The U.N.’s Terrible Dilemma: Who Gets To Eat?


Women carry sacks of food, airdropped by the World Food Programme, this past summer in Jonglei, South Sudan.

The U.N. is facing a terrible dilemma.

“Basically, when we haven’t got enough money, we have to decide who’s not going to get food,” says Peter Smerdon, a spokesman for the U.N.’s World Food Programme in East Africa.

And even though the program’s budget is at a record high, it’s not enough to keep up with the number of refugees and people in other crisis situations who need emergency food aid. Continuing conflicts in countries like Syria and Yemen and other crises led to the agency’s multibillion-dollar budget shortfall last year. It received a total of $6.8 billion from countries, organizations and private donors when it needed $9.1 billion to do its job.

WFP has already made cutbacks to the number of people it assists in some places. In Somalia, food aid was suspended for 500,000 people in December. In Ukraine, the agency plans to stop giving food to about 40,000 people in February. And in Syria, WFP is providing 2.8 million people with food aid this month, down from 4 million in 2017.

In other places, WFP has reduced the amount of calories that rations contain. “We can do a shallow cut, like 10 percent, 20 percent of the full ration,” says Smerdon. “Or we can do a deep cut if we think the contributions will not be coming in anytime soon.”

In refugee camps, a full daily ration contains 2,100 calories. That is pretty much the bare minimum for adults — to avoid losing weight, women need an estimated 1,600 to 2,400 calories a day while men need 2,000 to 3,000, according to current U.S. dietary guidelines.

The rations vary from country to country, and even within countries, explains WFP spokeswoman Challiss McDonough. In East Africa, the rations would include a cereal grain such as corn or wheat, dried peas or lentils, a fortified flour blend (usually eaten as a hot cereal), some cooking oil and iodized salt.

If funding for a particular region is not “coming in anytime soon,” says Smerdon, “we can do a deep cut.”

In Yemen, the difficulty of providing food rations has been exacerbated by the ongoing civil war and further complicated by blockades that slow down the process of getting food into the country. There have been 40 percent calorie cuts to half of the rations being distributed, says WFP.

The deeper the cuts, the greater the burden on people who are already living in crisis situations, McDonough says.

WFP is usually “the provider of last resort,” McDonough says. When it reduces the number of people it serves or shrinks the size of the daily ration, there is no guarantee that other agencies or organizations will be able to step in to fill the gap. In more stable countries, local branches of organizations such as the Red Cross or Red Crescent societies can help, she explains.

As food aid is reduced or suspended, people might have to sell some of their possessions, using money for school fees or going into debt to buy food.

“When people are trying to figure out how to survive and put dinner on the table every night, it doesn’t allow that family to think about longer-term investments like education, building jobs and businesses and things that will help them in the future,” she says.

The reductions may hit some people harder than others, depending on how much they rely on food aid. In many cases, they get all of their food from WFP, Smerdon says. In Uganda, refugees get a plot of land they can use for growing crops.

And when the cuts are sustained — or deep — there is an increased risk of malnutrition and a suite of other health problems for refugees.

“Their immune systems will be suppressed, and if cuts continue or they’re getting absolutely no food from WFP, inevitably over time, they will fall sick and ultimately many people will perish,” Smerdon says.

Apart from being a source of life-sustaining calories, food rations become key bargaining tools for people living in camps, says Peter Hailey, nutrition expert and founding co-director of the Nairobi-based Centre for Humanitarian Change. He led UNICEF Somalia’s nutrition response during the country’s 2011 famine.

“Parents might decide to reduce the number of meals they [eat] so some of the food can be used not just to feed their kids, but also to pay for health care for those kids or for access to education,” Hailey says.

McDonough and her colleagues are trying to stay positive. “We hope that any cuts like this are temporary,” she says. “That gap between what we want to do, what we think we need to be doing and what we have the resources to do is far too wide for anybody’s comfort.”

StarLink resurfaces: GM corn banned decade ago found in Saudi Arabia.


The Saudi Arabian food chain has been widely contaminated with GM ingredients, according to a new study. The findings include controversial StarLink maize banned for human consumption in the US over ten years ago.

corn.si

The study published in the journal Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology found that genetically modified StarLink maize, allowed for domestic animal feed only in the US, has been contaminating Saudi Arabian products.

StarLink is a trade mark for a type of GM maize manufactured by Aventis Crop Science at the time when it was going through the American apparatus. Later it was bought by Bayer. 

Back in 1998 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the maize for domestic animal feed only, so the company manufacturing StarLink decided not to apply for separate approval for human and animal consumption.

Nevertheless, residues of StarLink maize were detected in taco shells in September 2000, indicating that it had entered the human food chain.

Following the findings all genetically modified food was recalled causing widespread disruption to the corn markets in 2000 and 2001.

Aventis then withdrew its registration for StarLink maize varieties in October 2000 and promised it would no longer be produced.

Despite these assurances, aid sent by the UN World Food Program and the US to a number of Central American nations was found to be highly contaminated with StarLink corn. 80% of the 50 samples tested came back positive for StarLink maize and Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador were all compelled to refuse the aid, according to the journal Green Med.

In 2005 Saudi Arabia approved the import of GM food, but banned the import and agricultural use of genetically modified animals, their byproducts and GM seeds, dates and decorative plants. The law also stipulated that any product containing GM material was required to be labeled in both Arabic and English.

In the 2013 study, 200 samples were collected from the Saudi Arabian provinces of Al-Qassim, Riyadh and Mahdina between 2009 and 2010 and were screened for GM ingredients. 26% of soybean samples were positive for GM gene sequences, while 44% of maize samples came out positive for GM gene sequences.

The overall findings pointed to a discovery of more than 1% contamination of maize samples with StarLink maize, as according to the detection sensitivity of the test kits used in the research the likelihood of a false positive reading is extremely low.

The authors of the report conclude that “establishing strong regulations and certified laboratories to monitor GM foods or crops in the Saudi Market is recommended.”

An earlier study published in the African Journal of Food Science in 2010 also found that the food chain in Saudi Arabia had been contaminated with GM ingredients.

The study analyzed 202 samples of mainly imported food, which was sampled from local markets in Ridyadh. Of the 202 samples 20 tested positive for GM ingredients.

The authors of the 2013 finding raise questions of why GM corn, banned in the US is resurfacing in a distant country like Saudi Arabia. They also question the level of contamination in the US, considering the fact the labeling and import of GM products is more stringent in Saudi Arabia than in the states.

“Mandatory labeling of GM-containing products and/or a total boycott of manufactures who are not already complying with this objective, or do not already have plans to do so in the immediate future,”the study concludes.