Bioengineer, PhD in applied biological sciences and professor of food science at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Frédéric Leroy kindly agreed to give us some of his precious time to answer our questions. In this interview, he sets out his view of the nutritional and cultural role of animal-sourced foods and of fermented food traditions, and offers some criticisms of the EAT-Lancet report and of Nutri-Score. Faced with obesity and metabolic disease, he defends a “Nourishment Table” based on nutrient density and the degree of processing, rather than simplistic scores or a single dietary model.
TES.: You do not hesitate to take a public stance, including criticism of certain NGOs and of initiatives such as the EAT-Lancet report. What are the main points of disagreement you want to highlight?
FL: The EAT-Lancet report and related agendas — pushed by some agri-food giants, lobbyists from the “vegan-tech” world, activist NGOs, prestigious research centres, and bodies at the epicentre of transnational power such as the WEF and the United Nations — rest on fragile scientific premises and a technocratic approach. They propose a near-vegetarian global diet, with a drastic cut in red meat and animal products, presented as the unique solution for health and the planet (what has been called the “Great Food Transformation”). Yet this model underestimates the complexity of food systems, cultural diversity, agronomic realities and differentiated nutritional needs.
Claims of health benefits are overstated, while risks of deficiency (especially in vulnerable groups) are minimised. The environmental approach often suffers from tunnel vision that neglects the co-benefits of livestock systems (biodiversity, soils, use of non-arable land, and so on). The proposed alternatives (ultra-processed “plant-based” products, cultivated meat, precision fermentation) remain unproven at scale, are often rejected by markets, and may be problematic for public health and wellbeing.
Some influential NGOs and coalitions use these frameworks to push interventionist policies that risk harming farmers, creating nutritional deficits and imposing an elitist vision disconnected from local realities. The Dublin Declaration and the Denver Call for Action recall that livestock systems are too precious to be sacrificed to simplification or ideological zeal. We need flexible, regional solutions grounded in robust data — not unique, virtual, heavily prescriptive models.
= = =
My view : I follow the work of Frederic for a number of years. What I admire to him, is his public stance based on strong data, not political views. Good science has (or should have) a societal approach and it is scientists us to communicate the Science to colleagues, NGOs and bodies who formulate food policies.
