COVID-19, combined with the effects of ongoing civil conflicts, hotter and drier weather in many areas, and an unfolding locust invasion in Africa and the Middle East, could cut off access to food for tens of millions of people. The world is “on the brink of a hunger pandemic,” according to World Food Program (WFP) Executive Director David Beasley, who warned the United Nations Security Council recently of the urgent need for action to avert “multiple famines of biblical proportions.”

(Watch Beasley’s conversation on food insecurity as a national security threat with his WFP predecessor, Ertharin Cousin, a visiting scholar with Stanford’s Center of Food Security and the Environment.)

Understanding how these conditions – alone or in combination – might affect crop harvests and food supply chains is essential to finding solutions, according to David Lobell, the Gloria and Richard Kushel Director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment. Below, Lobell discusses the connection between immigration and U.S. food security, a counter-intuitive effect of COVID-19 and more.

How could COVID-19 affect global food security?

I think the biggest effects will probably be related to lost incomes for many low-income people. Even if food prices don’t change, potentially hundreds of millions could be pushed into a much more precarious food situation. I’d be especially worried about remittances – the money immigrants in wealthy nations send home to developing nations – falling, since these are a surprisingly large source of stability for many poor people. Beyond the income effects, there are definitely prospects for reduced supply of foods, but I think these are secondary, especially because global stocks right now are quite large.

Another counter-intuitive effect is that the drop in gasoline demand due to social distancing may be a big driver of changes in food prices. A lot of corn demand is for use in ethanol fuel, and corn prices can affect the prices of many other crops. The price of corn has dropped by about 20 percent since February.

What are the biggest risks in terms of food supply?

Three things come to mind. First, for crops that require a lot of labor, there are some indications that planting and harvest activities are being affected. Even though these are usually included as essential activities, they often rely on migrant populations that can no longer cross state or national borders. California is going to be a prime case study in this.

Second, some countries, like Russia, have started to restrict food exports in an effort to calm domestic consumers worried about food shortages. Even if there is enough global supply, there is a risk that supply for importing countries could be curtailed. This was a big part of the food price spikes a decade ago. Now, we have the added potential that exports will be limited by a lack of mobility to get products to the port – for instance, there are reports from South America that towns won’t let trucks through for fear of the virus.

Third, COVID-19 could really limit the ability of governments and international groups to address other crises that emerge. Nearly every year there are at least a few surprises around the world affecting food that are usually handled before they make big news. Things like livestock diseases and crop pest outbreaks, for example. But without the ability to deploy people to assess and fix problems, there is more scope for issues to go unchecked. Right now, the biggest example of this is the desert locust outbreak in Eastern Africa.

What current and/or likely future weather conditions might have significant impacts on food production?

As the globe warms, we continue to see more “surprises” in most years in terms of record hot or dry growing seasons. It’s a bit too soon to say if and where those will emerge this year. Since global food stocks are high, we have some ability to cope with a shock, but if governments are already nervous it may take less to induce export bans and all of the negative effects those entail.

Ahead of the summer harvest, what is the prospect for controlling locust swarms in threatened countries, and how might the swarms further complicate the global food security picture?

If not for COVID-19, this would likely be the biggest development related to food this year. My understanding is that they are spreading fast in Africa and the Middle East, and while they haven’t yet had big effects in the main production regions, the next couple of months will be critical. The hope is that the winds change and drive them back toward the desert areas they came from. If not, there are at least 20 million people at risk of major food security impacts in the region.

Could we see locust swarms in the U.S.? What can we do to prevent them?

Locusts can occur anywhere. A few years back there was a major outbreak in Israel. They haven’t been a big issue in the U.S. because control methods are available, such as widespread spraying. But again, in a time of COVID-19, these types of responses are harder.

What does history teach us about the situation we are in with multiple threats to food security, and how to deal with it?

I think it comes down to a combination of investing in science-based solutions to avoid problems to begin with, and then having good social safety nets for when problems arise. At that level, it’s not really any different than dealing with infectious disease. The absence of any problems is our goal. At the same time, that absence always seems to breed complacency and neglect. Hopefully, the experiences of 2020 will help strengthen support for a society based on facts, science and compassion.

Media Contacts

David Lobell, Center on Food Security and the Environment: (650) 721-6207; dlobell@stanford.edu

Rob Jordan, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment: (650) 721-1881; rjordan@stanford.edu

Most of the stillbirths that occur around the world are among women who live in low- and middle-income countries. Some 2.5 million women suffer the heartbreaking loss each year.

Yet determining the causes and prevention of stillbirths has largely been ignored as a global health priority — the incidence not even included in the WHO Millennium Development Goals.

Stanford Health Policy’s Rosenkranz Prize Winner, Ashley Styczynski, MD, MPH, discovered the alarmingly high level of stillbirths while working in Bangladesh as a 2019-2020 Fogarty Fellow, studying antimicrobial resistance in newborns in the hospitals there.

The $100,000 Rosenkranz Prize is awarded to a Stanford researcher who is doing innovative work to improve health in the developing world.

“I was surprised to learn that the rates of stillbirths were comparable to sub-Saharan Africa and that in many cases they had no idea of the cause,” Styczynski said in a Skype call from Dhaka, where she has been living for eight months while conducting her antimicrobial resistance research.

Rosenkranz Prize Winner Ashley Styczynski takes specimen samples with women in Dhaka, Bangladesh, for her research on antimicrobial resistance in newborns. This research led to her prize-winning proposal to investigate the alarmingly high rate of stillbirths in the South Asian nation.

The South Asian nation is among the top 10 countries with the highest number of stillbirths, with an average of 25.4 stillbirths per 1,000 births. Studies have implicated maternal infections as the cause; one ongoing study in Bangladesh has recovered bacteria from blood samples in stillborn babies in whom no prior maternal infection was suspected.

Styczynski believes intrauterine infections may be an underrecognized factor contributing to the excess stillbirths in Bangladesh. She intends to perform metagenomic sequencing on placental tissues of stillborn babies, a process that will allow her to examine the genes in the organisms of those tissues and evaluate the bacterial diversity.

“The alternative hypothesis would be that stillbirths are caused by non-infectious etiologies, which I will be assessing through interviews,” Styczynski wrote in her Rosenkranz application.

Those interviews will be with mothers to evaluate for frequency of infectious symptoms during pregnancy, including fever, rash, cough, dysuria and diarrhea, as well as possible toxin exposures. She will compare the findings with the metagenomic sequencing results to determine how frequently potential pathogens may be presenting as subclinical infections.

“By applying advanced technologies and software platforms, this research will not only enhance our understanding of causes of stillbirths in Bangladesh, but it may also provide insights into causes of early neonatal deaths," Styczynski said.

Bangladesh, one of the poorest and most densely populated nations in the world, offers a rich variety of emerging and known diseases that go undetected.

“The panoply of infections that could contribute to stillbirths is really unknown,” Styczynski said. “That’s why metagenomics is a great tool here. It just hasn’t been accessible here because of the expense. Now this tool will begin to unpack what’s causing these stillbirths.”

The Rosenkranz Prize was started and endowed by the family of the late Dr. George Rosenkranz, who devoted his career to improving health-care access across the world and helped synthesize the active ingredient for the first oral birth control pill.

“No one is more deserving of the Rosenkranz Prize than Dr. Ashley Styczynski”, said Dr. Ricardo Rosenkranz. “Because of her tenacity, originality and focus, Dr. Styczynski exemplifies the ideal Rosenkranz Prize recipient. She has chosen an often overlooked adverse outcome that may prove to be mitigated by her findings. As a neonatologist interested in health disparities, I fully realize the potential relevance and urgency of her work and am excited to see it come to fruition. As the son of George Rosenkranz, for whom this prize is lovingly named, I know that my father would appreciate Dr. Styczynski’s pioneering spirit as well as her desire to affect global positive change by improving medical outcomes in vulnerable communities. We can’t wait to celebrate her work back at Stanford in the near future."

Sheltering in Place

Styczynski spoke from her flat in Dhaka, where she has been confined for three weeks as the world’s third-most populated city prepares for the onslaught of the coronavirus. The country is on lockdown; no international flights in or out.

As of Thursday, there were 1,572 cases in Bangladesh and 60 deaths, according to the widely used Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Map.

But Styczynski believes that’s about 1% of the actual disease activity in the country because testing was so slow to start. She said there is great stigma in the country over testing — red flags are put on the homes of those who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 — because it breaks up the unity of families and the surrounding community. Health-care workers are being kicked out of apartments by frightened landlords and people are afraid to use the health-care system for fear of infection.

“So, the hospitals are quite empty — more so than they’ve ever been,” she said.

Styczynski likened it to waiting for the tsunami that you know is coming.

“That’s why I wanted to jump in to stave off the morbidity and mortality that will be inundating one of the most populated countries in the world,” she said. Some 165 million people are packed into 50,250 square miles — a land mass about the same size as New York State, which has some 19.5 million people.

Ashley Styczynski goes through a thermoscanner was when I was testing out the triage system at an upazila health complex.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a small team of four people working in Bangladesh. Having spent two years as an Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer at the CDC, Styczynski has now joined its Bangladesh team and is also working with the infection prevention and control team of the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh.

“Many people here in Dhaka live in high-density apartments with six to 12 people living in the same room,” she said. “How do you isolate when you have a one-room home?”

Ninety percent of the population are daily wage earners, Styczynski noted, who say they’d rather take their chances with coronavirus than die of starvation.

They take those chances at great risk. There is one ventilator for every 100,000 people in Bangladesh and the district hospitals have maybe one to two days of oxygen supply, Styczynski said.

They started out training military hospitals on medical triage, quarantine and isolation, and infection prevention strategies.

“We’ve also been going to some district hospitals to assess some of the challenges they are facing and to identify some of the gaps in preparedness so that we can communicate back to the Ministry of Health how they can better support these district hospitals,” she said.

Her pandemic travels to the district hospitals and preparedness work has allowed her to gather contextual data for her colleagues back at Stanford who are working to address the lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) in low-resourced countries.

“We hope we can generate some evidence very quickly so that we can share some of this information to better protect health-care workers in other low-resource countries,” she said.

Despite her research being temporarily sidelined, Styczynski is upbeat.

“This is what I signed up for as a Fogarty fellow, to help build local capacity,” she said. “But I am also an infectious disease specialist, and these are the types of situations we run towards rather than away from. We build our career for moments like these.”

Stanford Health Policy's Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya write in this Wall Street Journal editorial that current estimates about the COVID-19 fatality rate may be too high by orders of magnitude.

"If it’s true that the novel coronavirus would kill millions without shelter-in-place orders and quarantines, then the extraordinary measures being carried out in cities and states around the country are surely justified. But there’s little evidence to confirm that premise—and projections of the death toll could plausibly be orders of magnitude too high.

"Fear of Covid-19 is based on its high estimated case fatality rate — 2% to 4% of people with confirmed Covid-19 have died, according to the World Health Organization and others. So if 100 million Americans ultimately get the disease, 2 million to 4 million could die. We believe that estimate is deeply flawed. The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases."

"The latter rate is misleading because of selection bias in testing. The degree of bias is uncertainbecause available data are limited. But it could make the difference between an epidemic that kills 20,000 and one that kills 2 million. If the number of actual infections is much larger than the number of cases—orders of magnitude larger—then the true fatality rate is much lower as well. That’s not only plausible but likely based on what we know so far."

Read the Editorial