The World Health Organization’s out-of-touch priorities undermine global health

Amid dramatic funding cuts and new health threats such as a US measles outbreak, the World Health Organization introduces the 'Ageism Scale'. Spending time and money on this suggests a misalignment between the organization's initiatives and global health needs. Donors should take note and nudge the WHO to stick to what it does best – tackling communicable diseases – and avoid getting sidetracked by other, less impactful projects, writes Pranesh Lavania.

The World Health Organization is facing a $600 million budget shortfall. Rather than looking critically at its spending priorities, the WHO has instead chosen this time to launch a new programme to measure ageism. Launching surveys about stereotypes, even as core disease response functions are being cut, reflects a troubling misalignment of priorities.

The WHO fumbled the early COVID-19 response, refused to challenge Beijing’s lack of transparency, and watched its pandemic credibility crumble. It has now found the time, money, and moral fervour to invent something called the 'WHO Ageism Scale'. Measuring how people feel about old age should never take precedence over preparing for the next viral outbreak. It’s not just tone-deaf – it’s symptomatic of a broader trend. The WHO is drifting from its core mission of fighting infectious diseases and sliding into lifestyle nannying and global social engineering.

The World Health Organization (WHO) in its 2016 report advocated for the implementation of sugar taxes to combat obesity and improve public health outcomes. The WHO actively campaigns for governments to impose taxes on soft drinks — a move it claims will reduce obesity. The reality does not reflect that claim. In Mexico, where a soda tax was imposed in 2014, the average calorie intake dropped by just 6 calories per day — about half a peanut.

And then there’s vaping. Despite growing evidence e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than traditional smoking and could help millions quit tobacco, the WHO has taken a prohibitionist stance. It lumps vaping in with smoking, calls for bans on flavors, and champions strict advertising controls. This is less about harm reduction, more about moral panic.

The WHO also has a curious obsession with food labelling. It calls for mandatory front-of-package warning labels on everything from olive oil to cheese — as if enjoying a sandwich without a guilt-inducing warning label has become a public health offense. All of this might be fine if the WHO were a private advocacy NGO, but it’s not. We rely on the WHO to be the world’s emergency room, not its lifestyle coach. The results are showing. The organisation is downsizing its Geneva headquarters, trimming staff, and consolidating its operations into just four program divisions. These cuts aren’t just about money. They reflect a loss of trust. Member states and donors ought to be asking the same question: what exactly are we paying for?

This is not a left-versus-right issue. It's a competence issue. When people die from Ebola or tuberculosis because surveillance was delayed, when new pandemics catch the world flat-footed, when measles cases surge in under-vaccinated regions. Theoretical ageism scores and soda sin taxes pale into insignificance.

The WHO's constitution declares its purpose is “the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health”. That doesn’t mean micromanaging people's diets or preferences. It means stopping outbreaks, supporting vaccination, and coordinating emergency health responses.

The paradox is stark: the WHO is becoming more politically correct just as it becomes less effective. It is tackling bias while turning a blind eye to biosecurity. It is fighting juice instead of disease. If this trajectory continues, the WHO will become a parody of itself – a bloated bureaucracy better at press releases than pandemic response.

The WHO's mission drift isn't an isolated case; it's emblematic of a systemic issue plaguing the broader UN framework. A confidential internal memo reveals the UN is contemplating a major overhaul to address "overlapping mandates", “fragmentation and duplication" and "inefficient use of resources" across its agencies. Proposals include merging operational aspects of the World Food Programme, UNICEF, WHO, and the UN refugee agency into a single humanitarian entity, and incorporating UNAIDS into the WHO.

Such redundancies risk straining resources and blurring accountability, as agencies with distinct mandates vie for influence over similar issues. In this context, the WHO's foray into areas like ageism, which are already addressed by other UN bodies, appears less about addressing unmet needs and more about expanding bureaucratic reach. Instead of reinforcing its core competencies, the WHO seems entangled in a web of inter-agency alliances which prioritise political alignment over tangible health outcomes.

The WHO can be saved – but only if it stops trying to save us from ourselves and gets back to saving us from real threats. It’s time to demand better. Donor nations should tie funding to performance in core areas like disease control and outbreak readiness. Public health experts should call out the WHO’s rampant mission creep into areas where its influence is unnecessary and often harmful. Public health policy must move past symbolic measures like soda taxes and vape bans if it is to address real pandemic threats.

Pranesh Lavania is a policy analyst based in Belgium. He is a writing fellow with Young Voices Europe.

Share this article: