Engaging with evidence on plant diet debate

THE recent RCVS council discussion regarding the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change (UKHACC) guiding principles1 raises important questions about how the profession engages with evidence on diet, sustainability and the environmental impacts of animal agriculture. The decision not to support a shift towards plant-based diets to support farm vets sits uneasily with the college's duty to act in the wider public interest. Several statements reported from the meeting appeared to misrepresent key evidence relating to the environmental impacts of livestock production and plant-based diets. Farm vet David Barrett cited concerns around soy cultivation in the context of discussions about plant-based diets; however, approximately 70 to 80 per cent of global soy is used for animal feed. The UK imports more than 3 million tonnes of soy equivalents each year, largely for livestock.2 Any discussion of soy-related environmental impact must therefore focus on the primary source of demand. Olivia Cook wouldn't want to prioritise a breakfast of soya yoghurt ‘imported from wherever’. This does not reflect current supply chains. The market leader, Alpro soya yoghurt, is produced in the UK at a facility in Kettering and at other sites in Europe, and sources much of its soya from European producers. Abbie Calow is quoted as saying ‘an avocado grown halfway across the world is definitely not more sustainable than a steak that's come from down the road’. Even efficient UK beef typically has a greenhouse gas footprint of around 25 to 35 kg CO2e per kg, whereas avocados generally average 1 to 2.5 kg CO2e per kg including long-distance transport. Transport accounts for a small proportion of overall food emissions; what we eat matters far more than how far it travels.3 Globally, livestock (meat and dairy) occupies an estimated 77 per cent of agricultural land while providing only about 18 per cent of calories and 37 per cent of protein. This imbalance reflects the inherent inefficiency of converting crops into animal products. As a result, large areas of cropland and pasture are devoted to supporting a system that yields comparatively little food relative to the resources it consumes. This land demand is a significant driver of habitat loss, biodiversity decline and pressure on strained ecosystems.4 It is also important to recognise that the veterinary profession plays an enabling role within this system. Veterinary expertise, infrastructure and regulatory oversight sustain a model of production in which billions of sentient animals experience avoidable welfare burdens each year. These practices are not peripheral but central to how the current food system functions, and the scale of associated suffering underscores the need for honest professional reflection. Given these considerations, the RCVS should ensure its messaging accurately reflects current scientific understanding of the climate and biodiversity impacts of animal agriculture, and the role of diet in addressing them.5