A $45 treatment can save a starving child
Women and children like these waited for treatments in the half-dozen camps and clinics visited by The New York Times last November. Now, six months into the US' withdrawal of foreign aid, many of the sites are closed, some permanently. At others that remain open, rooms once filled with boxes of the lifesaving packets are close to empty. Starvation in the Gaza Strip has brought intense international attention to the horrors of famine, but less attention has been paid to a wider issue: The dismantling of the US Agency for International Development has worsened the problem of severe hunger and malnutrition throughout the world. Saving children with severe acute malnutrition is simple and inexpensive. Each packet costs less than 30 cents but contains a high-calorie mix of peanuts, sugar, milk powder and oil — flavours appealing to children — and a blend of vitamins and minerals. A complete six-week treatment for a severely malnourished child runs less than $45.
USAID funded roughly half the world's supply of ready-to-use therapeutic food, or RUTF, purchasing some directly from US manufacturers and funding the United Nations Children Fund, or Unicef, to manage its distribution. All those grants were abruptly halted when the Trump administration froze foreign aid earlier this year.
Funds for 2025 have yet to be released to manufacturers; the World Food Programme, which distributes a similar product for moderate acute malnutrition; those who transport the products; or the many organisations, like the International Rescue Committee or Helen Keller International, that run the malnutrition programmes.
In response to questions from the Times, the State Department emailed a statement asserting that lifesaving malnutrition programmes 'remain a priority.' 'Malnutrition treatment is among the first new obligations of foreign assistance funding,' the statement said. But it also said that 'other actors — including national governments and international humanitarian organisations — must step up.'
President Donald Trump has made the same argument for many aid programmes, saying the United States should not have to carry the bulk of the burden of caring for the world. Although other countries do already contribute, and some organisations are scrambling to fill the gap, it is unlikely that they can do so quickly enough to help the children who are now in need.
Now boxes containing millions of dollars' worth of the lifesaving packets are stuck at every link in the supply chain: in manufacturers' warehouses, at shipping companies, in cities that received the shipments and in treatment centres that have shut down all over the world. In nearly a dozen countries, the supply chain for the packets has become so unstable that thousands of children are at high risk of dying, according to organisations that help distribute the treatments. Tens of thousands more could be in danger in the coming weeks and months if funds for this year do not move quickly.
Increasingly, some governments such as Nigeria, Kenya and Burkina Faso have been contributing by hosting factories that manufacture the packets. The Child Nutrition Fund, started by Unicef, the British government and others, encourages governments to finance supply by offering a 1:1 match for every dollar. Before the sudden withdrawal of aid, 'things were absolutely moving in the right direction,' said James Sussman, a spokesperson for the International Rescue Committee.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
5 days ago
- Observer
A $45 treatment can save a starving child
The women walked miles through the dusty streets of Maiduguri, in the northeastern corner of Nigeria, carrying their emaciated children. At 7 am, they began lining up to wait, for hours, to be handed a small red packet containing a special paste that could bring their children back from the brink of starvation. The children were eerily listless; they did not run, shout or even swat the flies off their faces. Their tiny, frail frames made many appear years younger than they were. Near the head of the line, Kaltum Mohammad clutched her 2-year-old daughter, Fatima, who weighed just 16 pounds. Women and children like these waited for treatments in the half-dozen camps and clinics visited by The New York Times last November. Now, six months into the US' withdrawal of foreign aid, many of the sites are closed, some permanently. At others that remain open, rooms once filled with boxes of the lifesaving packets are close to empty. Starvation in the Gaza Strip has brought intense international attention to the horrors of famine, but less attention has been paid to a wider issue: The dismantling of the US Agency for International Development has worsened the problem of severe hunger and malnutrition throughout the world. Saving children with severe acute malnutrition is simple and inexpensive. Each packet costs less than 30 cents but contains a high-calorie mix of peanuts, sugar, milk powder and oil — flavours appealing to children — and a blend of vitamins and minerals. A complete six-week treatment for a severely malnourished child runs less than $45. USAID funded roughly half the world's supply of ready-to-use therapeutic food, or RUTF, purchasing some directly from US manufacturers and funding the United Nations Children Fund, or Unicef, to manage its distribution. All those grants were abruptly halted when the Trump administration froze foreign aid earlier this year. Funds for 2025 have yet to be released to manufacturers; the World Food Programme, which distributes a similar product for moderate acute malnutrition; those who transport the products; or the many organisations, like the International Rescue Committee or Helen Keller International, that run the malnutrition programmes. In response to questions from the Times, the State Department emailed a statement asserting that lifesaving malnutrition programmes 'remain a priority.' 'Malnutrition treatment is among the first new obligations of foreign assistance funding,' the statement said. But it also said that 'other actors — including national governments and international humanitarian organisations — must step up.' President Donald Trump has made the same argument for many aid programmes, saying the United States should not have to carry the bulk of the burden of caring for the world. Although other countries do already contribute, and some organisations are scrambling to fill the gap, it is unlikely that they can do so quickly enough to help the children who are now in need. Now boxes containing millions of dollars' worth of the lifesaving packets are stuck at every link in the supply chain: in manufacturers' warehouses, at shipping companies, in cities that received the shipments and in treatment centres that have shut down all over the world. In nearly a dozen countries, the supply chain for the packets has become so unstable that thousands of children are at high risk of dying, according to organisations that help distribute the treatments. Tens of thousands more could be in danger in the coming weeks and months if funds for this year do not move quickly. Increasingly, some governments such as Nigeria, Kenya and Burkina Faso have been contributing by hosting factories that manufacture the packets. The Child Nutrition Fund, started by Unicef, the British government and others, encourages governments to finance supply by offering a 1:1 match for every dollar. Before the sudden withdrawal of aid, 'things were absolutely moving in the right direction,' said James Sussman, a spokesperson for the International Rescue Committee.
Observer
04-08-2025
- Observer
‘Japanese Walking' is a fitness trend worth trying
Going for a walk is one of the simplest workouts, but it can have powerful health impacts. Walking has been linked to improved mental and cardiovascular health, and it can be effective for managing back pain. But not all walking is equally effective. A method nicknamed 'Japanese walking' on social media — also known as interval walking training, or IWT — seems to offer greater advantages than a simple stroll, or even than walking at a moderate pace for 8,000 or more steps a day. The strategy was first introduced two decades ago in a study led by Hiroshi Nose, an exercise physiologist at Shinshu University Graduate School of Medicine in Japan. The country has one of the world's oldest populations, and Nose hoped that, by applying interval-training techniques used by elite athletes to its senior community, he could improve older people's health and reduce the country's medical costs, he told The New York Times in an email. After seeing promising early results, he and his collaborator, Shizue Masuki, continued to study the method in depth. While this type of exercise isn't new, it has been a trend on TikTok this summer. Here's what the science says about the benefits of interval walking and how to get started. What is 'Japanese walking'? As the name suggests, interval walking is a form of interval training, which involves alternating between bursts of intense activity and more gentle movement or rest. In this case, it's basically just alternating between fast and slow walking. But compared with more classic forms of high-intensity interval training, interval walking is more approachable for many people, especially those who haven't exercised in a while or who are recovering from injuries that make high-impact activities like running difficult, said Dr. Carlin Senter, the chief of primary-care sports medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. How do you do it? All you need are comfortable shoes, a safe place to walk, and a timer. In the studies by Nose and Masuki, subjects typically walked quickly for three minutes and then slowly for three minutes. During fast periods, the idea is to feel as if you're working somewhat hard, to the point that you would have a hard time carrying on a conversation. The movement during the slow periods should be a gentle stroll. (The researchers capped the fast intervals at three minutes, they said, because that was the point at which many older volunteers started to feel tired.) They recommend taking longer strides during the fast intervals than during the slow ones, to make the activity more challenging. They also suggest engaging your arms, bending them at the elbows, and swinging them vigorously with each step, which will help you maintain proper form during longer strides. In their studies, volunteers completed at least 30 minutes of interval walking four times a week. If you try it, those 30 minutes don't have to be continuous. The research suggests that breaking the sessions into roughly 10-minute segments three times a day can be just as effective. While conducting their research, they found that, by taking regular recovery breaks, many interval walkers spent more time exercising at a high intensity than they would have if they had walked continuously at that intensity, since they tired out sooner when they didn't have breaks. What are the health benefits? In their original study of older adults, which was small, Nose and Masuki found that interval walkers saw significantly greater improvements in blood pressure, cardiovascular health, and leg strength compared with volunteers who walked at a continuous, moderate pace. In the decade since, a growing body of evidence from Nose and Masuki and other researchers has reinforced these findings and has suggested the method may have even more benefits. A 2018 study found that, over 10 years, interval walking was linked to fewer age-related declines in aerobic capacity and muscle power. What's the best way to add interval walking to your exercise routine? If you haven't been active in a while, 'start low, go slow,' Senter said. If three minutes feels too long for the faster intervals, start with a minute and work your way up. Over time, as your fitness improves, you will probably be able to push yourself harder during the fast bouts. Finally, if interval walking is your main form of exercise, aim to complement it with at least two days a week of strength training, along with balance and mobility training, Senter said. This article originally appeared in
Observer
01-07-2025
- Observer
Study: US aid cuts could cause over 14m deaths
PARIS: More than 14 million of the world's most vulnerable people, a third of them small children, could die by 2030 because of the Trump administration's dismantling of US foreign aid, research projected on Tuesday. The study in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet was published as world and business leaders met at a United Nations conference in Spain to try to bolster the reeling aid sector. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) had provided over 40 per cent of global humanitarian funding until Donald Trump returned to the White House in January. Two weeks later, Trump's then-close advisor — and the world's richest man — Elon Musk boasted of having put the agency "through the woodchipper". The funding cuts "risk abruptly halting — and even reversing — two decades of progress in health among vulnerable populations", warned study co-author Davide Rasella, a researcher at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal). "For many low- and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict," he said in a statement. Looking back over data from 133 nations, the international team of researchers estimated that USAID funding had prevented 91.8 million deaths in developing countries between 2001 and 2021. That is more than the estimated number of deaths during World War II — history's deadliest conflict. The researchers also used modelling to project how funding being slashed by 83 per cent — the figure announced by the US government earlier this year — could affect death rates. The cuts could lead to more than 14 million avoidable deaths by 2030, the projections found. That number included over 4.5 million children under the age of five — or around 700,000 child deaths a year. For comparison, around 10 million soldiers are estimated to have been killed during World War I. USAID funding was found to be particularly effective at staving off preventable deaths from disease. There were 65 per cent fewer deaths from HIV/AIDS in countries receiving a high level of support compared to those with little or no USAID funding, the study found. Deaths from malaria and neglected tropical diseases were similarly cut in half. Winnie Byanyima, head of the UN's HIV programme UNAids, said the funding cuts could lead to an additional 6.6 million people becoming infected with HIV in the next four years. — AFP
