Tag: Bangladesh

Malnutrition & Death Risks Rise in Bangladesh

May 11, 2026           Bangladesh’s leading newspaper, Prothom Alo, reported this week about a concerning decline in child health following decades of improvement, specifically regarding nutrition and measles. Health professionals have long recognized the insidious risks for children who are both malnourished and infected with measles; specifically, measles infection is significantly more fatal in children suffering from malnutrition.

According to reports from Prothom Alo, published from Dhaka, Bangladesh has recorded 19,161 suspected measles cases and 2,973 laboratory-confirmed cases across 58 of its 64 districts, resulting in 166 suspected deaths. Three-quarters of these cases involved children under five years of age. Furthermore, two-thirds of the infected children had received no measles vaccine at all—a major failure in public health coverage.  see:  https://en.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/pr0qimrtyr

Health experts warn that fatalities will likely continue to climb for several more weeks. The Lancet corroborates this trend, noting that the Infectious Diseases Hospital in Dhaka admitted 560 suspected measles cases in the first three months of 2026, compared to just 69 cases in all of 2025.  (The Lancet)

In this reporting, Prothom Alo correctly identifies malnutrition, Vitamin A deficiency, declining breastfeeding rates, and missed deworming as compounding or co-risk factors of disease and death, as supported by medical literature. While Bangladesh’s child health had improved over many decades, and achieved over 92% first-dose measles vaccine coverage by the mid-2010s, the program has become weak, irregular, and delayed in recent years. For instance, the measles vaccination drive scheduled for June 2024 was delayed by the deadly public protests that toppled then-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

In the long run, chronic malnutrition—measured by stunting (low height-for-age)—has improved, falling from roughly 50% in 2000 to around 24% by 2022, representing a major achievement. Wasting (low weight-for-height) similarly declined from 17% to roughly 9.8% by 2019.

However, recent data show a concerning reversal. The Bangladesh Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) 2025 found that wasting among children under five has climbed to 12.5%, up from 9.8%, indicating a steep rise in acute malnutrition. Nutritional health is heavily dependent on surveillance, growth monitoring, and optimal feeding practices, such as exclusive breastfeeding for infants up to six months of age.  Worryingly, exclusive breastfeeding, a critical health practice, has declined by 12% in recent years.

Note:  since this article was published, the Government of Bangladesh has announced a new nation-wide drive to immunize against measles.

Action Against Hunger 10 Global Hunger Hot Spots

May 6, 2026    This year, as in the past, the international aid agency “Action Against Hunger” (also known as ACF, or Action Contre la Faim) released their annual hunger report, titled “10 Global Hunger Hot Spots.”  This year the report describes a compound crisis model as causing hunger.  The compound crises are: conflict, displacement, climate shocks, inflation, market collapse, disease, and weak public institutions all stack on top of each other. Its real message is that famine is rarely just about food.  Rather, hunger is usually the endpoint of different social and economic crises.

Action Against Hunger estimates that 30 million children are acutely malnourished today, including about 8.5 million severely malnourished children, and at least 13 million pregnant or breastfeeding women are malnourished. That makes this as much a maternal-and-child survival crisis as a food-security crisis.

The report also makes an unusually strong argument that humanitarian access and humanitarian financing are now central determinants of mortality.

The report seeks to quantify the impact of global reducations in aid during the last year in various ways.  It highlights the 65% funding shortfall for hunger-related humanitarian programming and notes that the United States announced an 83% cut to humanitarian support, alongside cuts by several European donors. it explains the cascading effects of these cut-backs (e.g., 300+ nutrition centers closed in Afghanistan).  It cites the  Lancet-linked estimate that USAID-funded programs saved over 90 million lives over 20 years, warning that sustaining cuts through 2030 could lead to 14 million preventable deaths, including 4.5 million children under five. That is one of the report’s most consequential arguments.

It recommends:

  1.  Ensure full and safe humanitarian access of aid to needy people, and prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war;
  2.  Integrate climate and food security: 3. Focus on women and children.
  3.  Donor funds should be addequate, flexible and multi-sectoral
  4.  Support local and inclusive solutions
  5.  Strengthen prevention: Every strategy should include nutrition, food security, and access to basic health services, aiming to prevent hunger rather than just manage it.
  6.  Uphold adequate nutrition as a fundamental human right,
    ensuring that the right to food is respected and protecte

According to ACF, the top ten countries today in terms of total numbers of  people in acute food insecurity (at risk of hunger) are:

    • → Nigeria: 31.8 million:  “The nutritional crises are exacerbated by prolonged conflicts in the northeast of the country (Boko Haram and ISWAP), which make large areas virtually inaccessible to relief and food supplies, creating a vicious cycle of food insecurity and malnutrition.”
    • →  Sudan: 25.6 million:  “Sudan is facing the world’s most severe food and displacement crisis, but the scale of the suffering remains underestimated and underfunded.”
    • → The DRC: 25.6 million:  “This is not just a matter of a lack of funds: it is a matter of life and death.”
    • → Bangladesh: 23.6 million:  “Bangladesh faces recurring extreme weather events, demographic pressures, economic instability, and vulnerability of urban and rural infrastructure.”
    • → Ethiopia: 22 million
    • → Yemen: 16.7 million
    • → Afghanistan: 15.8 million
    • → Myanmar: 14.4 million
    • → Pakistan: 11.8 million
    • → Syria: 9.2 million

The report includes the map at right showing the countries where ACF, seen here.:

To assist journalists and researchers, the report has chapters by country. The country-specific “Inside Look” sections (written by Action Against Hunger directors) provide expert analysis on barriers like bureaucratic delays (Sudan), siege conditions (Gaza), or climate adaptation (Bangladesh).

For example:  “South Sudan continues to experience levels of malnutrition that reach emergency thresholds, with a steady downward trend each year. Local communities face multiple and interconnected crises, including the collapse of basic services, recurrent displacement due to conflict and flooding, and widespread food insecurity caused by climate shocks and economic
instability. In this context, the difficulties for humanitarian organizations are
multiplying…”

These chapters combine direct stories from affected communities (e.g., Zuwaira in Nigeria, Yasir in Sudan, Fatima in Afghanistan) and operational insights from Action Against Hunger’s country directors. These add emotional depth and ground-level reality to the statistics.

At the same time, the chapters include technical indicators such as population estimates, HDI rank, internally displaced persons, refugees, people in need, Humanitarian Response Plan funding requirements, HRP funding gaps, health-facility functionality, WASH access, cholera cases, food-price inflation, currency depreciation, hectares/crop losses from floods, and ACF operational outputs such as children treated for severe malnutrition, water points rehabilitated, cash assistance, and psychosocial support beneficiaries.

ACF (Action Against Hunger) has published many important publications for many years, such as “the Justice of Eating” shown here.  “The Justice of Eating – the Struggle For Food and Dignity in Recent Humanitarian Crises” was a 2007-08 Hunger Watch Report by Action Against Hunger.  It positioned the right to food as an essential human right and a matter of justice, not charity, arguing that failing to address hunger is a violation of human dignity.  The report, edited by Samuel Hauenstein Swan and Bapu Vaitla, documents the struggles for food access during humanitarian crises and emphasizes that fighting hunger is about upholding human dignity.

see:  https://www.actionagainsthunger.org/app/uploads/2026/01/2025_GlobalEmergencies_Map_v3-compressed.pdf

and:  https://www.actioncontrelafaim.org/

https://accioncontraelhambre.org/en

American Tariffs Hurt Poorest Nations

Recent tariffs imposed by the U.S. President in 2025 have been much in the news.  What has been less reported is how tarrifs more severely affect the poorest nations, with some countries facing tariffs 40% or higher.  These high tariffs will cripple some poorer nations’ export industries and lead to significant economic and human harm.  New American tariffs on poorer nations are 2 – 5 times higher than those placed on wealthier countries, potentially reversing decades of poverty reduction through trade.

Countries such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, South Africa, and Iraq now confront tariffs of 20% or more.  Poorer nations such as Laos are subjected to tariffs as high as 40%.  Burma which is recovering from a devastating earthquake, was hit with a 45% duty.  These countries have economies that are heavily reliant on a few key export sectors, such as textiles, garments, or agricultural products. A high tariff on these goods can have a devastating effect on their entire economy, leading to job losses and a decline in national income.

U.S. tariff rates now on Cambodia are 49%, on Angola 32%, on Mozambique 47%, on Syria 41%, on India 50%.   The tariff on Bosnia is 30% and Moldova 25%.  This represents a regressive policy shift that will un-develop countries, worsten debt crises and lead to higher unemployment.

The U.S. President has demanded in recent months that trading partners invest in the U.S., but few developing countries have anything near the finance to match the hundreds of billions of dollars that Japan, South Korea and the EU have pledged to sink into the American economy.

Wealthier nations generally have more diversified economies and greater resources to negotiate with the U.S. or to find new markets for their goods. In some cases, they have been able to reach agreements that result in lower tariff rates than initially threatened.  As seen in the chart at right, U.S. tariffs are lower for wealthier countries and higher for lower-income populations.

UNCTAD estimates that developing countries could see export losses of up to 15-20% to the U.S., worsening poverty and growth prospects. Wealthier nations, with diversified economies and stronger bargaining power, have secured exemptions or lower rates through “mini-deals,” mitigating impacts. For instance, the EU’s rate is 15% for most goods, reflecting pre-existing low mutual tariffs (around 1.4% average before 2025).

By: WHES Board