Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Global Hunger Index

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a peer-reviewed jointly published by the non-governmental organizations and , designed to measure and track hunger at global, regional, and national levels through a composite score calculated from four indicators: the of undernourishment (proportion of population with insufficient caloric intake), child stunting (low height-for-age in children under five), child wasting (low weight-for-height in children under five), and under-five rates. Scores range from 0 (no hunger) to 100 (worst), with categories including low (<5), moderate (5-9.9), serious (10-19.9), alarming (20-34.9), and extremely alarming (≥35); the 2024 global GHI score stands at 18.3, classified as moderate, reflecting minimal improvement from 18.8 in 2016 and stagnation in reducing undernourishment affecting an estimated 733 million people. The index draws data primarily from sources like the Food and Agriculture Organization's Prevalence of Undernourishment estimates, Demographic and Health Surveys for child metrics, and / child mortality figures, aiming to provide a multidimensional view beyond caloric deficits by incorporating outcomes linked to chronic and acute undernutrition. This approach has been credited with raising awareness of persistent hunger challenges, particularly in regions like and where 42 countries recorded serious or alarming levels in 2024, but progress remains insufficient to meet the UN Sustainable Development Goal of zero hunger by 2030, with undernourishment rates rising in some areas due to conflicts, climate shocks, and economic disruptions. Despite its intent, the GHI faces significant methodological criticisms for conflating —defined as inadequate energy intake—with broader factors like , poor , or genetic predispositions, as child stunting and wasting serve as imperfect proxies that do not directly quantify caloric deficits in adults or overall populations. Governments, including India's, have rejected their rankings as erroneous, citing reliance on outdated surveys (sometimes over a decade old), unrepresentative sampling via telephone polls or small-scale studies, and exclusion of national data showing improvements in direct metrics like patterns. These flaws, compounded by the NGOs' roles which may incentivize highlighting crises to mobilize funding, undermine the index's reliability as a precise tool for policy evaluation, though it underscores the empirical reality that global production exceeds needs while distribution failures and non-hunger stressors perpetuate undernutrition.

Overview

Purpose and Scope

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) constitutes an annual peer-reviewed report jointly published by the nongovernmental organization and the German nongovernmental organization , with the explicit aim of quantifying and monitoring prevalence to inform , policy formulation, and . It seeks to highlight disparities in nutritional outcomes, enabling stakeholders to assess progress against international targets such as for ending by 2030, while underscoring regions and nations requiring urgent intervention. In scope, the GHI evaluates hunger across , regional, and levels for approximately 136 nations in its 2025 edition where data sufficiency permits, deriving scores from a composite of four standardized indicators: the prevalence of undernourishment (proportion of population with insufficient caloric intake), child stunting (chronic undernutrition reflected in low height-for-age), child wasting (acute undernutrition via low weight-for-height), and under-five (linked to nutritional deficiencies). These metrics, drawn from sources including the , Demographic and Health Surveys, and data, yield a 100-point scale where scores below 5 denote low hunger severity and those above 50 indicate alarming levels, facilitating temporal and cross-national . The index's framework emphasizes both quantity (caloric deficits) and quality ( shortfalls inferred through child anthropometrics and mortality), though its reliance on modeled estimates for undernourishment has drawn for potential overemphasis on aggregate data over localized causal drivers like or conflict disruptions. Nonetheless, it prioritizes empirical tracking over prescriptive solutions, serving as a diagnostic rather than a tool.

Origins and Evolution

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) originated from earlier efforts to quantify nutritional deprivation comprehensively. In April 2000, researchers at the at the , including Doris Wiesmann, released the Global Nutrition Index (GNI), a precursor metric that combined indicators of caloric deficits, child , and mortality to assess global nutritional status. This index was featured in publications evaluating trends, such as a 2006 Food Consumption and Nutrition Division discussion paper that ranked countries based on 1998-2000 data. The GNI laid the groundwork for a standardized, multidimensional approach but was limited by data availability and focused primarily on rather than broader dimensions. The formal GHI debuted in 2006, produced by the (IFPRI) in partnership with the NGOs and . The inaugural report calculated scores for 1981, 1990, 1995, and 2003, using three indicators: the prevalence of undernourishment, child underweight rates, and under-five mortality, to track reductions in hunger amid progress. IFPRI's involvement stemmed from its expertise in research, while the NGOs provided field insights and advocacy platforms; , founded in 1962 as the German arm of the Freedom from Hunger Campaign, emphasized practical hunger alleviation. This collaboration aimed to create a tool for policymakers, though early scores relied on modeled estimates due to patchy national data, particularly in low-income regions. Over time, the GHI evolved through annual iterations, with the 2025 edition marking the 20th report, published each October to align with UN hunger-related events. Methodological refinements addressed limitations in original indicators; for instance, eight years after launch, IFPRI initiated a 2014 review, resulting in 2015 updates that replaced child underweight with separate measures of stunting ( malnutrition) and (acute malnutrition) for better on child-specific hunger forms, while retaining undernourishment and mortality. These changes improved sensitivity to nutritional outcomes but increased dependence on survey data from sources like Demographic and Health Surveys, potentially amplifying estimation errors in data-sparse countries. Publishing shifted post-IFPRI's lead role, with and assuming primary responsibility alongside the Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict at for recent editions, reflecting a toward integrating analysis into assessments. Despite these adaptations, the core framework has remained a composite score normalized to 100, categorizing from low to alarming, enabling trend tracking but inviting scrutiny over subjective weighting and NGO-driven priorities.

Methodology

Indicators and Metrics

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) employs four equally weighted indicators to quantify multidimensionally: the prevalence of undernourishment, child stunting, child wasting, and under-five . These metrics, averaged after to a 100-point scale, aim to reflect both caloric deficits and broader nutritional deficiencies affecting utilization, with data typically drawn from three-year averages to mitigate annual fluctuations. The equal weighting assumes each indicator captures complementary aspects of undernutrition, though this approach has drawn scrutiny for not directly measuring subjective experiences or immediate caloric shortfalls. Prevalence of undernourishment (PoU) measures the percentage of a population whose caloric intake falls below minimum dietary energy requirements, estimated via FAO's Food Balance Sheets adjusted by factors like food losses and unequal distribution. In the 2025 GHI, global PoU stood at 9.4% for the period 2021–2023, signaling insufficient progress from prior years. This indicator proxies aggregate food availability but overlooks gaps or over-reliance on low-quality calories. Child stunting, defined as the percentage of children under five with height-for-age more than two standard deviations below WHO median growth standards, indicates chronic undernutrition from prolonged inadequate or recurrent . Data derive from the UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Joint Malnutrition Estimates (), with 148 million children affected globally in recent assessments. Stunting persists as a marker of intergenerational impacts, correlating with cognitive impairments, yet it conflates nutritional deficits with non-dietary factors like . Child wasting captures acute undernutrition as the percentage of children under five with weight-for-height below two standard deviations of WHO standards, reflecting recent severe often tied to food shortages or illness. Global figures hovered at approximately 45 million children in 2022 estimates, sourced from datasets. While predictive of elevated mortality risk, wasting's episodic nature limits its utility for tracking sustained hunger trends. Under-five mortality rate (U5MR), expressed as deaths per 1,000 live births, serves as a for the and nutritional , where contributes to roughly 45% of such deaths per WHO analyses. Sourced from UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation, the metric averaged nearly 5 million annual deaths worldwide in recent years. Critics contend U5MR indirectly gauges hunger, as declines often stem from and rather than alone, potentially overstating nutritional . Prior to 2015, the GHI incorporated child underweight instead of , but methodological revisions favored for its to acute deficits, alongside retaining mortality to enhance multidimensionality despite debates over indicator specificity. Overall, the prioritizes child-focused metrics (75% weighting via stunting, , and mortality) to emphasize vulnerable populations, though this skews away from adult undernourishment prevalence.

Calculation Framework

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) score for a given or aggregate is derived from four complementary indicators that proxy different dimensions of : the prevalence of undernourishment (POU), which measures the percentage of the population with insufficient caloric intake; child stunting, the percentage of children under age five with low height-for-age indicating chronic undernutrition; child wasting, the percentage of children under age five with low weight-for-height indicating acute undernutrition; and under-five , the proportion of children dying before age five, partially attributable to undernutrition. These indicators are selected to capture both overall population-level and its manifestations in child nutritional status, with data drawn from agencies such as the (FAO) for POU, the (WHO) and for stunting and wasting, and the United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UN IGME) for mortality rates. The calculation follows a three-step process to produce a score on a 100-point scale, where 0 signifies no hunger and 100 the worst possible outcome. First, raw values for each indicator are obtained from the most recent available data, typically spanning 2019–2023 for recent scores, with provisional estimates used where country-level data are incomplete. Second, these values are normalized to a 0–100 scale using predefined thresholds set slightly above historical maxima to prevent ceiling effects: 80% for undernourishment, 70% for stunting, 30% for wasting, and 35% for mortality. The normalization formula for each indicator is (raw value ÷ threshold) × 100. Third, the normalized values are combined into the GHI score using unequal weights to emphasize population-wide aspects: undernourishment and child mortality each receive a weight of 1/3, while stunting and wasting together account for 1/3 (1/6 each), reflecting their role as proxies for undernutrition severity. The aggregation formula is thus: GHI = (normalized undernourishment × 1/3) + (normalized stunting × 1/6) + (normalized wasting × 1/6) + (normalized mortality × 1/3).
IndicatorThreshold (%)WeightData Source(s)
Undernourishment (POU)801/3FAO
Child Stunting701/6WHO/
Child Wasting301/6WHO/
Child Mortality351/3UN IGME
For regional and GHI scores, indicator values are first aggregated as population-weighted averages across , then normalized and weighted using the same . Scores are categorized by severity: ≤9.9 (low), 10.0–19.9 (moderate), 20.0–34.9 (serious), 35.0–49.9 (alarming), and ≥50.0 (extremely alarming). This framework was revised in to incorporate alongside stunting and to standardize , ensuring consistency but limiting direct comparability to pre-2015 scores except for select historical benchmarks like 2000 and 2008.

Data Sources and Reliability Issues

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) relies on four primary indicators sourced from United Nations agencies and affiliated surveys: prevalence of undernourishment from the (FAO), using three-year averages such as 2022–2024; child stunting and child from the (WHO), UNICEF, Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), drawing from the closest available survey years like 2024 or averages thereof; and under-five child mortality from the United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UN IGME), with reference years including 2023. These data are aggregated into a composite score, with undernourishment and child mortality weighted at one-third each, and stunting and at one-sixth each, standardized against observed ranges. Official methodology acknowledges limitations, including missing data for up to 13 of 136 countries in recent reports due to violent conflict or political instability, leading to provisional severity classifications based on partial indicators, historical GHI values, and supplementary reports like the Global Report on Food Crises; such gaps may underestimate aggregate hunger severity. Comparability across years is restricted, as revisions to underlying data or methodological adjustments—such as updated normalization thresholds—render scores from non-specified benchmark periods (e.g., 2000, 2008, 2016, 2024/2025) incomparable. Undernourishment estimates, derived from FAO models of dietary energy supply, incorporate assumptions about and consumption that may not capture household-level access or deficiencies. Critics, including the , argue that the indicators fail to directly measure —defined as insufficient caloric intake—but instead proxy broader outcomes, with stunting and reflecting conditions influenced by , infections, and rather than food scarcity alone, potentially conflating non-dietary factors. , while correlated with undernutrition, is affected by healthcare access and disease prevalence, diluting its specificity to . This multidimensional approach risks inclusion errors by incorporating elements extraneous to acute food deprivation, which could mislead policy prioritization toward child-specific interventions over adult caloric deficits. Data timeliness poses further reliability challenges, as GHI often incorporates outdated surveys; for instance, child wasting and stunting figures for countries like have relied on pre-2021 data despite more recent National Family Health Surveys (NFHS-5, 2019–2021) showing declines, with small sample sizes in DHS/MICS exacerbating non-representativeness in heterogeneous populations. Governments, including 's, have contested rankings for discrepancies with national statistics, attributing higher GHI scores to reliance on secondary estimates over primary domestic measurements that indicate progress. FAO undernourishment prevalence, modeled from supply-side data, may overestimate shortfalls in nations with improved distribution systems but limited consumption surveys. Published by non-governmental organizations and , the GHI's advocacy orientation raises questions about selective emphasis on severity to influence funding and , though UN-sourced data provide a standardized absent comprehensive global caloric intake registries. Independent analyses affirm the index's utility for tracking trends but caution against overinterpreting absolute scores due to these proxies' indirectness and data lags.

Empirical Context of Global Hunger

Long-Term Reductions

The global GHI score declined from 28.2 in 2000—classified as serious—to 19.0 in , indicating marked long-term progress in reducing through improvements in its core indicators of undernourishment , child stunting, child wasting, and under-five mortality. This overall reduction reflects broader empirical trends in hunger metrics, with the of undernourishment in developing countries dropping from around 33% in 1970 to 12% by 2015, based on FAO data. Absolute numbers of undernourished people also decreased by approximately 200 million between 1991 and 2017, even as the global population grew by 2.1 billion. Child-specific indicators further underscore these gains. Global child stunting rates—a for chronic malnutrition—fell by one third over the two decades prior to 2024, averting stunting in 55 million children through enhanced maternal and child efforts. wasting rates, signaling acute undernutrition, have similarly trended downward in aggregate, though data variability limits precise global quantification beyond regional declines reported in FAO and WHO assessments. Under-five mortality, where undernutrition contributes to roughly 45% of deaths, halved from 93 per 1,000 live births in to around 38 by 2020, per UN Inter-agency Group for Estimation figures integrated into GHI calculations. These reductions were most pronounced in East and South Asia, where rapid and agricultural advancements lifted hundreds of millions from , contrasting with slower progress in . However, the GHI methodology's reliance on modeled estimates for undernourishment and wasting—derived from household surveys and vital registration—introduces potential over- or underestimation in data-sparse regions, as noted in FAO critiques of survey-based metrics. Despite such limitations, the convergence of independent datasets from FAO, WHO, and confirms the substantive scale of pre-2020 alleviation.

Primary Causal Factors

Conflicts and armed violence constitute the leading driver of acute food insecurity worldwide, disrupting agricultural production, supply chains, and humanitarian access while displacing populations and exacerbating in affected regions. In 2024, conflict fueled food crises in 20 countries, impacting nearly 140 million people facing high levels of acute hunger, with hotspots including , , and parts of the where ongoing wars have halved food output in some areas. Empirical analyses from the Information Network indicate that violence directly correlates with Phase 4 (Emergency) and Phase 5 () classifications in the Integrated Phase Classification, as seen in and where conflict-related blockades reduced caloric availability by over 30% in peak years. Economic shocks, including inflation in and macroeconomic , rank as a close secondary factor, limiting household and access to markets even in non-conflict zones. Between and , such shocks drove acute insecurity for over 59 million people across 15 countries, with global food price indices rising 28% post- due to export disruptions and costs, pushing 100 million additional individuals into and undernourishment. Data from the highlight that in low-income nations, where 70% of hunger persists, stagnant wages and debt burdens amplify these effects, with undernourishment rates correlating inversely with GDP per capita growth rates below 2% annually. Climate extremes, such as droughts and floods, contribute significantly by reducing crop yields and livestock viability, particularly in rain-fed agricultural systems dominant in and . From 2015 to 2023, weather-related shocks affected 307 million people in alone, with events like the 2022 Horn of drought slashing maize production by 20-40% in and , leading to a 15% rise in undernourishment prevalence. FAO assessments link these variability patterns to El Niño cycles and longer-term , though adaptive measures like have mitigated impacts in higher-income contexts, underscoring that institutional capacity modulates climate's causal role. Underlying structural issues, including poverty traps and inadequate agricultural , perpetuate chronic by constraining and . Globally, 733 million people faced in 2023, with prevalence exceeding 20% in regions where public spending on remains below 5% of GDP, hindering yield improvements from technologies like high-yield that boosted output 50% in adopter countries since 2000. data reveal that in agrarian economies, smallholder farmers—comprising 80% of the rural poor—face credit access barriers, resulting in use rates 5-10 times lower than in industrialized farming, directly tying low to caloric deficits. These factors interact causally, as conflicts and economic downturns erode fiscal space for infrastructure, amplifying vulnerability to shocks in governance-weak environments.

Recent Stagnations and Reversals

Global hunger reduction, which had accelerated in prior decades, began stagnating around 2015-2016, with the prevalence of undernourishment (PoU) hovering near 8-9% of the thereafter. According to the (FAO), the global PoU stood at approximately 8.9% in 2019 before rising sharply to 9.8% in 2020 amid the , marking a reversal of prior gains and affecting an additional 150 million people compared to 2019 estimates. This uptick persisted, with PoU remaining elevated at around 9.2% through 2022, driven by pandemic-induced supply chain disruptions, income losses, and lockdowns that constrained agricultural production and food access in low-income regions. Subsequent years saw partial recovery but entrenched stagnation, as the 2024 PoU declined modestly to 8.2% (affecting 673 million people), down from 8.5% in 2023, yet still far above pre-2015 lows and insufficient to meet targets. The Global Hunger Index (GHI) corroborates this, reporting a global score of 18.3 in 2025—only a 0.7-point improvement from 19.0 in 2016—indicating negligible overall progress despite localized declines. Regional disparities exacerbated the trend, with PoU rising in (to over 20% in sub-Saharan areas) and Western due to compounding shocks, while saw slower reductions. Primary drivers of these stagnations and reversals include armed conflicts, which disrupted production and exports—such as the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war elevating global grain and fertilizer s by 20-30%—alongside climate-induced events like droughts and floods that reduced yields in vulnerable regions by up to 10-15% annually in affected areas. Economic factors, including post-COVID peaking in 2022-2023 (with hikes outpacing general ), further strained affordability for 2-3 billion people in low- and middle-income countries, while policy responses like export bans and subsidies proved unevenly effective. FAO projections indicate that, absent accelerated interventions, around 512 million people will remain undernourished by 2030, underscoring the risk of prolonged stagnation.

GHI Scores and Analysis

Global and Regional Patterns

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) score for the world declined from 28.2 in 2000, classified as serious, to 18.3 in 2025, classified as moderate, reflecting overall long-term reductions in hunger severity driven by improvements in undernourishment, child stunting, , and mortality rates. However, progress has stalled markedly since 2016, with the score improving only slightly from 19.0 to 18.3, as global undernourishment levels have risen amid conflicts, shocks, and economic disruptions, rendering the UN Goal of zero hunger by 2030 unattainable at current rates. This global pattern masks persistent disparities, with aggregate improvements obscuring reversals in vulnerable populations and data gaps in conflict zones like and that likely underestimate true severity. Regionally, Africa South of the exhibits the highest hunger levels, with a 2025 GHI score of 27.1, categorized as serious, down from 37.5 (alarming) in 2000 but showing slowed gains since 2016 due to elevated undernourishment (over 20% prevalence) and child mortality rates exceeding those in other regions. follows closely with a 2025 score of 24.9, also serious, representing a steeper historical decline from 32.4 in 2000 but recent stagnation, including rising undernourishment since 2016 linked to and agricultural vulnerabilities. In contrast, achieved a low 2025 score of 7.9, improved from 13.8 in 2000, though child stunting has ticked upward since 2016 amid stalled overall progress. East and maintain moderate hunger levels at 8.2 in 2025, with historical fluctuations but persistent internal disparities tied to rapid and dietary shifts. and score 12.5 (moderate) in 2025, little changed from prior decades, as undernourishment has increased due to protracted conflicts. Europe and Central Asia record the lowest regional score of 5.5 (low) in 2025, reflecting steady improvements from already low baselines, bolstered by and . These patterns underscore that while global and most regional scores have trended downward over 25 years, recent exacerbations in high-burden areas like —where 10 countries saw hunger worsen since 2016—highlight the influence of non-agricultural factors such as governance failures and external shocks over purely caloric deficits.

Country-Level Rankings

The Global Hunger Index assigns country-level rankings based on composite GHI scores calculated from four indicators: the prevalence of undernourishment (weighted one-third), child stunting (one-third), child wasting (one-sixth), and under-five (one-sixth). Scores range from 0 to 100, with lower values indicating less severe ; countries are grouped into severity categories rather than strictly ordinal ranks when scores tie, and those with insufficient recent data are excluded from annual rankings. In the report, sufficient data existed to compute and rank scores for 127 countries out of 136 assessed, with 22 nations achieving scores below 5 collectively assigned the top rank group due to negligible differences in performance. Countries with low hunger levels (GHI <10) predominate among higher-income or rapidly developing economies that have prioritized , , and investments, such as (score <5), (<5), (<5), , , , and the . These rankings reflect long-term declines in undernourishment prevalence, often below 2.5% of the population, alongside child malnutrition rates under 5% for stunting and . Moderate hunger (10–19.9) affects nations like (10.1) and (12.5), where progress has stalled amid economic pressures or uneven policy implementation. Serious hunger (20–34.9) characterizes 36 countries, including (27.3) and (27.9), driven by high child stunting rates exceeding 30% in some cases, despite caloric availability improvements. Alarming levels (35–49.9) persist in six conflict-affected states like (44.1), (41.2), and , where undernourishment exceeds 40% and remains above 10%. No country registered an extremely alarming score (≥50) in 2024, though historical data from earlier decades showed such extremes in regions like .
Hunger SeverityGHI Score RangeNumber of Countries (2024)Example Countries
Low<1022, , ,
Moderate10–19.9~60 (inferred from totals), ,
Serious20–34.936,
Alarming35–49.96, ,
Extremely Alarming≥500None
These rankings, while highlighting disparities, incorporate modeled estimates for undernourishment from FAO surveys often dated to 2018–2022, leading to critiques that they undervalue recent national-level gains in food security from household consumption data. For example, India's serious classification relies heavily on child indicators from periodic surveys, contrasting with its government's Comprehensive National Nutrition Survey data showing undernourishment below 10% and has prompted official rejections of the index as unrepresentative of ground realities. Independent analyses argue the GHI's child-centric weighting amplifies rankings for populous nations with residual developmental challenges, potentially overlooking adult caloric sufficiency and broader economic metrics like GDP per capita correlations with hunger reduction.

Comparisons to Independent Metrics

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) incorporates the Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) prevalence of undernourishment (PoU) as one of its four indicators, which estimates the percentage of a unable to obtain sufficient dietary , typically below 1,800 kcal per day. This component aligns directly with FAO data, but the overall GHI score averages PoU equally with child stunting, , and under-five mortality rates from , WHO, and UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation sources, potentially amplifying discrepancies when child metrics reflect factors beyond caloric deficits, such as , infections, or . For instance, global PoU stood at approximately 8.2% in 2024, indicating moderate undernourishment prevalence, while the GHI score of 18.3 for the same period reflects a broader "moderate" hunger severity influenced by stagnant child nutrition outcomes. In countries like , GHI scores have consistently indicated "serious" levels—such as 27.3 in —despite national PoU estimates from household surveys like the National Sample Survey Office () showing undernourishment at around 7.3% based on direct consumption data, highlighting how elevated child stunting (e.g., 35.5% in recent National Family Health Surveys) drives down GHI rankings even amid and improving caloric access. Critics argue this divergence stems from stunting and being poor proxies for , as they correlate weakly with energy intake alone; for example, India's NFHS-4 data reveal stunting rates of 38.2% among children of mothers with normal , attributing persistence to non-dietary factors like maternal height influenced by genetics rather than current food shortages. Similarly, under-five mortality, comprising 25% of the GHI, is predominantly neonatal (62% globally per ) and linked to birth complications, not undernourishment, per cohort studies like India's Million Death Study. Independent evaluations, including peer-reviewed analyses, quantify these issues: approximately 50% of GHI values derive from non-hunger elements like undernutrition markers and mortality, yielding mean relative prediction errors of 22% across 120 countries when benchmarked against caloric deficiency alone. A methodological review by the Center for Development Research revised the GHI by replacing child underweight with and , standardizing indicators against fixed thresholds (e.g., 70% for stunting), and adjusting weights to better capture acute and dimensions, yet retained high (0.98) with the original while improving alignment with SDG targets—though it did not resolve debates over aggregating dissimilar metrics. In contrast, FAO's PoU and tools like the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) prioritize direct access and experience-based surveys, avoiding -specific biases and showing steadier global declines (e.g., from 12% in to 8.2% in 2024), whereas GHI's multidimensionality has led to slower perceived progress and higher severity classifications in regions with persistent challenges despite falling undernourishment.

Annual Reports

Early Reports (2006-2012)

The inaugural Global Hunger Index report was published in October 2006 by the (IFPRI) and , introducing a multidimensional composite score to track in 97 developing countries and 22 countries in transition. The index averaged three equally weighted indicators: the proportion of the population undernourished (prevalence of insufficient caloric intake, sourced from FAO estimates), the prevalence of underweight children under age five (from WHO and surveys), and the under-five mortality rate (also from ). Scores ranged from 0 (no ) to 100 (worst), with thresholds categorizing levels as low (<5), moderate (5-9.9), serious (10-19.9), alarming (20-29.9), and extremely alarming (≥30); data reflected reference years including 2003 as the most recent. For 2003, the report documented alarming hunger regionally in (GHI score 25.1) and (25.1), with limited progress in since 1981 (only a 2.6-point decline, hindered by rising child underweight rates despite drops in undernourishment and mortality). showed stronger gains, with a 15.2-point reduction from 1981, driven by parallel declines in all indicators. Country-level extremes included (42.7, extremely alarming) and (40.4), while (1.6) and (1.8) scored lowest; causal factors emphasized included armed conflicts, , prevalence, weak , and low status of women, which exacerbated access to and . Annual reports from 2007 onward, now co-published with , sustained this framework while highlighting persistent challenges, such as 854 million undernourished people globally in 2007, with 25 of 36 countries in alarming or worse categories situated in . By 2012, global hunger remained "serious," with scores declining modestly since 1990 but masking stark regional disparities—highest in and —and slow overall progress amid emerging stresses like resource scarcity. During 2006-2012, child malnutrition was assessed via prevalence, later refined in subsequent iterations to incorporate stunting and for better capture of chronic and acute forms, though core reliance on FAO-derived undernourishment estimates persisted, drawing from macro-level dietary supply data subject to averaging assumptions across populations. These early publications established GHI as an tool for monitoring trends, attributing stagnation in high-burden regions to structural barriers like conflict and inadequate agricultural investment rather than transient shocks.

Transitional Themes (2013-2019)

The annual Global Hunger Index reports from 2013 to 2019 marked a transitional in emphasis, shifting from broad celebrations of post-2000 to heightened of persistent barriers, vulnerabilities, and the need for targeted resilience-building amid slowing reductions in hunger levels. Globally, the GHI score declined from 17.9 in 2013 to 14.0 in 2019, reflecting a 22% improvement over the period, driven primarily by declines in and undernourishment prevalence, though regional disparities persisted, with and showing the highest scores. This era's reports increasingly highlighted multidimensional factors impeding further gains, such as shocks from conflict and environmental stressors, while introducing refinements to better capture undernutrition's manifestations. A pivotal development occurred in 2015, when the GHI methodology was revised to replace the child underweight indicator with separate measures of child stunting (chronic undernutrition) and child wasting (acute undernutrition), alongside and ; this change standardized indicator weights and enhanced sensitivity to nutritional outcomes, as stunting affects and long-term more distinctly than underweight alone. The 2013 report centered on as a core strategy for withstanding shocks, advocating investments in adaptive and social safety nets to prevent reversals in vulnerable populations, exemplified by case studies in conflict-prone areas where resilience deficits exacerbated hunger cycles. Building on this, the 2014 edition addressed "hidden hunger"—micronutrient deficiencies affecting over 2 billion people despite caloric sufficiency—emphasizing , dietary diversification, and supplementation to combat deficiencies in iron, , and , which contribute to 45% of child deaths under age 5. Subsequent reports deepened focus on and as hunger drivers. The 2015 publication explicitly linked armed to chronic , noting that it accounted for 80% of the world's hungriest countries, with data showing zones experiencing 2.5 times higher undernourishment rates than stable regions; it called for integrated humanitarian and responses to break the - . By 2016, amid the adoption of UN (Zero Hunger), the report framed pathways to eradication by 2030, stressing multisectoral actions like nutrition-sensitive and women's empowerment, while warning that current trajectories would leave 50 million children stunted annually. The 2017 analysis spotlighted inequalities in power and resources as root causes of uneven progress, with data indicating that marginalized groups—such as women, , and lower castes—faced 20-30% higher rates, urging policies addressing structural over mere . The period culminated in attention to mobility and climate threats. In 2018, forced migration emerged as a theme, with over 68 million displaced persons facing heightened hunger risks due to loss of livelihoods and restricted aid access; Yemen and South Sudan exemplified how conflict-induced displacement correlated with GHI scores exceeding 35 (alarming levels). The 2019 report tied climate change to exacerbating undernutrition, projecting that without adaptation, extreme weather could increase child wasting by 20% in agrarian economies by 2050, based on modeling from IPCC data integrated with GHI indicators; it advocated climate-resilient crops and early warning systems, noting that hunger hotspots like Niger and Haiti were already seeing yield losses of 10-15% from droughts. Collectively, these themes underscored a transition toward proactive, context-specific interventions, recognizing that while empirical gains persisted—such as a 16% drop in global stunting from 2013 to 2019—systemic risks threatened SDG targets without accelerated, evidence-based action.

Contemporary Focuses (2020-2025)

The 2020 Global Hunger Index report centered on the "" framework, advocating for integrated approaches to human, animal, and environmental health to build sustainable food systems and avert future like , which disrupted global food supply chains and exacerbated undernourishment. It warned that without accelerated efforts, achieving zero hunger by 2030 under would remain elusive, as the threatened to reverse prior gains in reducing child stunting and wasting. Subsequent reports intensified scrutiny on overlapping crises. The 2021 edition examined in conflict-affected settings, attributing rising undernourishment to protracted wars, economic shocks from , and extremes, with 45 countries facing serious or alarming levels. It underscored how conflicts in regions like the and fragmented food systems, leading to rates that undermined global progress. By 2022, the focus pivoted to food systems transformation via local governance, emphasizing community-level against the "toxic cocktail" of , variability, and aftershocks, which had stalled reduction since 2015. The highlighted that 735 million people faced in 2021, with calls for decentralized policies to enhance and nutrition access. The 2023 report spotlighted youth agency in reshaping systems, noting that while global persisted at levels—affecting 9% of the —young people in vulnerable areas bore disproportionate burdens from , yet offered untapped potential for innovation in sustainable farming. dimensions emerged prominently in 2024, linking inequalities in resource access to heightened vulnerability and insecurity, with women and girls facing elevated risks of undernourishment in agrarian societies amid droughts and floods. The analysis projected that current trajectories would delay zero hunger by over a century, urging equitable policies to bolster women's roles in adaptation. In 2025, the report reflected on two decades of GHI data, critiquing the divergence between political commitments—such as UN resolutions—and implementation failures, driven by armed conflicts, economic downturns, and inequality. It identified seven countries with alarming hunger scores (e.g., Burundi, Somalia), attributing stagnation to power imbalances in global food governance and insufficient investment in conflict resolution and resilient agriculture. Across these years, reports consistently documented empirical reversals, with undernourishment rising from 8.9% in 2019 to 9.2% by 2023 per FAO data integrated into GHI metrics, while advocating systemic reforms over isolated aid.

Controversies and Critiques

Methodological Flaws

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) constructs country scores from four indicators—prevalence of undernourishment (PoU), child stunting, child wasting, and under-five mortality—each normalized and equally weighted before averaging, yet this approach has drawn scrutiny for conflating distinct aspects of rather than itself. Critics contend that the index primarily reflects child undernutrition outcomes, with three of four indicators limited to children under five, comprising less than 10% of most populations, thereby underemphasizing caloric deficits or broader food insecurity. This child-centric focus, while useful for tracking developmental impacts, distorts representations of national prevalence, as undernourishment drives much of the PoU metric without parallel direct measures. The PoU indicator, sourced from Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates, relies on modeled projections from national food balance sheets and average dietary energy requirements rather than household surveys of actual , introducing uncertainties from assumptions about , losses, and non-caloric nutritional deficiencies like micronutrients or . Such modeling, while standardized globally, overlooks intrahousehold disparities and overestimates undernourishment in contexts with uneven food access, as evidenced by discrepancies with direct caloric intake data from national health surveys in countries like , where GHI PoU figures contradict declining reports from representative samples. Similarly, child stunting and rates, drawn from Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) or Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), capture chronic and acute undernutrition effects but are influenced by non-dietary factors including , , and genetic predispositions to , rendering them indirect proxies for causation. Under-five mortality, the fourth indicator, correlates weakly with alone, as it integrates healthcare access, vaccination coverage, and disease burdens, diluting its specificity to nutritional deficits. Aggregation compounds these issues through equal , despite varying indicator reliabilities and scales; for instance, PoU affects entire populations while child metrics do not, and normalization scales (0-100) assume commensurability without empirical validation of their relative contributions to hunger severity. Data incompleteness exacerbates flaws, as countries lacking recent surveys for two or more indicators are excluded from rankings—136 of UN member states in the 2023 GHI—potentially inflating severity perceptions in data-poor regions and ignoring improvements in nations with outdated inputs, such as data from samples under 50% of children in some cases. Peer-reviewed analyses highlight that these methodological choices prioritize comparability over precision, leading to scores sensitive to single-indicator fluctuations rather than robust hunger trends, as seen in year-to-year variances uncorrelated with on-ground caloric availability shifts. While the GHI's creators defend the composite as reducing measurement errors via diversification, independent reviews argue it overstates chronic as "hunger" without causal linkages to shortages, favoring narratives over direct empirical tracking like anthropometric or intake surveys.

Governmental and Political Responses

The Indian government has repeatedly rejected the Global Hunger Index (GHI) rankings for the country, describing the index as a flawed and erroneous measure of hunger that fails to reflect 's actual nutritional status. In response to the 2022 GHI, which ranked India 107th out of 121 countries, the Ministry of Women and Child Development stated that three of the four indicators—child stunting, , and mortality—relied on outdated data from the National Family Health Survey-4 (2015-2016), while the undernourishment estimate used modeled projections rather than direct hunger measurements. The government argued that these methodological shortcomings, including a lack of recent primary data and overemphasis on child-specific metrics not exclusively tied to hunger, undermine the index's validity. This criticism intensified following the 2023 GHI, where was ranked 111th out of 125 countries with a score of 28.7, classified as "serious." The government dismissed the report as continuing to exhibit "serious methodological issues" and exhibiting a "consistent effort to taint the country's image," pointing to more recent National Family Health Survey-5 data (2019-2021) showing reductions in stunting from 38.4% to 35.5% and wasting from 21% to 19.3%. Officials emphasized that the GHI's undernourishment indicator, derived from estimates averaging caloric intake shortfalls over three years, does not capture actual hunger prevalence and ignores India's progress in programs like the Public Distribution System, which provides subsidized grains to over 800 million people. In 2024, the government reiterated its stance in , asserting that the GHI "does not reflect India's true position" due to persistent reliance on pre-2021 and to incorporate advancements in reduction and overall metrics from official surveys. Indian policymakers have advocated for alternative assessments grounded in national surveys and direct caloric access , arguing that the GHI's composite scoring—equally weighting undernourishment, child stunting, wasting, and mortality—introduces non-hunger factors like genetic predispositions to stunting and environmental influences on child metrics. No other governments have mounted similarly sustained challenges to their GHI rankings, making India's position a notable in political responses to the index.

Alternative Measurement Approaches

One prominent alternative to the composite Global Hunger Index (GHI) is the Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) Prevalence of Undernourishment (PoU), which estimates the percentage of a whose habitual dietary falls below the minimum dietary requirement for an active, healthy life. This indicator relies on a model integrating national food balance sheets, household survey data on food consumption distributions, and anthropometric information to assess caloric inadequacy directly, serving as the official metric for (SDG) 2.1.1 on ending hunger. Unlike the GHI, which aggregates PoU with child-specific and mortality indicators to proxy broader undernutrition, PoU focuses narrowly on energy deficits, avoiding with non-dietary factors like or that influence outcomes such as stunting. The FAO's Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES), part of the "Voices of the Hungry" initiative, offers another experience-based approach, using eight standardized questions to gauge the severity of food access constraints over a 12-month recall period, such as skipping meals or reducing food quality due to lack of resources. Respondents' affirmative answers are Rasch-modeled to produce prevalence estimates of moderate or severe food insecurity, enabling cross-country comparability and alignment with SDG 2.1.2. This method captures subjective dimensions of , including anxiety over food supply, which PoU overlooks by emphasizing objective caloric intake; however, FIES requires direct surveys, limiting its frequency in data-sparse regions compared to GHI's reliance on modeled estimates. The (GFSI), developed by Economist Impact, provides a multidimensional assessing across 113 countries via 34 indicators grouped into affordability, availability, quality and safety, and /adaptation categories. Scoring draws from quantitative like import dependencies and qualitative expert assessments on , yielding a broader of systemic vulnerabilities beyond acute , such as price volatility or pressures. While GHI prioritizes undernutrition , GFSI incorporates factors, revealing discrepancies; for instance, countries with strong agricultural may score higher on GFSI despite elevated GHI rankings due to child lags. Other specialized alternatives include the Spatially Explicit Hunger Index (SEHI), which refines undernourishment estimates by disaggregating data to subnational levels, addressing GHI's national averaging that masks intra-country disparities in hunger distribution. These approaches collectively emphasize direct caloric, experiential, or spatially granular metrics over GHI's outcome-based composites, with proponents arguing they better isolate hunger from confounding drivers, though each faces limitations like data gaps or oversimplification of causal pathways.

Reception and Influence

Policy Impacts and Awareness

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) has primarily served to heighten public and policymaker awareness of hunger disparities by providing annual rankings and trend data that enable cross-country comparisons, thereby underscoring persistent challenges in achieving on zero hunger. Since its inception in 2006, the GHI has tracked indicators such as undernourishment prevalence and child stunting rates, revealing stagnation in global progress—for instance, the world hunger level remained "serious" in 2024, with no advancement since 2015 despite economic growth in many regions. This visibility has prompted discussions in international forums, including references by the for SDG monitoring, though critics note that heightened awareness has not consistently translated into accelerated reductions in hunger metrics. In terms of policy impacts, GHI data and recommendations have influenced national strategies in select countries by informing resource allocation and multisectoral planning, though evidence of causal effects remains anecdotal and tied to broader development efforts. In Liberia, GHI rankings catalyzed the adoption of homegrown school feeding programs and the National Food and Nutrition Security Strategy, fostering accountability through community-engaged tools like infographics and local storytelling to address malnutrition hotspots. Similarly, in Ethiopia, GHI insights contributed to the Seqota Declaration, a 2015 commitment aiming to prevent stunting in 110,000 children by 2030 via multistakeholder interventions in agriculture and health. Nepal leveraged GHI trends to enact the Right to Food Act and expand the Safe Motherhood Program, integrating community health workers to improve maternal and child nutrition outcomes. GHI reports consistently advocate for governance reforms, such as enforceable food rights and climate-resilient rural policies, which have shaped dialogues but faced implementation gaps amid conflicts and fiscal constraints. Overall, while these examples demonstrate localized influence, the index's role in driving systemic policy shifts is constrained by its reliance on aggregated data that may overlook country-specific causal factors like governance quality or conflict dynamics.

Assessments of Utility and Bias

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) serves as a multidimensional tool for tracking hunger trends, incorporating indicators such as undernourishment prevalence from FAO data, child stunting and wasting from and WHO surveys, and under-five mortality rates, which collectively highlight both immediate caloric deficits and long-term nutritional outcomes. Its lies in aggregating these metrics into comparable country scores, facilitating cross-national and drawing attention to regions with persistent challenges, as evidenced by its role in informing SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) monitoring and prompting targeted interventions like Liberia's nutrition strategies post-GHI analysis. However, the index's emphasis on child-specific indicators—particularly stunting, which is weighted at 33% despite equal nominal shares—limits its responsiveness to short-term policy changes, as stunting reflects intergenerational factors including and rather than acute alone, potentially overstating ongoing crises in nations with improving adult food access. Methodological critiques further erode its practical value for precise policymaking; for example, the use of three-year averages for undernourishment and reliance on modeled estimates when direct data is unavailable introduces lags and uncertainties, while the absence of adult malnutrition metrics ignores broader , leading to rankings that correlate poorly with national food balance sheets showing adequate supplies. India's has contested GHI scores, arguing they erroneously equate child undernutrition proxies with overall hunger, disregarding evidence from household surveys like NFHS-5 (2019-2021) indicating reduced undernourishment to 16.6% from prior levels. Such discrepancies suggest the GHI functions more effectively as an advocacy instrument for NGOs and , amplifying calls for scaled-up aid and structural reforms, than as a diagnostic for causal interventions like enhancements. Biases in the GHI stem partly from data selection and aggregation: countries are included only if sufficient recent data exists for all indicators, excluding over 70 nations annually—including major economies like due to gaps in child wasting surveys—creating a sample skewed toward lower-income or data-reporting and South Asian states, which may inflate global severity perceptions. This exclusion criterion, combined with de facto double-counting of child populations in undernourishment and malnutrition components, introduces an upward severity bias, as critiqued in analyses of the index's composite scoring. Institutional origins exacerbate this; the partnering NGOs, rooted in humanitarian traditions, prioritize narratives of and climate-driven vulnerabilities, potentially underemphasizing market-led solutions or reforms evident in countries like , where GDP growth and welfare expansions have halved since 2011 yet yield stagnant GHI progress due to lagging child metrics. Peer-reviewed examinations confirm that such non-hunger confounders in indicators can mislead toward inefficient redistributive measures over supply-side fixes. Overall, while the GHI's transparency in allows for , its biases toward advocacy-driven interpretations diminish its credibility as an unbiased empirical benchmark, prompting calls for alternatives integrating real-time food availability data.

References

  1. [1]
    Methodology - Global Hunger Index (GHI)
    The Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a tool designed to comprehensively measure and track hunger at global, regional, and national levels, reflecting multiple ...
  2. [2]
    Global Hunger Index (GHI) - peer-reviewed annual publication ...
    Global Hunger Index (GHI) - peer-reviewed annual publication designed to comprehensively measure and track hunger at the global, regional, and country levels. ...
  3. [3]
    [PDF] 2024.pdf - Global Hunger Index
    Oct 28, 2024 · The 2024 Global Hunger Index (GHI) score is 18.3, considered moderate, with 733 million lacking sufficient calories. The goal of Zero Hunger by ...
  4. [4]
    Unveiling the 2024 Global Hunger Index: A Focus on Gender and ...
    On 10 October 2024, we discussed the findings of the 2024 Global Hunger Index and explored how advancing gender justice can create a climate-resilient world.Missing: key | Show results with:key
  5. [5]
    2024 Global Hunger Index: How gender justice can advance climate ...
    Oct 11, 2024 · The 2024 Global Hunger Index (GHI), published today, shows hunger levels are at serious or alarming levels in 42 countries.Missing: findings | Show results with:findings
  6. [6]
    Global Hunger Index does not really measure hunger - NIH
    The Global Hunger Index (GHI) was initially developed to focus attention and mobilize political will in the fight against hunger1. The GHI has subsequently been ...
  7. [7]
    What's Wrong with the Global Hunger Index
    Dec 10, 2024 · India: The Indian government has criticized the GHI for using flawed ... flaws in its methodology. Issues such as reliance on outdated data ...Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms
  8. [8]
    Global Hunger Index: Criticisms & Significance - Current Affairs
    Oct 14, 2023 · Government's criticism over flawed methodology: · Unmatchable data: · Poorly designed indicators: · Telephone-based opinion polls: · Issue of ...
  9. [9]
    Global Hunger Index: Misplaced Debate and Ignoring Priorities
    Nov 9, 2022 · The real issues in nutrition · Issues in stunting · Wasting persistent at critical levels · Socioeconomic gradient in stunting and wasting.
  10. [10]
    Global Hunger Index (GHI) - World Health Organization (WHO)
    The global hunger index is a means of monitoring whether countries are achieving hunger-related SDGs. It can be used for international ranking.
  11. [11]
    [PDF] 2025.pdf - Global Hunger Index
    + = The Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a tool for comprehensively measuring and tracking hunger at global, regional, and national levels. GHI scores are based on ...
  12. [12]
    Global Hunger Index Scores by 2025 GHI Rank
    The Global Hunger Index is a peer-reviewed annual report, jointly published by Concern Worldwide, Welthungerhilfe, and the Institute for International Law of ...
  13. [13]
    Resources for Understanding Hunger and Nutrition
    The four indicators underlying GHI scores—undernourishment, child stunting, child wasting, and child mortality—reflect deficiencies in calories (quantity) as ...
  14. [14]
    The concept of the global hunger index - CGSpace
    The Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a tool designed to comprehensively measure and track hunger globally, regionally, and by country.
  15. [15]
    [PDF] A Global Hunger Index: Measurement Concept, Ranking of ...
    In 1999, the first coup d'état in Côte d'Ivoire's history was staged. The ... As compared to an earlier publication of the Global Hunger Index (Wiesmann et al.
  16. [16]
    Methodological Review and Revision of the Global Hunger Index
    Aug 7, 2025 · The Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a multidimensional measure of hunger that considers three dimensions: (1) inadequate dietary energy supply, (2) ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] 2006 Global Hunger Index
    For this report, the Global Hunger Index was calculat- ed for the years 1981, 1992, 1997, and 2003. The year 2003 reflects the most up-to-date index scores, ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
  18. [18]
    [PDF] 2021 Global Hunger Index - Concern Worldwide
    Oct 14, 2021 · tion since the first GHI report was published in 2006. Also, in one ... It was founded in. 1962 as the German section of the Freedom from Hunger ...
  19. [19]
    Download the Global Hunger Index - Global Hunger Index
    The Global Hunger Index was first produced in 2006. It is published every October. The 2025 edition marks the 20th edition of the GHI.Missing: origins history creation
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Methodological review and revision of the Global Hunger Index
    This review is part of a process that the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) initiated eight years after the first Global Hunger Index was ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX - Welthungerhilfe
    Sep 14, 2015 · BOX 1.3 WHY THE GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX WAS REVISED. The Global Hunger Index (GHI) was first released by the. International Food Policy Research ...<|separator|>
  22. [22]
    Hunger measurement complexity: is the Global Hunger Index reliable?
    Yet, there are two major technical flaws on accuracy of the GHI in estimating magnitude and severity of hunger. Note that hunger measurement is a complex ...Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms
  23. [23]
    Revisiting India's Hunger Index conundrum - Deccan Herald
    Dec 3, 2024 · Many of these sources have limitations, including outdated data and small sample sizes. In India's case, the most recent comprehensive ...
  24. [24]
    Global Hunger Index | Current Affairs - Vision IAS
    Nov 14, 2024 · Out-dated data set: Source of data used to construct Global Hunger Index is outdated and far from convincing. For example, the National Family ...Global Hunger Index · Key Findings Of The Ghi · Key Issues With Ghi
  25. [25]
    Hunger and Undernourishment - Our World in Data
    Rates then plummeted, reaching 12% in 2015. In the last few years, the FAO has adapted its methodology for estimating undernourishment and no longer updates ...
  26. [26]
    The SDG of zero hunger 75 years on - ScienceDirect.com
    Although the world added 2.1 billion people from 1991 to 2017, there were about 200 million fewer undernourished people in 2017 compared to 1991. The share of ...
  27. [27]
    Hunger numbers stubbornly high for three consecutive years as ...
    Jul 24, 2024 · Global child stunting rates have dropped by one third, or 55 million, in the last two decades, showing that investments in maternal and child ...Missing: 1990 | Show results with:1990<|separator|>
  28. [28]
    World hunger facts: 13 things to know in 2026 - Concern Worldwide
    One in 11 people go hungry each day. The world produces enough food to feed all 8.2 billion people. Despite this, 673 million people went hungry for part or all ...Missing: findings | Show results with:findings
  29. [29]
    Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC) 2025
    Economic shocks were the primary driver of acute food insecurity across all of Yemen, and Syrian Arab Republic in 2024, where the severe damage and destruction ...
  30. [30]
    2025 Global Report on Food Crises: Rising food insecurity ... - IFPRI
    May 21, 2025 · Economic shocks drove acute food insecurity in 15 countries and impacted more than 59 million people. As in previous years, none of these ...
  31. [31]
    Exploring the reality of global food insecurity and policy gaps - Nature
    Aug 4, 2025 · World Bank (2020) reported that the pandemic pushed 100 million people into extreme poverty in 2020, worsening food insecurity by reducing ...<|separator|>
  32. [32]
    Five alarming statistics on global hunger - World Bank Blogs
    Jan 27, 2025 · In this blog, we highlight five alarming statistics that underscore the urgency of the global food and nutrition security situation.
  33. [33]
    Key World Hunger Facts and Statistics in 2025 - Goodera
    Aug 25, 2025 · Conflict and climate shocks are now top drivers of hunger, disrupting food production and access. Africa remains hardest hit: over 307 million ...<|separator|>
  34. [34]
    [PDF] The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023
    Jul 12, 2023 · This flagship publication is part of The State of the World series of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
  35. [35]
    Food Security | Food Insecurity Statistics & Solutions - World Bank
    Current state of food security in the world. Facts and statistics about food insecurity, its causes and challenges, geographic data and further resources.Data & Research · Security · Our Projects · News & Opinions
  36. [36]
    Unlocking the potential for achievement of the UN Sustainable ...
    Major drivers of hunger are war/conflicts, poor governance, inadequate health services, increasing inequality, weak economic development, climate change and ...The Un Sustainable... · Sdg 2 'zero Hunger'... · Food Systems And Agriculture<|control11|><|separator|>
  37. [37]
    Food | United Nations
    Facts and figures on Hunger and nutrition · Global hunger rose sharply from 2019 to 2021 and persisted at the same level to 2023, affecting over 9 percent of the ...Explaining Hunger And Food... · Resources · Global IssuesMissing: stagnation | Show results with:stagnation
  38. [38]
    COVID-19 Brief: Impact on Food Security – USGLC
    The COVID-19 pandemic increased global food insecurity in almost every country by reducing incomes and disrupting food supply chains.
  39. [39]
    Global hunger declines, but rises in Africa and western Asia: UN report
    Jul 28, 2025 · An estimated 8.2 percent of the global population, or about 673 million people, experienced hunger in 2024, down from 8.5 percent in 2023 ...
  40. [40]
    Global hunger falls but conflict and climate threaten progress, UN says
    Jul 28, 2025 · The gap between global food price inflation and overall inflation peaked in January 2023, driving up the cost of diets and hitting low-income ...
  41. [41]
    A global food crisis | World Food Programme
    Conflict disrupts food production, forces people from their homes and sources of income, and often hinders humanitarian access to people in most need. Climate.
  42. [42]
    2.1 Food security indicators: latest updates and progress towards ...
    Jul 28, 2025 · ➔ From 2025 to 2030, the global number of undernourished is expected to decrease, but 512 million people are still projected to be facing hunger ...
  43. [43]
    2025 Global Hunger Index: 20 years of tracking progress - ReliefWeb
    Oct 10, 2025 · Global hunger has seen little reduction since 2016, and stalled progress is pushing the 2030 target of Zero Hunger out of reach.Missing: stagnation 2020-2025
  44. [44]
    Global Hunger Index 2025 - Hunger As a Weapon of War
    Oct 14, 2025 · At the regional level, hunger remains severe in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia (with GHI scores of 27.1 and 24.9, respectively). Slight ...
  45. [45]
    Launch of the Global Hunger Index 2025 - Welthungerhilfe
    Oct 9, 2025 · Welthungerhilfe presents the 20th Global Hunger Index. Progress in overcoming hunger is being slowed by wars and the climate crisis – political ...
  46. [46]
    Why we should disregard the Global Hunger Index - Moneycontrol
    Oct 21, 2024 · A National Academy of Agricultural Sciences report critiques the GHI's flawed indicators, arguing they do not adequately measure hunger or reflect the country' ...
  47. [47]
  48. [48]
    [PDF] The Challenge of Hunger 2007
    In 2007, one in seven people, 854 million, went to bed hungry. The Global Hunger Index measures this problem, and 25 of 36 countries were in Sub-Saharan Africa.
  49. [49]
    [PDF] 2012 Global Hunger Index
    The 2012 Global Hunger Index, published jointly by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Concern Worldwide, and Welthungerhilfe, shows that ...
  50. [50]
    [PDF] 2019 Global Hunger Index
    This year's report includes a closer look at hunger and undernu- trition in Haiti and Niger, with an examination of the main factors contributing to hunger and ...
  51. [51]
    [PDF] 2015 Global Hunger Index
    Economic development, bet- ter food policy, conflict resolution, and international humanitarian response must all continue to play important roles in moving us.Missing: theme | Show results with:theme
  52. [52]
    [PDF] GLOBAL HUNGED INDEX - Welthungerhilfe
    Resilience is the central theme of the 2013 Global Hunger. Index report, published jointly by the International Food Policy. Research Institute (IFPRI), Concern ...Missing: 2013-2019 | Show results with:2013-2019
  53. [53]
    [PDF] 2014.pdf - Global Hunger Index
    For decades, the global political and development agenda has failed to put the spotlight on hunger and undernutrition. While recent years have.Missing: theme | Show results with:theme
  54. [54]
    Global Hunger Index 2016 - Getting to Zero Hunger - ReliefWeb
    Dec 22, 2016 · The 2016 Global Hunger Index (GHI) shows that the level of hunger in developing countries as a group has fallen by 29 percent.
  55. [55]
    [PDF] 2017.pdf - Global Hunger Index
    key reasons: inequality (the theme of this year's report) and timing. Inequality plays a greater role in Nigeria, where 4.5 million people. (out of a total ...
  56. [56]
    Global Hunger Index 2018 | Scaling Up Nutrition
    Oct 11, 2018 · ... . The 2018 edition also has a special focus on the theme of forced migration and hunger. • Read the Global Hunger Index 2018 – English.Missing: key | Show results with:key
  57. [57]
    One Health, Zero Hunger - Issues in Focus
    One Health, Zero Hunger aims to maximize the health of humans, animals, and the environment, while achieving Zero Hunger and building sustainable food systems.Missing: themes | Show results with:themes
  58. [58]
    [PDF] 2020 Global Hunger Index Synopsis - Welthungerhilfe
    FIGURE 1 GLOBAL AND REGIONAL 2000, 2006, 2012, AND 2020 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX SCORES, WITH CONTRIBUTION OF COMPONENTS. Source: Authors. Note: See Appendix C in ...
  59. [59]
    2021 Global Hunger Index: Hunger and food systems in conflict ...
    Oct 14, 2021 · The 2021 Global Hunger Index (GHI) points to a dire hunger situation in a world coping with multiple crises. Progress toward Zero Hunger by 2030 ...
  60. [60]
    Global Hunger Index 2021 - Synopsis - Welthungerhilfe
    This year's report points to a grim hunger situation fueled by a toxic cocktail of the climate crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and increasingly severe and ...
  61. [61]
    2022 Global Hunger Index: Food systems transformation and local ...
    Oct 12, 2022 · The 2022 Global Hunger Index (GHI) brings us face to face with a grim reality. The toxic cocktail of conflict, climate change, and the COVID-19 ...
  62. [62]
    Policy Recommendations (2022) - Global Hunger Index
    The 2022 GHI reflects both the scandal of alarming hunger in too many countries across the world as well as the changing trajectory in countries where ...Missing: key themes<|separator|>
  63. [63]
    2023 Global Hunger Index: The power of youth in shaping food ...
    Oct 12, 2023 · The 2023 report unveils the devastating impacts of multiple overlapping crises on the world's most vulnerable communities.Missing: key | Show results with:key
  64. [64]
    Two Decades of Political Pathways: Evolving Priorities and Shifting ...
    We need to acknowledge that food and nutrition issues are no longer linked solely to poverty. That is why our strategy to reduce food and nutrition insecurity ...Missing: flaws | Show results with:flaws
  65. [65]
    [PDF] Synopsis - GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX - Welthungerhilfe
    The 20th Global Hunger Index (GHI) arrives amid mounting concern over global food security, with crises worsening in several regions and progress toward Zero ...<|separator|>
  66. [66]
    Global Hunger Index data suffer from quality issues
    Oct 18, 2022 · Three (stunting, wasting and under 5 mortality) out of the four indicators relate to children under five years of age, indicating that it is ...
  67. [67]
    Global Hunger Index does not really measure hunger - LWW
    A review of hunger indices and methods to monitor country commitment to fighting hunger. ... Hunger measurement complexity: Is the global hunger index reliable?
  68. [68]
    Methodological Review and Revision of the Global Hunger Index
    Oct 14, 2015 · The Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a multidimensional measure of hunger that considers three dimensions: (1) inadequate dietary energy supply, (2) child ...Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
  69. [69]
    Global Hunger Report 2022- The index is an erroneous ... - PIB
    Oct 15, 2022 · The index is an erroneous measure of hunger and suffers from serious methodological issues. Three out of the four indicators used for ...
  70. [70]
    Global Hunger Index continues to be an erroneous measure of ... - PIB
    Oct 12, 2023 · The Global Hunger Index continues to be a flawed measure of 'Hunger' and does not reflect India's true position. The Global Hunger Report 2023 ...
  71. [71]
    Govt on India's rank of 111th in Global Hunger Index - The Economic ...
    Oct 12, 2023 · The government has rejected the 2023 Global Hunger Index in which India ranked 111th, calling it a flawed measure of "hunger" that does not ...
  72. [72]
    Global Hunger Report 2024 flawed, does not reflect India's true ...
    Nov 28, 2024 · The measure of hunger used in the Global Hunger Report-2024 index is flawed and doesn't reflect India's true position, govt told LS on Wednesday.
  73. [73]
    Despite India's low ranking in the Global Hunger Index, Modi ...
    Nov 16, 2023 · India ranked 111 out of 125 countries in 2023 Global Hunger Index, provoking the government to impute “mala fide intent” to methodology.
  74. [74]
    Indicator 2.1.1 - Prevalence of undernourishment
    An estimated 8.2 percent of the global population may have faced hunger in 2024, down from 8.5 percent in 2023 and 8.7 percent in 2022. It is estimated that ...Missing: 1990-2020 | Show results with:1990-2020
  75. [75]
    Home | Measuring hunger, food security and food consumption
    FAO uses FIES for food access, PoU for dietary energy, and household surveys for food consumption to measure hunger and food security.
  76. [76]
    Food Insecurity Experience Scale | Voices of the Hungry
    The FIES Survey Module (FIES-SM) consists of eight questions regarding people's access to adequate food, and can be easily integrated into various types of ...
  77. [77]
    Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) | INDDEX Project
    The FIES can be used to measure food security for the following purposes: To assess the population prevalence of food insecurity (for both SDG monitoring and ...
  78. [78]
    Methodology - Global Food Security Index (GFSI)
    The Global Food Security Index (GFSI) is an annual assessment measuring food security through affordability, availability, quality and safety, ...
  79. [79]
    Global Food Security Index (GFSI) - Economist Impact
    The Global Food Security Index (GFSI) is an annual assessment measuring food security through affordability, availability, quality and safety, ...Methodology · Download the index · About · Explore countries
  80. [80]
    A comparison of the Global Hunger Index (GHI) and the Spatially...
    A comparison of the Global Hunger Index (GHI) and the Spatially Explicit Hunger Index (SEHI). The global hunger index (GHI) provided by the International ...
  81. [81]
    GHI Policy Recommendations in Review - Global Hunger Index
    The world is at risk, according to current evidence and actions, of not achieving the goal of ending global hunger by 2030, but the ambition remains vital ...
  82. [82]
    'Biased, erroneous': Centre rejects hunger index report
    Oct 15, 2022 · The government has questioned the GHI's methodology, as it did last year. “The index is an erroneous measure of hunger and suffers from serious ...
  83. [83]
    A Methodological Rectification in the Global Hunger Index
    Apr 2, 2022 · The article proposes a methodological correction to the original Global Hunger Index to improve its validity as a tool to measure hunger in ...Missing: evaluations | Show results with:evaluations
  84. [84]
    Global Hunger Index: Misleading metrics - Daily Pioneer
    Oct 22, 2024 · It raises the question of whether the index is truly impartial or if it subtly reflects geopolitical biases. India has made significant strides ...<|separator|>