2 ms·

If you're interested in doing more here's Givewell's page on salt iodization and it's benefits as a charity. https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/p

If you're interested in doing more here's Givewell's page on salt iodization and it's benefits as a charity. https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/salt-iodization https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/sa... They don't consider it as good an investment as anti-malarial work but it's close enough to be worth mentioning which makes salt iodization charities a much, much more efficient use of your money than most charitable causes if you're just trying to minimize human suffering.

theptip 9y ago
Good to know, thanks! Always good to keep your charity portfolio diversified to hedge against errors in estimates of program effectiveness, so this cause is worth looking at in more detail. (Another good one last time I looked was deworming https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/deworming https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/de... which scored quite highly, but again not as well as anti-malarial mosquito nets).
pilom 9y ago
Seems like the only reason Salt Iodization doesn't make the list of "top" charities is because it is much harder to prove benefits back to the charity level. If a charity lobbies the local supermarket to label iodized salt which people want which causes better health, it is nearly impossible to prove that it was the charity that caused the better health. Malaria nets are much easier: How many nets went out, did the nets make it to the people we intended, how many fewer people got malaria? Iodization is much more difficult to track because so much money needs to be spent at the lobbying level instead of the "buying iodine" level. Malaria nets also score extremely well in their ranking system because those charities can accept a TON of money before diminishing returns start to kick in. Against Malaria has said "we could easily accept >$50 million in donations" where the two Iodization organizations GiveWell tracks have said they could probably only accept $2-5 million without major changes (even though both of them lost their primary funding sources in the past few years and are thus decreasing their programming). This all doesn't mean GiveWell is wrong in their current recommendations. They are up front about disclosing the problems with their methodology, but you should keep it in mind when choosing which charities to donate to.
- lostlogin 9y ago
  Anything with an instant or quick return is easier, and that’s what it boils down to.

theptip 9y ago

Good to know, thanks! Always good to keep your charity portfolio diversified to hedge against errors in estimates of program effectiveness, so this cause is worth looking at in more detail. (Another good one last time I looked was deworming https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/deworming https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/de... which scored quite highly, but again not as well as anti-malarial mosquito nets).

pilom 9y ago

Seems like the only reason Salt Iodization doesn't make the list of "top" charities is because it is much harder to prove benefits back to the charity level. If a charity lobbies the local supermarket to label iodized salt which people want which causes better health, it is nearly impossible to prove that it was the charity that caused the better health. Malaria nets are much easier: How many nets went out, did the nets make it to the people we intended, how many fewer people got malaria? Iodization is much more difficult to track because so much money needs to be spent at the lobbying level instead of the "buying iodine" level. Malaria nets also score extremely well in their ranking system because those charities can accept a TON of money before diminishing returns start to kick in. Against Malaria has said "we could easily accept >$50 million in donations" where the two Iodization organizations GiveWell tracks have said they could probably only accept $2-5 million without major changes (even though both of them lost their primary funding sources in the past few years and are thus decreasing their programming). This all doesn't mean GiveWell is wrong in their current recommendations. They are up front about disclosing the problems with their methodology, but you should keep it in mind when choosing which charities to donate to.

lostlogin 9y ago
Anything with an instant or quick return is easier, and that’s what it boils down to.