The invisible backbone of the world's food system: What 327 studies from 64 countries tell us about informal food vendors

The Alliance of Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

image: 

Fresh produce for sale on the street in Hanoi, Vietnam. 

view more 

Credit: Ha Dao / CIAT

A new systematic review in Food Policy, from a team spanning the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, Cornell University, GAIN, and collaborating institutions 

Walk through almost any city or town in a low-income or middle-income country and you'll pass them: the woman selling deep-fried fish from a cart, the mobile vendor with a bicycle full of vegetables, the kiosk operator who's the only source of a hot meal within walking distance. Food systems employ an estimated 1.23 billion people globally, and a majority of those jobs are informal, unlicensed, unregistered, or otherwise outside the reach of formal regulation. In low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) especially, informal vendors are not a marginal feature of how people eat; they are a linchpin of food security and livelihoods for over a billion people. 

And yet, as a new systematic scoping review in Food Policy shows, research on this workforce is scattered, inconsistently defined, and full of gaps that matter for policy. 

The systematic scoping review, by a team spanning the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, Cornell University, the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Purdue University, Kula Vyema Centre of Food Economics, and collaborators across several other institutions, screened 23,250 records and analyzed 327 studies across 64 countries published since 2000. The team asked three questions:

1. How is “informality” defined and studied in food environments?
2. What do we know about its links to nutrition and food choice?
3. And what sociopolitical and livelihood factors shape the people who do this work? 

A few things stood out: 

First, the field can't agree on what “informal” even means. Fewer than a quarter of the studies reviewed clearly specified a definition, and among those that did, definitions varied wildly, some based on location, some on licensing, some on whether a vendor has a physical stall. These have big impact on local policies: a location-based definition leads to place-based policy, an infrastructure-based one leads to market upgrades, and a licensing-based one leads to formalization drives that have mostly failed in practice, because the costs of registration and compliance are rarely designed around how informal work actually functions. 

Second, gender runs through everything. Women make up the majority of informal food vendors, and the review found gender-specific patterns in who sells what, where, and under what constraints, from spatial segregation in fish markets to outright exclusion from public space and credit. In Dhaka, researchers documented vendors using “quiet encroachment” tactics: male vendors would duck under tea tables when police approached while their wives took over, because officers were reluctant to arrest women. It's a small, telling example of how informal actors navigate, and are shaped by, the sociopolitical realities around them. 

Third, informal food environments run on relationships, not just transactions. Researchers call this “social infrastructure”: the informal ties that stabilize supply chains, share risk, and confer legitimacy on work that has none on paper. 

Finally, and most concretely for policymakers: among the 214 studies that offered policy recommendations across more than 40 countries, the clearest and most consistent message was to move beyond the formal/informal binary altogether. Basic infrastructure (water, electricity, designated vending zones, cold storage) was the single most common recommendation. Gender-responsive financial inclusion and social protections for informal workers followed. Nearly every strand of this literature converges on the same conclusion: informality sits on a continuum, not in a binary, and policy that ignores that will keep missing the people who feed a large share of the world's poor and urban populations. 

Reflections from the research team 

Ramya Ambikapathi (nutrition epidemiologist): "What particularly stood out to me is how contested informal entities/agents are, and as a result, the definitions are as well. You have informal markets that are sites of rich biodiversity and traditional foods, but also spaces where you can find illegal bushmeat; informal actors are the main source of vegetables in some contexts, while other informal actors bring the convenience of ultra-processed foods to your doorstep. And then there is the actual demand because current formal food systems leave out most of the population in LMICs, and the livelihood opportunities these spaces present to so many, so it's no wonder the definitions are so contested. As an epidemiologist, you start with a definition. We don’t ask vendors whether they have access to social programs, etc comparing to the ILO definition. So much of what we eat is shaped by vendors; a closer look into their livelihoods, their motivations, their supply, their diets, and wellbeing is an important gap.” 

Ramya Ambikapathi, Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT: r.ambikapathi@cgiar.org 

---

Stella Nordhagen (agricultural economist): "Throughout this research process, it was really interesting to see the diversity of ways that informality was defined and conceptualized, both in the literature and among the diverse coauthors on the paper. Seeing the many different ways in which informal actors contribute to and interact with food environments really emphasized to me not only their importance, and the importance of understanding their roles better, but also just how complex informality is as a research topic." 

Stella Nordhagen, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition: Snordhagen@gainhealth.org 

---

 

Jane Battersby (human geographer): "The rapid increase in the number of publications focused on informality in food environments is encouraging, given the continued importance of this sector for food and nutrition security and livelihoods. As the evidence base on this sector grows, I hope that we will see an associated rise in policies and governance supporting and enhancing the sector." 

Jane Battersby, University of Cape Town: jane.battersby@uct.ac.za 

---

 

Elizabeth Fox (nutritionist): "The narrative around informality often fails to recognize informal vendors and retailers as legitimate actors, even though they represent a substantial share of food system participants in low-income and middle-income countries. Informal food vendors, including street vendors, play a critical role in supporting diets and nutrition around the world (both directly and indirectly), particularly for children and women globally. Yet their contributions are frequently overlooked and undervalued. One major contribution of this work, in my view, is that it systematically documents the wide range of ways informality is defined. While the ILO definition is widely used, our findings show that it captures only a limited set of dimensions. Other aspects, such as infrastructure, types of products sold, spatial characteristics, and visibility, are highly relevant to how informal food systems operate in practice. As an ethnographic researcher, attending to this nuance is essential. A multidimensional understanding of informality allows us to better capture the lived realities of those working in the informal sector and to humanize their experiences. Without this, we risk reducing complex social and economic practices to overly narrow categories that obscure the people behind them. Multidimensional frameworks for informality would allow for more actionable, context-sensitive pathways to support informal actors and the food systems they sustain." 

Elizabeth Fox, Cornell University: elf23@cornell.edu 

---

 

Mark Lundy (Market and community development specialist): "The finding I keep coming back to is the definitional one. Fewer than a quarter of the studies say what they mean by “informal.” Some define it by location, some by whether there is a physical stall, some by licensing. That choice has implications. A location-based definition produces place-based policy. An infrastructure definition produces market upgrades. A licensing definition produces formalization drives. The use of any of these definitions induces certain policy conclusions before the data comes in. Informal vendors supply fruits, vegetables and animal-source foods alongside ultra-processed products, so regulation aimed at one side lands on the other. And very little research examines how informal actors trade with formal value chains, even though the two meet daily in the same markets. We have spent years building tools for inclusive business models in formal chains, including the gender-responsive versions of that work. Almost none of that thinking has been tested with the vendors who move most of the food people actually eat. The surprise is the gap inside the gender finding. Bribery, harassment, and personal safety are barely studied. Women are well documented as subjects of policy, much less as agents in it. Given policies often unfavorable to informal vendors, this seems like a critical gap." 

Mark Lundy, Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT: m.lundy@cgiar.org 

---

Avery Sirwatka (currently a law student): "A key takeaway for me is that a sizable share of studies concluded that effective regulation of informal food environments requires moving beyond the formal-informal binary. Formalization efforts have largely failed, in part because the costs of registration, licensing, permitting, and food safety compliance are rarely designed with local informal work conditions in mind, pointing to this binary as a source of policy failure. The literature instead suggests that alternatives such as collaborative governance models and the legal recognition of vendors’ economic roles offer more nuanced policy approaches that may best meet both vendor and social needs." 

Avery Sirwatka, Cornell University: avery.sirwatka@gmail.com 

---

Jenny Wiegel (agri-food system sociologist): "A key finding for me from this review is that, despite the critical role of what have been termed informal food environment actors in LMICs, there remains considerable ambiguity about what constitutes ‘informal.’ This ambiguity in classification limits the ability to compare across contexts or to generalize from the available studies to form or test larger theories about informality and how it affects key nutrition, social, and livelihood outcomes. Moreover, the unclear classification of informality muddies policy debates." 

Jenny Wiegel, Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT: j.wiegel@cgiar.org 

---

Matt Kibbee (library scientist): "When the topic is as broad and wide-ranging as informality in food systems, it can present quite a challenge! We therefore conducted a massive sweep of the global literature, including traditional academic studies as well as “grey” literature, or research published outside of traditional academic channels. By reviewing tens of thousands of bibliographic records, we can provide an unbiased, comprehensive picture of the information landscape to help inform the decisions of policymakers and direct the flow of future research." 

Matt Kibbee, Cornell University: mk282@cornell.edu 

---

Swetha Manohar (public health nutritionist): "One key finding for me is that gender is a critical but not the only axis of inequality among informal food environment vendors. Women dominate this workforce and face harassment and exclusion from public space and credit, but location compounds this: vendors cluster in poor communities, such as informal settlements and areas near low-wage workplaces. Inequality here is about where selling happens as much as who sells. Migration status also shape women's paths into vending, though understudied, and migration will likely grow more urgent as climate pressures reshape movement. Underlying all of this is a striking evidence gap around vendors' own health and nutritional well-being. Addressing it requires first resolving how informal food vendors (who are critical to facilitating access to healthy diets) are defined, since without a clear definition the population at risk cannot be identified, measured, or compared across studies”. 

 Swetha Manohar, International Food Policy Research Institute: smanoha2@jhu.edu 

---

Nilupa Gunaratna (public health nutritionist and statistician): “Food vendors should be recognized as actors within food systems, not merely outlets from which we purchase food.  They shape the availability, accessibility, and quality of food, and efforts to transform food systems must also consider how these actors can sustainably build livelihoods and move out of poverty.  Food vending is a major source of livelihood and income throughout the world, especially for young people and women seeking “decent work”, as described by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 8.  Informality shapes who sells food, what is sold, and where, when, why, and how it is sold.  Importantly, informality exists along a continuum rather than as a binary distinction.  This matters not only for policy, but also for how we research and monitor food systems.  Time matters as well.  Most research has been cross-sectional, with data collected at only one point in time.  However, informal work can be precarious, and vendors constantly adapt to challenges while operating without safety nets.  These rapid changes are missed in cross-sectional research.  Space matters too.  Urbanization is occurring not only in capital and other large cities, but also in smaller cities and in peri-urban and rural areas.  We need to understand what is happening beyond major urban centers.  As we develop policies and interventions to increase access to healthier, more nutritious, and safer food, informality must be a central consideration so that these efforts do not undermine informal food vendors’ livelihoods.” 

Nilupa Gunaratna, Purdue University: gunaratna@purdue.edu 

---

Rachel Bezner Kerr (sociologist): “Despite the important role that informal food environments play in provisioning food, including diverse food in urban and peri-urban settings, and supporting livelihoods in low- and middle-income countries, there is relatively limited research on them. The link between informal food vendors and their health, diets, and nutrition outcomes is understudied, in stark contrast to numerous studies examining the relationship between farm production on smallholder farms and farm households’ health, diets, and nutritional outcomes. I was struck by the workplace socio-political dynamics left under-explored in the research, including childcare, migration and the use of bribes. Our study underlines the need for further examination of this important sector in relation to food environments, health and nutrition in the Global South.” 

Rachel Bezner Kerr, Cornell University: rnb5@cornell.edu 

---

Simon Kimenju (agricultural economist): “Among the many findings, this work shows that in addition to facilitating access to nutrient-dense foods, informal food vendors are also outlets of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in rural and urban areas. Research on UPFs needs to increasingly include informal food environments in addition to formal markets. It will definitely be more difficult for UPFs policy in the informal economy, but increased recognition and inclusion of informal vendors by governments will eventually open ways for innovative approaches.” 

Simon Kimenju, Kula Vyema Centre of Food Economics: skimenju@kulavyema.org 

---

The paper, “Informality in Food Environments: A Systematic Review of Nutrition, Livelihood, and Sociopolitical Outcomes and Implications for Food Policy,” is now in press at Food Policy.  

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2026.103197 

 

Fresh greens for sale alongside the street, Kenya. 

Credit

Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT

Packaged food for sale in a periurban neighborhood, Vietnam. 

Credit

Ha Dao / CIAT

---

Journal

Food Policy

DOI

10.1016/j.foodpol.2026.103197

Article Title

Informality in food environments: a systematic review of nutrition, livelihood, and sociopolitical outcomes and implications for food policy

 

Beyond fences: Africa’s biodiversity depends on working landscapes, not just protected areas

South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences

FacebookX

LinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Maximise your research impact: publish open access in Biological Diversity. Fees currently waived.

view more 

Credit: Editorial Office of Biological Diversity

Date: May 28, 2026

Rome, Italy: Protected areas have long been the cornerstone of global conservation strategies, but a new commentary in Biological Diversity reveals this approach is insufficient for Africa. Led by ecologist Luca Luiselli, the study demonstrates that most of Africa’s biodiversity persists outside formal protected areas, challenging the reliance on fenced reserves and policies like the 30×30 target that prioritize spatial protection over ecological outcomes.

Across the continent, sacred forests, agricultural mosaics, pastoral rangelands, and secondary forests support rich biodiversity. For example, endangered primates thrive in unprotected forests in Cameroon, while 80% of pygmy hippo signs in Sierra Leone occur outside reserves. These “working landscapes”—shaped by centuries of human-nature coexistence—often retain higher ecological connectivity and resilience to climate change than isolated protected areas.

Traditional conservation models, however, marginalize these landscapes. Protected areas are frequently fragmented, underfunded “paper parks,” while local communities are excluded from resource access, fueling conflict. The 30×30 target, though well-intentioned, incentivizes expanding protected area coverage rather than ensuring biodiversity persistence, ignoring the dynamic reality of African ecosystems.

Luiselli emphasizes that protected areas are necessary but not sufficient. The solution lies in inclusive governance: recognizing local land rights, supporting community-managed conservancies, and integrating working landscapes into conservation portfolios. Pastoral systems, for instance, maintain critical habitat connectivity across arid regions, while traditional practices sustain biodiversity in human-altered areas.

The study calls for redefining conservation success beyond area metrics to prioritize species persistence, ecological connectivity, and social legitimacy. As climate change and human development intensify, Africa’s biodiversity will depend not on fences alone, but on collaborative, adaptive stewardship of shared landscapes where people and nature coexist.

 

Original Source

Luiselli, Luca. 2026. “Africa’s Biodiversity Will Not Be Saved by Protected Areas Alone,” Biological Diversity: 1–7.  

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bod2.70028

 

Keywords

Biodiversity conservation, protected areas, working landscapes, conservation policy, Africa

 

About the Author

Luca Luiselli (First author and corresponding author), tropical community ecologist and professor of ecology at the Institute for Development, Ecology, Conservation and Cooperation (IDECC), focuses on snake and chelonian conservation across West Africa, South Sudan, Uganda, and Vietnam. He adopts an interdisciplinary, holistic approach to study population dynamics, community ecology, species interactions, Ebola ecology, bushmeat trade, and rodent macroecology. He has published a total of 609 papers.

 

About the Journal

Biological Diversity (ISSN: 2994-4139) is a peer-reviewed, international, open-access journal sponsored by the South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and published in partnership with Wiley. Launched in 2024 and issued quarterly, it is dedicated to advancing biodiversity conservation, safeguarding ecosystem functions and services, and promoting the sustainable utilization of biological resources under global environmental change. The journal welcomes original research, reviews, commentaries, and short communications across a broad spectrum of disciplines, including botany, zoology, microbiology, taxonomy, phylogenetics, genomics, cytology, ecology, climatology, economics, sociology, and real-time policy theory. It publishes innovative research addressing pressing global challenges of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation.

---

Journal

Biological Diversity

DOI

10.1002/bod2.70028 

Method of Research

Commentary/editorial

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Africa's Biodiversity Will Not Be Saved by Protected Areas Alone

Article Publication Date

24-May-2026

Ebola, hantavirus show world’s riskpreparedness lagging: pandemic expert

By AFP
May 20, 2026


'Global solidarity remains extremely important', said Helen Clark - Copyright AFP Fabrice COFFRINI

Nina LARSON

The deadly hantavirus and Ebola outbreaks show that while the response to declared public health crises has improved, awareness of pandemic risks still lags, a leading pandemic expert warned Tuesday.

Over six years after the World Health Organization declared the Covid-19 pandemic, global efforts to revamp public health crisis response have improved the reaction to the hantavirus and Ebola outbreaks, said Helen Clark, a former New Zealand prime minister and the co-chair of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response.

“The new international health regulations are working,” she told AFP in an interview in Geneva.

As soon as the alert was sounded last Friday over the new Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and once the world learned a few weeks ago of the rare hantavirus outbreak on the MV Hondius cruise ship in the Atlantic, “the response has gone quite well”, she said.

“Our issue is now really upstream from that,” she said, insisting that far more work needed to go into identifying risks and how “these outbreaks get away”.

“I think we need a lot more knowledge around risk-informed preparedness,” she said, urging more focus on knowing your risk and “what could crop up”, and “be ready to deal with that”.

“Those basic issues of surveillance, early detection… We’re not there yet.”

Clark said the hantavirus species behind the cruise ship outbreak that triggered a global health scare after three people died was known to be endemic in the area of Argentina where the ship departed from.

“But we’re not clear how much was known about that by ships who depart regularly from there,” she said.

Meanwhile, the outbreak of the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola believed to have killed more than 130 people in a remote province of DRC seems to have spread under the radar for weeks, with tests focused on another strain showing up negative.

“How could this have gone for four to six weeks, … spreading while not getting the testing results that we needed to show that it was a particular variant?” Clark asked.

She called for thorough investigation of “the chain of events here, and what we can learn from it, and what it says about the capacities we need”.

– ‘Perfect storm’ –

Clark highlighted that the Ebola outbreak especially had laid bare the dire impact dramatic global aid cuts had on disease prevention efforts.

“There’s a perfect storm,” she warned, pointing to how countries had been “very suddenly expected to make up a lot of investment in the health system which previously came from donors”.

“With the best will in the world, the poorest and most fragile countries just haven’t got money sitting in the bank to do that, so things will get neglected across a range of areas.”

Clark insisted that “global solidarity remains extremely important”.

“We’re talking global public goods,” she stressed, pointing to a confirmed Ebola case in a US national and how hantavirus had “popped up in places where people (disembarked) from the ship”.

“We’re in this together, and so we have to look to ways of financing preparedness or response which reflect our shared interests.”

Watching Ebola Return

Peter Bach

 May 19, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Colorized scanning electron micrograph of Ebola virus particles (green) both budding and attached to the surface of infected VERO E6 cells (orange). Image captured and color-enhanced at the NIAID Integrated Research Facility in Fort Detrick, Maryland. Credit: NIAID. 

As I write, news is breaking of at least six Americans exposed to Ebola. I’m no doctor, epidemiologist, or public-health expert, but I have been following closely this latest Ebola outbreak through reports from the WHO, Africa CDC, international news outlets, and disease specialists.

What concentrates the mind is how outbreaks spread, how governments respond, and how political and humanitarian conditions can shape a crisis long before most of the world hears about it.

The current outbreak appears to have begun in Ituri province in the Democratic Republic of Congo. WHO says it was first alerted on 5 May 2026 to a high-mortality illness in Mongbwalu Health Zone. Early testing reportedly failed to detect Ebola because the first laboratory tests came back negative. Further investigation and more detailed testing later confirmed the rarer Bundibugyo strain of the virus on 15 May.

By 16 May, WHO was reporting eight laboratory-confirmed cases, 246 suspected cases, and 80 suspected deaths in Ituri, across at least Bunia, Rwampara, and Mongbwalu health zones. Uganda had also confirmed two imported cases among people who had travelled from the DRC, including one death. WHO declared the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern—a PHEIC—on 17 May, while making clear that this is not the same as declaring a pandemic.

What struck me personally is that confirmed cases had reached Kampala itself. Kampala is Uganda’s capital, in the south-central part of the country near Lake Victoria, and I was there not that long ago. Even then, it was clear how much pressure the country was under from displacement, migration, and the wider refugee crisis.

One of the reasons Ebola can be difficult to catch early is that it often begins by looking like something far more ordinary: malaria, flu, or another feverish illness. Early symptoms include fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and sore throat. As the disease progresses, patients can develop vomiting, diarrhoea, organ dysfunction, and sometimes internal or external bleeding.

There is also a broader dimension that is hard to ignore. Some people have linked the outbreak to recent cuts in USAID and other international health funding. To be clear, there is no evidence that funding cuts caused Ebola itself. Ebola originates through animal-to-human spillover and then spreads through bodily fluids. But reduced funding can weaken the systems designed to stop outbreaks from escalating once they begin: surveillance networks, laboratories, contact tracing, transport, staffing, protective equipment, and community outreach.

Scientists believe fruit bats are a likely natural reservoir for Ebola viruses, though the virus can infect other mammals too, including monkeys and apes. Human infections often begin through contact with infected animals, such as handling bushmeat, butchering wildlife, or exposure to blood and bodily fluids in forest regions where the virus circulates naturally.

After that, Ebola spreads person-to-person through direct contact with blood, vomit, diarrhoea, saliva, sweat, semen, contaminated bedding, needles, medical equipment, and so on. Ebola is not primarily airborne like Covid or measles. Casual passing contact is usually not enough to spread it.

Where outbreaks become truly dangerous is when healthcare systems start failing. If hospitals lack protective equipment, testing is delayed, contact tracing breaks down, or people avoid treatment centres out of fear or distrust, the virus gains momentum. Conflict and displacement make everything harder. That is one reason eastern Congo has struggled so repeatedly with Ebola outbreaks over the years.

So should the rest of the world be concerned?

Yes.

For Central and East Africa, the concern is genuinely high. Population movement in the region is intense, mining and transport corridors increase transmission risk, and conflict in eastern Congo complicates response efforts. Unlike the Zaire strain, there is currently no licensed vaccine or specific approved treatment for Bundibugyo virus disease.

Globally, the concern is more moderate. Ebola is watched carefully because infected travellers can carry it internationally, and early symptoms can resemble more common illnesses. But Ebola is much harder to spread globally than airborne viruses like influenza or Covid-19. People are usually not infectious until symptoms begin, which makes isolation and contact tracing far more effective.

For Europe and North America, though the US government was in the process of trying to get its US citizens to a safe place for quarantine, the current risk remains low. Imported cases are possible, but sustained community spread is unlikely in countries with strong isolation protocols, infection-control systems, laboratory capacity, and contact-tracing infrastructure.

The deeper concern is less about Ebola suddenly sweeping through Europe or America, and more about whether weakened international surveillance systems make outbreaks harder to detect early enough to stop them regionally.

And Ebola is frightening for good reason. Depending on the strain and access to care, fatality rates can be very high. WHO notes that previous Bundibugyo outbreaks had case fatality rates of around 30% to 50%. During major outbreaks, healthcare systems can effectively collapse. Hospitals become overwhelmed, healthcare workers die, and routine treatment for other diseases breaks down as resources are diverted toward crisis response.

The 2014–16 West Africa epidemic became catastrophic partly because fragile health systems were overwhelmed before international help fully arrived.

At a broader ethical level, outbreaks like this expose something fundamental about how interconnected human beings really are. A virus emerging in a remote forest region can eventually become a regional or global concern. That means global cooperation is not just charity or idealism. It is practical self-interest.

There is also a moral argument—remember those?—that wealthier nations and stronger institutions carry some responsibility to support weaker health systems, scientific research, surveillance networks, and emergency response capacity, because no country is completely insulated from global threats. Isn’t preventing avoidable suffering one of the clearest expressions of human solidarity?

At the same time, of course, experts increasingly worry about the role of public trust. In an outbreak, as we discovered over COVID, trust is not a soft issue. It determines whether people report symptoms, accept isolation, cooperate with contact tracers, allow safe burials, and believe public-health advice. Without trust, even the best technical response in the world can fail.

Peter Bach lives in London.

Trump cuts left region 'dangerously exposed'

 to fatal virus now infecting hundreds: report

Bennito L. Kelty
May 19, 2026 
RAW STORY



Ebola virus magnified (Shutterstock.com)

A humanitarian group says that funding cuts by the Trump administration left a region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo "dangerously exposed" to a rare strain of Ebola that has killed more than a hundred people, according to a new report.

The International Rescue Committee told Politico that losing funding under the Trump administration in March 2025 forced it to reduce early-warning systems to detect Ebola in the region.

"Funding cuts have left the region dangerously exposed," Heather Reoch Kerr, the IRC's Congo country director, told Politico. "The sharp rise in reported cases over the last few days reflects the reality that surveillance systems are now catching up with transmission that has likely been occurring for some time."

With the most recent outbreak of Ebola, more than 500 people are suspected to be infected with the virus, according to the World Health Organization. The WHO declared the outbreak, which started in April, a public health emergency over the weekend.

The strain spreading is Bundibugyo, a rare variant for which no licensed vaccine or targeted treatment exists.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Tuesday that the "scale and speed" of the current outbreak is alarming, according to Politico.

Kerr explained that the IRC shut down "health and preparedness work" in three sections of the Ituri Province, which is "the epicenter of the outbreak" in the DRC right now, Politico reported.

Argentine scientists lay first traps in

 hantavirus hunt


By AFP
May 18, 2026


A team of scientists in southern Argentina set up to 150 traps to catch rodents potentially carrying hantavirus, according to a local healthcare source - Copyright AFP JUAN MABROMATA

Scientists attempting to determine whether or not hantavirus is present in Argentina’s Ushuaia on Monday laid the very first traps to catch rodents potentially carrying the disease, AFP journalists observed.

The MV Hondius cruise ship, where a hantavirus outbreak on board killed three people and triggered a global health scare, set sail from the city at Argentina’s southernmost tip on April 1.

Beginning Monday, biologists from Buenos Aires are spending several days setting traps at various locations on the southern island of Tierra del Fuego to analyze whether the captured rodents carry the Andes strain of the virus, the only one known to spread between people.

The rare respiratory disease, for which there is no cure, typically spreads through the urine, feces and saliva of infected rodents.

Biologists and national park staff wearing masks and gloves set up dozens of small rectangular metal cages on trails outside Ushuaia as night fell.

Others were placed in Tierra del Fuego National Park, 70,000 hectares (173,000 acres) of forests, lakes and mountains located 15 kilometers (nine miles) from the city.

The team set up to 150 traps, according to a local healthcare source.

Provincial officials insist that Tierra del Fuego has not had a case of hantavirus since its reporting became mandatory 30 years ago — unlike in provinces to the north, such as Rio Negro and Chubut.

Local scientists believe it is more likely that the infections aboard the cruise ship occurred in another region.

Two of the vessel’s hantavirus victims — a married Dutch couple — had traveled extensively in Argentina for four months, with forays into Chile and Uruguay.