Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Categories
UFS News Media Release Research
Years
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Months
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Previous Archive
18 June 2020 | Story Dr Chantell Witten | Photo Supplied
Dr Chantell Witten.
On 26 March 2020, the President declared a national lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic as it started to emerge in South Africa. Since then and several weeks into the lockdown, Statistics South Africa (2020) has provided evidence which many intuitively knew would be more devastating to households than the coronavirus itself – loss of income and the negative effects that follow hunger. Stats SA reported that the percentage of respondents receiving no income increased from 5,2% before the lockdown to 15,4% by the sixth week of the national lockdown. Given that the majority of South Africans depend on the informal labour market, such as informal traders and casual workers, this lack of income would hit millions of households. Furthermore, Stats SA also reported a decrease in formal wage/salary earners for the same period, from 76,6% before the national lockdown to 66,7% by the sixth week of national lockdown.

While South Africa is food secure at national level, millions of households are food insecure. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) 1996 definition of food security, this simply means that there is not enough food at all times for all the people in a household to have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.  In short, people are hungry and at greater risk for ill health – physically, emotionally, and spiritually.  A hungry man is an angry man. Likewise, a hungry nation is an angry nation.

In July 2019, the measurement of extreme poverty – the food poverty line (FPL) – was raised to R561 (using April 2019 prices) per person per month, which was up from R547 last year. This is the amount of money that Stats SA calculates an individual requires “to afford the minimum required daily energy intake” of 2 100 calories per day. Before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, South Africa already had a precarious food and nutrition situation, especially for young children. South Africa’s child stunting levels – an indication of chronic and long-term food insecurity – increased from 21% in 2008 to 27% in 2016.  With COVID-19 and the subsequent lockdown, child malnutrition rates are expected to increase. Stunting not only affects a child’s health, making them more susceptible to disease and infection, but also impairs their mental and physical development – meaning that children who suffer from stunting are less likely to achieve their full height and cognitive potentials as adults.  

What can we do to address this food situation or prevent it from worsening?
The 2020 Global Nutrition Report recognises and asserts that inequality and globalisation are major drivers of food insecurity. As individuals and as collectives, we need to continue to advocate for and support calls to continue raising the child support grant to help households stay above the poverty line.  Millions of households in South Africa are supported by social grants; in solidarity, we need to appreciate the safety net that these social grants provide to vulnerable households. Advocate for and support initiatives to safeguard child health and nutrition, including efforts to promote, protect, and support breastfeeding in neonatal care, postnatal care, and ongoing support to breastfeeding mothers.  Breastfeeding remains the most cost-effective health intervention for infants and young children, supporting optimal growth and development and providing long-term health benefits into adulthood. Advocate for and support initiatives to coordinate sustainable food support to vulnerable households, including, among others, food distribution, food vouchers, onsite feeding, home gardening, and tax-free food baskets.  These efforts would be our collective solidarity to support and protect vulnerable households as we enter the global economic recession as a result of COVID-19.

How can we protect our households’ food and nutrition security? 
COVID-19 brings with it much uncertainty and many unintended negative effects.  While we seek out strategies to support mental well-being and emotional resilience, we also need to remain physically healthy.  Good nutrition is fundamental to good health and well-being. South Africa has a set of ten healthy eating guidelines that promote the principles of eating more unprocessed foods, eating more vegetables and fruit, reducing the use of fats and oils and reducing the intake of sugar and salt.  Good nutrition starts with good food and sometimes good food can cost more, so it is important to use your food budget wisely.  The food budget includes food eaten at home, as well as funds spent on food eaten outside of the home, eating take-outs, foods bought online, and food eaten away from home.  Planning your meals in advance and sticking to a food plan will limit opportunities to spend money on items that are not on the plan; planning ahead also means you can take advantage of good prices, especially as food prices are on the increase and will continue to increase. Bulking up when prices are low and on special, making use of combo buying, e.g. buy three and pay for two, and buying directly from food producers such as co-ops, all help to save money in the long run.  Meat, fish, and especially seafood are the most expensive food items; rather use eggs, chicken, and less expense meat cuts for your meals.  Legumes such as dried beans, peas, and soya are less expensive with great nutritional value.  Explore these less-known group of foods with many great health benefits, such as no fat, more fibre, and lots of vitamins and minerals.

In an effort to eat more fresh vegetables and fruit, starting a home garden is a great family challenge and a definite way of keeping food costs low. And as we navigate the new normal post-COVID times ahead, let us keep mealtimes and meal preparation a fun family activity. Discovering new foods and new tastes can be as exciting as travelling to a new place.  Stay safe, stay healthy! 

Opinion article by Dr Chantell Witten, Division of Health Professions Education, University of the Free State.


News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept