• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Systematic distortions in the IPC's Gaza report of August 25

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Type: Press Releases
Topic: Terrorism
Secondary topic: Swords of Iron
Publish Date: 11.09.2025

Misuse of MUAC Thresholds
The famine declaration was based on a 15% MUAC threshold presented as equivalent to 30% WHZ. However, analysis of the very dataset IPC cites shows that this threshold is far more permissive — flagging six times as many cases as famine compared with the 30% WHZ line. Contrary to IPC's claim, the actual WHZ/MUAC prevalence ratio in the Middle East is about 1.3, not 1.9, implying a famine cut-off closer to 23%.

>>Download full report

The IPC Famine Review Committee (FRC) declared famine (IPC Phase 5) in Gaza Governorate on 22 August 2025 — the first such declaration in the Middle East. This report was immediately criticised for serious methodological flaws, prompting IPC to issue a formal response on 30 August meant to address these concerns. Instead of resolving them, the response introduced new problems and reinforced the pattern of distortion. The main flaws across both the August 22 report and the August 30 response can be summarised as follows:

Undisclosed and Distorted Malnutrition Screenings Dataset
There was a mismatch between the charts supposedly showing a sharp increase in malnutrition rates and the data presented in the annex of the FRC report. In its August 30 response IPC admitted that a separate, undisclosed dataset had been used. Upon close inspection, this "new" dataset was found to be riddled with major methodological violations, distortions, and misrepresentations — bordering on outright fraud.

Biased and Unrepresentative Sampling
Much of the data was drawn from hospital settings and children involved in BSFP malnutrition prevention programs. This is at odds with IPC guidelines, introduces profound selection bias, and renders the findings unsuitable as indicators of the wider population's nutritional status.

Cherry-Picking of Food Security Surveys
Two July hunger surveys diverged (36% vs. 12%), but the FRC highlighted only the higher, even though the annex characterised both as equally reliable. The response admitted relying mainly on the higher survey without sound methodological justification or explanation for previous lack of transparency, and sought to reinforce its conclusions by leaning on non-defining indicators like FCS, artificially inflated by non-standard cut-offs irrelevant to Gaza.

Absence of Mortality Evidence
Famine classification requires clear evidence of excess deaths. Yet the independent surveys cited in the report as supposed evidence of approaching the famine threshold show the opposite: mortality rates were nowhere near it. Similarly, Gaza Ministry of Health figures were not only almost two orders of magnitude lower than the IPC protocol threshold, but also flat over time — directly contradicting IPC's claim of exponential growth.
Ignoring Signs of Improved Aid Entry and Food Prices
IPC cited rising food prices as evidence of deterioration up to mid and late July, but then selectively ignored the reversal of this trend and a dramatic drop in food prices from late July into early August, alongside rising aid flows and new access measures — all clear signs of improvement omitted from the analysis.

Politicization and Neutrality Concerns
Membership of the FRC included individuals with openly partisan affiliations — including public expressions of support for groups involved in the October 7 attacks and for Houthi assaults on international shipping. This not only undermined the neutrality and credibility of the analysis but also introduced clear biases into the interpretation of evidence.