Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Child malnutrition – human rights violation and slow violence against children

14 April 2021 | Story Dr Chantell Witten | Photo Supplied

A decade ago, Rob Nixon, a professor in the humanities and environment studies at Princeton University in the US, introduced the concept of slow violence in the context of climate change and environmentalism, explaining slow violence as violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of delayed destruction that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is typically not viewed as violence, at all. While profound, Professor Nixon’s concept of ”out-of-sight violence” and ”violence of delayed destruction” was challenged by Professor Thom Davies from the University of Nottingham in the UK who urged scholars to instead ask the question: ”out of sight to whom?” He argued that structural inequality mutated into noxious instances of immediate slow but pervasive violence by those who have endured toxic landscapes and unhealthy physical environments.

Reflecting on the impact of COVID-19 in the context of persistent hunger in South Africa’s cities, Dr Gareth Haysom from the University of Cape Town, challenged us as society to recognise the ”slow violence“ of hunger and food insecurity that are also often “experienced in private, incremental and accretive ways that are often invisible”. But as urged by Professor Davies, the question of child hunger and malnutrition in South Africa is really, to whom is this hunger and malnutrition invisible?

Malnutrition and its debilitating consequences have been studied and known about as far back as the 1950s. In 1976, Stoch and Smyth from the then Child Psychiatric Unit and Department of Paediatrics and Child Health at the University of Cape Town reported on a 15-year developmental study conducted from 1955 to 1970 on the effects of severe undernutrition during infancy on subsequent physical growth and intellectual functioning on coloured children from the Cape Flats concluded that the effects of severe undernutrition during infancy on subsequent brain growth and intellectual development confirmed gross retardation of intellect in the undernourished group when compared to the controls. Furthermore, the study concluded that given the abnormal performance of the control group that there was much evidence to suggest that the controls were also suboptimal in terms of nutritional status and intellectual functioning. This means that in general the nutritional status of coloured children on the Cape Flats was poor. Fast forward to 2021, and child nutrition in South Africa is still sub-optimal.

South Africa’s nutrition indicators have worsened

The most recent data from 2016 National Demographic Health Survey showed that 27% of children under the age of five years are stunted or too short for their age. This equates to more than 1.5 million children whose health and development is compromised and who have a lower chance of reaching their full potential even into their adult years. While many countries of the same economic development status have improved their nutrition indicators, South Africa’s nutrition indicators have worsened. South Africa has been identified as one of the countries with high levels of multiple forms of malnutrition manifested in high levels of stunting, childhood obesity and multiple micronutrient deficiencies, the most notable being vitamin A deficiency. These multiple forms of malnutrition cast a long shadow of ill-health and delayed development. of children, robbing them of quality of life and years of life in their childhood and their adult years. Malnutrition has a double cost on quality of life and additional health costs consuming resources that could have been spent on better food.

The right to have access to sufficient food is embedded in Section 26 and 27 of our Constitution and the right to adequate nutrition for children is stipulated in section 28. The Bill of Rights enshrined in the Constitution states that “every citizen has a right to have access to sufficient food, water and social security” and that “the State must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right”. Before the onslaught of COVID-19, we as health and social care professionals, have been acutely aware that a significant number of South Africans do not have access to sufficient food and go hungry on a daily basis. Malnutrition is well-documented in South Africa and unfortunately is progressively getting worse.

SA has not prioritised children or the realisation of their human rights to food and nutrition

Better nutrition can only be achieved when food and care are available to young children but in the context of rising food prices, limited maternal support and a difficult psychosocial environment, mothers are not able to provide their children with a health-enabling environment. Our high levels of stunting and obesity levels reflect the chronic situation of poor-quality and inadequate diets coupled with poor caring practices. While these poor dietary practices are often individualised and focused on mothers, there are many systemic and structural barriers for families to access affordable and nutritious diets. The food environment is shaped by a profit-centred food system that comes at the cost of people’s health and well-being. Children have always being the prime focus of the food industry, from the promotion of maternal supplements to improved maternal nutrition for the developing foetus, to the promotion of infant formula as a convenient and easy-to-use alternative to breastfeeding, to the manipulative marketing of foods for and to children.

Child nutrition has become a global tracking indicator for both human and economic development. Sadly, our lack of progress over the past 20 years clearly illustrates that we, as a country, have not prioritised children or the realisation of their human rights to food and nutrition. The findings of the 2020 Child Gauge gives us, as a country, the opportunity to stop the violations of children’s rights and to end the slow violence of child malnutrition.

News Archive

Position statement: Recent reporting in newspapers

2014-10-03

Statement by the Institutional Forum of the University of the Free State

You may have read reports in two Afrikaans newspapers, regarding recent events at the University of the Free State (UFS). Sadly, those reports are inaccurate, one-sided, exaggerated and based not on facts, but on rumour, gossip and unusually personal attacks on members of the university management.

Anyone who spends 10 minutes on our Bloemfontein Campus would wonder what the so-called ‘crisis’ is about.

We are left with no choice other than to consider legal action, as well as the intervention of the South African Press Ombudsman, among other steps, to protect the good name of the institution and the reputation of its staff. No journalist has the right to launch personal and damaging attacks on a university and its personnel, whatever his or her motives, without being fair and factual. In this respect, the newspapers have a case to answer.

But here are the facts in relation to the reports:

No staff member, whether junior or senior, is ever suspended without hard evidence in hand. Such actions are rare, and when done, are preceded by careful reviews of our Human Resource Policies, labour legislation and both internal and external legal advice. Then, and only then, is a suspension affected. A suspension, moreover, does not mean you are guilty and is a precautionary action to allow for the disciplinary investigation and process to be conducted, especially where there is a serious case to answer.
At no stage was the Registrar instructed to leave the university; this is patently false and yet reported as fact. We specifically responded to the media that the Registrar does outstanding work for the university and that it is our intention for him to remain as our Registrar through the end of his contract in 2016.
The Rector does not make decisions by himself. Senior persons, from the position of Dean, upwards, are appointed by statutory and other senior committees of the university and finally approved by Council. No rector can override the decision of a senior committee, and this has not happened at the UFS even in cases where the Rector serves as Chair of that committee. The impression of heavy-handed management at the top insults all our committee structures, including the Institutional Forum – the widest and most inclusive of stakeholder bodies at a university – which reports directly to Council on fairness and compliance of selection processes.
In the case of senior appointments, Council makes the final decision. Council fully supports the actions taken on senior appointments, including a recent senior suspension. The fact that one Council member resigns just before the end of his term, whatever the real reason for this action, does not deter from the fact that the full Council in its last sitting approved the major staffing decisions brought before it. The image therefore that the two newspapers try to create of great turmoil and distress at the university, is completely unfounded.

Even if we wanted to, the university obviously cannot provide details about staffing decisions, especially disciplinary actions in process, since the rights of individuals should be protected in terms of the Human Resource Policies and procedures of the UFS. But that does not give any newspaper the right to speculate or state as fact that which is based on rumour or gossip, or to slander senior personnel of the university. For these reasons, we have been forced to seek legal remedy and correction as a matter of urgency.

Make no mistake, underlying much of the criticism of the university has been a distress about transformation at the UFS; in particular, the perception is created that white colleagues are losing their jobs. The evidence points in the opposite direction. Our progress with equity has been slow and we lag far behind most of the former white universities; that is a fact. More than 90% of our professors are white; most of our senior appointments at professorial level and as heads of department are still overwhelmingly white. Reasonable South Africans would agree that our transformation still has a long way to go and only the mean-spirited would contend otherwise. But based on the two Afrikaans newspaper reports, an impression is left of the aggressive rooting out of white colleagues.

In the past few years the academic standard of the university has significantly improved. We now have the highest academic pass rates in years, in part because we raised the academic standards for admission four years ago. We now have the highest rate of research publications, and among the highest national publication rate of scholarly books, in the history of the UFS. We have one of the most stable financial situations of any university in South Africa, with a strong balance sheet and growing financial reserves way beyond what we had before. We now attract top professors from around the country and other parts of the world, and we have the highest number of rated researchers, through the National Research Foundation, than ever before. And after the constant turmoil of a number of years ago, we now have one of the most stable campuses in South Africa. Those are the facts.

The UFS is also regarded around the world as a university that has become a model of transformation and reconciliation in the student body. The elections of our Student Representative Council are only the most visible example of how far we have come in our leadership diversity. Not a week goes by in which other universities, nationally and abroad, do not come to Kovsies to consult with us on how they can learn from us and deepen their own transformations, especially among students.

Rather than focus on what more than one senior journalist, in reference to the article in Rapport of 21 September 2014, rightly called ‘a hatchet job’ on persons and the university, here are the objective findings of a recent survey of UFS stakeholders: 92% endorse our values; 77% agree with our transformation; 78% believe we are inclusive; and 78% applaud our overall reputation index. Those are very different numbers from a few years ago when the institution was in crisis.

This is our commitment to all our stakeholders: we will continue our model of inclusive transformation which provides opportunities for study and for employment for all South Africans, including international students and colleagues. We remain committed to our parallel-medium instruction in which Afrikaans remains a language of instruction; we are in fact the only medical school in the country that offers dual education and training in both Afrikaans and English for our students - not only English. We provide bursaries and overseas study opportunities to all our students, irrespective of race. And our ‘future professors’ programme is richly diverse as we seek the academic stars of the future.

We are not perfect as a university management or community. Where we make mistakes, we acknowledge them and try to do better the next time round. But we remain steadfast in our goal of making the UFS a top world university in its academic ambitions and its human commitments.

END

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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