Letter to the Lancet re. EAT

On 17th January 2019, the EAT diet report was published in The Lancet (Ref 1).

A couple of hours after seeing the report, I published this post.

On 26th January, I submitted the following letter to The Lancet:


This correspondence is in response to “Food in the Anthropocene” (Ref 1).

Table 1 in that document set out a “healthy reference diet” based on 2,500 calories. I analyzed the micronutrients provided by the recommended diet.

Notwithstanding that an adult female would consume four fifths of the diet (and nutrients); the diet was already nutritionally deficient. The most serious deficiencies were:

Vitamin D – 5% of the RDA of 15mcg (Ref 2).

Retinol – 17% of the RDA of 900mcg (Ref 3) – carotene conversion cannot be relied upon.

Calcium – 55-65% of 1,000-1,200mg recommended (Ref 4).

Iron – the paltry amounts of beef, pork, chicken and fish provided a maximum of 1.1mg of heme iron. “The RDAs for vegetarians are 1.8 times higher than for people who eat meat” (Ref 5). Barely half the iron intake for females would thus be provided.

Essential fatty acids – 28g of fish cannot provide the EPA and DHA required, while the nutritionally poor 350 calories of highly unsaturated fats would create an unhealthy omega-6 to omega-3 ratio.

Vitamin B12 requirements were almost met, but Table 1 allowed for animal foods to be replaced with plants and these would not provide B12. There is an error on p16: “The only exception is vitamin B12 that is low in animal-based diets.” That should be plant-based diets.

I also found issues with vitamin K (dominated by K1, not the better absorbed K2); potassium and sodium (the latter two being more easily rectifiable).

The precise numbers would change with different foods chosen, but the scale of the deficiencies would not.

This diet will cause malnutrition and is dangerous to recommend.


 

Today, 7th March, I received the following email:

Manuscript number: THELANCET-D-19-00513
Title: The EAT diet is nutritionally deficient

Dear Dr. harcombe,

Thank you for submitting your Letter to The Lancet. Having discussed your Letter with the Editor, and weighing it up against other submissions we have under consideration, I am sorry to say that we are unable to accept it for publication. Please be assured that your Letter has been carefully read and discussed by the Editors. Thank you for your interest in The Lancet, I hope this decision does not deter you from considering us again in the future.

Yours sincerely

Josefine Gibson
Senior Editor
The Lancet


ZH – Clearly The Lancet does not want my letter alongside the original article, so that anyone viewing the original article would be mindful of the fact that the diet being recommended is nutritionally deficient.  It will be interesting to see which letters, if any, are published, as I know of other critiques that were submitted. The error on p16 has at least been corrected to read “The only exception is vitamin B12 that is low in plant-based diets.”

References

Ref 1: https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/EAT

Ref 2: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/

Ref 3: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminA-HealthProfessional/

Ref 4: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Calcium-HealthProfessional/

Ref 5: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional/

2 thoughts on “Letter to the Lancet re. EAT

  • avatar
    April 12, 2019 at 9:39 am
    Permalink

    Dear Dr. Harcombe

    It is a great pity your indepth letter of explanations put forth were not allowed to be published, perhaps, who know, for the facts contained therein, were too true and correct for comfort zones? indicating the information they provided was not true and correct?

    I am not a Doctor, yet highly respect the information you provide, and this includes the simple format that of areas points raised, you did not get published, but not all lost, as their decisions not to, indicates surely, there is something to hide, compared to your indepth root points raised?

    Excellent information you provided nevertheless.

    JD

    Reply
    • avatar
      April 13, 2019 at 8:34 am
      Permalink

      Hi Jennifer
      Many thanks for your kind words. I’m a PhD doctor – not MD – we’re the ones who look at data!
      The puzzlement is that the reply said they had so many replies they couldn’t publish them all and – at last time of checking -no letters had been published!
      The fact that The Lancet commissioned this seems to have impaired their impartiality.
      At least the WHO seems to be wiser!
      https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1700
      Best wishes – Zoe

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.