India, Aug. 14 -- The current debate over whether eggs should be included in school mid-day meals has obscured a larger question: Should Indians be eating more animal protein? The most recent National Family Health Survey does not directly measure protein intake, but nevertheless shows substantial gaps in dietary diversity, particularly among poorer households. Eggs are a great source of high-quality protein and several essential micronutrients. They can improve the nutritional quality of a child's diet by replacing calories coming from a staple cereal. The current debate on whether to provide eggs to all children should be seen from that context. I was one of 24 commissioners of the EAT-Lancet Commission published in 2025. The commission asked a broader question than whether people should eat more or less meat: What would a healthy diet look like if we also wanted to keep the planet within environmental limits and make food systems healthier and more sustainable? The answer was emphatically not veganism. The commission's recommended diet is largely plant-based but includes moderate amounts of animal-source foods. For an adult reference diet of approximately 2,400 calories a day, it recommends about 15 grams of red meat, 30 grams of poultry, 30 grams of fish and shellfish, and 15 grams of eggs per person per day. These are population-level reference values, and not prescriptions for every individual or country. In fact, it is possible to completely omit any of these as long as there are appropriate substitutes. In South Asia, unlike many other regions, red-meat consumption is low compared to the rest of the world. Also, the consumption of many healthy foods - including vegetables, fruits, legumes and nuts - is well below global levels. The Lancet commission report does not argue that Indians should simply eat more meat, but rather emphasises a dietary pattern built around whole grains, vegetables, fruits, legumes and nuts, with moderate amounts of dairy, fish, eggs and poultry and low amounts of red meat. The reference diet is flexible and can accommodate flexitarian, vegetarian, pescatarian and vegan diets, as well as different food cultures and agricultural systems. While meat is a potential source of protein, it does not have to be the only source. Eggs are especially relevant to school-meals that are mostly given to children with less than ideal home food. Fish, meat, eggs and dairy are rich sources of nutrients important to children, including iron, vitamin B12, zinc, and calcium. Lower intakes of animal-source foods can create nutritional deficiencies if they are not adequately replaced by other nutrient-rich foods. Rather than asking whether an egg turns a meal into a "non-vegetarian" diet, the useful question is whether adding an egg is an effective and acceptable way of improving the nutritional quality of a child's meal. Where eggs are culturally acceptable, affordable and logistically feasible, there is a strong case for using them as one option among others, especially since they are a cost-effective way of providing those nutrients to children. Meanwhile, there is indeed a powerful environmental case for eating less meat, particularly red meat. Livestock production has substantial impacts on greenhouse-gas emissions, land use, freshwater use and biodiversity. Each kilogram of bovine meat takes over ten times the amount of water to produce compared to its equivalent in plant terms, while poultry consumes nearly three times as much. Nearly three-quarters of antibiotic consumption is related to livestock and contributes to the growth of untreatable infections in both humans and animals. The argument that lower meat consumption is planet-friendly is hard to dispute and even a country like China now encourages its people to eat less meat. In fact, the simplest advice remains that of writer Michael Pollan: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." It is hard to improve upon as a general principle and should be the basis for guiding thinking about diets. But food choices are not made just on the basis of protein and calorie intake, water or carbon footprint, advice from writers or government preferences. What people eat reflects their religion, culture, family, geography, income and identity. In this context, the State should be very careful about turning environmental concerns or a cultural agenda into a campaign against meat. There is a credibility problem when the same governments that ask citizens to change their behaviour for the sake of the environment routinely tolerate air pollution, untreated sewage, illegal mining, groundwater depletion and habitat destruction. Even worse, if reducing meat consumption becomes associated with a particular religious or cultural agenda, an environmental argument can quickly become an argument about identity and could provoke a backlash, and paradoxically work in the direction of greater meat consumption. The history of prohibition shows that when governments try to regulate consumption preferences through bans, they can create unintended consequences that complicate the original objective. There is a better way. We should put eggs in school meals where they improve children's nutrition and where they are acceptable to the communities being served. At the same time, we should make pulses, vegetables, fruits, nuts and other nutritious foods more affordable and accessible. We should educate people about the health and environmental consequences of different foods, reduce food loss and waste, and protect healthy traditional diets. The objective should be to give Indians the nutrition they need while allowing diets to become healthier and more sustainable. For India, that means improving dietary diversity, making nutritious foods - including eggs where appropriate - available to children, encouraging more pulses, vegetables, fruits and nuts, and reducing excessive consumption of environmentally costly foods such as red meat. The best food policy is one that gives people better choices for a balanced diet while leaving the final choice of what to eat to them....