The Food Systems, One Health, and Resilience (FOR) Approach—Led by the FOR-Runners
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is not really a review: it is built as the promoting paper of the FOR Platform organization. It does not “offer a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature within a field of study, identifying current gaps or problems” as it is suggested by the instructions for authors. The argumentation does not cover all the available literature on the topic, but only the part which sustains the foreseen activities of the platform. Sustainability journal suggests a minimum word count of 4000 words, but I am not sure that the paper reaches this minimum, therefore there is room for a better development for several points.
Detailed comments
Abstract
20-22: “This narrative review demonstrates the importance of the food system and resilience to the One Health approach, laying down the foundation of the Food System, One Health, and Resilience (FOR) Approach”
Poor demonstration, few reflections about innovative conceptions of the food systems (business as usual!) in the text. See the following comments.
1. Introduction
33: “novelle”? is this word really exist in English
63-64: “The “zero draft,” which serves as a basis for negotiation for the agreement, recognizes the One Health approach and dedicates an article to it. Yet, it does not mention the food systems as a key entity to be included”
It should be useful to remind the objectives and the scope of action of the “zero draft”. And also, the definition of health considered in the document should be reminded.
In the ref 8 (page 12), I found “One Health – Multisectoral and transdisciplinary actions should recognize the interconnection between people, animals, plants and their shared environment, for which a coherent, integrated and unifying approach should be strengthened and applied with an aim to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems, including through, but not limited to, attention to the prevention of epidemics due to pathogens resistant to antimicrobial agents and zoonotic diseases.”
This definition is “disease” centered.
WHO definition of health: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution
2. The One Health, Food Systems, and Resilience – the FOR Platform
70: “The wake-up call to re-calculate our route from a human-centric to a planet-centric approach was provided by the COVID-19 pandemic, …”
There were many calls to wake-up before COVID pandemic, the major media make their headlines with the current threats https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/14/five-biggest-threats-natural-world-how-we-can-stop-them-aoe; the question can be: “is COVID the consequence of all previous disorders? Is COVID more severe than all the other disorders?
81-84: “The integrated One Health approach aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems. It relies on shared, respected, and influential governance and policymaking, community engagement and communication with shared responsibility and accountability, capacity development, education, forward-thinking, and innovation.”
What is the source of the second sentence? Previously Lady Balfour had written in 1947 (see in this review: “More than seven decades ago, the British farmer and campaigner Lady Eve Balfour published what became one of the founding documents of the organic agriculture movement. Her book, entitled The Living Soil, was written following the publication of several studies that had shown the effects of diet and nutrition on human health. In this context, one of Balfour's key statements was that ‘the health of soil, plant, animal and man is one and indivisible’. According to this statement, the promotion and maintenance of human health, as one of the highest goals of humankind, critically depends on the health in the other agricultural domains, namely soils, plants and animals.” In Vieweger, A. and Döring, T.F. (2015), Assessing health in agriculture – towards a common research framework for soils, plants, animals, humans and ecosystems. J. Sci. Food Agric., 95: 438-446. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6708
One century ago, pioneers in organic agriculture (Steiner, Howard) have already claimed these statements. One health was not really innovative. An international organization already exists to implement concrete actions all over the world: IFOAM (International federation of organic agricultural movements). One of their 4 principles is Health (https://www.ifoam.bio/why-organic/shaping-agriculture/four-principles-organic).
87-91: “Nevertheless, we have yet to act in the entire span of the One Health approach and amalgamate two separate groups: the first focuses on infectious disease agents, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and food safety, originating at the animal-human-environment interface; the other is centered on eco- and socio-systems that promote human, animal, plant, and environmental health and sustainability.”
Who are the actors in each group?
92-93: “Merging these groups is essential for the resilience of our planet, its residents, and its resources, as well as bridging those on the research benches and those sitting at the policy-making tables.”
Perhaps, you can better argument the need of dialogues. Many authors have already pointed the problem. Some examples:
“We conclude that the success of this One Health concept now requires breaking down the interdisciplinary barriers that still separate human and veterinary medicine from ecological, evolutionary, and environmental sciences. The development of integrative approaches should be promoted by linking the study of factors underlying stress responses to their consequences on ecosystem functioning and evolution. This knowledge is required for the development of novel control strategies inspired by environmental mechanisms leading to desired equilibrium and dynamics in healthy ecosystems and must provide in the near future a framework for more integrated operational initiatives.” See: Destoumieux-Garzón D, Mavingui P, Boetsch G, Boissier J, Darriet F, Duboz P, Fritsch C, Giraudoux P, Le Roux F, Morand S, Paillard C, Pontier D, Sueur C and Voituron Y (2018) The One Health Concept: 10 Years Old and a Long Road Ahead. Front. Vet. Sci. 5:14.doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00014
“Conclusions: The scientific literature on One Health has witnessed a rising global trend. Most research has focused on the human-animal health interface, while environmental health is often neglected. Research subjects mainly fall within natural science disciplines, with less social science research. More support needs to be given to interdisciplinary and intersectoral cooperation and research in the future.” in Miao L, Li H, Ding W, Lu S, Pan S, Guo X, Zhou X and Wang D (2022) Research Priorities on One Health: A Bibliometric Analysis. Front. Public Health 10:889854. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.889854 »
95: “The critical stimulus for the first group was the “Hazards Approach.””
At which line do you speak about the “second group”?
129-131: “Above and beyond the “hazards lens” (e.g., zoonotic diseases, food safety, and AMR), Agriculture, including crop and livestock production, is a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O)”
Is it about the second group?
Can we speak about agriculture in general? There are many kinds of agricultures. Do you know that more than 75% of the food is produced by family farmers (https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/fr/c/319933/ )?
Have you read papers about nitrate pollution? It is a problem created by industrial agriculture!
“Widespread pollution of water bodies by nitrate-N due agricultural intensification in the twentieth century in industrialized countries in North America and Western and Central Europe has been of major concern since early 1970” in Bijay-Singh, Craswell, E. Fertilizers and nitrate pollution of surface and ground water: an increasingly pervasive global problem. SN Appl. Sci. 3, 518 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04521-8
(2022) Regenerating agroecosystems by overcoming human exceptionalism in designing for increased equity of benefits from ecoservices, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 46:10, 1445-1455, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2022.2121953
Can be inspiring also: Lloyd SJ, Chalabi Z (2021) Climate change, hunger and rural health through the lens of farming styles: An agent-based model to assess the potential role of peasant farming. PLoS ONE16(2): e0246788. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246788
143-144: “In addition to the direct impacts on human, animal, and plant health, microorganisms can also indirectly impact the environment by shaping ecosystem dynamics and processes.”
The action of microorganisms is not INDIRECT, they are at the heart of all processes! Why don’t you mention holobiont and microbiome concepts (see this review: Simon, JC., Marchesi, J.R., Mougel, C. et al. Host-microbiota interactions: from holobiont theory to analysis. Microbiome 7, 5 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-019-0619-4 “ It is becoming increasingly clear that the development, growth, and health (in one word, all functions) of macroorganisms are influenced by the complex microbial communities they host that shape their ecology and evolution”)?
.. 149-151: “They can form symbiotic relationships with plants, animals, and other microorganisms to benefit both parties. On the other hand, some fungi can cause infections in humans, animals, and plants. Healthy soils are important for the health of humans, animals, plants, and the environment as they are reservoirs of beneficial microorganisms and pathogens”
In fact the function/level of virulence of pathogens depends on the global community, see the new concept of dysbiosis in the paper you cited: “Our Review further evaluates soil microbial contributions to one health in the light of dysbiosis and global change and demonstrates that microbial diversity is generally positively associated with one health.” In your reference 21 (Banerjee S, A Heijden MG., 2022)
153: “Therefore, microorganisms deserve a particular entry point to intradisciplinary research in the FOR scientific approach.”
OK, but will it be your approach? Are you planning to integrate a modern and holistic vision in order to be coherent with the recent scientific knowledge from the holobiont hypothesis?
155: “access to healthy, safe, and nutritious food is costly”, reference?
Example: https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/icp/brief/foodpricesfornutrition
You have to point out the reasons of bad food in the world: see https://theconversation.com/five-reasons-why-food-is-a-massive-global-health-issue-21255 . We are facing a global organization of food industry and also a cultural problem “a growing disconnection between food, cooking and people” in the previous reference.
164-165: “. Technologies, including diagnostics, vaccines, and medicine, have yet to be shared fairly with all countries”
What about regional environmental and cultural specificities? Several communities/countries don’t trust modern medicine, see https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/crisis-trust-public-health . How will you manage this mistrust?
165-166: “Technologies, including diagnostics, vaccines, and medicine, have yet to be shared fairly with all countries.
How do you explain that African countries have vey low prevalence whislt they were far from the technologies available to Europe or North America countries? (see https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cases and https://covid19.who.int/ )
166-168: A disease such as COVID-19, as well as toxic exposures, knows no borders and harms humans, animals, and in some instances, plants and the environment. Equity is, therefore, one of the key principles that the Food System, One Health and Resilience (FOR) approach should be based on.”
Is it really “equity”, the value that you wish to put forward?
As you are also considering “food system”, I invite you to discover 4 conceptions of equity for food systems. Which one will you propose for FOR? I, Juskaite G and Haug R (2023) Multiple meanings of “equitable food systems”: food systems and discursive politics of change. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7:1127562. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1127562
3. FOR Research (170)
The list is not coherent: we can find a mix of scientific approaches, values and objectives …
To define researches:
1- What are the hypothesis? What the definition of health founding the FOR activities? See paper of Döring et al (2014) to get an idea of the definition of health (Döring, T.F., Pautasso, M., Finckh, M.R. and Wolfe, M.S. (2012), Concepts of plant health – reviewing and challenging the foundations of plant protection. Plant Pathology, 61: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2011.02501.x). The paper begins by human health concepts as a starting point. Perhaps this point can be presented in Introduction
2- Approaches: system thinking and interdisciplinary
3- Objectives: sustainability, biosecurity …
4- Ethical framework: …
Among the examples, we cannot find topics about food production; only the impacts are studied. To reach sustainability, agronomical, ecological and biological research need to promote resilient and sustainable food systems based on agroecology and peasant (organic) knowledge.
213-215: “5. Research on the impacts of food production practices on human, animal, plant, and environmental health, including studies on using pesticides, fertilizers, and antimicrobial drugs in food production.”
One main scientific trend in agronomy is to extend agroecological knowledge avoiding all kinds of pesticides. Why don’t you mention any research in agroecology and organic farming?
See “These trends pose a series of challenges to food and agriculture. High-input, resource-intensive farming systems, which have caused massive deforestation, water scarcities, soil depletion and high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, cannot deliver sustainable food and agricultural production. Needed are innovative systems that protect and enhance the natural resource base, while increasing productivity. Needed is a transformative process towards ‘holistic’ approaches, such as agroecology, agro-forestry, climate-smart agriculture and conservation agriculture, which also build upon indigenous and traditional knowledge. Technological improvements, along with drastic cuts in economy-wide and agricultural fossil fuel use, would help address climate change and the intensification of natural hazards, which affect all ecosystems and every aspect of human life. Greater international collaboration is needed to prevent emerging transboundary agriculture and food system threats, such as pests and diseases”. In https://www.fao.org/3/i6583e/i6583e.pdf The future of food and agriculture, trends and challenges by FAO)
4. FOR Innovation (235)
240: “1. The development of new technologies …”.
What kinds of technologies?
259: “, safe agroecological practices”
“First, it can increase farmers’ income, employment, fairness, and health. Second, the SVSC can decrease environmental pollution, food waste, and energy consumption. Third, it can improve food quality and consumers’ health. Fourth, the SVSC enhances on-farm education, agricultural tourism, local livestock farming, and traditional culture and relationship. However, the SVSC encounters various barriers and challenges impeding its performances and benefits. The vegetable value chain gains several interventions and support from the government and the project to overcome these barriers. Overall, the SFSC, good agricultural practice, and sustainability are strongly associated: good agricultural practice and sustainability are inherent in the SFS in Hoang, V. Modern Short Food Supply Chain, Good Agricultural Practices, and Sustainability: A Conceptual Framework and Case Study in Vietnam. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2408. https://doi.org/10.3390/ agronomy11122408
261: “The development of new approaches to improving humans' and animals' health and well-being …”
Why only “technical” solutions? Food is the first medicine! Why introduce a discussion on Food system without considering the links between food and health?
At the agronomical level, systemic vision changes the way of thinking the solution. “We start from a critique of integrated management and propose to broaden the disease triangle considering the biological interactions with plants, animals, microorganisms and the holobiont (plant and its microbiomes). We review how general strategies and specific disease management practices affect the different functional groups of plant pathogens, understood as a community. Finally, we emphasize that the objective from an agroecological viewpoint is to promote healthy crops. For this it is essential a holistic approach that considers the socio-economic context of farmers, values local knowledge and promotes collaborative social networks.” D. Vega, S. Ibarra, R. A. Varela Pardo & S. L. Poggio (2023) Agroecological management of crop diseases: a review, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 47:7, 919-949, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2023.2216149
264: “The identification of global solutions …”
Are global solutions compatible with the diversity of environment and culture in the world? Explain?
266-267: “The FOR innovation involves out-of-the-box thinking or repurposing existing technologies and developing new technologies and approaches to address complex health issues involving interactions between humans, animals, and the environment.”
5. The One Health Approach – The Pandemic “Push.” (271)
292: “For some, the entry point is through their veterinary schools or schools of public health.
The composition of the panel “One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) “ is mainly reflecting this trend. Few people are involved in environmental expertise.
Globally, don’t forget to develop aspects about the positive impacts of COVID on food systems, and how we have learnt a lot about food systems during COVID Crisis.
“With all this in mind, some researchers have put their focus into short food supply chains, local production and the type of relations generated in these systems (Cappelli and Cini, 2020). For example, several authors have highlighted how small farms and short-chains responded pretty well to the COVID-19 food crisis (Darnhofer, 2020), especially those farms who sell vegetables and fruit boxes directly to consumers (Correra et al., 2020; Kolodinsky et al., 2020; Petetin, 2020) and call for an integration of food democracy into post-pandemics food systems (Petetin, 2020)”. In Marta G. Rivera-Ferre, Feliu López-i-Gelats, Federica Ravera, Elisa Oteros-Rozas, Marina di Masso, Rosa Binimelis, Hamid El Bilali, The two-way relationship between food systems and the COVID19 pandemic: causes and consequences, Agricultural Systems, Volume 191, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103134.
6. DISCUSSION
316-317: “Global implementation of the FOR approach is the only logical and sustainable mitigation strategy for becoming resilient now and securing our future”
How can it be the “only logical … strategy”? Don’t forget that they are lots of controversies see the following paper:
“Citizens and social movements committed to transformative agroecology and food sovereignty generally seek to reverse the democratic deficit and exclusion that favour the interests of powerful corporations, financial investors, big farmers and technocratic research institutes. This usually requires an expansion of “direct” democracy in decision-making in order to complement, or replace, models of representative democracy in policymaking and governance.” Michel Pimbert (2022) In Transforming food and agriculture: Competing visions and major controversies. Mondes en développement 2022/3 (n° 199-200), 361-384, Éditions De Boeck Supérieur ISSN 0302-3052, ISBN 9782807398207, DOI 10.3917/med.199.)
Many actors organised locally don’t need any technological platform to create and share knowledge.
327-329: “Additionally, the circular economy is closely related to the FOR approach as it aims to minimize food waste. It maximizes the use of resources using closed-loop systems that reduces the extraction of new resources and promotes the reuse and recycling of materials.”
Circular economy is not enough, we need to re-think all economic development, based on new food systems. The modern principles of agroecology have their roots in the rich collective knowledge, practices, ecological rationale, and cosmovisions of indigenous and peasant agriculture(s) (Pimbert 2022).
7. CONCLUSION
352-353: “Technology transfer and licensing of technologies from other countries should also be considered.”
If people wish!
You did not mention sufficiently the controversies and how people organize themselves without global answers.
“In purely pragmatic terms, the question of how healthy, diverse diets could be provided for all people while living within planetary boundaries could be answered in multiple ways and achieved by various approaches to farming. Essentially, this is an empirical question. The question is complicated, however, by introducing issues such as democracy, justice, and equity, as these are normative issues that are contested [HPLE 2019], including in terms of what each of these actually entails.” In HLPE (2019) Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome: HLPE,cited in Lloyd SJ, Chalabi Z (2021) Climate change, hunger and rural health through the lens of farming styles: An agent-based model to assess the potential role of peasant farming. PLoS ONE 16(2): e0246788. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0246788
You should also discuss the relevance of the platform according to the representations of nature and health.
“The cultural diversity of representations of nature and health calls into question the “ecosystem services” that scientists seek to predict and implement in governance tools (Callicott 2013). A well-established “Global Health ethics” is more essential than to build a “One Bioethics”, as proposed by the “One Health” approach, or a “Planetary health ethics”. As Verweij and Bovenkerk (2016) pointed out, such “One Bioethics” or “Planetary health ethics” are more the domain of meta-ethics that correspond to a moral belief in “health” and “Planetary health”. The crucial point is the scientific posture adopted in the face of health crises originating from ecological crises, and its implications for studying nature (broadly conceptualised as ranging from a simple mechanism that can be easily fixed to a complex adaptive system that requires care).” In Morand S, Lajaunie C. Linking Biodiversity with Health and Well-being: Consequences of Scientific Pluralism for Ethics, Values and Responsibilities. Asian Bioeth Rev. 2019 Mar 12;11(2):153-168. doi: 10.1007/s41649-019-00076-4. PMID: 33717309; PMCID: PMC7747447 (S. Morand is member of OHHLEP)
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the comprehensive and detailed review. We believe that it is now ready to be submitted as a Review. It includes more than 500 words.
Please see the attachment with the point-by-point response to the comments.
Thank you.
Dorit
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I am fully in agreement with everything the authors included in the paper and discussion. However, the influence of new food product development, especially when utilizing resilient sustainable crops and wild edible plants, should also be included in the ideas section as innovations to be researched. Food waste management is mentioned in the paper; however, food wastage by consumers is also a field for research. Thus, the global consumer should be integral to the One Health Approach and not be omitted from the initiative.
I found small mistakes; thus, I would suggest having a language expert look at the paper to ensure the maximum impact of the article.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your support. We have included all your important suggestions.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript title : Food Systems, One Health and Resilience-Led by the FOR-Runners. This is a review article and authors should cover in-depth one health approach. However, authors superficially cover the aspects of one health.
There is no literature cited in many sections
What is the meaning of FOR-RUNNERS?
For is not commonly used abbreviations. FOR = Food Systems, One Health and Resilience. Authors should define this
The above manuscript deals with the importance of the food system and resilience to the One Health approach
Abstract
The entire section is not clear and leaves in confusion
Authors should focus on very clear review problem; need of performing this review; very clear review objectives; review findings; review conclusion
Introduction
Citation format is not appropriate
The introduction section is extremely short and authors failed to address many aspects of performing this review
Authors must include more relevant literature and highlight the need of performing this research
What this review contributes to the field and why this review is different from already available literature should be addressed in this section
Clear review objectives must be introduced
he FOR Platform: FOR should be clearly defined first
Section 3
FOR approach may be based on the following principles: please provide citation
Sections 3-5 : no citations. So, I am not sure about the accuracy of literature
Discussion
This section is extremely weak; authors provided no comparison with available literature
Many sections without relevant scientific literature
There is no novelty in this review
Author Response
Thanks for your review. We complied with all your suggestions.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Hello,
There are several modifications necessary:
Line 131- please verify the correct manner in which the chemical formulas are written
Line 278- bottom of form?
1.This is a review. The reference part is much too thin for this type of article. Please add more references from recent years.
2.The information presented is interesting but more is necessary. There are elements that are only specified but I consider they need to be more explicit. For example, the part with the FOR approach needs to be more consistent (there are 9 elements). Every approach needs to be taken separately and explained. Also the research ideas for FOR planet-centric approach need more explanations. You simply enumerated them. A review consists of explanations for every idea you enter. The same comments apply to FOR innovation part.
3. I could not find any methodology described. How many articles did you take into account? Why those? The objectives? The purpose? Please add them.
Please add information that explain every aspect.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for your guidance. We have complied with all your suggestions.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
2nd version
General comment:
The review is better, integrating more diverse references, but the authors have not really understood or read the papers that I mentioned and that they integrated in their list. Thus, some paragraphs should be rewritten in the light of the new references. This paper looks like more a policy paper than a scientific review.
In detail:
L159-176 where concepts of holobiont, microbiome and dysbiosis are cited. The holobiont (Holos+Bios) is the association: the Greek words holos, or ''all'' and bios, ''life'', the term holobiont corresponds to a natural living entity made up of a superior organism (i.e. multicellular) called the host, an animal or a plant, and its microbiota.
See at least Wikipedia to understand what are these concepts: Holobionts include the host, virome, microbiome, and any other organisms which contribute in some way to the functioning of the whole (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holobiont )
Thus, your sentence is not clear (162-163): “… microbiota residents of animals (e.g., the holobiont), and the collection of microorganisms in a specific niche, including the human gut (e.g., microbiome) may influence the One Health status of each of its pillars and harm their balance [33,34].”
L188-192: You cannot add the reference that I proposed (37) without any explanation. In this way, the text is not coherent. Your paper is announced as a review, therefore you should cover different aspects of the topics, and discuss them. It is not enough to write “191 - It is important to unpack the meaning of …”
On food systems, “The analysis reveals that multiple meanings of “equitable food systems” exist, hinging on varied ideas about inequity, change, and the essence of human wellbeing. Materializing into practical strategies to progress food systems change, the multiplicity of meanings implies inevitable trade-offs when one is prioritized over the other” (ref 37)
From this example on food systems that you wish integrate in the Health considerations, you should also consider the same trade-offs for Health and Resilience. In the case of disease such as COVID 19, you might observe that different approaches have existed in countries, and the results are not correlated with the technologies availabilities.
I already proposed you to discuss this aspect from the paper of In Morand S, Lajaunie C (2019) where they wrote “A well-established “Global Health ethics” is more essential than to build a “One Bioethics”, as proposed by the “One Health” approach, or a “Planetary health ethics”. As Verweij and Bovenkerk (2016) pointed out, such “One Bioethics” or “Planetary health ethics” are more the domain of meta-ethics that correspond to a moral belief in “health” and “Planetary health”. The crucial point is the scientific posture adopted in the face of health crises originating from ecological crises, and its implications for studying nature (broadly conceptualised as ranging from a simple mechanism that can be easily fixed to a complex adaptive system that requires care).” In Morand S, Lajaunie C. Linking Biodiversity with Health and Well-being: Consequences of Scientific Pluralism for Ethics, Values and Responsibilities. Asian Bioeth Rev. 2019 Mar 12;11(2):153-168. doi: 10.1007/s41649-019-00076-4. PMID: 33717309; PMCID: PMC7747447 (S. Morand is member of OHHLEP)
386: You should mention that the solutions should be diverse, respecting cultures and health concepts.
Discussion
392-396 – Not enough, this paragraph is untitled “discussion”, don’t forget controversies that need to be integrated in order to respect democracy. For the food systems, “Finding the best strategies for food systems change is a subject of intense debate, making it an inherently political affair” (37), how can we imagine that no debate will not accompany changes for both health, food system: it will be much more complex. You should mention this aspect in your discussion. The notion of equity is political and can be seen very differently from one group to another.
You should ask the question: are “global agreements” really possible?
More discussion is needed. If not, this paper is not a scientific/review paper by a policy paper of the organization that you are represented. This sentence “387: By implementing the One Health approach globally, we want to transition” is not a sentence of a scientific paper but a policy paper!
Perhaps can you have a look this paper and all their reviews: Marcel Verweij , Angus Dawson, Public Health Ethics in a Pandemic, Public Health Ethics, Volume 13, Issue 2, July 2020, Pages 125–126, https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phaa032
Many opinions exist. You should mention them in a DISCUSSION. “This includes the diversity of framings within One Health, wherein different partners come to the collaboration with different expectations and agenda. The reference to politics also includes a reference to the different levels of influence enjoyed by the partners to effect change as well as the power dynamics operating among themselves.” In Syed Shahid Abbas and others, Meanings and mechanisms of One Health partnerships: insights from a critical review of literature on cross-government collaborations, Health Policy and Planning, Volume 37, Issue 3, March 2022, Pages 385–399, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czab134
Conclusions
403: avoid the word “must”. Their approach “aims” …
414: “regulatory frameworks and tools to strengthen the One Health universal health coverage concept.”?
You are submitting a scientific paper. Is it possible to take into account the diversities of approaches of the democracy? I remind you the paper about new wishes of direct democracy. You can read in Pimbert (2022) paper that I proposed you previously: “Citizens and social movements committed to transformative agroecology and food sovereignty generally seek to reverse the democratic deficit and exclusion that favour the interests of powerful corporations, financial investors, big farmers and technocratic research institutes. This usually requires an expansion of “direct” democracy in decision-making in order to complement, or replace, models of representative democracy in policymaking and governance.” Michel Pimbert (2022) In Transforming food and agriculture: Competing visions and major controversies. Mondes en développement 2022/3 (n° 199-200), 361-384, Éditions De Boeck Supérieur ISSN 0302-3052, ISBN 9782807398207, DOI 10.3917/med.199.)
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
We thank the Reviewer for the time and guidance. Here are our concrete actions following your advice:
- L159-176 where concepts of holobiont, microbiome and dysbiosis are cited. The holobiont (Holos+Bios) is the association: the Greek words holos, or ''all'' and bios, ''life'', the term holobiont corresponds to a natural living entity made up of a superior organism (i.e. multicellular) called the host, an animal or a plant, and its microbiota.See at least Wikipedia to understand what are these concepts: Holobionts include the host, virome, microbiome, and any other organisms which contribute in some way to the functioning of the whole (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holobiont ). Thus, your sentence is not clear (162-163): “… microbiota residents of animals (e.g., the holobiont), and the collection of microorganisms in a specific niche, including the human gut (e.g., microbiome) may influence the One Health status of each of its pillars and harm their balance [33,34].”
Response, DN: I tried to make it sensible and clearer: Microorganisms shape ecosystem dynamics and processes and play essential roles in nitrogen cycling and soil health. To add to it, organisms and their associated microbiota, the holobionts, form complex ecological units that influence the health of humans, animals, plants, and the environment [33,34].
- L188-192: You cannot add the reference that I proposed (37) without any explanation. In this way, the text is not coherent. Your paper is announced as a review, therefore you should cover different aspects of the topics, and discuss them. It is not enough to write “191 - It is important to unpack the meaning of …”
On food systems, “The analysis reveals that multiple meanings of “equitable food systems” exist, hinging on varied ideas about inequity, change, and the essence of human wellbeing. Materializing into practical strategies to progress food systems change, the multiplicity of meanings implies inevitable trade-offs when one is prioritized over the other” (ref 37)
From this example on food systems that you wish integrate in the Health considerations, you should also consider the same trade-offs for Health and Resilience. In the case of disease such as COVID 19, you might observe that different approaches have existed in countries, and the results are not correlated with the technologies availabilities.
Response, DN: Thanks for your guidance. The updates included in the additional lines (200 to 249). I have also included the reference here:
The COVID-19 pandemic has also exposed the dysfunctionalities of food, social, health, education, and economic systems, to name a few. The marked increase in food and nutrition insecurity [Kakaei H, Nourmoradi H, Bakhtiyari S, Jalilian M, Mirzaei A. Effect of COVID-19 on food security, hunger, and food crisis. COVID-19 and the Sustainable Development Goals. 2022:3–29. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-91307-2.00005-5. Epub 2022 Jul 29. ], the deepening of poverty [Moyer JD, Verhagen W, Mapes B, Bohl DK, Xiong Y, Yang V, et al. (2022) How many people is the COVID-19 pandemic pushing into poverty? A long-term forecast to 2050 with alternative scenarios. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0270846. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270846], and the negative impact of malnutrition on health conditions that cause more severe symptoms of COVID-19 have shown that food systems' resilience both reflects and reinforces food systems’ inequities. It highlights the fact that food workers are essential, together with those from the health, social, and education workforce. [Klassen S., Murphy S. Equity as both a means and an end: Lessons for resilient food systems from COVID-19. Wold Development. 2020: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105104].
Different views exist on the needed actions to be taken to transform the current food systems and make them equitable, resilient, and sustainable. Juskaite and Haung [37] summarize four such approaches: the first advocates for the increased production of food; the second emphasizes redistribution of current wealth and authority; the third group focuses on demolishing capitalism; and the fourth focuses on financial and food aid [37]. They argue that democracy is a prerequisite to bridging the power divide that is standing in the way of transforming the food system and making it equitable. With democracy, the voice and power of the consumers and workers will overcome corporate power, wealth, and influence. The availability of technologies has not paved the way for more resilient food systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. [37].
The COVID-19 pandemic has enhanced the debates on the ethical considerations of the research base for policies at the interface of the health of humans, animals, and the environment. Decisions to halt international travel, enforce isolation and quarantine, restrict the free movement of people and goods, school closures, forced vaccination, and culling of animals are just a few ethical issues that brought the need to agree on the ethical considerations. “Planetary health ethics” or “One Health ethics” provide a set of principles that guide actions to protect and promote the health of humans, animals, and the environment [Foster, A.; Cole, J.; Farlow, A.; Petrikova, I. Planetary Health Ethics: Beyond First Principles. Challenges 2019, 10, 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe10010014], aiming at health equity for all worldwide, sharing the EchoHealth’s view that sustainability is required for human wellbeing [Wilcox, B., Kueffer, C. Transdisciplinarity in EcoHealth: Status and Future Prospects. EcoHealth 5, 1–3 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-008-0161-5]. Morand and Lajaunie suggest using the term “Global health ethics,” which emphasizes that crises are complex and systemic and must lead to systemic actions for better health and well-being. They conclude that “to meet this goal, scientific research will need to embrace pluralism, avoid the hierarchy of sciences, and be better integrated with ethical and other normative values” [Morand S, Lajaunie C. Linking Biodiversity with Health and Well-being: Consequences of Scientific Pluralism for Ethics, Values and Responsibilities. Asian Bioeth Rev. 2019 Mar 12;11(2):153-168. doi: 10.1007/s41649-019-00076-4. PMID: 33717309; PMCID: PMC7747447 ].
- 386: You should mention that the solutions should be diverse, respecting cultures and health concepts.
Response, DN: Thank you. I have added these important aspects to lines 382 to 385:
The FOR innovation aims at finding diverse solutions that respect cultures and health concepts and use out-of-the-box thinking. It seeks to address complex health issues involving human, animal, and environmental interactions, guided by global health ethics and rooted in democratic governance. The deployment of these solutions requires policymakers and regulatory bodies to come together and include the consumers, workers, and doers in evaluating and monitoring compliance and the overall success of the FOR approach.
Discussion
- 392 to 396: 392-396 – Not enough, this paragraph is untitled “discussion”, don’t forget controversies that need to be integrated in order to respect democracy. For the food systems, “Finding the best strategies for food systems change is a subject of intense debate, making it an inherently political affair” (37), how can we imagine that no debate will not accompany changes for both health, food system: it will be much more complex. You should mention this aspect in your discussion. The notion of equity is political and can be seen very differently from one group to another.
You should ask the question: are “global agreements” really possible?
More discussion is needed. If not, this paper is not a scientific/review paper by a policy paper of the organization that you are represented. This sentence “387: By implementing the One Health approach globally, we want to transition” is not a sentence of a scientific paper but a policy paper! Perhaps can you have a look this paper and all their reviews: Marcel Verweij , Angus Dawson, Public Health Ethics in a Pandemic, Public Health Ethics, Volume 13, Issue 2, July 2020, Pages 125–126, https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phaa032
Many opinions exist. You should mention them in a DISCUSSION. “This includes the diversity of framings within One Health, wherein different partners come to the collaboration with different expectations and agenda. The reference to politics also includes a reference to the different levels of influence enjoyed by the partners to effect change as well as the power dynamics operating among themselves.” In Syed Shahid Abbas and others, Meanings and mechanisms of One Health partnerships: insights from a critical review of literature on cross-government collaborations, Health Policy and Planning, Volume 37, Issue 3, March 2022, Pages 385–399, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czab134
Response, DN: Huge thanks. I have added the missing dimension, and thank you for your advice. Below is the discussion with the references included here:
With the global population expected to reach ~ 10 billion by 2050, relentless efforts would have to be made at local, regional, national, and global levels to safeguard our planet for future generations. With mankind breaching the temperature benchmark of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Ukraine-Russia war pushing socio-economic crisis, poverty, and famine, the situation is grim, and mitigation and resilience strategies should be planned with a sense of urgency.
Resilience is the ability to live with change and develop, improve, and innovate with it [Biggs R., Schluter M., School, M.L., Principles for Building Resilience Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social–Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-08265-6 - Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social–Ecological Systems Edited by Reinette Biggs, Maja Schlüter and Michael L. Schoon Frontmatter. 9781107082656_frontmatter.pdf (cambridge.org)]. There are currently two approaches to solving food system and OH and resilience challenges; the first focuses on localized systems while the other on global agreements and coordination [Wood, A., Queiroz, C., Deutsch, L. et al. Reframing the local–global food systems debate through a resilience lens. Nat Food 4, 22–29 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00662-0]. Biggs and Schluter propose seven principles for enhancing capacities that are required to achieve resilience: maintain diversity and redundancy; manage connectivity; manage slow variables and feedbacks; foster an understanding of social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems; encourage learning and experimentation; broaden participation; and promote polycentric governance systems [Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E. L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., Dakos, V., Daw, T. M., Evans, L. S., Kotschy, K., Leitch, A. M., Meek, C., Quinlan, A., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Robards, M. D., Schoon, M. L., Schultz, L., & West, P. C. (2012). Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836]. Many of these principles are anchored in local norms, values, politics, and actions and thus feed the debate on whether it is at all possible to achieve global agreements on and coordination of the food systems in the framework of OH and resilience. One can argue that global health agreements, such as the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) [International Health Regulations (2005) – Third edition. https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1031116/retrieve] have shown that countries can agree on a common legal tool. This law legally binds 196 state parties, including the 194 WHO Member States. The IHR is set to improve national capacities for the prevention and detection of, preparation for, and response to health risks and threats. They introduce safeguards to protect the rights of travelers and others. However, the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the weaknesses of this legal instrument, especially regarding the accountability of the countries and their readiness to collaborate globally. Many countries only applied it partially, others were not sufficiently aware of it, and some ignored it [Aavitsland P, Aquilera X., Al-Abri S., Amani V, Aramburu C. , Attia T., Blumberg L., Chittaganpitch M., et al. Functioning of the International Health Regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 2021. https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=27bfb33bf24c1833JmltdHM9MTY5MzYxMjgwMCZpZ3VpZD0wMDc2MjBjNS1iYThlLTZmYTgtMmFlZC0zMmExYmJlNTZlY2EmaW5zaWQ9NTEzNg&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=007620c5-ba8e-6fa8-2aed-32a1bbe56eca&psq=COVID+pandemic+and+IHR+critcsm&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhlbGFuY2V0LmNvbS9qb3VybmFscy9sYW5jZXQvYXJ0aWNsZS9QSUlTMDE0MC02NzM2KDIxKTAxOTExLTUvZnVsbHRleHQ&ntb=1 ].
The universality and severity of the food systems’ and OH threats and vulnerabilities call for the urgent construction and implementation of a global FOR agreement and an accountability assurance tool, actions that depend on political will. In the past decades, global politics has resulted in increased divisions, tensions, and contentions that are personal-, interest- and value-based driven [Lacy W. Local food systems, citizen and public science, empowered communities, and democracy: hopes deserving to live. 2023. Agriculture and Human Values 40:1–17 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10398-z]. However, there is hope and optimism in the fact that other global agreements are currently being crafted, among them an updated version of the IHR and the Global Pandemic Prevention, preparedness, and response accord [Hannon E., Hanbali L., Lehtimaki S., Schwalbe N. Why we still need a pandemic treaty. Lancet. 2022, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00278-9] [WHO. 2023. Pandemic prevention, preparedness and response accord (who.int)].
Another challenge for constructing a FOR plans at national and global levels is the involvement of many partners and stakeholders. They are needed since no single sector has all the required capacities, responsibilities, and accountabilities along the full FOR spectrum. However, each partner might have their own expectations, interests, and agendas, which are the ingredients of politics. [Syed Shahid Abbas and others, Meanings and mechanisms of One Health partnerships: insights from a critical review of literature on cross-government collaborations, Health Policy and Planning, Volume 37, Issue 3, March 2022, Pages 385–399, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czab134]. Anchoring plans and actions in ethics, culture, and evidence could assist in overcoming the hurdles to democratizing science and policy. To ensure effective and sustainable FOR partnerships, it is important to include those whose voices are rarely listened to, such as food systems workers and consumers, and to accommodate the competing political vectors. Real-time sharing of information, data, and protocols and the tailoring of community-specific actions could lead to collaborations among communities, which may drive actions at the national level.
On the other hand, global efforts by inter-governmental organizations, such as the WHO and FAO, may further shape the global common grounds, In this way, horizontal, bottom-up, and top-down initiatives will hopefully result in a global comprehensive FOR agreement. Canfield, M., Anderson, M. D., & McMichael, P. (2021). UN Food Systems Summit 2021: Dismantling Democracy and Resetting Corporate Control of Food Systems. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, 661552. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.661552
The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the weakest links in our local and global preparedness and response capacities. Well-defined FOR plans could include checks and balances for emergency prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. Public health ethics deserve special attention, as well as community engagement and risk communication. The authorities often directed sets of public health and social measures, aiming for health security, solidarity, and protecting the most vulnerable. However, disadvantaged groups suffered the negative consequences of such universal measures in a disproportional manner. This highlights again the need to include public health ethics in pandemic preparedness and response and in all aspects of the FOR plans [Marcel Verweij, Angus Dawson, Public Health Ethics in a Pandemic, Public Health Ethics, Volume 13, Issue 2, July 2020, Pages 125–126, https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phaa032].
The term "FOR-runners" in this article refers to partnerships of experts and doers in the areas and interfaces of food systems, One Health, and resilience. Their research and innovation work is based on the modern principles of agroecology that stem from the rich collective knowledge, behaviors, and practices carried out by indigenous and local agricultural practitioners, as well as governance, ethics, and community engagement. These "FOR-runners" may serve as role models for other partnerships. Another example of "FOR-runners" can be illustrated by partnerships that promote using a circular economy, which is interwoven in the FOR approach. They aim to minimize food waste and maximize resource sustainability by using closed-loop systems that reduce the extraction of new resources and promote the reuse and recycling of materials [Fassio F, Chirilli C. The Circular Economy and the Food System: A Review of Principal Measuring Tools. Sustainability. 2023; 15(13):10179. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310179 }.
In summary, transitioning to the FOR approach at all levels, individual, community, national, and global, is a complex process. All stakeholders, including people and communities, must partner in shifting towards green, resilient, and sustainable systems. Short and long-term investments in mitigation through zero-emission, setting up climate-resilient health infrastructure, and supply chains are a few issues to be included [41].
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors carefully addressed the suggestions and made efforts to improve the quality. in my opinion, this version can be accepted for possible publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much. There were no comments to address.
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for the modifications!
1. Please add the
”This article presents a literature review which includes aspects for the FOR approach. In this regard a number of (number of articles) scientific publications were studied. The databases used were: the artificial intelligence-powered Semantic Scholar and the PubMed.” In Introduction
2. Please further explain „10. Search for alternative solutions to AMR.” in a sentence or two
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 4:
Thank you for your guidance. We included all the points mentioned in your comments, as follows:
- ”This article presents a literature review which includes aspects for the FOR approach. In this regard a number of (number of articles) scientific publications were studied. The databases used were: the artificial intelligence-powered Semantic Scholar and the PubMed.” In introduction.
Response, DN: We inserted the suggested paragraph into the Introduction (lines 75 to 80).
- Please further explain „10. Search for alternative solutions to AMR.” in a sentence or two.
Response DN: Thank you very much. The explanation was added, as advised, and is now included in lines 266 to 271:
"Search for alternative solutions to AMR based on the holistic, integrated, multisectoral FOR approach. For example, the development of methods to improve animal welfare, preventing the spread and leakage of microbes and AMR from wildlife to other animals, plants, and soil, and from one agricultural sector into another. It may include research and innovation on combating AMR, such as phage and immune therapies, and beyond."
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations to the authors who have improved the paper to provide now a broader review of the One Health concept. It will be useful for the international community. They have improved the introduction and discussion in such a way that they cover several approaches of the food systems and health management. The conclusion opens to several values respecting the diversity of cultures and people organisations that make the richness and the resilience of the planet.
