30% of the global population are responsible for more than 70% of the food system’s environmental pressure. This means those who benefit least from the current system suffer the most from its harms, while a minority drives the planetary damage. Only 1% of the global population currently lives in a country that is in the “safe and just” space for food systems.

Governments have a powerful toolkit to reshape food environments. Key evidencebased actions include:

• Set and enforce strong regulations: Implement and enforce strict regulations to prevent the conversion of intact ecosystems for agriculture and to ensure food system workers are paid a living wage and have access to collective bargaining.
  
  

• Use taxes and subsidies: Implement fiscal policies to make unhealthy foods more expensive and healthy foods more affordable. Repurpose the $200-500 billion in annual finance needed for the transformation to support sustainable production.
  
  

• Regulate marketing and labeling: Combine restrictions on advertizing of unhealthy foods, especially to children, with mandatory front-of-pack warning labels to empower consumer choice.
  
  

• Use legal and regulatory frameworks to curb excessive corporate power: Develop and enforce robust competition policies to prevent excessive market concentration and ensure meaningful consumer and producer representation in food policy councils to shield policy-making from undue influence.
  
  

• Lead by example in public procurement: Use the massive purchasing power of schools, hospitals, and government canteens to provide healthy, sustainable meals, creating guaranteed markets for producers who adopt sustainable practices.

Food loss and waste is a massive global problem and occurs at every stage from farm to fork. Our data shows:

• Globally, around 775 kcal per capita per day is lost or wasted, representing approximately 20% of agricultural land use. These losses occur along the entire supply chain (i.e., post-harvest, retail, food service, and households).
  
  
• Furthermore, more than 10% (1.9 Gt CO2e per year) of global food system emissions are attributed to food that is lost or wasted.
  
  Solving this problem requires action from everyone. Here are examples of who can do what:
  
  For business leaders and policymakers: Improve Infrastructure, Invest in better storage, cold chains, and transport.
  
  Policy and Standards: Harmonize date labeling and incentivize the sale of imperfect produce.
  
  Consumer Education and Tools: Launch and fund campaigns on meal planning, proper food storage, and using leftovers.
  
  For consumers (what you can do): Consumers have the power to make significant changes at home. Here’s a few examples:
  
  Plan your meals: Make a shopping list to avoid buying more than you need.
  
  
• Store food correctly: Learn how to properly store fruits and vegetables to keep them fresh longer.
  
  
• Utilize leftovers: Get creative with leftovers and see them as a resource for your next meal.
  
  
• Understand dates: Learn that “Best before” is often a quality guide, while “Use by” is a safety indicator.
  
  
• Compost scraps: Rather than sending food scraps to the landfill, compost them to return nutrients to the soil.
  
  

Working together across the food system supply chain, we can drastically reduce food waste, save money, and protect our planet.

The Commission affirms the important role of aquatic foods within the Planetary Health Diet and emphasizes that wild fisheries must be managed within ecological limits and aquaculture must adopt transformative practices like Integrated Multi-Tropic Aquaculture to reduce its environmental impact The Blue Food Assessment explored the role of aquatic blue foods in healthy, equitable, and sustainable food systems. Key points include:

• Increased consumption: The model projects a 46% increase in fish and seafood production by 2050 in the EAT-Lancet scenario to meet a global consumption of fish and seafood at the levels recommended in the Planetary Health Diet.
  
  

• Responsible aquaculture: The report promotes practices like Integrated Multi- Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA), where species like seaweed and shellfish are grown near fish farms to capture waste and create a more circular system. Targeted feed improvements are also critical.
  
  

• Sustainable wild capture: Wild fisheries must be managed within ecological limits, informed by science, to prevent overfishing and minimize bycatch and habitat destruction.

A “circular food system” aims to eliminate waste by continuously re-using resources. Instead of a linear “take-make-dispose” model, it loops nutrients and materials back into the system. Key practices include recycling organic waste and recovering nutrients from human waste and manure. Our modelling shows that combining an EAT-Lancet transformation with circularity (EL-Opt+Cir scenario) has a powerful effect:

• It can reduce nitrogen use by 50% and phosphorus use by 73% compared to 2020 levels.
  
  

• It can increase the recycling of food byproducts and waste from 22% to 90%. This demonstrates that circularity is a critical component for bringing food systems back within planetary boundaries, especially for nutrient pollution.

The report makes a powerful financial and strategic case for transformation, framing it not as a cost but as an essential investment.

• Massive economic upside: The transformation requires an estimated $200-500 billion per yearin investment but would generate economic benefits of approximately $5 trillion per year by shifting to a more efficient, less wasteful, and healthier system. The return on investment is clear.
  
  

• Mitigating systemic risk: Current food systems generate an estimated $15 trillion in negative externalities annually (e.g., health costs, environmental damage). Businesses that perpetuate this model face immense regulatory, reputational, and supply chain risks. Aligning with the report is a strategy for future-proofing.
  
  
• Capturing growth markets: The transformation will radically reshape consumer markets. The report projects a 63% increase in the production of vegetables, fruits, and nuts and a 46% increase in fisheries and aquaculture by 2050, while demand for ruminant meat will fall by 33%. Businesses positioned in these growth sectors will capture new value.

The livestock sector faces the most significant restructuring, creating both challenges and opportunities.

• Projected contraction: The report projects a global 33% reduction in ruminant meat production and a 24% reduction in non-ruminant meat (poultry/pork) by 2050 compared to 2020. This represents an absolute contraction in the value of the global terrestrial livestock sector by 43% (a reduction of $650 billion). The analysis indicates regional variations.
  
  

• Strategic pivots: The Commission outlines several strategic responses for the sector:
  
  – Efficiency & technology: Improve emissions intensity and production efficiency, but caution is urged around the environmental trade-offs of confined systems.
  
  – Nature-positive management: Integrate livestock into sustainable systems like silvopasture (trees + pasture), which can enhance carbon sequestration and biodiversity.
  
  – Gains in animal welfare: Addressing consumer concerns on animal welfare is shown to influence purchasing decisions, “even outranking environmental concerns.”
  
  – Circular integration: Explore opportunities in circular systems, such as using food by-products as feed.

The Commission is explicit that no single company can navigate this transformation alone. Joining coalitions is a strategic necessity.

• De-risking the transition: Coalitions allow for shared investment in R&D (e.g., for sustainable inputs or circular technologies) and create a unified voice to advocate for sensible, predictable policy.
  
  

• Addressing systemic challenges: Issues like living wages, deforestation, and nutrient pollution cannot be solved by one company in isolation. Precompetitive collaboration within sectors and across value chains is required to level the playing field and create industry-wide solutions.
  
  
• Enhancing license to operate: Being part of the solution, rather than defending the status quo, is critical for maintaining social and political legitimacy. The Commission warns that efforts to “undermine, hide, or obfuscate climate science, environmental protections, and attention to justice” are alarming and aggravate, rather than resolve, the challenges.