IS THE ONE HEALTH APPROACH ANTHROPOCENTRIC?

Is the “One Health” concept a viable model for achieving sustainable development? It is based on three interconnected pillars: human health, animal health, and environmental health. These are considered deeply interdependent and inseparable. However, this thesis is challenged by many experts who, while acknowledging the merits of the concept, argue that although it effectively reflects the interconnection between the first two pillars—human and animal health—it lacks relevance when it comes to the third pillar, the environment, which they believe should not be associated within the same framework. Below are extensive excerpts on this topic, discussed during the UM6P (Mohammed VI Polytechnic University) “Science Week” in Morocco on April 1st, shortly before the One Health Summit held in Lyon on April 5th and 7th.

I. DEFENSE AND ILLUSTRATION OF THE INTERCONNECTION OF THE 3 PILLARS OF ONE HEALTH

Exploring the symbiosis between human, animal, and environmental health. An in-depth analysis of systemic interconnections, illustrated through the cycle of zoonotic diseases.

IS THE ONE HEALTH APPROACH ANTHROPOCENTRIC? · Part 1

II. ANTITHESIS: ONE HEALTH EXCLUDES THE ENVIRONMENT FROM ITS SCOPE

A critical perspective: when the One Health framework narrows its scope, the environment becomes the excluded variable. Epistemological implications and pathways toward a more holistic approach.

IS THE ONE HEALTH APPROACH ANTHROPOCENTRIC? – Part 2