one health un

🖨️ Print post

The UN’s “One Health” Agenda

Don’t Be Fooled by the Warm and Fuzzy Sales Pitch

As many Americans have come to realize, a one-world government has been the wet dream of so-called “elites” for decades. Pooh-poohing national sovereignty as old-fashioned, banker and Trilateral Commission founder David Rockefeller famously asserted in 1991, “The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” He then admitted to being “guilty” and “proud of it” for “conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure, one world if you will.”¹

Alleged war criminal and Rockefeller pro­tégé Henry Kissinger—the “morally flawed” doyen of twentieth-century “realpolitik”—often and not very subtly reiterated the case for a “harmonized” global order.^2-4 In a 2009 piece in the International Herald Tribune titled “The Chance for a New World Order,” Kissinger argued that “common action,” “compatible pri­orities,” “general rules,” a “common design” and a “grand strategy” were needed to stave off global “chaos.”⁵

One of the one-world government mecha­nisms that Kissinger no doubt had in mind to help put the desired “rules” and “priorities” in place was “One Health,” a deceptively innocent-sounding global framework spearheaded in the early 2000s by four “unelected technocra­cies”: the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).⁶ These and other One Health champions like to warn that “[s]olving today’s threats and tomorrow’s problems cannot be accomplished with yesterday’s approaches.”⁷ Draping One Health in rhetoric about evolving interactions between “people, animals, plants, and our environment,” the quadripartite bureau­cratic alliance presents One Health as a “tomorrow”-oriented solution “for a safer world.”⁸

Significantly, One Health’s far-reaching “operational definition,” updated in 2021, is replete with the buzz words favored by twenty-first century globalists and technocrats—words like “unifying,” “collective” and “sustainable”:

“One Health is an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sus­tainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognizes the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and inter-dependent. The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society to work together to foster well-being and tackle threats to health and ecosystems, while addressing the collective need for clean water, energy and air, safe and nutritious food, taking action on climate change, and contributing to sustainable development.”⁹

Similar flowery language is on display in a short article published by “The Lancet One Health Commission” in 2020. (Of note, in addition to representatives of various UN agencies, universities and the CDC, the Commission’s twenty-four members featured Anthony Fauci’s pal, Peter Daszak, whose EcoHealth Alliance has had a “long and profitable rela­tionship with the Pentagon” for biological weapons research.¹⁰) Waxing eloquent about “the complex interconnectedness and interdependence of all living species and the environment,” the Commission promised to work on “policy, implementation, and governance recommendations” destined for “integrat[ion] in policy briefs, international guidelines and protocols, and various high-level global health resolutions.”¹¹ Looking back and “decoding” the Commission’s pledge from a 2023 vantage point, Dr. Meryl Nass suggests that the latter sentence really means, “We plan to shove these ideas down your throat” and “assist in the world take­over.”¹² In January 2023, The Lancet published four more papers about One Health,¹³ including a paper documenting “the proliferation of One Health collaborations” around the world—collaborations that likely in­volved implementation of some of the Commission’s recommendations.¹⁴

For those inclined to dismiss One Health as just so much UN gobble­degook, it is necessary to see that behind all the wordy salesmanship (which includes, since 2015, a One Health journal “to provide a platform for rapid communication of high quality scientific knowledge on inter- and intra-species pathogen transmission”¹⁵ and, since 2016, an annual “One Health Day”¹⁶), One Health and related UN initiatives are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Notably, the Lancet Commission links One Health to the UN’s seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which themselves represent “technocracy on steroids,” according to Dutch science writer Rypke Zeilmaker.¹⁷ As writer Patrick Wood has documented in a series of important books about the history and aims of technocracy,^18-20 “sustainable development” and “technocracy” are interchangeable terms, both referring to the long-ambitioned globalist push to destroy free enterprise and build out a global system that centrally controls all re­sources—including energy and food—as well as people. Thus, when One Health’s advocates talk about the need for “global cooperation and global participation using the basic principles enshrined in One Health,”¹⁶ their subtext is a “greater good” form of top-down control that should alarm anyone who cares about individual and national sovereignty.

In this context, it is also important to rec­ognize One Health’s relationship to the WHO’s attempted “power grab”²¹ through amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and/or via a “Pandemic Agreement” that would make the WHO “the biosecurity arm of an unelected, technocratic, unaccountable, authori­tarian and totalitarian World Government.”⁶ As British author Simon Elmer, an expert on the biosecurity state, explained in a March 2023 Off-Guardian article, One Health is, in fact, one of the central “legally enforceable principles” being written into the Pandemic Agreement.⁶

“ONE HEALTH” FICTIONS MEET THE “RIGHT CRISIS”

A few years after he made his unapologetic “one world” comments, the ever quotable David Rockefeller commented, “All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.”^22,23 In April 2020—once again echoing his one-time mentor—Kissinger published a ready-made article in The Wall Street Journal titled “The coronavirus pandemic will forever alter the world order.”²⁴

In the context of the dynamic duo’s remarks, it is, therefore, worth noting that One Health made its debut on the world stage in 2003 in connection with—what else?—drummed-up panic around a “coronavirus” (“SARS-CoV-1”) and a putative condition dubbed “severe acute respiratory syndrome” (“SARS”).¹⁶ And in 2020—following almost two decades of refining the One Health agenda at various conferences— another manufactured “coronavirus” scare furnished the convenient pretext to take One Health to the next level. The 2023 Lancet pa­per on “One Health collaborations” signaled as much when its authors complacently concluded, “The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the world that global health security relies on the ability of health systems collectively to prepare for, prevent, and respond to transboundary threats of epidemic and pandemic potential,” and they also emphasized “the need to apply One Health perspectives” to these processes.¹⁴

At its core, as two decades of One Health boosterism demonstrate, the One Health frame­work hinges on two powerful and destructive fictions: viral contagion and “zoonosis” (plural: “zoonoses”), a term introduced in the nineteenth century by German pathologist Rudolf Vir­chow.²⁵ From “swine flu” to “HIV” to “Ebola” to “Zika” to “SARS-CoV-2,” these two intertwined bogeymen have established a track record as effective tools for whipping up fear and get­ting populations to accept top-down “medical dictates.”²⁶ Where viral contagion is concerned, Sasha Latypova reminds us how skillfully the story-spinners have wielded “the narrative of ‘emerging’ novel viruses,” persuading the public that “[s]cary invisible viruses. . . can pounce out of a jungle any minute, and are just a plane ride away from infecting half the planet with a lethal new pathogen!”²⁷ Unintentionally echoing Latypova’s satire with their own hyperbole, a group of academics put it this way in a 2019 article titled “The One Health approach—why is it so important?”:

“The outbreak of SARS, the first severe and readily transmissible novel disease to emerge in the 21st century, led to the realisa­tion that. . . a previously unknown pathogen could emerge from a wildlife source at any time and in any place and, without warn­ing, threaten the health, well-being, and economies of all societies.”¹⁶

As the “wildlife” aspect of the previous quote illustrates, the zoonosis bogeyman help­fully compounds the contagion drama. In fact, the WHO has not one but three squirrelly defini­tions of zoonosis in its toolkit,²⁸ making it pos­sible to tailor ostensible zoonotic threats to any situation. One definition of zoonoses—“diseases and infections naturally transmitted between people and vertebrate animals”²⁹—emphasizes that animals, too, can be victims of zoonotic “outbreaks” (think “bird flu”); the two other definitions (found together in a single WHO fact sheet) focus on the threat to humans, refer­ring to either “any disease or infection that is naturally transmissible from vertebrate animals to humans” or “an infectious disease that has jumped from a non-human animal to humans.”³⁰ (The image of a “jumping” virus seems to be a particularly evocative and effective propaganda point—bats or monkeys, anyone?)

Striking a slightly critical note, the authors of the “One Health collaborations” paper state that while One Health is supposed to tackle a wide variety of “global health security haz­ards”—such as “food safety concerns and food and nutrition security or extreme weather, water security, and environmental degradation”—the latter, thus far, have received less attention.¹⁴ Instead, the dominant and single-minded focus of funded networks operating under the One Health umbrella has been and remains the ever-sexy issue of “emerging infections and novel pathogens.” And why not, given the WHO’s over-the-top claims that there are over two hundred “known” zoonoses and that zoonoses “comprise a large percentage of new and existing diseases in humans.” As Latypova notes, “What can be better than an invisible threat to justify printing and spending truck­loads of money for mega-defense/research contracts, while flying to the global champagne-caviar events and giving each other diverse-inclusive-sustainable science awards?”²⁷

“ONE HEALTH,” FOOD AND FARMING

Despite One Health’s overriding focus on zoonoses and contagion, one should not be complacent about its potential to mess with rights and freedoms in other areas. Yes, fake zoonoses can cover up a multitude of sins (zoonoses seem to handily “emerge” whenever globalists need a health justification for another round of oppression), but in addition, the global organizations behind One Health have made no bones about the fact that they envision a far broader scope—one that “clearly embraces other disciplines and domains, including environmental and ecosystem health, social sciences, ecology, wildlife, land use, and biodiversity.”¹⁶

Where food access and food freedom are concerned, the mention of “land use”—and the CDC’s enthusiastic enumeration of “food safety and food security” and livestock health as core One Health areas^25,31— are hardly reassuring, especially when considered against the historical backdrop of Rockefeller’s and Kissinger’s eager weaponization of food.³² A 2020 article by UC Davis researchers illustrates how One Health group­ies are considering applying One Health in the areas of “animal health, food safety, food security, and sustainable food production.”³³ Calling for a “transdisciplinary” expert team of “microbiologists, pathologists, epidemiologists, veterinarians, animal, plant, and environmental scien­tists” (farmers are conspicuously absent here), they suggest:

• Incorporating One Health approaches in curricula focused on animal and human health to cultivate a “One Health mindset” and create a cadre of “One Health Practitioners” and researchers
• Using One Health as a hook to attract a new (more gullible) generation of farmers and ranchers (the authors point out that 63 percent of U.S. farmers are over fifty-five years old)
• Conducting genomic sequencing of “agriculturally important plants”
• Studying “viral interactions at the interface of produce, wildlife, and humans,” including wildlife’s movements “from garbage sites to produce fields and. . . urban areas. . . all the while eating, defecating, and spreading fecal pathogens in the environment”
• And, in yet another misapplication of the polymerase chain reac­tion (PCR) technology, using PCR to track and trace “microbial causes of foodborne diseases”

These researchers also proclaim the dangers of “transboundary diseases,” which they define as “epidemics of highly contagious animal diseases”; in this instance, we’re told, the diseases do not cause illness in humans but are alarming for their potential economic impact. For the “highly contagious” part of the story, the authors colorfully list transboundary disease transmission “via fomites, swill, contaminated meat products as well as by direct contact and soft ticks.” (Why “soft” ticks?) Fomites—as explained and made famous by disease detective Kate Winslet in the dreadful 2011 movie Contagion—are the “everyday objects” (or “passive vectors”) that supposedly “carry and spread disease and infectious agents”³⁴; fomite hysteria prompted the sanitizer mania of 2020. In the researchers’ conception of “transboundary diseases,” however, it is unclear how livestock are supposed to come into contact with the would-be fomites—doorknobs, light switches, clothing, mobile phones—most often accused of harboring lurking germs.

As an example of a “transboundary disease,” the authors cite “Af­rican Swine Fever” (ASF), an example that makes it possible to see how the application of a “One Health mindset” could facilitate abuse and control of livestock-owning farmers or homesteaders. Explaining that “China is the world’s largest producer and consumer of pork” (five hundred million pigs annually), the authors matter-of-factly describe a 14 percent “hog inventory reduction” and a 13 percent “sow inventory reduction” totaling forty-nine million animals—a culling demanded by the Chinese government after ASF was said to have “emerged” (there is that word again) in 2018.³³

Events in the UK in 2001 may have set the precedent for mass, expert-dictated animal cullings; in that year, the UK government required the drastic slaughter of millions of cattle and sheep based on unfounded “foot-and-mouth disease” predictions by shill epidemiologist Neil Fer­guson (infamous for repeatedly pumping up the threat of scary viruses, including in 2020).³⁵ In the U.S., bogus PCR testing for so-called “highly pathogenic avian influenza” (HPAI) recently has led to the similarly disastrous culling of both small-scale and larger poultry flocks—sixty million birds as of spring 2023.³⁶ Illustrating the draconian power of those in charge to keep pathogen panic going, WAPF’s Pete Kennedy explains,

“If a farm has one ‘non-negative’ test for HPAI, the USDA will put the farm under quarantine, not lifting the quarantine until the farmer depopulates the flock. There doesn’t have to be any die-offs for a cull order, nor any sign of illness in the birds, just one non-negative test; APHIS [the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspec­tion Service] or a state agency can keep testing until they get the result they want.”³⁶

As WAPF supporters know only too well, many travesties are possible under the regula­tory guise of “food safety,” so it is of some concern that experts are proclaiming food safety to be a “linchpin” of One Health.³⁷ For example, both domestically and internationally, it looks like One Health could be used to justify fur­ther harassment of small-scale dairy producers (who already are frequent victims of regulatory abuse). A 2017 paper describes experts’ applica­tion of a “One Health lens” to dairy production in the West African nation of Mali “for control of zoonoses, reduction of food losses, and emer­gency preparedness.”³⁸ Noting that 80 percent of Mali’s labor force is agricultural, with livestock representing a significant source of the country’s income, and a wide range of animals (including goats, sheep, cows and camels) involved in milk production, the authors point out that as of 2008, traditional family farms provided 98 percent of domestic milk. What would One Health bring to this long-standing tradition of small-scale dairy production, adapted to the vagaries of drought and, in the north, to nomadic lifestyles? Citing the need to “empower” primary producers “to cope with international food safety standards,” and advocating for public-private “interven­tions” (meddling) by “local government and in­ternational organizations, national and regional agencies, civil society organizations, legal and insurance companies, and research bodies,” the authors recommend:

• Making “professional expertise” avail­able to teach farmers about “the value/ food chain” and “new agricultural techniques,” guided by experts in “governance, economic model­ing, policy impact assessment, and scientific and technological advances”
• Promoting farmers’ use of “animal-based monitoring tools”
• Forming networks of dairy farmers to “support tracking of wide-scale data and georeferencing of remote areas”
• “Exploiting” farmer networks as a “surveillance system”

Also of concern, One Health may shape up as a new avenue for at­tacking raw milk—with “low- and middle-income countries” the target for now, but perhaps with high-income countries becoming a target later on. In a 2019 article by the same UC Davis authors mentioned previously, titled “A One Health perspective on dairy production and dairy food safety,” the authors tsk-tsk about fresh (unpasteurized) milk consumption “in developing countries where regulation and oversight of the dairy industry is lacking,” alleging that this sets dairy up to be “a vec­tor for zoonotic transmission of disease.”³⁹ These sterilization-obsessed researchers profess to be worried about “farm-to-table” pathogens but appear oblivious to raw milk’s “biochemical magic”⁴⁰ and ignorant about the historical circumstances that led to wide-scale pasteurization (such as cows being fed distillery swill and deprived of access to pasture). Celebrating pasteurization’s ostensible triumph, the authors scold con­sumers who “prefer unpasteurized products” for “putting themselves at risk for developing foodborne diseases.” Their proposed One Health “management approach,” with the technocratic name of “Dairy Dynamic Management,” is to be driven by “specialists” who “understand food safety begins on the farm and diseases can be passed between humans, animals, wildlife and the environment.”³⁹

Experts closer to home are not immune to the lure of One Health rhetoric; they suggest that One Health approaches are a way to achieve “a more favorable balance between food safety, food security, and ecosystem and human health” on small family dairy farms in the U.S.⁴¹

“SUSTAINABLE” IS ALWAYS A COVER STORY

Interestingly, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) features prominently on the list of “global health problems” said to be suited to a One Health approach, due to the triple environmental-animal-human effects result­ing from “the irresponsible and excessive use of antimicrobials in. . . agriculture, livestock, and human medicine.”⁴² This is another area that on the surface may sound plausible and helpful, but the fact that AMR is “integrated” into several of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals should raise a red flag.

In 2022, Mexican researchers revealed one of the possible ulterior motives behind the expressed concerns about AMR—namely, to open the floodgates for “the development and use of vaccines [directed against antibiotic-resistant bacteria] and alternatives.”⁴² A 2023 paper titled “Nanobiotics and the One Health approach” explains that one of those “alternatives” is nanotech.⁴³ In fact, “novel” nanomaterials—including “nano-additives,” “nano-fertilizer,” “nano-pesticide,” “nano growth promoters” and other nanotech wonders—are making rapid inroads in food and agriculture, “offering complete food solutions from farm to fork.”⁴⁴ Ironically, even the WHO—one of One Health’s principal cheer­leaders—admits that “engineered nanoparticles . . . have raised concern about unwanted or un­expected interactions with biological systems, which could result in adverse consequences to human and ecosystem health.”⁴⁵ But even there, it is One Health to the rescue (!), with nanosafety advocates reassuring us that “a transdisciplinary approach, underpinned by the One Health con­cept” will “support the sustainable development of [agri-nanotechnologies].”⁴⁶

Back in 2011, a citizen submitted a prescient letter to the editor of the Aspen Times, comment­ing on David Rockefeller’s elitist aspirations. The author’s dystopian description of the battle for freedom could have been written in 2020 or beyond:

“The primary obstacle blocking the [Rock­efeller-envisioned] ‘sovereignty of an intel­lectual elite and world bankers’ is a strong, democratic, sovereign America. Both can­not exist simultaneously. Therefore, our mortal enemy has been decimating America for decades, the battlefield littered with the middle class, dazed soldiers wandering in despair, jobs lost, pockets empty, homes foreclosed, dreams crushed and forced to bow to their oppressors. . . . The age-old dream of world domination is alive and well. Our real enemy are the globalists, scientific-technological elites who. . . are attempting to establish the NWO.”¹

Although those of us fighting for food freedom, health freedom and financial freedom have our work cut out for us, the fortunate fact is that we can learn to see through the feel-good verbiage of stealth initiatives like One Health to recognize and push back against the threats that they conceal. The “scientific-technological elites” who want to control (and poison) us are a bit like the emperor in Hans Christian An­dersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” As one writer sums up the parable, “Andersen’s story shows the vanity of a fictitious Emperor who believes that his subjects accept anything he decrees, even to disbelieve what they can plainly see. But when his pretensions are punctured by a small child, laughter ensues, the Emperor is humiliated, and he leaves the story powerless.”⁴⁷ If we can laugh at One Health and its fictitious contagion and zoonosis underpinnings, we stand a chance of a similar outcome.

---

SIDEBAR
PUTTING THE ONE HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE
According to a CDC timeline,⁴⁸ the following are some of the “important events in the history of One Health”:
• 2004: At a symposium at Rockefeller University, experts convened by a front group called the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) publish twelve “priorities” for a “Globalized World,” dubbed the Manhattan Principles, laying the groundwork for One Health to take off.⁴⁸ (In 2020, the WCS attempted to shed the organization’s long-standing eugenics taint by condemning its founders’ “eugenics-based, pseudoscientific racism, writings, and philosophies” and actions such as putting a young man from Central Africa on display in the Monkey House of the Bronx Zoo for several days in 1906 until halted by outraged Black ministers.⁴⁹)
• 2007: One hundred eleven countries and twenty-nine international organizations recommend the One Health approach for “pandemic preparedness” at an “avian and pandemic influenza” conference.
• 2008: One hundred twenty countries and twenty-six organizations formally endorse One Health in a UN-authored document titled Contributing to One World, One Health: A Strategic Framework for Reducing Risks of Infectious Diseases at the Animal-Human-Ecosystems Interface.⁵⁰
• 2009: The CDC establishes a “One Health Office,” and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) launches an “Emerging Pandemic Threats Program.” Twenty-three countries also meet in Canada to recommend “actions that countries could take to advance the concepts of One Health.”
• 2010: The European Union (EU) commits to operating “under the One Health umbrella,” and international agencies continue taking steps to “move the concept of One Health from vision to implementation.”
• 2011 and on: Multiple One Health convocations take place, including a One Health Summit in Davos, Switzerland in 2012 focusing on food safety and security.

---

REFERENCES

1. Kesler W. Beware New World Order. The Aspen Times, Aug. 15, 2011.
2. https://twitter.com/MissTrade/status/1475809701606551554
3. Henry Kissinger: Good or evil? 10 historians as­sess the controversial statesman’s legacy. Politico, Oct. 10, 2015.
4. Carvalho A, Mishra A, Leoni Z. Kissinger at 100: his legacy might be mixed but his importance has been enormous. The Conversation, May 26, 2023.
5. Kissinger HA. The chance for a new world order. International Herald Tribune, Jan. 12, 2009.
6. Elmer S. “One Health,” ESG & “sustainable de­velopment”: inside the WHO’s “pandemic treaty.” Off-Guardian, Mar. 13, 2023.
7. Cook RA, Karesh WB, Osofsky SA. Conference summary: One World, One Health: Building In­terdisciplinary Bridges to Health in a Globalized World. Rockefeller University, Sep. 29, 2004.
8. Quadripartite call to action for One Health for a safer world. WHO, Mar. 27, 2023.
9. Tripartite and UNEP support OHHLEP’s defini­tion of “One Health.” WHO, Dec. 1, 2021.
10. Chamberlain S. Pentagon gave millions to Eco­Health Alliance for weapons research program. New York Post, Jul. 1, 2021.
11. Amuasi JH, Lucas T, Horton R, et al. Reconnect­ing for our future: The Lancet One Health Com­mission. Lancet. 2020;395(10235):1469-1471.
12. Nass M. The Lancet’s ONE HEALTH Commis­sion announced itself on May 9, 2020. It was already poised to assist in the world takeover then. Meryl’s COVID Newsletter (Substack), Apr. 22, 2023.
13. The Lancet series on One Health and global health security. The Lancet, Jan. 19, 2023.
14. Mwatondo A, Rahman-Shepherd A, Hollmann L, et al. A global analysis of One Health Networks and the proliferation of One Health collabora­tions. Lancet. 2023;401(10376):605-616.
15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/one-health
16. Mackenzie JS, Jeggo M. The One Health ap­proach—why is it so important? Trop Med Infect Dis. 2019;4(2):88.
17. Fitts CA. UNsustainable development goals: an overview with Rypke Zeilmaker. The Solari Report, Sep. 15, 2022.
18. Wood PM. Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation. Mesa, AZ: Coherent Publishing, 2015.
19. Wood PM. Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order. Mesa, AZ: Coherent Publishing, 2018.
20. Wood PM. The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism. Mesa, AZ: Coherent Publishing, 2022.
21. Roguski J. What is really going on with the WHO? James Roguski (Substack), Nov. 12, 2023.
22. Brown K. David Rockefeller’s chilling 1991 speech at a Bilderberg meeting. LewRockwell.com, Mar. 24, 2017.
23. Corbyn R. Letter: Rockefeller’s “right major crisis”? Amarillo Globe-News, Jun. 12, 2020.
24. Kissinger HA. The coronavirus pandemic will forever alter the world order. The Wall Street Journal, Apr. 3, 2020.
25. One Health basics, CDC, reviewed Sep. 28, 2023.
26. Rappoport J. Coronavirus: why it’s not like the other fake epidemics. Jon Rappoport’s Blog, Mar. 11, 2020.
27. Latypova S. The waiting-for-pandemic cult of biodefense. Due Diligence and Art (Substack), Mar. 11, 2023.
28. Singh BB, Ward MP, Kostoulas P, et al. Zoonosis—Why we should reconsider “What’s in a name?” Front Public Health. 2023;11:1133330.
29. Zoonotic disease: emerging public health threats in the Region. WHO, Eastern Mediterranean Region, n.d.
30. “Zoonoses.” WHO, Jul. 29, 2020.
31. One Health Office fact sheet. CDC, reviewed Feb. 3, 2020.
32. Segal B. Food as a weapon: Bucharest, Rome and the politics of starvation. Concerned Demogr. 1974;4(2):36-39.
33. Garcia SN, Osburn BI, Jay-Russell MT. One Health for food safety, food security, and sustainable food production. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2020;4.
34. Zoppi L. What are fomites? News-Medical.Net, updated Feb. 18, 2021.
35. Andrew. “So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?” Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science, May 8, 2020.
36. Kennedy P. HPAI: Life in the red zone. Wise Traditions. Spr. 2023;24(1):93-94.
37. Shariff M. Food safety: a linchpin of One Health. Rev Sci Tech. 2019;38(1):123- 133.
38. Cheng R, Mantovani A, Frazzoli C. Analysis of food safety and security challenges in emerging African food producing areas through a One Health lens: the dairy chains in Mali. J Food Prot. 2017;80(1):57-67.
39. Garcia SN, Osburn BI, Cullor JS. A One Health perspective on dairy produc­tion and dairy food safety. One Health. 2019;7:100086.
40. Masterjohn C. The biochemical magic of raw milk and other raw foods: glutathione. Wise Traditions. Winter 2010;11(4):70-74.
41. Coleman ME, North DW. Revisioning small family dairy farms that apply One Health approaches. Concepts of Dairy & Veterinary Sciences. 2023;5(4):553- 557.
42. Velazquez-Meza ME, Galarde-López M, Carrillo-Quiróz, et al. Antimicrobial resistance: One Health approach. Vet World. 2022;15(3):743-749.
43. Himanshu K, Mukherjee R, Vidic J, et al. Nanobiotics and the One Health approach: boosting the fight against antimicrobial resistance at the nanoscale. Biomolecules. 2023;13(8):1182.
44. Ashraf SA, Siddiqui AJ, O Elkhalifa AE, et al. Innovations in nanoscience for the sustainable development of food and agriculture with implications on health and environment. Sci Total Environ. 2021;768:144990.
45. Addressing the impact of nanotechnology on health. WHO, n.d.
46. Lombi E, Donner E, Dusinska M, et al. A One Health approach to managing the applications and implications of nanotechnologies in agriculture. Nat Nanotechnol. 2019;14(6):523-531.
47. Tierney Jr. JJ. America has no clothes. Institute of World Politics, Jun. 1, 2022.
48. Timeline: people and events in One Health. CDC, reviewed Jun. 6, 2022.
49. Dixon M. A statement from the Wildlife Conservation Society. Wildlife Conservation Society, Jul. 29, 2020.
50. Contributing to One World, One Health: A Strategic Framework for Reduc­ing Risks of Infectious Diseases at the Animal-Human-Ecosystems Interface. FAO, OIE, WHO, UN System Influenza Coordination, UNICEF and the World Bank, Oct. 14, 2008.

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Winter 2023

🖨️ Print post