13 October 2025

Nina Teicholz, a science journalist and self-described “thought leader” in nutrition, best known for The Big Fat Lie, recently posted on LinkedIn about an exposé detailing how influencers criticized the Planetary Health Diet - proudly noting that she topped the list of so-called “mis-influencers.” One of her main arguments against the evidence-based guidance is that many of the researchers behind the Planetary Health Diet were already vegetarians, which she claims biased their conclusions.

First I’ll clarify: the Planetary Health Diet does not dictate a vegan - or even vegetarian - diet. It suggests an eating pattern predominant in plants. We have decades of research demonstrating the benefit of consuming a diet rich in vegetables, whole grains and legumes, when it comes to chronic disease and longevity. Is it likely - or even probable - that scientists who have been studying this all along have applied their findings to personal food choices?

Second, I must remind Ms. Teicholz that there is plenty of peer-reviewed data to indicate that the Planetary Health Diet pattern would enhance personal health for most Americans, and has been proven applicable across a wide variety of cultures and contexts. It’s a happy coincidence (or just…nature!) that this same strategy also reduces consequences on planetary health boundaries. We have increasing data to support the fact that:

“a food systems transformation is fundamental for solving crises related to the climate, biodiversity, health, and justice.”

Since food is responsible for about a third of all greenhouse gas emissions, the international climate goals cannot be achieved without changing the food system. That’s not just a reduction of animal foods [in countries where they are mass produced] - excessive food processing, transportation and packaging clearly play their roles. Still…knowing the outsized impact meat has on land, water and greenhouse gas emissions, it’s certainly a key part of the equation.

Not as it seems

With all the potential positive effects that increased and regenerative farming [and consumption] of plant foods have for our health and the planet, it seems suspicious that anyone is arguing against it.

But you’ll note they aren’t - at least not that I’ve seen.

There is no lobby against “eat less meat, more vegetables” (with the possible exception of a certain “famous gut doctor” with supplements to sell you). Yet, it’s usually a binary decision that’s presented. As I’ve said before, nutrition is relative. So every food decision may be a choice of one thing or another.

But an eating pattern is a conglomeration of a whole bunch of choices that may not fit neatly into the carnivore/Standard American Diet or vegan/whole-foods-plant-based corners. Cattle ranchers have a lot to gain from telling you that you have to choose - few people are ready to dive headfirst into a plant exclusive diet, thereby inaction becomes the default.

But I would argue they also have a lot to gain by embracing regenerative and diversified farming practices more in line with nutrition guidelines (the future of food!), but that’s another article…

Try it, you’ll like it!

Whether you add more veggies to a turkey chili (although I can highly recommend this award-winning vegan chili recipe), try one new plant based meal a week, or change out a single 100% beef burger for Impossible, you’ll be taking action for your health and the planet. Bonus points: in many cases, it enhances flavor and enjoyment!

If you’re not sure about that last bit, reach out for more ideas or a cooking class with me.

Right now, overwhelming evidence supports a diet rich in whole plant foods for health (brain and body) and longevity. Maybe there is evidence that fat is not as bad as we thought. That’s exactly why we have peer review and the scientific method. I’ll trust the researchers to determine causation and ensure the outcomes aren’t simply due to the replacement foods. Nina’s substack is called “unsettled science” - we agree that science evolves.

Nutrition is complicated and we all eat. Sometimes we need to take the best data we have and run with it. We know there are no guarantees. For better or worse, we play the odds. And that’s ok.