Article shared by Kul Gautam
Bless you, Nicholas Kristof, for touching our heartstrings with many such op-eds.
Many problems in the world are complex and intractable, but combating malnutrition is not one of them.
Wish the powers that be in Washington, DC and other OECD capitals read, internalize and respond to Kristoff's call to action. Many of us who have worked on nutrition for UN agencies, NGOs, donor agencies and developing countries have known about these highly cost-effective solutions, and applied them in real-life situations. The challenge is to take them to scale that is commensurate with the magnitude of the problem.
Summary
Nicholas Kristof argues that while many global challenges feel intractable, combating malnutrition is a rare exception: it's solvable, affordable, and backed by proven interventions. Reporting from Sierra Leone, he highlights how simple tools like deworming pills, vitamin A supplements, and a peanut-based therapeutic food (R.U.T.F./Plumpy’Nut) can transform lives at minimal cost. Yet U.S. policy shifts, including the closure of USAID, have disrupted supply chains and undermined progress. Kristof calls for renewed political will to scale up nutrition efforts that yield extraordinary returns — up to $23 for every $1 invested — and save millions of children.
Quotes
-
“We have nifty, elegant and cheap solutions to global hunger.”
-
“Aid agencies can deworm a child for less than $1 a year... Yet deworming the world’s children has never been as high a priority as deworming pets in the West.”
-
“This peanut paste... costs just $1 per child per day...
-
“Each $1 invested in nutrition yields a return of $23.”
-
“America used to be the world’s leading backer of nutrition, but... did not even send a formal delegation to the 2025 Nutrition for Growth summit.”
It doesn’t take an aid agency to deworm a child. According to Kristoff, aid agencies can do this for $1 per child and year. According to the UNICEF supply catalogue, the medicament costs less than $ 0.04. Given that in any country aid agencies still rely on the local health authorities and their staff to do anything, the ‘mark-up’ of 96% taken by aid agencies does not seem justified.
ReplyDeleteI think that is nitpicking, Detlef. The larger point is that these interventions are extremely low-cost, as we can vouch for from our UNICEF experience.
DeleteMany developing countries now include these interventions in their national budget, and more will do so now that ODA is likely to shrink. Kristoff's point is that the abrupt closure of USAID operations did not allow countries to make alternative arrrangements. Even donated free medicines in warehouses could not be delivered to the needy people. If one is really trying to cut waste, abuse, corruption and "mark-up"s, there are lots of other places to look at first - starting with "defense" budgets of most countries.