Latest news with #N4G
The Hindu
25-04-2025
- Health
- The Hindu
Teaching children to eat well must begin in school
Last month, world leaders gathered in Paris for the Nutrition for Growth (N4G) Summit. It was also a time for the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to announce the extension of the United Nations Decade of Action on Nutrition, from its original timeframe of 2016-25, to 2030. This extension seeks to sustain the global momentum to end all forms of malnutrition and align efforts more closely with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This could be a turning point in nutrition not only to accelerate progress but also to shift the focus beyond food access — to understanding what people eat, how they eat, and why they eat, especially when it comes to children. Nutrition is not just a health concern. It is intricately connected to education, equity and environmental sustainability. So far, global nutrition efforts have rightly focused on the first 1,000 days of life — from conception to two years of age — as a critical window to prevent malnutrition. But we now know that the next 4,000 days matter just as much. This includes the period of adolescent growth spurt — a time of rapid physical, emotional, and behavioural changes and offering a second window of opportunity to overcome early childhood deficits. Good nutrition during this phase can help children catch up on growth and set the foundation for long-term health. But to do that, we must shift our focus from just feeding children to teaching them how to eat well. A side event at the Paris summit — 'Learn to Eat Well: Bio-diverse Diets and Youth as Agents of Change' — made this point loud and clear. It signals a global shift in thinking: that food and nutrition education must begin in schools, go beyond counting calories, and help children make choices that are good for themselves and the planet. A changing world Today, children are growing up in a world where food is everywhere — ordered with a tap, delivered to the door, and heavily marketed. Choosing what to eat has become increasingly complex. Most children lack the knowledge and the skills to make healthy choices. Their diets are often shaped by habits, peer influence, or advertising rather than nutrition or tradition. As a result, many children skip breakfast, eat too few fruits and vegetables, and consume too much sugar and processed food. Importance of dietary diversity A key casualty is dietary diversity — eating a variety of foods to get all the nutrients the body needs. The UN recently adopted Minimum Dietary Diversity as a global indicator under Sustainable Development Goal 2 (End Hunger). It simply asks: did a child eat at least five of 10 food groups in the last 24 hours? Sadly, in many places — including both cities and villages in India — most children do not. Their diets lack variety, which harms their health and reflects deeper problems in our food systems and education. Poor diets are linked to malnutrition, childhood obesity, chronic diseases such as diabetes, and mental health issues. Research shows that almost 70% preventable adult diseases begin with habits formed in childhood — especially eating habits. This highlights the urgent need to start early, and schools are the best place to build healthy habits. Yet, food and nutrition education is missing in most classrooms or is out-dated and not linked to real life. The absence of a proper curriculum and age-appropriate learning resources make it even harder to teach children how to eat well. Teachers often lack the training and the tools to teach it well. Without structured guidance, schools struggle to deliver meaningful food and nutrition education. This is why we need a structured and age-appropriate curriculum that goes beyond food groups and includes lifestyle habits and environmental awareness. It should start early — at the preschool level — and grow with the child until at least the middle stage, helping them connect the dots between food, health, identity, and sustainability. Such a curriculum could cover everything from how the human body works and the importance of diverse foods in our diets, to how food systems impact the environment. A central part of this must be promoting bio-diverse diets — ones that include a variety of local, seasonal, and culturally familiar foods. These diets provide better nutrition, support local farmers, reduce environmental impact, and preserve traditional food knowledge. It must be a part of school life Teaching children to eat well should not be limited to one-off awareness sessions or occasional activities. It needs to be woven into school life. This means having weekly lessons with age-appropriate, well-designed learning materials, supported by healthier school canteens, kitchen gardens, simple cooking sessions, and student-led campaigns. These real-life experiences help children build lasting knowledge, habits, and values around food, health, and well-being. Around the world, schools are already showing what is possible — students growing vegetables, cooking simple meals, reading food labels, and learning how their food choices affect their health and the planet. In India, the National Education Policy and the School Health and Wellness Programme have created room for such integrated learning. But we need a clearer structure, comprehensive curriculum, at least one dedicated weekly session all through the academic year, appropriate learning resources, and properly trained teachers. Children must be seen not only as learners but also as key influencers. With the right knowledge and tools, they can influence their families, friends, and even their communities — whether by asking for better school meals, reducing food waste, or spreading awareness about healthy eating. In the end, learning to eat well is not just about food. It is about helping children to care for their health, understand their culture, respect the planet, and grow into thoughtful, responsible citizens. In a world facing the dual burdens of under-nutrition and overconsumption, climate change and cultural loss, food literacy is no longer a luxury — it is essential. If we want to raise a generation that is healthier, more compassionate, and better prepared for the future, we must start by making learning to eat well a part of every child's education — starting today. Pawan Agarwal is Founder-CEO, Food Future Foundation and former CEO, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)
Forbes
15-04-2025
- Health
- Forbes
All Countries Are Malnourished—But They Don't Have To Be
It might seem that malnutrition is a problem only in poor countries. But 'all countries face at least one form of malnutrition,' according to the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, which last month hosted a significant global conference on funding nutrition programs. This conference in Paris, Nutrition for Growth (N4G), came at a challenging moment for international health funding. In recent months, the U.S., France, and other European countries have announced sweeping foreign aid cuts. The consequences for nutrition have included smaller food rations in refugee camps and paralysis of emergency food shipments. Researchers have estimated that recently announced cuts in donor funding for severe acute malnutrition will affect 2.3 million children. In one year, 369,000 children are likely to die as a result. Each would be a preventable tragedy. And beyond this, the shutdowns of research to improve farming practices, information systems to predict famines, and projects addressing child malnutrition will translate into less healthy lives and economies. A less stable food supply will also seed insecurity both overseas and in the U.S., for instance. So it was some relief that the N4G summit led to pledges of over $27 billion for nutrition programs. Though this is about the same as what was raised at the last N4G summit four years ago, during this difficult time the amount surpassed most expectations. However, it will remain important to scrutinize whether and how those pledges actually materialize. Following the first N4G summit in 2013, half of the pledging organizations failed to reach at least one of their targets, or did not respond to the Global Nutrition Report about their progress. The commitments this time around came from a range of private, philanthropic, intergovernmental, and government agencies, though not from the U.S. and U.K. (despite recommendations). From school meals to prenatal vitamins, these funders are generally attempting to do more with less, by honing in on the core areas where they believe nutrition is most urgent. They're also hammering home the economic case for nutrition as a sound investment in productivity and prosperity. But improving nutrition is not just an issue for over there. One of the Sustainable Development Goals most off-track is the ambitious SDG 2: 'End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.' This goal comes with several targets, including ending all forms of hunger and malnutrition by 2030, alongside doubling the income of small-scale food producers. The United Nations continues to tinker with the indicators of progress, and recently introduced a new metric of minimum dietary diversity for infants and women of reproductive age. Thus, balanced diets are now explicitly factored in (although as with some of the other indicators, data is patchy). All told, zero hunger has proven one of the most challenging of goals to achieve worldwide. 'Basically nobody performs really well on this goal,' commented Guillaume Lafortune, vice president of the UN's Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). That is, just about every country faces issues related to undernourishment (such as anemic pregnant women), unhealthy diets (measured in terms of underweight and overweight children), or a combination of these. It's a universal challenge. So sustained attention to nutrition is important to protect the gains that have been made. Hunger has fallen dramatically over the decades, but this progress has now slowed. Action in every part of the world will be needed to keep pushing malnutrition toward zero. Here are three countries' snapshots of the work in progress. There's perhaps no better sign of the incomplete progress made on nutrition than the resurgence of diseases of nutritional insufficiency that should be easy to eradicate. In wealthy countries, 'scurvy is coming back,' pointed out Brieuc Pont, the French diplomat who led the N4G summit. In France this is linked to poverty and inequality, leading to calls for strengthened food and social programs. It's not only poverty that is leading to nutritional problems in France, whose government has said that its domestic SDG 2 challenge is more about enhanced nutrition than food security. In this, France isn't alone among its neighbors. As stated by a recent report that Lafortune coauthored for the European Economic and Social Committee, which advises the European Union, 'The average EU diet is not healthy and leads to high health and environmental costs.' This research has identified that especially pressing challenges for the EU's food transition are the lack of financial incentives to consume healthy products; the marketing of foods high in saturated fat, sugar, and salt; and lack of financial support for farmers to ease the transition. Clearly, then, attention is needed to both the demand and supply sides of nutritious food. But demand has been overlooked. There are many political and social obstacles to addressing demand, which would involve, for instance, encouraging 'plant-forward diets.' In some respects, France isn't doing badly on nutrition compared to other countries. For instance, its diabetes rate isn't in the high range for the EU. And Lafortune appreciates Nutri-Score, a labelling system that assigns color-coded grades based on the nutritional value of foods. This was devised in France, and has since rolled out to some other European countries. The Nutri-Score system is imperfect, and sometimes the grades are puzzling. But the fact that this nutritional guidance exists at all, despite much industry opposition in a country with a very protective food culture, offers hope to observers like Lafortune. 'Brazil is a case study' for school meals, Pont declared. The country's school feeding strategy has evolved since the mid-20th century, when it focused on cutting hunger. But as hunger became less common (though not eliminated), obesity became more common. A 2019 study found that 22% of Brazilian adolescents were prediabetic. These issues have led to more attention to not just the amount of food made accessible, but also the type and quality of food. Nutritionists prepare menus for public schools, which provide food for all students. Admittedly, the carefully balanced meals aren't always popular. In some ways Brazil's public health system has shown boldness in taking on nutrition-harming industries. School meal programs have limited salt, sugar, and—in a world-leading move—ultra-processed foods. The basic food basket, an indicator of commonly consumed foods, also now excludes ultra-processed foods (though the links between nutrition and food processing aren't straightforward). Supporters say that these changes will bolster not only health, but also traditional culinary practices and local food industries. However, the government has proven less willing to take on another food industry with consequences for human and environmental health: large-scale livestock farming. In general at the N4G summit, and in particular at a side event at the Brazilian embassy themed around food systems and climate change, discussions of climate change were timid about mentioning industrial livestock's role in land-use change. The Brazilian government has no plans at the national level to reconsider the amount of animal protein in school meals (and attempts to do so locally have proven controversial). Helena Lettieri, a lawyer who volunteers with animal rights organizations in Brazil, was disappointed by the unwillingness to address Brazil's reliance on animal protein. Given how connected the Brazilian government is to agribusiness, she said, she didn't expect it to meaningfully address the impacts of beef at nutrition or climate conferences—including the upcoming COP to be held in the Amazon. Nigerian nutrition programs have been hit hard by the withdrawal of USAID funds. In general, the effects of the sudden aid cuts on Nigeria's health sector have prompted much reflection about self-determination. When it comes to nutrition, self-sufficiency is broader than the source of the funds. It also extends to the source of the food. For instance, Nigeria, like Brazil, has been a leader on school meals. The Home Grown School Feeding Programme provides a market for locally grown food, and has helped boost enrollment in primary school. According to Robert Akparibo, a global health and nutrition researcher at the University of Sheffield in the UK, Nigeria has reached 100% domestic production of school meals. But when it comes to emergency feeding programs, it has not been so easy to source from home. Abdoulkader Yonli is the managing director of Nutri K, which manufactures the therapeutic food Plumpy'Nut (essentially a fortified peanut paste given to severely malnourished children). 60% of inputs into Plumpy'Nut are imported, Yonli said. Therapeutic foods require uniform ingredients, which can't yet be guaranteed in Nigerian peanut farming. As well, the fungal toxin aflatoxin continues to harm the domestic peanut supply. Agriculture in Northern Nigeria continues to be challenged by what Yonli identified as the two biggest threats: armed violence and climate change. These challenges will be very difficult to overcome. Overall, it's sobering to realize that even the world's largest and wealthiest countries haven't achieved global nutrition goals. But as Pont said, that can't stop us from trying.
Observer
01-04-2025
- Health
- Observer
Philanthropy in an era of declining development aid
Philanthropy will never replace public aid, but it can be a powerhouse if we use it right. With global development funding under strain, European aid budgets being redirected towards defence and rearmament; and the United States rethinking foreign assistance altogether, the aid community has been left scrambling. The reactions so far have been of two kinds: calls for philanthropy to fill the gap and moralising statements shaming governments for stepping back. Unfortunately, the first is unrealistic and the second is ineffective. Private donors cannot solve systemic global challenges alone and telling politicians that they are morally bankrupt generally does not bring them around to your side. Instead, we need to meet policymakers where they are, sharpen our arguments and focus on what actually works. The hard truth is that most government aid is not even designed for effectiveness, because it prioritises processes over results. Nor has philanthropy been immune to this impulse. In our early years at the Eleanor Crook Foundation, we funded holistic, multisectoral programmes that tried to tackle all causes of malnutrition simultaneously. But the results were underwhelming. The approach looked good on paper, but produced no measurable improvements in malnutrition. So, we learned from that failure and changed course. Now, we direct our funding where the evidence is strongest and the results most immediate. At the recent Nutrition for Growth (N4G) Summit in Paris, we announced a $50 million commitment, alongside $200 million from other donors, to scale up one of the most cost-effective interventions in global health: prenatal vitamins — known as multiple micronutrient supplements (MMS). This funding will go towards a $1 billion road map to ensure access to MMS for pregnant women no matter where they live. The science on this issue is unequivocal. MMS replaces the outdated iron and folic acid (IFA) tablets that are still given to many pregnant women in low-income countries. With MMS, women receive 15 nutrients, instead of just two, leading to a dramatic reduction in maternal anemia, stillbirth and low birth weight. The estimated economic returns are substantial — $37 for every $1 invested — and the human returns even more so, with infant mortality reduced by nearly one-third. The global inequities in maternal health are profound. In London, a pregnant woman routinely has access to comprehensive prenatal vitamins. In Lagos, she might receive IFA, or nothing at all. The difference reflects a gap in will, not knowledge. Ending such disparities does not require a scientific breakthrough, just greater investment in already proven solutions. More than two decades of research, three Lancet studies and multiple World Bank investment cases have identified roughly ten nutrition interventions that are consistently underfunded despite their proven efficacy. These are not flashy, multisector, utopian initiatives. They are targeted, evidence-based programmes that can be implemented immediately, at scale, to deliver measurable results. Solutions like breastfeeding support, Vitamin A supplementation, prenatal vitamins and ready-to-use foods for severely malnourished children belong to a package of interventions that could save at least two million lives over five years if scaled up in nine high-burden countries. Such life-changing results would cost just $887 million per year. Malnutrition is now the leading driver of child mortality globally, contributing to some three million deaths in 2023 alone. These are not mysterious tragedies. They are predictable and in many cases cost little to prevent. In a world that routinely sends tourists to space, we obviously can afford to ensure that all pregnant women have access to a $2 bottle of vitamins. This year's N4G Summit may be the last of its kind. It was part of a summit series linked to the Olympics, which will next be hosted by the US. With the current US administration already signalling that it will not continue the tradition, the recent commitments made in Paris have gained new urgency. Vague pledges and political posturing will no longer do. At the Eleanor Crook Foundation, we're not asking governments to spend like they used to. Rather, we are urging them to look at the evidence and use their remaining budgets for official development assistance to scale up proven, cost-effective solutions. A modest investment in MMS — representing less than the cost of one week of G7 countries' defence spending — could save 600,000 lives. Even with constrained budgets, we have a chance to save millions of lives. But only if we stop trying to do everything and focus instead on what is the right thing to do. @Project Syndicate, 2025 The writer is CEO of the Eleanor Crook Foundation and Chair of Stronger Foundations for Nutrition, is a former chief storyteller for the United Nations Millennium Campaign, a member of the US Global Leadership Coalition, and a board member of the United Nations Foundation's Global Leadership Council
