🌍 Lessons from highly successful report launch

For those of you not in the food policy world, the 2019 EAT-Lancet Commission collated a team of scientists to define what a healthy diet from a sustainable food system looks like. It recommended more plant-based foods, and limited meat and dairy consumption.

It also made a splash: 28k report downloads in the first 6 months, over a million social shares, and 5.8k media articles. Most impressively, it has had nearly 600 policy citations, making it one of the most influential scientific reports ever.

But it wasn’t all smooth sailing. The report was the subject of a significant ‘mud-slinging’ campaign, which attacked the recommendations of the report (and the people behind it).

The 2025 Commission launches tomorrow. Ahead of it, I was curious to learn what Fabrice, EAT’s Chief Science Officer, had taken away from the previous launch, and what the lessons are more broadly for Policy Unstuck readers.

As ever, feedback gratefully appreciated.

Tom

Don’t completely close the door on those who disagree with you

I've been asked by some of our partners why we're not giving more attention to critical actors in Brazil, the United States, or some in the meat sector. The question is why would I? I could blow millions of dollars engaging with groups unlikely to change.

Instead, one of the things that has been useful is to say ‘let's focus on those who want to change’ and leave the door open to those who may want to be part of that in the future. 

And by leaving the door open and being open to dialogue, we now have very courageous dairy and meat actors who were antagonists in 2019 but who will be in Stockholm for the launch of the 2025 Commission.

In practice, leaving the door open means… 

We had individuals and organisations who invited us to engage in spaces that were likely to be more antagonistic, and we showed up.

We went to the World Farmers’ Organisation general assembly with the late David Nabarro. We went to Cornell and had a debate on meat and dairy. We went to talk to Irish beef producers. We created the Science to Solutions series with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

When we had the opportunity to sit down with people in person and explain the science and listen to their concerns… even if there wasn’t agreement when we left, by sitting down face-to-face we built trust and understanding. Most importantly, an understanding that we weren’t out to ‘get’ anyone.

Scientists have a duty to engage society, but through the right channels

I don't think that scientists are well set up for public engagement. It's really important, particularly in democracies, that society decides how it wants to move forward on any policy area, and scientists have a role to play in informing that.

For us, we want society to understand what the consequences are of not moving towards a healthy diet. For example, in the US, that consequence is just under 50% obesity. Globally, the food system contributes 30% towards climate change. But, with innovation and better practices, that contribution to climate change could be almost zero.

So we’re doing things radically different to most academic models. Instead of sitting on a shelf for years, our reports feed directly into action. 

We've created 10 communities for action, from farmers, to fishers, to chefs, restaurants and food service providers. Each has written its own briefs, in its own language, which lay out concrete commitments about what each group will do, what they will stop doing, and where they need help.

These communities of action speak the language of that community–the farmer's brief is written by farmers in a farmer’s language. So the science is communicated by those who can best translate the science into action for that specific community.

Fight the battle you can win, not the one that is hopeless

Of course there are vested interests. I have a friend who’s a soybean farmer in Iowa. He wanted me to drive his tractor one day, so we went outside and there’s a beautiful big barn with a gorgeous John Deere tractor in there along with millions of dollars of equipment.

If you go and say ‘Well, I think you should grow almonds and not soybean’... it’s a non-starter. 

Rather, we started talking about protecting rivers and streams, keeping his soils covered, precision fertiliser applications… meeting him on his field in his conditions, so to speak. 

A key part of where we’re trying to be better about our engagement is recognising where people are at the moment and being able to find solutions that match that context, while promoting and moving towards a longer-term vision of the change that we need to implement.

Are you the right messenger?

One bit of misinformation in 2019 came from an article that said the majority of the EAT-Lancet commissioners were vegans and vegetarians. But the author missed that I spent seven years in Latin America working on livestock and agricultural environmental management at a university in Costa Rica with farmers from throughout Central America. 

So being able to say ‘yeah, I've been on a cattle farm, yeah, I've milked cows, and yeah, I went to Iowa State and I worked with soy and maize farmers, I was at UC Davis working with Central Valley pistachio and almond farmers’... That has been important in terms of being able to say, ‘All right, this isn't someone who has never been on a farm before.’

I care about farmers and farming, which gives me an entry point that farmers can relate with. 

On the subject of messengers…

We heard from Donald Trump that this is about killing all cows. Technically, the meat sector is about killing cows.

This is about including meat on the menu, but in healthy proportions, with production practices that reduce environmental harm.

The 2025 EAT-Lancet Commission launches tomorrow, Friday 3rd October. Read more about it here.