PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 25, 2026Global Environment0 citationsOpen Access

Rationalising planetary relations: The planetary health diet, quantification and multispecies communities

View Full Paper
AKAndré KrebberNMNina Mackert

Key Points

  • The paper critiques the Planetary Health Diet's quantitative framework, examining its implications for multispecies interactions and sustainability.
  • Analyzes the Planetary Health Diet within the context of planetary boundaries and nutrition science.
  • Explores the philosophical underpinnings of the diet related to euro-anthropocentric knowledge frameworks.
  • Identifies that the diet's approach risks undermining its goals for sustainability.
  • Highlights the need for recognition of nonhuman and multispecies agency in discussions of planetary health.

Abstract

The Planetary Health Diet, proposed in 2019 by the EAT-Lancet Commission, is a response to the entangled crises of food in the Anthropocene: While hundreds of millions of people worldwide suffer from inadequate nutrition and deficiency diseases, the global food industry is contributing to environmental degradation on an unprecedented scale. Based on the concept of planetary boundaries and nutrition science, the EAT-Lancet Commission promotes a ‘universal reference diet’ that is intended to be both healthy for humanity and sustainable for the planet. Interrogating the Planetary Health Diet’s quantitative approach to governing planetary relations, the paper argues that, rather than recognising the nonhuman, multispecies agency of the planetary, it reproduces euro-anthropocentric knowledge frameworks of the Enlightenment that the planetary experience precisely calls into question. Thereby, the Planetary Health Diet ultimately undermines its very goal of mitigating today’s environmental challenges. This article was published open access under a CC BY 4.0 licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Krebber et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a13e7cf0e02ee3982d32757https://doi.org/10.3828/whpge.63881453971826
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Many diets for many people: planetary health diets and their health and environmental impacts at global, regional, national, and demographic levels2025 · 2 citations
  2. 2The Planetary Health Diet: A Review of the Highlights of the EAT-Lancet Commission 2019 and 2025 Reports2026
  3. 3Recommendations to address the shortfalls of the EAT–Lancet planetary health diet from a plant-forward perspective2025 · 44 citations
  4. 4Mini-review of the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet and its role in cardiometabolic disease prevention2025 · 14 citations
  5. 5From global to local: comparing the EAT-Lancet planetary health diets with the traditional Mediterranean Diet across Mediterranean countries2026 · 2 citations