FOR years, anti-poverty campaigners railed against low commodity prices, which depressed farmers' incomes in developing countries. In recent months, the world price of virtually all staples has shot up, but the activists are still not cheering. They worry that this boom (intensified by “green” subsidies for biofuel crops) may worsen poverty even more than low agricultural prices did.
High food prices do help poor farmers, but they also hurt the more numerous category of people (poor city-dwellers as well as landless rural folk) who must buy food to survive. That “unintended consequence”—in the words of Gawain Kripke of Oxfam International, a British charity—has caused serious problems for the organisations that bring food aid to the poorest. The World Food Programme (WFP), a UN agency, has just issued an urgent appeal for $500m, to cover higher food costs. America's Agency for International Development (USAID), a huge financer of food aid, is asking for $350m.
The short-term outlook seems grim, both for the poor and the agencies that supposedly help them. Even before the current price boom started two years ago, food aid was running at historically low levels, perhaps half the real-terms total of two decades earlier. And the WFP says hunger is on the rise in the countries it watches. It classifies as “hotspots” the places—most of central Africa, plus Afghanistan—where more than a third of the people do not get as much food as is needed. A second tier, where between a fifth and a third lack adequate food, includes much of West Africa, the Indian sub-continent and Bolivia. David Kauck of CARE, an American charity, says that pockets of real hunger also exist in many rich countries.
Dismal as all this sounds, there are some grounds for hope. Today's woes may lead to fundamental changes for the better in the world's approach to hunger and food shortages. And not before time, in the view of experts who see something crazy about the way many food-aid efforts are now conceived and executed.
One mistake, arguably, is the very idea of defining the main problem as massive hunger, and hence the solution as providing food by any means necessary. “There is simply no shortage of food,” insists Rachel Nugent of America's Centre for Global Development. Of course, there are places—like North Korea or Darfur—where political (and in some cases ecological) factors cause an intense local shortage of food. In those cases, insists Josette Sheeran, head of the WFP, food aid is the only option. She also fears that the world is getting less resilient in its ability to respond to a growing number of food emergencies.
But leaving aside those extraordinary events, most pundits, including Ms Sheeran, agree that the world now has plenty of food: last year saw a record cereal harvest. And the investments spurred by today's high prices promise even more food in future. Even if one allows for rising demand from Asia's middle classes, the real challenge is not the volume of food available; it is the problem of food being in the wrong place and at a price the poorest cannot afford. Michael Hess of USAID adds that famines are made inevitable by poor governance, not natural disasters. After all, “America has droughts, but not famine.”
Moreover, hunger as such is the wrong target, says Meera Shekar of the World Bank. Hunger is transient and hard to measure, but malnutrition, she notes, is a pernicious killer (with lack of food as only one contributing variable). She points out that South Asia, which has plentiful food, suffers from twice the level of malnutrition as crisis-prone sub-Saharan Africa.
The snag is that tackling malnutrition is harder than sending bags of grain. It means fixing health systems, improving the delivery of nutrients in the food chain, educating people about hygiene and other unpopular and unprofitable jobs. Small wonder, then, that this burdensome task has fewer political cheerleaders.
Oxfam's Mr Kripke holds out hope that today's price shock may yet “help fix a broken system”. The United States, in particular, monetises food aid in a bizarre way. Tax dollars are used to buy food in America, which is then sold by charities in poor-country markets to fund development. Christopher Barrett, an economist at Cornell University, calls this “a clever way to turn a dollar of taxpayer money into 50 cents for a non-governmental organisation to spend.” The requirement that most food aid must be sent on American ships raises costs, and benefits just a few shippers.
Change may be coming. Over the objections of some tough lobbies, George Bush has proposed fixing some of the distorting aspects of America's food policies. The president has called for more emphasis on procuring produce from local farmers in poor countries. And in a bold gesture, CARE has said it will no longer accept any American government donations using the monetisation approach.
Most encouraging are some proposed changes at the WFP. Ms Sheeran hopes to persuade her board at a meeting in June to shift her agency's focus away from emergency food aid and towards a wider remit. She wants to expand its role in surveillance, stockpiling and risk-insurance. She also speaks of targeting subsidies or vouchers “in ways that complement markets rather than distort them”, as current subsidies often do. If this sort of clarity prevails, it would be a silver lining on the dark cloud that now looms over the poor.
The experts, led by a London-based academic, say governments should adopt more sophisticated approaches.
Work conditions, food subsidies, town planning and advert restrictions are all key, the experts wrote in the British Medical Journal.
The UK's Association of Directors of Public Health said change was happening but further improvements were needed.
Latest statistics show that a quarter of adults are obese in the UK, but the percentage is predicted to rise to over 50% if current trends continue.
 |
|
The findings mirror the conclusions of the recent government-backed Foresight report in the UK, which said societal issues were also to blame for rising obesity levels.
These experts, led by a University College London academic, agreed, saying tackling obesity was far more complex than just encouraging healthy eating and more exercise.
They said large supermarket chains had displaced small, family-run stores and encouraged bulk purchases, convenience foods and super-sized portions.
They also criticised the impact of food advertising which they said encouraged children in particular to desire foods "high in saturated fats, sugars and salt".
And they said urban planning and design could play a key role in encouraging people to walk around towns rather than rely on cars.
These factors were particularly important for people from deprived areas as they were often more constrained by such barriers, they said.
'Dynamic'
The authors pointed to the example set by Norway, which has used a combination of food subsidies, price manipulation and clear nutrition labelling to steer people away from unhealthy food.
UCL expert Sharon Friel said a "dynamic" response was needed that included joined-up action at global, national and local levels.
"Missing in most obesity prevention strategies is the recognition that obesity - and its unequal distribution - is the consequence of a complex system that is shaped by how society organises its affairs."
Dr Tim Crayford, president of the Association of Directors of Public Health, said it was well-known that obesity was caused by multi-factoral problems.
"There has been a lack of co-ordination over this and the response has therefore been slow."
And he added: "There are signs that is now changing, but we are battling against the desire in western societies for more affluence which means more cars and richer food."
Former Senator George Mitchell, who led the investigation, said several All-Stars were suspected of using steroids and human growth hormones.
He also called for MLB to outsource drug-testing and form an investigative arm to pursue allegations of drug use.
In response, MLB head Bud Selig said he embraced all the recommendations made.
Speaking at a news conference, he said that baseball fans "deserve a game that is played on a level playing field, where all who compete do so fairly".
Among those named in the report is Barry Bonds, who was charged last week with lying to a jury about steroid use.
Prosecutors allege that the San Francisco Giants outfielder, who became the sport's record home-run hitter in September, lied under oath when he said in 2003 that he had never knowingly used performance-enhancing substances.
Mr Bonds denied accusations on Friday that he had used a previously untraceable steroid from a San Francisco-based company called Balco.
Batboy allegations
The inquiry was instigated by Mr Selig, the MLB Commissioner, in March 2006, following the publication of a book that alleged the use of performance-enhancing substances by Mr Bonds.
|
"For more than a decade there has been widespread illegal use of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing substances by players in Major League Baseball in violation of federal law and baseball policy," Mr Mitchell said at a news conference.
"The response by baseball was slow to develop and was initially ineffective, but it gained momentum after the adoption of a mandatory random drug-testing culture in 2002."
|
|
Those linked to suspected drugs use in the report include some of the sport's biggest stars: Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield, Eric Gagne, Miguel Tejada, David Justice, Chuck Knoblauch and Andy Pettitte.
All the players were invited to respond to the allegations in the report. Whether they will face disciplinary action is unclear, especially as many no longer play in Major League teams.
Any penalties for active players are unlikely to be as severe as the 50-game suspensions given to those who have recently tested positive for steroids.
Mr Mitchell, a former Senate Majority Leader, urged baseball's authorities to look to the future rather than penalising players for past offences, many of which occurred when different policies were in place.
He also called on the public and media not to focus solely on who was named in the report - and for baseball to be allowed "a fresh start".
Internet pharmacies
Several media reports have said that had it not been for a former New York Mets bat boy, Mr Mitchell's report would have been far less revealing, as the players and their union were uncooperative and his inquiry did not have the power of subpoena.
|
|
Kirk Radomski, who pleaded guilty to distributing steroids in April, testified that he provided banned steroids, human growth hormones and stimulants to dozens of players by mail order between 1995 and 2005.
Although none of the allegations are based on positive drug tests, the report cited cancelled cheques, shipping slips and phone records as evidence of the players' involvement.
Mr Mitchell also met district attorneys in Albany, New York, who have been leading an investigation into claims of drugs distributed illegally by internet pharmacies.
|
Media reports about doping in baseball began in the late 1980s, but the sport did not start testing and punishing players until more than a decade later.
MLB and its players agreed in September 2002 to test for steroids, although penalties were not introduced for positive tests until 2004.
A ban on human growth hormones was agreed in 2005, although there is no reliable test to detect the substances.
Drug-testing criticised
The report also criticised MLB officials and the players' union, and called for major changes in the league's drug-testing programme:
- Appointing an independent administrator or hiring an outside agency to run the sport's drug-testing programme. It is currently run by the MLB in conjunction with the players' union
- Ensuring "state-of-the-art" testing, including introducing additional year-round tests
- Allowing the testing administrator to actively investigate "non-analytical positives" - information which shows a player broke rules in the absence of a positive drug test
- Improving player education about performance-enhancing drugs
Mr Mitchell said one of the most serious consequences was that "hundreds of thousands" of high school-aged athletes had also been encouraged to use banned substances.
Some observers questioned in advance whether Mr Mitchell might suffer a conflict of interest, saying they were troubled by his friendship with Mr Selig and his close affiliation with the Boston Red Sox, of which he is a director.
Mr Mitchell also used to be chairman of the Walt Disney Company, which owns ESPN, the US TV sports network that has paid $2.4bn to televise MLB games until 2013.
The new evidence suggests that decades-old "quit for your baby" messages are too simplistic an approach for many women — and that perhaps prenatal checkups should include screening pregnant smokers for mental health disorders that require care.
"These ladies all know, I promise you, about the health risks. That's not what it is," says Dr. Jan Blalock of the University of Texas M.D Anderson Cancer Center, which has begun a first-of-a-kind study, Project Baby Steps, to test whether non-drug depression therapy helps pregnant smokers quit.
"We should at least understand more about why these ladies don't quit. We should be looking more carefully instead of just saying, 'Whoop, got this group of hard-core smokers.'"
Certainly learning how dangerous smoking is to their developing baby can urge women to try to quit. It increases the risk of miscarriage, premature birth, low birthweight, death from SIDS, and learning and behavior disorders.
Dr. Renee Goodwin, a Columbia University epidemiologist, tracked more than 1,500 pregnant women who took part in a larger study of Americans' health. A surprising 22 percent smoked at some point during pregnancy, and about 12 percent were classified as nicotine-dependent.
Pregnant smokers were typically poor, less educated and had less access to health care.
But strikingly, 30 percent of the smokers had a mental health disorder, as did more than half who were nicotine-addicted — and the vast majority suffered depression. The smokers were about three times as likely to have a disorder as pregnant nonsmokers, Goodwin recently reported in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Nicotine and other chemicals in cigarette smoke can act in the brain like weak antidepressants, says Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
"They are not just smoking to get the habit-forming aspects," Volkow explains. "On top of that, they are seeking the therapeutic effect. It comes at a very, very high cost."
Researchers at Brown University in East Providence, Rhode Island, explain that on weekends, teens wake up at a time that is later than their internal body clock expects. The fact that their clock must get used to a new routine may affect their ability to be awake early for school at the beginning of the week when they revert back to their old routine.
The findings were published recently on Eurek Alert, the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
The study, conducted by Stephanie J. Crowley of Brown University, was based on the fact that high school students' sleep is typically restricted during the school week and is compensated by late and long sleep on weekends.
The study examined circadian phase, sleep quality and morning vigilance before and after simulating this weekend sleep pattern.
"When teenagers stay up late and sleep in over the weekend, this behavior resets their daily clock to a later time," said Crowley. "This resetting can push back the brain's cue to be awake on Monday morning for school."
"As a result, teens may feel worse and have poor performance in school at the beginning of the week. Essentially, teenagers may be giving themselves jetlag over the weekend even without getting on a plane," Crowley said.
The best way for teenagers to prevent late and long sleep on weekends is to ensure that they are getting the required amount of sleep each night. Experts recommend that teenagers get about nine or more hours of sleep each night to achieve good health and optimum performance.
Researchers offer several recommendations for teenagers to have a good-night sleep and to keep healthy, including the following:
-- Get a full night's sleep on a regular basis. Do not stay up all hours of the night to "cram" for an exam. If extracurricular activities at school are proving to be too time-consuming, consider cutting back;
-- If you are not asleep after 20 minutes, then get out of bed and do something relaxing, such as reading a book or listening to music, until you are tired enough to go back to bed;
-- Get up at the same time every morning and Avoid taking naps after school if you can.
-- Don't read, write, eat, watch TV, talk on the phone or play cards in bed;
-- Avoid any rigorous exercise within six hours of your bedtime;
-- Those who think they might have a sleep disorder are encouraged to consult with their primary care physician, who will refer them to a sleep specialist.