The role of animal welfare in one health concept: A review

Introduction

One Health refers to interdisciplinary collaboration among academic fields and transdisciplinary collaboration between academia and society at the human-animal-environment interface, generating benefits unattainable through singlesector action (Zinsstag et al., 2023) [1] . The One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) defines it as an integrated, unifying approach that sustainably balances and optimises the health of humans, animals and ecosystems (WHO, 2022) [2] . Its successful implementation requires the agriculture, animal health, human health and wildlife sectors to work together, since the health of these domains is fundamentally interdependent (WHO, 2022; Prata et al., 2022) [2,3] .

Historical Development of the One Health Concept

In the 1960s, veterinary epidemiologist Calvin Schwabe coined the term 'One Medicine' to highlight the shared interests of human and animal health (Schwabe, 1984) [15] . Growing interest in sustainable development subsequently drew attention to the inseparable links between human, animal and ecosystem health (Rapport et al., 1999; Lebel, 2002) [16,17] . In 2004, the Wildlife Conservation Society introduced the phrase 'One World, One Health' under the Manhattan Principles, later updated as the Berlin Principles on One Health in 2019 (Osofsky et al., 2005) [18] .

Systematic bibliometric analysis of the closely related One

Welfare literature shows that publication activity in this space has accelerated sharply since 2019, with an increasing share of studies explicitly linking animal welfare, human wellbeing and environmental sustainability within a single analytic framework (Platto et al., 2025) [12] .

One Health in India

India formally embraced the One Health concept in response to the Avian Influenza (H5N1) pandemic. During 4-6 December 2007, the International Ministerial Conference on Avian and Pandemic Influenza was convened in New Delhi, hosted by the Government of India in cooperation with WHO, FAO, OIE, the World Bank and UNICEF and attended by representatives from 111 countries. At this meeting, the Government of India formally endorsed an integrated approach to animal and human health (Prejit, 2017) [19] . Animal welfare refers to the physical health, mental state and capacity of an animal to cope with its environment, encompassing biological functioning, emotional experience and the expression of natural behaviour (OIE, 2019; Fraser, 2008) [7] . Because welfare can be approached from veterinary, agricultural, consumer and animal-management perspectives, stakeholders often hold differing conceptions of what constitutes 'good welfare' (Nordquist et al., 2017) www.extensionjournal.com [20] . WOAH defines animal welfare as 'the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies' (WOAH, 2019) [21] . Welfare is now central to modern livestock production, directly shaping animal health, productivity, food safety, environmental sustainability and public health (Fraser, 2008; Broom, 2011; FAO, 2019) [7,22,23] and the One Health movement has further highlighted its close interconnection with human wellbeing and ecosystem integrity (Pinillos et al., 2016; Garcia Pinillos, 2018) [11,24] .

Animal Welfare: Concept and Scientific Basis

Animal welfare is a multi-faceted subject with scientific, ethical, economic and political dimensions, requiring an interdisciplinary approach that draws on physiology, veterinary science, ethology and comparative psychology (Lund et al., 2006) [25] . WOAH describes good welfare as existing when an animal is healthy, comfortable, wellnourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour and free from pain, fear and distress (WOAH, 2022) [5] .

The Five Freedoms

Recognising the need for standardisation of welfare practice, a UK Government commission chaired by Sir Roger Brambell produced the 1965 Brambell Report, which first articulated criteria later formalised as the Five Freedoms by the Farm Animal Welfare Council (Brambell Committee, 1965; FAWC, 1979) [26,27] . In 2009, the European Union expanded this framework through the Welfare Quality project. [28,6] . The first three domains nutrition, environment and health, address internal physical imbalances, while the fourth domain, behaviour, addresses restrictive confinement and the presence or absence of other animals, including humans (Mellor & Stafford, 2001) [29] . The fifth domain, mental state, integrates the first four to capture the animal's overall affective experience. The 2020 revision explicitly incorporated human-animal interactions as a distinct contributor to welfare outcomes, reflecting growing recognition that handling quality materially shapes affective state (Mellor et al., 2020) [6] . , 2020) [28,6] 3. The Three Interdependent Pillars of One Health 3.1 Human Health Human health denotes complete physical, mental and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease. Within the One Health framework, human health is shaped by zoonotic disease, food safety, antimicrobial resistance, environmental pollution and ecosystem change, requiring collaboration with veterinary and environmental sectors (WHO, 1948; CDC, 2023) [30,31] .

Animal Health

Animal health encompasses the physical and mental wellbeing of domestic animals, wildlife and companion animals, including freedom from disease, injury and suffering. Healthy animals underpin food production, livelihoods and biodiversity and reduce the risk of zoonotic transmission to humans; animal welfare is regarded as an integral component of animal health (WOAH, 2023) [32] .

Environmental Health

Environmental health concerns the condition of natural and built environments affecting human and animal health, including air and water quality, soil health, climate stability, biodiversity and waste management. Environmental degradation, pollution, deforestation and climate change accelerate disease emergence and adversely affect both www.extensionjournal.com human and animal populations (UNEP, 2022; Zinsstag et al., 2018) [33,34] .

The Economic and Public-Health Case for One Health Integration

Evidence for the benefits of One Health spans health-service delivery, zoonoses control, food safety and security, integrated AMR surveillance, water and sanitation, infrastructure sharing and cross-sector communication (Zinsstag et al., 2018) [34] . The COVID-19 pandemic starkly illustrated the cost of fragmented surveillance across environmental, entomological, wildlife, livestock and human sectors and the catastrophic socio-economic consequences of failing to integrate them (Tan, 2021) [35] .

Table 1: Summarises documented economic and public health returns from integrated approaches.

Domain Added Value of One Health Integration Reference

Health services Joint human-animal vaccination services for mobile pastoralists improve access to healthcare Schelling et al., 2005 [36] Zoonoses control Mass livestock vaccination against brucellosis is more societally profitable; dog rabies vaccination is cheaper than human post-exposure prophylaxis Roth et al., 2003 [37] ; Zinsstag et al., 2009 [38] Surveillance & response Integrated West Nile virus surveillance in Italy saved over €1 million (2009-2015) versus separate systems Paternoster et al., 2017 [39] Infrastructure Shared laboratories for zoonotic and highly contagious diseases cut operating costs by 26% versus separate facilities World Bank, 2012

Communication

The Dutch Q-fever outbreak, with several thousand human cases, could likely have been contained by sustained veterinary-public-health communication Enserink, 2010

Animal Welfare as an Integral Component of One Health

The well-being of animals is deeply interconnected with human and environmental health: good welfare supports disease prevention, food safety and security, biodiversity protection and sustainable ecosystems (Pinillos, 2018) [24] . Improving farm-level welfare has been shown to reduce stress-induced immunosuppression, the incidence of infectious disease, shedding of human pathogens by farm animals, antibiotic use and AMR and the environmental footprint of livestock production (Rushen, 2005; Alhussien et al., 2024) [40,41] .

Animal Welfare and Animal Health:

Animal health under welfare-conscious conditions encompasses both physical and mental well-being and the ability to express normal behaviour, aligning directly with the Five Freedoms (WOAH, 2024) [42] . The European Food Safety Authority notes that food-chain safety is directly related to animal welfare, given the close link between welfare, animal health and foodborne disease (EFSA, 2022) [43] . Future pandemic prevention planning must therefore include improved biosecurity and welfare at the animal-human interface (Zinsstag et al., 2005) [44] . However, legislated animal protection remains highly uneven across jurisdictions, with some states lacking any animal-protection law and others facing significant enforcement gaps (Goetschel, 2021; Goetschel & Ferrari, 2018; GAL Association, 2023) [45,46,47] . The American Bar Association has called for an international convention establishing binding standards for the care and treatment of animals to protect public health, the environment and animal wellbeing (ABA, 2021) [48] .

Fig 2:

The interrelationship between animal welfare and animal health within One Health (adapted from WOAH, 2024)

Animal Welfare and Human Health

The human-animal relationship spans emotional, economic and social dimensions. Companion animals provide emotional support and reduce stress and loneliness, while working animals such as horses and oxen remain indispensable to many agricultural communities; their welfare directly affects human livelihoods and economic stability. Globally, an estimated 92 billion land animals are produced annually for food, making agriculture the largest single arena of human-animal interaction (Lymbery, 2025) www.extensionjournal.com [4] . More than 60% of new and emerging infectious diseases affecting humans originate in animal populations and the frequency and severity of such spillover events have been rising over time (European Commission, n.d.). Nontherapeutic use of antibiotics that are also used in human medicine, applied for disease prevention in farm animals, continues to carry significant negative consequences for human health (The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, 2008) [49] . Health benefits of pet ownership include reductions in distress and anxiety, decreased loneliness and depression and improved physical activity, reinforcing the case for welfareconscious companion-animal care as a determinant of human mental health.

Animal Welfare and Environmental Health

Environmental health under a welfare-conscious lens concerns the physical, chemical, biological, social and psychosocial factors in the environment that determine health outcomes (Ratjen et al., 2025) [50] . Because animal suffering occurs irrespective of national borders, a universal, coordinated system for alleviating unnecessary suffering and improving welfare is increasingly framed as a humanitarian and ecological imperative, particularly as climate change reshapes the risk landscape for both livestock and wildlife (Zinsstag et al., 2018) [34] .

Legislative and Policy Frameworks for Animal Welfare

A series of legislative milestones has shaped modern animal-welfare governance, though coverage and enforcement remain inconsistent internationally (Cowan, 2016; Goetschel & Ferrari, 2018) [51,46] [13] . As of the most recent negotiating rounds, animal welfare remains without binding provisions in the OHHLEP framework, prompting calls for a dedicated technical working group and ultimately, a UN convention on animal welfare, health and protection (CABI One Health, 2024).

Integration of One Health and One Welfare

The One Health and One Welfare approaches jointly recognise the interdependence of human, animal, and environmental health, advocating collaborative, crossdisciplinary action to achieve optimal outcomes for all three domains (One Health Commission, n.d.) [52] . Integrating animal health and welfare enhances disease prevention and food security, promotes sustainable livestock production, advances shared One Health/One Welfare objectives, and improves surveillance and early disease detection (Racciatti et al., 2023) [53] . A 2025 bibliometric review of the global One Welfare literature confirms that these integrative aims are increasingly reflected in publication trends, although explicit measures of human wellbeing or environmental sustainability remain inconsistently incorporated into formal welfare-assessment protocols (Platto et al., 2025) [12] .

How Animal Welfare Affects Human Health

• Welfare status directly influences zoonotic disease risk • Stress in animals weakens immune defences, increasing susceptibility to infection • Poor welfare drives increased antimicrobial use and resistance • Emotional bonds between humans and animals affect human mental health • Robust welfare standards contribute to global publichealth resilience (Dawkins, 2022) [54] 8. Animal Welfare in the Prevention of Zoonotic Diseases Zoonotic disease risk is elevated by practices associated with organic farming and by keeping companion animals and horses in poor welfare conditions (Vlaanderen et al., 2019) [55] . WHO estimated 121,268 new cases of zoonotic tuberculosis in 2010, including approximately 10,545 deaths attributable to Mycobacterium bovis worldwide (WHO, 2015) [56] . Approximately three in four emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic, with the majority (71.8%) originating in wildlife (CDC, 2023; Chomel, 2009) [31,57] . Systematic review of zoonotic-risk research from 2018-2023 found that fewer than 5% of wildlife-focused studies integrated human, animal and environmental data collection simultaneously, underscoring a persistent gap between One Health rhetoric and research practice (Kuhn et al., 2024) [58] . The burden of endemic and emergent zoonoses falls disproportionately on low-resource settings, where farmers and pastoralists living close to animals, combined with poor water and sanitation infrastructure, elevate infection risk (Grace & Cook, 2022; Grace et al., 2017) [59,60] . These diseases are frequently under-reported, under-diagnosed and under-treated, compounding morbidity and mortality in already strained public-health systems (Schelling et al., 2007; Tan, 2021) [61,35] . Recent analysis indicates that the annual frequency of zoonotic spillover events has risen by roughly 5% and associated deaths by nearly 9% over the past six decades, driven by deforestation, land-use change and wildlife trade (Bhatia et al., 2024) [62] . www.extensionjournal.com [58] .

Lessons from COVID-19 for One Health and Animal

Welfare COVID-19 revealed the depth of interlinkage between animal welfare, human wellbeing and environmental health, strengthening calls for integrated welfare policy (Butterworth & Bracke, 2021) [63] . Increased reliance on animal models -mice, ferrets and non-human primates for vaccine and drug development raised renewed concerns about experimental ethics and animal stress (Singh et al., 2021) [64] . The pandemic exposed weaknesses in global health-security architecture, prompting reviews of how institutions, tools and operational frameworks assess and build capacity at the human-animal-environment interface and challenged prior assumptions about the practical value of integrated approaches such as One Health (WHO, 2022;

The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, 2021; Haider et al., 2020) [2,65,66] .

Animal Welfare and Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)

AMR is a growing global health threat closely tied to animal welfare. Nearly three-quarters of the world's antibiotics are administered to farmed animals, largely to offset the disease pressure created by crowded, intensive production conditions, prompting WHO warnings about the risk of a post-antibiotic era in which currently treatable diseases could again become lethal; experts estimate that unchecked AMR could cause roughly 10 million deaths annually by mid-century (O'Neill, 2016; Davies, 2021) [67] . Global projections suggest that, absent stronger policy intervention, antimicrobial use in food-producing animals will continue to rise through 2030, driven primarily by growth in livestock biomass rather than per-animal use intensity (Mulchandani et al., 2023) [68] . Non-therapeutic use of antimicrobials is applied across species largely to prevent diseases that are themselves consequences of intensive production systems (Rollin, 2011) [69] . The human-health consequences of such use are well documented: antibiotic use for growth promotion or routine disease prevention has been linked to the spread of resistant infections, including methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), in humans living near large-scale livestock operations (Carrel et al., 2014; Silbergeld et al., 2008) [70,71] . In the United States, approximately 80% of antibiotics sold are used in farm animals, primarily for non-therapeutic purposes. By contrast, therapeutic antibiotic use -administered at a full dose for the minimum period needed to treat disease -is considered ethically necessary and carries markedly lower resistance-selection pressure than prolonged, low-dose, nontherapeutic use (Silbergeld et al., 2008) [71] . A recent UK evaluation of the 2019-2024 AMR National Action Plan within the beef subsector found substantial progress in data collection, farmer and veterinary engagement and herd-health planning, but noted that further reductions in antimicrobial use depend on continued www.extensionjournal.com investment in welfare-focused disease prevention rather than reactive treatment (Bennani et al., 2024) [72] . Heat stress research further demonstrates that thermal and other environmental stressors compromise immune competence in dairy cattle and other livestock, increasing both disease incidence and the perceived need for antimicrobial intervention (Alhussien et al., 2024) [41] .

10.1 Welfare-AMR Pathways on Farm: A significant proportion of antimicrobials administered to livestock are excreted unmetabolized, contaminating soil and water and contributing to the broader environmental dissemination of resistance genes (FAO, 2018) [73] . Studies of multidrugresistant Salmonella in abattoir environments highlight risks to both animals and workers, underscoring the need for improved hygiene practices and stricter antibiotic controls in animal farming (Aworh, 2024) [10] . As a direct example, genetic selection for rapid growth in broiler chickens can outpace skeletal development, producing pain, injurious pecking and ammonia-laden waste that irritates the eyes and mucous membranes of both animals and workersillustrating how productiondriven welfare compromise and AMR risk are mechanistically linked (The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, 2008) [49] . [9] Reviews of the broader livestock-disease-AMR nexus conclude that biosecurity measures alone are insufficient without parallel improvements in husbandry and welfare that reduce baseline stress and disease risk; the joint EMA/EFSA Scientific Opinion specifically calls for improved husbandry to reduce the need for antimicrobials in the first place (Stevenson, 2023) [8] .

Animal Welfare in Food Safety and Food Security

Stress and poor welfare increase the release and virulence of several zoonotic pathogens, including Salmonella. Evidence consistently shows that improved farm-animal welfare enhances food safety, while communities that invest in animal care sustain farming continuity and the availability of animal-derived products, with positive knock-on effects for climate resilience, farming sustainability and disaster management (Pinillos et al., 2016) [11] .

Recent Advances and Emerging Research (2023-2025)

A growing body of recent scholarship reinforces and extends the classical welfare-One Health literature summarised above. The first global bibliometric review of the One Welfare literature (2013-2024) confirms a marked rise in interdisciplinary publications explicitly linking animal, human, and environmental wellbeing, though it also identifies persistent gaps in the incorporation of human and environmental indicators into formal welfare-assessment tools (Platto et al., 2025) [12] . Complementary behaviouralscience perspectives argue that animalwelfare and One Health research should adopt shared ethical principlesholistic, unbiased and inclusive of marginalised stakeholders -when balancing competing interests in applied research (Yeates, 2024) [74] . On the policy front, thematic analysis of civil-society engagement with the WHO pandemic treaty negotiations (2020-2024) identifies animal welfare as a recurring but still underformalised theme, with recommendations to embed welfare provisions explicitly within future treaty text to address the systemic drivers of pandemic risk (Huang et al., 2024) [13] . On the epidemiological front, systematic review of wildlife zoonotic-risk studies published between 2018 and 2023 shows limited integration of the three One Health domains within individual research designs, despite conceptual endorsement of the framework (Kuhn et al., 2024) [58] , while global analysis of spillover trends confirms a measurable, ongoing increase in both event frequency and associated mortality (Bhatia et al., 2024) [62] . On antimicrobial stewardship, projections through 2030 indicate that antimicrobial use in foodproducing animals www.extensionjournal.com will keep rising unless livestock biomass growth is addressed alongside use intensity (Mulchandani et al., 2023) [68] , while sector-specific evaluation of the UK's AMR action plan in beef cattle highlights welfare-focused disease prevention as a more sustainable lever than reactive antibiotic use (Bennani et al., 2024) [72] . Physiological research continues to substantiate the welfare-immunitydisease pathway, with heat-stress studies confirming that thermal stressors impair leukocyte function and increase infection susceptibility in dairy cattle and buffalo (Alhussien et al., 2024) [41] , and pig-focused pathway analyses tracing specific humanmodulated stressors through to elevated AMR risk on farm (Albernaz et al., 2022) [9] .

Challenges and Future Directions

• Harmonising animal-welfare legislation and enforcement across jurisdictions, given the wide variation identified by global welfare-law databases (GAL Association, 2023) [47] • Embedding binding animal-welfare provisions within OHHLEP and the WHO pandemic treaty (Huang et al., 2024; CABI One Health, 2024) [13] • Improving genuinely tri-domain (human-animalenvironment) study designs in zoonotic-risk research, which remain rare in practice (Kuhn et al., 2024) [58] [41,34] • Expanding One Welfare assessment protocols to formally incorporate human and environmental indicators alongside animal-based measures (Platto et al., 2025) [12] 14. Conclusion Animal welfare is not peripheral to One Health but constitutes one of its foundational pillars. Good welfare reduces stress-induced immunosuppression, limits pathogen shedding and zoonotic spillover, curbs the antimicrobial use that drives resistance, and underpins food safety, food security, and sustainable livestock production (Rushen, 2005; Pinillos et al., 2016; Stevenson, 2023) [40,11,8] . [13,58,68] . Closing these gaps by formally embedding animal welfare within One Health policy, surveillance, and research design is essential to achieving resilient, equitable, and sustainable health outcomes for people, animals, and the environment alike.

References

1. Zinsstag J, Kaiser-Grolimund A, Tulay E, Bernhardt R. One Health: the theory and practice of integrated health approaches. Wallingford: CABI; 2023.
2. WHO. One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP). World Health Organization; 2022.
3. Prata JC, Ribeiro AI, Rocha-Santos T, editors. One Health: integrated approach to 21st century challenges to health. Academic Press; 2022.
4. Lymbery P. Animal welfare as an essential element of One Health. Animal Research and One Health. 2025;3:454-457.
5. WOAH. Terrestrial Animal Health Code-Animal Welfare. Paris: World Organisation for Animal Health; 2022.
6. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, Jones B, et al. The 2020 Five Domains Model: including human-animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals. 2020;10(10):1870.
7. Fraser D. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Vet Scand. 2008;50(Suppl 1):S1.
8. Stevenson P. Links between industrial livestock production, disease including zoonoses, and antimicrobial resistance. Animal Research and One Health. 2023.
9. Albernaz TT, et al. Biological pathways linking welfare stressors to antimicrobial resistance in pigs. Front Vet Sci. 2022.
10. Aworh MK. Prevalence of multidrug-resistant Salmonella in abattoir environments and implications for animal and worker health. J Food Prot. 2024.
11. Pinillos RG, Appleby MC, Manteca X, Scott-Park F, Smith C, Velarde A. One Welfare-a platform for improving human and animal welfare. Vet Rec. 2016;179:412-413.
12. Platto S, Normando S, Serres A, Manteca X, Temple D. One Welfare: bibliometric review of world literature. Front Vet Sci. 2025;12:1627981. doi:10.3389/fvets.2025.1627981.
13. Huang Y, Jiang S, Daminova N, Kumah E. Integrating animal welfare into the WHO pandemic treaty: a thematic analysis of civil-society perspectives. Front Vet Sci. 2024;11:1421158.
14. WHO. One Health Joint Plan of Action (2022-2026). WHO, FAO, WOAH, UNEP; 2021.
15. Schwabe CW. Veterinary medicine and human health. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1984.
16. Rapport D, Böhm G, Buckingham D, et al. Ecosystem health: the concept, the ISEH, and the important tasks ahead. Ecosystem Health. 1999;5:82-90.
17. Lebel J. Health: an ecosystem approach. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre; 2002.
18. Osofsky SA, Cleaveland S, Karesh WB, et al. Conservation and development interventions at the wildlife/livestock interface. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN; 2005.
19. Prejit. One Health-vision for future. In: Roy S, Sharma N, editors. Veterinary public health: One Health. New Delhi: New Delhi Publishers; 2017.
20. Nordquist RE, van der Staay FJ, van Eerdenburg FJCM, Velkers FC, Fijn L, Arndt SS. Mutilating procedures, management practices, and housing conditions that may affect the welfare of farm animals. Animals. 2017;7(2):12. www.extensionjournal.com
21. WOAH. Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Paris: World Organisation for Animal Health; 2019.
22. Broom DM. A history of animal welfare science. Acta Biotheor. 2011;59:121-137.
23. FAO. Animal welfare and sustainable livestock systems. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2019.
24. Garcia Pinillos R. One Welfare impacts of COVID19-a summary of key highlights within the One Welfare framework. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2018;236:105262.
25. Lund V, Coleman G, Gunnarsson S, Appleby MC, Karkinen K. Animal welfare science-working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2006;97:37-49.
26. Brambell Committee. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. London: HMSO; 1965. Report No. 2836.
27. FAWC. Farm Animal Welfare Council press statement. London; 1979.
28. Mellor DJ, Reid CSW. Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. In: Improving the well-being of animals in the research environment. 1994. p. 3-18.
29. Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ. Integrating practical, regulatory and ethical strategies for enhancing farm animal welfare. Aust Vet J. 2001;79(11):762-768.
30. WHO. Constitution of the World Health Organization. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1948.
31. WOAH. One Health. World Organisation for Animal Health; 2023.
32. UNEP. Preventing the next pandemic: zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission. United Nations Environment Programme; 2022.
33. Zinsstag J, Crump L, Schelling E, et al. Climate change and One Health. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2018;365:fny085.
34. Tan MKI. COVID-19 in an inequitable world: the last, the lost and the least. Int Health. 2021;13(6):493-496.
35. Schelling E, Bechir M, Ahmed MA, Wyss K, Randolph TF, Zinsstag J. Human and animal vaccination delivery to remote nomadic families, Chad. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(8):1264-1266.
36. Roth F, Zinsstag J, Orkhon D, et al. Human health benefits from livestock vaccination for brucellosis. Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81:867-876.
37. Zinsstag J, Schelling E, Waltner-Toews D, Tanner M. From "one medicine" to "one health" and systemic approaches to health and well-being. Prev Vet Med. 2009;101(3-4):148-156.
38. Paternoster G, Babo Martins S, Mattivi A, et al. Economics of One Health: costs and benefits of integrated West Nile virus surveillance in EmiliaRomagna. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0188156.
39. Rushen J. Farm animal welfare: linkages to animal health, food safety and the environment. J Anim Sci. 2005.
40. Alhussien MN, Hussen J, De Matteis G. Editorial: heat stress and immune responses in livestock-current challenges and intervention strategies. Front Vet Sci. 2024;11:1366274.
41. WOAH. One Health strategic update. World Organisation for Animal Health; 2024.
42. EFSA. Animal welfare. European Food Safety Authority; 2022.
43. Zinsstag J, Schelling E, Wyss K, Bechir M. Potential of cooperation between human and animal health to strengthen health systems. Lancet. 2005;366:21422145.
44. Goetschel AF. Strategien zur Tierleidminderung über den Weg globaler Gesetzgebung. In: Walter N, editor. Verantwortbare Landwirtschaft statt Qualzucht und Qualhaltung. München; 2021. p. 287-297.
45. Goetschel AF, Ferrari A. GAL Tierleitfaden 1.1 für die Schweizer Vollzugsbehörden. Zurich, Switzerland; 2018.
46. GAL Association. Animal Welfare Legislation Database (AWLD). 2023. https://www.globalanimallaw.org/database/index.html
47. American Bar Association. Resolution 101C. 2021. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/directori es/policy/midyear-2021/101cmidyear-2021.pdf
48. The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. Putting meat on the table: industrial farm animal production in America. 2008.
49. Ratjen I, et al. Environmental determinants of health under the One Welfare framework. Environ Health Perspect. 2025.
50. Cowan T. Animal welfare legislation: a timeline. Congressional Research Service; 2016.
51. Racciatti D, et al. Integrating animal health and welfare for One Health objectives. Journal of One Health Outlook. 2023.
52. Dawkins MS. Animal welfare and public health: bridging the gap. Vet Rec. 2022.
53. Vlaanderen EJ, et al. Zoonotic disease risks associated with organic farming and companion animal keeping. Zoonoses Public Health. 2019.
54. WHO. WHO estimates of the global burden of foodborne diseases. World Health Organization; 2015.
55. Chomel BB. Zoonoses. In: Schaechter M, editor. Encyclopedia of microbiology. San Diego: Academic Press; 2009. p. 820-829.
56. Kuhn C, Hayibor KM, Acheampong AT, et al. How studies on zoonotic risks in wildlife implement the One Health approach-a systematic review. One Health. 2024:100929.
57. Grace D, Cook E. The multiple burdens of zoonoses in low-and middle-income countries. In: Sing A, editor. Zoonoses: infections affecting humans and animals. Springer; 2022. p. 1-13.
58. Grace D, Lindahl J, Wanyoike F, Bett B, Randolph T, Rich KM. Poor livestock keepers: ecosystem-povertyhealth interactions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2017;372(1725):20160166.
59. Schelling E, Grace D, Willingham AL, Randolph T. Research approaches for improved pro-poor control of zoonoses. Food Nutr Bull. 2007;28(2 Suppl 2):S345S356. www.extensionjournal.com
60. Bhatia B, Sonar S, Khan S, Bhattacharya J. Pandemicproofing: intercepting zoonotic spillover events. Pathogens. 2024;13(12):1067.
61. Butterworth A, Bracke M. COVID-19 and its implications for animal welfare policy. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2021.
62. Singh S, et al. Animal models in COVID-19 vaccine and drug development: ethical and welfare considerations. Lab Anim. 2021.
63. The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response. COVID-19: make it the last pandemic. 2021.
64. Haider N, Yavlinsky A, Chang YM, et al. The Global Health Security Index and Joint External Evaluation score are not correlated with COVID-19 outcomes. Epidemiol Infect. 2020;148:e210.
65. O'Neill J. Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: final report and recommendations. Review on Antimicrobial Resistance; 2016.
66. Mulchandani R, Wang Y, Gilbert M, Van Boeckel TP. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food-producing animals: 2020 to 2030. PLoS Glob Public Health. 2023;3(2):e0001305.
67. Rollin B. Putting the horse before Descartes: my life's work on behalf of animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 2011.
68. Carrel M, Schweizer ML, Sarrazin MV, Smith TC, Perencevich EN. Residential proximity to large swine feeding operations and MRSA colonisation risk. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(2):190-192.
69. Silbergeld EK, Graham J, Price LB. Industrial food animal production, antimicrobial resistance, and human health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:151-169.
70. Bennani H, Whatford L, Myers J, Mays N, Glover R, Häsler B. Progress and challenges: implementation of the UK AMR National Action Plan 2019-2024 within the beef cattle sub-sector. Antibiotics. 2024;13(9):839.
71. FAO. Antimicrobial resistance and its environmental dissemination from livestock. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2018.
72. Yeates JW. Animal behaviour and welfare research: a One Health perspective. Animal Behaviour (SAGE). 2024.
73. Bidaisee S, Macpherson CNL. Zoonoses and One Health: a review of the literature. J Parasitol Res. 2014:874345.
74. Enserink M. Questions abound in Q-fever explosion in the Netherlands. Science. 2010;327(5963):266-267.
75. Mazet JAK, Clifford DL, Coppolillo PB, et al. A "One Health" approach to address emerging zoonoses: the HALI project in Tanzania. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000190.
76. Salyer SJ, Silver R, Simone K, Barton Behravesh C. Prioritizing zoonoses for global health capacity building. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23(13).
77. Vandersmissen A, Welburn SC. Current initiatives in One Health: consolidating the One Health Global Network. Rev Sci Tech. 2014;33:421-432.
78. WHO. Constitution-definition of health (reaffirmed). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2024.
79. World Bank. People, pathogens and our planet: the economics of One Health. 2012.