The new EAT-Lancet 2.0 Committee, in the  accompanying words  of WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has announced something that goes far beyond health policy. Behind phrases such as “fair food systems” and “planetary health” is a radical transformation of global food production and orchestrated by the same actors who dictated global health guidelines during the pandemic.

1. The message: “Transformation” sounds friendly – but it means control

Tedros speaks of a “transformation of food systems” that   must be “inclusive and equitable.”  What sounds harmless is actually a political restructuring plan:

• The WHO, together with the EAT-Lancet Committee and partner organisations (including the Bill Gates, Rockefeller and Bloomberg Foundations),  aims to set global standards for
  what constitutes a healthy diet,
   which products are allowed or restricted,
   and which manufacturers are preferred.

The planned “operational definition of ultra-processed foods” will lay the foundations for a global regulatory instrument. In future, products – like tobacco – will be able to carry warning labels that will be heavily taxed or banned altogether. But who defines what is “ultra-processed”? These are the same institutions that are closely intertwined with the industry of laboratory meat, insect and substitute protein producers.

2. The new food policy: “Healthy, safe, sustainable” – but not free

Tedros mentions three keywords – healthy, safe, sustainable. In practice, this means:

• The consumption of meat, milk, eggs and fish should be drastically reduced.
• Animal-based foods are harmful to the climate and must be replaced with patented alternatives.
• Centrally defined dietary recommendations can form the basis of digital dosing systems – coupled with climate targets or CO₂ quotas.

The WHO Director-General announced that his organization is “working with countries” to “transform the food environment.” This means that states must adapt their laws and support systems to the requirements of international commissions.

3. The mechanism: From defining health to controlling consumption

In parallel with the EAT-Lancet agenda, the WHO is preparing three policy instruments:

1. The global definition of “ultra-processed foods”
    is → legal basis for prohibitions, taxes, and advertising restrictions.
2. New guidelines for animal products→ Determining how much meat or milk is considered “healthy” – and what is “excessive”.
3. The relationship with trade, climate and agricultural policy→
    those who abide by the rules have access to markets and subsidies and do not lose them.

Combined with the WHO’s “One Health” principles, nutrition thus becomes part of the global health watch: what you eat becomes a matter of climate, public policy – and ultimately political conformity.

4. Ideology: health as a disguise for power

Officially, it is about “justice” and “sustainability”. But the language betrays the technocratic core: “We’re here to support you — with evidence, policies, and partnerships.”

These “partnerships” are not democracies, but public-private alliances:

• Companies such as Nestlé, Unilever and Cargill,
• Foundations such as Gates or Bloomberg,
• platforms such as the World Economic Forum,
• and organizations such as the WHO and FAO.

Together  , they form a global administrative layer that, like vaccination programs, sets standards without democratic control.

5. The consequence: people as part of the food system

The “transformation” affects not only the things on the plate, but also the control of consumer behavior.
Digital traceability, CO₂ accounting and smart IDs will make it possible to track your diet and lifestyle in the future. A “healthy citizen” is one who eats according to the rules.

Thus, the idea of  planetary health becomes a blue-blue-standard for global food policy from above
, under the pretext of saving the planet, but as a result of controlling the individual.

6. Conclusion: The Silent Coup Over the Plate

The WHO and the EAT-Lancet Commission present themselves as guardians of health and sustainability, but they hide the true essence of their agenda: centralized control of nutrition, standardization of lifestyles, and ultimately, technocratic control of people’s basic needs.

The warning is written in black and white:

“We are here to support you… with guidelines, partnerships and evidence.” But behind the rhetoric of health and justice there is a question of power:
 who decides what we can eat – and what we cannot?

Translated and edited by Leo Labert