In 2000 the idea of “One Health” was introduced to name a truth long understood: human health and animal health are interdependent and bound to the ecosystems they share. Since then every veterinary congress has echoed this principle as a necessary guiding idea. This approach, advocating a multidisciplinary stance to public health problems and now involving doctors, pharmacists, biologists, microbiologists, and veterinarians, has been gaining traction among other health professionals. At the same time, the number of voices favoring isolated, siloed approaches has begun to wane. In political circles, concern about health is growing, though imperfectly, driven by fears of new pandemics, outbreaks, emerging diseases, and, of course, zoonoses once unimaginable in these latitudes. In public opinion, this remains for many just an Anglicism, a wordplay with little clear meaning. Yet there is a related truth that Canadians and Americans will recognize: the VAT on veterinary services at the maximum rate of 21 percent, increased in 2012 without remedy, does not safeguard pet health. Pets can jeopardize family health and the health of those around them.
Veterinarians have spent the Covid-19 crisis noting that the coronavirus originated in animals and crossed species boundaries to infect humans. The early months saw preprints about potential threats from close animal coexistence circulating widely. These suspicions, grounded only in laboratory observations, did not prove anything definitive, but they fueled hoaxes and alarms that distracted from the gaps in knowledge about the epidemic. The author recalls participating in the Expert Group on this issue formed at the General Council of Spanish Veterinary Colleges. Over time it became clear that no such council existed at that moment, illustrating gaps in institutional response.
It has become evident that the One Health approach should be universal because reality supports the stance. SARS-CoV-2 and its predecessors, MERS CoV and SARS-CoV, are zoonotic, meaning they move between animals and humans. In a little over a decade, the World Health Organization has issued six global alerts, including one for covid, with five of these concerns stemming from zoonoses. It is not surprising that around 60 percent of human infectious diseases and 75 percent of emerging diseases originate in the animal kingdom.
Nevertheless, the evidence is often overlooked. The two-way animal–human relationship is important, but so is the environment. The development of Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease (EHD) has raised alarms as it spreads nationwide. This is not strictly a zoonosis, but its emergence is tied to environmental factors. EHD illustrates a vector-borne disease crisis driven by culicoid mosquitoes already present in many regions due to climate change, and linked to shifts in wildlife populations and drought. The disease affects deer, fallow deer, and roe deer and can spread to domestic ruminants when food and water become scarce, population pressure increases, and livestock venture into areas with dense wildlife presence.
Nile Fever, transmitted by the same mosquitoes that threaten horses and humans, has become more common with climate change, highlighting a zoonotic risk that has led to fatalities in recent months. Q Fever, another zoonosis, is frequently diagnosed in humans in parts of Spain, where doctors and veterinarians have argued for a One Health surveillance and control program in collaboration with the Generalitat. Despite these statistics and the known roles of rodents or felines in virus transmission, the One Health framework has often appeared only in introductory statements rather than in concrete policy action.
Finally, the tax issue resurfaces with clarity: applying the maximum VAT rate to veterinary services undermines the One Health idea. Imposing 21 percent on vaccinations such as rabies or Leishmania, both zoonotic, runs counter to prevention as a public health principle. It is hard to understand how progress in animal welfare legislation can be matched by neglect of health concerns that ultimately affect human health. The conclusion remains that animal welfare and human welfare cannot be achieved without prioritizing health first.