Universal Health Standards Fit All Humans
False Assumption: Clinical standards like growth charts and BMI thresholds assume a single human prototype applicable across all populations regardless of ancestry.
Written by FARAgent on February 11, 2026
In the mid-20th century, researchers in Yellow Springs, Ohio, produced growth data for babies that became the basis for World Health Organization charts. These charts spread worldwide as universal benchmarks for infant health, used by pediatricians, charities, and global aid programs to define malnutrition, stunting, and obesity.
Parents and aid workers applied these standards literally. South Asian families fretted over small babies flagged as 'wasted.' Charities in Kenya dosed Daasanach children with supplements after plotting them on WHO curves. Pediatricians prescribed calorie boosts like ghee and peanut butter to thriving infants who merely looked lean.
Anthropologists began documenting divergences. Pontzer observed healthy, active Daasanach kids mislabeled as malnourished. Hruschka's analyses of millions of measurements revealed basal height differences persisting under equal conditions, such as Indian toddlers three centimeters shorter than Haitians. Critics now question the one-size-fits-all model amid growing evidence of genetic adaptations in body size and fat distribution, though WHO charts remain standard.
People Involved
- In recent years, a few anthropologists began to question the idea of a universal human prototype for health standards.
- Manvir Singh, an assistant professor of anthropology at UC Davis, wrote in the New Yorker about his own daughter, who fell into the 'wasted' category on WHO growth charts despite her evident good health; he saw this as a sign of deeper flaws in assuming one standard fits all populations. [1]
- Around the same time, Herman Pontzer, an evolutionary anthropologist at Duke University, studied Daasanach children in Ethiopia for his book; these kids plotted as malnourished on the charts but ran and played with vigor, prompting him to challenge the universal model. [1]
- Over a decade, Daniel Hruschka, an anthropologist at Arizona State University, sifted through vast datasets on body measurements; his work highlighted genetic factors behind height and BMI variations, adding to the voices warning against a one-size-fits-all approach. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (3)
“When my daughter was ten and a half months old, she qualified as “wasted,” which UNICEF describes as “the most immediate, visible and life-threatening form of malnutrition.””— The New Yorker: Human Biodiversity is real & humane
“While Pontzer was visiting a semidesert village in northern Kenya to study the Daasanach pastoralists, a German charity representative told him that the community was being devastated by malnutrition.”— The New Yorker: Human Biodiversity is real & humane
“According to Daniel Hruschka, an anthropologist at Arizona State University, none of these theories explain away the discrepancies.”— The New Yorker: Human Biodiversity is real & humane
Organizations Involved
International bodies took the lead in promoting health standards meant for everyone. The World Health Organization developed growth charts in the mid-20th century using data from children in Ohio and pushed them as global benchmarks for assessing development, regardless of ancestry. [1] This approach shaped how health was measured worldwide. Meanwhile, UNICEF adopted these charts to define terms like 'wasted' for undernutrition, which often mislabeled infants from South Asia as unhealthy when their builds were simply different. [1] Such organizations enforced these standards through aid and policy, sustaining the assumption even as doubts emerged.
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“But data on babies’ growth tends to come from Yellow Springs, Ohio in the mid-20th Century, which isn’t representative of the New, Improved America, much less of the World.”— The New Yorker: Human Biodiversity is real & humane
“she qualified as “wasted,” which UNICEF describes as “the most immediate, visible and life-threatening form of malnutrition.””— The New Yorker: Human Biodiversity is real & humane
The Foundation
The assumption rested on data that looked solid at first glance. WHO growth charts drew from mid-20th century studies of Ohio children, presuming that height and weight paths would match everywhere if nutrition was adequate; this seemed reasonable based on Western samples but ignored genetic differences in baseline body types across groups. [1] Growing evidence now suggests this view is increasingly flawed, as variations in ancestry affect growth trajectories. Similarly, a single BMI threshold for obesity gained traction from studies of average populations, yet it faltered for groups like stocky Pacific Islanders or leaner South Asians, fostering the mistaken idea that slenderness always signals undernutrition. [1] While the debate continues, these foundations are seen by some as too narrow for global application.
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“These standards inform everything from how we define malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies to how we estimate the risks of growth abnormalities, metabolic disorders, and cardiovascular dysfunction.”— The New Yorker: Human Biodiversity is real & humane
“he confirmed that a single B.M.I. cutoff for distinguishing normal from obese body weight overestimates obesity, as defined by body fat, in populations with stockier bodies (Pacific Islanders, say) and underestimates it in leaner peoples (South Asians).”— The New Yorker: Human Biodiversity is real & humane
How It Spread
The idea of universal standards took hold through channels that reached far and wide. By the late 20th century, global funding priorities and international aid programs embedded these charts into health initiatives, making them the default for assessments in clinics around the world. [1] Pediatricians relied on them during routine checkups, and online parenting forums amplified the message, leaving South Asian mothers anxious about their normally small but healthy babies. [1] This spread created a network of reinforcement, where questioning the standards meant bucking established practice.
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“These standards inform everything from how we define malnutrition... They drive global funding priorities, shape international aid programs, and inform social policies.”— The New Yorker: Human Biodiversity is real & humane
“On Reddit forums such as r/india and r/ABCDesis, we discovered parents worrying about the same issue.”— The New Yorker: Human Biodiversity is real & humane
Resulting Policies
Policies built on this assumption directed resources in specific ways. In Ethiopia, a German charity used WHO charts to identify Daasanach families as needy and enrolled them in nutrition programs, distributing high-calorie supplements to children who appeared healthy by local measures. [1] Such interventions aimed to correct supposed deficits but often overlooked ancestral differences in body composition.
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“Charity workers had plotted the heights and weights of Daasanach children on World Health Organization charts... and determined that more than two-thirds of the kids were malnourished.”— The New Yorker: Human Biodiversity is real & humane
Harm Caused
The consequences played out in everyday lives. South Asian parents faced declarations that their babies were failing to thrive, prompting them to change diets by adding ghee to meals in hopes of boosting weight, even when the children were perfectly healthy. [1] On a larger scale, the standard BMI thresholds overlooked obesity risks in about 500 million people worldwide, including 250 million in South Asia, leading to missed diagnoses and untreated health issues. [1] Growing evidence suggests these harms stem from an assumption increasingly recognized as flawed, though the full extent remains under discussion.
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“The classification felt like a pronouncement of failure... Ease off the lentils and vegetable smoothies, we were warned; we needed to get more calories into our babe. Ghee, peanut butter—we were to drench her food in these”— The New Yorker: Human Biodiversity is real & humane
“In 2016, Hruschka and the anthropologist Craig Hadley, at Emory University, estimated that the standard B.M.I. cutoff misses roughly half a billion overweight people, including some two hundred and fifty million in South Asia alone.”— The New Yorker: Human Biodiversity is real & humane
Downfall
Cracks in the assumption started showing in detailed studies. In 2020, Daniel Hruschka and his colleague Joe Hackman examined data from 1.5 million children across 70 countries, revealing basal height gaps; Indian kids, for instance, averaged 3 centimeters shorter than Haitian ones under similar conditions, pointing to genetic influences. [1] Earlier, Herman Pontzer's fieldwork among the Daasanach uncovered growth patterns that veered from WHO curves, with children taller than Europeans by age five yet much leaner overall. [1] These findings contribute to growing evidence that the universal prototype is flawed, though consensus on alternatives is still forming.
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“Even when reared in identical environments, an Indian two-year-old would be expected to be three centimetres shorter than a Haitian two-year-old.”— The New Yorker: Human Biodiversity is real & humane
“At five, they stand taller, on average, than well-fed kids in Europe and North America. At the same time, they put on weight more slowly, developing lean physiques that are optimal for heat dissipation.”— The New Yorker: Human Biodiversity is real & humane
Sources
-
[1]
The New Yorker: Human Biodiversity is real & humanereputable_journalism