Taking a look at America today, one thing is clear about our economy: the cost of living is continuing to rise while the vast majority of the population is continually getting poorer. From gas to food to housing, Americans are able to afford less and less as survival necessities cost more and more.

To ease our worries we tell ourselves that soon things will change, the future will be brighter. Unfortunately the decreasing incomes coupled with the rising cost of living are causing irreparable damage to one of the most important factors in that brighter future … the education of our children. Because No Child Left Behind essentially left many children behind, America's schools are not only physically deteriorating (one in 10 reported that they had inadequate facilities for teaching) but due to lack of funds schools are not able to provides students with the resources they need to progress towards college. According to the Alliance for Excellence in Education, "Only 70 percent of freshman and barely half of the students of color finish high school with a regular diploma four years later." With the US ranking 18th among developed nations in its high school graduation rate, it is clear we have put enough hurdles in front of our primary educations system to guarantee many students won't succeed. Now there is a new hurdle, set in front of students who do graduate high school: the rising cost of college.

According to Campaign for America's Future, the cost of college rose 39 percent between 2001 and 2007 going from $3,501 for a four-year public institution to more $5,000 in 2006-07. The Federal Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance estimates that the cost of college prevents 48 percent of eligible high school graduates from attending. For those who are fortunate enough to attend college, The Project on Student Debt states that nearly two-thirds of four-year college and university students will graduate with debt. In 1993, less than half of these students graduated with loans to pay off.

There are areas where the job market, globally, is growing. In the areas of science and math new jobs are being created all the time as the world becomes increasingly more technologically advanced. Unfortunately, the American education system is not set up to let our youth compete for these jobs. The Alliance for Excellence in Education states that an estimated 85 percent of current jobs require some post-secondary education. So not only are many of our students not qualified to compete for jobs in the global market, those with a college or university education are less likely to go on to graduate school because they are left with such high student loans to pay off. This means that Americans aren't working in the highest paid fields.

If we want to turn our economy around, we need to support our children and educate them no matter the cost. U.S. Pirg states that "Higher education is associated with better health, greater wealth and more vibrant civic participation, as well as national economic competitiveness in today’s global environment." These are things that we want our children to have and we want our nation to have. Until we make college accessible and affordable to everyone we will continue to lag behind other nations, who have already seen the benefits of nurturing their youth and encouraging academic excellence among all.

Almost two years ago, Americans got a good hard look at one of the hidden costs of industrial agriculture. Not the cost we see in our paychecks as our taxes go to pad the pockets of corporate food producers, not the cost we see as our family farmers file for bankruptcy, and not the cost we see on price tags in the supermarket. What we were exposed to was the cost it has on our health.

From late August to early September of 2006, E. coli bacteria was found in Dole brand baby spinach across the nation. The result was 205 related illnesses and three deaths. Americans were outraged and afraid and for the first time in a long time the debate between cheaper industrial foods vs. organic or local foods was front page news.

Now contaminated produce is making headlines once again. This time it's in the form of Salmonella and it's being found in tomatoes. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) "Salmonellosis is an infection with bacteria called Salmonella. Most persons infected with Salmonella develop diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps 12 to 72 hours after infection. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days, and most persons recover without treatment." While people rarely are in need of hospitalization, the disease can become serious especially when found in the elderly, infants, and those with impaired immune systems who are more likely to have a severe illness.

Unlike with the spinach, where the serial numbers on contaminated bags were used to track it to its source, it's unlikely we'll ever know exactly where the tomatoes came from. But one thing is for sure, they didn't come from your local farmer. So far the strain of Salmonella, known as Saint Paul, has been linked to some raw red plum, red Roma, round red tomatoes, and products containing these raw tomatoes.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) states that 707 cases of Salmonella St. Paul have been reported in the US between mid-April and June 13, 2008. Some of the states with higher instances of outbreak are Arizona (36), California (10), Maryland (25), New Mexico (80), New York (18), and Virginia (22). Texas has been hit the hardest with a reported 293 illnesses. So far 73 people have been hospitalized; no related deaths have been identified.

That people's health is currently being threatened, once again, by food that was meant to nurture our bodies is cause for great concern. For years local food advocates, family farmers, environmentalists, and even the rare politician have extolled upon the public the virtues of eating locally grown produce. Eating locally promotes community food security and community food security means strong, sustainable, local and regional food systems that ensure access to affordable, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food for all people at all times. This means people are feeding themselves, feeding themselves well, feeding themselves in an affordable way.

Most importantly when it comes to the issue of food quality community food security means that food should only travel as short a distance as possible from farm to plate. The food miles each item you consume has logged, have much to do with the amount of fossil fuels used in their transport (important for reducing global warming) and also with the freshness of the food you are consuming. According to Sustainable Table most Americans live about 60 miles from an apple orchard, yet the apples we typically buy at the grocery store travel 1,726 miles between the orchard and our home. As the website states, that's further than driving from Portland, ME to Miami, FL. Because food produced on large scale factory farms travels far and wide across the globe a batch of contaminated food has the ability to reach millions of people before it's even pulled from the shelves.

We are currently in the middle of a global food crisis, brought on by corporate control of our food system. As energy costs rise, so has the price of our food, and now the security of our health. Knowing where your food comes from not only increases the chances that it's good for you, it also increases money being spent within the community, which increases jobs in a time when unemployment is at an all time high. It reduces the amount of greenhouse gas emissions because it's not being transported as far, it reduces our reliance on industrial agriculture, and as of late it reduces our chances of becoming ill.

The food crisis we are now living amidst only serves to further emphasize the importance and extreme impact of the farm bill recently passed in congress and the senate. First passed in 1949, the farm bill contains provisions regarding commodity subsidies, food assistance, conservation, agricultural trade, credit, rural development, research and other farm, food, and rural policies. This one bill decides the fate of our food stamp program, our family farmers, our environmental practices, and much more.

For those of us with a vested interest in honestly reducing poverty, increasing local food consumption, and ending world hunger (among other things), the passing of the 2008 Farm Bill was bitter sweet. The battle to pass the farm bill was long and hard fought, culminating in Bush's veto of the bill which was swiftly overturned. In an era where the current administration has pushed free trade, offered tax breaks to factory farmers, lowered environmental standards, and increased the number of people living in poverty passing a progressive and comprehensive farm bill was a priority for many. While there are wins within the current farm bill, it also leaves much to be desired. One look at this bill, what was improved and what wasn't, gives the reader a clear view of our fractured political system along with the misconceptions about the connections between poverty, food, and the economy.

In his statement when vetoing the bill Bush said, "Today's farm economy is very strong and that is something to celebrate. It is also an appropriate time to better target subsidies and put forth real reform. Farm income is expected to exceed the 10-year average by 50 percent this year, yet Congress' bill asks American taxpayers to subsidize the incomes of married farmers who earn $1.5 million per year. I believe doing so at a time of record farm income is irresponsible and jeopardizes America's support for necessary farm programs." Not only is this statement a gross misrepresentation of the true facts regarding our nations family farms but it also aims to focus the nations attention on the farming aspect of the farm bill and not the multiple other environmental and social aspects of the legislation.

There were disappointments in the farm bill that was passed. Unfortunately it does little to right the global agricultural market for which the agenda is largely laid out by powerful corporations. That being said, when Bush vetoed the bill, he wasn't doing anyone but his corporate friends a favor. If his veto had not been overturned, we would have continued using the 2002 farm bill, which just like the recently passed one hold no standards for how factory farming and corporate America affect the global food system.

However, the farm bill was not a total loss and had Bush's veto held it would have left many of America's poor in a dire situation.

The 2008 Farm Bill Provides around $50 million annually in loan guarantees for businesses in rural areas involved in local food distribution and marketing. This provision will strengthen local economies, create jobs in rural areas, and help low income communities better their diets. In the same vein it also provides $20.6 million per year for fresh fruits and vegetable vouchers to low-income seniors that can be used at participating farmers' markets. The bill also makes move to specifically fight childhood obesity, which is a growing problem particularly in low income communities. The bill gives $500 million over five years for selected low-income schools to purchase at least one daily fresh fruit or vegetable snack.

The Farm Bill also offers some much needed changes to our nation's Food Stamp program. Renaming the program SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), will hopefully combat the some of the social misconceptions about being on the Food Stamp program. Often, out of shame, people who qualify for food stamps don't apply. The 2008 Farm Bill also includes increased SNAP benefits, indexed to inflation. If the President's veto had stuck the benefits offered under the program would have remained the same as they were in 2002. A pilot program has been added to evaluate health and nutrition promotion in SNAP. The purpose of the program is to reduce obesity in the US among SNAP recipients, and will receive $20,000,000 in mandatory funding.

The victories in the 2008 Farm Bill are large victories, and hard fought victories. For many the passage of this bill has been a very hard battle. There is still much ground to cover, and unfortunately much of this bill was dictated by those that can line the politicians' pockets. But there are also significant gains and a true sense that there is a strong undercurrent moving us towards change and progressive politics that will actively combat the forces behind hunger and poverty in the world.

During the past few weeks, the world has witnessed food riots in a number of developing countries, including Haiti, Indonesia, the Philippines, Cameroon, Niger, Senegal, Morocco, Bangladesh, and Egypt, among others. Poor people everywhere are making their discontent and frustration with rising food prices known. In the past two months, rice prices have risen 75 percent to near historical levels. The price of wheat has jumped 120 percent during the past year; soy by 87 percent; and corn by 31 percent. Prices of these key staple crops have been on the rise since 2005, but have escalated in severity since 2007.

While several factors are involved in determining the price of food — from agrofuel production, to oil prices, to supply and demand scenarios — governments must focus on the bigger causal factors behind the recent price rises. Among these, the huge increase in agrofuels is a primary factor.

For years, food security experts warned of the devastating effects of biofuels. It appears that this warning has now become a reality, with food crops competing against fuel crops for arable land. To put this in perspective, the world's biofuels craze means that we are choosing to feed the rich man's SUV at the expense of feeding the poor man's mouth. According to the 2008 World Development Report, it takes more than 240 kilograms of corn — enough to feed one person for a year — to produce 100 liters of ethanol, enough to fill just one tank of an SUV.

In a Wall Street Journal article Higher Food Prices May Be Here to Stay, the author states that "equipment prices are rising because of strong demand for farm machinery in China and other developing countries, along with rising costs for raw materials like steel." The Independent quotes the Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) director Jacques Diouf as stating that "There is a risk that this unrest will spread in countries where 50 to 60 per cent of income goes to food." The cause, he said, was "higher demand from countries like India and China, where GDP grows at 8 to 10 per cent and the increase in income is going to food." While the Wall Street Journal and The Independent articles do later acknowledge the devastating role of agrofuels as a cause, they fail to report that it is a primary cause.

Last year, President Bush announced a $35 billion subsidy to U.S. corn producers, in order to grow corn for ethanol production. There is little evidence that corn-based ethanol provides a significant reduction to greenhouse gases, which was one of the main reasons given to grow agrofuels in the first place, along with reducing dependency on foreign oil reserves. The growth in the agrofuels industry has been a recent phenomenon, and over the past two years driven up the price of corn and other main agricultural commodities. Jean Ziegler, U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, termed the use of food crops to produce ethanol as a crime against humanity."

While it is true that a growing middle class in China and India is leading to increased food consumption in these countries, this cannot be a sufficient explanation for the steep hikes in food prices over the last year. China and India’s economies have been growing rapidly for several years now. India has been self-sufficient in food production for quite some time. It is misleading and all too convenient to blame the economic growth of these countries as a causal factor of recent price hikes.

Instead of calling for a repeal of billions of dollars of subsidies to the ethanol industry in the United States and other developed countries and a moratorium on use of food crops for fuel production, the World Bank is calling for another "Green Revolution" that would help increase farm productivity in Africa. But the Green Revolution that occurred from the 1940s through 1960s led to the creation of a global food system highly dependant on energy inputs and has led to the degradation of soil quality. Thus, the price of farmers' inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides and farm machinery, along with food processing and transport, is heavily linked to the price of oil. Calls for a second “Green Revolution” would include all this plus the use of patented genetically modified seeds.

A primary measure for countries is to end agrofuel production from food crops, and take measures to protect arable land for the use of food production. In addition, input costs for farmers should be minimized. Experimentation with organic methods and other agricultural techniques that are less dependent on oil-based inputs should be eagerly encouraged. Seed corporations such as Monsanto are keen on pushing their patented, genetically modified seeds as a solution to increasing crop yields, but this claim should be met with severe skepticism. These GM seed companies have much to gain, but have failed to demonstrate that GM crops are safe, increase yields, and decrease the use of pesticides, as they claim. Developing countries can improve food security and the livelihoods of farmers a great deal by expanding access to irrigation and other basic agricultural infrastructure.

The world's leaders must act immediately to stop the global food crisis. One action would be to phase out industrial-scale agrofuel production. If the agrofuel industry is allowed to grow, it will mean the direct competition between food and fuel and will almost certainly guarantee that high prices for food will only continue to increase. The President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick states that "We estimate that a doubling of food prices over the last three years could potentially push 100 million people in low-income countries deeper into poverty." With the agrofuel industry projected to grow manifold by 2020, Zoellick may have deeply underestimated the number of people who will be pushed into poverty and malnourishment. Billions of people live on less than $2 per day, and more than half of their income goes to purchasing food. For these people, steep hikes in food prices means spending even more money on food and even less on other essentials such as housing, healthcare, and education.

In 2006, WHY was honored to award the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) with our Harry Chapin Self Reliance Award. WHY strives to support groups who, like the CIW, create movements and initiate change in ways, and on levels, not seen before.

In 2001, the CIW and their partners began a boycott of Taco Bell, demanding that the fast food giant pay a penny more per pound for their tomatoes in order to offer tomato pickers their first wage increase in 30 years. As the boycott of Taco Bell became a nationwide movement, it was clear they were speaking with a voice America was ready to hear.

One by one the Coalition of Immokalee workers has taken on and toppled fast food giants by showing them, and the rest of America, that there is a face behind our food and by reminding all of us that we have values not found on a menu. They have shown the fast food industry that their money should go where our mouths are. in 2005, a historic agreement with Taco Bell was finally reached where it was agreed that the fast food company would promote fair wages and safe working conditions. On the tails of that victory, the CIW fought and won a similar agreement with the McDonalds Corporation.

While neither agreement was easily reached, when all was said and done the CIW had gained two very important allies in their campaign to make fast food fair food. Unfortunately, the CIW's campaign against Burger King has been far less successful. Not only has the fast food giant refused to sign on to the CIW's agreement, they have chosen to actively fight it. Not only has Burger King launched a campaign of lies asserting that tomato pickers actually make more than the average Floridian, they are currently attempting to introduce legislation that would make the current Taco Bell and McDonald's agreements void.

As in past campaigns, the CIW will not go quietly. The CIW is launching a national petition drive to demand that Burger King not only work with the CIW to improve the wages and working conditions of the workers who pick their tomatoes, but also join with the CIW in an industry-wide effort to eliminate modern-day slavery and human rights abuses in Florida's fields. Those who sign the petition are notifying Burger King that they are prepared to stop patronizing their restaurant chain unless they sign on to the CIW's agreement. The petition campaign comes on the 200th anniversary of the US ban against the importation of slaves.

"In the tradition of the abolitionist movement, where consumers and workers joined to demand sugar free of the scourge of slavery and so helped bring an end to the slave trade, we are building an alliance of workers and consumers today in the United States to demand Fair Food and an end to slavery in its modern-day form," says CIW staff Member Lucas Benitez, adding that, "the ongoing fight against the humiliating and often brutal forms of forced labor that continue to thrive in the today must not be ignored."

Benitez continues by saying that, "For far too long now, tomatoes picked by workers held in slavery have made their way into hamburgers and grocery shelves across this country, no questions asked." Benitez emphasizes that real concern lies among the patrons of fast food restaurants. "Consumers are now asking if Burger King and other companies can guarantee us that the food they sell us is free of the taint of forced labor, and they don't like the answer they're hearing. In churches, schools, and communities across this country thousands of consumers are mobilizing to make their voices heard through this petition, telling Burger King and other companies that the human rights violations where they buy their food must end and they must end now," states Benitez.

When WHY was approached to help gather signatures for this campaign we were more than willing to participate. Every day the CIW fights for the exact values, the exact rights, and the exact reasons that embody the social justice movement. Their fight for farm worker's rights exposes not only the gross human right violations that take place in our country every day but also how a food system, handed over to corporate giants, hurts more than just our health. It is an honor for World Hunger Year to be a part of this campaign and to offer our continued support to the CIW. To find out more ways to participate and to sign their online petition visit ciw-online.org.

March is Women's History Month. In every classroom, third graders are learning about Betsy Ross and her American Flag, Susan B. Anthony and Women’s Suffrage, and, if they're lucky enough, Harriet Tubman. But, as we try to change young girls' futures by teaching them about their collective history, will any be learning about the struggles of today?

According to the AFLCIO's website, women were paid 77 cents for every dollar a man is paid in 2007. This is 45 years after equal pay laws came in to effect. The poverty rate among women in the U.S. is 14.1 percent, higher than the total U.S. poverty rate, which is at 12.6 percent. The number of women in prison has increased 244 percent in the past eight years as opposed to men's 188 percent during the same time period, according to the National Organization for Women. The lower pay, the higher tendency for women to head up single parent households, and many other factors have left women in a position where they still struggle on a daily basis. For so many women, fighting their way to the future is how they are creating a history for their children.

At WHY, we support community-based organizations that empower individuals and build self-reliance. Many of the organizations we have supported and honored over the years are dedicated to empowering women. From culinary arts programs to small business incubators to mentor programs, we've witnessed the ways in which women are willing to change not just their lives but the lives of many.

In 2007, WHY was proud to honor A New Way of Life Re-Entry project with our Harry Chapin Self Reliance Award (HCSRA). A New Way of Life was started in 1998 by current Executive Director Susan Burton. Burton is a former prisoner and drug addict herself, who spent 20 years in the criminal justice system. She started A New Way of Life in order to break the cycle of incarceration, drug addiction and homelessness that she was seeing among the women in her community. Located in Los Angeles, A New Way of Life operates four sober living homes for women and their children, making the transition from prison and addiction to a life that involves family, sobriety and self-sufficiency. According to a New Way of Life’s website, in Los Angeles County there are roughly 3,000 women out on parole each day, and of those paroled women, 70 percent find themselves back in prison. By offering support groups, access to job training and job readiness resources, a positive environment, and access to family, the women living within A New Way of Life’s homes have a reverse recidivism rate, with 70 percent of their graduates remaining out of prison. Although A New Way of Life keeps women out of prison, the organization encourages them to remain involved in changing the politics that put them there. The LEAD (Leadership, Education, Action, and Dialogue) Project engages formerly incarcerated women in bi-monthly workshops that examine various aspects of the prison industrial complex, including the war on drugs, rising incarceration rates, and the history of prisons. The also run Women Organizing for Justice project provides ongoing leadership and skills-building opportunities for formerly incarcerated women through retreats, trainings, internships and public events.

The Enterprising Kitchen (TEK), located in Chicago, is a non-profit business created to provide employment and life skills training to women who are working towards self-sufficiency and independence. Each year TEK enables more than 70 lower-income women who have been unemployed and underemployed to enter the workforce. TEK is an innovative non-profit organization assists women with multi-barriers to employment achieve a sense of empowerment and economic stability. A unique balance of job creation, employment training and life skills training, the TEK model operates at the most exciting and challenging intersection of business and social services. Its double bottom line is to operate a viable soap manufacturing company and move low-income women towards self-sufficiency. Women participating in TEK's program have the ability to learn about business from all angles whether its production, direct sales or customer service.

Located in Missoula Montana, Women's Opportunity Resource and Development (WORD) states in their mission that for them "Feminism is the conscious, collective development of the socio-economic, cultural and political conditions that ensure equality, independence and full participation for all women.” WORD believes that these conditions are what stabilize families, communities and society. It is their execution of these beliefs that earned them WHY’s HCSRA in 2004. Home to numerous programs that focus on housing, public policy, voting and financial literacy (just to name a few), WORD has become a standout organization not just in Montana, but across the United States. Replicated by several organizations, WORD’s Futures program serves pregnant and parenting youth 21 and younger. Not only does the program offer support to these families, it educates them to be mentors and advocates. As a part of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, Futures members go to schools and talk about their experience with teen pregnancy.

The three groups featured in this article are only representative of the many women's organizations WHY has supported over the years. We recognize that poverty has many faces and among those faces we see women, struggling to move forward and shed the weight of years of oppression. As we enter Women's History Month, it is important to acknowledge how far women have come, to view the realities of where women are now, and to celebrate what the future has in store.

Taxes have long been a polarizing force in American politics. Unfortunately in recent years, they have not only formed a distinction between political parties, they furthered the distinction between the classes. We are seeing more and more tax breaks for the rich, while they aid in further crippling the middle and lower income brackets. What many don't know is that there is some relief for those who lose more during tax season, even though they make much less. This break is known as Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

The IRS explains EITC as "a refundable federal income tax credit for low-income working individuals and families. To qualify, taxpayers must meet certain requirements and file a tax return, even if they did not earn enough money to be obligated to file a tax return." According to the Children's Defense Fund: "The EITC, which can be worth up to $4,400, enables workers to use their refunds to cover such expenses as rent, utilities, food and childcare, thereby improving their families' lives while directly reducing poverty levels."

EITC helped 4.9 million people, including 2.7 million children, escape poverty in 2002. The credit brought more than $36 billion in benefits to more than 20 million low- and moderate-income workers. Another bonus of EITC is that the money returned does not affect the benefits of the EITC recipient, this means it will not be used to determine their eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamps, low income housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, etc. Immigrant workers, using income taxpayer identification numbers (ITINS) to file, can also qualify for EITC without fear, as the IRS rarely shares their information with immigration officials.

Of course, an opportunity like this doesn't come without its downfalls. People looking to take advantage of those who are most in need have found their eagerness to accept EITC as an opportunity to scam those not knowledgeable about the tax system or their rights. With the popularity and need for EITC rising, and many of the qualified individuals being first time filers, some tax preparers have the opportunity to swindle those desperate for the extra cash. Enter "rapid refund loans" that are distributed through Rapid Access Loans (RALs). Through these loans, similar to "payday loans," companies advance money based on the worker's anticipated income tax refund, and the loan is repaid once the Internal Revenue Service issues the refund payment. Unfortunately like pay day loans, rapid refund loans come at high cost, often charging the recipient an interest rate as high as 250 percent, according to a study done in 2002 by The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and the Progressive Policy Institute.

The Brookings Institute report, called The Price of Paying Taxes: How Tax Preparation and Refund Loan Fees Erode the Benefits of the EITC, analyzed the spatial distribution of federal earned income tax filers and their use of "rapid refund loans" in the nation's 100 largest metropolitan areas. It found that more than $2 billion in EITC refunds nationwide were spent paying for "rapid refund loans." The report also found that in metropolitan areas where there were the highest number of EITC recipients clusters of unsavory tax preparation companies were found.

In the report Bruce Katz, executive director of the Brookings Institute, states, "The EITC is the federal government's most successful anti-poverty program. Yet, too many EITC dollars are rewarding tax preparers and affiliated lenders, instead of rewarding working families." It is important that EITC remains a positive avenue for those who qualify to receive money that will aid them in their journey out of poverty. While there are always those who will attempt to profit off of those in need, there are ways to receive help filing taxes that won't cost people money or cause further disenfranchisement. Low- and moderate-income families may also find tax relief through a child tax credit. The IRS offers the Volunteer Income Tax Assessment program (VITA) where volunteers will do taxes for low to moderate income applicants. To find the VITA site near you call 1-800-829-1040.

When accepting his Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming, former vice president Al Gore evoked the words of Winston Churchill to describe the attitude of world leaders towards climate change: "They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent." Churchill first uttered these words in 1936 in reference to those who ignored the threat posed by Adolf Hitler. By the time World War II ended in 1945, more than 60 million people had died. By the time our world recognizes the actual threat of global warming, how much more damage will we have done and what roll will the United States be remembered for playing?

In his speech, Gore called on the United States to accept the realities of its negligence, saying, "But the outcome [of global warming] will be decisively influenced by two nations that are now failing to do enough: the United States and China." The month of December was one marked with advances in the fight against global warming. In early December, Australia's newly elected Prime Minister signed on to the Kyoto Protocol, leaving the United States as the only industrialized nation to shun the agreement. Now, following the climate control talks in Bali, even China has urged the U.S. to do more to accept responsibility for the dilemma.

It is critical on many levels that the U.S. realizes its important role it rectifying the damage done by global warming, but it's also important that the nation takes a progressive stance on how we do it. Climate change is more than just an environmental issue — it is one strongly connected to poverty, agriculture, food production and community food security ... issues that drive the work done at WHY. At WHY, we take a holistic approach to the hunger and poverty issues and the same goes for our approach to climate change.

In Fueling Disaster: A Community Food Security Perspective on Agrofuels [PDF], a publication co-produced by WHY, we investigate the popular form of "green" energy known as agrofuels (more commonly known as biofuels) and its adverse effects on climate, environment, agriculture, economic development and food security. The importance of this document in the wake of the Bali talks is great. Australia's acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol and America's forceful hand in Bali are making headlines, but little has been mentioned about the importance of the agrofuels issue in the global warming debate.

Agrofuels from crops like corn, soy, rice and sugarcane are touted as a viable way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions because they come from renewable resources. In reality, the production of agrofuels is driven by the United States' desire to make its excess corn a worldwide commodity. This effort, and the marketing of agrofuels as a viable alternative to oil, is slowly destroying the entire food chain.

From production to processing to consumption, agrofuels in reality release more ethanol into the air, intensifying the problem they claim to alleviate. Fueling Disaster states: "... current production practices [of agrofuels] contribute to water depletion, soil erosion, contamination by genetically modified organisms and other environmental problems." The conversion of large tracts of land throughout the world to industrial production crops for fuel raises major concerns over food security, community development, human rights and the environment.

When it comes to global warming, as with many worldwide issues, it is the poor that are affected the most, with the rich either making the decisions that affect them or ignoring the possibilities for lifting them out of poverty. When it comes to agrofuels, it is the poor that are losing their land, harvesting the crops in slave-like working conditions, and losing their ability to produce, purchase and purvey the ethnic foods that will keep their culture and communities alive.

At WHY we believe that the solutions to climate change and the energy crisis lie not in corporate-driven business ventures, but in holistic, sustainable, community-based efforts that integrate sustainable energy and sustainable agriculture. Such examples exist throughout the world, from small farmer settlements in Brazil intercropping food and energy crops to community farms in the U.S. using locally made biodiesel for farm machinery. We must support communities in their efforts to meet their own food and energy needs while resisting trends such as agrofuel production that only further hunger, poverty, and environmental degradation. The U.S. has the ability to give voice to this important issue and to shape the debate in a way that not only uplifts the poor now, but solves many issues for future generations. It is important for WHY and our partners, through publications like Fueling Disaster and related efforts, continue to play a vital role in bringing the issue of agrofuels to the forefront of the debate on global warming, poverty, and food security.

On December 4th, the United States Senate passed the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement, formally known as the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, by a margin of 77-18. The agreement will go into effect as soon as both countries modify their laws to abide by the treaty. Interestingly, presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain were all absent during voting, despite their support for the trade pact. Perhaps they wanted to avoid having "free" trade become a campaign issue.

Each of these candidates is well aware of the large opposition in both U.S and Peru from a wide variety of groups, including human rights, environmental protection, animal rights, labor, and farmer groups. This past summer, 4 million Peruvian farmers and workers protested the pact, arguing that it would displace farmers and rural communities in Peru due to the flood of subsidized U.S. food imports that will occur under the new agreement. The American Farm Bureau Federation estimates that the agreement will boost U.S. farm exports to Peru by more than $700 million yearly.

Peru has a dismal track record of child labor in the country. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), Peru has close to 2 million child and adolescent workers. Some 50,000 children as young as six work in small-scale gold mining operations, where they are subjected to precarious working conditions, and inhale a mix of dust and toxic gases.

By signing a free trade agreement with Peru, President Bush stated that "approval of this agreement signals our firm support for those who share our values of freedom and democracy." Apparently our values include the freedom to promote child labor, displace millions of farmers, hasten the speed of environmental destruction, and spread the practice of inhumane factory farming.

Early in 2008, the United States Congress will vote on pending bi-lateral free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. There is widespread opposition to these agreements in each of the respective countries. Colombia has an appalling track record of human and labor rights; more 400 union members have been killed by right-wing paramilitary groups since President Alvaro Uribe, a staunch ally of President Bush, took office in 2002.

The proponents of bi-lateral free trade agreements are in an unseemly hurry. But why? The strong rejection of the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) at the 2005 Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata, Argentina, was due to widespread opposition from social movements in dozens of countries. As a result, the businessmen and multi-national corporations that benefit from these agreements have given up on the FTAA, hoping to achieve the same objectives piece by piece, country by country. Human rights groups, labor unions, farmer unions, environmental protection groups, and others in opposition to the free trade agenda must realize that each bi-lateral agreement is part of a bigger free trade agenda. These groups must unite in their opposition to all of these agreements and oppose each one with the same energy and conviction as they did when they defeated the FTAA at the 2005 summit.

To stay up-to-date on the status of other proposed free trade agreements to be voted on by Congress in 2008, we urge you to join WHY's Action Alerts e-newsletter and to visit WHY's Food Security Learning Center.

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) has always enjoyed bipartisan support. But, if Congress fails to provide sufficient funding by the time they go home for the holidays, state and local agencies will have to make severe cuts — thousands of low-income women and children will lose their benefits. If Congress funds WIC at the level proposed by the President, these individuals desperately in need of the nutritious foods provided in the WIC package will be cut from the program. With rising food costs, a growing caseload and frozen funding the state and local agencies that administer WIC will have no choice but to close the door to many of their participants.

WHY knows how needed this program is to hungry and poor Americans. Its National Hunger Hotline (1-800-3-HUNGRY) staff recommends the program to callers everyday. To make sure the program continues to serve every woman and child who is eligible for it, we need your help.

Click here for the letter from the National WIC Association that you can send as is or modify. Send it to your US Representative and US Senators — particularly those in the Republican Party ASAP — to help save 500,000+ eligible moms and children from being cut from WIC. Click here to use the table to find your state’s projected number to be inserted into the letter. Pass this message on to your friends, family and colleagues to take action. Thank you for protecting WIC for the nation’s low-income, nutritionally at-risk mothers and children.

The American Cancer Society announced that cancer rates in the United States were
decreasing. According to its report, death rates from cancer have been dropping by an average of 2.1 percent a year.

However, it wasn't good news for everyone. The report found that Native Americans and Alaska Natives in some regions are not benefiting from the same health improvements and have higher rates of preventable cancers and late-stage tumors due to a lack of early detection. Researchers attribute this discrepancy to — among other things — poverty and lack of insurance.

Given that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that chronic illnesses are responsible for $445 billion in direct medical costs, it is no surprise that the Commonwealth Fund found that one-third of all American families report having problems with medical bills or debt.

Census data shows that more than 47 million Americans — including 8.7 million children — are uninsured. An additional 17 million adults are underinsured, which means their insurance does not cover catastrophic health care expenses. For people living paycheck to paycheck, medical bills can break an already strained budget. One-half of low-income workers have problems with medical bills or are paying off medical debt, states the Commonwealth Fund.

According to The Access Project, a resource center for local communities working to improve health and healthcare access, more than 25 percent of people surveyed said they were experiencing housing problems because of medical debt, including the inability to make rent or mortgage payments, and the development of bad credit ratings. The Access Project also states that debt resulting from medical bills deters people from seeking future medical care, which can result in the need for more expensive treatment later on.

Early this year, The Access Project and Demos, a non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization, published their findings in a report titled "Borrowing to Stay Healthy: How Credit Card Debt Is Related to Medical Expenses." The report concluded that as health care costs continue to rise, families are turning to credit cards to pay for medical care. Based on data from a national survey of low- and middle-income households with credit card debt, "Borrowing to Stay Healthy" illustrates that those who identified medical expenses as a factor in their credit card balances had much higher credit card debt than those who did not. Even Americans with insurance, the report shows, increasingly find themselves paying unmanageable out-of-pocket expenses for health care and do not have assets or income safety nets to cover the extra costs.

The health care crisis has been a key issue with Presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle. In the meantime, politicians are taking action on the statewide level, and health care and medical organizations have stepped up to the plate in an effort to force changes.

In 2006, Massachusetts became the first state to attempt to cover all its residents with health insurance. The reform subsidizes coverage for low-income people without insurance. This year, California governer Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed a plan that would provide health coverage to all Californians. It includes provision under which very low-income Californians would be provided expanded access to public programs, such as Medi-Cal, and lower-income working residents will be provided financial assistance to help with the cost of insurance.

In August, the American Cancer Society announced that it would be devoting its entire $15 million dollar advertising budget to the consequences of inadequate health coverage. The campaign's message is that progress against chronic disease would be stalled until the health care system was fixed. Because the lack of health insurance has consequences beyond cancer care and prevention, the cancer society formed a collaborative with the American heart, diabetes and Alzheimer's associations as well as the American Association of Retired Persons to promote awareness. The group believes that "all Americans deserve quality, affordable health care." Additionally, the American Medical Association has kicked off a three-year campaign called “Voice for the Uninsured” that contains the tagline: "Because 1 out of 7 is 47 million too many." The AMA's proposal would provide all Americans with the means to purchase health care coverage.

Peggie Sherry, a cancer survivor and founder of the Tampa, Florida,-based foundation Faces of Courage, knows first hand how vital these initiatives are for people in need. She was quoted by Demos as saying, "When I was diagnosed with cancer several years ago, the cost of the treatment wasn't my mind. The expenses piled up, but what other option is there? All I could do was deplete my savings and then turn to my credit cards to pay the bills. There are millions others in the same boat. This research should set alarm bells off in Washington."

On Thursday, October 18, the House of Representatives voted to override President Bush's veto of the recent SCHIP reauthorization bill, but fell 13 votes short of the 60 percent they needed (the Senate version of the bill passed with enough support to override the veto). The House Democrats have passed a new SCHIP bill with minor changes, which will put pressure on the Republicans and President Bush not to veto such a popular, necessary, and successful program. Ideally, these minor changes will be as much as necessary to draw enough Republican support to overturn another veto or to convince President Bush to accept the bill. The minor changes they made, however, include not providing healthcare to children who are undocumented or to parents, as some states use the program to insure adults as well. These are actually serious changes, the inclusion of which will make it natural to deny healthcare to someone because he or she is not a citizen, doesn't speak English, has brown skin, or because we somehow think that being more than 18 years old makes one less worthy of rights and protections. Acknowledging and tolerating racism or ageism, even in legislation and programs that are progressive and positive, leave the roots of hunger and poverty untouched. What this means is that while we must support the new SCHIP bill because it does provide excellent healthcare to children who need it the most, we should continue to be aware of the problems with this program and recognize that a true solution to the ills of the U.S. healthcare system is single-payer, universal healthcare, which would provide healthcare for all and be financed through one entity, most likely the government, but would not dictate which doctor you could see.

The fundamental problem with the healthcare system in the United States is that the economic rationale beneath it discourages providing quality healthcare. The Medical Industrial Complex is the integration of government, healthcare services, and business. It is the network of pharmaceutical corporations, medical technology corporations, health insurance corporations, for-profit hospitals, doctors and nurses, healthcare workers' unions, healthcare and health advocacy non-profits, the Federal Drug Administration, Congress, the Department of Health, and the Executive Branch. This interconnected network has become the United States healthcare system. In the Medical Industrial Complex, healthcare provision is motivated by profits, and the government reinforces this profit-making system through legislation and funding. Industrial complexes, whether they are the classic Military Industrial Complex, made famous by Dwight Eisenhower, or the newer but more insidious Prison Industrial Complex, are advantageous for our economy because they guarantee production and consumption. A central problem with our economy is that production often outpaces consumption, so it needs to secure ever increasing markets to satisfy its amazing capacity to produce. If consumption cannot keep pace with production, production is stopped, jobs are lost, recessions occur, and social unrest threatens the powerful. By colluding with government, industry has been able to ensure that what it produces will be consumed, stability ensured, and social unrest avoided. For the military industry, a government contract for Lockheed Martin to produce cruise missiles means that the government is ensuring industrial production by ensuring consumption, meaning that the United States runs on a perpetual war economy. We can also say that the United States runs on a perpetual "sick and unhealthy" economy because keeping Americans sick make us consume more pharmaceuticals and healthcare services.

In the medical industry, the government ensures consumption by providing subsidies and support to private insurance, cutting public health programs, and supporting drug production and research instead of preventive medicine. Intelligent healthcare would involve long-term, preventive care and would stress nutrition, psychological and environmental health, and healthy lifestyle, but this form of healthcare is not conducive to consumption. Our healthcare system is organized to create ever increasing consumption of medical services, not to provide the best treatment. New drug treatments, surgical techniques, and technological procedures are accepted primarily because of marketers and public relations and not because of the merit of the drug, technique, or procedure; if this were not the case, pharmaceutical companies would not bother advertising to the general public but would instead rely on the judgment of the professionals, the doctors, professors, and scientists to inform each other of the best practices. What is more, this healthcare system is particularly exploitative of the poor.

A recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that three-fifths of the uninsured had trouble paying medical bills or were paying off accrued medical debts. Among those with medical bill problems or medical debts, four in ten were unable to pay for basic necessities such as food, heat, or rent; more than half used all or most of their savings to pay medical bills; and one in five ran up large credit card debts or took out home equity loans to pay medical bills. Though hospitals and medical clinics receive tens of billions of dollars in government support each year to cover the costs of caring for poorand uninsured patients — and non-profit hospitals have a legal duty to provide charitable care — in recent years, the medical industry has grown increasingly aggressive in pursuing payments from those least able to pay. The Wall Street Journal and other newspapers have reported on hospitals that foreclosed on the homes of former patients, attached patients' bank accounts, or had patients arrested and jailed for failing to attend court hearings related to unpaid bills.


-Double Jeopardy. Why the Poor Pay More. Dick Mendel

This exploitation is terrible but not surprising for a healthcare industry without an incentive to make people truly healthy, but to instead increase consumption. Being motivated by profit and consumption is extremely dangerous. For the military industry, this has meant that rather than producing weapons only at wartimes, we produce weapons continuously and sell them all around the globe, fueling civil wars and supporting repressive regimes. The United States is the largest producer of weapons in the world, which kill and maim people all over the globe. The government continues to support the military industry, however, with government contracts because it provides a stable economy which undermines social unrest. The 1960s showed what can happen to society when the public realizes its power and President Bush and his ilk do not want to give up any of their power and see the end of an economic system which keeps them at the top. However, what the Military and Medical Industrial Complexes are actually doing is creating more and more instability, and the results could be catastrophic as fewer people have access to healthcare and as weapons continue to proliferate.

Thus, programs like SCHIP are valuable because they take healthcare out of the corporate, profit-driven hands to bring the focus of healthcare back to providing quality health. The SCHIP program will provide real security, sustainability, and sanity to our society. Also, there are excellent grassroots organizations mobilizing support for both the SCHIP program and universal coverage. The Private Health Insurance Must Go! Coalition is a coalition of numerous multi-service, community development, and advocacy organizations creating grassroots support and pressure for a substantive change to our healthcare system, which they recognize will happen only when healthcare becomes public. So let's hope the SCHIP program gets passed in the coming weeks, but let's not forget that there will always be problems with our healthcare system while there are still strong incentives for profit and consumption and not on creating real health.

World Hunger Year, in conjunction with the Alliance for Responsible Trade and a coalition of other organizations, is speaking out in opposition to the proposed Peru, Colombia, Panama, and South Korea bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) currently being considered by the United States Congress.

The US–Peru Free Trade Agreement is the first of the agreements to be voted on by the United States Congress. It is anticipated that it will be voted on in the House on November 5th. The agreement will have wide-ranging negative consequences for food sovereignty and the livelihoods of Peruvian farmers. It will also decrease access to affordable water supplies and generic medicines; jeopardize labor rights; and undermine environmental protection and safeguards. House Democratic leaders have struck a deal with Bush to put labor and environmental "protections" in these agreements, but they are vague and unenforceable.

The approval of this trade agreement would be particularly disastrous for Peru's small-scale farmers who grow food for their local communities, as they would be forced into direct competition with subsidized agricultural imports that are sold below the cost of production. After the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed in 1994, more than 1.5 million Mexican farmers were forced to abandon their plots due to dumping of cheap U.S. corn by agribusinesses. Similarly, Peru's farmers and agricultural workers will be threatened by the increase in agribusiness imports.

The US-Peru FTA has other wide ranging consequences too. Many people will be looking to see how voting in Congress plays out. If the agreement passes with a large margin, it could make it easier for the Bush administration to push for the passage of the other three pending Free Trade Agreements. Also, we can expect the proposal of more bilateral FTAs due to the stalling of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (a 34-nation multilateral trade agreement which would expand the NAFTA model throughout the Western Hemisphere) and the latest round of trade talks by the World Trade Organization.

Anti-hunger activists, environmentalists, and other social movements have succeeded in preventing disastrous multi-lateral agreements from passing, and it is important for us to continue the momentum by opposing each of these bilateral agreements as well.

To see how you can help oppose the proposed Peru, Colombia, Panama, and South Korea Free Trade Agreements, go to http://www.art-us.org/node/280.

World Food Day 2007 covered topics crucial to ending hunger — a worldwide teleconference on Climate Change and Food Security, the launching of the International Year of the Potato 2008, and new guidelines on the Right to Food. WHY staff took part in these events and will report on them under UN Involvement. Tejas Kadia reports on what was missing at one event.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations recently held a meeting in observance of World Food Day at the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) chamber of the UN Headquarters in New York. The event consisted of several brief statements by United Nations dignitaries including the FAO Director-General, the Minister of Agriculture of Peru, and the Chairman of the Board for the International Potato Center (CIP). Overall, their speeches were clichéd, uninspiring, and dispassionate.

The meeting lacked the sense of urgency necessary to combat hunger in a world where the number of malnourished is increasing each year. Consistent with the repetitive nature of the remarks, three of the six speakers mentioned that 854 million people are chronically malnourished. None dared question why this was the case. There was no mention about the fundamental failures of the market, unfair international trade policies which benefit huge agribusinesses at the expense of millions of small-scale farmers, or of the role of alternatives such as organic or biodynamic agriculture in restoring soil quality, and promoting sustainability.

The President of the 62nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly Mr. Srgjan Kerim, said, "If current trends continue, the world will miss the 2015 target by 30 million children who will have been going hungry. This is very concerning. It means that these children will not be able to develop their full potential." Mr. Kerim was referring to the UN Millennium Development Goals target of "reducing by half the proportion of people suffering from hunger by 2015." His remark was a great understatement.

The millions of children who go hungry are hovering between life and death. By providing these children with sufficient food, will they magically be able to develop their full potential? Of course not. While eliminating their hunger is the first priority, access to other basic needs and education is necessary for them to achieve their full potential. The UN Millennium Development Goal calls for reducing the proportion of people who are hungry. This means that the number of people who go hungry could increase by 2015, just as long as the new number is less in terms of percentage of the world population. This is unacceptable. And yet even achieving this goal is proving difficult.

Control of the global food system must be taken back by the people who work the land. We must reject chemically intensive agriculture and acknowledge that it is unsustainable and counterproductive to long-term food security. The disappointment of this meeting caused me to realize that the struggles for hunger eradication and food sovereignty go hand in hand. Grassroots movements are leading the way towards a more fair and sustainable food system — governments and institutions need to respond, and respond urgently.

Today marks the 27th annual World Food Day, observed in more than 150 countries worldwide each year since 1981. World Food Day was created to "increase awareness, understanding, and informed, year-around, long-term action on the complex issues of food security for all." This year's theme is The Right to Food. The Right to Food means the right of all people to sufficient levels of nutritious food that is culturally acceptable and sustains an active, healthy lifestyle.

It is important to point out that The Right to Food is not a utopian idea. While more than 850 million people around the world are malnourished and millions more suffer from food insecurity, it is also true that the world produces more than enough food to feed everyone. Ironically, 80 percent of those experiencing hunger are farmers or farm workers who lack necessary resources and land rights to provide for themselves sufficiently. In addition, many small-scale farmers throughout the world are being forced into competition with subsidized, below-cost imports from large agribusiness conglomerates. The combined effect not only threatens the livelihoods of small-scale farmers, but also undermines food sovereignty for everyone.

Food sovereignty is the right of all peoples to determine their own food and agricultural policies at the local, state, and national levels. Food sovereignty is vital to achieving real food security and The Right to Food, as it ensures the survival of localized, sustainable agriculture. When imports of cheap, heavily subsidized food imports flood a country's economy, farmers become displaced and food security decreases. One notorious example of this is the case of Mexico after the North American Free Trade Agreement was passed in 1994. Mexico was once largely self-sufficient in basic staple crops such as corn. In the decade that followed the passage of NAFTA, more than 1.5 million Mexican farmers were forced to abandon their plots due to the dumping of heavily subsidized U.S. corn into local markets. Likewise, Mexico's rates of corn importation and the cost of critical staple foods such as corn tortillas skyrocketed.

The struggle for The Right to Food is therefore not just about providing food for the hungry. It is about creating a fair, sustainable, and environmentally sound food system that respects and prioritizes the needs of local communities first. Farmers should receive adequate payment for their crops, and more governmental and institutional investment is needed in rural economies. In addition, governments must recognize their responsibility in protecting The Right to Food by implementing policies that provide free or affordable locally grown food to populations in high risk of malnourishment. This includes ensuring that the 300 million children who go to sleep hungry every night are fed.

Today at WHY, we are commemorating World Food Day in a number of ways, including:

• Christina Schiavoni and Peter Mann of WHY International will be featured today speaking on food sovereignty and The Right to Food on United Nations Radio.


• WHY Program Director Leah Stern will be speaking at the First Annual World Hunger Forum at the Florida Virtual School on how young people can get involved and help eliminate hunger in their communities.


• WHY Co-Founder and Executive Director, Bill Ayres, will be honored today by the Hunger Action Network of New York State as an anti-hunger leader.


• WHY International will be participating in the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Observance of World Food Day and launch of International Year of the Potato, on Thursday, October 18th at the United Nations.

For groups and individuals who want to get involved in World Food Day, the World Food Day USA website has many helpful resources, including an events listing and ideas for initiating change at the community level. Also, for everyday actions on promoting food sovereignty and the right to food, visit WHY's Food Security Learning Center.

It is appalling that our country, our society, our culture allows children to be barred from healthcare. Yet nine million low-income children do not have healthcare. Yes, they can go to the emergency room, but those bills are prohibitively expensive and emergency room care is still not quality, continuous, preventive care which truly promotes health. The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) provides quality and preventive healthcare to the neediest children living under the poverty level, which in 2006 was an annual income of $16,600 for a family of three or $20,000 for a family of four (the poverty line is higher in Alaska and Hawaii). Of course, there are millions of children and their parents who live above the poverty line but who do not have healthcare, or if they do, it is of poor quality and puts incredible financial strain on families. Congress recently passed a new bill to reauthorize the SCHIP program in a way that would have increased eligibility to children at 200 percent of the poverty level. What this shows, though, is that our healthcare and social system is so broken that even children and families above the poverty line can't afford healthcare, which should be a given in a society like ours where we pride ourselves on our civilization, our technology, and our social advancements.

Yet President Bush has decided it wouldn't be good for children over the poverty level to receive free healthcare, vetoing the recent bill put forward by Congress two weeks ago. The SCHIP program ended September 30th of this year and needs to be renewed, thus sparking this new legislation. The bill would expand coverage for children, and the increased cost of $35 billion (an increase from $5 billion) would be covered by a $.39 increase in the cigarette tax. President Bush is unfortunately not relying on sound policy analysis to inform his decision to veto this bill. If he was, he would recognize its solid performance in providing healthcare to low-income children who generally have the severest health problems and for eliminating disparities in the healthcare access of children of color. He would also have recognized the plan is fiscally responsible and viable. He is vetoing the bill on "philosophical" grounds, however, because President Bush is afraid of seeing federal healthcare. As Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times, “He wants the public to believe that government is always the problem, never the solution. But it's hard to convince people that government is always bad when they see it doing good things. So his philosophy says that the government must be prevented from solving problems, even if it can. In fact, the more good a proposed government program would do, the more fiercely it must be opposed."

First, President Bush's veto does not mean the SCHIP program will be eliminated. If there are not enough votes to overturn Bush's veto, the program will still continue but will not cover as many children. Millions of children who don't qualify as "poor" will still not have health insurance and families will still have to stretch their incomes to pay for expensive health insurance for their kids. Of course, lacking healthcare or lacking more financial freedom with the security of government healthcare seriously hinders a child's development and causes strain and tension where there should be happiness and ease. But the SCHIP program does not address the larger problem: our society is perfectly capable of providing healthcare to anyone who needs it. We have the best universities to teach medicine to new doctors, the best technology, drugs, and equipment needed to deal with an astounding variety of health problems, and the transportation capacity to reach anyone with health problems, yet the political system denies healthcare rights to millions. However, all of these services, which we could make available to all, are restricted to those with the money to pay for them. There are many goods and services for which this is not the case. Police and fire departments provide services to all, regardless of whether they can pay; streets are cleaned and maintained for the safety and pleasure of people who live on and use those streets; and education is provided to everyone (though it is not always good) regardless of income. There is no reason why we cannot provide quality, preventive healthcare to everyone just as we maintain streets.

As President Bush's veto demonstrates, it is not "human nature" that makes universal healthcare impossible, but rather concerted and determined action on the part of the self-interested and powerful. Two things should be drawn from this veto. The first is that we can recognize that what is keeping our society from achieving social peace, harmony, and equality is not "human nature" but the actions of a corrupt, powerful elite. The second is that we can create a society where people work because they enjoy creating, because they enjoy participating in a meaningful life, and because they love others. We should begin to exercise our "radical imagination," to think about how we can change the way we live our everyday lives.

What this means, is that we should not forget that our real fight is not over SCHIP, but is about reclaiming our dignity and our radical imagination for new forms of free and equal social relations. Of course, we have to also be pragmatic and channel our energy and desire for a just future into projects, which the SCHIP program is certainly a part. Fighting for legislation like SCHIP, though, should only be a means to something better, like universal healthcare. This is how we can begin to see change.

When I was a fourth grade teacher I had a hard time keeping my students well-behaved. One student in particular, Brian, was so disruptive that his action would encourage others in the class to misbehave. So to try to change his behavior, I installed a punishment system. Anytime Brian was disruptive I would punish the whole class. Initially the punishment system was effective, when Brian behaved badly the whole class would persuade him to improve his behavior. This is generally how sanctions are suppose to work but sometimes the opposite happens.

Sanctions are implemented by governments or the United Nations to apply pressure on individuals or political regimes for the improvement of foreign policy objectives. Sanctions can range from political, economic or financial penalties to travel restrictions. While the mission of sanctions is to punish abusive regimes, they often inflict additional suffering on the people who live under them.

Just like sanctions, the fourth grade punishment system initially was very efficient and successful. To get Brian to behave better, I would take five minutes off recess for the whole class anytime he would misbehave. Soon, I started noticing that the students were suffering slowly. Because recess was reduced the children's attention span disappeared and they become more restless and anxious. They became bitter and resentful of the taunts from the happy children on their way to recess. Disobedience spread like a virus, and even the well-behaved students started being disruptive. Brian, on the other hand, had adapted to the punishment well. He became indifferent about recess, embracing the newfound attention that he was receiving from his classmates, especially the girls. The students found it futile to instigate change and instead I became the victim of their frustration.

Sanctions tend to cause suffering among the innocent, the poorest and most vulnerable. Even though a fairly small proportion of the economy is at stake, disruption of the distribution of food and medicine jeopardizing the quality of food and the availability of clear drinking water creates a condition ripe for humanitarian crisis. The US sanctions against Cuba is one few sanctions worldwide that includes food and restrictions to medicine. The median weight of children and adults in Cuba, had decreased dramatically because of the food shortages. Public health catastrophes have been attributed to US sanctions such as the outbreak of optic neuropathy in, 1992 and 1993 which can lead to blindness and death. An epidemic of esophageal stenosis (a condition that narrows the passage of the throat) in toddlers who accidentally drank liquid lye is considered to be the result of a soap shortage that forced Cubans to use lye as a substitute.

Iraq is a shinning example of sanctions causing great suffering to vulnerable, innocent civilians. Sanctions were imposed on March 1991 to pressure the Saddam Hussein regime to leave Kuwait after illegally invading the country. After the First Gulf War, the sanctions took on a new purpose, to get Iraq to abide by the vague cease fire terms. It is estimated by the UN that from 1991 to 1998 one million Iraqis died of starvation and diseases as direct consequences of UN sanctions. Half of the people that died are believed to be children, though the number 500,000 deaths have been highly controversial due to the methods of research. The lowest estimation is 227,000 Iraqi children dead. Meanwhile, not only was Saddam unaffected but he manipulated the sanctions and death toll for his political advantage. After the 2003 US military invasion, the sanctions were eventually lifted.

The collapse of my fourth grade punishment system is the same reason why sanctions often fail. The goal of my punishment, to change Brian's behavior, was too vague and I never rewarded him for good behavior. The probability of the success of a sanction depends on the goals they are intended to achieve and the flexibility to reward. According to by Kimberly Ann Elliot's Economic Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool sanctions imposed form 1914-2000 had a 38 percent success rate. Sanctions are most effective when the imposing authority establishes clear and consistent goals for the lifting of sanctions. Success also demands that steps toward compliance by the target regime be rewarded with an easing of the sanction. With Brian for example, this would have meant a specific goal: no talking out of turn and I would reward his compliance when he raised his hand to talk.

Sanctions formulated to minimize their impact upon the well-being of the civilian population are called smart sanctions. They are considered "smart" because they refer to targeted instead of comprehensive sanctions, designed to put pressure directly on the abusive regime or individual.

The first United Nations sanctions were targeted to the white only settler regime of Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) in 1966. The goal was to produce a democratic and representative government. In 1966 the UN imposed its first mandatory sanctions on Rhodesia after the white minority unilaterally and illegally declared independence. The Sanctions were effective because of the clear goal. The sanctions were finally lifted in 1979 after negotiations led to a democratically elected black government. The U.S. and U.N. sanctions against Libya led that country to surrender suspects in several airline bombings. The flexibility of those sanctions to reward probably played a supporting role in Libya's decision to renounce its WMD program.

These examples and the more recent sanctions against North Korea and Serbia can work effectively as an alternative to military action if clear goals are formulated and compliance is rewarded when the sanctioning power is flexible. When this does not happen however, as it did initially with my 4th grade class, sanctions can be counterproductive by hurting the innocent and rewarding the guilty. Brian's punishments became more targeted with specific goals, and he was rewarded for compliance. In the end, Brian survived the fourth grade.

In an age of industrial farms and corporate control of our markets, all small farmers in America struggle to receive fair compensation for their hard work, their exceptional product, and their contribution to our country's economy. While the 2007 Farm Bill holds much importance for all farmers in America, it holds a special importance to African American farmers. Long under-represented and under-resourced, they have played an important role in weaving the tapestry of our country's agricultural history and they deserve a fair shot at being a part of its future.

In 1910 at the peak of land acquisition, African American farmers owned 15 million acres of land; in 2002 just 1,500,000 acres of land was owned by only 16,560 African American farmers. The drop in numbers is staggering, but not unexpected considering the obstacles facing all small farmers, not to mention African American farmers. As the original farmers passed away, leaving no estate plan behind, the land became split amongst their living relatives. This land owned by two or more people is called Heir Land. This Heir Land is a major cause of land loss: with each passing, ownership becomes more divided and individual interest in the land greatly decreases. Often these land owners don't live near the land and don’t even know each other.

"Our ancestors owned more of this country on a per capita basis 150 years ago than we do today," said former Black Farmers and Agriculturalist Association Inc. (BFAA) president Thomas Burrell stated in a 2005 interview with the Minnesota Spokesman Recorder.

Many in the movement would argue that the problems began when the Federal Farm Loan Act became law on July 17, 1916. This Act sought to respond to the inadequacy of credit at reasonable rates for farmers. Unfortunately, there were no provisions in the act to respond to race, gender, or class, and this led to discriminatory lending practices on the part of the USDA. A report by The Nation entitled "Losing Ground" claims that between 1984 and 1985 the USDA lent a total of $1.3 billion to nearly 16,000 farmers and only 209 of those farmers were African American. In the 1990s, it was found that in some states minority loan applicants waited an average of three times longer to receive their money than white farmers.

In 1997, the accusations of discriminatory lending by the USDA were brought to court in the Pickford Vs. Glickman case. More than 20,000 farmers who had filed complaints between the years of 1981 and 1996 were awarded the largest civil rights settlement in history. Of course this was not the end of their struggle. Again a system wrought with discrimination lead to many farmers never receiving the $50,000 dollars in compensation that they were awarded in the settlement.

With the Pickford Vs. Glickman case still open and the system still challenging black farmers in many ways, organizations have begun to fight on multiple levels. While working to receive some sort of remuneration from discrimination suffered in the past they are also looking towards the future — towards empowering youth to take new ownership of their land and their roots, towards finding new sources of funding that will sustain current farmers, and towards affecting government policy so it includes black farmers.

The Federation of Southern Cooperatives (FSC) is one group working on a vast array of issues affecting black farmers today, and they've taken a lead on pushing for reforms in the 2007 Farm Bill. Their mission is to make sure that the new Farm Bill avoids the previous mistakes of lumping socially disadvantaged farmers with all small farmers. Historically, this has led to a smaller allocation of resources for those farmers who are socially disadvantaged.

Among the responses to the current proposal, which FSC highlights on their website, are several suggestions to improve upon the provisions already in the 2007 Farm Bill. They suggest a 10 percent targeting of all USDA farm programs to socially disadvantaged farmers in counties where they exceed 5 percent of all farmers and a 5-year time period of participation for farmers to graduate out of the USDA farm program. They also support direct loans for African American farmers as long as they are strictly regulated.

The FSC also calls for a minimum of 10 percent of all alternative energy research and production to be targeted to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and institutions that serve minorities. They also suggest other provisions aimed at improving the services that they offer African American farmers, calling on the USDA to include the allocation of funds for institutions that provide assistance to socially disadvantaged farmers and have a track record spanning at least 10 years. This would be of great assistance to groups like the FSC and would play an important role funding the work they are doing to reconnect African Americans to the land that is such a strong part of their history and heritage.

While the negotiations over the 2007 Farm Bill's content are still ongoing, the USDA, mainly through its Community Food Project (CFP) Grants, is working to help African American farmers. Several groups across the country like the Alabama Rural Heritage Fund, The Lowcountry Food Bank, and of course the Federation of Southern Cooperatives have received CFP Grants that are geared towards increasing the access that low-income, underserved communities have to affordable, nutritious, and locally grown food. While there's still much ground to be covered, it is programs like these that are paving the way towards a future where we all have equal access to the land our ancestors farmed.

Every day, the National Hunger Hotline receives many calls from people who are having difficulty providing food and shelter for themselves and their families. One of the main concerns callers have involves food stamps, which are the first line of defense against hunger. According to the USDA's Economic Research Service, "The U.S. Food Stamp Program (FSP) is the Nation's largest nutrition program for low-income Americans and a source of demand for the products of American farmers and food industries. The program provides benefits with electronic debit cards, which participants may use to buy food from eligible retailers." The FSP is not a welfare program; it is a nutrition and wage supplement that rewards work and promotes self-reliance. It is also a major lifeline to food for millions of people, including more than 12 million children, who make up more than half of the food stamp recipients.

However, while the food stamp program has alleviated hunger for many individuals and families, there are various issues pertaining to service, availability and amount allotted to those in need. Quite frequently, the National Hunger Hotline receives phone calls from individuals and families who do not receive or qualify for food stamps benefits. Here is an example of a call that came through the hotline:

A single mother of two children in Las Vegas, Nevada called the hotline in search of finding food assistance for her children as well as her sick elderly mother. She explained that her family was not eligible for food stamps since she was merely 2 percent above the poverty line.

This illustrates how a single mother who already has problems feeding her two children and a sick mother still has issues receiving food stamps. As a result of these fixed requirements, individuals rely more on food pantries and soup kitchens to keep from going hungry. Additionally, countless calls have been received on the hotline about the lack of help, communication and courtesy from some of the representatives of the FSP.

Many people who are already below the poverty line — the 2007 Poverty Guideline for a family of 4 is $20,650 in the 48 contiguous states and DC — fail to qualify for food stamps due to barely making more than the minimum requirement. To be eligible for food stamps, households have to meet income tests unless all members are receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or in some places general assistance. Most households must meet both the gross and net income tests, but a household with an elderly person or a person who is receiving certain types of disability payments only has to meet the net income test. Households that have income over the amounts listed below cannot get food stamps. For a family of 4, the Gross Monthly Income Limit is $2,167 and the Net Monthy Income Limit is $1,667. (Courtesy of http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm)

In April, the Food Stamp Challenge that Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski (D) took garnered national headlines. In the Food Stamp Challenge — popularized by religious groups, community activists and food pantries — a family purchases food using the monetary equivalent of the average amount of food stamps they would receive based on their family size. This amounts to $3 per person per day. By calling on community leaders to try feeding themselves on those allotments for a few days, a week, or a month, the Food Stamp Challenge has sparked public awareness about the inadequacy of food stamps.

The executive director for the New York City Coalition Against Hunger (NYCCAH), Joel Berg, also took it upon himself to participate in the Food Stamps Challenge. The amount of food stamp allotment he received for the week was $28.30. As stated on the Food & Nutrition Service website, "The Food Stamps Program (FSP) helps low income individuals purchase food so that they can obtain a nutritious diet." While undergoing the challenge, Berg did not expect that he would be unable to afford red meat, milk, whole grain breads, anything organic or any beverages other than water. Instead he learned, that "the cheapest, most filling foods are often the least nutritious. While you can find Ramen noodles, 12 for $1.33, they are very high in sodium and saturated fat."

The Food Stamp Challenge has shown the public how grave the situation concerning the food stamp allotment can be for people regarding the quality and quantity of food they can buy. "We know that food stamps used to last three to four weeks. Now they last two to three weeks and then the recipients start showing up at soup kitchens," Berg said. Some families only receive the bare minimum, which most of us spend within two weeks. The Food Stamp Challenge also illustrates that if you can actually live on $3 a day, the only foods that are available are unhealthy. According to the Los Angeles Times, "For $3 a day — which is what you get when you divide 30 days into the $155 monthly food stamp allowance for one person — you wind up on the fatty-salty-sugary-canned-processed-bottled diet."

The Food Stamp Program has helped many, and it is one of the many reasons we do not see chronic hunger or malnutrition in the United States. However, it could help even more if improvements were made. Some efforts have been made to remove the negative stigma of acquiring food stamps, and the Electronic Benefit Cards (EBT) which replaced paper food stamps have made the program more convenient. To make it easier to sign-up for the program, a suggestion made by Councilman Eric Gioia (D-Queens), who also took the Food Stamp Challenge, would be to have the federal government immediately enroll eligible people when they file taxes. This proposal is logical, considering that tax information provides all the necessary data required to apply for food stamps. With more thought and effort put into outreach, customer service, the amount allotted, and the financial requirements to qualify, the Food Stamps Program could play an even larger and more effective role than it already has in alleviating hunger and poverty. You can help by calling your representatives and telling them the food stamp allotment needs to be raised.

If I was given a couple hours to do anything, I would take myself to any grocery store, explore the aisles and start reading food labels. I know. It seems strange. My friends and family members refuse to go grocery shopping with me because they don't understand how I get such deep satisfaction in a supermarket. I am always finding new items I had never seen before or discovering new savvy, slick food labels with catchy phrases to catch the eye. After all, these days an average supermarket carries 30,000 to 40,000 products.

Sometimes I wonder if I should just make a living out this obsession with grocery stores: get paid by someone to consciously sift through the thousands of items and pick things I feel best will suit his or her tastes. Hmmm … I would love to do that, maybe it can be my back up plan if my master's in clinical nutrition doesn't get me anywhere.

These days, food shopping for the non-obsessed can be an confusing hassle. What's good for you? What's good for the environment? Is organic better than locally grown? Luckily, there are sherpas of food politics like nutrition professor and Harry Chapin Media Award winner Marion Nestle. Her book, What to Eat: An Aisle-by-Aisle Guide to Savvy Food Choices and Good Eating, has truly made an impact on how I navigate the supermarket.

Nestle's basic principles of good eating are easy to digest: Eat less, move more, and eat lots of fruit and vegetables. How do you make the best choices with your fruits and veggies? "Whenever I have the choice, here are my priorities in that section: 1) organic and locally grown, 2) organic, 3) conventional and locally grown, 4) conventional,” Nestle writes.

Why does Nestle put items in that order? What is the big deal about organic products vs. locally grown foods? Well, food in the U.S. travels an average of 1500 miles from farm to plate. All this shipping uses large amounts of natural resources and is said to contribute significantly to pollution while creating excess trash with extra packaging. Conventional agriculture also uses many more resources than sustainable agriculture and pollutes water, land and air with toxic agricultural by-products. Organic foods, on the other hand, are said to be good for the environment, healthier, and even taste better. Organic farming prohibits the use of toxic and persistent chemicals, and no antibiotics or synthetic hormones are permitted. Organic production also prohibits the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). But here's the kicker: a study from March 2005 by the journal Food Policy found that the miles that organic food often travels to one's plate create environmental damage that outweighs the benefit of buying organic. The Department of Rural Economy at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada found that the environmental cost of greenhouse gas (CO2) emitted to transport 20 tons of organically grown produce was similar to that of bringing the same amount of conventional fruit and vegetables to market.

Having "control over your food," especially for people in urban areas, is also a socioeconomic issue. It is clear that the best option would be to buy locally-grown, organic produce. But how accessible are these foods? To the majority of individuals and families, it is inaccessible. Each with its own benefits and faults there are very few individuals who can actually afford to make an effort to be a socially, environmentally, health conscious shopper all the time. And as a National Hunger Clearinghouse program assistant, I know that for the majority of the people calling the National Hunger Hotline, none of the above options will be their priority. They want the most for as little money as they can spare. Most likely it will not be organic or local.

For the average shopper, who is trying to decide when to splurge on organic produce, researchers at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a research and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., have developed the "dirty dozen" fruits and vegetables that you should always buy organic, if possible, because their conventionally grown equivalents tend to be loaded with pesticides. Their list is based on an analysis of more than 100,000 U.S. government pesticide test results.

Fruit:
Apples, cherries, grapes, imported (Chili) nectarines, peaches, pears, raspberries, strawberries


Vegetables:
Bell peppers, celery, potatoes, spinach


Other organic foods worth considering:
Milk, beef, poultry

Many people are puzzled with such information and won't eat fruits and vegetables because they are worried about harmful pesticides. Though I prefer they pay $2 for a pear (regardless of where it comes from, and yes, I have bought a pear for more than $2 in Manhattan) than $1.25 + cost of medical care for a giant croissant, the reality is that many people can't afford it nor think about their future health.

When Nestle was asked in an interview to discuss products she often finds confuse consumers, she used an egg as an example. An egg is an egg. They're mostly distinguished by price and color, and there is no nutritional difference between brown ones and white ones. So you pick your issues. If you care about how the hens are treated, you pick the cage-free kind. If you want omega-3 fats, you pick those (although fish are a better source). If you talk to people who work at grocery stores, they just think it's hilarious to add value to eggs. Eggs are eggs. Some are bigger, some smaller. The most important difference is size — even in my family, bigger is better.

Although some conventional grocery stores are finally carrying organic produce and natural products in limited quantities, you'll pay a higher price for them there than at the natural food store. If you have the option to buy organic, choose which kinds of things to buy organic. My neighbor — a young, health-conscious Manhattanite — told me that if you're serious about buying organic food and living a healthier lifestyle, you'll eventually want to switch from shopping at a conventional grocery store to shopping at a natural food store (also known as a "health food store”) and get ready to spend some extra bucks. I couldn't help but ask why I would spend more on food than I already do living in the city. She responded with a smile saying, "You will feel much better." But I think I will hold on to my few extra dollars for now.

Every business must make a profit to stay in business but not necessarily at the expense of our health or the environment! So, the ball is in our court as consumers, and we need to pay attention to how each purchasing decision can lead to a safer, greener, and more equitable society. There are many changes that we are seeing take place in our own communities.

Last night, as I was getting ready for bed, I heard a story on the local nightly news about a new diet. I couldn't help it but laugh it off and thought to myself, "Oh no! Not another diet." But as I listened closely, the diet's name was intriguing — the new "green diet." The foundation of the diet is plant-based foods rather than meats and dairy, with an emphasis on reducing environmental damage through one’s eating choices, which are limited to a tight mileage budget. I guess this concept needed to be given a diet-like name to catch peoples' attention. On the other hand, if we just want to avoid words such as "diets" all together, we can simply request our local food chain managers have certain items ordered. If there is a demand for it I am sure you will see it in your grocery store. I know I do at my favorite haunt all the time.

Rethinking Schools aims to get us all to do just that: rethink and remodel the public education system for a democratic, socially just future. To that end, this independent publisher of progressive educational materials continues to distribute some of the most thought-provoking articles around. This summer's quarterly publication — Exit Strategies: Finding a way out of Iraq and No Child Left Behind — is no different.

Stan Karp's lead article zeros in on the parallels between two of President George W. Bush's most devastating policy decisions: the war in Iraq and No Child Left Behind. What could the two possibly have in common? "'Leave no child behind' was a rhetorical counterpart to 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.' Though both policies have led to disasters of different dimensions and generated widespread popular opposition,
Bush demands that we 'stay the course' on both fronts," Karp writes. "Unfortunately, his would-be successors are failing to break with the premises of these policies in too many ways and limiting their ability to offer real alternatives."

And the country needs alternatives to Bush's would-be legacy. While the presidential candidates on deck have mapped out ideas for escaping the morass of the Iraq War, many of them are mum on the subject of reversing the damage No Child Left Behind has unleashed on the public education system in this country.

Other articles in this edition of the quarterly journal prove as equally provacative. Leigh Dingerson's article, "Narrow and Unlovely:" How a market-based educational experiment is failing New Orleans children, is especially riveting, as we approach the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. In her piece, Dingerson points fingers at conservative education reformers who decended upon the New Orleans public education system like vultures to sell their market-based education reforms.

Yes, the reforms were necessary — the New Orleans school system was plagued with corruption and a dwindling tax base as well as low test scores — but Dingerson argues persuasively that the people with the most to gain or lose, parents and students, were kept out of the loop.

"Dismissing the role of state funding structures that create inherent disparities between property-rich and property-poor school districts, the movement promotes an individualistic, rather than a collective response to the challenges facing public education. Rather than joining together to demand equity and excellence in our public schools, the message implies that conscientious parents can and should jump ship," Dingerson writes.

Other articles include: Living Algebra, Living Wage by Jana Dean, an eighth grade school teacher who recounts an algebra lesson that hit close to home for her students; and Can't Buy Me Love by Linda Christensen, who writes about clothes, class and consumpt