STEVEN McCulloch's recent article raises important and timely questions about the role of the veterinary profession in addressing climate change, public health and animal welfare (VR, 17/24 January 2026, vol 198, p 95). Few farm vets would dispute the scale of the challenges outlined, nor the need for science-led change across global food systems. Where many in the profession may wish to add nuance is in how those changes are framed, implemented and communicated – particularly in a UK context. Farm vets work at the intersection of animal health, food production and environmental stewardship every day. We see firsthand that ‘animal agriculture’ is not a single, homogeneous activity. Different farming systems have markedly different impacts, and UK livestock production – across ruminant, monogastric and mixed systems – operates within a very different environmental, regulatory and welfare framework from many intensive global models that often dominate international datasets. UK farmers manage around 70 per cent of the country's land, much of which is permanent pasture, unsuitable for cropping, but well suited to ruminant livestock. These systems can support biodiversity, maintain soil carbon, protect landscapes and convert grass into high-quality, nutrient-dense food. Alongside these land-based systems, other UK livestock sectors, including poultry, play a key role in providing affordable, efficient sources of high-quality protein within tightly regulated production frameworks. From a planetary health perspective, the issue is therefore not simply one of ‘less versus more’ meat, but of what kind of meat, produced how and where. Balanced diets that include appropriate amounts of meat and dairy are well supported by nutritional science, particularly when those foods are produced to high welfare and environmental standards. UK-reared meat has relatively low food miles for UK consumers. It is produced under some of the world's most stringent animal welfare and antimicrobial use regulations and is subject to continuous veterinary oversight. Across sectors, this includes ongoing efforts to improve environmental performance, such as reducing reliance on imported feed ingredients, improving feed efficiency, and lowering the carbon footprint of production systems. Replacing this food with imported alternatives – whether animal or plant based – risks exporting environmental impact rather than reducing it. Farm vets also recognise the progress already made. Antimicrobial use in UK livestock has fallen dramatically over the past decade, driven by close collaboration between farmers and vets, improved husbandry and better disease prevention. Welfare outcomes in many sectors have improved for the same reasons. These gains are rarely the result of blunt targets alone, but of sustained, sector-specific change supported by veterinary expertise. At a time of significant economic pressure on UK agriculture, it is also vital to consider resilience and food security. Supporting domestic production reduces reliance on imports from countries with lower welfare or environmental standards, helps maintain rural economies and preserves the skills and infrastructure needed to adapt farming systems for the future. This applies across all livestock sectors, including those with more intensive housing and supply chains that face distinct sustainability challenges. Championing UK farmers is not about protecting the status quo, but about enabling them to continue improving while remaining economically viable. The veterinary profession is well placed to lead a constructive, evidence-based conversation about sustainable diets – one that acknowledges the need for moderation, reduction of waste and improvement in production systems, while also recognising the value of responsibly produced animal-source foods. Many vets already advocate ‘less and better’ not as a defence of profit, but as a pragmatic route to higher welfare, lower environmental impact and better public trust. “Rather than framing the debate as a binary choice between meat reduction and professional integrity, there is an opportunity to emphasise shared objectives
Black et al. (Fri,) studied this question.