Bill Gates, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and other global leaders at Monday’s polio eradication pledging event in Abu Dhabi.

Global leaders pledged US$ 1.9 billion to advance polio eradication on Monday, including a new $1.2 billion commitment by the Gates Foundation.

The pledges, made on the margins of Abu Dhabi  Finance Week, reduce the remaining budget gap for the Global Polio Eradication Initiative’s (GPEI) to just $440 million through 2029.  That’s in comparison by the $2.3 billion funding gap that had been faced in May, at the time of the World Health Assembly, following the withdrawal of the United States from WHO, a major GPEI partner in early 2025.  See related story:

Polio Eradication Imperiled by $2.3 Billion Funding Gap

“The funds will accelerate vital efforts to reach 370 million children each year with polio vaccines, alongside strengthening health systems in affected countries to protect children from other preventable diseases,” said GPEI in a press release Monday.

Along with the Gates pledge, some $450 million was pledged by Rotary International, another leading GPEI partner along with WHO; $154 million from Pakistan; $140 million from the United Arab Emirates’s Mohamed bin Zayed Foundation; $100 million from Bloomberg Philanthropies; $62 million from Germany; and $46 million from the United States. Smaller amounts were pledged by Japan, Luxembourg and other foundations.

The pledge by the US, traditionaly GPEI’s second largest donor, was only a fraction of past years contributions. In 2023 alone, for instance, the US contributed some  $230 million – funneling roughly half of the funds directly to GPEI as well as through WHO.

Annual donations to global polio eradication broken down by country, foundation and international bloc for 2023.

In October 2024, the Polio Oversight Board approved an expanded multi-year budget totalling US$ 6.9 billion for 2022-2029.  That represented a substantial increase in the $4.8 billion projected for 2022-2026.  It simultaneously extended timeline for wild poliovirus eradication to 2027, and for the Type 2 vaccine-derived poliovirus variant to the end of 2029.

The wildvirus saw a sharp resurgence in conflict-ridden Afghanistan  and Pakistan in 2024. Vaccine-derived poliovirus variants, meanwhile, emerged or re-emerged in 35 countries across Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and even Spain – also as a result of conflict, migration and under-vaccination.

The 2026 GPEI budget is now pegged at some $786.5 million. The multi-year budget will be revised in review of progress in 2026, GPEI said.

The new Gates Foundation pledge was not unexpected following the announcement by the tech leader and philanthropist Bill Gates earlier this year that he intended to give away all of his fortune and drain his foundation’s endowment, estimated at around $200 billion, within the next 20 years.

Speaking to the UAE newspaper The National during the Abu Dhabi conference, Gates said the Foundation “has a 20-year lifetime and we have very ambitious goals. First to get polio done, but then malaria’s another disease that should be eradicated”. He added: “It’d be wonderful if 30 years from now, people said ‘malaria? What was that? Polio? What was that?”

Image Credits: Global Polio Eradication Initiative , Global Polio Eradication Initiative.

The UNEP report calls for the phasing out and repurposing of fossil fuel subsidies.

A baby born today will turn 75 in 2100, and the world that child will inherit as an adult – if governments don’t act in the next five years – could be 3.9°C hotter, economically shattered, and ravaged by pollution. But there is still a choice, a new United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report demonstrates. 

A sustainable, transformative path is still possible with a whole‑of‑government and whole‑of‑society approach, according to the report,  the most comprehensive assessment of the global environment ever undertaken, and the product of 287 multi-disciplinary scientists from 82 countries.

It will require massive investment now that will pay back exponentially, according to UNEP’s 7th Global Environment Outlook (GEO 7), launched this week at the seventh session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) at the UNEP headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya.

Climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation, desertification, and pollution and waste are costing trillions of dollars each year. One million of an estimated eight million species are threatened with extinction, some within decades.

Prof Ying Wang (left) and Sir Robert Watson (right) with UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen (centre) at the report launch.

Sustainable future?

The Global Environment Outlook lays out a simple choice for humanity: continue down the road to a future devastated by climate change, dwindling nature, degraded land and polluted air, or change direction to secure a healthy planet, healthy people and healthy economies. This is no choice at all,” said Inger Andersen, UNEP Executive Director.

She conceded that transformation will be hard at the launch on Tuesday, but called on all nations “to follow the transformation pathways laid out in the GEO 7 report, and to drive their economies and societies towards a thriving, sustainable future.”

The upfront costs are about $8 trillion annually until 2050 (far more than the $1.3 trillion negotiated currently). But the long-term return is immense. The global macroeconomic benefits start to appear around 2050, grow to $20 trillion a year by 2070, and could boom to $100 trillion per year thereafter.

The human dividend of this best-case scenario is profound. Up to nine million premature deaths could be avoided by 2050 due to decreased pollution, and about 100 million people could be lifted out of extreme poverty. 

“The cost of action is far smaller than the cost of inaction. Our message is simple. Time is running out, but the solution is here,” said Prof Ying Wang of Tongji University in China, one of the lead authors.

Current pathway spells disaster 

As sea levels rise and storms become more intense, more countries will be affected by floods.

The other stark future analysed in the report for a child born today is far worse. If governments stick with existing policies and trends, global average temperature is projected to rise by around 3.9°C by 2100, with a more than even chance of crossing 1.5°C in the early 2030s and 2°C in the 2040s. [The 1.5° threshold represents the global warming limit – relative to pre-industrial average temperature – that the 2015 Paris Agreement established as a key goal.]

On this trajectory, climate change alone would knock about 4% off annual global GDP by mid‑century and roughly 20% by the end of it, largely through crop failures, heat stress, floods and productivity losses, according to the report. 

Sea level could rise by up to two metres in the worst-case scenario, while the economic cost of health damage from pollution-related mortality is projected to increase to between $18-25 trillion by 2060. 

Those numbers sit atop an already dangerous baseline. Human activity has driven greenhouse gas emissions up by about 1.5 % each year since 1990, hitting a record high in 2024, while between 20 and 40 % of the world’s land is now degraded. 

Pollution, especially air pollution, is now “the world’s largest risk factor for disease and premature death”, with health damages from air pollution alone valued at around $8.1 trillion in 2019, about  6 % of global GDP. 

GEO 7 is a scientific assessment and guidance for governments, the private sector, and communities. It sets targets over the next few years and decades on the basis that climate change is an economic, health and ethical issue, not only an environmental one.

Rethinking economies

The report’s core recommendations centre on rethinking how economies measure success. This includes moving away from GDP as the sole metric and adopting broader “inclusive wealth” metrics that track human and natural capital – from clean air and healthy soils to education and public health.

Scientists behind GEO 7 stress that the decisive window is closing fast. To stick to the 1.5°C limit (currently about 1.4 °) in practice means global emissions must peak by 2025 and fall sharply – by about 40 % – by 2030. 

But current national climate pledges fall far short of that, with emissions in 2030 expected to remain close to today’s levels even if governments implement their plans in full.

Each additional fraction of a degree increases the intensity of heatwaves, droughts, floods and storms, along with knock‑on effects on food security, disease spread and mental health. 

To change course, the report calls for nothing less than a rewiring of how economies measure success and how societies consume.  

That shift in accounting, the authors argue, must be backed by hard policy. This involves phasing out and repurposing subsidies that encourage fossil fuel use and other environmentally harmful activities.

It means pricing pollution and other “negative externalities” so that the health and ecosystem costs of coal power, for example, show up in energy bills.

Public and private finance needs to be redirected to clean energy, ecosystem restoration, resilient infrastructure and universal access to basic services. 

These measures are framed not only as climate and nature policy, but as public health interventions that cut exposure to dirty air, unsafe water and toxic chemicals.

“We can no longer support the idea of ‘make money, make money, make money now, and I don’t care what’s happening later’,” says Prof Edgar E. Gutiérrez‑Espeleta, a lead author of GEO‑7 and former Minister of Environment and Energy in Costa Rica. “The main message to businesses is: yes, you can make a good business if you think in a sustainable way.”

Five systems, two pathways

GEO 7’s blueprint revolves around transforming five interconnected systems: economy and finance, materials and waste, energy, food and the wider environment. For each, it sets out concrete levers. 

In materials and waste, that means designing products for durability and repair, improving traceability, building markets for recycled materials and shifting consumption patterns towards reuse and sharing. 

In energy, the report calls for rapid decarbonisation of power and fuels, major gains in efficiency, and an explicit focus on energy access and poverty so that the transition does not leave poorer communities behind.

Food systems need to pivot towards healthy and sustainable diets, more efficient and resilient production, lower food loss and waste, and novel proteins that reduce pressure on land and water. 

On the environmental front, GEO‑7 urges accelerated conservation and restoration of ecosystems, greater use of nature‑based solutions to protect communities from floods and heat, and climate adaptation strategies co‑designed with Indigenous and local communities. 

Behaviour- and technology-led climate action

To navigate these shifts, the report models two “transformation pathways”. One is behaviour‑led: societies choose to place less emphasis on material consumption, adopting lower‑carbon lifestyles, travelling differently, using less energy and wasting less food. 

The other is technology‑led: the world relies more heavily on innovation and efficiency – from renewable power and electric mobility to advanced recycling and precision agriculture – while still curbing the most wasteful forms of consumption. 

Both pathways assume “whole‑of‑government” and “whole‑of‑society” approaches, with policies aligned across ministries and meaningful participation by civil society, business, scientists and Indigenous Peoples.

Despite the detailed roadmap, GEO 7’s authors are frank about the gap between their scenarios and today’s politics. At preparatory talks in Nairobi, governments failed to agree on a negotiated summary for policy makers (SPM) amid disputes over fossil fuels, plastics, the circular economy and burden‑sharing.

“There were a number of issues at the meeting in Nairobi that caused difficulty for some countries,” says Sir Robert Watson, a lead author and a former co‑chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Unfortunately, we could not come to an agreement at that meeting for a negotiated summary for policymakers.”

Bleak year for climate action

GEO 7’s call to action comes amid a bleak year for climate action, with the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, rising global emissions, and an underwhelming COP30 in Brazil all signalling stalling momentum to address climate change.

Watson points to the stalled global plastics treaty talks and “limited progress” at recent climate and biodiversity negotiations as signs that governments are “not moving fast enough, by any stretch of the imagination, to become sustainable”. 

Nations, particularly big carbon emitters like the US, China, the European Union, India, Indonesia and Brazil, need to take tough and ambitious climate action immediately. 

It won’t be easy in the current geopolitical climate. The authors know this, but are banking on “visionary” countries and some in the private sector to recognise they will make “more of a profit” by addressing these issues rather than ignoring them. 

“A number of governments, including one very powerful government do not believe in addressing issues such as climate change and loss of biodiversity,” Watson says. 

The irony is stark. Several leaders of the big emitter countries are in their seventies. The decisions they make – or refuse to make – in the next five years will determine whether that baby born today inherits a world of deepening crisis or one where investment in planetary health has begun to pay back by the time she turns 75 in 2100. The question is, what world will she see?

Image Credits: UNEP, AP, UNEP.

Former CDC director Dr Susan Monarez testifying to the US Senate after she was fired.

Why the collapse of the wall between science and ideology at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) threatens national health security, and vulnerable communities.

I have spent most of my professional life in public health, from my work in HIV and meningitis prevention in commercial sex venues in New York City to my roles in leading emergency operations in national and global outbreaks. 

I have seen what happens when misinformation fills the space where science should be–people’s health is put at risk. And today, as partisan political forces reshape what Americans are told about vaccines, infectious disease, and community health, I fear we are watching the same dangerous pattern unfold, and the health and safety of our nation will suffer.

The wall that once protected scientific evidence from political interference did not fall on its own. Its foundation was damaged by miscalculations and miscommunication during extreme threats like the COVID-19 pandemic.  

This damaged wall was then easily pushed down by nefarious actors who moved from the fringes to the top of national health leadership, facilitated by elected officials distracted by politics rather than focused on health. Unless we build a new, stronger wall, resistant to such attack, the consequences will be measured in preventable illness, permanent disability, and lives cut short.

From marginalization to manufactured confusion

For decades, the CDC has been a global gold standard in disease surveillance and immunization guidance. That work relies on a simple principle: CDC and external scientists generate and evaluate evidence. Policy follows the data after close consideration of all the domains to make sure that it supports the optimal health of people. Clear communications express the policy for public health and healthcare professionals and the general public

Over the last year, that sequence has been toppled. Instead of scientific review guiding recommendations, ideological preferences have dictated the conclusions while scientists were either not consulted or told to “find the proof” to support a pre-formulated conclusion.  

CDC subject matter experts have been excluded from substantive briefings with leadership at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Repeated requests for data to support the major changes to the immunization schedule made by secretarial decree have never been delivered. Sweeping changes to scientific documents have been announced without process, review, or the knowledge of the involved agencies.  

The result is not only dysfunction. It is distortion. The changes to immunization policy and science released under the CDC moniker were not produced through the normal, rigorous, transparent process.

They relied on analyses the agency never saw. They contained interpretations of research that the original authors themselves would not support. In some cases, they advanced ideas that have long been rejected by pediatricians, immunologists, virologists, and epidemiologists.

When science is forced to serve ideology, the public receives neither science nor ideology. They receive confusion.

US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr (right) has disrupted the US immunisation schedule since being appointed by President Donald Trump

Direct threat to vulnerable communities 

When I entered public health, I did so as a gay physician who watched too many friends suffer and die in a system that decided their lives were expendable. That experience shaped my entire career. It taught me that public health is not an abstraction. It is an obligation.

Today, that obligation has been broken. Ideological rhetoric has elevated intuition above science, denying the benefit of vaccines that have saved millions of children from disability and death and focusing on unproven or debunked risks of these vaccines or their components. 

This pivot toward a pre-vaccine worldview is not theoretical. It directly threatens infants, pregnant people, older adults, and immunocompromised individuals who depend on evidence-based recommendations and population immunity.

The consequences do not stop there. The current administration’s dismissal of transgender health, its efforts to halt domestic and international HIV programs, and its disregard for the expertise needed to manage respiratory viruses reveal a worldview centered on survival of the strong rather than protection of the vulnerable.

Eugenics is not a word I use lightly. Yet elements of that thinking are echoed in policies that promote natural infection over prevention provided by vaccines; confound health equity with diversity-focused hiring practices, and pit personal choice against community.

For people who already face barriers to care, such an approach is not only negligent. It is dangerous.  We cannot support systems where only the strong should survive or thrive. Not everyone has the luxury of choice in the circumstances that put them at risk for poor health.

A government that claims to care about the health of its citizens cannot choose which citizens deserve the opportunity to achieve their best health.  

Collapse of trust and credibility

Trust is the currency of public health. Without it, guidance becomes noise. Recommendations become suspicion. Data becomes propaganda.

The recent firing of scientists from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) through a social media post instead of direct communication was not just unprofessional. 

It was a public signal that expertise is now secondary to optics and key staffing decisions are being driven by loyalty to an ideology rather than competence.  It is unfathomable that the executive leadership of CDC does not include any career scientists and is staffed entirely by political appointees with little or no public health experience. 

When leaders announce major shifts in COVID recommendations in hastily produced videos or rambling online posts that bypass the agency entirely, the public does not see innovation. They see chaos.

As a public health expert, Dr Demetre Daskalakis has been involved in numerous health campaigns – including on mpox – but says public trust in institutions has been broken.

Once trust is broken, earning it back is not easy. It requires honesty, transparency, and humility. It requires acknowledging mistakes and inviting scrutiny. It requires remembering that the CDC’s credibility comes not from politics but from the dedication of thousands of career scientists who wake up every morning committed to protecting the public.  

CDC scientists continue to work to protect our health, but they are being held hostage in a hijacked agency being manipulated for the political and personal gain of its leadership. 

Where agencies like the CDC go from here

I resigned as Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, not because the work was unimportant, but because the work was being undermined at its core. 

As long as scientific staff cannot brief leadership, review data, or provide recommendations free from interference, the CDC cannot fulfill its mission.  

We have come to a point in the history of CDC where we cannot trust its communications.  It has become a wolf in sheep’s clothing: thinly disguising ideology and partisan politics in the garb of CDC-endorsed science and communication.

The path forward requires more than restoring old structures. It requires building a durable firewall between science and political ideology that is strong enough to withstand future attacks.

Three principles must guide that reconstruction:

First: Transparency must be non-negotiable. Data informing national recommendations must be publicly available, subject to peer review, reproducible, and accessible to CDC scientists. No policy should be finalized without the agency scientists responsible for it participating in the analysis

Second: Expertise must be valued, not vilified. Advisory committees like ACIP must be staffed with qualified, vetted experts who are selected based on competence, not ideological alignment with HHS leadership. Their guidance must be generated through a structured scientific process to ensure their recommendations optimize the health of people rather than serve ideology or the personal gain of HHS leaders and their associates. 

Third: Public health must return to its purpose. The goal is not political positioning. It is the protection of people. That includes members of  LGBTQ communities, immigrant communities, rural communities, Indigenous communities, and all who have historically been told their lives matter less.

Public health cannot thrive in secrecy. It cannot operate in fear. And it cannot function when science is treated as an inconvenient truth that can simply be edited out of existence with a tweet or revision of a website. 

Building a new system

 We are not witnessing a disagreement over data or a generative scientific debate. We are experiencing the intentional collapsing of the systems that protects the health of our nation. We are beyond the point of no return with CDC.  

Rather than hoping to rebuild a shattered agency, our effort should focus on building a new public health system that is better equipped to withstand the ideological blows that have damaged trust in the current federal public health system. 

It must be responsive to the needs of the people it serves on the ground rather than the whims of disconnected partisan leaders. Building these systems will require courage, clarity, and commitment from jurisdictional public health, academic, and business leaders who understand that public health science is not a threat to democracy. It is the foundation for the health and economic security of our nation.

The question is not whether we have the knowledge to create the new public health. It is whether we have the will and the courage to leave the past behind and move into the future.

As I wrote in my resignation letter, public health is not merely about the health of the individual. It is about the health of the community, the nation, and the world. The stakes could not be higher.

If ideology continues to replace evidence, we risk returning to an era where only the strong survive. If we choose science, transparency, and compassion, we can build a healthier future for everyone. The choice is ours, the time to act is now.

Dr Demetre Daskalakis, MD, MPH is senior public health advisor for the Wellness Equity Alliance. He is the former Director of the US CDC’s The National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, and nationally recognized in the US as an expert in infectious disease, immunization policy, and LGBTQ health.

 

 

Kenyan Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio sign the health agreement.

As World Health Organization (WHO) member states decided to hold a new round of talks in January on establishing a global pathogen access and benefit sharing (PABS) system, the US signed its first bilateral health agreements, which include pathogen-sharing arrangements, with Kenya and Rwanda late last week.

The WHO talks on PABS, the last remaining outstanding item of the Pandemic Agreement, will resume on 20-22 January but the two main groupings remained far apart by the close of the fourth round of talks on Friday (6 December).

Yet the US Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with the two African countries – and up to 48 others in the pipeline – potentially undercut any global agreement by giving the US early access to information on dangerous pathogens.

Few parameters for pathogen-sharing are set out in the MOUs, so any agreement reached by WHO member states could still guide African countries when they meet US officials in the coming months to nail down the terms of the MOUs.

However, “no common ground was found on key issues – particularly around benefits predictability and legal certainty in the PABS system” at the WHO talks, according to the Resilience Action Network International (RANI), previously known as the Pandemic Action Network.

During last week’s WHO negotiations, 51 African countries and the Group of Equity, which cuts across all regions, called for the PABS agreement to include model contracts – and submitted three draft contracts for consideration dealing with the obligations of the recipients of pathogen information, the providers of this information, and laboratories.

Africa and the Group of Equity want legal certainty in the PABS system, while the group, mostly developed countries with pharmaceutical industries, cautions against provisions that may hamper private companies or innovation.

“At the centre of this tension lies open access versus traceability,” according to RANI, a key civil society observer of pandemic talks. “Some favour unrestricted access to pathogen data and sequences (for example, without registration), noting it speeds up research and development. Others argue that benefits can only be enforced if use is traceable — and users visible.”

Up to 50 US-African MOUs 

Meanwhile, Rwanda and Kenya – in Washington for the signing of a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – both signed “health cooperation” MOUs with the US last week.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced during the signing ceremony with Kenya that there were “30 to 40” similar agreements in the pipeline while one of his officials said there were “50”.

The MOUs aim to revive US health aid, including the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) funding – the pausing of which by the Trump administration earlier this year has severely strained several African countries’ health systems.

In exchange, African countries have to commit to signing a 25-year “specimen sharing agreement”, although the MOUs only cover a five-year grant period. This agreement will cover “sharing physical specimens and related data, including genetic sequence data, of detected pathogens with epidemic potential for either country within five days of detection”. 

According to Article 4 of the model specimen-sharing agreement: “Each Party affirms that its participation in any multilateral agreement or arrangement, including surveillance and laboratory networks, governing access and benefit sharing of human and zoonotic specimens and related data shall not prejudice its compliance with this agreement.”

In other words, countries’ agreements with the US will, at a minimum, be on a par with the global Pandemic Agreement and its PABS annex. The US withdrew from the WHO on 20 January, the day Donald Trump assumed the presidency.

Kenya’s President William Ruto applauds Kenyan Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

US-Kenya agreement

The US “plans to provide up to $1.6 billion over the next five years to support priority health programs in Kenya including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB), malaria, maternal and child health, polio eradication, disease surveillance, and infectious disease outbreak response and preparedness”, according to a statement by the US State Department.

Over the same period, Kenya “pledges to increase domestic health expenditures by $850 million to gradually assume greater financial responsibility as US support decreases over the course of the framework”.

Kenya will assume responsibility the “procurement of commodities” and employing frontline healthworkers. It will also scale up its health data systems, in part to provide the US with accurate statistics about priority diseases, and develop systems to reimburse faith-based and private sector service providers directly, according to the statement.

Former DOGE leader Brad Smith, now senior advisor for the Bureau of Global Health Security and Diplomacy at the US Department of State, described the agreement with Kenya as “a model for the types of bilateral health arrangements the United States will be entering into with dozens of countries over the coming weeks and months”.

An earlier leaked version of the Kenyan MOU caused an outcry as it gave the US unfettered access to Kenyan patient data in contravention of the country’s Data Protection Act, but sources close to the talks say that the MOU now confirms that it will be conducted within the parameters of this Act.

US businesses in Rwanda

There is less information about Rwanda’s deal from the US State Department with sources close to talks indicating that the Rwandan government pushed back against several of the US demands.

Rwanda stands to get up to $158 million over the next five years to address “HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other infectious diseases, and to bolster disease surveillance and outbreak response”. 

The MOU also “helps further American commercial interest in Rwanda and Africa more broadly” through support for two US companies, robotics manufacturer Zipline and biotech company Ginkgo Bioworks, which recently settled a class action suit after being accused of fraud.

“When developing the dozens of ‘America First Global Health Strategy’ bilateral agreements we will sign in the coming weeks, we always start with the principle that American sovereign resources should be used to bolster our allies and should never benefit groups unfriendly to the United States and our national interests,” said Jeremy Lewin, senior official for Foreign Assistance, Humanitarian Affairs  and Religious Freedom at the US State Department.

South Africa has not been invited to talks with the US over the resumption of aid despite having one of the highest HIV burdens in the world, with Trump recently repeating false claims that the country was involved in “genocide” against its white citizens.

Child vaccination at the Primary Care Centre of San Pedro Carchá, Guatemala; 4.6 billion people still lack access to a package of basic health services.

Some 4.6 billion people, or more than half the world’s population, still lacked access to a basic package of essential health services in 2023, a new World Health Organization-World Bank report notes. And around 2.1 billion people faced financial hardship in getting vital health services. 

And at current rates, the world will fall far short of goals to achieve Universal Health Coverage (UHC) by the year 2030, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals, according to the 2025 UHC Global Monitoring Report, released on Saturday. 

Financial hardship and access to essential health services in 2022-2023.

Although the picture is more complex, the goal is tracked in terms of two basic SDG indicators – a UHC service coverage index and financial hardship in accessing services. 

The release coincided with a Japan-hosted Conference UHC High Level Forum, which brings together WHO member states to review progress and discuss the challenges faced. 

While access to health services rose sharply, and financial hardship in getting healthcare declined during the era of the Millenium Development Goals between 2000-2015, progress slowed in the SDG era – with the COVID pandemic also creating setbacks. 

At current rates, the “global service coverage index (SCI)” – which measures key indicators of access to a package of health services, will only reach 74 points out of 100 in 2030 – as compared to xxx today. And close to 1 in 4 people globally will still face “financial hardship” in accessing health services – about the same as today. 

Global trends in UHC SCI and financial hardship 2000-2022 and projected to 2030 based on past rates of change.  Source: WHO Global Service Coverage database.

Financial hardship is a revised indicator, now defined as outlays of 40% or more of disposable household income on medicines, treatment and diagnostics. 

The Service Coverage Index (SCI)  combines 14 tracer indicators of service coverage into a single summary measure. 

“The SCI is not a direct measure of what percentage of people have (or lack) access to essential health services,” noted Gabriella Saint-Germain, WHO team leader of financial protection, in an email to Health Policy Watch.  “Instead, it is a combined score that reflects how well a health system provides access to key services overall. However, like the service coverage index, between 2022 and 2023 there is little change in the number of people without access to essential health services. Population growth … is also a factor.”

Bright sides exist 

Amidst the gloomy forecast, some bright sides exist: 

Since 2000, roughly 53% of countries reporting data have achieved progress, measured in terms of improvements in services and access and reduced financial hardship. But since 2015, only 38% have done so.

And low-income countries saw the biggest improvements since 2015 but still face the largest gaps on both pillars measuring UHC progress – access and hardship indicators. 

All WHO regions have increased service coverage since 2015. And the African, South-East Asia, and the Western Pacific regions also reduced the share of the population facing financial hardship.

Public health expenditure increased slightly – except in low income countries

Public spending, per capita increased oor remained stable – except in the lowest income countries.

On a related note, domestic public health spending, per capita, exceeded pre-pandemic levels in all income groups except low-income countries in 2023. It also showed slight increases over 2022 levels. 

This according to the latest WHO global expenditure data, which was presented at a webinar last week.

However, in the lowest income countries, public health capita spending in 2023 was in fact  below pre-pandemic levels, while donor aid, per capita, reached an unprecedented high of  32% of total spending. 

Low income countries showed unprecedented reliance on donor aid in 2023.

In 46 low- and middle-income countries, aid amounted to more than half of domestic public spending, the WHO found, in an analysis of the latest data from the WHO global expenditures data base, presented at a webinar last week. And in nearly 70% of low-income countries, donor aid exceeded domestic public spending on health outright.  

Increases in aid, per capita for low-income countries in lower-middle income countries, a slight decrease.

2025 global health crisis could make things worse 

Monique Vledder, World Bank, speaking from Tokyo.

A fundamental cause of the stalled progress in UHC is the stagnation in public health outlays by national governments, noted Monique Vledder, head of the World Bank’s Global Health, Nutrition and Population Department, at the Tokyo press briefing.  

Ïn the lowest-income countries, public health outlays are only about $17 per capita, whereas government needs to spend around $60 to provide a package of basic health services, said  citing findings from a 2024 World Bank report

“If the trend continues we expect that to decrease to about $15 per capita, because of donor reductions,” said Vledder, speaking at a press briefing in Tokyo just ahead of the report’s release.  

‘Country compacts’ backed by new commitments from Gates, Gavi, UK and Japan

At the same time, around one-third of low income countries do have space in their budget to increase financing for health, Vledder contended.  “And so it’s something we focus on in the work we are doing with countries.”  

Just 18 months ago, the World Bank Group announced a plan to help countries to reach 1.5 billion more people with quality, affordable health services by 2030

Since the initiative was launched, “375 million people have already gained access due to country-led reforms,” Vledder said. “And work is on the way in over 45 countries to further scale proven primary care approaches that strengthen health outcomes while generating employment across the health workforce, local supply chains and supporting private industries.”

In October, the World Bank also launched a Health Works Leaders Coalition, co-chaired by the Government of Japan, and bringing together business leaders, heads of global health organizations, foundations and civil society to coordinate investment and share innovations. 

At Saturday’s UHC conference some 15 low-income countries are announcing new “national health compacts,” that aim to boost progress, and which are endorsed at the highest level of government, including health and finance ministries. 

New financial commitments to UHC are also being made by the Coalition’s members. 

This includes two new memorandum of understanding between the World Bank and GAVI and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. 

Each agreement aims to mobilize $2 billion in additional funding for health care systems and services – along with their targeted vaccines and disease portfolios. 

“Our partnership with Gavi is a vital step toward achieving our goal of delivering quality health services to 1.5 billion people by 2030,” said World Bank Group President Ajay Banga, in a press statement. “Strengthening health systems isn’t just about better care—it’s about investing in people, building skills, and expanding local manufacturing. These efforts will create jobs, boost economic growth, and build long-term resilience across the health sector.” 

Philanthropies are also involved in implementation of the country compacts, mobilizing $410 million in grant funding to the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) and the Gates Foundation, among others. Key donors such as the United Kingdom and Japan will also provide financing for technical assistance. 

“The compacts are key for progress at the country level,” said Vledder. 

Five proven solutions – including digital transformation and regional manufacturing  

Vledder said that the “compact” countries would be prioritizing “five proven solutions” that come together in digitally enabled Primary Health Care systems – supported by more local manufacturing of vital medicines and diagnostics. This includes:  

  • Nationwide digital connection of health facilities. “For example, The Philippines is digitally connecting health facilities nationwide. Uzbekistan is digitizing processes to reduce workloads by 30%,” she said. 
  • Expanding primary care delivery to virtual delivery modes. “also to make sure that those people that live remote and are most in need are receiving care”.
  • Digitally enabled workforce. “For example, Ethiopia will equip at least 40% of primary health care centers with digital tools to support clinical care and workforce management. St Lucia is investing in a skilled, digitally enabled workforce and modernizing regulation and education to regional cooperation.”
  • Health insurance schemes to remove financial barriers. “Morocco, for example, will extend mandatory health insurance to an additional 22 million people, and Kenya will double public health spending over five years to reach 5% of GDP and expand social health insurance coverage from 26 to 85%.”
  • Boost regional manufacturing of health products and technologies. “Nigeria, for example, will train 10,000 pharmaceutical and biotech professionals, create centers of excellence and offer tax incentives to expand local production of vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and health technologies.

Said Vledder: “So all those solutions come together in what we call a fully digitally-enabled Primary Health Care platform.” 

Image Credits: UNICEF 2024 , WHO-World Bank , WHO-World Bank , WHO, Global Expenditures database, WHO Global Expenditure database, WHO Global Expenditures Database.

ACIP committee vaccine Hep B
The influential Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended delaying initial Hep B vaccine in newborns – reversing 35 years of policy.

A United States vaccine advisory panel, recently reformed to include known vaccine skeptics, voted to eliminate a three-decade-long recommendation that all newborns in the US receive a vaccine to protect against hepatitis B (Hep B) at birth –  a change that was denounced immediately by medical groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Physicians. The recommendation must be approved by the acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), voted 8-3 to revise the US’s childhood immunization schedule for Hep B for the first time since 1991, saying that the shot is no longer necessary for babies born to mothers who test negative for the virus. 

Instead, ACIP recommended that parents delay the first dose to no earlier than two months – and consult with their doctors about whether and when to receive the vaccine.

ACIP vice-chair Robert Malone cited the “cumulative risk” of combined vaccines at birth as a reason for delaying vaccinations. 

But Malone has been criticized for vaccine misinformation. He is one of the new board members appointed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, a vaccine skeptic, following a “purge” of prior board members.

Medical experts urged the panel not to change the schedule 

vaccine Hep B cdc
A screenshot of the CDC’s website as of December 5, showing current evidence in support of Hep B vaccinations.

A long lineup of medical experts who provided feedback to the panel in two days of testimony strongly urged against changing the vaccination schedule, which has been credited with reducing Hep B infections by 99% in the US – preventing maternal to infant transmission of mostly-asymptomatic Hep B. Globally, the vaccine has prevented millions of infections, per Health Policy Watch’s related coverage.

“This vote is an unnecessary solution looking to find a problem to solve. It will only endanger children and increase risk of death for millions,” said Dr Jason Goldman, the President of the American College of Physicians in remarks to the Committee, whose proceedings were livestreamed.

“I would urge that we go back to our true experts who do this all the time, our CDC colleagues. They could have vetted this misinformation before it was presented to the public,” said hepatitis researcher Dr Amy Middleman pointing to discrepancies in remarks made by the Committee. 

The ACIP panel further recommended that instead of sticking to a set three-dose schedule, medical providers should test the antibody levels in infants to determine whether they should receive additional doses – when and if an initial Hep B dose is administered.

The problem with this approach, according to physicians, is that there is no implementation research or cost analysis of doing additional blood draws to back it up.  Without the jab, deadly and debilitating Hep B disease can be transmitted from asymptomatic mothers to newborns at birth who are not routinely screened under the patchwork of health insurance policies and systems that exist in the US today.  Moreover, toddlers and children can also become infected from more contact with infected blood or other bodily fluids at home or in school.

“We should do the studies first to determine if fewer doses are actually effective,” said Dr Judith Shlay, a family medicine specialist, in remarks to the committee. 

Republican senator speaks out against recommendation

It’s now up to the CDC Director Jim O’Neil to decide on whether to formally adopt the ACIP recommendation – and pressure on him is already building.

In a post on X, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA), a medical doctor and chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), urged the acting CDC director to reject the ACIP’s recommendations. Cassidy was a critical vote in confirming Kennedy’s appointment as Secretary of Health and Human Services. 

“As a liver doctor who has treated patients with hepatitis B for decades, this change to the vaccine schedule is a mistake. The hepatitis B vaccine is safe and effective,” he said in a post on X.

“Before the birth dose was recommended, 20,000 newborns a year were infected with hepatitis B. Now, it’s fewer than 20. Ending the recommendation for newborns makes it more likely the number of cases will begin to increase again. This makes America sicker,” he commented. 

Cassidy referred to the drop in US Hep B infections over the past three decades. Now, most cases of Hep B in the US occur in the Appalachian region, which suffers from a higher poverty rate compared to the rest of the country, according to CDC surveillance.

“Acting CDC Director O’Neill should not sign these new recommendations and instead retain the current, evidence-based approach,” Cassidy said. 

Image Credits: CDC.

Families arrive at the Dedza health centre to receive the measles-rubella vaccine in Malawi – the vaccine combinaation will remain a key component of Gavi support.

Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance has pared down its staff in its Geneva headquarters, Washington DC and New York by 33% – from 643 to 440 people, the agency confirmed today, following a June replenishment drive that fell about $2 billion short of a $11.9 billion fundraising goal for 2026-2030.

Beginning in 2026, the agency will also roll back support to partner agencies, The World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF for their vaccine initiatives. “As part of the package of trade-offs agreed by Gavi’s Board, WHO and UNICEF will see approximately a 30% reduction in funding,” a Gavi spokesperson confirmed of plans for the next five-year period, 2026-2030.

The new Gavi strategy, approved by its board on Thursday, also vests greater power in countries to determine their own vaccine priorities – beyond the most essential child and youth regimens – and within a pared-down budget of $10 billion for the next five years.

“In a major strategic shift that further centers country ownership, nearly 90% of the budget available to Gavi for vaccine procurement in its next strategic period will be allocated directly to countries through ‘country vaccine budgets’,” said the organization in a press statement after the four-day board meeting.

“In a time of financial constraints, countries will have full control of how to optimise and prioritise immunisation programmes per their national strategies and context,” Gavi said. The new budget will also increase its support for fragile and conflict settings by 15% –  alongside cuts in support to lower-middle-income countries. 

Gavi Leap

 

Gavi Leap offers most assistance in form of cash grants – with countries in charge of how it is used in vaccine programmes.

The changes are part of the new Gavi Leap  strategic plan for 2026-2030.

“As a result, more than a third of Gavi’s overall funding for countries will be focused on the 25% most vulnerable children. Allocations for country vaccine budgets will also prioritise the lowest-income countries with the highest number of deaths amongst children under five. A new agile funding mechanism, called the Gavi Resilience Mechanism, will provide flexible support to countries and partners in fragile and humanitarian settings around the world,” the organization said.  

In low-income countries, the budget cuts should not lead to the roll-back of existing vaccine schedules, a Gavi spokesperson emphasized in response to queries by Health Policy Watch. But new schedules and campaigns will be added more slowly.  And in the case of some lower-middle-income countries, Gavi will pare back some support in favor of domestic sources.  At the same time, new and more efficient procurement should also increase cost-saving efficiencies.

Since the June pledging event, Gavi has now raised $9.5 billion. And with other new commitments still pending, that Gavi officials expressed confidence that they could meet the $10 billion target for 2026-30 with ease.

The organization also will shift away from “rolling applications” so that all countries compete for funding on a more equal playing field.

“This also ensures countries that apply more quickly do not have an advantage in terms of access to Gavi financing and that all countries have an advance view of resources available for the next five years – and can clearly identify in advance areas to supplement with domestic financing,” the Gavi statement said.

Basic vaccine coverage assured

Vaccine priorities in new Gavi Leap strategic plan.

Sources in Gavi explained that support will work through country vaccine budgets to allow countries to:  

  • Maintain funding for key routine programmes: including polio vaccination (IPV and hexavalent); the pentavalent vaccine (diptheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type b); pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV);  routine measles/measles-rubella vaccination, as well as catch-up and follow-up campaigns;  Human Papillomavirus (HPV) campaigns among young teens and young women;  rotavirus and yellow fever.
  • Decide on other priority vaccines at national level –  meaning countries can choose/tailor which ones to implement based on their priorities, context, and available funding.

“Through the Gavi Leap, we are putting in place an ambitious programme of reforms that will enable countries to have increased agency and ownership over use of resources and decreased administrative burden, which will help our Alliance achieve its programmatic objectives. These changes are well on their way to implementation, with grant management reform – a key pillar of the Gavi Leap – already in place and a year-long Secretariat review that will see our headcount reduce by 33% now complete,” said Sania Nishtar, CEO of Gavi.

Gavi CEO Sonia Nishtar visits Solomon Islands health centre in November 2024

The new strategy includes provision for hepatitis B vaccine dose at birth continuing with longstanding expert advice for the jabs estimated to have prevented some 200 million cases of hepatitis B between 2001-2020. A 2020 Lancet study estimated the vaccines will prevent some 38 million deaths among people born betweeen 2000 and 2030 in 98 low- and middle-income countries.

Despite the evidence, a newly reformed US vaccine advisory committee stacked with vaccine skeptics on Friday recommended to delay the birth dose by at least a month, a decision that critics say will reverse decades of progress against chronic liver disease. See related story.

CDC Committee Delays Hepatitis B Vaccine for Newborns in Critical Guidelines Shift

Building on the post pandemic ‘Big Catch-Up Campaign’

During its fifth strategy period from 2021 to 2025, Gavi exceeded the target of achieving a 10% reduction in under-five mortality in supported countries, the organization said. 

In 2024 alone, Gavi-supported vaccination programmes saved at least 1.7 million lives in 2024, the highest number recorded in a single year. Critical new efforts to introduce malaria vaccines and revitalise HPV vaccination programmes against cervical cancer also achieved their targets.

While delivering on these goals, the Alliance also helped the world respond to infectious disease emergencies – supporting an unprecedented number of outbreak response efforts, delivering 2 billion COVID-19 vaccines to 146 countries via COVAX, and enabling recovery of routine immunisation coverage after the pandemic through “the Big Catch-Up” campaign.   

Despite those successes, the broader crisis in global health finance was reflected in Gavi’s June replenishment drive – which saw the United States, traditionally a major donor, withhold any new pledges altogether for the upcoming period.  The event featured a blistering attack by US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy around alleged vaccine safety issues – which both Gavi and other top experts repudiated.  See related story.

GAVI Vaccine Alliance Secures More than $9 Billion from Donors – Despite US Ambush at Pledging Event

 

Image Credits: Gavi/2017/Karel Prinsloo, Gavi , Gavi Leap .

Clinical trials
The African continent only accounts for 4% of clinical trials globally, jeopardizing the development of new medicines, and demonstrating the chronic underinvestment in the continent’s healthcare ecosystem.

In Kenya, toxicologists and epidemiologists face a difficult choice: to pursue better-paid work to support their families, or volunteer as reviewers for vaccine clinical trials, often without the compensation needed to cover even their children’s school fees.

Their dilemma underscores a broader challenge in Africa’s clinical research ecosystem. Slow, duplicative approval processes and limited regulatory capacity continue to deter sponsors from bringing trials to the continent. The continent accounts for 25% of the global disease burden, but just 4% of clinical trials

This “stark disparity” means that access to vaccines, diagnostics, and medicines is “not always guaranteed,” said Caxton Murira, a clinical research expert with the Science for Africa Foundation. 

Yet the continent also represents “enormous untapped potential” for the creation of effective and ethical medicines and vaccines, said Angelika Joos, science and regulatory policy executive at  Merck, and a panelist at the fourth and final event in a series at the annual Africa Regulatory Conference

“Africa is critical for advancing science and for ensuring that medicines work for everyone,” she said, addressing the recent webinar, hosted by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA). The four-part online conference focused on patient and community engagement, under-represented populations, innovative designs, and lastly, streamlining regulatory processes. 

Creating incentives for reviewers is one of the many ways experts have proposed to improve the continent’s regulatory system for clinical trials. To draw more clinical trials to Africa, panelists urged countries to  harmonize, simplify, and accelerate approvals for regulatory and ethics approvals across the continent. 

A ‘mismatch’ in the R&D pipeline

Africa continent clinical trials
Capacity fragmentation, poor visibility of resources, and a time-consuming regulatory process all hinder Africa’s clinical trial capabilities.

At the heart of the problem is chronic underinvestment. Funding for clinical research and development does not reflect Africa’s burden of disease, Murira noted. This gap spans both infectious diseases, such as malaria and tuberculosis, and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) like diabetes and heart disease, which are rising as Africa’s population ages.

And while many countries have made significant progress in reducing infectious diseases, NCDs are often neglected in clinical research and trials, Murira argued. 

Globally, clinical trials exceeded $84 billion in market size in 2024, with every dollar invested in clinical research yielding a $405 return. Yet only 4% of the roughly 25,000 trials that occur each year take place on the African continent. 

This mismatch, driven by global market and industry strategies rather than local disease burden, jeopardizes the future of new medicines and demonstrates the chronic underinvestment in the continent’s healthcare ecosystem.  

Experts pointed to capacity fragmentation, poor visibility of resources, and a time-consuming regulatory process as worsening Africa’s clinical trial under-representation. Many countries can host clinical trials – beyond the usual hubs where funding is typically concentrated to such as South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, and Tanzania. However, lesser-known sites struggle to compete with established centers.

Networks for collaboration

Clinical trial research Africa
Researchers across the continent, like those at Cape Town’s H3D Foundation, benefit from online platforms that raise the visibility of potential clinical trial sites.

To enhance this visibility, the South African-based start-up, nuvoteQ, has set up an interactive online platform called the Clinical Trials Community (CTC) Africa

CTC aims to attract investment in African clinical trials by showcasing the continent’s clinical trialists and research sites, said CEO Adriaan Kruger. 

It is an “interactive platform” that provides a registry of sites, data on site feasibility, and access to country-specific regulatory and ethics information to make it easier for sponsors to find and partner with African research locations. 

“We actively work on providing and building a financially sustainable model so that we can keep these platforms running in the long term,” said Kruger, noting that past initiatives have failed to gain traction.

Efforts to enhance visibility and partnerships are already underway regionally. The Science for Africa Foundation, headquartered in Nairobi, has mapped over 3,500 clinical trial centers, regulatory boards in 55 countries, and 196 ethics committees. The goal, Murira said, is to improve visibility while highlighting gaps that need investment.

“We’ve shifted from asking, ‘What’s your research capacity?’ to ‘How can we use what you have to position you to be a leader on the African continent?’” said Murira, who heads the foundation’s clinical trials and research portfolio. 

Standardizing the process 

Clinical trials IFPMA regulatory conference
Panelists at the final Africa Regulatory Conference discuss potential solutions to optimize clinical trial approvals.

Aside from finding suitable sites for trials, researchers or pharmaceutical companies looking to recruit patients into clinical trials find that the approval process can be duplicative, ineffective, and expensive, said Joos. 

These delays hinder patient access to innovative treatments, and deter researchers from attempting more trials.

Bioethicist Keymanthri Moodley, an emeritus professor at Stellenbosch University, highlighted the lack of standardization – and trust – between research approval boards as impeding the process. 

“One research committee does not trust the competency of another,” Moodley argued. So if malaria vaccine researchers wanted to recruit participants across a national border, they could run into months-long delays for approvals from both countries. Furthermore, both researchers and reviewers are in need of training. 

“We have the tools but we need standardization,” said Moodley, pointing to World Health Organization’s (WHO) Global Benchmarking Tool (GBT) as a helpful metric for evaluating national regulatory authorities (NRAs). 

“There has been so much development at the theoretical level. But the area where we experience challenges is implementation. The continent is heterogeneous. Every country is different, but in general, very few resources are allocated to regulatory authorities and research ethics committees. And so we were always complaining about delays in regulatory approval,” said Moodley, who also served as founding director of a WHO Collaborating Centre in Bioethics.

David Mukanga, deputy director for Africa regulatory systems at the Gates Foundation, echoed these concerns, saying that as research ethics committee members are not paid to review trials, they are placed in a difficult position. 

“If you review 30 protocols in five years, it doesn’t count towards your promotion,” he said. But supervising a PhD student does.” 

This leaves academics juggling teaching loads, exams, and financial pressures while trying to support essential ethical reviews. 

“There needs to be creative incentives for people to be able to commit time and be recognized for their good work in supporting reviews,” he said.

Reducing duplication through regulatory reliance

One solution gaining attention is regulatory reliance – the concept that one country’s drug regulator uses the scientific assessments of another trusted authority. This, in turn, could reduce redundant reviews and shorten approval timelines.

“Leveraging trusted national regulatory assessments reduces duplication, speeds approvals, and fosters collaboration,” said Lada Leyens, a senior director at the pharmaceutical company Takeda. 

The UK’s medicines regulator recently introduced a clinical trial reliance pathway allowing approvals within two weeks when a trusted authority has already assessed the application, Leyens noted. For under-resourced African regulators facing staff shortages and high turnover, reliance could significantly shorten timelines.

Africa’s future

For those working to improve the clinical research and trials ecosystem in Africa, enhancing the visibility of capacity, fostering trust between researchers, regulators, sponsors, and the community, and increasing investments in ethical clinical trials in Africa all remain critical goals. 

“We need to build the capabilities now and the capacities now to position Africa as a key player in the next decade of this global health innovation. It’s about equity, it’s about scientific progress, and it’s about preparing Africa for the future,” remarked Joos. 

 

The webinar, Streamlining regulatory and ethics approvals, was the fourth of a four-part online African Regulatory Conference hosted by IFPMA. All four sessions were recorded and available for viewing.

Image Credits: Eugene Kabambi/ WHO, IFPMA.

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu briefs the media about the case on Tuesday.

The City of San Francisco has filed a historic lawsuit against 10 ultra-processed food (UPF) manufacturers, seeking “restitution and civil penalties” to help local governments to “offset astronomical health care costs associated with UPF consumption”.

The 10 companies are Kraft Heinz Company, Mondelez International, Post Holdings, The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle USA, Kellogg, Mars Incorporated, and ConAgra Brands, which make the bulk of UPF in the US.

The first-of-its-kind lawsuit, filed on Tuesday on behalf of the people of the State of California, alleges that the companies used “unfair and deceptive acts” to sell and market their products, violating California’s Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance statute. 

Aside from restitution, the City wants the companies to stop using “deceptive marketing” and “take action to correct or lessen the effects of their behavior”. 

“This case is about food products whose ingredients and manufacturing processes interrupt our bodies’ abilities to function. It is about the Defendants – gigantic food conglomerates, all – who designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold these foods knowing they were dangerous for human consumption,” the City argues.

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu told a media briefing: “They took food and made it unrecognisable and harmful to the human body.”

Comparing the UPF companies’ tactics to those used by tobacco companies, Chui said: “We must be clear that this is not about consumers making better choices. Recent surveys show Americans want to avoid ultra-processed foods, but we are inundated by them. These companies engineered a public health crisis, they profited handsomely, and now they need to take responsibility for the harm they have caused.”

Some of the UPF targeted by the City of San Francisco.

UPF stimulates cravings

San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie added: “San Francisco families deserve to know what’s in their food. We’re not going to let our residents be misled about the products in our grocery stores. We are going to stand up for public health and give parents the information they need to keep themselves and their kids safe and healthy.”

The court papers define UPF as “former whole foods that have been broken down, chemically modified, combined with additives, and then reassembled using industrial techniques such as molding, extrusion, and pressurization. 

Some contain additives unique to UPF, including “colors, flavor enhancers, emulsifiers, artificial sweeteners, thickeners, and foaming, anti-foaming, bulking, and gelling agents”. 

These foods are a “combination of chemicals designed to stimulate cravings and encourage overconsumption”. UPF makes up some 70% of food consumed in the US.

The consumption of UPF has been linked to Type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, cardiovascular disease, colorectal cancer, and depression.

Protecting communities

“This lawsuit is a critical step toward protecting the health of our communities,” said San Francisco Director of Health Daniel Tsai. “For decades, ultra-processed foods have reshaped our diets. 

“These products are not just unhealthy, they are engineered to be addictive, disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities of color, and contribute to rising rates of chronic illness like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer,”  said San Francisco Director of Health Daniel Tsai.

The City’s court papers also argue that UPF marketing campaigns “disproportionately targeted Black and Latino children, who have been targeted with 70% more ads for ultra-processed foods than their white counterparts”.

The prevalence of diabetes among Black Americans has quadrupled in the past 30 years, and Black Americans are 70% more likely to develop diabetes than White Americans, according to the court papers.

Largest review of UPF

The aggressive marketing of ultra-processed food is one of the drivers of children’s rising obesity.

The court case, the first such action by a municipality, comes a few weeks after the world’s largest review of UPF was published in The Lancet.

The three-part review argues that the rise in UPF “is driven by powerful global corporations who employ sophisticated political tactics to protect and maximise profits”. 

The review stresses that education aimed at individual behaviour change is not enough: “Deteriorating diets are an urgent public health threat that requires coordinated policies and advocacy to regulate and reduce ultra-processed foods and improve access to fresh and minimally processed foods.”

The series provides hundreds of studies to prove its thesis that UPF is displacing long-established dietary patterns centred on whole foods, and this is “a key driver of the escalating global burden of multiple diet-related chronic diseases”.

Using evidence from national food intake surveys, large cohorts, and interventional studies, the review highlights global patterns of “gross nutrient imbalances”. It shows that overeating is driven by the “high energy density, hyper-palatability, soft texture, and disrupted food matrices” of UPFs, and the rise of UPF has led to the consumption of “toxic compounds, endocrine disruptors, and potentially harmful classes and mixtures of food additives”.

The Lancet editorial published alongside the review notes that “the rise of UPFs in human diets is damaging public health, fuelling chronic diseases worldwide, and deepening health inequalities”.

“Addressing this challenge requires a unified global response that confronts corporate power and transforms food systems to promote healthier, more sustainable diets.”

The series advocates for a food system based on local food producers, preserving cultural foods and ensuring economic benefits for communities.

Image Credits: City of San Francisco.

Healthworkers wash hands before a vaccination campapign in Somalia, October 2020.  WASH practices, reinforced by the COVID pandemic, have since lapsed, increasing risks of infection and along with that, drug-resistant pathogens (AMR).

The post-pandemic decline in infection-prevention practices, along with the broader crash in global health finance, are undermining progress against antimicrobial resistance –  one of the planet’s most urgent health threats. At a recent panel discussion co-hosted by the Geneva Health Forum (GHF), leading experts from WHO, academia, biotech, and patient advocacy warned that national AMR plans are stalling in the absence of  funding. And pipelines for new drug development remain desperately under-financed. 

Governance and finance: ‘domestic investment is missing link’

Sarah Paulin-Deschenaux (second right) with Tomasso Cai, Melissa Mead, Ingrid Wanninger, and Mariam Zaidi (moderator) at the GHF symposium.

For Dr. Sarah Paulin-Deschenaux, a technical officer in WHO’s AMR department, the most troubling trend is how quickly hard-won gains from the COVID-19 era have faded.

During the pandemic, “there was political willingness, there was financing for infection prevention and control (IPC), WASH and hand hygiene,” she said. “But priorities shifted, financing shifted —and many behaviours we had begun to institutionalize were not sustained.”

Speaking at an event convened by the Geneva Health Forum (GHF)  and OM Pharma during World AMR Awareness week, in late November, she noted that most countries still lack the institutional structures required to implement AMR strategies at scale. Recent WHO analysis reveals:

  • Only 34% of countries have nationwide infection prevention and control (IPC) programmes;
  • Nearly 60 countries report no IPC systems in place;
  • IPC, public awareness, and antimicrobial-use monitoring consistently score as the weakest indicators in national action plan implementation.

On top of that, only one in four healthcare healthcare facilities globally have access to clean running water. And only two in five healthcare facilities have access to hand hygiene facilities at the point of care.

“How are you supposed to have effective infection prevention when you don’t have the enabling environment? So then you wind up using antibiotics as a substitute for good infection prevention and WASH,” Paulin-Deschenaux said.

The structural problem, she stressed, is that AMR commitments sit too low in government hierarchies. “Ministries of Health in developing and lower-middle income countries are not putting any domestic financing towards the actual implementation of their national action plans on AMR.

In contrast,  governance on antimicrobial resistance needs to be “embedded in the highest political office—in the president’s office. That’s where we need the political commitment. Only then will we have tangible results.”

Meeting the UN target of reducing AMR deaths by 10% by 2030

Deaths (all ages) attributable to and associated with bacterial antimicrobial resistance by
region, 2019

Post-pandemic, that sense of urgency hardly registers among politicians – even though AMR is the third leading cause of mortality in the world. 

In 2024, over 1 million deaths are directly linked to bacterial AMR, and 5 million deaths indirectly, according to the first major landmark study on the disease burden, published last year in The Lancet.  

In a business as usual scenario, AMR will cause 39 million deaths worldwide over the next 25 years, equivalent to over 3 deaths every minute, WHO projects. 

At the UN High Level Meeting on AMR in 2024, countries agreed to set a target for reducing  AMR deaths by 10% by 2030

Following on from the High Level Declaration on AMR, Nigeria will host a ministerial-level review in June 2026 of progress. But momentum has stagnated at a critical moment, Deschenaux and other experts at the panel warned. 

Lax regulatory measures in many developing countries continue to make antibiotics far too available over-the-counter, inviting overuse that breeds pathogen resistance – or ‘superbugs’. Public awareness of AMR is low – with the term difficult to even translate from English. The R&D pipeline for new antibiotics is “broken”. And along with human misuse, animal overuse of the life-saving drugs remains the elephant in the room – far greater quantities of antibiotics than human health globally.   

AI and diagnostics: can LMICs benefit from the potential?

Colombian doctor remotely evaluates patient’s respiratory symptoms using digital diagnostics.

Against that gloomy landscape, can new technology be one solution? Indeed, AI driven tools offer huge potential to improve diagnostic capacity for clinicians who often struggle to determine if a fever or other symptoms of illness are viral or bacterial in origin. Accurate diagnosis, in turn, can lead to much faster as well as better decisions about treatment in situations where the right choice of drugs may be the difference between life and death. 

New technologies, however, remain challenging to adapt to resource-limited settings that need them most.

Paulin-Deschenaux noted a promising Colombian pilot that uses AI to support clinical decisions in an environment where diagnostic tools are limited.  

“But [too] often these types of innovations stay within the high income country setting,” she said, expressing hopes that new public-private partnerships can help move the needle for other developing countries. 

On the front lines of sepsis prevention, Melissa Mead, UK Sepsis Trust Ambassador, described how NHS England is testing AI tools to help emergency departments distinguish patients at risk of sepsis—those “in that grey area, that cusp” where timely antibiotic decisions are crucial.

Can AI help detect drug-resistant bacteria more rapidly? Portrayed here, an electron micrograph of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA, brown), a deadly bacteria resistant to many antibiotics, surrounded by cellular debris.

Italian urologist Prof. Tommaso Cai, meanwhile, noted that AI-assisted prescription models have already demonstrated clinical promise in more precise diagnosis and treatment of drug-resistant urinary tract infections – integrating individual patient histories and local resistance data.

“The system can suggest the correct antibiotic,” he said—offering clinicians a lifeline in an era where common bacteria are increasingly resistant to some drugs – but not others. 

However, technological innovation must be coupled with clinician training, behaviour change frameworks, and policy safeguards to prevent algorithm-driven misuse or overuse, the experts stressed. 

Innovation crisis: a broken market for new antibiotics

New drug resistant bacterial strains are emerging more and more rapidly after the introduction of new antibiotics.

While AI developments generate optimism, the innovation ecosystem behind new antimicrobials and infection-prevention technologies remains fragile.

Dr. Ingrid Wanninger, board member of the BEAM Alliance a European AMR innovation hub for Biotech, noted that small and medium-sized firms are leading the way in R&D. But they face a gauntlet of challenges to bring new drugs to market. 

“SMEs produce the majority of innovation, yet they operate with one to two years of financial runway,” she said. 

“We are really lost here. If you go to private investors and say you are working in infectious diseases, they have no interest. In AMR, business models are lacking. Big pharma has left the field.

 “Private investors won’t touch infectious diseases, and the AMR space is seen as too risky,” she added, describing the current landscape as “a broken market.”

Create sustainable market incentives for antimicrobial and prevention-focused innovation;

Traditionally, the existing public-private innovation engines like —CARB-X  and GARDP— have primarily supported R&D on new diagnostics or antibiotic treatments – leaving preventive therapies as a kind of outlier. 

“Prevention will not solve the whole AMR topic, but we need to have it as well,” said Wanninger, citing promising approaches such as bacteriophages (viruses that kill bacteria); and bacteriophage-derived endolysins (enzymes that have powerful antimicrobial properties). Other cutting edge mechanisms include immune stimulants (such as bacterial lysates or other bacterial-derived products, vaccines and immunotherapies.

In the past year alone, two BEAM member companies working on novel antimicrobials and bacteriophage-based interventions declared bankruptcy despite having viable technologies, she noted.

Along with more specific R&D calls for such methods, there is a continuing need for more integrated “push” mechanisms to de-risk early R&D; along with government and market-driven “pull incentives” to secure predictable uptake and revenue streams once products are put on the market. 

Without both, she warned, “You can have the innovation and the patents, but if financing isn’t there, companies disappear—and the expertise disappears with them.”

Public awareness and trust

Public trust is critical: Melissa Mead, center, Sepsis Trust, England.

While the pandemic also saw a huge acceleration in the R&D timeline for drugs and vaccines, the clock has slowed once more in the post-pandemic era. “We’ve gone back to six-or ten-years to develop an antibiotic, to get through the political rhetoric,” Mead said.

Paradoxically, the speed and way in which new COVID treatments were developed and rolled out may have also contributed to a crisis of public trust.  That, along with the current political climate has led to falling vaccination rates in many developed countries, including the UK.  And fewer vaccinations also leads to more antibiotic use amongst people who do actually fall ill, Mead noted. 

In many low and middle income countries, meanwhile, antibiotics can still be purchased widely over the counter – while in higher income countries they are generally impossible to obtain without a prescription – incentivizing diverse forms of misuse and hoarding. 

“In high-income countries, accessing an antibiotic when appropriate can be complex and expensive. That’s why households keep full courses of broad-spectrum antibiotics at home,” noted Raj Kumar, a physician and former UN medical officer, speaking from the floor of the GHF event.

Altogether, the AMR threat is poorly understood not only by politicians but by the public at large.  Even the language used by scientists doesn’t resonate.  

Multiple drivers and impacts of drug resistance (AMR) are difficult to communicate and poorly understood by the public.

Overall there is a need to reframe AMR communication to focus on infection, behaviour change, and relatable human impact.

“People understand infections, not AMR,” said Mead. “If a leaflet says antimicrobial resistance, they won’t pick it up. If it says infection, they will.”

In some countries, including Malawi, there is no direct translation for “AMR,” noted Paulin Deschanaux, complicating public-health messaging.

She described how WHO is working with patient survivors’ groups to shift communication strategies toward relatable human stories, rather than technical terminology. 

But conversely, celebrity-led stories and campaigns can backfire, Mead warned, raising questions about motivation and remuneration. “People relate to ordinary families. Real stories drive behaviour change far more effectively than professional endorsements.”  

Animal health oft-ignored factor 

Regional trends in volumes of animal antimicrobial sales largely correspond with growing AMR hotspots.

AMR issues and solutions also must be integrated into agriculture practices, from veterinary care to fisheries and plant production, panelists acknowledged.  

Under pressure from industry, proposed targets for reducing by 30% antibiotics use in agri-food systems by 2030 were dropped from the 2024 UN High Level Declaration – even though livestock and other food production in fact uses far larager volumes of the drugs than human health systems.  

But even if human health systems use fewer drugs, that doesn’t obviate the need for more robust infection prevention and control in clinical settings, Cai stressed: “Lower proportional use is not an excuse to relax standards.” 

And while the window for action is narrowing, it’s not too late yet to rebuild IPC systems with lessons learned from the pandemic; unlock more domestic finance; and create sustainable market incentives for innovation.

“We’re still in our [post-pandemic] learning phase,” Paulin-Deschenaux said. “It’s such a multifaceted approach. You need the education, the awareness, behavior change. It has to start in schools. It has to go all the way through to healthcare professionals’ in-service training. It’s really a continuous process. But I think the core of it, unfortunately, is priorities. Priorities change, financing shifts. And that is unfortunate.”

Image Credits: WHO/Sarah Pabst, UNICEF , HP Watch , The Lancet, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons, NIAID, Yvan Hutin/WHO, WHO , Van Boeckel et al, ETH Zurich.