# data[].attributes.body
Essentially, this act controls the amount of pollutants that go into the water that is used by the United States, and also regulates the quality standards for surface water. This helps tremendously because it reassures people that our water is safer than most people’s. Also, the Clean Water Act is providing cleaner water to the homeless people on the streets, who have to drink water from sinks, hoses, and other public water areas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972)

The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was significantly reorganized and expanded in 1972. "Clean Water Act" became the Act's common name with amendments in 1972.

Under the CWA, EPA has implemented pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry. EPA has also developed national water quality criteria recommendations for pollutants in surface waters.

The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained:

EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges.

Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches.

Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need a NPDES permit;

Industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.

Compliance and Enforcement

History of this Act

More Information

The Office of Water (OW) ensures drinking water is safe, and restores and maintains oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife.

The EPA Watershed Academy provides training courses on statutes, watershed protection, and other key Clean Water Act resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
support delivery of services > public affairs > official information dissemination > public information & outreach > provide public information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Clean Water Act regulates discharges of pollutants into U.S. waters, and controls pollution by means such as wastewater standards for industry, national water quality criteria recommendations for surface waters, and the NPDES permit program.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is the availability of/ requirement for environmentally friendly laundry detergents to protect bodies of water? 

# data[].attributes.subject
What is the availability of/ requirement for environmentally friendly laundry detergents to protect bodies of water? 

# data[].attributes.body
When you are looking for eco-friendly laundry detergents, you should be looking at the ingredients and seeing what can potentially harm the environment. Chemicals like chlorine and artificial fragrances found in most detergents can cause skin, eye, and throat irritation, liver and kidney damage, and hormone disruption. These seven detergents are proven to be less harmful to humans and the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On cold winter mornings while growing up I loved to grab my clothes out of the dryer just as they finished so I could slip into a warm pair of jeans before heading out the door.

Back then I didn't give a second thought to the products being used to clean my clothes. Fast forward a few years however and I've come to realize that I need to be more mindful of the chemicals I expose myself to.

Many conventional laundry detergents are loaded with chemicals that haven't been tested. We don't know how our bodies will be affected by long term exposure to these chemicals.

We do know that some of the potential health risks associated with some of these chemicals. These side effects can include;

skin, eye and throat irritation,

liver and kidney damage

and hormone disruption.

Negative reproductive and developmental effects have also been discovered in animal studies. Below is a list of laundry detergent chemicals to avoid. You can learn more about their side effects here.

If you ever wonder what your laundry detergent has in it you should search through the Environmental Working Groups laundry products guide to see how they rate your products.

Eco-friendly laundry detergents are a good alternative to conventional products. These companies focus on keeping their products free from toxic ingredients.

When it comes to choosing an eco-friendly laundry detergent however, the sheer number of choices can be a bit overwhelming.

After spending some significant time sifting through reviews, fact sheets, and ingredient lists I've put together this list of eco-friendly laundry detergents that are safe for your home and the environment. *This article does contain affiliate links. If you purchase using one of these links we will receive a small commission.

Best Eco-friendly laundry detergents

Molly's Suds

Started in 2008 by Monica Leonard, Molly's Suds has a rather unique story.

In 2005, Monica gave birth to her third daughter, Molly, who was sadly, stillborn. After going through this tragedy, Monica, a nurse, wanted to try and find some explanation as to why this happened.

After spending significant time researching, Monica discovered the sheer number of chemicals that are used in today's cleaning, skin care, and personal care products. With very few of these chemicals ever being tested for human use.

Monica set out to create a line of products she new was safe. And thus, Molly's Suds was born.

Molly's Suds focuses exclusively on eco-friendly laundry detergent and related products. Their line of products includes laundry detergent, wool dryer balls, oxygen whitener, and even dog shampoo.

Molly's Suds laundry detergent is free of harsh chemicals, toxins, fillers, carcinogens, preservatives and GMO ingredients. Molly's Suds laundry powder has received an "A" grade from the Environmental Working Group.

You can buy a bag of Molly's Suds eco-friendly laundry detergent here.

Biokleen

Jim Rimer was a sales executive for a chemical supply company in the 1980's. At this time there wasn't a ton of knowledge on the harmful effects of various chemicals. Jim saw some of the negative side effects his customers and coworkers experienced and tried to institute some changes to educate people on these chemicals. His attempts to help people however weren't looked upon favorably and he was eventually fired.

Working in his garage, Jim set out to create his own cleaner that was as strong as the conventional cleaning products but safe for people to use.

After a serious amount of work, study, and testing, Jim finally found a natural formula that worked. Over the years his company has grown and now sells his cleaning products nation wide.

On their site, Biokleen gives their mission statement:

To produce natural and effective cleaners with a passion for innovation, dedication to performance and a guiding commitment to our customers and their families, pets and our planet.

All Biokleen products are free of phosphates, chlorine, ammonia, petroleum solvents, alcohol, butyl, glycol ether, brighteners, artificial colors, artificial fragrance.

The Biokleen Laundry Liquid, Citrus Essence received an "A" grade from the Environmental Working Group.

One other thing I love about Biokleen is they package all of their products in #1 or #2 plastic, making them easy to recycle. You can use our recycling search tool to find a recycling location in your area.

Biokleen's line of laundry products includes liquid and powder laundry detergent, oxygen bleach, stain & odor remover, and baby laundry detergent.

You can pick up a bottle of Biokleen's eco-friendly laundry detergent's here.

Better Life

Do you ever spray cleaning products into your mouth? Probably not. But that's exactly what Better Life cofounder Kevin Tibbs did when he and Tim Barklage appeared on Shark Tank in 2013.

The mission of Better Life is summed up in this statement:

We take great care to ensure our products are free of unnecessary ingredients that may pose health risks for people, pets, marine life, and the planet. They're packaged using solar energy and recyclable materials, with formulas that biodegrade two-to-five times faster than leading natural and conventional cleaners.

Better Life products are free from Ethoxylates, Parabens, Petroleum Solvents, Phosphates, Phthalates, SLS, Triclosan, Ethers, Chloroform, Chlorine, Bleach, Ammonia, Alcohol, Dyes, and Perfumes. Better Life's Lavender Grapefruit Laundry Detergent received an "A" grade from the Environmental Working Group.

Spring cleaning tips for allergy sufferers! https://t.co/lZLmVfHXKn pic.twitter.com/fLKHK0UUro

- Better Life (@CleanHappens) April 19, 2016

Better Life's laundry product line includes laundry detergent, stain and odor remover, and dryer sheets.

You can pick up Better Life's eco-friendly laundry detergent here.

The Honest Company

The Honest Company is a company favorite here at Earth911. We love their commitment to safe chemicals and cruelty free products.

The Honest Company is a relatively young company, led by actress, Jessica Alba and former Healthy Child, Healthy World CEO, Christopher Gavigan. Their core focus is on creating products for children. However their product line includes products for pretty much everyone.

We tried to think of all the qualities we would want in a dream brand - savvy style, sustainability, and extraordinary service & convenience all wrapped in a passion for social goodness, tied with a bow of integrity and sprinkled with a little cheeky fun.

The Honest Company also offers several different laundry products including; laundry detergent, laundry packs (like pods), dryer cloths, stain removers, and an oxy boost.

All of their products are free of SLS, synthetic fragrances, phosphates, 1,4-dioxane, chlorine, DEA, formaldehyde, caustics, and optical brighteners.

The Honest Company Laundry Detergent is hypoallergenic, safe for babies and compatible with HE washers.

You can pick up a bottle of their eco-friendly laundry detergent here.

Seventh Generation

When it comes to established Eco-friendly cleaning companies, Seventh Generation is certainly among the oldest. Established over 25 years ago, Seventh Generation has always maintained a commitment to creating products that are safe for you and for the environment.

Their eco-friendly laundry detergent is no exception. Seventh Generation offers a variety of laundry detergents, including those formulated for people with sensitive skin and for infants.

The Seventh Generation Natural Powder Laundry Detergent, Real Citrus & Wild Lavender received an "A" grade from the Environmental Working Group.

Seventh Generation laundry detergent is cruelty free and gluten free. It is made without synthetic fragrances, optical brighteners, or dyes. One thing to note. Their laundry detergent does contain SLS however they are transparent about this and state:

Please know that the SLS we use is always derived from a plant unlike most of the SLS on the market. Our SLS is sustainably derived from Palm or Coconut. When in careful formulation, SLS is not a skin irritant. We do extensive skin patch testing for all our products so you can rest assured they are safe and effective.

You can pick up a bottle of Seventh Generation's eco-friendly laundry detergent here.

Method

Even though it's only been around for 15 years, Method has made a serious impact in the world of green cleaning.

Adam Lowry and Eric Ryan are the founders of Method. They run the first LEED platinum-certified soap factory and now have over 60 products that are Cradle to Cradle® certified.

Method's line of laundry products includes laundry detergent, dryer sheets, and fabric softener.

Method products are free from the following ingredients:

Method's 8X Free & Clear laundry detergent received a B grade from the Environmental Working Group.
Now admittedly, one of my favorite things about Method is their unique bottles. They are bright, colorful, and unique. And guess what, they are also made of 100% recycled plastic and are 100% recyclable bottles.

You can pick up Method's eco-friendly laundry detergent here.

Mrs. Meyers

One thing I love about Mrs. Meyers products as a whole is their variety of scents. I think they do a better job than just about anyone else in providing different scents. This might seem like a small thing but it's important to me.

I like to mix it up. I don't do the same lavender or lemon scent over and over and over. I need to change things up. So being able to use scents like Rosemary, Honeysuckle, Basil and Geranium is a nice bonus.

Mrs. Meyers laundry products are made using Anionic Surfactants that come from plant-derived sources. Surfactants are a molecule that has a "water-loving end" and a "water-fearing end."

Anionic Surfactants have a negative charge on their "water-loving end." What this means is they grab the dirt and grime from your clothes and suspend it in a little water bubble that then gets washed away, leaving your clothes clean.

Alright, enough with the chemistry lesson. Mrs. Meyers laundry products also contain stain fighting enzymes and essential oils, which are where they get those delicious scents.

As a bonus, Mrs. Meyers Laundry products are also compatible with High Efficiency washers since they don't give off many suds.

Mrs. Meyers offers laundry detergent, fabric softener, and dryer sheets.

Do you use any of these eco-friendly laundry detergents? Which one is your favorite? Let me now in the comments below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Eco-Friendly Laundry Detergents For Fresh Clothes - Earth911.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On cold winter mornings while growing up I loved to grab my clothes out of the dryer just as they finished so I could slip into a warm pair of jeans before heading out the door. Back then I didn't give a second thought to the products being used to clean my clothes.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can people become educated about the problem of hunger in the world? (Pt II)

# data[].attributes.subject
How can people become educated about the problem of hunger in the world? (Pt II)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bread for the World is a collective Christian voice urging our nation's decision makers to end hunger at home and abroad. By changing policies, programs and conditions that allow hunger and poverty to persist, we provide help and opportunity far beyond the communities in which we live.

# data[].attributes.headline
Where can hungry people get free food somewhere?

# data[].attributes.subject
Where can hungry people get free food somewhere?

# data[].attributes.body
San Francisco

-Glide

-St. Anthony’s

-Mother Brows’ Kitchen

-Martin de Porres House of Hospitality

-Curry Senior Center

-S.F. Rescue Mission

East Bay

-St. Vincent de Paul of Alameda County

-Cityteam

-Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County

-Food Not Bombs

North Bay

-St. Vincent de Paul Society of Marin County

-St. Vincent de Paul of Sonoma County

-Committee on the Shelterness - Petaluma Kitchen

South Bay

-North Peninsula Food Pantry and Dining Center of Daly City

-Cityteam

-Eastside Neighborhood Center

-Samaritan House

There are 17 places that serves free food to hungry people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Volunteers prepare meals at St. Anthony's. ( Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

This post was originally published on June 29, 2016, and was updated Dec. 13, 2017.
There are about 7,500 homeless people living in San Francisco, and a larger number in the greater Bay Area. With rising housing and living costs, it's not getting easier for people living on the street.

Fortunately, there are also lots of local organizations providing services to those in need. We've compiled a list of many of the places, sorted roughly by geography, that provide regular hot and fresh meals. This list primarily focuses on the organizations and services that provide multiple hot meals each week or daily meal service. There are many more places that provide a weekly or monthly meal, as well as food banks that distribute groceries and fresh food. Project Homeless Connect has a fairly comprehensive listing of homeless services if you're looking for more information, and the independent county food banks are valuable resources for fresh food pick-ups. If we missed an organization that provides a place for homeless residents to get a regular hot meal, please let us know in the comments below.

Most of these organizations are also in need of volunteers and/or donations. Contact them directly to sign up or to inquire about what they specifically are looking for.

San Francisco

330 Ellis Street [ map]
San Francisco, CA 94102
Ph: (415) 674-6000
Hours:
Breakfast: Daily, 8am-9am (seniors' breakfast 7:30am-8am; women's breakfast 10:30am-11am)
Lunch: Daily, noon-1:30pm (bagged lunches on Sat, Sun)
Dinner: Mon-Fri, 4pm-5:30pm

Begun in 1969, Glide provides meals daily in the dining room, plus special meals around the holidays and a number of other services.

The dining room also hosts two monthly food distribution programs, as well as clothing programs, a medical clinic, and a social work center.

The United Council of Human Services operates Mother Brown's Kitchen, which started as a small mobile food operation 20 years ago. The organization also runs food pantries in Oakdale and Sunnyvale.

Martin de Porres House of Hospitality
225 Potrero Ave. [ map]
San Francisco, CA 94103
Ph: (415) 552-0240
Hours:
Breakfast: Mon, Tues, Thurs, Fri, 5:30am-7:30am (hot tea, bread available at 5:30am; oatmeal served at 6:30am)
Lunch: Tues-Sat, noon-2pm
Brunch: Sun, 9am-10:30am

Meals are served daily, and typically the courtyard and dining room open early to allow people to come in off the street. Showers and hygiene products are available Tuesday and Thursday mornings.

Curry Senior Center is primarily focused on providing a place for low-income seniors to make connections with other people and get the health services they need. Meals are served daily (and bingo is available on Wednesdays and on weekends during lunch hours). Meal delivery to homebound seniors is also offered.

Based out of a church with different services, from a ministry to a health and wellness center, S.F. Rescue Mission provides meals, groceries, and hot food delivery.

East Bay

The largest dining room in Alameda County, St. Vincent's serves a regular midday hot meal.

722 Washington St. [ map]
Oakland, CA 94607
Ph: (510) 452-3758
Hours:
Breakfast: Daily, 7am
Lunch: Daily, noon
Dinner: Daily, 6:30pm

Along with a dining hall in San Francisco and one in San Jose, Cityteam operates a daily dining hall in Oakland. ( Check all the hours before going to the other locations.) Cityteam is a Christian nonprofit providing services to the homeless and impoverished.

Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County
There are five LFCC-operated dining rooms, and one partner dining room. Check the website for all locations.
Ph: (925) 293-4792
Hours: Mon-Fri, 11am-12:45pm

Based in Martinez, Loaves & Fishes provides daily meals at a half-dozen dining rooms around Contra Costa County. The organization also distributes fresh groceries.

Food Not Bombs
Ph: (510) 644-4187
Hours: Meals served Mon-Fri, 3pm, at People's Park

Cooked at local residents' houses, meals are typically served at the park in Berkeley, or in Oakland on the weekends. Schedule can vary. Call for more info.

North Bay

The dining room in San Rafael is open every day from 6:30am-1pm, during which two meals are served out of the free kitchen and an open pantry is available. The non-profit also has housing services and works with partner shelter organizations.

The dining room serves a hot lunch meal every day of the year. The organization also operates a job training program, food pantry, and thrift store.

The Committee on the Shelterless serves a daily hot lunch at its Petaluma Kitchen, as well as hands out weekly food boxes.

South Bay

The North Peninsula Food Pantry and Dining Center is on the smaller end of homeless dining rooms - serving just about 70 people during dinner in the cafeteria - but it also operates a food pantry in conjunction with Second Harvest.

Cityteam operates a men's shelter in San Jose, along with the dining hall, which provides daily hot dinner.

A Catholic neighborhood community center with educational and wellness programs, the nightly dinner is actually provided through Loaves & Fishes, which no longer operates its own walk-in dining room, but instead cooks and distributes meals to other nonprofits and organizations. (Contact Loaves & Fishes for a full list of potential meal partners.)

Samaritan House is the largest provider of hot meals and biggest food distributor in San Mateo County. There is also a pantry and after-school food program. While hot meals are provided weeknights in the dining hall, there is also an option to carry-out a meal, if needed.

Where Homeless People Can Get Free Meals in the Bay Area

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Where Homeless People Can Get Free Meals in the Bay Area

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As part of a collaboration with dozens of Bay Area news organizations focusing on issues of homelessness, Bay Area Bites has compiled a list of many of the places, sorted roughly by geography, that provide regular hot and fresh meals to those in need. This list primarily focuses on the organizations and services that provide...

# data[].attributes.headline
How can people become educated about the problem of hunger in the world? (Pt I

# data[].attributes.subject
How can people become educated about the problem of hunger in the world? (Pt I

# data[].attributes.body
There are a number of online resources that educate people on the ongoing issue of hunger. The World Hunger Education is one service that uses an online platform to help readers become aware of hunger and poverty in the world. Readers can learn about what they cancontribute to fight this worldwide issue through the various articles and resources offered by the organization. There are articles with facts about hunger for different regions of the world, along with key issues. These quizzes range from how many people suffer from hunger and what this feels like after long periods of time. Articles that include stories can also aid those wanting to learn more. Bread for the World Institute also offers online resources to educate people on hunger. The Christian organization’s team offers monthly newsletters, videos, and articles joined by ways everyday people can act against hunger. Information can be found in each “Hunger Report” that is published.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Latest News on Hunger in US, Africa, Asia, Global - World Hunger News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since 1976 World Hunger Education Service has helped Fight Hunger Through Knowledge as a resource of information & policy guidance. We will end world hunger

# data[].attributes.body
Louis Gallait. Monk Feeding the Poor. 1845, oil on canvas, Brussels, Paris.
https://artrenewal.org/Artwork/Index/32778

# data[].attributes.headline
Is the government prioritizing the fight for world hunger?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is the government prioritizing the fight for world hunger?

# data[].attributes.body
In a sense, no. In fact, the US government seems to be taking food out of many European countries. According to India’s Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (IAPFPEDA), India exported 30 million metric tons of food, which is worth $23 billion in the U.S., but the United States Department of Agriculture says that 36% of the whole world’s hunger population is in fact, in India. If the government was set on ending world hunger, wouldn’t India keep more food to feed their people? Or is money just taking over the way our government authorities think?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some of the world's most agriculturally abundant nations are also the hungriest.

Take India, for example. Last year, according to the Indian government's Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority India exported 30 million metric tons of food, worth $23 billion in U.S. dollars. That included 11 million tons of rice, six million tons of wheat, two million tons of vegetables and a million tons of buffalo meat.

Meanwhile, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), India's food-insecure population is 255 million people, constituting about 36 percent of the people who are hungry on the planet. By the government of India's own count, using a measure of poverty based primarily on the cost of a nutritionally adequate diet, 355 million Indians, or 30 percent of the population, lived in poverty in 2009-2010. That means that India exports about 270 pounds of food per year for every hungry Indian and 186 pounds of food per year for every Indian in poverty.

Why is this allowed? It is allowed because successive governments of India placed a higher priority on earning large sums of money for agribusinesses and exporters than on feeding the nation's own hungry populace.

According to Forbes, there are now more than 100 billionaires in India, with a combined wealth of US $346 billion, up more than a third from US $259 billion in 2013. Mass numbers of Indians literally starve in the streets just feet from gleaming luxury skyscrapers. Not surprisingly, it's the skyscraper owners, not the starving masses, who have the political power to decide how food stocks are utilized.

In the U.S, our leaders also generally prioritize wealth creation for the richest, over-feeding our populace. While the severity of the hunger in the U.S. is generally far less than in India, U.S. hunger is far worse than in any Western industrialized country, and fully 49 million Americans live in food insecure homes, unable to afford an adequate supply of food. Yet in 2013, the U.S. exported $144 billion worth of food, equaling $2,938 worth of food for every American struggling against hunger.

As the chart below demonstrates, between 2002 and 2013, the combined net worth of the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans rose by 30 percent, while food insecurity rose by 34 percent. The net worth of the 400 wealthiest Americans, according to Forbes, now tops two trillion dollars, which is more than four times the amount of the entire U.S. budget deficit. That's right, 400 people have four times as much money as the entire federal shortfall for a nation of 314 million people.

Instead of building on the success of effective safety net on. The Congressional majority just voted for a budget that would reduce federal spending by five trillion dollars over 10 years, with 63 percent of the cuts in non-defense spending coming out of programs that aid low-income Americans, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

According to the Center, the budget:

Reduces basic food assistance for low-income families and individuals substantially and significantly cuts grants and loans to help low-income students afford college. The budget also allows key provisions of tax credits for working-poor families to expire after 2017, which would push 16 million people into -- or deeper into -- poverty.

Yet the House of Representatives also recently voted to eliminate the estate tax, aiding only couples who inherit more than $10 million. It clear that, in the U.S., like in India, the mega-wealthy have far more political power than the very hungry.

In neither India nor the U.S. is hunger caused by a scarcity of food. It's obviously the case that if nations have enough food to export vast amounts of it, they have enough food to feed their own people. The main cause of food deprivation in both countries is the inability of mass numbers of people to either grow their own food or afford to purchase enough food, which in turn is caused by mind-boggling inequality of wealth. While defenders of inequality trip all over themselves to manufacture supposedly unalterable economic or cultural reasons for inequality of wealth, its main cause is inequality of political power.

In fact, in every nation on earth that has significant hunger, poverty and economic inequality, there is significant political inequality. The converse is also true: The countries that do the best job of meeting the basic living needs of their residents also have political systems in which most citizens have an active and effective stake in their governments. In the last few years, I have visited India, Australia, Colombia and all the Scandinavian countries, and this correlation was crystal clear everywhere.

Political power results in public policies favorable to those who hold that power, and public policies do matter, in nation after nation.

India has more than twice as much food insecurity as the U.S. per capita. Australia has just a third. In Australia, according to a national nutrition survey in 1995, more than five percent of the population is food insecure, although some more recent, less comprehensive surveys, indicate the percentage may be a bit higher. Thirteen percent of Australians live below their poverty line. In contrast, in the U.S., 14 percent of Americans are food insecure, and 14.5 percent live in poverty. The difference is public policy. While wages and safety nets in the U.S. are inadequate, they are far more robust than in India.

Why does Australia have so much less poverty and hunger, even per capita, than the U.S.? Again, its public policies. The minimum wage in Australia is about double that of the U.S. And despite right-wing claims in both the U.S. and Australia that a higher minimum wage harms wealth creation, the wealthiest in Australia are obviously doing just fine. According to Forbes, Australia has 26 billionaires, and their combined net worth tops 74 billion dollars.

It is also important to note that in Australia, like the U.S., poverty is unequally distributed by location and ethnic group. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, more than one in five (22%) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in 2012-2013 were living in a household that, in the previous 12 months, had run out of food and had not been able to afford to buy more. This was significantly higher than in the non-Indigenous population (3.7 percent). While the plurality of people who are poor, food insecure, hungry, and receiving SNAP in the U.S. are white, members of minority groups in the U.S. are also disproportionately impacted. In 2013, U.S. household food insecurity rates for Blacks (26 percent) and Hispanics (24 percent) were double the rate (11 percent) for white, non-Hispanics.

Yet, the U.S. poverty rate in the U.S. in 2013 for Blacks (27 percent) and Hispanics (24 percent) is double the rate (10 percent) for white, non Hispanics.

Yet, while doing better than the U.S, Australia has a far less comprehensive safety net than Western Europe and thus far more per capita poverty and food insecurity than Europe. The European Union calculates that the poverty rate across Europe is nine percent. In other words, the least hungry population in the U.S -- non-Hispanic white people -- are hungrier than Europe as a whole, even including nations with significant poverty now such as Spain and Greece.

Scandinavia is doing even better than Europe as whole, and the poverty rate in Sweden is only one percent. Scandinavia used to be very poor. That's the main reason why, between 1820 and 1940, fully 19,592 people from Finland, 335,025 people from Denmark, 697,095 people from Norway and 1,325,208 people from Sweden emigrated to the United States. Scandinavian art and literature from the 19th century is replete with references to mass hunger and other serious forms of deprivation.

Today, these Scandinavian countries have virtually no hunger and food insecurity, and minimal poverty. It's not that their basic cultures changed. It's not that they developed new natural resources that brought in wealth (with the exception Norway's major increases in oil production). It's that their public policies changes. These nations eliminated hunger and virtually eliminated poverty is that they made conscious decisions as societies to change their economic and social policies in order to do so.

These countries generally do not define poor people's programs as distinct from everyone else's programs. They define government programs, by and large, as stuff everyone in society gets. Everyone is eligible for free health care, and heavily subsidized public transportation, child care, higher education, unemployment benefits, maternity leave, etc. They view these as benefits to the society as a whole, and everyone, especially the wealthiest, pay their fair share of taxes to support these programs in the name of the mutual good.

Not coincidentally, there is much less fraud in social programs in Scandinavia than in India. When everyone believes they are in it together, they are far less likely to steal.

When I suggest that the U.S. should model its programs and policies on Scandinavia, I am told that those countries are just too small and just too homogenous to be appropriately compared to the U.S. Point taken.

Perhaps a better comparison is the U.S. to France, a large, diverse country that has recently attracted many immigrants, including very low income ones. Yet France also has much less poverty and hunger than the United States, even per capita.

According to French National Institute for Statistics and Economic Research, (http://www.insee.fr/en/) in 2001, six percent of the population of France (or 3.7 million people) were below the poverty line (which, according to INSEE's criteria, is half of the median income).

In comparison, in the U.S. in 2013, 14.5 percent of Americans lived under the meager federal poverty line, earning $19,510 a year or less annually for a family of three.

Under this definition, the U.S. poverty rate was three times that of France.

The U.S. defines poverty by merely how much money people have in absolute terms, while France, and many other nations, define poverty in relative terms, compared to average families. If the U.S. defined poverty the same as France, then fully 25 percent of Americans would be in poverty, or nearly five times the rate in France.

About six percent of Paris residents lived in households suffering from food insecurity or hunger in 2010, according to a paper published in BMC Public Health. In the lowest income Paris neighborhoods, the rate was 14 percent. In contrast, 17 percent of all New York City residents, and 29 percent of the residents of the Bronx (the lowest income borough of New York City) lived in food insecure households in 2013, according to federal data calculated by the New York City Coalition Against Hunger. In other words, Paris had less hunger in even its poorest neighborhoods than New York City had citywide. The lowest-income borough in New York had more than twice as much food insecurity as the lowest income neighborhoods in Paris.

France also has lower levels of obesity and higher life expectancy that the United States. In France, farming is more likely to be conducted by small and medium size family farmers, while in the United States it is more likely to be carried out by massive corporate agribusinesses.
The difference between the U.S. and France is that France has higher wages, a more robust social safety net, and more targeting of farm programs towards smaller, family-owned, farms. Recent outbursts of violence, racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism in France has recently demonstrated that their society is far from perfect, but, compared to the U.S. they still have far less violence, poverty, hunger and food-related disease.

Disturbingly, there is now a pattern throughout much of the word in which, in the name of some theoretical "austerity," neoliberal policies are eliminating jobs, depressing wages, and slashing social safety nets. At the same time, corporate food businesses world-wide are supporting the creation and growth of food banks, modeled on American food banks, to distribute excess food products to low-income people. According to the Global Food Banking Network, there are now food banks in more than 30 countries. Having visited food banks in Australia, I can attest that they are nearly identical to the industry-backed food banks in the U.S.

Is it wrong to use excess food to aid hungry people? Of course not. Food banks do -- and should -- fill in some gaps in government safety nets. But no place in the world are they coming even close to fully filling in all those gaps. In most, if not all, of the nations in which food banking is growing, hunger and food insecurity are growing far faster than is charitable food distribution.
Making matters even worse, governments -- and sometimes the food banks themselves -- use the existence of food banks to give the public the false impression that these charities are solving the problem, thereby diverting attention away from failing public policies. The public is continually told it can end hunger one person at a time, one donated can at a time, when that's simply not true.

Today, 800 million people world-wide are afflicted by hunger, which not only directly causes mass suffering and death, but is also a major factor in the spread of poverty, war and terrorism.

The only way to end hunger in the U.S. and the world is a fundamental paradigm shift that replaces charity with social justice. And the only way to force that paradigm shift is to develop a mass people's movement worldwide to ensure political power for low-income and working people around the globe.

Throughout the world, there are now pockets of courageous people battling for the right to food, economic opportunity, human rights, and food sovereignty, often facing serious economic deprivation and/or political repression and violence. At times, on-the-ground activists may think that their own struggle is unique. But the causes of -- and solutions to -- the food problem remain essentially the same world-wide, all rooted in the lack of political power.

The time is now for an expanded and empowered world-wide anti-hunger movement, which both mobilizes the low-income people most impacted and makes common cause with the world's middle class, who are also threatened by the world's downward economic trends.
The planet is agriculturally abundant enough to ensure that all people have a sufficient supply of affordable, nutritious, culturally-appropriate, sustainably- grown, food. By joining together as world citizens to demand such an outcome, we can achieve the once unthinkable dream of ending world hunger once and for all.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's About Power, Not Food: The True Causes of World Hunger

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some of the world's most agriculturally abundant nations are also the hungriest. Take India, for example. Last year, according to the Indian government's Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority India exported 30 million metric tons of food, worth $23 billion in U.S. dollars.

# data[].attributes.body
We believe that this is a huge problem that needs to be solved. Our country is getting better at providing for those in need, so continuing those efforts will be beneficial. Although some people refuse to help, the only way we can reduce the homeless population is by providing food and water for them, which will eventually lead to them becoming successful and doing the same to others. If people just put themselves in the less fortunate’s shoes, they will have more sympathy and more drive to help them.