Arshad Nadeem

Global concern over hunger and the possibility of famine in Gaza has understandably intensified in recent months. Images of suffering civilians and repeated warnings by international agencies have triggered alarm across governments, humanitarian groups and the public at large.

Such concern is legitimate and morally necessary. However, it is equally important that humanitarian reporting is based on accuracy, completeness, and verified data. When assessments are presented without the full picture, they risk generating fear rather than informed action.

A key issue with the way recent famine-related reports have been framed lies in how data has been collected and interpreted. Much of the assessment relies heavily on figures drawn from United Nations aid trucks.

An international aid worker has posted this on X:

Famine begins to spread, thousands of citizens crowd in front of bakeries in the areas of the southern Gaza Strip to obtain bread in light of the shortage of flour and the rise in its prices, if any, as a result of the continuous closure of the crossings by the "Israeli"… pic.twitter.com/CadKEI4qKM

— Emelia (@Emeliarjl) October 23, 2024

What often goes unacknowledged is that UN convoys account for only about 20 percent of the total humanitarian aid entering Gaza. The remaining 80 percent delivered through other international and bilateral channels does not adequately feature in the analysis.

Ground-level data paints a different picture. On average, between 600 and 800 aid trucks enter Gaza daily, and approximately 70 per cent of these trucks carry food supplies. This volume of food is significant. In fact, it is nearly five times higher than what the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) itself had previously stated was necessary to meet the basic nutritional requirements of Gaza’s population. Ignoring this scale of assistance inevitably distorts the assessment.

Further, verified and recorded data from the US Civil-Military Coordination Center indicates that over 30,000 aid trucks have entered Gaza since its operations began. These are not projections or estimates; they are logged entries. Yet, strikingly, these figures do not find a place in the IPC’s reporting framework. The omission raises legitimate questions about the completeness of the analysis.

Beyond numbers, the real test of any humanitarian assessment is its impact on daily life. Here too, available indicators deserve attention. Between July and November, food prices in Gaza reportedly fell by more than 80 percent. In genuine famine conditions, food prices typically surge due to extreme scarcity. A sharp and sustained drop in prices, by contrast, suggests increased availability rather than systemic collapse of food supply.

World Health Organisation reported in August about famine in Gaza:

Famine confirmed for first time in Gaza
FAO, UNICEF, WFP and WHO reiterate call for immediate ceasefire and unhindered humanitarian access to curb deaths from hunger and malnutrition

More than half a million people in Gaza are trapped in famine, marked by widespread starvation,… pic.twitter.com/xp0oEwE1sO

— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) August 22, 2025

None of this is to deny the very real hardships faced by people in Gaza. The population continues to endure immense suffering, displacement, disruption of livelihoods and psychological trauma. These conditions demand urgent humanitarian support and international engagement. But it is crucial to distinguish between widespread suffering and the technical definition of famine, as conflating the two risks undermines credibility and policy effectiveness.

Humanitarian reporting carries enormous responsibility. Accuracy is not a technical detail; it is a moral obligation. Policymakers, aid agencies and donor governments rely on these assessments to make decisions that affect millions of lives. When reports overlook large portions of available data, they do not merely misinform; they weaken trust in humanitarian institutions themselves.

In crises as grave as Gaza’s, urgency must walk hand in hand with truth. A full, transparent and data-complete picture is essential not to downplay suffering, but to respond to it wisely and effectively. Lives depend not just on compassion, but on clarity.

(The Author is a research Scholar at Al Azhar University, Cairo)