By Josephine Götze and Marie Kolb, LLB students, University of Leipzig, Germany, josephine-goetze posteo.de, marie.kolb.m.k.mk gmail.com

This is part I of a two-part-series of blog posts highlighting the detrimental impacts of the exploitation of animals on human health. Part I utilises the One Health concept to demonstrate the core problems of the anthropocentric relationship with non-human animals. As such, it proposes that animal rights are necessary for the alleviation of those issues. Part II analyses the human right to health and how it supports the introduction of global animal rights.

Introduction

The One Health concept is an interdisciplinary and unifying policy framework, which recognizes that human health is closely connected to animal and environmental health.[1] It proposes a multisectoral and collaborative approach to harmonise the health of humans, animals, and the environment. Accordingly, addressing one component of this interconnected network of health will benefit other parts. Consequently, both a healthy environment and healthy animals are vital for the improvement of human health. Therefore, recognizing and researching this concept is of great importance to advance human health in the future. This first part of the blog post series will assert the necessity of implementing global animal rights for the improvement of human health within the One Health perspective.

Current threats to human health

Human health is complex and multifaceted, and therefore influenced by multiple factors. Major threats to our collective health are closely linked to the health of wild and domesticated animals. In the intersections between the environment, animals and humans, there are three important threats to human health: zoonoses, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Turning to the first problem, zoonoses are infectious diseases caused by the spread of pathogens from animals to humans. They can lead to major pandemic and/or epidemic events, such as Covid-19.[2] Factory farms with often-times immunocompromised animals are a great breeding ground for pathogens that can lead to harmful diseases for animals and humans.[3] Moreover, pathogens carried by wild animals can transfer to humans upon getting in contact with those animals (so-called spillover).[4] Preventing zoonotic diseases from spreading is one major factor to improve human health and prevent losing lives due to epidemic or pandemic events.[5]

The second problem, AMR, is mainly driven by the mis- or overuse of antimicrobial medicines and according to the WHO, it impedes the treatment of infectious diseases. To address the mis- or overuse in humans, the WHO proposes an intervention that aims to restrict the sale of non-prescription antimicrobial medicines.[6] The same problem for animals is not addressed specifically by the WHO. However, it is a major driver of AMR as at least half of the antibiotics used nowadays are given to livestock.[7] This excessive use of antimicrobial medicines combined with the beneficial environment in factory farms for pathogens to spread, is a driver for AMR against all currently available antimicrobial medicines.

Thirdly, GHGs, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, are major polluters of the environment. Methane and nitrous oxide in particular are produced in excess by farmed animals, especially ruminants.[8] Reducing GHGs is one of the most important steps to prevent further global warming. Decreasing methane is considered the fastest way to achieve this. Methane’s short lifespan allows for a significant reduction within a decade of not breeding and farming grazing animals. Furthermore, 83% of the land currently used for agricultural purposes is used to produce animal calories and proteins.[9] Reducing or abolishing animal agriculture could free up to 75% of global farmland while adequately feeding humankind.[10] This land could be reforested and thereby further solve the problem of GHGs by sequestering carbon.

What are animal rights and how can they help alleviate those problems?

Global laws on animal welfare are sparse but are slowly developing.[11] Global laws on animal rights, on the other hand, are currently non-existent.[12] Therefore, it is not surprising that the developing branch of public international law called “global animal law” is mainly focused on animal welfare law.[13]

A distinction between animal welfare law and animal rights law needs to be drawn. Political theory is best suited to demonstrate the contrast between these two subjects. In Animal Liberation from 1975, Peter Singer calls for animal welfare laws as he proposes that animals may still be used by humans, but in a way that accounts for their interests.[14] Tom Regan, on the other hand, calls for animal rights when he submits that no animal shall be used by humans in his book The case for animal rights from 1983.[15] Animal rights are therefore more extensive in their mission to reach the abolishment of animals being hunted, bred, or used for food. An attempt to codify animal rights can be found in the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights from 1978 by the Animal Law, Ethics and Science Foundation (LFDA). The Declaration was solemnly proclaimed in Paris at the UNESCO house, but never came into force as hard or soft law. While it was revised in 2018, it has not yet had any significant impact.[16] Another attempt of codification was The Declaration of Animal Rights from 2011 which has, to date, been signed by 20.000 people. This declaration was drafted by two animal rights activists, and it lay the groundwork for the non-profit organisation Our Planet. Theirs Too.

But how can animal rights help to improve human health? And why is it not enough to enact stringent and comprehensive global animal welfare laws? Implementing global animal rights and with that proclaiming that no animal shall be used by humankind would eventually abolish the factory farming of animals, as well as the hunting of wild animals where this is not strictly necessary for survival. These steps would help alleviate the likelihood of zoonosis spreading, AMRs developing, and would help curb global warming.[17] Global animal welfare laws could also help in combatting those problems, but in a less comprehensive way. Moreover, welfare laws and the intrinsic anthropocentric mindset often lead to trade-offs in the attempt to reach all Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) proclaimed by the United Nations in 2015. Goals like life below water (goal 14) or life on land (goal 15) often conflict with anthropocentric goals.[18] This conflicting nature of the SDGs may only be resolved by promoting animal rights and recognizing that their implementation improves human health in several ways under the One Health perspective. That would help us achieve “peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and in the future”.

Therefore, animal rights play an important role in addressing issues detrimental to human health. An animal rights framework that prohibits the usage of animals by humans is needed, as such rights would promote the health and wellbeing of animals, the environment, and humans alike.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the anthropocentric claim humans exert over animals harms and threatens human health in multiple ways. Industrial farming and the increased demand for animal products created a situation in which the exploitation of animals (by hunting, breeding, confining, slaughtering, and using them for their commodities) became detrimental to our collective health, most recently and shockingly in the form of the Covid-19 pandemic. To address those problems, a global intervention giving rights to animals is necessary to reduce and eventually abolish the exploitation of sentient beings and hence improve the health of humankind. Part II of this series will analyse the human rights framework on health and will show that the advancement of the human right to health supports and necessitates the implementation of global animal rights.

[1] We will refer to non-human animals as “animals” and use the term “humans” to refer to human animals.
[2] Edward C. Holmes, ‘COVID-19 – lessons for zoonotic disease’ (2022) 375 Science 6585, 1114.
[3] WSPA, Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare, (2007), 6.
[4] Joel Henrique Ellwanger, José Artur Bogo Chies, ‘Zoonotic spillover: Understanding basic aspects for better prevention’ (2021) 1 Suppl 1 Genetics and Molecular Biology 44.
[5] Aaron S. Bernstein, et al., ‘The costs and benefits of primary prevention of zoonotic pandemics’ (2022) 5 Science Advances 8.
[6] WHO, People-centred approach to addressing antimicrobial resistance in human health: WHO core package of interventions to support national action plans, (Geneva 2023), 30.
[7] Katie Tiseo, et al., ‘Global Trends in Antimicrobial Use in Food Animals from 2017 to 2030’ (2020) 9 Antibiotics 12, 918.
[8] Tara Garnett, et al., Grazed and Confused? (Food Climate Research Network 2014), 27-31.
[9] J. Poore, T. Nemecek, ‘Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers’ (2018) 360 Science 6392, 987.
[10] ibid.
[11] Saba Pipia, Formation of Global Animal Law as an Autonomous Branch of International Law (MPIL Research Paper Series No. 2019-07).
[12] Andrea Schapper, Cebuan Bliss, ‘Transforming our world? Strengthening animal rights and animal welfare at the United Nations’ (2023) 3 International Relations 37, 514, 518.
[13] Anne Peters, Tierwohl als Globales Gut (MPIL Research Paper Series No. 2016-03); Pipia (n11).
[14] Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (HarperCollins 1975).
[15] Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights (California University Press 1983).
[16] Jean-Marc Neumann, ‘The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights or the Creation of a new Equilibrium between Species’ (2012) 19 Animal Law Review 63, 91.
[17] Jakob Zinsstag, et al., ‘Advancing One human-animal-environment Health for global health security: what does the evidence say?’ (2023) 401 One Health 10376, 591.
[18] Schapper, Bliss (n12) 521-522.