The EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy, sustainable, and just food systems

Gavin welcomes Walter Willett, Shakuntala Thilsted and Johan Rockström to discuss the second EAT-Lancet Commission report. The co-chairs explain the significant updates since the inaugural 2019 commission, including new global evidence on nutrition, advances in food systems modelling, and a greater focus on equity and justice. 

The panel addresses the health and environmental impacts of dietary choices, the urgent need for systemic transformation, and the practical challenges of achieving sustainable and healthy food for all. Walter, Shakuntala, and Johan provide an authoritative overview of why food justice, planetary boundaries, and community engagement are central to the future of both global health and the environment.

Read the Commission here:

https://www.thelancet.com/commissions-do/2025-EAT?dgcid=buzzsprout_tlv_podcast_lanceteat25_lancet

Read all of our content at https://www.thelancet.com/?dgcid=buzzsprout_tlv_podcast_generic_lancet

Check out all the podcasts from The Lancet Group:
https://www.thelancet.com/multimedia/podcasts?dgcid=buzzsprout_tlv_podcast_generic_lancet

Continue this conversation on social!
Follow us today at...
https://thelancet.bsky.social/
https://instagram.com/thelancetgroup
https://facebook.com/thelancetmedicaljournal
https://linkedIn.com/company/the-lancet
https://youtube.com/thelancettv

Transcript

This transcript was automatically generated using speech recognition technology and may differ from the original audio. In citing or otherwise referring to the contents of this podcast, please ensure that you are quoting the recorded audio rather than this transcript.

Gavin: Hello and welcome to The Lancet Voice. It's October, 2025 and I'm Gavin Cleaver. Today we discuss the forthcoming second Eat Lancet Commission reports, and I'm joined by the commissioners, Walter Willett, Shaun Ted and Johan Strom. You remember the Big Splash, the first Eat Lancet Commission caused. So I was excited to be able to quiz the commissioners and find out the latest scientific evidence on healthy diets, sustainable food systems, planetary boundaries, and reflect on the key updates since the first Eat Lancet Commission, which include advances in modeling.

And we're gonna talk as well about the increasing importance of equity and justice, as well as the practical challenges of transforming the global food system for both human and planetary health. We hope you enjoy the conversation.

Thank you all so much for joining me. We really appreciate your time. We are looking forward to the second e commission coming out here at The Lancet. I guess the key question that we could start off with, perhaps if you want to kick off, Walter, is. What's changed from Eat Lunch at One to Eat 

Walter: lunch at two?

First of all, we thought it was really important to have an update because I think anyone who's seriously interested in this topic knows that there's a lot of work going on the nutrition part of it, on the earth sciences part of it, and they'd wanna know that. We have the most up-to-date information.

So updating everything was really important for credibility, but there were some topics that we wanted to expand on that we touched on a little bit, but didn't get into very deeply the first time around. One was the justice area, so we have added a new section on that, and that's increasingly important because I think the non Western, non-European, north American world is very much aware that.

They are experiencing the adverse effects of climate change, but they've not caused it. So there's a great sense of unfairness and the same exists for the food system too, that we're in North America and Europe, have been eating diets that have had huge impacts, very disproportionate impacts on the environment.

And I think that's not so acceptable going forward. There really does need to be more fairness in the global system, so that's gonna be new. Of course, the updates on climate change are important because things are accelerating. They're not just increasing in a linear way. And on the diet side of it, what we had before were targets that we developed with a deep look at the scientific literature.

But now that we. Described what a healthy diet could be based on the pieces and putting it all together. This time, we could take that whole package, go back to our long-term epidemiologic studies and really evaluate how well people did if they came closer to the planetary health diet and in their own way of eating.

So there are now dozens of papers looking at that, and we've seen major benefits for many health outcomes including total mortality. For the people who best adhere to the Planetary Health Diet, an 

Gavin: kal, perhaps if we could turn to you. 

Shakuntala: The report in itself and the topics that are discussed in the report is important now, important in the future, and has been important before we start do this.

So I would say it's a continuation of. Some very important issues that we face globally and therefore an update that brings in new knowledge, brings in new ways of looking at the, of the issues, brings in new partners and brings in. Others who can find, who perhaps have the means to find other solutions is important.

So it's not just that we had a report in 2019 and now we are having a new report in 2025. 

Gavin: And then Johan, what do you think are the major changes from the first commission to this new one? 

Johan: Yeah, thanks Kevin for hosting us for this. It's a very significant moment as a first basic accomplishment. I mean from a scientist's perspective, is that science advances, knowledge advances, we have more and more evidence, and that this is a global scientific assessment that enables us to update the state of the art and knowledge on.

What gives us the best outcomes for a healthy life and what is required of the food system to be able to contribute towards a healthy planet? And this is the most authoritative, the broadest, most concept, comprehensive, interdisciplinary assessment of health and sustainability of the food system in the world.

Of course. Second eat Lance. That commission is thereby a major step forward towards the continuous update of our knowledge. I'm proud of many things in this commission, but in particular that we are getting really the social sciences on board, on justice and equity. And also that we do the first, and this might sound a bit techy, but we do the first model into comparison.

Project for those of us who are working very much on the climate assessment, knows that's the engine room for the evidence. That gives us the proof points on human cause. Climate impacts like droughts and floods. The proof points on what. Policy needs to accomplish to be able to deviate away from dangerous climate change in terms of fossil fuel emissions through the scenario analysis.

All of this is done by inviting large modeling groups around the world to run their big climate models with the same narrative so that we can compare the results and get much better precision. On risk, but also on pathway to solutions. And now we've done it for the food system for the first time.

We have eight large modeling groups all working together, doing a food model into comparison on exploring if the world eats healthy food. If we adopt sustainable practices for producing food and adding value across the value chain of the food industry, is it possible to feed humanity with planetary boundaries?

And it's a simple question, but it's a very complex area of analytics, and we've actually performed that model into comparison for the first time. So yes, the difference between 2019 and 2025 is as pointed out, a much more comprehensive and a more. If I may use that word, scientifically mature assessment.

It's a lovely way 

Gavin: to think about it. It sounds like the modeling has changed quite extensively from the first seed commission. 

Johan: Oh yes. The first round we had one model. It was fantastic work led by Marco Springman at Oxford University. He's still one of the modeling the comparison teams, but we relied on one tool at that time, and it was actually on good grounds, criticized, and as a result that, that.

Not, that's not enough for the complexity of exploring these scenarios into the future. And now we have a much broader base. We still have large uncertainty ranges. There's still much more work to do, but it's a leap forward. 

Gavin: Walter, could you perhaps tell us a little bit about the term food justice?

Maybe could you unpack that for us? 

Walter: Basically, in low and middle income countries, in so many places, people scrape. To really put healthy food on their table every day. Of course, actually, in high income countries, a lot of people do that, not just low income countries as well, but the percentage of income that people in low and middle income spend on their food is much higher.

So small perturbations, small interruptions in food systems like from the war in Ukraine have big effects in many countries. So we're shining a light on this. We realized that it was there was going to be some injustice because when we put, create a high bar for what a healthy diet is, we knew before we looked at any data that many people wouldn't be able to afford that.

So some suggested we should water down. The targets, the goals, but we said, no, we shouldn't compromise health of people just because it's, they don't have enough resources right at this moment. That it's the job of government, civil society, everyone to be sure that. Everyone around the world does have access and can afford a healthy diet.

It's definitely possible with the resources we have, but there's a very unequal distribution of course and resources around the world, and I think it, it puts on the table these disparities in what people can afford, and it connects those very directly with health outcomes. And 

Gavin: so what for you all are the key messages that you'd like people to take home from this new commission?

Walter: First of all, the key messages do go along with the order that we've written the report first on the healthy diet. We basically reaffirmed pretty closely what we saw the first time in terms of the description of a healthy diet. We tweaked a couple numbers a little bit, but not anything appreciably. Just given that we had a little more data, but this time around we could document that.

There were major health benefits of adopting that planetary health diet. We adopted that globally. We estimate that would prevent about 27% of premature deaths, which comes out to be about 15 million deaths per year in adults. That would be some more in children, but those numbers were a little harder to estimate, so we didn't try to include them.

We did see that we are very off track on the environmental. Side of the picture, we now have a better estimate for the greenhouse gas emissions from the food systems, which comes to about 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions. That's big. A big percent still fossil fuels are the largest stores of greenhouse gas emissions, but 30% is still large enough that if we don't deal with greenhouse gas emissions from the food system, we really can't have a sustainable global environment.

We have to deal with that. The, we have a lot more evidence. We have about 11 groups that have done huddling of food systems to estimate what the impacts would be going forward to 1950 if we continued on our business as usual pathway versus. This planetary health diet, adding the beneficial impacts of reducing food loss and waste, and also improving agricultural systems in terms of efficiency.

And amazingly, if we did all of that, we could actually reduce the land required for producing food, not dramatically, but in the right direction. And that's really important because the expanding. Use of land for food, it means we're cutting down the Amazon, cutting down forests in Africa, plowing up more land in the United States, and that basically is releasing greenhouse gas emissions and also taking away the forest, the prairies that allowed us to capture carbon and put it back in the soil so we actually can show with that is a very extensive modeling.

Approaches that we would have very positive benefits on environmental parameters by essentially following this pathway that we're describing. And then again, looking at the justice system. We have documented in more detail the injustices that we realized were there, but it's much more clear. And finally, I think the biggest challenges are basically implementing what we've learned.

We know. The path down, which we should go, and the direction with which we should go. And there'll be huge benefits for both human health and for the environment if we do that. But the actions that are needed are gonna be challenging. They'll have to occur at governmental levels, both global, national, state, city.

But individuals need to be involved too. Both like. Changing our own diets, for example, in a healthier, better direction, but also being activists. We need more wires on the streets basically, if things are gonna change. 

Shakuntala: The key message for me is to have a people centered approach, and this is why the new, topic that was added of social equity and justice is so very important because if we would like to have he healthy diets, if we would like to have healthy people and the planet that works for all of us, the actions to do this are the actions that are done by people. And therefore it's so important to have a people centered approach.

And we do know that the peoples, the communities are different. Geographically culture and in all different ways. So if we do not bring the people together and work together, it's, it just we wouldn't, we won't move for further. And there's one word that we haven't used. In this report, may, maybe it's also because it's very much based on data and science, but if you look at how we as a world manage the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the most important issues that people and ways for solutions that people pointed towards is having trust in each other.

So if we as people do not get together, different actors within the food systems and trust each other to work together, the proper solutions. Then we are lost as a human race.

Gavin: So this kind of notion of justice and togetherness is very central to this new it's very 

Shakuntala: central. Yeah. And of course, diets are important and agriculture is important.

The planet and the. Planetary boundaries are imp purported, but all these belong in actions that are taken by people. I do think one way to make sure that collectively we have the right actions by people all across the food systems is to listen, of course, and to trust each other and work together collectively.

Johan: To me, there probably. Three fundamentals. Number one is that we stand on an even more robust scientific floor with regards to quantifying healthy diets and that the planetary health diet is not dictating what anyone should eat, but it gives you the broad plate that you can fill with an infinite number of fantastically diverse.

Dietary cultures from different geographies and societies around the world, but it gives you a clear guide if you care about your own, your families, your society's health. Try to stay within these boundaries and you have the highest chance of healthy livelihoods. And the second is that we quantify also the same.

Quantifications for a healthy planet. And that has never been done before. To quantify for all the planetary boundaries, the share, the, I would even call the responsibility. What does the food system need to meet when it comes to investing in sustainable practices? And that is the. Accomplishment, number one, to, to give that scientific foundation for a healthy, sustainable future for the food system, so we have something to measure against.

Second is definitely the question of we're today 9 billion co citizens. The world. We may be heading to 9.5. By the middle of this century, we have 3 billion people suffering from malnutrition. Undernutrition still being at the 1 billion mark. Unhealthy diets being the largest epidemic in the world.

We estimate that up to 15 million people. Prematurely lose their lives each year because of unhealthy food. It's a shocking number actually. It's a number that exceeds the number of tragic losses during the COVID pandemic when it comes to the annual rate of loss. And this is just happening with us just allowing it to occur.

Of course the equity dimension here and the right of access and how to, how do we configure the. The global, the regional, the local food markets and information to citizens on food and the whole distribution of food in ways that enable people to eat healthy, adequate diets. So I think that's second key message.

And then the third one is, and you've heard me already, I expressed my passion for the future. I think what we are showing is that a transformation of the global food system. Come back into the safe operat Space of planetary boundaries is really challenging. Actually, the key results of the modeling is that we can barely return.

It is not impossible, but it would require massive efforts and these efforts cut across reducing food waste. Transitioning to healthy diets, and that's one of the conclusions which we're really excited about, that eating healthy food reduces pressure on the planet to boundaries, and you get a win-win outcome.

You have healthier lives and contribute to healthy planet. But again, to transform the food system, which is so stuck in its large industrial monoculture structure is admittedly, and the modeling shows that. A major challenge. So the opportunities are there. We have scalable solutions, but one should not underestimate the challenge.

That also, I think a third word in my view, key message from the Planet Commission, and we should remember that we've even mapped, done a synthesis of scalable, sustainable practices. So we're really showing that we've tried to scan through all the. All the opportunities we have and plug that into the models and outcomes, a result that shows that, hey, it can be done, but it will be a close one.

And I think that gives us a lot of scientific evidence and support, or for more ambitious policymaking, more ambitious actions among economies and in all efforts to really change the direction of the food system. 

Gavin: And what does business as usual look like if we don't make any changes? 

Walter: The business as usual pathway is very worrisome.

Not just worrisome. The, I think it's very, with a high level of certainty, we are gonna see very great increases in global climates. For example, there's, we are not sure exactly what number we would end up with by. 2021 for example. But and some of them are very devastating, but the problem is that the changes are not linear.

They're accelerating, which makes prediction very hard. They go to very extreme, almost unlivable planet, to still even the best. Case scenario. Given the current path we're on, very devastating changes. Parts of the world will become really unlivable. Water is already extreme. Lack of water is an extreme problem in parts of the world already, and that's spreading, including in Middle East, but also southwestern United States.

Many other places around the world we're definitely having increasing droughts, but also floods at the same time. The future for our children and grandchildren does not look good unless we make major course corrections. 

Shakuntala: If we carry on as we do know that the planet as we have it will not work for us and we will be, and we, the people will be taking actions.

That lead in this directions, that in this direction, the same holds true also for wanting all the people to be healthy, to have access to sufficient. Nutritious and safe foods and taking into consideration their culture, taking into consideration their geographies, their seasons. So if we would have the different groups of people working together and bringing in their collective.

Knowledge. Then we can, as a group, work together to find new solutions and new innovations that can bring us further on the right part to having, as the three major parts of the report says, healthy diets for all sustainable planets, and also taking into account the justice and social equity of all people leaving no one behind.

Johan: Yes. We have one dire result from the Atlantic Commission, which is that for the first time we quantify the share of food production across all the nine planetary boundaries, and we show that the food system is the primary global cause for breach in five of the nine planetary boundaries. That is.

Quite shocking actually, that the food system is so large that it's the single largest cause for losing biodiversity, the single largest cause for us expanding. Land into intact nature like deforestation and draining wet. It's the by far, number one consumer of fresh water, particularly blue water, the water and groundwater, rivers and lakes.

It is the single largest economic sector actually emitting greenhouse gases. If you include both carbon dioxide and the non CO2 gases, particularly methane and nitrous oxide. And then it is the. Number one part of land system change. Which makes it overall one of the big players determining the outcome for the stability of the climate system, but also for sustainability at large.

So that places a lot of responsibility on the agricultural system. When you look at the planet as a whole, we conclude that six of the nine boundaries are transgressed. So the boundary that the food system is potentially not. The dominant cause for is the overloading of chemicals. But we do quantify the agricultural share and look particularly into pesticides and antibiotic overuse of antibiotics and conclude there.

That of course, for pesticides and antibiotics, the agricultural system is by far the dominant cause. So even when it comes to chemical pollution, you have areas where the food system is a big cause for impact. One can take that as a negative, of course, that the unsustainable overall, you have a lot of great regenerative sustainable agricultural practices around the world, but if you aggregate the whole world, we're still following a pathway of unsustainable food production being a predominant cause for putting the stability of the entire planet at risk.

But you can turn that around. That is what Lance Commission does to say also. That means also that the food system or the agricultural, how we produce food can be and actually must be part of the solution. And we show that we have scalable solutions. And the exciting part here, just have ticked that off.

Not only do we have scalable solutions too. Avoid expanding agriculture, avoid losing biodiversity, consuming fresh water more efficiently, having circular practices for nitrogen and phosphorous, so we don't leak that out into. Waterways and the coastal zones. All of these practices are mapped and we show that they exist and can be scaled.

But not only that, there's increasing evidence that they do not sacrifice yield levels. They can be adopted and keep yield levels intact in many cases. Even increasing that, particularly by building more resilience, by making the farming systems. More able to deal with shocks and stresses because they based more on diverse cropping systems, on buffer zones with high degree of ecological integrity, with landscapes that have more buffer zones for extreme floods, et cetera.

So it's I would argue a very positive message. The challenges, how do we turn the corner and start moving in a new direction? 

Gavin: Now the first Eat Lancet Commission obviously caused a massive splash. How do you feel about how that commission was received now that you've had a few years to digest it? If you'll forgive the pun.

Walter: Yeah the commission definitely had a big impact that I've worked on lots of reports and commissions and things over the years, and this was clearly an order of magnitude more impactful than any of the other reports that I've participated in. Partly that's, I think it was the right time and the right place that a lot of people were reeling.

We had problems on the health side. We had problems on the environment side. They probably had something to do with each other, but that was, this was really the first time that we brought experts in all these different areas together and. Put the pieces in into one report and it's had way over 11,000 citations.

I don't know the exact number, but a huge number of citations in the scientific literature. It's also been, I didn't even know there was a citation index for the number of times, scientific papers have been cited in the policy area, and we were in the top 10, I think, of all time scientific papers that way.

It definitely had impact and a huge proportion of that was positive. And I think many organizations from governments down to local institutions are using the EAT Land Commission report as a blueprint for planning what they serve in their food services, what they purchase, policies that would help.

Support actions in the right direction at the national level. Of course, in the United States, our national government doesn't even recognize climate change and is doing everything they can to accelerate climate change, demolishing progress, or. Windmills that are mostly built and ready to put into action.

Those are being blocked and it can't be finished. But lots of the world is actually moving forward in the right direction. There's a lot of positive things happening in the right direction, so we really have to connect what's going on globally to see the full picture. But we also got some expected pushbacks too.

The beef industry is. We knew they would beef quite a bit about what we were publishing and that's that they're very powerful and of course are behind a lot of these obstruction activities that we're seeing. But I think it's important we've, that stimulated some interaction that has, I think even some people in the beef industry realize that business as usual is not viable.

Having some modest amounts of red meat and beef, as was included in a planetary health diet, is something that they could work with trying to improve the quality and reduce the environmental impacts of what they are producing. It's not all or nothing, everything is on the table, but we're really talking about shifts in proportions of food.

And that doesn't mean that everybody needs to, that every country needs to reduce their consumption of red meat. Southeast Asia, for example, is below the target number and there's actually, if they wanted to, I'm not, that's not necessarily a good thing. If they wanted to, they could increase their red meat consumption a little bit.

Shakuntala: Many people, and still today, look towards a global report. To see where is the space for me? Where is the space for my country? Where is the space for my community? And that will be the same of this new report because remember this report and the one before 2019, they will grow their global reports. So when the report is done, and it's a global.

It's looking at issues globally. We have to bring that down and I think the best way to bring that down is at national level because national governments, together with communities in their country, together with actors in their country, need to take the actions that are necessary. When that is said, we are dealing with food, we are dealing with agriculture.

They're dealing with solutions for the planet, which is much related to how we use the planet, how we grow food, how we use the resources of the planet. Then there are different populations, group and. You have the very poor and vulnerable who must be given a seat at the table, and the voices must be heard, and they must also, we must find very good and smart ways for them to move forward.

But we also have at the other ends, government and government officials, and also big corporations, which are a major part of food systems. 

Johan: And to begin with I found that. To be very reassuring that it showed that there is a hunger, if I may use that silly word for more scientific knowledge about, I think in this case it was really about what constitutes.

A healthy diet, but also an excitement and interest in bringing the food system to that planetary scale and showing the proof points that the food system is actually a factor at the planetary scale. Of course, as you say, it became a. One of the most cited Lancet reports and it's scored among the top 10 most referred to scientific reports in the policy domain.

So yes, I think overall showed that there is a timely advancement of the science. That said, what we have spent a lot of effort in the second commission. There were some misinterpretations, some of them deliberate, and one of the most fundamental was that. We dared for the first time based on the fact that we had so much evidence to quantify healthy diet, and we called it even a planetary health diet, and that was wrongly by some interpreted as if we were pointing fingers from above to say Thou must eat.

This diet, and we did admittedly communicate in a way that welcomed that critique because we were talking about the Mediterranean diet being very close to the Plenty Health Diet and that it was a Flexitarian diet, and it gave this impression that it was a bit of a northern, wealthy urbanite kind of dietary guideline, which was a mistake because we.

Quantify the Planet Health Diet based on the best evidence, irrespective of where you live, what you eat, and what you know. Ecological or hydro climatic zone you reside in. And that has been a very strong focus this time to communicate the content exactly as we've been discussing it so far, that this provides the boundary conditions for the healthiest outcome for any individual living anywhere, eating any diet.

And we're even emphasizing very strongly in the report that. What we find is that's actually still on the scientific frontier. I foresee that to come in the Third Atlantic Commission as an assessment that if we return to more traditional diets, that traditional indigenous local diets are often closer to the.

Health, diet, then our modern, more industrialized, processed and simplified diets. So I think that is something that we've learned from the first round. So there were both positives and negatives. And then finally to say, which I foresee will happen. This time around as well is that food is a topic that engages people in general, but also that there are big powerful interests here.

You have the whole meat industry, the big retail companies you have, there's a large global food industry that is very actively involved in also communicating messaging around food and, that happened the first round and will certainly happen also the second round. 

Gavin: And so what do you think the future holds?

What does Eat, learn set three look like? 

Shakuntala: I do think where we are today. Compared to where we were, you asked me about the first report, which is now we in 2025 and we be, and the last report was in 2019. I do think at country level among people and globally, there's a better recognition of the importance of healthy diets.

There's a best recognition of what we need to do to ensure that our planet. Has works for us moving forward and for all peoples. So that understanding I think is much more widespread. It's among many, and I do think that countries are interested in moving forward with solutions to ensure this. And also I see a greater engagement of youth.

And I see a greater engagement of many different population groups. If I would take, for example, I work with indigenous and traditional groups, for example, with respect to food systems, and I do see a greater understanding and they're seeking a better space for. Themselves as to how they, what they see as solutions moving forward can be used not just by themselves, but also give solutions for others.

So I'm very optimistic. I know Johan just told us about a, another planetary boundary being transparent, and I was very unhappy about that. But. I'm positive, and as I said, I'm positive also with younger generations. I'm positive also with the understanding among that's being done among school children, for example and that what kinds of actions that would lead to positive actions?

Johan: To begin with, I am absolutely committed. For us to work towards a third it as a commission. When we, even when we came up with the idea with Walt Willett and goodness Dall and Wal did the team at the time, we thought of this as, if we succeed, that it would become essentially an institution that you could think about.

Repeated global scientific assessment on food. So yes I definitely hope that we will embark on, on starting to strategize around a third commission. What, where will that take us? To begin with, I think there are some fundamentals that, just like the IPCC, which is now preparing its seventh report, has a structure of a working group, one on the physics, which I think is the equivalent for us on setting the floor of quantifying.

Healthy diets from sustainable food systems. That's the equivalent of the working group one. And then you have the working group two on impacts of climate change and here we have the impacts on people, impacts on ecosystems. And then you have the future and then the pathways to a safe landing working Group three in the IPCC.

And that's what we have in the eight Lancet Commission as well with the scenario modeling. IPCC is also increasingly looking into, equity and justice dimensions and I foresee that to be a continued. High priority for the Lance at work? I think there's a value of continuously advising the state of knowledge.

But you're right, there will certainly be new pointers forward apart from these fundamental blocks. If you ask me where I think that we're moving, we're unfortunately still on a path. I'm trying to be optimistic as well, and I agree that there is reason for optimism in the sense that the solutions are there and we know we have multiple benefits of embarking on a sustainable, healthy food pathway.

I do conclude also that we still have headwinds. We're still, the curves are still moving in the wrong direction. We're still moving further away from the safe operating space than coming back. We have more people suffering than coming back. So I do foresee that science must increasingly also in the last commission work, look into, ways of accelerating.

Change. How do we, are there social tipping points or positive tipping points that can, in a social environmental way, accelerate the pathway? How do we change this incremental? Even if we're making success them, plenty of successes of communities adopting healthy diets and more locally produced foods and more resilient agricultural systems.

So many great examples, but they're not adding up, they're not scaling and they're not changing the course of travel. And I think that must be increasingly a focus. And it has had a chapter in the Landset Commission one, and it has had a chapter inland Commission two, but I think it may play an even larger role in the future.

What are the levers of change that we really need to. Turn to change the direction because for every year that passes without making progress, the more urgent it becomes as well. 

Gavin: Walter Ula Johan, thanks so much for joining us and giving us your time here on the podcast. We really appreciate it and best of luck for the publication of the new Eat Atlantic Commission.

Thanks so much for joining us. On the Lancet voice today. If you're interested in more podcasts from The Lancet, you can go to the lancet.com/podcast where you'll find all our offerings from across every Lancet Journal. Thanks again for joining us. Take care, and we'll see you next time.