One health: considerations in the International Year of Plant Health

A vision of a One Health system for Australia: on the need to rethink our health system.

In East Africa, a region with many endemic and emerging zoonoses, and in countries such as Ethiopia in particular, One Health (OH) approaches are increasingly seen as effective ways, to mitigate the risk of zoonoses at the interface between human, animal and the environment. The OH approach promotes interdisciplinary cooperation and collaboration between researchers and practitioners from the disciplines of human, animal and environmental health. Moreover, it advocates for the establishment of a public health sector model which recognises the imperative to holistically address diseases that occur in the human, animal and environmental health arena.Key informant interviews were conducted with human and animal health practitioners and academic researchers in Ethiopia to collect data on the implementation of the OH approach to manage zoonotic diseases at the human and animal health interface. Participants' observations were undertaken within animal and human health clinics and government laboratories to gather additional data. Environmental health was not considered in this study as it is not yet fully integrated into the OH approach in Ethiopia.The results reveal a lack of interdisciplinary cooperation, collaboration, and coordination between animal and human health practitioners in operationalising the OH framework in Ethiopia. Professionals in academic and non-academic institutions and organisations are interested in implementing the OH approach, however, an organisational “silo” culture constrains collaboration between institutions dealing with animal and human health. Understaffing and underfunding of institutions were also cited as major challenges to the implementation of a OH approach. Lack of interdisciplinary training for animal and human health practitioners hinders collaboration in the management of zoonoses.Policymakers need to go beyond the rhetoric to a genuine focus on reform of health management and implement policies that bridge human, animal and environmental health. There is a need for multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary training in human, animal and environmental health and collaborative research for the management of zoonoses.

Climate change, acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer, species extinction—all of these issues point to one thing: environmental health is a global issue that concerns all nations of the world. Now add environmental justice to the list. From South Bronx to Soweto, from Penang to El Paso, communities all over the world are finding commonality in their experiences and goals in seeking environmental justice. Environmental justice was defined by Robert Bullard, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, in his seminal 1990 work Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality as “the principle that all people and communities are entitled to equal protection of environmental and public health laws and regulations.” In countries around the world, the concept of environmental justice can apply to communities where those at a perceived disadvantage—whether due to their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, immigration status, lack of land ownership, geographic isolation, formal education, occupational characteristics, political power, gender, or other characteristics—puts them at disproportionate risk for being exposed to environmental hazards. At a global scale, environmental justice can also be applied to scenarios such as industrialized countries exporting their wastes to developing nations. In either case, “environmental and human rights have no boundaries, because pollution has no boundaries,” says Heeten Kalan, senior program officer of the Global Environmental Health and Justice Fund of the New World Foundation in New York City. “Environmental justice organizations are starting to understand that they are working in a global context.”

Food production and dietary patterns play a central role in the myriad interactions among human, animal, and environmental health, emphasising the need for a One Health approach, and this study aims to evaluate dietary patterns within this framework. A cross-sectional dietary survey of adults was undertaken (2021) with a sample size of 957 respondents, representative of the population of Ireland. Subsequently, a farm-to-fork life cycle assessment (LCA) was employed to assess nine human health and environmental impacts (fine particulate matter formation, freshwater and marine ecotoxicity and eutrophication, human carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity and terrestrial acidification and ecotoxicity) across thirteen distinct dietary patterns: total population, rural, urban, omnivore, flexitarian, pescatarian, vegetarian, vegan, 'meat-focused', 'dairy/ovo-focused', 'vegetable-focused', 'seafood-focused', and 'potato-focused', employing the daily weight of consumed food (g/per capita/day) as the functional unit. Results indicate the 'meat-focused' diet exhibited the highest impact for fine particulate matter formation (8.00×10-3kgPM2.5 eq person-1day-1), marine eutrophication (6.60×10-3kgNeq person-1day-1), and terrestrial acidification (0.054kg SO2 eq person-1day-1). The 'seafood-focused' diet had the highest impact on freshwater (0.056kg 1,4-DCB person-1day-1) and marine ecotoxicity (0.069kg 1,4-DCB person-1day-1), freshwater eutrophication (8.36×10-4kg P eq person-1day-1), and human carcinogenic toxicity (0.144kg 1,4-DCB person-1day-1). In comparison, the 'potato-focused' diet exhibited the highest human non-carcinogenic (6.87kg 1,4-DCB person-1day-1) and terrestrial ecotoxicity (2.01kg 1,4-DCB person-1day-1). Transitioning from the "mean" diet to a vegan diet showed the highest percent decrease across all nine impacts (60.4% - 107.3%), followed by the 'vegetable-focused' diet (28.5% - 66.2%). Findings indicate adopting sustainable diets-'vegetable-focused', vegetarian, and vegan-can improve human, environmental, and animal health; however, trade-offs should be considered. Effective consumer communication and policies can enhance awareness of the interconnectedness of diets within the One Health framework, supporting both environmental and health goals.

Background and Aim: The concept of One Health, which aims to establish the association between human, animal, and environmental health, is dedicated to finding solutions to challenges such as the spread of zoonotic diseases. This study focuses on the conservation of freshwater fish and underscores the need for multi-and transdisciplinary approaches that emphasize the objective established by the concept. Materials and Methods: In this context, this study conducted a systematic review, employing criteria for article selection and exclusion, where publications spanning from 1990 to 2022 were analyzed using the electronic databases Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, SciELO, and Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde. Results: Using the keywords “One Health,” “fish,” and “freshwater,” a comprehensive collection of 2392 articles was identified. However, after a meticulous evaluation, only 12 articles fully satisfied the review criteria. These selected articles, published between 2015 and 2022, were primarily concentrated in Asia and Africa. Notably, the focal points of these articles addressed antimicrobial resistance, parasites, and heavy metals, which are challenges associated with consuming contaminated fish. Conclusion: Thus, the One Health approach is the most efficient method for managing environmental risks. By harnessing the collaborative efforts of diverse professionals and experts in the fields of environmental, human, and animal health, this approach serves as a robust framework for addressing challenges involving the triad of human, animal, and environmental spheres. Keywords: animal health, antimicrobial resistance, heavy metals, human health, parasites.

BackgroundThe recent COVID-19 pandemic and the emergence of infectious diseases at the human-animal interface highlight the global challenge of mitigating zoonotic risks. The One Health approach emphasizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health, urging for holistic and interdisciplinary strategies in disease prevention. Despite growing interest, the attention to wildlife in pandemic prevention remains limited. This systematic literature review aims to evaluate recent One Health research on zoonotic diseases and wildlife in terms of study design, interdisciplinary collaboration, and participatory approaches. Key questions addressed include the consideration of One Health domains, disciplinary involvement, and the inclusion of non-academic stakeholders. MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for primary research papers on zoonotic diseases and wildlife from 2018 to 2023. Eligibility criteria included a focus on wildlife, zoonotic diseases, and adoption of the One Health approach. ResultsA total of 228 primary research papers were retrieved. Out of these, 105 studies were included in the review. Few studies integrated human, animal, and environmental domains simultaneously in data collection (4.8 %) and knowledge generation (29.5 %). While extensive knowledge was generated for animal health (97.1 %) and human health (84.8 %), environmental health (34.3 %) remained underrepresented. Laboratory methods predominated (82.9 %), with limited integration of social science methodologies (19 %). The majority were epidemiological studies (86.7 %), yet analytical design within these was sparse (17.1 %). Participation of non-academic stakeholders was limited (36.2 % included non-academics; 3.8 % encompassed participative approaches). ConclusionsThe synthesis of the domains human, animal and environmental health remained fragmentary in the studies reviewed. Environmental health is underrepresented and the interdisciplinary involvement of social sciences lacks. Neglecting these fields of competence impedes comprehensive understanding of disease dynamics and hampers effective zoonosis prevention strategies. In result, greater inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration, along with participatory approaches, are still needed for advancing One Health research.

Unhealthy diets are proven risks for non-communicable diseases and mortality globally. Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) are equally faced with food/nutrition insecurity, poor health outcomes, and the need for sustainable food systems transformation to cater for the growing population within safe planetary boundaries. Despite significant progress globally, persistent challenges necessitate a more holistic and systemic approach to healthy sustainable diets, particularly in LMICs which are often underrepresented in global studies. This review conceptualizes sustainable diets looking at LMICs by assessing sustainability through the One Health approach which considers the interdependencies among humans, animals, plants, and the environment. Using the preferred reporting items of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the checklist for One Health epidemiological reporting of evidence (COHERE) standards, four databases were searched (Embase, Global Health, Web of Science, and Scopus) between 1947 and June 2023. Dietary sustainability was assessed in LMICs by evaluating coverage across the four One Health pillars (human, animal, plant, and environmental health) and five dietary sustainability dimensions (diet/nutrition, health, environment, economic, and social). Extracted data were analyzed qualitatively. The database searches yielded 3,122 studies. After removing duplicates and screening for eligibility, 35 studies were selected for inclusion. Most studies were from upper (77%) and lower (20%) middle-income countries. While 20 studies (57%) assessed human and environmental health, none assessed plant or animal health, nor all four One Health pillars combined. No study assessed all five dietary sustainability dimensions. Most studies assessed two (54%) or three (34%) dimensions, and the most frequently assessed dimension was the environment (71%). Thus, highlighting the non-comprehensive nature and the dearth of research on sustainable diets conducted in LMICs, particularly, low-income countries, and that the research so far mainly focuses on environmental impacts. Overall, studies found that LMICs’ diets, particularly middle-income countries, are unsustainable due to low quality, low diversity, and high environmental effects, with associated inequities. The underrepresentation of LMICs, particularly low-income countries, in this review is a wake-up call urging the generation of more country-specific data incorporating more dietary sustainability dimensions and One Health pillars (especially plant and animal health) for progress and monitoring toward attaining global dietary sustainability.

Advancing food safety: strategic recommendations from the 'ONE - Health, Environment & Society - Conference 2022'.

Today, humans, animals, and the environment are remarkably interconnected and interdependent at a global level through international commerce and movement. Thus, we have access to safe and nutritious food that fuels health, medicines and vaccines that protect us and our animals, and natural resources that support good living standards. However, conflicts arise as exponentially growing populations require more food, demand better living standards, and act to preserve the environment. How do we simultaneously produce more food, reduce disease, afford equitable living standards, and create an environment fit for humans, our animals, and wildlife? Science has played a critical role in finding solutions to many of these challenges, but difficult conflicts continue to emerge. For example, strategies that promote efficient production of food—such as concentrated farming systems, monoculture cropping, and chemical inputs of fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides—have unintended consequences that threaten human, animal, and environmental health ([ 1 ][1]). A more integrated, holistic problem-solving approach informed by science is needed for development of public policies that address these complex problems. A growing “one health” dialogue has focused on emerging disease surveillance, public health preparedness, and policy issues, with less attention being given to connecting these issues to the scientific foundations that underpin pathogen emergence, global health threats, food security, and environmental health. The imbalance has resulted in a compartmentalization of research and policy, sometimes diluting or compromising the efficacy of the one health movement. For example, lack of balanced scientific input imperils policies affecting antibiotic use for efficient food production and, more seriously, modification of plants for improved production of foods under adverse conditions in impoverished countries. There is value in looking back at instances of scientifically informed decision-making that have broadly benefited human, animal, and environmental health, such as the U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970 and the U.S. Clean Water Act of 1972. Human health security today relies on finding common ground at the intersection of humans, animals, and the environment among diverse opinions and values. The concept of One Medicine One Science–based forums that bring together a diversity of scientists, policy professionals, medical experts, food producers, and other relevant stakeholders provides an important opportunity to present scientific knowledge that objectively informs public policy development ([ 2 ][2]). In the absence of scientific information, for instance, concerns about foods genetically modified for enhanced traits have resulted in European markets being closed to African farmers trying to better their standard of living. It has also led to at-risk pregnant women and children lacking access to golden rice, whose high vitamin A content could alleviate as many as 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness in pregnant women and children every year ([ 3 ][3]). Scientifically informed public policies are also needed to find solutions to foreseeable food supply limitations, prepare for existing foreign animal and human disease pathogens (e.g., African swine fever virus and Chikungunya virus), and deal with environmental implications of extreme energy production (e.g., fracking effects on water quality) or industrial pollution of agricultural land in China (4). Overall, balancing competing priorities is a major challenge as societies seek to maximize human health, animal health and welfare, and environmental integrity. Reductionism may be a natural reaction to complexity, but we are in need of evolving ways to discuss, understand, and address these complex challenges. ![Figure][4] Strategies to increase food production, such as pesticide use, have unintended consequences. PHOTO: LENS/GETTY IMAGES 1. [↵][5] 1. R. S. DeFries, 2. J. A. Foley, 3. G. P. Asner , Front. Ecol. Environ. 2, 249 (2004). [OpenUrl][6][CrossRef][7][Web of Science][8] 2. [↵][9] 1. D. A. Travis 2. et al ., Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1334, 26 (2014). [OpenUrl][10][CrossRef][11][PubMed][12] 3. [↵][13] Golden Rice Project ([www.goldenrice.org][14]). 4. 1. C. Larson , Science 343, 1415 (2014). [OpenUrl][15][Abstract/FREE Full Text][16] [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: pending:yes [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [6]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DFront.%2BEcol.%2BEnviron.%26rft.volume%253D2%26rft.spage%253D249%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1890%252F1540-9295%25282004%2529002%255B0249%253ALCBHNA%255D2.0.CO%253B2%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [7]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0249:LCBHNA]2.0.CO;2&link_type=DOI [8]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000223960800016&link_type=ISI [9]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [10]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAnn.%2BN.Y.%2BAcad.%2BSci.%26rft.volume%253D1334%26rft.spage%253D26%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1111%252Fnyas.12601%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F25476836%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [11]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/nyas.12601&link_type=DOI [12]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=25476836&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F347%2F6219%2F242.1.atom [13]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [14]: http://www.goldenrice.org [15]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.issn%253D0036-8075%26rft.aulast%253DLarson%26rft.auinit1%253DC.%26rft.volume%253D343%26rft.issue%253D6178%26rft.spage%253D1415%26rft.epage%253D1416%26rft.atitle%253DChina%2BGets%2BSerious%2BAbout%2BIts%2BPollutant-Laden%2BSoil%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.343.6178.1415%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F24675928%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [16]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzNDMvNjE3OC8xNDE1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjQ6Ii9zY2kvMzQ3LzYyMTkvMjQyLjEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9

Fungi constitute a diverse group with highly positive and negative impacts in different environments, having several natural roles and beneficial applications in human life, but also causing several concerns. Fungi can affect human health directly, but also indirectly by being detrimental for animal and plant health, influencing food safety and security. Climate changes are also affecting fungal distribution, prevalence, and their impact on different settings. Searching for sustainable solutions to deal with these issues is challenging due to the complex interactions among fungi and agricultural and forestry plants, animal production, environment, and human and animal health. In this way, the “One Health” approach may be useful to obtain some answers since it recognizes that human health is closely connected to animal and plant health, as well as to the shared environment. This review aims to explore and correlate each of those factors influencing human health in this “One Health” perspective. Thus, the impact of fungi on plants, human, and animal health, and the role of the environment as an influencing factor on these elements are discussed.

Toxicology and “One Health”: Opportunities for Multidisciplinary Collaborations

A workshop titled "Using Sentinel Species Data to Address the Potential Human Health Effects of Chemicals in the Environment," sponsored by the U.S. Army Center for Environmental Health Research, the National Center for Environmental Assessment of the EPA, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, was held to consider the use of sentinel and surrogate animal species data for evaluating the potential human health effects of chemicals in the environment. The workshop took a broad view of the sentinel species concept, and included mammalian and nonmammalian species, companion animals, food animals, fish, amphibians, and other wildlife. Sentinel species data included observations of wild animals in field situations as well as experimental animal data. Workshop participants identified potential applications for sentinel species data derived from monitoring programs or serendipitous observations and explored the potential use of such information in human health hazard and risk assessments and for evaluating causes or mechanisms of effect. Although it is unlikely that sentinel species data will be used as the sole determinative factor in evaluating human health concerns, such data can be useful as for additional weight of evidence in a risk assessment, for providing early warning of situations requiring further study, or for monitoring the course of remedial activities. Attention was given to the factors impeding the application of sentinel species approaches and their acceptance in the scientific and regulatory communities. Workshop participants identified a number of critical research needs and opportunities for interagency collaboration that could help advance the use of sentinel species approaches.

Issues in the Development of a Research and Education Framework for One Health

Emerging smallholder cattle farming from a One Health perspective: A system dynamics model of the highveld region of South Africa

Background: The veterinarian Calvin Schwabe described as One Medicine linkages of veterinary medicine and human health that strengthen cooperation between human and animal health professionals and improve provision of health services. The terms One Health and EcoHealth were coined for the interplay of human, animal and ecosystem health. Healthy plants are essential for healthy animals and humans, but plant health and its linkages to human and animal health have rarely been described or trialed. Plantwise, an initiative led by CABI, helps establish community-based plant clinics to improve food security and reduce crop losses. Harmonization of the three health services might increase performance and health status of humans, animals and plants, with positive socioeconomic consequences particularly in remote rural areas. Aims: To describe the human, animal and plant health systems in rural Uganda and identify synergies and benefits of their closer cooperation. Methods: A systematic review on the structure and mandates of the human, animal and plant health systems to conceptualize a framework between them. The main linkages are described qualitatively by stakeholders (smallholder farmers, NGOs, researchers, health workers, administrative staff) in a rural context of Africa within a transdisciplinary approach. The selection of districts is based on agricultural livelihoods and an active network of plant health clinics. Identified synergies are evaluated and quantified by a questionnaire survey. A trial to test the most prominent joint intervention will be outlined. Expected results: An evaluation of synergies between human, animal and plant health systems that can be tested to describe benefits of closer cooperation. An established shared framework on these that facilitates the identification of further practical linkages. This approach should be valid for Uganda and any environment where smallholders depend on extension services for the health of household, livestock and crops. The framework and survey results will be presented.