Public health, explained: Sign up to receive Healthbeat’s Global Checkup in your inbox a day early.
Hello from Nairobi.
It’s been an interesting week. On Tuesday I joined a panel hosted by the American Foreign Service Association to talk about why taxpayers across Western countries don’t see the benefits of aid, or really see its reduction or absence either. It was a great chat, and on a topic I can’t help but be annoyingly sincere about!
This week we have a few stories that feature philanthropies, which are a small but increasingly important part of global aid, especially as Western government funding continues to shrink.
My name is William Herkewitz, and I’m a journalist based in Nairobi, Kenya. This is the Global Health Checkup, where I highlight five of the week’s most important stories on outbreaks, medicine, science, and survival from around the world.
With that, as we say in Swahili: karibu katika habari — welcome to the news.
9.4 million: the death toll of aid cuts
The science journal The Lancet Global Health just published a rigorous analysis on how last year’s global aid cuts are translating to deaths, reports the (sadly beleaguered) Washington Post.
The topline? Staying the course, we should expect about 9.4 million additional preventable deaths through 2030.
If aid funding drops even further, the researchers say that deaths could easily rise to 22.6 million; roughly equal to the entire death toll from WWI. (To be clear, I’m internalizing this more severe scenario as a warning, rather than an earnest forecast.)
We’ve previously covered models that have pointed in this direction, but this new paper is the most comprehensive yet. It was also partially funded by a philanthropy, the Rockefeller Foundation, which I reached out to. After all, as aid contracts, the funding that hasn’t retreated is more important than ever.
Eric Pelofsky, the foundation’s vice president for global economic recovery, spoke with me about the findings and about how philanthropies like his see their role in this moment.
First off, “the takeaway here is that any sort of assertion that this aid reduction could be done without [a high] cost of human life is just not grounded in the facts,” Pelofsky told me. He also stressed the immediacy of the findings. “If you came away thinking this is a problem that we can deal with in four years, I think the answer is absolutely not. The urgency is too great,” he said. We are, after all, talking about over 9 million human lives.
Where do philanthropies like the Rockefeller Foundation fit in this moment?
First, at the big-picture level, it’s worth remembering that only about 5% of humanitarian and development aid comes from private philanthropy. So, after last year’s cuts, “even if we were all to drop everything and try to fill the holes, we couldn’t do it,” Pelofsky said.
Instead Pelofsky sees their advantage right now elsewhere: in taking risks governments won’t with taxpayer money, backing analysis (like this paper), and working at financial plumbing of global development, rather than just writing checks. This includes “incredibly boring and incredibly important,” work like what his foundation has done to help development banks restructure their balance sheets so they can get more money out the door where it’s needed.
Still, Pelofsky was clear: They’re facing the same hard tradeoffs as everyone else, weighing what needs desperate attention right now against “where our dollar can make the biggest impact.”
Can philanthropy save us?
On this very topic … the world’s biggest philanthropy is likewise signaling that it can not play savior. The Gates Foundation told the AP it will “not change course in the face of massive foreign aid cuts.” (Disclosure: The Gates Foundation funded the launch of Healthbeat).
Instead, the foundation’s CEO Mark Suzman said the foundation will focus at least 70% of its money toward preventing maternal and child deaths and fighting key infectious diseases, while trimming or winding down other lines of work. “Not only will we not be taking on new priorities, we’re actively narrowing our priorities,” he said.
Why? As we discussed with Pelofsky, the scale of aid cuts simply does not allow even the best funded foundation to replace vanished government aid, and this is the Gates Foundation’s acknowledgement of that reality.
Second, Suzman says they are choosing to concentrate where they think the life-and-death returns are clearest. This means winding down less-urgent programs like ones “that aimed to give more people in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia access to digital financial services.”
My takeaway? The Gates Foundation is betting that we will not see a quick rebound in aid generosity. They are planning for a world where the active threat is … 9.4 million additional preventable deaths by 2030.
A resurgence of cholera … vaccines!
A little background here: About four years ago, cholera vaccine production shrank to just one producer in South Korea. With a vanishing supply, this effectively brought pre-emptive global vaccination to a halt. (Countries could use what little was left to react to outbreaks, rather than trying to prevent them.)
The vaccine shortfall helped fuel a resurgence of cholera in Africa, which as we reported in October, became the worst outbreak on the continent in about 25 years.
- Disease breakdown: Cholera is a bacterial infection that infects up to 4 million people each year. Because it largely spreads through water contaminated with feces, it thrives in humanitarian disasters or anywhere else that basic sanitation has broken down. (Think conflict or flooding.) Cholera’s horror is its speed. It causes sudden, violent diarrhea that can empty the body so quickly that stools turn a pale, milky white. Without treatment, cholera can kill in a matter of hours.
But the World Health Organization just announced that the vaccine shortage is ending, France 24 reports. Since 2022, “global supply of oral cholera vaccines [has] doubled”, and now the WHO is doling out 20 million doses to Mozambique, Bangladesh, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to get vaccination campaigns rolling again.
So what happened? The WHO and organizations like the Gates Foundation basically scrambled to help get the lone South Korean producer, EuBiologics, to ramp up supply. This included backing a simplified new vaccine that can be manufactured more quickly at a massive scale.
My takeaway: This shows exactly why the WHO matters. When pharma companies do not see a profitable market, it’s this global body that steps in to push lifesaving vaccines into production.
Taking ‘addictive’ snacks seriously
I’ve read a lot of scientific papers over the 15 years as an on-again, off-again science journalist. Let’s be real, even on fascinating subjects … they’re usually a bit of a slog. So trust me when I say it’s actually worth your time to read this paper on ultraprocessed foods in full, which was covered by The Guardian. It reads like part nonfiction book, part provocative essay.
The paper compares ultraprocessed foods and tobacco products to a somewhat shocking effect. The authors’ walk through how each is deliberately designed (from the dosing of ingredients and the engineering of sensory cues) to tap into reward pathways in the brain. For the foods, this is to deliver fast, reinforcing hits of refined carbs and fats.
For example, they describe how food engineers intentionally design snacks so the taste does not linger, which nudges you to take another bite. One put it bluntly in a TV interview: This is “so that you want more of it,” the engineer said, and when pressed on whether that is about addiction, he replied, “that’s a good word.”
Effectively, these foods and snacks are “engineered to encourage addiction,” just like cigarettes. And the takeaway is clear: If they’re made like cigarettes, perhaps they should be regulated like cigarettes.
I have long been wary of the impulse to ask governments to micromanage personal food choice. I think personal responsibility still matters, and that you should be able to have chips and a Coke without the state wagging its finger at you.
… but if you are like me (skeptical of soda taxes yet convinced that tobacco regulation has saved countless lives) it’s worth hearing the argument on how many of today’s ultraprocessed foods may have crossed a line in the design for addictive consumption.
As the lead author of the study, Ashley Gearhardt, told me over email: “We regulate thousands of tobacco and alcohol products differently based on risk. Most alcoholic beverages are mostly water, yet it’s clearly labeled because once it’s engineered to alter mood and seed cravings, it’s no longer about hydration. Ultra-processed foods operate similarly. They’re not about nourishment so much as craving and mood effects.”
Just enough WHO funding
Let me end on a bit of good news.
The WHO is now reporting that it “has mobilized about 85% of the resources” needed for this and next year’s core budget, thanks in part to countries agreeing to increase their mandatory contributions. That is not nothing!
“Eighty-five percent sounds good – and it is,” said WHO Director- General Tedros Ghebreyesus, with a “deeper crisis averted.” That said, he warns that the remaining 15% will be “hard to mobilize,” which I’m giving you permission to read as “absolutely not going to happen.”
What’s missing in that 15%? At least in part, it’s the WHO’s work on “emergency preparedness, antimicrobial resistance, and climate resilience.”
Still, this is a partial stabilization in a still fragile moment for global health.
I’ll see you next week!
William Herkewitz is a reporter covering global public health for Healthbeat. He is based in Nairobi. Contact William at wherkewitz@healthbeat.org.
