COMMENTARY | Hunger is a violation of children’s rights: An all-of-society response is needed

As we count down to Human Rights Day on March 21, we are acutely aware of the failures of the state to realise and satisfy the human rights enshrined in our constitution and Bill of Rights, especially for children.

Since the dawn of democracy in SA in 1994 the country has struggled with a persistent high level of child malnutrition, measured as stunting, where children are too short for their age.

This is not just shortness of height but it is a proxy for compromised health and a risk factor for lower cognitive development, lower education attainment and lower future productivity both in work output and in earning capabilities.

Unhealthy children are likely to be our future unhealthy adults . It is for this reason that all efforts must be explored to protect children from hunger.

Since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic more than two years ago, there have been huge negative impacts on global health and development which are bearing down on the youngest members of the planet — our children. These impacts on children are costing their lives now and well into the future.

SA has the largest social protection programme for children on the African continent with a child support grant that benefits more than 12-million children under the age of 18 years.

On February 23, finance minister Enoch Godongwana announced that the child support grant would increase from R460 to R480 per month from April 1. A mere 4% increase, against a year-on-year food and nonalcoholic beverages inflation of 5.5%, rendering the already measly child support grant ineffective to keep hunger at bay, much less to address the nutrition that children need to grow and be healthy.

Section 28 of the Bill of Rights in our constitution states that “every child has the right to basic nutrition, shelter, healthcare and social services, as well as the right to be protected from maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation”. But there are high levels of child malnutrition — almost one in three children are stunted, while one in four households reported child hunger. This is a result of the failure to protect children.

One of SA’s leading civil society organisations, the Black Sash, undertook research with the SA Medical Research Council to explore how households receiving the child support grant managed with respect to food procurement and dietary patterns. I was approached to assist with child nutrition data interpretation and policy implications. It was not surprising to find that all 12 households included in this qualitative study were not able to cope or meet their food needs.

These households’ food purchasing patterns were insufficient in quantity and in dietary quality. All household members were not able to eat regularly or sufficiently to keep hunger at bay. Even for children, hunger was a norm.

Even for a household of a single mother and her five-year-old child, the child support grant was not sufficient to buy enough food and other essentials such as electricity, toiletries and cleaning materials. This was a huge cause for concern, given the context of Covid-19 and the need to wash hands and surfaces regularly.

Poor households dependent on the child support grant, even with multiple grants, did not receive enough to buy sufficient food for all the household members. Many adults are forced to go without meals or reduce the amount they eat and to rely on food relief efforts such as soup kitchens, food packs and charity.

The nutrition evaluation of the foods that were purchased was lacking in diversity, nutrient-density and was low-quality , raising the issue of food safety as well.

The most heart-wrenching finding is the constant experience of trauma faced by caregivers to provide food for their hungry children.

Caregivers expressed feelings of shame and guilt knowing that their children are hungry, and for sending their children to ask for food from neighbours and community members. The constant cries for food would drive caregivers to “hit the children and send them to bed”. Sleeping is an escape from hunger and having to deal with hunger.

These households are under severe psychological strain, re-emphasising that hungry people are angry people. This is not conducive for optimal child care and highlights hunger as a driver of child “maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation” as listed in the Bill of Rights.

While caregivers are resourceful in trying to stretch the food budget by buying cheaper, smaller quantities of products, giving small children many smaller snack foods and taking cash loans to buy food, these efforts do not shield or protect children from the physical and psychological harm of hunger.

A whole-of-society response is needed to create more provision efforts such as community outreach kitchens, food drives and donations, macro-policy initiatives to subsidise food for grant recipients, promotion and support of food gardens and to push the government to institute a basic income grant for unemployed people 18-59 years of age. The child support grant is not enough to protect children from chronic hunger which itself is “maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation” as enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

— Dr Chantell Witten is from the faculty of health sciences at the University of the Free State (UFS)

Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.