Newspaper Page Text
I
November 30, 1984/The Maroon Tiger/Page 8B
A Measurement For The End Of Hunger
Infant Mortality Rate
When a country reaches the
level of 50 or below in Infant
Mortality Rate, then hunger as a
basic society-wide issue has
ended. Following are twelve
questions and answers that ex
amine how the Infant Mortality
Rate indicates the progress we
are making on ending hunger.
Q: In how many countries has
hunger ended as a basic issue?
A: 53 countries with a popula
tion ofonemillionormore; 35ot
them since World War II.
Q: How do you know that?
What is the measurement that
allows for such a statement?
A: The single best measure
ment for determining when
hunger has ended as a basic issue
in the lives of the people of a
country is the Infant Mortality
Rate.
Q: What’s that?
A: The Infant Mortality Rate
(MR) indicates the number of
deaths among infants under one
year of age per 1,000 live births in
a country during a given year. An
Infant Mortality Rate of 100
means that one out of every ten
babies born that year died
before reach the age of one.
Q: That sounds like a lot of
boring statistics. What does that
mean in human terms?
A: According to Worldwatch
Institute, a Washington, D.C.-
based research organization,
“No cold statistic expresses more
eloquently the difference
between a society of sufficiency
and a society of depreivation
than the Infant Mortality Rate.
The number of children who die
before they are one year old is
closely related to the overall
level of well-being in a country
or region — so closely, in fact,
that it is regarded as one of the
most revealing measures of how
well a society is doing in meeting
the needs of its people.”
Q: But what does Infant Mor
tality Rate have to do with the
persistence of hunger?
A: A lot. While there is not a
one-to-one correspondence
between the level of infant
mortality and the extent of
hunger, there is very close cor
relation.
Q: How do you know? Aren't
most of the deaths of babies in
India or Africa or Bangladesh
due to diseases like measles and
diarrhea?
A: The death certificate, if one
is ever issued, may read
“measles,” but the real cause is
hunger. Undernutrition is what
causes disease such as measles,
pneumonia and diarrhea to be
fatal to infants and children. The
fatality rate for measles, for
example, can be 400 to 500 times
higher for malnourished
children than for those who are
well fed.
Q: Have there been studies
done about this?
A: Yes. The most comprehen
sive study to date of infant
mortality in the western
hemisphere, conducted by the
Pan American Health Organiza
tion, examined data on 35,000
infant deaths in 15 regions of
North and South America. It
concluded that three out of five
infant deaths from infectious
diseases were actually caused by
malnutrition.
The U.S.Agency for Inter
national Development (AID)
estimates that, in Bangladesh,
undernutrition “is a contributing
factor in almost all cases of
childhood morbidity and mor
tality.”
Q: Overall, where are Infant
Mortality Rates the highest?
A: Some nations have Infant
Mortality Rates in excess of 200.
On the continent of Africa, only
Kenya and Zimbabwe have In
fant Mortality Rates significantly
under 100. With a few excep
tions, the countries of the Indian
Subcontinent and Southeast Asia
are also above 100. By contrast,
all nations of North America,
Western and Eastern Europe
have Infant Mortality Rates
below 40.
Q: If IMR measures the extent
of hunger in a population, can it
also indicate the point at which
hunger has ended?
A: Yes, When a country
reaches the level of 50 or below
in Infant Mortality Rate, then
hunger as a basic society-wide
issue has ended. Numerous
international agencies concur
that this level of IMR cannot be
achieved by a country unless
adequate nutrition and other
basic needs of its people are
being met. This standard has
been agreed to by organizations
including the World Health
Organization, UNICEF, the
Overseas Development Council
and the Second U.N. Develop
ment Decade.
Reaching a level of 50 is an
indication that a country has
achieved self-sufficiency in its
ability to produce or buy food
and has established a degree of
fairness in its distribution. No
country that has succeeded in
getting its Infant Mortality Rate
below 50 has ever gone back up
above 50.
Q: When a country reaches
the level of 50 Infant Mortality
Rate, does that mean that no one
is ever hungry in that society?
A: Not necessarily. In the
United States, for example, the
IMR is 12. Yet we all know that
there are hungry people in the
United States. However, as a
basic society-wide issue affecting
the lives of the vast majority of
the people of the country,
hunger has ended. The
difference between a country
with an Infant Mortality Rate of
150 and a country with an IMR of
20 is the difference between
hunger being a day-in day-out
reality for virtually everyone and
hunger being confined to
“pockets” of individuals. As one
authority has written, lowering a
soceity’s IMR to 50 or below is a
"major humanitarian ac
complishment.”
This isn’t to say that hunger can
be ignored in countries where
the Infant Mortality Rate is low,
just that the problem is or a
different dimension. The end of
world hunger requires the end
of hunger everywhere — in
Nairobi and Newark, Delhi and
Detroit.
Q: Granted that individual
countries can lower their Infant
Mortality Rate, can it be done
worldwide? More to the point, if
the goal is to end world hunger
by the end of the century, can
that be done?
planet. In China, for instance,
the Infant Mortality Rate has
declined just over the past few
years from 56 to 45. What does
this mean in human terms?
Precisely this: This year in China,
200,000 fewer babies will die.
It is the Infant Mortality Rate
— not the stock market average,
not the number of ther
monuclear weapons we possess,
not the wealth we amass — that is
the true indicator of how well
our planet, out home, is doing.
A: Yes. The same experts who
Countries
in which the
have identified an Infant Mor-
Infant Mortality Rate in-
tality Rate of 50 as the break
dicates that hunger has
point in ending hunger concur
that, by using existing resources
ended as a basic issue:
and techniques, the Infant Mor-
Albania
tality Rate of every country in the
Argentina
Mauritius
world — no matter what it is
Australia
Netherlands
currently — can break through
Austria
New Zealand
the level of 50 by the end of the
Belgium
Norway
century. A recent UNICEF report
Bulgaria
Panama
states, for example:
Canada
Paraguay
“By the year 2000 the number
Chile
Poland
of infant deaths in low-income
China
Portugal
countries could be reduced to 50
Costa Rica
Puerto Rico
per 1,000 or less... (This) goal is
Cuba
Romania
realistic in the sense that the
Czechoslovakia Singapore
principle obstacle standing in
Denmark
North Korea
the way of (its) realization is the
East Germany
South Korea
absence of the will and commit-
Finland
Spain
ment to achieve (it.”
France
Sri Lanka
Q: Anything else?
Greece
Sweden
A; just this: We now have a
Hong Kong
Switzerland
way to measure our progress
Flungary
Taiwan
towards ending hunger — the
Ireland
T rin idad/Tobago
lives of our children. Twenty-
Israel
USSR
one children die from hunger
Italy
United Kingdom
every minute of every day, day
Jamaica
United States
after day after day. As infant
Japan
Uruguay
mortality levels fall, what we are
Kuwait
Venezuela
witnessing is an absolute reduc-
Lebanon
West Germany
tion in the degree of human
Malaysia
Yugoslavia
misery and suffering on this
Source: Hunger Project
The Maroon Tiger
Morehouse College
Student Government Association Bldg.
Atlanta, GA 30314