Today on the train I read several articles that relate to my work here at World Hunger. I suppose this is not surprising given the current economic situation.

Paul Krugman commented on the Federal Reserve open market committee’s prediction that “unemployment would remain substantially above its longer-run sustainable rate at the end of 2011, even absent further economic shocks” and that “more than five to six years would be needed for the economy to converge to a longer-run path characterized by sustainable rates of output growth and unemployment and by an appropriate rate of inflation.” It looks like the Church will have several opportunities to offer food and drink “to the least of these” for quite some time.

David Brooks explained why those who are in part responsible for this mess need to nonetheless receive governement aid. Apparently that old biblical adage that it rains on both the just and the unjust still holds true.

Perhaps the most compelling article to me described the increased use of food pantries and how the “next layer of people” (secretaries, nurse’s aids, child care workers, and so on) have begun to seek help. What I was most struck by (and I’m still formulating my thoughts on it) is the shame that many of these people felt for seeking help in a food pantry. I think it reveals implicit assumptions about people who need this kind of aid and the stigma that being needy carries.
I found myself thinking about the assumptions that I bring to the table when I think about those who are most vulnerable. How would I feel about myself if I found myself in their shoes? What misguided assumptions do I need to actively address?

David Creech

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is currently running two ads on the Travel Channel. You can view them here. According to the ELCA News Service:

“‘We hope that through television, billboards and printmedia, members of the
ELCA will be equipped to own and tell this church’s story, the story of what God
is doing in us and through us for the sake of the world,’ Bangert said.”

We in ELCA World Hunger especially like these two ads because in addition to telling what it means to be Lutheran, they also demonstrate that there are many ways to approach the problem of hunger. Again, from the ELCA News Service:

“One television spot — “Hope” — shows a woman quizzing her daughter as they
walk along a road near Yeumbeul, Senegal. It highlights Senegal Lutheran
Mission, which teaches women how to start their own businesses.

The other spot — “Dignity” — opens with workers setting tables in a fancy
restaurant. The “restaurant” is actually Trinity Lutheran Church, Bismarck,
N.D., and volunteers are preparing a banquet for homeless neighbors.”

I’ve written before about the importance of girls education to reducing poverty and hunger. Teaching women how to start their own businesses falls along the same lines and addresses the 3rd Millennium Development Goal: Promote gender equality and empower women. Poverty is disproportionately prevalent among female-headed households. In many places, patriarchal societies make it difficult for women to own property, find work, or participate in decisions that effect them. Thus marginalized, they lack the means to provide for themselves or their children.

On the other hand, women who are able to earn their own incomes have more choices and greater ability to lift themselves out of poverty. What’s more, this ability typically spills over to their children. Educated women are better positioned to tend to their children’s health and educational needs, thus raising a future generation that is also healthier and more skilled. Beyond education, women with their own income have greater access to resources, and more power in their communities. The work the ELCA is doing in Senegal and other places to help women start their own businesses is critically important to ending hunger.

The ad about serving a meal to homeless neighbors is another part of the fight to end hunger. Education is critically important, but when you’re hungry right now, simply eating is top priority. Without adequate food and nutrition, people are more vulnerable to illness, lack the calories to physically move through the day, and are less able to concentrate. Is it any wonder that hungry people are unable to work and, without work, unable to pay for shelter? In such cases, food aid is just as important as longer-term solutions like education. Again, the work of the ELCA is critically important to ending hunger.

It’s a lot to think about during that next commercial break.

-Nancy Michaelis

Today is the first day of fall. Technically yesterday was still summer, though the temperatures have been significantly cooler and the days noticably shorter for a few weeks now.

But inside certain windowless stores, there’s no telling what time of year it is. Well, maybe you can tell we’re in the back half. The clothing section included both short and long things, but darker shades indicate fall. September? A “Back-to-School” section implied August, but across the aisle were Christmas ornaments. November? December? A bit farther down were the Halloween costumes and lawn decorations. Ah, October! But wait – Thanksgiving-themed dishes. Back to November. I could safely narrow the time of year down to a 5 month range.

All of which had me thinking about how much stuff is available, how much we buy, and how we are tempted to do so by such appealing and long-lasting displays. You weren’t thinking about Thanksgiving here at the tail end of summer and beginning of fall? Well, let us remind you and offer you a lovely selections of things you might need in a couple of months…

I’ve written before about consumerism, and I’ve previously linked to The Story of Stuff, which provides an exellent explanation of some of the effects of consumption. It’s a topic that matters to ELCA World Hunger because our consumption patterns disproportionately affect those living in poverty. From the Global Policy Forum:

According to the World Bank, the 2.3 billion residents of low-income countries
accounted for less than 3% of public and private consumption in 2004, while the
1 billion residents of high-income countries consumed more than 80% of the
global total (See Figure 1.) In this same year the United States accounted for
4.6 percent of the world’s population and 33 percent of global consumption.

This matters because as we rich nations happily shop away, we are using a huge share of the world’s resources. As we exceed the ability of our own country to provide goods at a price we’re willing to pay, we look elsewhere. We buy minerals, fuel, crops and consumer goods from countries anxious for the income and willing to lower prices and regulations to get the business. Poor countries grow tobacco for Western markets instead of food for themselves. They offer cheap clothing at the expense of their employees. They accept shipments of garbage and even toxic waste into their countries because it’s a source of income. The result is often degradation of land and people, making it that much harder for them to succeed. We, in the meantime, wear the clothes for a season and then discard them for something new. In the process, we use even more resources, create more trash, and demand more from the world.

There is a capitalist argument that this is the global market. Whoever can produce an item most efficiently should. Not everyone should grow corn or tobacco or sew clothes. Countries should produce what they’re best at and trade for the things they can’t do as well. It’s good and right that some countries produce coffee beans and many more don’t. And this argument has merit – to a degree. But it requires that governments are functional and acting in the interests of their citizens, not just themselves. It requires that regulations exist and are enforced. It requires educational systems that adequately prepare people to participate in those economies. It requires equity in access to those educational systems. And it requires thoughtful management of resources – both natural and human – to ensure their sustainability. Until those conditions exist, people living in proverty will continue to work in deplorable conditions and exploit their environment because it’s how they can survive. And many of them will continue to live in poverty and to be hungry.

We in the wealthy nations can help by living more sustainably ourselves. We have to consume. Everyone does. But we don’t have to consume thoughtlessly. We can pay more for Fair Trade coffee and finance it by skipping the extra sweater. We can demand products made from sustainable practices (like certified wood) that are easier on the environment. Organizations like the Worldwatch Institute can help you figure out what those products are.

Consumption in and of itself isn’t the problem. It’s how – and how often – we go about it.

We all know that poverty is inextricably linked to hunger. Amoung other things, people living in poverty have less access to health care and education, both of which affect a person’s ability to get and keep a job. And as we all know, different states – and regions within a state – fare differently on the poverty scale. But did you ever wonder exactly how your state or area fare? Or even you as an individual?

Check out www.measureofamerica.org. Interactive maps let you look at different areas of the United States, and the “Well-O-Meter” will let you plot your own place on the American Human Development Index.

And if you find you aren’t satisfied with the results, consider ways to tell your elected politicians about the changes you’d like to see. One place to start is www.elca.org/advocacy.

A few months ago, I wrote a blog post about how natural disasters contribute to hunger, and how those living at or near poverty are disproportionately vulnerable. Following that line of thought, it’s hard to imagine how things could get much worse in Haiti. First they were hit by Tropical Storm Fay. Hurricanes Gustav and Hanna followed, and Ike now threatens. According to the BBC, 200 people have been killed by these storms so far, tens of thousands have been displaced, and hundreds of thousands need assistance. And it’s not just minor assistance. The same BBC article says 200,000 in the city of Gonaives have not eaten in three days and potable water is hard to find. And as one would expect, homes and livelihoods have been destroyed. But perhaps the biggest problem is that few in Haiti have the resources to really do anything about it.

Such an onslaught of natural disaster would be difficult for the people and government of any country to bear, but in a place like Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, it’s especially devastating. Already struggling with extreme poverty, hunger, and rising food prices, the people of Haiti rioted earlier this year and threw out their prime minister. Now, with the hurricanes, rice crops have been destroyed and fruit trees have been blown down, an especially large problem in a place where two-thirds of the population are involved in agriculture. The loss of crops can only add to the long-term suffering, hunger, and political instability.

The short-term is no better. With thousands displaced and no food to be found, Haiti’s government is ill-equipped to help its people. With such a poor economy, infrastructure like roads and communication systems weren’t great before the storms. Wind and water damage have made them even worse, hampering aid efforts and posing longer-term challenges for rebuilding. What’s more, poverty has led to deforestation in Haiti, exposing soil which is now washing away in mudslides. Besides the immediate danger caused by mudslides, there are future ramifications: loss of topsoil, reduction in vegetation, and long-term degradation of the environment.

In a place where poverty is so widespread and the government so uncertain, it’s hard to imagine how Haiti will recover. Certainly we Western countries have a role to play, both in the immediate, urgent need for food and water, and also in assisting with lasting, sustainable changes.

In the meantime, if you’re looking for a case study on the causes of hunger, read up on Haiti. It highlights several factors, including: a history of corrupt, unstable, and ineffective governments; an insufficient and inaccessible education system; lack of employment opportunities; poor infrastructure; a degrading environment; and a susceptibility to natural disasters in the form of hurricanes. It’s not a comprehensive list, but it’s a frighteningly good start.

Education is a key factor in preventing poverty and hunger, and yet so many children in the world – especially girls – are not able to attend school. In fact, The World Bank’s Web site goes so far as to say, “The World Bank has recognized that there is no investment more effective for achieving development goals than educating girls.”

There are many reasons. Perhaps one of the most important is that an eduated woman applies her knowledge to caring for her family, so the whole family benefits. Educated women tend to have fewer children with better spacing between them, allowing more time to recover between pregnancies, and less stress on resources like food and household income. What’s more, the whole family tends to stay healthier, as educated women apply their knowledge about hygiene, nutrition, and disease prevention and treatment. Educated woman are also more likely to demand education for their children, improving the possibilities for their futures.

But the health of the family is not the only benefit. Obviously, a good education has potential for improving household income. Educated women are more likely to qualify for higher paying jobs, which opens the door for higher levels of food security, healthcare, education, community participation, and fulfillment. Similarly, educated women are more likely to participate in community politics, thereby affecting policy and societal structures.

Yet for all the benefits, many girls are unable to attend school. According to the same World Bank Web site,

I was looking at pictures of flooded Iowa today and was awestruck by the destructive power of too much water. I’ve blogged about how important water is to life. But it’s amazing how you can have too much of a good thing. So much land completely under water, killing the crops and destroying livelihoods. Between floods, tornadoes, and wildfires, it’s been a rough month or two in the United States.

How many people’s lives have been altered by nature in the past couple of months? And how many of them have the means to recover? Some are insured, have savings, and other support structures. Reconstructing their fractured lives will be difficult and emotional, to be sure, but largely a matter of time. But those living at or near poverty before disaster struck are facing a whole different reality. Disasters destroy homes, leaving some with nowhere to live. Disasters close businesses, sometimes permanently, causing loss of employment and income. Disasters interrupt health care treatment, making it difficult (or impossible) to tackle the work of recovering. Disaster interrupt education. For those who were struggling to stay in school in the first place, it can be difficult to go back. In the short term, disaster can destroy local food supplies and roadways, making short term hunger very real for everyone. But longer term, especially in rural areas, those who relied on gardens for even some of their food face new and unwelcome challenges.

The list of ways that natural disasters exacerbate the conditions for hunger and poverty go on; I’ve mentioned just a few. Knowing how many disasters the United States has had already this year, I wonder what the longer-term effect will be. How many who were living on the edge of poverty will now be solidly in it? The U.S. Census Bureau provides annual data about poverty in this country. It will be interesting to see how 2008 compares to 2007.

My scientist husband directed my attention two weeks ago to an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education (Feb. 29, 2008, “Researchers Probe How Poverty Harms Children’s Brains”). In it, the author interviews neuroscientists studying the impact of poverty on the neurological development of children living with poverty. Their primary findings – that poverty (aside from hunger/malnutrition) appears to affect a child’s brain development in ways we don’t quite understand yet – are both intriguing and yet somewhat of a – pardon the pun – no brainer. Poverty is complicated and complex. To think that we could easily categorize the impact of childhood poverty is to underestimate this multi-faceted problem. This research also questions the slippery integration of poverty, literacy, family stress and other socio-economic factors and their combined impact on a child’s brain development. “Growing up poor is bad for your brain” one researcher summarizes in the article – and I’m not sure we really needed research to acknowledge that fact.

In the end, it’s just one more reminder that children are often the most vulnerable in environments of hunger and poverty. When hunger, poverty, racism, and family systems are interwoven, we’re left with complex situations that require – that deserve – our focused attention and smartest thinking… in our schools, in our public policy, in our congregations and in our community services. The solution to hunger and poverty will never be just one thing (food assistance, welfare, school lunches) but an interweaving of many different strategies.

There’s a lot of talk about the economy these days… but what would be a better long-term investment than in strategies that could promote healthier brain development of our children? Now that’s a no-brainer….

This winter has been brutal for the roads in Chicago. Huge temperature swings and plenty of snow and ice are crumbling the concrete. My commute to work has become an obstacle course of potholes. There are two strategies for navigating the course: 1) slow down and drive through the potholes, hoping you’re not causing too much damage to your suspension and tires, or 2) slow down and weave around – in your lane and out of it – to avoid hitting them. In the end, you do both, and so does everyone else. The main results are that it takes longer to get anywhere, and all the swerving makes driving scarier than usual. I’m guessing the mechanics are doing a better business than usual, too.

Winter-ravaged roads are a great illustration of their importance. If you don’t have good roads, life is harder. Poor road conditions mean it’s difficult to receive or send goods. Remote villages the world over experience poverty and hunger, partly due to the roads. When roads are badly rutted, frequently muddy, washed out, or in some other form of disrepair, vehicles trying to pass will have to go slowly and are likely to sustain damage. If you’re a business person trying to deliver goods, you’ll have to raise your prices to compensate for the time, fuel, and maintenance costs. Schedules may be irregular depending on when you can get through and how long it takes. If the goods being delivered are perishable, and if delivery schedules are dependent on road conditions and whether or not a truck breaks down, villagers may face perpetual shortages. And to top it all off, once the goods arrive, villagers may not be able to afford them. The suppliers must raise prices to cover their transportation costs, which may make the items too expensive for the small incomes of remote villagers. If suppliers are unable to sell their goods, they are likely to stop coming altogether.

This road is a two-way street (a little infrastructure humor, there). The transportation challenges are true for the villager trying to sell outside the village, too. The costs required to get goods or people to other markets may raise prices to such a degree that the villager can’t compete. The remote village is cut off from larger markets that can increase incomes, create jobs, and improve standards of living. Poverty and hunger become more common.

All of this about roads, and they are only one aspect of infrastructure! It still amazes me, sometimes, how many factors contribute to poverty and hunger. But if there’s a bright side, it’s that all these factors mean there are lots of ways to approach solutions, too.