October, 13 2011, 02:57pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tim Shenk,Press Officer,Direct: 212-763-5764,E-mail:,tim.shenk@newyork.msf.org
Food Aid System Continues to Fail Malnourished Children
While Young Victims of War and Famine Are Able to Access Latest Lifesaving, Nutritious Foods, Millions More Malnourished Children Still Receive Poor Quality Food Aid
NEW YORK
Despite some recent gains in the fight against childhood malnutrition, the global food aid system--led by the United States--largely continues to provide substandard foods to millions of malnourished children every year, the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) announced today, in advance of World Food Day on October 16.
Malnutrition--a preventable and treatable condition--afflicts an estimated 195 million children worldwide and is the underlying cause of at least one-third of the eight million annual deaths of children under five years of age, the vast majority of which occur in the developing world.
Children under the age of two are the most vulnerable to the consequences of malnutrition, and without access to nutrient-dense foods necessary for growth and development, such as highly effective ready-to-use supplementary foods now available, they will suffer debilitating lifelong consequences.
"It's been proven beyond any doubt that getting nutritionally appropriate foods to young, vulnerable children saves their lives, yet the global food aid system has not fully caught up with the revolutionary gains made in nutrition science," said Dr. Unni Karunakara, MSF's international president.
The bulk of international food aid shipments, including those sent to countries with a high burden of malnutrition, such as parts of sub-Saharan Africa, are comprised of corn-soy blend (CSB) fortified flours, which do not include the vital nutrients and proteins growing children require. The United States alone annually ships approximately 130,000 metric tons of sub-standard CSB--grown and processed on American farms--to the developing world.
While initiatives led by the US government, such as the "1,000 days" campaign or "Scaling Up Nutrition" (SUN), bring together countries featuring high levels of malnutrition with major international food donors--demonstrating that there is a scientific and political consensus on the need to focus on children under two--most food aid today does not provide appropriate nutrition to young children.
"The catalog of products available for food aid grossly neglects the needs of the most vulnerable," said Dr. Karunakara. "There's no excuse for waiting anymore; the world's major food aid donor countries need to finally get on board."
MSF today sent letters to representatives of the top food aid donor countries, including the US, European Union member states, Canada, and Brazil. The letters were sent on behalf of more than 133,000 individuals from over 180 countries who signed a petition, demanding that donor nations "stop supplying nutritionally substandard food to malnourished children and children at risk of malnutrition in developing countries."
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, MSF-USA Executive Director Sophie Delaunay urged the US government to apply the same nutrition standards to the food it sends overseas as it does through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which ensures that low-income American families have access to quality, nutritious foods.
"As the world's largest food aid donor, the policies and practices of the U.S. are enormously influential in assuring that the right foods reach the right people at the right time," the letter said.
Some key food aid players have begun to change. The World Food Program, for example, now uses supplementary foods that meet the nutritional needs of children under two as the cornerstone of its interventions in medical emergencies. Such products played a key role in 2010 in response to the nutritional crisis that struck Niger, the floods in Pakistan, and the earthquake in Haiti. And donor nations and aid agencies have improved the quality of foods sent to Somalia and Kenya in response to current nutrition crises there.
Yet the vast majority of malnourished children, who are not caught up in attention-grabbing emergencies, continue to receive products from major international food aid donors that do not meet their specific nutritional needs.
"High profile emergencies, such as those in Somalia and Kenya today, represent just the tip of the malnutrition iceberg," said Dr. Karunakara. "Most malnourished children are invisible, and they should not have to become victims of war or natural catastrophes in order to have access to the foods they need."
In late 2008, an expert meeting convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) considered the growing body of scientific evidence and concluded that nutritional standards of food aid needed to be improved. But three years later, the WHO, which most Ministries of Health in developing countries rely on for policy guidance, has yet to issue formal guidelines to ensure the improvement of food for malnourished or young children.
"Guidance from the WHO is crucial to encourage donor countries to adopt better standards for food aid and recipient countries to adopt better measures to ensure their children have access to quality nutrition," said Dr. Karunakara.
"Children cannot afford the delays caused by having to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of these new specialized foods with every single government from one crisis to the next," he said. "This only serves to delay the initiation of lifesaving programs."
In June 2010, MSF and the VII Photo agency launched "Starved for Attention," a multimedia campaign exposing the neglected and largely invisible crisis of childhood malnutrition. VII photojournalists traveled to malnutrition "hotspots" around the world--from war zones to emerging economies--to shed light on the underlying causes of the malnutrition crisis and innovative approaches to combat this condition, producing eight documentaries, which can be viewed at www.starvedforattention.org.
Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) is an international medical humanitarian organization created by doctors and journalists in France in 1971. MSF's work is based on the humanitarian principles of medical ethics and impartiality. The organization is committed to bringing quality medical care to people caught in crisis regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. MSF operates independently of any political, military, or religious agendas.
LATEST NEWS
Maduro Vows Venezuela Will Be a 'Colony Never Again' as Trump Intensifies Threats
He has described President Donald Trump's push for regime change as a "colonial threat" to "seize" Venezuela's oil.
Dec 02, 2025
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro remained defiant on Monday as US President Donald Trump plotted "next steps" against the South American nation with top national security brass.
Before thousands of Venezuelans at a rally in Caracas, the nation’s embattled president said he would not accept peace on US terms unless it came “with sovereignty, equality, and freedom.”
“We do not want a slave’s peace, nor the peace of colonies! Colony, never! Slaves, never!” he said.
The speech came days after Trump announced that the US would close Venezuelan airspace, which many interpreted as a final step before a series of strikes on the mainland.
The US has framed its military buildup in the Southern Caribbean as part of a campaign to stop drug smuggling, the same justification it has used to carry out the extrajudicial bombings of more than 20 boats in the region—which have killed at least 83 people—while disclosing zero proof of the victims' involvement with drug trafficking.
Trump has also accused Maduro of being the leader of the so-called "Cartel de los Soles," which he slapped with the label of “Foreign Terrorist Organization” last month, even though it is not an "organization" at all, but a media shorthand to refer to alleged connections between Venezuelan leaders and the drug trade.
Meanwhile, both US and international assessments have found that Venezuela is but a minor player in the global drug trade.
The US has amassed more than 15,000 troops outside Venezuela, the most it's sent to the region since 1989, when the administration of former President George H.W. Bush launched a land invasion of Panama to overthrow its drug-running dictator Manuel Noriega. Documents obtained by The Intercept last week suggested that the US seeks to maintain "a massive military presence in the Caribbean" for years to come.
"By a factor of at least 10, the US presence is too great for even an intensified anti-drug operation," wrote US national editor Edward Luce in the Financial Times on Tuesday.
Trump's motive for stopping drug trafficking was further called into question after he pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, a onetime US ally who was sentenced last year to 45 years in prison for helping to traffic at least 400 tons of cocaine to the US. The pardon was issued as part of Trump's efforts to influence Honduras' upcoming election to secure the victory of right-wing candidate Nasry “Tito” Asfura.
The goal of regime change was essentially confirmed on Monday when Reuters reported that Trump had offered Maduro safe passage out of Venezuela if he were willing to abdicate power during a phone call on November 21.
“You can save yourself and those closest to you, but you must leave the country now,” Trump reportedly told Maduro.
Maduro reportedly said he'd be willing to accept the offer if his family members were granted complete amnesty and the US removed sanctions against them, as well as over 100 other Venezuelan officials. He also asked for the case against him before the International Criminal Court (ICC) to be dropped.
Trump rejected that deal, and his offer of safe passage expired on Friday, the day before the US announced it had closed Venezuelan airspace. Trump confirmed to the press on Sunday that the talks had happened, but provided few additional details.
Maduro has categorically denied involvement with drug trafficking and has portrayed the White House's sabre-rattling as a "colonial threat." Last week, while brandishing the sword of South American anticolonial hero Simón Bolívar, he pledged that Venezuela would be a "colony never again."
On Sunday, he accused Trump of trying to "seize" the nation's oil reserves. He has called for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to step in to help the country counter what he said were “growing and illegal threats” from Trump.
Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves—about a fifth of the Earth’s total, and more than Iraq had at the time of the George W. Bush administration's 2003 invasion. However, US sanctions against Venezuela largely block American oil companies from accessing the reserves, which are controlled by the nation’s state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela. These sanctions, which have limited Venezuela's ability to export its most valuable natural resource, are considered one of the primary reasons for the nation's economic instability in recent years.
While at a rally in 2023, Trump said he regretted not having "taken [Venezuela] over" during his first term. "We would have gotten to all that oil; it would have been right next door,” he said.
"We’ve seen this tragic play before," wrote Richard Steiner, a former marine professor with the University of Alaska, this weekend in Common Dreams. "The Bush administration justified its disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq with the pretext that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which, as it turned out, it didn’t. And as US Central Command commander General John Abizaid admitted about the Iraq war at the time: 'Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil, and we can’t really deny that.'"
"A similar pretext—this time 'drug interdiction'—is being used to justify a potential US invasion and regime change in Venezuela," he continued. "But this is not about stopping the flow of dangerous drugs, it is about actually increasing the flow of the dangerous drug some pushers want to keep us all hooked on—oil."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘We Must Stop Tinkering Around the Edges’: Van Hollen Makes Case for Medicare for All Amid ACA Fight
"Yes, let's extend the ACA tax credits to prevent a huge spike in healthcare costs for millions," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen. "Then, let's finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits."
Dec 02, 2025
Democratic US Sen. Chris Van Hollen on Monday became the latest lawmaker to champion Medicare for All as the best solution to the country's healthcare woes as tens of millions of Americans face soaring private insurance premiums.
In a social media post, Van Hollen (D-Md.) said that "we must stop tinkering around the edges of a broken healthcare system," pointing to massive administrative costs and poor health outcomes under the for-profit status quo.
"Yes, let's extend the [Affordable Care Act] tax credits to prevent a huge spike in healthcare costs for millions," said Van Hollen. "Then, let's finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits. We need Medicare for All."
We must stop tinkering around the edges of a broken healthcare system.
Yes, let's extend the ACA tax credits to prevent a huge spike in healthcare costs for millions. Then, let's finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits.
We need Medicare for All. pic.twitter.com/lszdO1vw2u
— Senator Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) December 1, 2025
Van Hollen's remarks came as lawmakers continued to negotiate a possible deal to extend enhanced ACA subsidies that are set to lapse at the end of the year, an outcome that would further drive up healthcare costs for millions.
Politico reported late Monday that most senators "believe the chances for a bipartisan breakthrough" before a planned vote next week "are roughly zero."
"Instead, the most likely outcome is that Senate Democrats put up a bill that has little GOP support for a vote, if any, while Republicans offer a competing bill of their own," the outlet noted. "And even those partisan proposals remained in flux as lawmakers returned to Washington from a weeklong recess."
Neither side of the negotiations is offering much more than a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. Democratic leaders want a clean extension of the subsidies to avert catastrophic cost increases, while President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers are demanding new restrictions on the ACA that would make the system worse.
A handful of progressive lawmakers have used the worsening US healthcare crisis to make the case for a fundamental overhaul, one that would replace the for-profit model with a Medicare for All system that guarantees coverage to everyone for free at the point of service—and at a lower overall cost than the current system.
Van Hollen is the newest Senate cosponsor of the Medicare for All Act, formally backing the legislation led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) just last month.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the lead sponsor of the Medicare for All Act in the House, expressed "100%" agreement with Van Hollen's Monday post.
"Thank you, Chris Van Hollen!" Jayapal wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Furious Backlash' Inside Pentagon as Hegseth Seeks to Avoid Blame for Deadly War Crimes
"This is murder," said one legal expert.
Dec 02, 2025
Finger-pointing has reportedly begun inside the Pentagon as the Trump White House has tried to shield US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from taking the blame for a double-tap strike on a purported narcotics smuggling vessel that many legal experts say was an obvious war crime.
According to the Washington Post, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt set off "a furious backlash within the Defense Department" on Monday after she declared that Adm. Frank Bradley, not Hegseth, made the decision to launch a second strike to kill two men who had survived an initial strike on a purported drug boat off the coast of Trinidad and Tobago on September 2.
One defense official told the Post that Leavitt's statement was "'protect Pete' bullshit," while another said that the administration appeared to be "throwing us, the service members, under the bus."
Hegseth on Monday praised Bradley in a post on X as "a true professional" who "has my 100% support." However, Hegseth also appeared to make clear that Bradley was the person in the chain of command who made the final decision to authorize a second strike on the survivors.
"I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made—on the September 2 mission and all others since," Hegseth wrote.
Even Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume found Hegseth's praise for Bradley to be disingenuous, and he described it as "how to point the finger at someone while pretending to support him."
Bradley is set to give members of Congress a classified briefing on the strikes on Thursday amid bipartisan demands for more information.
The question of who authorized the second strike on the boat is crucial in determining who would face potential future war crimes charges. Earlier reporting from the Washington Post claimed that Hegseth gave a spoken order to "kill everybody" in the boat strikes, which was then interpreted as a justification for launching a second strike on the survivors.
Rachel VanLandingham, a military expert at Southwestern Law School, told Al-Jazeera that, regardless of who authorized the strike, it was clearly illegal.
"That second strike against individuals who are shipwrecked, clinging desperately to the side of their boat wreckage—that’s a war crime," she said. "It’s a war crime because those individuals who are shipwrecked have protected status under the law unless they were, for example, shooting a gun at somebody."
Todd Huntley, a former Staff Judge Advocate who served as a legal adviser on drone strikes carried out in Afghanistan and other nations by Joint Special Operations task forces, told The Intercept he had no doubt that the second strike on the survivors was a prosecutable offense under either federal law or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
"This is about as clear of a case being patently illegal that subordinates would probably not be able to successfully use a following-orders defense," he explained.
Rebecca Ingber, professor at Cardozo Law School, told Time that authorizing the second strike violated "one of the most basic and longstanding rules" of the laws of armed conflict.
"It is absolutely unlawful to order that there will be no survivors,” she explained. "There is no actual armed conflict here, so this is murder."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


