1474308071000

gaia

%feed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/the-monsanto-merger-blues_b_12039050.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green
The Monsanto Merger Blues
This week, hundreds of farmers from the National Farmers Union are converging on Washington DC to plead with decision makers to say "no" to a blockbusting roster of agribusiness mergers.

Farmers--and consumers--have reason to worry. This level of corporate consolidation will give these companies unprecedented power over our farms, our land and our food.

Chemical giant Bayer has just announced its intention to purchase Monsanto, the world's leading seed and pesticide supplier. Not to be left behind, DuPont and Dow, and Syngenta and ChemChina--the rest of the "Big Six" that already control 51% of seed and 72% of the pesticides in the international market--are in frantic merger negotiations. If they consolidate, three companies would control nearly 60% of the world's seeds. Why the rush to merge? Saturated markets have dropped profit margins. Corporate consolidation is the only way to increase returns to shareholders.

None of this has anything to do with feeding people.

We already produce 1 ½ times more than enough food to feed every person on the planet. Unfortunately, over a billion of the world's people are too poor to buy this food - so they go hungry. Corporate mergers aren't going to change that.

As suppliers consolidate, farmers lose power and choice and get stuck with high input prices and no alternatives at a time of painfully low grain prices. The only way to make their bottom line is to expand operations, getting ever bigger to cover their fixed costs. It's the way of capitalist agriculture. Too bad for young farmers seeking to break into agriculture--the land and technology bar has just been raised again. Monopolization increases the tendency of land consolidation- which means bigger farms and fewer farmers.

Seeds, inputs, machinery, financing, insurance, and big data provided by the corporate giants are made to deliver larger and larger batches of uniform products to retailers, that are also consolidating and vertically integrating. (Even Amazon, who is recruiting an army of agronomists, is planning to sell food through huge supply centers, where taxis and drones will ultimately deliver food to consumers.)

Big food and ag corporations need big farms and big (expensive) technology. Where will farmers get the money to upgrade? Land.

Banks now hold workshops in which they advise producers to sell their land as a business measure to recapitalize operations. They urge farmers to "financialize" by selling the US heartland to international investors whose time horizon is governed by the click of a mouse. Land will concentrate in the hands of those looking to reap profits from hundreds of thousands of land transactions carried out in the cybersphere far from the farms, the consumers seeking healthy, sustainably produced food, and beyond the empty bellies of the world's poor.

Institutional investors have already bought about $40 billion of agricultural land - they'd buy more if they could, but many farmers aren't yet willing to sell. In five years, however, 63% of agricultural land will be inherited or sold. The question is, who will take over? Financial investors or family farmers?

Right now, the front line of resistance to the continued corporatization and consolidation of agriculture in the United States is the commodity producer of corn and soybeans - the family farmers that are in Washington DC this week with the National Farmers Union voicing opposition to consolidation of the industry that determines their livelihoods.

But it's not just their livelihoods that are impacted by these potential mergers - it's our food and agricultural system as a whole. Food activists seeking to transform our food and agricultural system need to stand with those on the frontlines against the continued corporatization and financialization of agriculture. Contrary to the food movement's "good food" narrative, this means allying with conventional family farmers, especially those stuck on the pesticide-GMO-subsidy treadmill the movement so vehemently excoriates. We've got a lot to learn from them:

Family farmers have been pushing back against the corporate takeover of agriculture for more than a century. If farmers find a way to make money, the industry will find a way to take its cut. You saw it happen to commodity farmers when prices were high several years ago, and you see it now with large processors and big box retailers wanting to profit from the organic and sustainable food movement that farmers built. If farmers voluntarily pit themselves against each other because we are growing different things or using different production methods, the only winner will be the corporate food system. It's not easy to bring a diverse group of farmers - conventional commodities, livestock, dairy, fruits & vegetables, organic - together under one big tent. But we do it because we are fighting for the survival of the family farm, and we can't afford to choose up sides against each other.

- Jana Linderman, President Iowa Farmers Union

As far as corporate consolidation goes, it is time for the food movement to tactically align itself with the family farm movement, and with organizations like the National Farmers Union. It is in everyone's interest to keep the monopolies from consolidating, and ultimately to keep farmland ownership in the hands of farmers--not financial investors. This may be a bitter pill for some, but it is a far sight better than turning over our food system to corporate shareholders and financial investors.

Food and agricultural activists are calling on the US Department of Justice to evoke antitrust laws and stop the merger. Now is the time for the food movement to ally with those whose livelihoods depend upon stopping the continued financialization and corporatization of agriculture. Our food future depends on it.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1474308063000

gaia

%feed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shank/river-at-risk-oil-gas-nuk_b_12086414.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green
River at Risk: Oil, Gas, Nukes Threaten New York Health

The Hudson River is under threat, again. Just when we thought we were in the clear - and that river towns up and down the Hudson Valley could enjoy scenic river views for restaurants, new housing, parks and other critical economic development - we're playing defense, again. Oil barges, nuclear plants and gas pipelines all now threaten the integrity of the river.

Remember that not too long ago the river was the dumping ground for toxics and municipal waste and that it's still recovering from General Electric's inexcusable release of PCBs into public waters. Had it not been for Hudson Valley voices - like the Riverkeeper and those who care about Clearwater (thank you, Pete Seeger) - we'd still have sludge and fecal matter floating by Manhattan.

Now it's a different kind of threat. While it's not sewage, it's equally serious, if not more so. It's oil, it's nuclear and it's gas. Ignore for a moment that these are all wrong directions for our energy transition - as non-renewable, toxic and expensive fuels - they're all threatening the critical health of the Hudson River.

First and foremost, oil is the most urgent threat. The U.S. Coast Guard is keen to let the oil industry now use the river for crude oil transport and build 43 berths in 10 locations along the Hudson River. The potential for oil spills is real and frightening (for both human and marine life), and the Coast Guard's move also threatens to scrape and scar the river bottom (with anchors and anchor chains) and further endanger sturgeon and other critical species.

The oil industry, to be clear, is already pushing oil pipelines on land throughout the Hudson Valley, moving volatile crude oil on rail (known as "bomb trains") and putting our river at immediate risk. Now the industry, aided and abetted by the Coast Guard, wants to escalate this volatile equation and place more oil precariously on the water, a bet that no elected official in their right mind should wage. We can put a stop to this, and should, by telling a taxpayer-funded agency, the Coast Guard, to guard against industry interest and protect the greater good, our river, and all the human and marine health and economies that depend on it. (Send your comments to the Coast Guard here.)

Second, nuclear plants are currently killing billions of fish, eggs and larvae in the river. Power plants along the Hudson River are withdrawing 1.2 trillion gallons every year. Sound benign? It's not. Yet, the industry-friendly Nuclear Regulatory Commission refuses to protect public interest. Plants like Entergy's Indian Point nuclear power plant, which continues to break down and leak radioactive waste and sit insecurely a few dozen miles north of Manhattan, use the river's water to cool their facilities and discharge the heated water back into the Hudson - killing billions of organisms annually. Unlike humans, our Hudson fish hate hot tubs.

It doesn't have to be this way, but we continue to allow private industry to use public assets to pay for this problem. It's time for that to end and to support New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo's call for shutting down Indian Point (and Riverkeeper's work to protect millions of New Yorkers from nuclear disaster).

Third, a high pressure Spectra Energy pipeline, carrying fracked gas for export (so that other countries can have higher carbon footprints) is expanding under the Hudson and adjacent to the failing Indian Point nuclear facility, making a combustible situation even more volatile. While New York's Senators Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand and Governor Cuomo have called for a halt to the pipeline construction, because of the "threat to the quality of life, environmental, health and safety of residents across the Hudson Valley and New York State without any long-term benefit to the communities it would impact," the construction continues.

Spectra Energy is leaving in its wake destroyed wetlands, clear-cut forests and increasingly endangered Hudson Valley health (don't get me started on the toxic particulates the pipeline will exhaust near my neighboring hometown of Peekskill). Most disconcertingly, the high-pressure pipeline runs within bomb shot of Indian Point's aging nuclear plant, making our region a sitting duck for those who wish to do serious damage. Again, our taxpayer funded Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a close friend of the private industry, refuses to protect public interest. This, too, must end. (Find out more about how to protect fellow New Yorkers here.)

The fight to protect our Hudson River is back on. In fact, it never ended, but it feels like we're back in the mid-1900s again. This time with different contaminants and dangers, all of which pose serious security and safety risks to human and Hudson River health. We don't need another superfund site but rather serious foresight to ensure that cleanups don't become a river town pastime. Calling on all who care. It's time to rise up for our river.

Michael Shank, PhD, is a resident of Peekskill in the Hudson Valley and teaches sustainable development NYU's Center for Global Affairs.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1474304189000

gaia

%feed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-marston/why-clean-energy-is-cente_b_12086858.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green
Why Clean Energy Is Center Stage on International Day of Peace
Each year since 1981, the United Nations (UN) recognizes an International Day of Peace on September 21. The day is intended to strengthen peace both within and among nations.

As an environmental advocate, I can't help but think about the effects of climate change on the current state of global peace. And while there are a few climate deniers out there, those who have looked at the science are saying climate change poses a serious threat to global security and peace.

Fortunately, the UN agrees - which is why they chose to focus this year's International Peace Day on Sustainable Development Goals. Unanimously adopted by all 193 UN member states, the Sustainable Development Goals are broken down into 17 focus areas and are part of a broader agenda to fight inequality, injustice, and climate change by 2030.

"2016-09-19-1474299265-3320348-HuffPostSDG.jpg"

Goal 7 - "ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all" - is a hugely important part of fostering global peace. The world needs affordable, reliable electricity to heat, cool, and power our homes, and to encourage economic growth. But we also need this electricity to be clean, modern, and efficient, so it doesn't pollute our communities and exacerbate climate change.

Here are four ways the U.S. is doing our part to achieve an affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy system for all:

Affordability: In rural, poverty-persistent parts of the country, energy efficiency is the most direct way to save people money and reduce energy use, but it is often overlooked when families face hard choices about where to spend their money. On-bill financing is one solution that's helping Americans finance energy efficiency upgrades without the burden of upfront costs. Upgrades are paid for over time (via utility bills) from the resulting energy savings of efficiency improvements. The program reduces energy use and saves people money, which is especially important in rural communities where median household incomes are shrinking compared to their urban and suburban counterparts. In North Carolina, non-profits like Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and electric cooperatives (or "co-ops," which supply power to 42 million Americans in rural areas) are partnering to expand on-bill financing.
Reliability: Electricity touches everything we do. So when the grid goes down, the effects can range anywhere from inconvenient to life-threatening. With the help of smart meters, which now exist in nearly half of U.S. households and deliver detailed energy-use data to utilities, we can begin to identify outages faster and with great precision (meaning shorter outages). Smart meters can also enable energy management tools like demand response - which pays people to reduce energy when the electric grid is stressed - that can help improve reliability and reduce outages. New York recently approved an historic plan by its largest utility to distribute smart meters to millions of homes. This move will help increase efficiency, improve reliability, and lower pollution.
Sustainability: An estimated 12.6% of U.S. energy use is water-related. That's equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of 40 million Americans. Ensuring a sustainable future means addressing the way we manage our electricity and our water - part of what's known as the "energy-water nexus." Based in Austin, Texas, Pecan Street, Inc., the nation's largest energy research network and an EDF partner, is studying and piloting some of the same strategies that are helping the energy sector get smart. Just like smart energy meters, smart water meters can help residents conserve resources by giving them access to meaningful data about when and how they use water. By saving water, we can save energy, too, which means fewer polluting power plants.
Modernity: A key aspect of modern energy is that it should be accessible to all. While the price of solar panels has fallen 80 percent since 2008, many Americans reside in multi-unit buildings, or don't own a home on which to install solar panels. But the solar game is changing and new models are emerging. Community solar, defined as "a solar-electric system that provides power and/or financial benefit to, or is owned by, multiple community members," presents a unique opportunity to bring solar access to the masses. Cities like Los Angeles, California and San Antonio, Texas are actively working to expand community solar. And nationally, community solar is predicted to more than double between 2015 and 2016.

Global consensus

These examples reveal the new look of energy in America. Other nations are making clean energy progress, too, though their circumstances vary. For example, in Lesotho, Southern Africa, clean energy sometimes looks like solar panels on homes in rural areas that can't be reached by vehicles. In Chennai, India, clean energy can be seen in the solar steam cooking system in a home-school for 650 orphans.

Yet, despite regional differences, this International Day of Peace - with Goal 7: Affordable and clean energy at center stage - reminds us that around the world, efforts to nurture a safer, more prosperous future are cut from the same cloth. It's also a reminder that the world agrees with Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon's message: "Affordable, clean energy is the golden thread that links economic growth, increased social equity, and a healthy environment."

This post is part of a series produced by The Huffington Post to mark the occasion of the one-year anniversary of the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, or, officially, "Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development"). The SDGs represent an historic agreement -- a wide-ranging roadmap to sustainability covering 17 goals and 169 targets -- but stakeholders must also be held accountable for their commitments. To see all the posts in the series, visit here.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1474304180000

gaia

%feed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christiana-figueres/how-to-save-the-un_b_12054254.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green
How to Save the UN

One of the reasons that I chose to run for the position of United Nations Secretary General is that I could see the interconnected nature of many of the crises that the world faces today. While I have now withdrawn from the race, I was and remain, full of hope that when we treat them as interrelated issues and work to address their root causes, we can all win.

One of the key crises will be discussed at a UN Summit this week. The crisis is that today we live in a world where 65 million people have been forced from their homes -- more than at any time since the end of the Second World War. Media images of streams of people walking away from their homes have become commonplace over the last 18 months. The heartbreaking stories of those who have lost their lives as they fled the desperate situations in their homelands have lasting implications long after they have left the front pages.

It is anticipated that this week's UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants will seek to better protect migrants and refugees during their perilous journeys, and while this is vital, it will count for little unless we deal with the reasons why people are having to leave.

The UN acknowledges that the international community has been "struggling for years to find better ways to resolve violent conflicts in many parts of the world and to mitigate the impact of climate change and disasters. Alleviating extreme poverty, food insecurity, lack of decent work, inequality, tackling discrimination and human-rights violations and abuses, establishing rule of law, mitigating the impact of disasters and climate change are all massive tasks."

Yet these tasks that are already described as 'massive' are getting bigger. With temperature records being broken month by month, the impacts that climate change has had on conflict and refugees in places like Syria and Mali will only grow. With sea-level rise advancing more quickly than scientists predicted, those communities in the South Pacific and in Alaska who have already been forced to move will be joined by many more. Though climate is not the only factor impacting the choices being made by these people, it is a real and growing danger.

The incumbent UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will leave a legacy of working to reform the UN to break down the institutional silos that slow us down when we respond to such crises. He will leave a legacy of having put frameworks in place -- such as the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement -- that can help address some of the 'massive tasks'.

But this important work needs to be sped up and increased, for example, by incorporating an understanding of climate risk into everything that the UN does. This would ensure that over the longer term we understand better where the hot spots are and how to help prevent system breakdown. It would also give teeth to the conclusions of the inaugural World Humanitarian Summit held earlier this year.

Though I have worked at the heart of the UN for years, I have learnt a lot more about the institution and its peculiar brand of realpolitik over the course of the past few months. It is more clear to me than ever that UN is on the verge of a precipice.

Its next leader -- and there are strong candidates in this race -- has the responsibility to ensure the UN delivers on those groundbreaking agreements made last year, which would see us effectively address poverty, better protect people in their own homes, and create more possibilities of peace. To do in fact what the UN was created to do. But the UN can only do that if it eschews the turf wars and patronage that weakens its ability to do its job properly.

We cannot afford a world without the UN. But the UN must continue to evolve so that it is up to the challenges of the 21^st century.

I urge the Security Council to avoid the path of least resistance, I urge them to push for transformation. Though it might seem more difficult at first, this is how we deliver on our promises and put the organisation on a strong footing for the next 70 years, one that will serve the many millions that have already been forced from their homes and those who still live in fear. Don't choose politics, choose the right person for the job.

Ms. Figueres is the top UN authority on global climate change. She was the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) between July 2010 and July 2016. Assuming responsibility for the international climate change negotiations after the failed Copenhagen conference of 2009, she was successful in leading the process to a universally agreed regulatory action framework.

This post is part of a series produced by The Huffington Post to mark the occasion of two critical conferences at the UN on the Refugee and Migrant crisis: the UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants (Sept. 19th, a UN conference) and the Leaders Summit on Refugees (Sept. 20th, hosted by U.S. Pres. Barack Obama, at the UN). To see all the posts in the series, visit here. To follow the conversation on Twitter, see #UN4RefugeesMigrants.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1474297617000

gaia

%feed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jake-schmidt/more-countries-to-formall_b_12084064.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green
More countries to formally join Paris Agreement next week
After international agreements are finalized it often takes years for countries to formally join the agreement and for the agreement to take effect. It took the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change almost two years after it was adopted for that agreement to enter-into-force. On September 21st, a next wave of countries is expected to formally join the Paris Agreement and signal their commitment to continue to act now and deliver stronger climate action in the coming years.

As a result, there is a high likelihood that the Paris Agreement will enter into force this year - less than a year after the agreement was adopted. This would represent rocket speed as most international agreements take at least two years to enter into force. This is a fantastic signal that countries around the world are preparing to take the necessary actions to address climate change and protect our children and grandchildren from the devastation that will occur if we don't act aggressively. More action will be needed, but the early signs are positive given the pace at which countries formally entered into the agreement.

World is on the cusp of the Paris Agreement entering into force

To date, twenty-seven countries accounting for thirty-nine percent of the world's emissions have formally joined the Paris Agreement. A number of countries - such as Brazil and Mexico - have taken the required domestic steps to join the agreement but haven't yet officially become members of the agreement as they have to "deposit" the official paperwork with the U.N. Officials have recently said that they expect twenty additional countries will formally join the agreement when countries meet on September 21st for a ceremony in New York. This next wave will mean that at least 47 countries that account for over forty-five percent of the world's emissions will have formally joined the agreement by September 21st (see table below).

And more have publicly announced that they will formally join the agreement this year including a number of major emitters such as Japan, Indonesia, Australia, and Canada. European Union leaders just signaled that they will try to formally join this year, maybe even by early October. With these countries sixty-four countries that account for almost 72 percent of the world's emissions are expected to have formally joined the Paris Agreement this year. That would mean that the agreement would enter into force this year as it only requires 55 countries that account for 55 percent of the world's emissions for the agreement to take effect (see figure).

"2016-09-19-1474294141-6673574-Graph.JPG"

Rocket speed for an international agreement to enter into force

Translating international agreements into international law usually takes years. As one U.N. official recently said: "it usually takes years, decades and sometimes never to cross these thresholds for entry into force". The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change took almost two years to cross those thresholds, the Kyoto Protocol took over seven years, and the Montreal Protocol took a year and half. As the New York Times pointed out: "Experts in international law said they could not think of an example of a major United Nations agreement entering into legal force less than a year after it was finalized".

The quick pace could signal that world leaders want to be remembered as being on the right side of history. After all, when the history books are written for the 21st Century, which leader wants to be known as the last one to join an agreement to address the gravest challenge of this century? I doubt the history books will look fondly on that blank chapter in a leader's story: "Chapter 12 - Didn't join historic agreement to address climate change".

Hard work ahead after agreement takes effect

Once the Paris Agreement enters into force countries will have to provide further details on some of the implementation rulebooks and then evolve the system to take on new dynamics over time. And most importantly, countries will have to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work of policymaking to drive their economies towards a low carbon and climate resilient future. Countries have a solid base to build upon as they have more advanced clean energy policies, new steps on deforestation, and more tools to spur energy efficiency.

We need more action, faster. So let's hope that the quick entry-into-force is a sign that countries are prepared to take even more decisive domestic action in the coming years.

---

"2016-09-19-1474294256-1244652-Table.JPG"

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1474297611000

gaia

%feed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vytenis-andriukaitis/disease-prevention-in-urb_b_12084040.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green
Disease prevention in urban areas: EU cities can be a hub of health promotion
Last June, I was having a public discussion with citizens in Eindhoven, Netherlands, together with Mary-Ann Schreurs, the Vice-Mayor of the city. I hold those dialogues regularly, in different EU Member States, on the issues that I am in charge of at the European Commission level - health and food safety but also broader European topics. These public discussions are never easy but I appreciate the exercise. It brings food for thought and gives birth to interesting ideas.

That day in Eindhoven, a young woman told me: we all know that prevention is better than cure and preventing people from getting sick should therefore be the obvious goal, but my son's school has two vending machines full of sugary drinks and fatty foods that are easily accessible to him. I can do little to control what he is buying with his pocket money. Aren't we in a major contradiction - we expect our kids to eat healthy but we make sugar and fat easily available and cheap in the places where they spend most of their time without us?

She is right. Add marketing and advertising and you have the recipe for a whole generation of children growing fat for life. Add the ageing population and rise in chronic diseases - many of which could be prevented if we tackled risk factors and promoted healthy habits - and you can be sure that no healthcare system in the world will be able to cope with resultant costs. I will never tire repeating that prevention and promotion are key if we want to change this catastrophic forecast. Where better to put these in place if not in urban areas given that we estimate that by 2020, almost 80% of EU citizens will be living in cities?

In the EU, we have already started sowing the seeds. Several pan-european initiatives are underway to improve quality of life in our cities. For example, the European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities, aims to improve urban life through more sustainable integrated solutions such as including pedestrian zones and cycle paths in city planning to encourage people to move more.

The EU Health Programme and the European Parliament co-finance various projects with an urban angle that promote healthier diets to children, adults and elderly citizens. These projects are part of a wider, multi-faceted approach to tackling obesity, poor nutrition and inactivity.

Since 2007, the European Commission is working on initiatives across various policy areas to promote good health and reduce the risks associated with poor nutrition and lack of exercise. For example, the school fruit scheme provides school children with fruit and vegetables, encouraging school children to replace sugary snacks with healthier options.

In addition, the 2014 Action Plan on Childhood obesity aims to halt the rise of childhood obesity by 2020. The plan includes promoting healthier diets in school and pre-school, and making the healthy option the easy option, amongst its objectives. In parallel, the Commission is working together with Member States on the common objective of reformulating food products to contain less salt, fats or sugars. The aim of our work in that field is to help ensure that healthier food is available and affordable to all across the European Union.

We also have two interesting EU-financed projects which are currently being tested in urban settings. "Together" and "We Love Eating" both benefit from the multiplier effect of community action within cities.

A healthy lifestyle starts from the earliest age, and the Together pilot project promotes healthy diets to pregnant and breastfeeding women in Manchester, Murcia, Odense and Kolding, Prague and Varna. "Together" makes a special effort to address health inequalities by reaching out to young mothers, women on lower incomes and ethnic minorities - as these are groups that do not always benefit from equal access to health promotion initiatives. The project involves diverse community actors such as social workers, midwives, and pregnant and breastfeeding mothers, to ensure that it brings about real, sustainable change.

We Love Eating further promotes healthy eating amongst three main target groups: children, pregnant women and older people, in seven small cities across the EU, such as, Bradford, Roncq, Granollers and Cluj-Napoca. We Love Eating aims to teach people to enjoy healthy food, it encourages conscious eating and more physical activity in daily life, and offers realistic and fun ways to adopt a healthier lifestyle. Once again, this community-based project makes a special effort to address people from low socio-economic backgrounds.

Indeed, many people in the EU are not able to afford quality food and suffer the negative health effects of under nutrition. Since around 88 million tonnes of food is wasted in the EU every year, there is no excuse for any of our citizens going hungry. Preventing food waste is a moral and ethical obligation, I wrote about this earlier and you can read it here I am sure that the question raised that day, in Eindhoven, is topical for many parents. That woman is certainly not alone wanting to prevent her son growing fat for life. But more we raise these questions and discussions around the issue, the more aware our citizens become. A few months after our discussion, the Vice-Mayor initiated a project called 'Health Deal' where neighbouring cities come together to exchange knowledge, insights and build partnerships that put health in the core of urban development.

EU cities have the potential to be hubs of health promotion. The more EU cities work together and learn from each other, the more we can all benefit from targeted, sustainable community action that brings together businesses, activists, charities, schools, mums, dads, midwives, chefs, children and older citizens - to promote healthy diets and physical activity and to ensure that good food fills the stomachs of people in need rather than our dustbins.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

Egg by Antonett Ewan

Cam and her reflection by David A

Processed with VSCO with f1 preset

Falling Leaves by Jessica Drossin

Please follow me here: Facebook I Google + I Twitter I Instagram Edited with JD Beautiful World Foundations and Fine Art & Vivid Tint actions (Foreign Film & Muse) and Leaf Overlays available here.

Something worth getting up for

bunny by Jonathan Carrizales

Processed with VSCO with e5 preset

Ludmilla Mary is on her way to meet the future. by Richard Rhyme

"How often I found where I should be going only by setting out for somewhere else." - R. Buckminster Fuller | with 2Fik at inFutureTO at Ontario Place