Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUN: 200 Million Kids Have Stunted Growth
LONDON - Nearly 200 million children in poor countries have stunted growth because they don't get enough to eat, according to a new report published Wednesday by UNICEF.
![[A young mother waits for her baby to be examined at a health centre in Gbarnga, Liberia in 2008. UNICEF said about 200 million children suffer from stunted growth in developing countries due to chronic undernourishment, which also contributes to one-third of child deaths worldwide. (AFP/File/Georges Gobet)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/unicef_200mill.jpg "unicef_200mill.jpg")
The vast majority are in Asia and Africa: more than 90 percent of children with stunted growth live on those two continents.
"Unless attention is paid to addressing the causes of child and maternal undernutrition today, the costs will be considerably higher tomorrow," said UNICEF executive director Ann M. Veneman in a statement.
More than a third of all deaths in children under five are linked to undernutrition, according to UNICEF. Children with nutritional deficiencies often lack the strength to fight off diseases and complications.
But little money has gone into ensuring kids in the developing world get enough food, compared to high-profile problems like AIDS. Though AIDS causes about 2 percent of all child deaths, it gets more than 20 cents of every dollar spent on public health.
UNICEF was unable to say how much it spends on nutrition. But last year, its sister agency, the World Health Organization, spent about six times as much on AIDS in Africa as it did on nutrition.
Whereas progress has been made in Asia - rates of stunted growth dropped from 44 percent in 1990 to 30 percent last year - there has been little success in Africa. There, the rate of stunted growth was about 38 percent in 1990. Last year, the rate was about 34 percent.
The U.N. children's agency called for more strategies like vitamin A supplementation and breast-feeding to be rolled out more widely. That could cut the death rate in kids by up to 15 percent, UNICEF said.
Not everyone agreed. "It is unrealistic to believe malnutrition can be addressed by any top-down U.N. scheme," said Philip Stevens, of International Policy Network, a London-based think tank. "The progress UNICEF's report points to in improving nutrition is almost certainly a result of economic growth, not U.N. strategies."
Some previous U.N. child health interventions that included similar plans have been disappointing. A study published in July found that one of the U.N.'s main child health efforts had surprisingly little effect in saving children's lives in Bangladesh.
UNICEF insisted more money was needed to solve the problem. "With more than 1 billion people suffering from malnutrition and hunger, international leadership and urgent action are needed," Veneman said in the report.
6 Comments so far
Show AllWorthless article, because the reporter cow-tows to religions of the world and does not mention the most important cause of malnutrition today: lack of family planning.
It's sad beyond belief that children suffer. It's even sadder that we -- even we here in America -- avoid the real cause of their suffering. It's not lack of food. In fact, the food and medical aid donations in the last 50years could have alleviated most of the hunger problems **IF** the mothers in all countries and all cultures would be empowered to freely choose family size. Women's freedom&education in reproductive choice would come hand in hand with empowering women, period, to balance the patriarchal dominance of men. I'm pretty sure few mothers who have 15 or so starving children would choose to have more. I'm pretty sure all mothers would choose to feed and care for fewer, healthier children, if they could.
In the past, nature (or was it God?) used an often brutal but ruthless system to keep the numbers of any species, including humans, to multiply beyond the environment's capacity to support it. We humans invented medicine, hygiene, and motorized food transport .. and enabled most children to survive. And some to survive so they're starving.
It is not entirely worthless to point out the scale of a specific consequence of poverty, in my opinion.
But I agree with you about the importance of family planning. If women had access to family planning, as well as pre-natal care, a pediatrician, education and a chance to earn a living, that would boost child health immensely. It would also ease situations in which women are powerless within the family. Promoting local food agriculture and protection of the water supply from pollution and privatization would help. I too am stilldreaming of this.
Joe
Avaaz has mounted an end the hunger scandal petition worldwide
http://www.avaaz.org/en/world_hunger_pledges/?cl=367260685&v=4458
help spread the word
"For the first time in human history, the number of people across the world suffering from hunger exceeds 1 billion -- one sixth of the world´s population.
Next week, global leaders will meet at the World Food Summit in Rome to address this growing crisis. But some wealthy countries are threatening to renege on a new $20 billion pledge made earlier this year to boost agriculture in the poorest countries.
Let's act before famines set in. Sign the petition below and tell friends, it will be delivered directly to world leaders and through a spectacular stunt at the Roman Colosseum on the eve of the Summit."
Poverty is by far the largest, most persistent and most ubiquitous cause of premature death, poor child development, untreated illness, suffering and anguish. In Africa and Asia for sure. Also here.
This article will get few comments because poverty is a problem whose causes are hidden, whose solutions are elusive, whose existence is deemed inevitable. But it should evoke as much interest as war, since it is just as cruel and just as curable.
It is amazing how little would be required to change the lives of the poor. Small opportunities, small investments, well placed, could help millions. Curbs on the rapaciousness of corporations could make traditional life viable in many areas such as Africa, Asia, Appalachia.
But we have to change the political situation so that our money and effort goes in that direction. I am not at all rich, but I pay enough payroll taxes to support several people. But the money doesn't go to good causes or to those in need. On the contrary, it increasingly goes to the uber-rich, to the purveyors of violence and those who ruin the land.
As for breast feeding - it is a great idea if the mother herself is not starving.
Joe
Mothers in poverty often fall prey to ads to feed their babies various substandard and difficult-to-keep-clean commercial products when they might otherwise feed themselves and thereby feed their infants.
In a common scenario, the child's immune system becomes impaired, the diarrhea and vomiting hits and a child who appears outwardly healthy at noon dries out and dies during the night.
It's a particular problem where water is scarce.
I agree. Nestle used to be notorious for pushing their powdered formula on mothers who had no access to clean water nor a way to wash feeding bottles. They caused a lot of deaths. If a mother is poor and there is a baby formula available, she should consider mixing it into her own food or drinking it herself (as she probably has some immunity to the local water), and then breast feeding the baby. The breast is a barrier against transmission of parasites and most bacteria. (I did a paper on this about 30 years ago.)
Joe