The U.S. government has unveiled its first-ever national framework for a “One Health” approach, a collaborative strategy aimed at addressing zoonotic diseases — those transmitted between animals and humans — and bolstering public health preparedness.
The framework, developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of the Interior (DOI), seeks to tackle emerging health threats like COVID-19, mpox, bird flu and Ebola.
The framework, titled the National One Health Framework to Address Zoonotic Diseases and Advance Public Health Preparedness in the United States (NOHF-Zoonoses), outlines seven goals, including pathogen surveillance, pandemic preparedness, vaccine development and biolab safety. It also emphasizes tracking environmental and social determinants of health, such as climate change and land use, and integrating One Health principles into educational curriculums.
While proponents argue the plan is a necessary step to address interconnected health threats, critics like Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo, say it overlooks foundational health strategies. “The lack of focus on regenerative agriculture, toxin reduction and lifestyle medicine demonstrates a troubling detachment from what truly promotes health at the individual and societal levels,” Ji told The Defender.
The One Health framework has sparked debate over its implications for national sovereignty and individual autonomy. Critics argue it aligns with globalist efforts, such as the World Health Organization’s (WHO) proposed Pandemic Treaty, which seeks to centralize health decision-making under international bodies.
Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender that the framework could bypass traditional public health policymaking processes. “The plan is aimed at further embedding the extremely fuzzy concept of One Health into all government agencies, creating new interagency structures and mechanisms for decision-making outside the usual chain of command structures,” Nass said.
Ji echoed these concerns, warning that the framework risks amplifying crisis-driven governance. “By focusing on zoonotic diseases, the framework risks entrenching centralized global systems that bypass democratic oversight,” he said.
The framework’s origins trace back to the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which mandated federal agencies to address zoonotic diseases and pandemic preparedness. Critics argue this legislative push, combined with global initiatives like the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty, could erode national sovereignty.
A key component of the One Health framework is its emphasis on surveillance and vaccine development. The plan calls for tracking zoonotic diseases and their environmental drivers, as well as accelerating the development of diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics.
However, some experts warn that this crisis-oriented approach could prioritize biosecurity over holistic health solutions. “The framework’s focus on pathogen surveillance and vaccine development reflects a reactive, rather than proactive, approach to health,” Ji said.
The framework also connects One Health to environmental justice and climate change, proposing to integrate these issues into public health strategies. Yet, critics argue this broad scope could expand government oversight into nearly every aspect of life.
The U.S. framework coincides with global efforts to streamline drug approvals and pandemic responses. In the U.K., the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is considering a plan to fast-track drugs approved by “trusted” regulators in other countries, raising concerns about safety and regulatory oversight.
Dr. Nass warned that such initiatives could lead to a “race to the bottom” in drug safety standards. “By saying that any friendly nation’s drug regulator decision can stand in your country, that obviously will turn into a race to the bottom,” she said.
No comments:
Post a Comment