THE foundation behind a group of scientists that have successfully influenced policy makers and media organisations across the world to push for a reduction in meat consumption has announced it is winding down operations.

EAT Foundation logo

The EAT Foundation’s main goal was to influence the “Great Food Transformation”, using what was called the “planetary health diet” to push for a 50pc decrease in red meat and sugar consumption, while doubling the intake of fruits, vegetables and nuts.

While its influence in global policy circles appears to be less than what it was five years ago, the organisation was still attracting large amounts of funding last year – with the release of the EAT Lancet 2.0 diet, a project that was estimated to cost US$8m.

However, controversy came its way in August, with a group of disgruntled former employees calling themselves the “EAT survivors” penning an open letter trying to expose “severe governance issues, financial mismanagement and toxic work environment.”

Then in a statement last week which surprised some who followed the organisation, the EAT Foundation said it was going to wind down operations.

“In light of the major shifts in the international donor landscape, and following a careful assessment of long-term funding resilience, EAT’s Board of Trustees has decided to begin an orderly wind-down of operations in Oslo,” a Facebook post said.

“The Board and management are exploring pathways with partners and donors to enable selected flagship initiatives to continue and, where possible, scale within a more resilient set-up. These discussions are ongoing, and no concrete arrangements have been agreed at this stage.”

Is this another blow for alternative meat?

The rise of the planetary health diet coincided with the rise of significant investment into the development of meat alternatives, both plant-based and lab grown. Beef Central understands the foundation had a lot of the same investors as the meat alternatives.

EAT was first released in 2019, which was the same year plant-based meat company Impossible Foods won the United Nations Global Climate Action Award.

Some of those meat alternative companies have been struggling in recent times, in-particular Beyond Meat whose share prices has collapsed.

An influential organisation

The years after its release appeared to be the EAT initiative’s most prominent, with the planetary health diet cited across the world.

As Belgian scientist Frederic Leroy put it on his ALEPH website, their stance was to introduce hard measures and limit consumer choice.

“They advocate for hard measures, including warning labels on meat and dairy, taxes on animal-based foods, removing meat from menus, and leveraging fiscal incentives and legal reforms to curb consumption of animal-sourced products,” he said.

Prof Leroy is one of the initiators of the Dublin Declaration, which was formed on the back of concerns that EAT Foundation was having too big an influence at the 2021 UN Global Food Systems summit. He, and other scientists, made a last-ditch effort to restore some balance to the findings of that event – which had the potential to influence policy across the world.

They formed the Dublin Declaration, which has been signed by more than 1000 scientists recognising meat and livestock as essential. The declaration was followed with a series of criticisms making personal attacks on the scientists involved.

Battle not won

One of the scientists involved recently told Beef Central that the battle has not been won in getting balance into the debate about the role of meat.

The EAT Lancet diet has already widely cited and the EAT Lancet 2.0 diet was published last years, with both pieces of work still circulating on the internet.

Prof Leroy said in the ALEPH posts, that its findings still have a lot of issues.

The initiative has also faced a lot of criticism for neglecting some of the broader nutritional, ecological, cultural, and economic factors. Critics argue that it lacks consideration for the realities of different regions, has an urban middle-class bias, and relies on unrealistic assumptions. The diet is costly, hard to access, and clashes with cultural food preferences, while being unaffordable for many, especially in low-income communities. Its promotion misrepresents countries like India and Indonesia as near-vegetarian, ignoring actual local diets and widespread undernourishment.

Environmentally, the diet’s promises fall short. For instance, scaling up nut production would seriously strain water resources. While it may cut greenhouse gas emissions, the diet risks increasing water use, may worsen biodiversity, and fails to consider food system circularity.

The Foundation and the disgruntled ex-employees both say they still have a belief that the global food system needs to shift.

“EAT’s mission is too important to be tainted by mismanagement. It is time for true transparency,” the survivors said last year.