No gong for Cameron’s Hunger Summit


Naomi Hossain

Two global food crises in 5 years is a misfortune; three looks like carelessness. So yesterday’s Global Hunger Summit was a golden opportunity to tackle the causes of global food price volatility – without doubt the single greatest threat to nutrition in the 21st century, and with equally little doubt, the result of chronically malfunctioning food markets exacerbating climate change (see e.g. what the clever people at the New England Complex Systems Institute say about the 2012 food crisis).

So what did the Global Hunger Summit propose to do about the malfunctioning markets and commodity speculation behind upward fluctuating food prices? Not a lot. The joint statement the PM issued with the Brazilian VP Michel Temer acknowledged climate change, with an emphasis on science-y solutions like drought resistant crops and ‘evidence-based’ policies. But while nobody expected a full-on attack on profit-motivated food commodity speculation, there was a pat on the back for food markets, with a promise to connect poor people to them better. That must have gone down pretty well with the global food giant Cargill – which was already feeling ‘optimistic’ earlier this month as the US drought increased global food price volatility and thereby its revenue prospects.

Putting hunger high on the global policy agenda should be a good thing, but the Summit failed to connect with the concerns of poor people whose experiences are being tracked in our IDS-Oxfam Life in a Time of Food Price Volatility project (funded by DFID, Irish Aid, and Oxfam GB). Our fourth round of research is finding that many poor people are not so much ‘hungry’ as they are fed up of struggling to feed families in the face of an apparently endless series of steep price rises. Higher living costs mean more women entering poorly paid and over-crowded job markets, scrabbling around for bargains, scrounging and ‘borrowing’. In our Indonesian sites, working women say it is now cheaper to eat in the local warung than to cook at home; nobody knows what that means for children’s nutrition, but it won’t be good. And in the Bangladesh sites, women say men find bargaining for cheap food onerous and shameful, so they have to do the food shopping, too. In short, the global food crisis is a crisis of the global care economy: no number of clever evidence-based nutritional supplements will nourish babies whose mothers are working ever harder to care for their families.

What we really needed from the Summit was less charity and science and more solidarity with food justice campaigns. The point is to tackle the causes of food price volatility. And it would have been there, too, that the elusive political will to act on nutrition could be tapped: governments find the social unrest that comes with uncontrollable global food price volatility extremely scary; by contrast, they find the spectre of under-nourished babies quite easy to live with.

Naomi Hossain is a Research Fellow in the Participation, Power and Social Change research team at IDS.

Read other recent blog posts by Naomi Hossain:


Sanitation and Hygiene: Undernutrition’s Blind Spot


Robert Chambers

The undernutrition of babies, infants and children is horrible and a disgraceful blot on our human record. It is not just the immediate suffering, anguish and death. It is also the lasting impact: when growth is stunted at age 2 the damage is largely irreversible. Stunted children are disadvantaged for life – their cognition and immune systems impaired, and their education and earning prospects reduced. Stunting leads to a 10 per cent decrease in lifetime earning. Stunted children start school 7 months later and attend 0.7 years less than children who aren’t stunted.

So undernutrition cries out for action and there is plenty of action. The normal, commonsense, humane response is direct and visible – to get more nutrients and food into babies, infants and children. To get it into their mouths. Who could be against that? Not me. It is so obvious, so necessary, so important, so urgent, with such immediate results.

But, and it is a monumental but, has this distracted attention from a major cause, and outside famines and acute seasonal crises, I will dare to venture even the main cause: faecally-related infections(FRIs)? Have I lost my senses? Well….

I recently watched  a video of a presentation made by Dr Jean Humphrey in India, and met her, and heard her speak  at the UK Department of International Development (DFID). She works in Zimbabwe and in the Lancet (19 September 2009) famously argued with convincing evidence that environmental enteropathy (EE) is a more significant cause of undernutrition than diarrhoea. EE is a persistent subclinical condition in which infections damage and reduce the absorptive capacity of the gut and at the same time make it permeable so that nutrient energy has to be continuously diverted to make antibodies to fight the infection. EE is a multisystem disorder, a ‘profound immune system disorder’ which moreover weakens the immune system later in life. That Lancet article stirred things up, and she is now engaged on long-term rigorous field research into EE. She and others are now saying that diarrhoea is just the tip of the iceberg. I agree. But what an iceberg, not just EE!

Here are some bullet points. Are they right?

How significant are the diarrhoeas as causes of undernutrition?

  • Because among faecally-related infections, they are so dramatic, awful, visible and episodic, and so easily measurable, the diarrhoeas have received and continue to receive the major professional attention. Many other conditions are subclinical, continuous, invisible and hard or impossible to measure. The multiple dimensions of EE are a very significant part of this.
  • With oral rehydration therapy, diarrhoeas are less damaging than they were
  • There is rapid recovery between bouts of diarrhoea
  • Studies of the effect of diarrhoeas on linear growth show effects in the range of only 5-20 per cent, and some show none at all
  • In the Gambia where the Dunn Nutrition Laboratory has been doing research for many decades there has been a big drop on the incidence of diarrhoea 1979 – 1993 but no change in stunting. They have found stunting is not explained by inadequate diet or days of diarrhoea!

The misleading conclusion could be drawn that since diarrhoeas are not so much implicated in undernutrition, sanitation and hygiene are not so important either, and that FRIs in general are not so signficiant

Feeding programmes
What is the evidence of the impact of feeding programmes?

  • A review of 42 studies of feeding programmes found that the very best solved only one third of the problem and some had no effect at all
  • No nutrition intervention has ever normalised linear growth

Faecally-related infections (FRIs)
FRIs are much more than the diarrhoeas and EE.

  • The variety and scale of these infections is quite mind-blowing. There are intestinal parasites – bacterial like gardia (extremely widespread), amoebiasis, and worms like ascaris (1.5 billion infected) that steal food and hookworm (over 700 million infected, 200 million in India) which voraciously consumes blood from the host, and tapeworms which come through intermediate hosts. There are hepatitis A, B and E, typhoid fever, polio and other enteroviruses, schistosomiasis (over 200 million, more than half in Africa), liverfluke, trachoma, and various zoonoses from animals (in addition to tapeworms)…..

So there is much, much more to the iceberg of which the diarrhoeas are the tip, than EE. No one so far has been able to point me to a study of how many of these infections are found in any one undernourished infant or child, nor how they interact. So my question to those who work in nutrition and those who work on faecally-related infections, is this: does professional specialisation prevent us seeing the enormity of the whole picture? And is the implication of the whole picture that sanitation and hygiene are not only a huge priority in eliminating undernutrition but even, bar famines and seasonal crises, possibly the main means?

Consider India. The latest data indicate that India has 59.4 per cent, almost three fifths, of the open defecation in the world, a proportion which has risen in the past decade. It also has a third of the undernourished children, a figure which has largely resisted herculean attempts to tackle it directly through the mouth with school meals, ration cards and the like. Imagine if suddenly all FRIs were caught and confined safely just below the anus. How much undernutrition would remain?

Robert Chambers is a Research Associate in the Participation, Power and Social Change research team.

Read other recent blog posts from Robert Chambers:
Ensuring those who are ‘last’ come first: using Reality Checks to inform post-MDGs
Discrimination, duties and low hanging fruit: reflections on equity in CLTS
A passionate family: reflections on the WSSCC Global Forum on Sanitation and Hygiene