January 13, 2024 - 1:00pm
This week, Sir Keir Starmer criticised the Government over the UK’s “embarrassing” position in the international rankings for the average height of five-year-olds. He noted that between 1985 and 2019 Britain fell 27 places in the girls’ ranking and 33 places in the boys’. These declines, he said, were “predominantly down to malnutrition”. What do the facts say?
The rankings to which Starmer referred are those provided by the NCD Risk Factor Collaboration — a global network of health scientists that works with the WHO. (The underlying data were first published in The Lancet in 2020.) Perusing the figures, the Labour leader was right about the change in Britain’s position over the relevant time period. The country fell from 69th to 96th place in the girl’s ranking and from 69th to 102nd place in the boys’ ranking.
But what about his claim that these declines were “predominantly down to malnutrition”? This seems altogether implausible. Although Britain fell in the rankings, the average height of its children actually increased — by 0.7cm in the case of girls and 1cm in the case of boys. So British children got taller over the relevant time period; it’s just that other countries’ children got even taller.
What’s more, several countries that are much more malnourished than Britain place higher in the most recent year. According to the figures, British girls are shorter than those in Kyrgyzstan, Palestine and North Korea, while British boys are shorter than those in Libya, Haiti and North Korea. The rankings as a whole make sense — rich countries are clustered near the top and poor countries near the bottom — but some of the figures are highly questionable. Are North Korean children really taller than British? Almost certainly not.
Indeed, some other Western countries also rank suspiciously low. Switzerland — which has the number one score on the Human Development Index — is placed 72nd for girls (down from 47th) and 94th for boys (down from 45th). Like Britain, it ranks below North Korea for both boys and girls. Meanwhile, neighbouring Austria, which has an ethnically similar population but is not quite as rich, ranks far higher.
Evidently, individual countries’ positions in the rankings have to be taken with a large grain of salt. The underlying data come from diverse sources and it’s possible that some countries’ samples were more or less representative of the population. Measurement differences may also play a role. For example, some countries’ data may have been collected by health professional, while others’ may be based on self-reports.
There’s another oddity. When examining the international rankings for the average height of 19-year-olds, Britain places much higher: 39th for boys and 49th for girls. Here the country outranks North Korea by several dozen places. Switzerland, too, places far higher. Such vast discrepancies with the international rankings for the average height of five-year-olds call into question the validity of the latter.
Could the growing fraction of British children with South Asian backgrounds help to explain the country’s fall in the rankings? It’s true that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh all place very low. Yet recent studies have found that British children with South Asian backgrounds are about as tall as their white counterparts. The height difference between South Asian Britons and those in South Asia likely reflects better nutrition in Britain, as well as positive selection among migrants.
It is unclear why Britain places so low in the international rankings for the average height of five-year-olds. But several observations suggest that “malnutrition” is unlikely to be the right explanation. Starmer ought to base his policies on a more careful reading of the evidence.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIn all countries over time an increase in the affordability and consumption of meat is highly correlated with increases in average height, life expectancy and IQ scores. This is what makes the relentless attack on meat on environmental and “ethical” grounds so depressing from a public health perspective.
The average height and IQ are declining in the US, and it has nothing to do with meat consumption
Could be the same for Europe and the UK
It’s not the availability of meat in your theory, it’s the availability of protein. I’m not vegetarian, but plant protein is actually healthier.
And meat protein is much more “available” than plant protein. There are higher percentages of protein in meats than in any plant source; that’s what counts. It would impossible to eat a high protein plant diet but relatively easy tp put together a high protein meat diet
No it isn’t.
I will not succumb to the tyranny of kale.
I have a long-standing agreement with my Doctor to eat 50% plant protein but kale – YEAUCH!——-PS the original Dr. has died but I think (as an octogenarian) that it’s a good idea – the original Dr died in his 70s.
It surely depends on who is being counted as British.
We’ve imported millions of people into Britain from countries where the average height is below that of the average for Europeans.
Change the demographics, change the metrics.
It also correlates to the increased risk of labour winning the next election
Notice how Starmer’s claim is based on no actual evidence of “malnutrition” (at least none is provided here). It also neglects to analyse whether a relative drop in height versus othe countries is a result of improved health/nutrition/whatever in those countries or a decline in the UK (or some combination of these). Meanwhile, I’ve seen no evidence of an absolute drop in heights over the period in question (and an absolute drop would be the only indicator I would pay any attention to here). Nor any reason as to why measurement at the age of 5 is a reliable indicator. Why 5 ?
Nor is there any attempt to distinguish between “malnutrition” (which implies the individuals have no choice) and poor diet (which usually does have some elements of choice).
Is this the level of intellectual rigour and analysis we should require from the “forensic” Sir Keir ?
Reminds me of Khans claim that people were dying of poor air quality hence urgent need to extend ULEZ. Only one person had had air pollution recorded on their death certificate.
The fact that over 13,000 people – mainly young males – were either killed or injured by knife crime July 22 and July 23 – as 21% increase since the previous year didn’t seem to concern him unduly.
No intellectual rigour or analysis ever – manipulation and obfuscation in order to mislead and misinform – if it serves the end goal.
What’s much more worrying than any decline in the height of our children is the decline in the quality of our political ‘leaders’, particularly the Labour Party whose current front bench has to be the weakest in its history after Corbyn’s.
There has been an absolute drop since 2010, the author just neglected to mention it. It’s not just that other countries improved, the UK went backwards.
5 is the age chosen because that the first 5 years are very important for childhood development after which growth slows again.
I agree that we cannot yet say that it is specifically malnutrition. Further investigation would be needed to confirm that aspect, even if it does seem likely that economic and public health issues have played a part.
A proxy for the China controlled WHO generates a report that implies U.K. failure – and Starmer jumps on it.
Quelle surprise..
This article isn’t properly researched.
In the UK average heights (at 5 years old) increased in the 90s and early 2000s but have fallen since 2010. In such a short time-frame the reason is very unlikely to be genetic.
Malnutrition is of course not a proven cause but unless the trend reverts very soon, we probably should be worried and give the matter significant priority.