In such unsociable times as these with the rapid emergence of a global pandemic the focus of political and public concern has necessarily shifted towards both public health and economic implications of the unfolding catastrophe of COVID-19. Infectious disease outbreaks are not a new phenomenon as the Great Plague and Spanish Flu would attest, and a state of vigilance towards risks from emerging pathogens with pandemic capacity has been urged by public health authorities long before COVID-19 (1,2). It is a fallacy to believe that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is unique in the infectious diseases world, and it is the case that a legion of relatively terrifying zoonotic and animal vector-borne diseases lay smouldering beneath the surface at any time; from nipah to marburg, ebola to trypanosomiasis, yersinia to hantavirus. So much so, it is estimated that around 60% of human infectious diseases are zoonotic in origin (3), as are the majority of new and emerging infectious diseases (4). A common thread tying infectious disease outbreaks with conservationism (5) is the overwhelmingly exploitative relationship between humans and nature - the latter often moulded, wrangled, and twisted into grotesque subservience of the former without regard for consequences. Increasingly large swathes of wilderness and native vegetation are cleared to make way for increasingly intense and large-scale agricultural activities including propagation of monocultures for animal feed (6,7), and the associated raising of livestock for meat. The types of intensive, wasteful, unsustainable farming practices undertaken set the stage for the emergence of infectious diseases due to fundamental changes in the animal-human interface (8). In overcrowded factory farms densely packed with unwell animals and with necessarily limited ventilation, the capacity for biocontainment is incredibly limited, and any pathogens can rapidly multiply and spread (8).
The plethora of impacts including habitat loss, topsoil degradation, agrochemical runoff, potable water depletion, and infectious disease outbreaks as stated, must always be balanced with the need to feed burgeoning populations the world over, and returning to the antiquated low-yield agricultural practices would almost certainly prove unviable. Here we must be reminded of the historical context of our current food production systems and the Green Revolution of the ‘50s and ‘60s that saw incredible advancements in the production and yield of staple crops like rice and wheat. Leaps forward in agricultural practices, improved crop varieties, fertilisation, and irrigation strategies saw huge portions of people lifted out of dire poverty and achieve the food security necessary for populations to grow and thrive, but this both regrettably and predictably came at significant environmental cost (9). If one point is clear above all, it is that our food systems are intrinsically linked with both human and planetary health; any equation that considers benefits in one sector must not discount costs in another.
Following on from such concerns around the interconnectedness of human health, animal health, and environmental health we see the emergence of collaborative approaches like One Health - as promising as it is ambitious for bringing about intersectoral action, breaking down subspecialised and introverted silo thinking, and promoting unified, multilateral approaches to the so called wicked problems of our time (10). One Health as a broad and at times nebulous concept has gained specific popularity in approaching zoonotic diseases, with examples of integrated veterinary science, animal disease surveillance systems, occupational health, and public health services creating tightly cooperative networks able to quickly communicate and respond to identified risks (11,12). This kind of framework that brings together different disciplines that often operate in isolation despite obvious overlap of direct and indirect impacts on one another is therefore a timely necessity in a globalised world. In some respects, it is disquieting to think that this kind of cross-discipline communication and collaboration didn’t much evolve or emerge of its own accord, especially when confronting challenges like antimicrobial resistance [AMR], occupational health, and infectious diseases.
One Health is not without its limitations, and a valid criticism raised by Herten and colleagues is of the anthropocentric tendencies that unfortunately colour the interpretations of One Health’s core principles. As the authors importantly seek to ask, “Is it really about equally improving the health of humans, animals and the environment … or is it ultimately just public health that counts?”(14). A truly conscious and committed approach to One Health requires the creation of conditions where animals are not simply seen as supermarket meat with extra steps. Considering the impact of COVID-19 on animal farming industry, with the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of chickens, mink, and other livestock across the globe (15, 16, 17), it must be recognised that present conditions, in recurrent and empirically demonstrable fashion, place no intrinsic value on the life of such animals. As they stand, stablished livestock systems will remain exquisitely vulnerable to such supply chain interruptions, broader economic conditions, and environmental or climatic phenomenon, and any subsequent conflict between financial sacrifice and animal welfare will invariably be resolved in the predictable manner. I have always been particularly captured by the example of cognitive dissonance in a society that simultaneously sanctions the production of foie gras whilst erecting signs in public parks advising not to feed bread to ducks as it is bad for their health. At a broader level, the tokenistic respect we so righteously profess to hold towards our animal counterparts in the public sphere is at jarring odds with the cold indifference paid to the unfortunate majority in factory farms, in polluted and degraded habitat, or formerly inhabiting land cleared for agriculture and housing developments.
In every instance the natural environment, from which we have collectively become so divorced, cannot be deceived, circumvented, cheated, or ignored without repercussions. The 2019 summer bushfires and COVID-19 crisis have collectively made it apparent that no amount of purported mastery humans hold over the natural world will protect us from the impacts of climate change and ecological destruction. Regardless of their uptake and implementation in present day earth, the increasingly widespread adoption of approaches like One Health highlights the interconnectedness of food, environments, agriculture, livestock, working and living conditions with human health and forces us to reflect on the intersectoral implications of our choices as a complete equation. We are forced to see the entire landscape in which our food is produced, our land utilised, and our environment damaged by current practices - and start to envisage a better, healthier, and fairer alternative. We are blessed to be at a juncture in human history when such change is possible but with the weight of preconditions favouring the status quo, agricultural health reform will not occur passively.
T Michniewicz, 10/09/2020
Reference
1. ‘Epidemiological transition’ (2018)Youtube [video], Global Health with Greg Martin. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt3d4oMmByI&feature=youtu.be&t=266&fbclid=IwAR0twNNbPbcrkPRHNswr-s6iCdf0zUhKFCuLRdU8BPDZzLJkoJaA4ItIZ98> [Accessed: 04/08/2020].
2. Morse, S, Mazet, J, Woolhouse, M, Parrish, C, Carroll, D, Karesh, W, Zambrana-Torrelio, C, Lipkin, W and Daszak, P (2012) ‘Prediction and prevention of the next pandemic zoonosis’. The Lancet. 380(9857):1956-1965. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61684-5.
3. Grace, D, Mutua, F, Ochungo, P, Kruska, R, Jones, K, Brierley, L, Lapar, L, Said, M, Herrero, M, Phuc, P, Thao, N, Akuku, I and Ogutu, F (2012) ‘Mapping of poverty and likely zoonoses hotspots’. Zoonoses Project 4. Report to the UK Department for International Development. Nairobi, Kenya. Available at: <https://hdl.handle.net/10568/21161> [Accessed: 04/07/2020].
4. Thornton, J (2017) ‘Where humans and animals collide: emerging infections and newfound resistance’ [online]. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Available at: <https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/research/research-action/features/where-humans-and-animals-collide-emerging-infections-and-newfound> [Accessed: 04/07/2020].
5. Carrington, D (2020) ‘Pandemics result from destruction of nature, say UN and WHO’. The Guardian [online]. 17 June. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/17/pandemics-destruction-nature-un-who-legislation-trade-green-recovery> [Accessed: 04/07/2020].
6. Smithers, R (2017) ‘Vast animal-feed crops to satisfy our meat needs are destroying planet’. The Guardian. 5 October. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/05/vast-animal-feed-crops-meat-needs-destroying-plane> [Accessed 08/08/2020].
7. Neslen, A (2017) ‘Burger King animal feed sourced from deforested lands in Brazil and Bolivia’. The Guardian. 21 August. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/01/burger-king-animal-feed-sourced-from-deforested-lands-in-brazil-and-bolivia> [Accessed 08/08/2020].
8. Graham, J, Leibler, J, Price, L, Otte, J, Pfeiffer, D, Tiensin, T and Silbergeld, E (2008) ‘The animal-human interface and infectious disease in industrial food animal production: rethinking biosecurity and biocontainment’. Public Health Reports. 123(3):282-299. DOI: 10.1177/003335490812300309.
9. International Food Policy Research Institute [IFPRI] (2002) ‘Green revolution: curse or blessing’. Washington, DC. Available at:<http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/64639/filename/64640.pdf> [Accessed 08/08/2020].
10. Kumlien, A and Coughlan, P (2018) ‘Wicked problems and how to solve them’. The Conversation. 18 October. Available at: <https://theconversation.com/wicked-problems-and-how-to-solve-them-100047> [Accessed 08/08/2020].
11. Rabozzi, G, Bonizzi, L, Crespi, E, Somaruga, C, Sokooti, M, Tabibi, R, Vellere, F, Brambilla, G and Colosio, C (2012) ‘Emerging zoonoses: the “one health approach”. Safety and Health at Work. 3(1):77-83. DOI: 10.5491/SHAW.2012.3.1.77.
12. Mackenzie, J and Jeggo, M (2019) ‘The one health approach - why is it so important?’. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease. 4(2):88. DOI:10.3390/tropicalmed4020088.
13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] (2020) ‘One health basics’[webpage]. Available at: <https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/index.html> [Accessed 08/08/2020].
14. Herten, J, Bovenkerk, B and Verweij, M (2018) ‘One health as a moral dilemma: towards a socially responsible zoonotic disease control’. Zoonoses and Public Health. 66(1). DOI: 10.1111/zph.12536.
15. Kevany, S (2020) ‘Hundreds of thousands of chickens to be culled after covid disruption’[online]. The Guardian. 31 August. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/31/hundreds-of-thousands-of-chickens-to-be-culled-after-covid-disruption>
16. BBC News (2020) ‘Coronavirus: Spain orders culling of almost 100,000 mink’[online]. BBC News Online. 17 July. Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53439263>
17. Kevany, S (2020) ‘Millions of US farm animals to be culled by suffocation, drowning and shooting’ [online]. The Guardian. 19 May. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/19/millions-of-us-farm-animals-to-be-culled-by-suffocation-drowning-and-shooting-coronavirus>
