Livestock farming is currently highly questioned and is considered by society to be one of the main precursors of climate change and innumerable environmental impacts. This social concern has marked a trend in public policies in Europe, promoting strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by controlling the carbon footprint of agri-food products. However, in certain regions, the perception of the main actors in the sector about the role that livestock farming plays in this fight against climate change and how new political trends point the way toward the sustainability of agrarian systems is still uncertain. In this study, the opinions of stakeholders of the agro-livestock sector on the role that extensive livestock farming plays in the current context of the fight against climate change and the demands for public policies to facilitate the adoption of mitigation practices were examined. A participatory research process through focus groups was used in this qualitative study. Specifically, five sessions were held at the beginning of 2022; the sessions were recorded, transcribed, and anonymized for further analysis. In these sessions, projective techniques were used, such as word association and sentence completion to understand stakeholders' perceptions of the role of extensive livestock farming in climate change. Brand mapping was conducted to determine the opinion on the profitability and GHG emissions of 10 livestock systems typical of the region and of eight quality labelling systems related to sustainability. Brainstorming was carried out to assess available practices for the adaptation of livestock farms and mitigation of climate change. Finally, there was an open debate regarding the demands for public aid for the implementation of mitigation practices. The word association technique identified concepts such as ‘Equilibrium’ in extensive livestock farming and concepts such as ‘Effects’, ‘Action’ and ‘Concern’ in climate change. For the term carbon footprint, the most mentioned concept was ‘ignorance’, and for common agricultural policy, the most mentioned term was ‘injustices’. The results of the brand mapping allowed us to determine the perception of the stakeholders regarding the profitability of the different extensive farm systems and on their GHG emissions, with the most extensive and traditional ones being perceived as the lowest emitters of gases but also the least profitable. For sustainable labels, stakeholders believed that labels contribute to profitability and lower GHG emissions. Strategies to adapt to climate change and reduce the impact of farms were focused on reforestation, grazing, and soil management, adjusting the livestock stocking rate and self-production of food on farms. The best mitigating practices proposed were the maintenance of the extensive livestock farming (4.69), improvement of accesses, livestock routes and roads (4.63), making and applying compost (4.50) and the simplified administrative procedures (5.00). In the prioritization of public aids, three categories were established based on the field of action: social/organizational measures (38 votes), economic measures (44 votes) and environmental measures (22 votes). The aid related to maintaining profitability and improving marketing, followed by aid to reduce bureaucracy and direct aid to extensive livestock farming, were identified as priorities. This study offers a detailed picture of how stakeholders in the agro-livestock sector see the role that extensive livestock farming plays in the fight against climate change. The best farm management practices and priority lines of public support that policy-makers can apply have been identified in this study and emanate directly from those who receive subsidies and make the decisions in their livestock farming to ensure their implementation more successful.

Globally, diet quality is poor, with populations failing to achieve national dietary guidelines. Such failure has been consistently linked with malnutrition and poorer health outcomes. In addition to the impact of diet on health outcomes, it is now accepted that what we eat, and the resulting food system, has significant environmental or planetary health impacts. Changes are required to our food systems to reduce these impacts and mitigate the impact of climate change on our food supply. Given the complexity of the interactions between climate change, food and health, and the different actors and drivers that influence these, a systems-thinking approach to capture such complexity is essential. Such an approach will help address the challenges set by the UN 2030 Agenda for sustainable development in the form of the sustainable development goals (SDG). Progress against SDG has been challenging, with an ultimate target of 2030. While the scientific uncertainties regarding diet and public and planetary health need to be addressed, equal attention needs to be paid to the structures and systems, as there is a need for multi-level, coherent and sustained structural interventions and policies across the full food system/supply chain to effect behaviour change. Such systems-level change must always keep nutritional status, including impact on micronutrient status, in mind. However, benefits to both population and environmental health could be expected from achieving dietary behaviour change towards more sustainable diets.

The focus of nutritionists is on improvement of the health impact of current diets. Therefore, it is important to ask the question whether healthy diets are more sustainable. This review provides an overview on the research on synergies between health and sustainability. Synergies are found from shifts from animal-based to plant-based diets, from ultra-processed foods to fresh and whole foods and from reduction of food waste. The importance of looking at sustainability of the present diets has led to steps made in Europe to incorporate sustainability into food-based dietary guidelines. Examples from UK, Nordics, Belgium and the Netherlands are given. World Wildlife Fund has summarised the insides in a future-proof diet: the planet-based diet within planetary boundaries.

Climate change is a growing international concern, and it is well established that the release of greenhouse gases (GHG) is a contributing factor. So far, within animal production, there is little or no concerted effort on long-term breeding strategies to mitigate against GHG from ruminants. In recent years, several consortia have been formed to collect and combine data for genetic evaluation. The discussion areas of these consortia focus on (1) What are methane-determining factors, (2) What are genetic parameters for methane emissions, (3) What proxies can be used, and what is their association with methane emission, and (4) How to move on with breeding for lower emitting animals? The methane-determining factors can be divided into four groups: (1) rumen microbial population, (2) feed intake and diet composition, (3) host physiology and (4) host genetics. The genetic parameters show that enteric methane is a heritable trait, and that it is highly genetically correlated with dry matter intake. So far, the most useful proxies relate to feed intake, milk mid IR spectral data and fatty acids in the milk. To be able to move on with a genetic evaluation and ranking of animals for methane emission, it is crucial to make measurements on commercial farms. In order to make that possible, it will be necessary to develop phenotypes that can be used by the farmer to optimise the production on farm level. Also, it is crucial to develop equipment that makes it possible to make measurements without interfering with everyday routines or identify proxies that are highly related to methane and which could easily be measured on a large scale. International collaboration is essential to make progress in this area. This is both in terms of sharing ideas, experiences and phenotypes, but also in terms of coming to a consensus regarding what phenotype to collect and to select for.