Multi-Sector Critique of “One Health Certified” Standards

That Fail to Achieve One Health

“One Health Certified” (OHC) is an industry-led greenwashing and humanewashing marketing label that lacks adequate standards and oversight. The industry-friendly OHC standards capitalize on borrowed, unearned legitimacy from over 15 years of national and international, intergovernmental One Health work to promote interdisciplinary approaches to human, animal, and environmental health. The OHC standards co-opt the name while failing to meet the intent or even basic elements of a true One Health approach^[1]. A coalition of groups representing public health, consumer and environmental protection, and animal health and welfare is deeply concerned about OHC for the reasons outlined below.

1. The OHC standards falsely project the impression that they are endorsed by and affiliated with government agencies and public health institutions. 

• Contrary to fact, the OHC label appears to all but the most informed insiders to have been created, endorsed, and/or supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as well as groups involved with the international One Health Initiative, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, and the World Organization for Animal Health.
• Adding to this misleading appearance are inaccurate public statements and articles that claim OHC as a USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) program. In truth, OHC is not a USDA led or sponsored program, and USDA AMS does not endorse such marketing labels. The role of the AMS Audit Services Branch is limited to acting as a third-party verifier of scores of marketing label programs, a service available to any applicant. AMS involvement as a certifying entity does not constitute an endorsement of any given standard.
• The OHC certification program is administered by the National Institute of Antimicrobial Resistance Research and Education (NIAMRRE) based at Iowa State University, suggesting governmental endorsement.

2. The OHC standards reverse progress and undermine stronger, well-established standards for responsible antibiotic use.

• In the past decade, the U.S. poultry industry has made huge strides in reducing use of medically important antibiotics. According to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration report, in 2018, sales of medically important antibiotics for use in chickens were just 4 percent of those sold for farm animals.
• By allowing repeated use of medically important antibiotics without addressing the underlying causes of disease, including husbandry issues and poor welfare, the OHC standards endanger this progress. As currently written, the OHC standards allow producers unending use of medically important antibiotics with no consequences, as long as veterinarian antibiotic use and mitigation recommendations are followed and documented. The OHC program also allows use of medically important antibiotics in the hatchery or in ovo under a variety of circumstances.
• The OHC program lacks a publicly available auditor checklist or guidelines describing in detail the criteria being examined at all phases of the operation.
• Together, these shortcomings weaken the definition and practice of responsible antibiotic use and undermine public confidence in the food system. The OHC Program represents a major step backwards for antibiotic stewardship, improved management practices, and transparency in antibiotic use certifications that the poultry industry has already demonstrated are possible.

3. The OHC standards fail to set their own animal welfare requirements yet claim animal welfare as a core principle.

• The OHC standards allow producers to choose among three options: American Humane Certified™ (an audit program) or the voluntary industry guidelines set by the National Chicken Council and the National Turkey Federation. All three options reflect conventional industry practices. Animal welfare organizations consider all three options too weak to endorse as even minimum standards for animal welfare including poultry health; for example, none of the program requirements would qualify under the Better Chicken Commitment.
• To claim these standards as “science-based” and “best practice” is extremely misleading, as they neither cover the animal welfare issues identified in the primary scientific literature, nor represent “best” practices.
• Most importantly for poultry welfare, OHC neither encourages genetically robust birds demonstrating higher welfare outcomes, nor requires reasonable stocking density limits, lighting schedules, or environmental enrichment, all of which are key components of meaningful poultry welfare certification and auditing programs ― and should be expected of any certification purporting to reflect a “One Health” approach, as it is defined and understood internationally.

4. The OHC standards require nothing more than following the law and standard practices of the conventional poultry industry with regards to environmental health. 

• The OHC standards require certified producers to submit data to calculate their carbon footprint, but lack any expectation for operations to actually reduce their carbon footprint over time.
• The OHC standards do not require any monitoring for environmental hazards such as antibiotics, pathogens, antimicrobial resistance determinants, or emissions of ammonia and other air pollutants; this should be part of any certification addressing the environmental health component of One Health.
• The only other environmental requirement in the OHC standards asks producers to have waste disposal or nutrient management plans consistent with state and federal laws, which should be a baseline expectation for all poultry producers and in fact are generally insufficient to protect human health and the environment. It is unclear what OHC certifies except lawful behavior, which hardly needs a certification.

As demonstrated above, the OHC label and standards do not deserve to be associated with the One Health approach outlined in the Multi-Sector One Health Consensus Statement. For the most part, the OHC standards package conventional practices in consumer-researched language that resonates well with shoppers but delivers little. Plans announced in January 2020 to expand from the OHC chicken and turkey standards to other animal products, including beef, dairy, pork, and eggs, makes it all the more urgent to address these concerns. The inadequacies of these standards must be exposed before any more consumers are misled into thinking that the OHC label represents anything more than business as usual.

Signatories to the Critique:

A Greener World/Animal Welfare Approved

Albert Schweitzer Foundation

Alliance to Save our Antibiotics

American Society for the Protection of Animals (ASPCA)

Animal Equality

Animal Legal Defense Fund

Animal Welfare Institute

Antibiotic Resistance Action Center, the George Washington University

Buffalo River Watershed Alliance

Center for Biological Diversity

Center for Food Safety

Colorado Public Interest Research Group (CoPIRG)

Compassion in World Farming

Consumer Reports

Crate Free Illinois

Earthjustice

Factory Farming Awareness Coalition

Fair World Project

Farm Forward

Farms Not Factories

Food & Water Watch

Food Animal Concerns Trust

Food Sleuth LLC

Food Tank

Friends of the Earth - U.S.

Fundación IFARMA

Harvard Animal Law & Policy Clinic

Health Care Without Harm

Health Care Without Harm Europe

The Humane League

Humane Society International

Humane Society of the United States

Illinois PIRG

Initiative for Health & Equity in Society

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future

Madhira Institute, Nairobi, Kenya

Maryland PIRG

Mercy for Animals

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

OneKind

People's Health Movement, USA

Physicians Against Red Meat

Public Justice Center

ReAct – Action on Antibiotic Resistance Network

Slow Food in the UK

Socially Responsible Agricultural Project

Third World Network

U.S. PIRG

Waterkeeper Alliance

World Animal Protection