{"id":22979,"date":"2025-10-20T10:30:34","date_gmt":"2025-10-20T14:30:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/news\/?p=22979"},"modified":"2025-10-20T10:30:36","modified_gmt":"2025-10-20T14:30:36","slug":"global-one-health-translation-barrier","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/news\/2025\/10\/20\/global-one-health-translation-barrier\/","title":{"rendered":"New study uncovers hidden barrier to global health collaboration"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

Inconsistent translations of the term One Health \u2014 a critical global health framework \u2014 could be undermining international efforts to safeguard human, animal and environmental well-being<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amid the escalating threat of climate change, environmental degradation and pandemics, global health depends more than ever on coordinated, cross-sectoral action. It\u2019s why a growing number of researchers, practitioners and institutions are embracing One Health, a cooperative model that recognizes the interconnections between human, animal, and environmental health. But a new study led by Cary Wu, York Research Chair in the Political Sociology of Health, warns that inconsistent and culturally mismatched translations of the term are quietly undermining collaboration efforts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Published in the journal BioScience<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>the flagship journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), the study reveals that in China alone, at least <\/strong>20 different translations of the term One Health appear across policy documents, conference briefs, academic literature and media coverage. Similar inconsistencies were also found in Spanish and French. Without a consistent translation, coordination efforts suffer at the domestic and international level, and the One Health approach risks being poorly implemented across sectors and regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf the term is translated in different ways, then people who are exposed to the term are isolated,\u201d says Wu. \u201cThey don\u2019t see the connections. Communication becomes a problem. Collaboration and knowledge creation become a problem. Local implementation becomes a problem.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First introduced in global policy circles in 2004, the One Health approach was endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and others in 2008. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, it has only gained momentum. \u201cThe idea is not new,\u201d says Wu, who traces the concept back to Indigenous knowledge reaching back thousands of years. \u201cWhen they think about health, it is connected back to the earth, the river and the natural environment. The idea is very ancient, but how to promote the implementation of the approach is new.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The model promotes integrated health governance across medicine, veterinary science and environmental policy, calling for governments, sectors and communities to collaborate. Yet the concept\u2019s success hinges on local adoption, which often begins with awareness and engagement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One Health in Chinese contexts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wu led an interdisciplinary team of York scholars with backgrounds in health, business, and design and colleagues from China in identifying and analyzing 87 Chinese-language documents, revealing a significant degree of variation in how the term One Health is rendered. While the most common translation, \u201c\u540c\u4e00\u5065\u5eb7\u201d (tongyi jiankang or unified health), appeared in 40 per cent of documents, other translations included \u201c\u5168\u5065\u5eb7\u201d (whole health), \u201c\u5065\u5eb7\u4e00\u4f53\u201d (health as one), \u201c\u540c\u4e00\u4e2a\u5065\u5eb7\u201d (same health) and \u201c\u4e00\u4f53\u5316\u5065\u5eb7\u201d (integrated health) as well as the untranslated English phrase. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors identify two potential root causes for the inconsistent translations in Chinese contexts. The first was the missed opportunity to establish a standard translation in 2014. That year, the first international symposium for One Health research was held in Guangzhou, and two One Health research centers were established. In all cases, the English term was used, resulting in various translations being adopted in press coverage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second is the lack of a top-down approach in promoting and championing the model. One Health has largely been introduced to China through academic and NGO channels, with different translations used to describe the concept. \u201cTo this day, the WHO, CCDC, and influential academic and political leaders have continued using different Chinese translations of the single term \u2014 One Health \u2014 in policy documents, conferences, and media releases,\u201d Wu and co-authors write.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recommended translation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study recommends \u201c\u540c\u4e00\u5065\u5eb7\u201d (unified health) as the most accurate, widespread and culturally appropriate Chinese translation of One Health. It aligns with both the WHO\u2019s translation as well as traditional Chinese philosophical ideas about harmony between humans and nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case for this translation is supported both by findings \u2014 the term appeared in 40 per cent of documents reviewed \u2014 and expert validation. In an interview with Dr. Jiahai Lu, founding director of the One Health Research Center at Sun Yat-sen University and chief editor of One Health Bulletin, he affirmed that tongyi jiankang is not only linguistically clear, but also conceptually aligned with the holistic vision of One Health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A global issue, not just a Chinese one<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While this study focuses on Chinese, the authors note similar inconsistencies in other major languages, including Spanish \u2014 where both \u201cUna sola salud\u201d and \u201cSalud \u00danica\u201d are used \u2014 and French, which uses the terms \u201cUne seule sant\u00e9\u201d, \u201cUne sant\u00e9\u201d and \u201cLa sant\u00e9 unique.\u201d While the differences may seem slight, the implications of inconsistent translations include siloed efforts, fragmented implementation, policy contradictions and public disengagement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf people are not exposed to or aware of this idea, they\u2019re also less likely to practice or engage while living their everyday life,\u201d says Wu. \u201cHow to protect animals, for example.\u201d This kind of terminological fragmentation threatens the core promise of One Health: to serve as a unifying global framework for preventing future health crises through integrated, collaborative action.<\/p>\n\n\n