A developed Africa starts with nutrition in safe hands. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS
By Busani Bafana
BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe, Feb 2 2026 (IPS)
Hunger shadowed Mercy Lung’aho’s childhood, fueling her campaign to promote nutrition as a foundation for Africa’s development.
As lead for the Food Security, Nutrition and Health Program at the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), this certified nutritionist and researcher, with more than 20 years of championing development, is advocating for an integrated approach combining agri-food and health systems for food and nutrition security on the continent.
In a continent where one in three children are stunted, providing nutritious food is urgent for the development of Africa. For Lungaho, nutrition research is everything.
“I want to leave a legacy of a nourished Africa,” Lung’aho says, emphasizing that at IITA, nutrition is not a buzzword but the core of its programs across Africa.
According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), approximately 307 million people in Africa were undernourished in 2024. Malnutrition is the lack of correct and adequate nutrients, like vitamins, proteins, and minerals, needed to stay healthy and functional. Signs of malnutrition include stunted growth, wasting and being underweight.
“Regardless of how you define it, nutrition begins with what we eat,” she says. “Health begins with what we eat. Agriculture produces what we eat and it is really important that one of the lenses that agriculture and agricultural research have is nutrition.”
Despite its vast arable land and abundant water resources, Africa is a net food importer. Africa is off the mark on SDG2 and SDG3 relating to zero hunger, health and wellbeing. Projects indicate that nearly 60% of all chronically undernourished people will be in Africa by that time. It gets worse; Africa is the only region where the number of children under five suffering from chronic malnutrition is increasing.
Mercy Lung’aho, International Institute for Tropical Agriculture’s (IITA) Food Security, Nutrition and Health Programme lead.
Excerpts:
IPS: What breakthroughs in nutrition research have you made at IITA and what has been their impact on food security?
Lung’aho: One of the things that we advocate as IITA is food safety. If food is not safe, it is not food. There are now several products that help ensure food safety, like Aflasafe, which inhibits the growth of aflatoxin (a toxin produced by fungi), and farmers use it when they plant either soybeans, groundnuts, or maize. Aflatoxin is one of the most poisonous things in our food—it stunts the growth of children and can lead to cancers like liver cancer. In my country, Kenya, we have had episodes where acute toxicity from aflatoxin has been fatal.
There is one product I am really excited about. Our breeders have also worked on provitamin A maize and it is orange in color. The grain inhibits the growth of aflatoxin. Provitamin A maize is not just to reduce vitamin A deficiency, which causes night blindness—it is also coming in as a safety measure for populations and also reduces exposure to aflatoxins in communities. With a grant from Harvest Plus, we are doing a study in northern Nigeria, where we are now assessing real-life evidence in communities that have eaten ProVitamin A maize and whose exposure to aflatoxins has been limited.
Not only do we provide nourishment to the population, but we also ensure the safety of the food system.
How does IITA integrate traditional knowledge with modern nutrition science to enhance crop quality?
Lung’aho: I think IITA is one of the few centers that value consumer research. For example, the tricot methodology (triadic comparisons of technologies) is a participatory research approach where farmers act as researchers to test and identify the most suitable agricultural technologies, such as crop varieties, for their performance under local conditions.
It involves comparing small sets of three technologies at a time in “triads” and collecting data on their farms under their normal practices. We don’t call the consumer a ‘beneficiary,’ but a core designer. We view farmers and consumers as integral members of the team, understanding that their work is a collaborative effort. We always try to understand the consumers’ perspective first before we say we have understood a problem. We ensure that their voices are heard and their opinions are included even in some of our methodologies. We then go to the farmers and inform them of our findings, compare what is available on the market with what consumers want, and ask them for their opinions. Such feedback is integrated into the research.
How do you measure the success of nutrition integration interventions in farming communities?
Lung’aho: We have globally recognized indicators for measuring impact, such as the Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W)—a population-level indicator of diet diversity validated for women aged 15–49 and the proportion of the population who can afford a healthy diet.
I look for evidence in the community to see if the interventions are effective, and I observe food availability in the market. Working in communities and around lunchtime, you can see women cooking, and you can see fires in homes—but you have communities where at lunchtime nobody is cooking and in the evening, families have nothing to eat.
When you go to economists, they look at impact; they prioritize the indicators—that’s what they look at.
I am very practical. I know hunger not just by name, but because I’ve slept hungry. There was no food at home and we would go to bed hungry.
For me, the presence of food in the home and in the market is evidenced by seeing children at schools during lunchtime with packed food, even if it consists of a small portion of ugali and vegetables—this indicates that we are making progress. We are moving the needle. However, the high-level evidence, which examines the SDGs and evaluates our progress, indicates that more work is needed.
How has IITA leveraged technology and data analytics to enhance nutrition outcomes in agricultural projects?
Lung’aho: In IITA, data is currency. We generate a lot of data and we have a lead for data who is very interested in making sure that that data doesn’t sit on shelves, but we are able to learn from past data and new data is talking to past data to anticipate the future.
So for that, we’re leveraging a lot of artificial intelligence and machine learning. We are using systems thinking and systems dynamics that look at the whole system rather than its elements alone.
How can systems work better? I think we are among the first institutions in the world to really ask the question of how artificial intelligence and machine learning can work better for diets and nutrition in Africa.
There is a need to standardize tools so that we are collecting the same data—not comparing apples and oranges—as well as the harmonization of tools and indicators. Countries need to create a nutrition data ecosystem. Governments will respond by saying, “You (already) have so much data. Why are you not using that?” If data cannot communicate with each other, we are left in the dark. Having that ecosystem will show countries why data is important and how they can leverage existing data and new data to move forward.
Data has to be in the forefront of what we collect to understand nutrition problems. If you want Africa to grow, nutrition is the answer, and I’m the number one advocate. This is a call to action to all African countries. We need to take nutrition seriously. In our generation, we must leave a legacy of a nourished Africa.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
President Donald Trump Joins Faith Leaders in Prayer – Credit: The White House
According to the UN, Sunday marked the start of World Interfaith Harmony Week, a time to emphasize that mutual understanding and interreligious dialogue are essential to building a culture of peace. The week was established to promote harmony among all people, regardless of their faith.
By Azza Karam
NEW YORK, Feb 2 2026 (IPS)
Several events, meetings, consultations, initiatives, etc. taking place among faith-inspired, ‘faith-based’ and a variety of other similar efforts, over the past year, in the United States especially, concern me.
Coming from a background of human rights, international development, and humanitarian service, I have witnessed the arc of ‘none’ to increasing interest by Western governments in ‘religion’ – religious engagement, religion and development, religion and foreign policy, religious freedom, religious peacebuilding, or religion and peace, and more, including even religion and agriculture. Basically, religion and everything.
Non-Western governments within Africa and Asia, including areas overlapping with what we call (variably) “the Middle East”, have long been interested, and indeed actively engaging religious leaders and religious institutions.
As many scholars, observers, and foreign policy pundits have noted, the interest of such governments has often transcended any genuine fascination with faith, towards rather obvious instrumentalization of religious leaders, religious organisations and religious groups, in support of specific political agendas (e.g., making peace with Israel, legitimacy of corrupt – and violent – politically repressive leaders and regimes, etc.).
In fact, the marriage between select religious leaders/institutions/groups and some political actors goes back to the empires we have inherited pre-Westphalian states).
I recall some stories from my time serving as a staff member at the United Nations, and in other international fora. The first story revolves around one Arab and one Indian diplomat speaking with a European counterpart, during one of several UN Strategic Learning Exchanges on Religion, Development and Diplomacy, which I coordinated and facilitated, this one in 2014.
The discussion concerned how best to “benefit” from working with religious leaders to affirm a message of certain political parties, especially, albeit not only, around elections. The Arab patted the European on the back and said, with a smile and a wink: “you are finally catching up on how to use these religious leaders – congratulations my friend”. The Indian one, looking bemused, added “Yes. And be careful”.
Another story concerns another meeting I organised – in one of the basement meeting rooms of the UN – between UN officials and a diverse array of religious actors, around peace and mediation efforts, in select African and Asian conflict settings, early 2015.
A European Christian religious leader of a renowned multi-religious organisation made an intervention to address the concerns about “instrumentalization” of religious actors, which some faith-based NGO leaders were articulating.
While some faith representatives cautioned against religious actors being used to “rubber stamp decisions already made by governments and some intergovernmental organisations” (in the room were both UN and EU officials), this particular Western Christian religious leader spoke up and said, “I am not worried about that at all, in fact, I would like to say to my secular colleagues in this room, please use us… we can certainly benefit you… we are not common civil society actors, our mission makes us exceptional”.
My last story, is from my time serving as the secretary general of an international multireligious organisation which convenes religious leaders from diverse religious institutions around “deeply held and widely shared values”.
As soon as I became a member of the UN Secretary-General’s High Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism, I arranged a meeting between some of my multi-religious Board members (religious leaders), and some members of this high Level UN SG’s Advisory Board.
The idea was to nurture a quiet but candid dialogue between pollical and religious leaders, around why and how multilateralism can be significantly strengthened by multireligious engagement.
I hasten to note that multireligious engagement, if served well, can be – as I have written and persistently argued – resistant to instrumentalization of select religious actors to serve any one particular governmental agenda. The latter is a feature I warn against, and small wonder, given developments from India to the United States, from Russia to Israel, and beyond.
Once again, I heard a religious leader invite the members of the SG’s Board to “use” their (religious) wisdom because of their “exceptional” mission (presumably the godly one). This time, later reflection among members of the UN SG Board led to noting that such multireligious engagement would be inadvisable, due to a concern about “Muslims” involved in such multireligious spaces.
Fast forward to 2026, one year after an increasingly belligerent US Presidential Administration’s record, which includes relatively ‘minor’ policy decisions such as transforming the name of the Ministry of Defence to the “Ministry of War”. And not so minor human rights abuses of citizens and immigrants, and some pointing to manipulation and outright disregard of the rule of law, both at home and abroad (I hope this is polite enough wording). Of course one dares not mention support to certain genocidal regimes killing thousands in the name of self-protection.
In this environment, I listen to conversations among some of the United States’ most esteemed faith-based organisations, all with a remarkable track record of serving humanity in all corners of the world. Who, apparently, are seeking to engage this Administration “constructively”, with some praising the “unprecedented” outreach of members of this Administration in engaging, largely (some would say exclusively), with certain Christian NGOs, certain Christian religious leaders, and certain Christian faith protagonists – no doubt to further noble objectives. Apparently, this is a form of strategic engagement of/with religion.
Even though there were likely some who felt uncomfortable with aspects of this rhetoric, the studiously diplomatic silences – including my own – about challenging anything said, was noteworthy. The bottom line is, “we need access to the White House… we need more resources to do our (good) work”.
Why was I silent? Because I am the quintessential ‘other’ whose outspokenness has already earned me the loss of a sense of ‘home’ and security, many times over. This is neither excuse nor justification, rather, an acknowledgement of cowardice.
Into this Kafkaesque reality, let me ask a few questions I am battling with: what will it take to speak truth to power publicly – the way Minnesotans and Palestinians are having to do with their own regimes? Is it strategic to be silent, or such consummate diplomats, especially when we work in the name of the ‘godly’ – being such “exceptional” actors?
Conversely, is this Administration which we endeavour to be so tactful with, being silent about it’s “divine mission”? Is being “nice and essentially a kind person with their heart in the right place”, and doing godly work, a good reason to work with those who are serving regimes which ignore the rule of law in their own nation and abroad? Does faith-based diplomacy mean we either collude, remain silent, or take the struggle to the streets?
If so, what difference is faith-based diplomacy and engagement actually making to civic engagement, to honoring human rights and the rule of law, or to serving principled leadership? Or do these simply not matter since it is the self-interests of the ruling and rich few, are what matters to determine the integrity of life, planet and leadership?
Perhaps we should ponder the advice of the Indian Diplomat, given to his Western counterpart 22 years ago: how can we “be careful”?
Professor Azza Karam serves as President of Lead Integrity; and Director of the Kahane UN Program, for Occidental College’s Diplomacy and World Affairs.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau