# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As more cities consider bans on smoking in public places, Kentucky, as one of the heavier tobacco-using states, will undoubtedly continue to debate the pros and cons of this issue with considerable fervor. As a health and physical educator, I feel the need to weigh in on this topic. As you might expect, I support smoking bans with few reservations. Here are five reasons why.

No. 1: Secondhand smoke has serious negative health consequences. I personally don't care what you do to your own body, although the educator in me would advise you to quit for your own good. I do care that your behavior affects the health of others.

Unlike other self-indulgent behaviors like eating fast food or drinking alcohol in public, secondhand smoke is not singularly linked to the participant. The negative effects of smoking in public carry over into other people's lives with a tangible, measurable, and sometimes permanent impact. Whereas eating fast food for every meal or excessive alcohol consumption is likely harmful to the individual, the negative impact on others is minimal. Some may argue that eating too much fast food may cause an earlier death and the associated increased cost of medical care is a burden on the taxpayer. While probably true, the link is weaker, less immediate and less measurable than the one between secondhand smoke and health.

Secondhand smoke exposure is clearly linked with negative outcomes on a person's health. While the exact degree of harm is debatable, a recent study published in the medical journal Circulation reviewed 13 studies from around the world and found that banning smoking in public places can reduce heart attack hospitalizations by up to 36 percent over time, regardless of geographical location. Clearly, it's become increasingly more difficult to make a case that secondhand smoke causes no measurable injury to the breather - especially over time. The scientific evidence that links secondhand smoke with heart disease and cancer has been mounting for decades. Not only that, the effects of temporary exposure to smoke are also well documented and include headaches, breathing problems, and even nausea. The bottom line is that secondhand smoke has numerous short-term and long-term consequences for innocent bystanders.

No. 2: Litter reduction. Cigarette butts account for millions of pieces of litter annually and detracts from a location's aesthetic. If smokers would dispose of their waste properly when they're in public places, this might not be an issue, but the fact of the matter is that they don't. The evidence is there, littering attractive buildings and the surrounding landscape with cigarette butts. A smoking ban would reduce litter. Although not a primary argument in support of a public smoking ban, it is still a credible one.

No. 3: The lingering odor of stale cigarettes. In bars and restaurants and other establishments that permit smoking, many patrons find the smell of cigarettes to be unpleasant and annoying. Cigarette smoke tends to linger on people's clothes and hair and takes longer to fade even after the offending party has left. Clothes worn to a smoky bar may still smell like smoke days later.

No. 4: The right to a healthy workplace. It is the responsibility of the employer to provide a safe and healthy environment for its employees. While many workers choose to work in workplaces that permit smoking, others may prefer not to be around smoke but persist because they need the employment. A smoking ban opponent may simply say, "work somewhere without smoke," yet I would argue that your insistence on smoking in public is not as important as that employee's health and livelihood. Smokers' unwillingness to control their urges should not force people to change jobs in the name of personal health and welfare.

No. 5: The cost of secondhand smoke. We're not talking only about the high cost of the smoking habit, which can average $1,500 a year just for the cigarettes. But there also are smoking medical costs. For example, a smoker with poor lung function may have much higher medical bills because of the smoking habit. Smokers also pay more for life insurance and health insurance than nonsmokers, because of their higher risk of health care costs. Smoking lowers the potential resale value of home and cars, because most buyers are not interested in purchasing a house or car that smells like cigarettes. Not to mention the cost to businesses and taxpayers to beautify streets, buildings and other public places that have been littered and damaged by smoking. These are some of the hidden costs of smoking.

Final thoughts. I must add that despite my argument for banning smoking in public, I do support a person's right to smoke in private settings where the impact on other people is controlled and negligible. My position is that with the use of controlled substances comes the responsibility to respect other people's health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 reasons to ban smoking in public places

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As more cities consider bans on smoking in public places, Kentucky, as one of the heavier tobacco-using states, will undoubtedly continue to debate the pros and cons of this issue with considerable fervor. As a health and physical educator, I feel the need to weigh in on this topic.

# data[].attributes.body
http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/Hybrid_Vehicles_Negative_Environmental_Impact

# data[].attributes.headline
Hybrid and electric low-noise cars cause an increase in traffic accidents involving vulnerable road users in urban areas

# data[].attributes.subject
Hybrid and electric low-noise cars cause an increase in traffic accidents involving vulnerable road users in urban areas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While several jurisdictions have successfully implemented a ban on smoking in public places, others are struggling to come up with a clear-cut statute for the same. With so many health hazards to its credit, it shouldn't be difficult to impose a ban on smoking, but people against it have come up with a long list of reasons as to why it should not be banned.

Historical records suggest that the first ever ban on smoking in public was imposed way back in 1590, by Pope Urban VII, wherein anyone found smoking in the church premises was subjected to excommunication. Over the period, the issue has become a bit sensitive and thus, calls for a proper evaluation of the pros and cons before imposing a ban.
A Ban on Smoking in Public Places - Evaluating the Pros and Cons
A ban is a broad concept with several aspects, ranging from a ban as a part of the criminal law to a ban as a part of the general norms of the workplace. While some argue that smoking in public makes a wrong impression on budding minds, others refer to it as a denial of basic right.

Why Should it be Banned?
Children are always tempted to try out the various things which the 'elders do', so a child who sees an adult smoking is bound to have an urge to try the same. Outlawing smoking also sends across the message that it is not just hazardous for the health, but it is a moral wrongdoing as well. Among the most prominent benefits of such ban, one would be the fact that it would curb passive smoking, which subjects a non-smoker to several poisonous chemicals in cigarettes. Some of these chemicals can cause a range of disorders, including asthma and middle ear infection.

Studies also reveal that nearly 3,400 non-smokers succumb to lung cancer every year in the United States alone. Statistical evidence also suggests that the places wherein such ban was brought into practice, witnessed a large number of people quit smoking; a chunk of people quit as they didn't find a place to smoke. Studies also reveal that the number of patients with ailments like asthma, lung cancer, etc., has also decreased in places wherein smoking ban is strictly imposed.

Why Shouldn't it be Banned?
One of the most popular arguments against the ban, is that it is a clear cut encroachment on the personal life of the individual. Secondly, a ban gives the whole issue unnecessary attention, and it is a normal human tendency to try something that is considered taboo in the society. When forced to stop smoking at the workplace, an individual is likely to experience withdrawal symptoms, which, in turn, can hamper his performance. Making a law is one thing, but implementing it is a totally different ball game.

If a statute pertaining to smoking ban is passed, but not implemented properly, the failure will result in youngsters taking to smoking in closed environment without proper guidance, which will be even more hazardous. On the commercial front, such a ban is bound to affect the business of cafes and pubs. Lastly, this ban is also against the interest of the government, as a significant share of the state treasury comes from taxes on cigarettes.

Each of these pros and cons need to be taken into consideration before coming up with some statute about banning smoking. More importantly, just coming up with the statute is not important, the administration has to make sure that it is implemented properly. We have seen the futile exercise of making laws and forgetting them, being repeated quite a few times in the last decade or so. At the end of the day, making a law, but not implementing it, is as good as not making a law in the first place.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While several jurisdictions have successfully implemented a ban on smoking in public places, others are struggling to come up with a clear-cut statute for the same. With so many health hazards to its credit, it shouldn't be difficult to impose a ban on smoking, but people against it have come up with a long list of reasons as to why it should not be banned.

# data[].attributes.body
Overpopulation
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/25/overpopulation.overview/index.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since my childhood I have heard that "Smoking is Injurious to Health". I know it's true and so do the millions and millions of smokers all around the world. So why smoking in public remains a grave issue? Do smokers don't realize the negative impact their smoking is having on the environment and on the people inhaling the smoke? There can be various aspects to this topic. While smoking can be a very serious thing for non smokers like you or me it's a routine thing for people who smoke. Smokers don't believe they are harming anyone and hence their smoking shouldn't be such an issue of major concern. Looking at so many interesting aspects about smoking, I have decided to debate on smoking in public places.
Banning Smoking in Public Places
In today's debate on smoking in public places, I am going to list out points supporting both smokers and non smokers. I know most non smokers would think that the arguments of the smokers section are bound to be baseless but I would urge all my readers to read the arguments of both the sides without being biased. The two points put forward mentions the view of a non-smoker vs. a smoker, i.e., against and for the motion of the debate. You can be the judge of should smoking be banned in public places or not.
Health Factor

It's a proven fact that smoking is very dangerous for the human body. Smoking cigarettes can cause cancer, respiratory disorders and a range of cardiovascular diseases. People who smoke are not only killing themselves, they are also killing people who are near them. Active smoking can be a choice but passive smoking can't. People who don't understand the negative effects of tobacco smoke should not be exposed to smoke. This is the main reason that every country should adopt a smoking ban in public places.

In most cases it has been noticed that people who smoke know all the repercussions of smoking. It's true that smokers harm themselves but unless and until they don't harm someone else, they shouldn't be stopped from smoking. If someone does not wish to follow passive smoking he/she can avoid going to places where smoking is allowed. Hence a ban on public smoking is completely baseless.

Freedom to Smoke

Non smokers don't choose to be passive smokers, they are forced to be one. Yes there are very less non smoking bars and hotels in the country because not many people visit such places. Non smokers who work in jobs where there's cigarette smoking involved (e.g. bars, hotels, corporate jobs) have no option than to inhale the smoke of a smoker as they can't leave the jobs. Government should take care of people who don't want to get exposed to other people's smoke if they don't want to.

The main reason there's as shortage of non smoking places is because many people don't want to visit them. Many non smokers have no problems working or going to places where smoking is allowed. People who think that smoking shouldn't be allowed in work or public places as it is dangerous should never leave their house as tragedy can occur at anytime. It's better not to leave the privacy of your home and stay in.

Does the Ban Make Any Sense

If the government imposes a ban on public smoking then people would be forced not to smoke which ensures a healthy and clean environment. Smokers would have to leave and search for places where smoking is allowed which is not possible every time. In many countries the public ban on smoking has helped many people to cut down on their daily number of cigarettes. This ban will also ensure that smoking is not publicized as a social activity and very fewer people will opt for it.

This ban on smoking is surely illegal because there's no ban on the smoking of tobacco, hence the ban on smoking is still illegal. Like non smokers, even smokers have the right to decide what's wrong and right for them. People who smoke don't borrow money from the government if something happens to the. They take complete responsibility of everything that happens to them because of the smoking.

Effects of the Ban if Implemented

This ban on smoking in public places will help people feel more healthy and alive. As a result they will understand the benefits of non smoking and try to avoid smoking even in private places like their home and cars. In the course of time less smoking will reduce the content of harmful toxins from the blood and they will feel more alive and kicking.

Many smokers believe that this ban on smoking in public will encourage smokers to smoke at their homes. Smoking in home will definitely harm other people living in the house. To avoid smoking at home, smokers choose to drink more alcohol which is as harmful as smoking and it leads to various health complications.

Smoking in Public Places Facts
After this interesting debate on smoking ban pros and cons, let's have a look at some interesting facts about smoking in public places. Most people have no idea that when they smoke in public places they not only threaten their health but also the health of thousands of others.

When smokers smoke in public places they give out two types of smoke; mainstream and sidestream. Mainstream is the smoke exhaled by the smoker and sidestream is the smoke released by the burning end of a cigarette. Both types of smoke has harmful toxins and chemicals which endanger people.

Because of public smoking more than 15,000 cases of respiratory infection are recorded every year in the US. Children are the worst sufferers in this case as their immune system is still in the development stages and the cigarette smoke they inhale causes major health damage.

In America smoking is banned on every domestic and international flights originating from the US. Smoking is also banned in most modes of transportation and on the premises of buildings where children study or play. State and local governments vary in their restrictions of placing the ban on public smoking.

I think after reading this article the reader himself can be a better judge of knowing which is better; smoking or non smoking. Both the parties have listed out valid points with regards to public smoking. So which one are you supporting? Let me know!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This debate on smoking in public places helps the readers see the two sides of a coin. Almost everyone in this world knows that smoking is injurious to health, still people succumb to this bad habit. In this article I have provided different views in support and against smoking in public places.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Beyond Willpower: Diet Quality and Quantity Matter

It's no secret that the amount of calories people eat and drink has a direct impact on their weight: Consume the same number of calories that the body burns over time, and weight stays stable. Consume more than the body burns, weight goes up. Less, weight goes down. But what about the type of calories: Does it matter whether they come from specific nutrients-fat, protein, or carbohydrate? Specific foods-whole grains or potato chips? Specific diets-the Mediterranean diet or the "Twinkie" diet? And what about when or where people consume their calories: Does eating breakfast make it easier to control weight? Does eating at fast-food restaurants make it harder?

There's ample research on foods and diet patterns that protect against heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and other chronic conditions. The good news is that many of the foods that help prevent disease also seem to help with weight control-foods like whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and nuts. And many of the foods that increase disease risk-chief among them, refined grains and sugary drinks-are also factors in weight gain.Conventional wisdom says that since a calorie is a calorie, regardless of its source, the best advice for weight control is simply to eat less and exercise more. Yet emerging research suggests that some foods and eating patterns may make it easier to keep calories in check, while others may make people more likely to overeat.

This article briefly reviews the research on dietary intake and weight control, highlighting diet strategies that also help prevent chronic disease.

Macronutrients and Weight: Do Carbs, Protein, or Fat Matter?

When people eat controlled diets in laboratory studies, the percentage of calories from fat, protein, and carbohydrate do not seem to matter for weight loss. In studies where people can freely choose what they eat, there may be some benefits to a higher protein, lower carbohydrate approach. For chronic disease prevention, though, the quality and food sources of these nutrients matters more than their relative quantity in the diet. And the latest research suggests that the same diet quality message applies for weight control.

Dietary Fat and Weight

Low-fat diets have long been touted as the key to a healthy weight and to good health. But the evidence just isn't there: Over the past 30 years in the U.S., the percentage of calories from fat in people's diets has gone down, but obesity rates have skyrocketed. ( 1, 2) Carefully conducted clinical trials have found that following a low-fat diet does not make it any easier to lose weight than following a moderate- or high-fat diet. In fact, study volunteers who follow moderate- or high-fat diets lose just as much weight, and in some studies a bit more, as those who follow low-fat diets. ( 3, 4) And when it comes to disease prevention, low-fat diets don't appear to offer any special benefits. ( 5)

Part of the problem with low-fat diets is that they are often high in carbohydrate, especially from rapidly digested sources, such as white bread and white rice. And diets high in such foods increase the risk of weight gain, diabetes, and heart disease. (See Carbohydrates and Weight, below.)

Protein and Weight
Read more about healthy proteins on The Nutrition Source

Higher protein diets seem to have some advantages for weight loss, though more so in short-term trials; in longer term studies, high-protein diets seem to perform equally well as other types of diets. ( 3, 4) High-protein diets tend to be low in carbohydrate and high in fat, so it is difficult to tease apart the benefits of eating lots of protein from those of eating more fat or less carbohydrate. But there are a few reasons why eating a higher percentage of calories from protein may help with weight control:

More satiety: People tend to feel fuller, on fewer calories, after eating protein than they do after eating carbohydrate or fat. (10)

Greater thermic effect: It takes more energy to metabolize and store protein than other macronutrients, and this may help people increase the energy they burn each day. (10,11)

Improved body composition: Protein seems to help people hang on to lean muscle during weight loss, and this, too, can help boost the energy-burned side of the energy balance equation. (11)

Higher protein, lower carbohydrate diets improve blood lipid profiles and other metabolic markers, so they may help prevent heart disease and diabetes. ( 4, 12, 13) But some high-protein foods are healthier than others: High intakes of red meat and processed meat are associated with an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and colon cancer. ( 14- 16)

Carbohydrates and Weight

Lower carbohydrate, higher protein diets may have some weight loss advantages in the short term. ( 3, 4) Yet when it comes to preventing weight gain and chronic disease, carbohydrate quality is much more important than carbohydrate quantity.

Milled, refined grains and the foods made with them-white rice, white bread, white pasta, processed breakfast cereals, and the like-are rich in rapidly digested carbohydrate. So are potatoes and sugary drinks. The scientific term for this is that they have a high glycemic index and glycemic load. Such foods cause fast and furious increases in blood sugar and insulin that, in the short term, can cause hunger to spike and can lead to overeating-and over the long term, increase the risk of weight gain, diabetes, and heart disease. ( 17- 19)

For example, in the diet and lifestyle change study, people who increased their consumption of French fries, potatoes and potato chips, sugary drinks, and refined grains gained more weight over time-an extra 3.4, 1.3, 1.0, and 0.6 pounds every four years, respectively. ( 9) People who decreased their intake of these foods gained less weight.

Specific Foods that Make It Easier or Harder to Control Weight

There's growing evidence that specific food choices may help with weight control. The good news is that many of the foods that are beneficial for weight control also help prevent heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic diseases. Conversely, foods and drinks that contribute to weight gain-chief among them, refined grains and sugary drinks-also contribute to chronic disease.

Whole Grains, Fruits and Vegetables, and Weight

Whole grains-whole wheat, brown rice, barley, and the like, especially in their less-processed forms-are digested more slowly than refined grains. So they have a gentler effect on blood sugar and insulin, which may help keep hunger at bay. The same is true for most vegetables and fruits. These "slow carb" foods have bountiful benefits for disease prevention, and there's also evidence that they can help prevent weight gain.

Of course, the calories from whole grains, whole fruits, and vegetables don't disappear. What's likely happening is that when people increase their intake of these foods, they cut back on calories from other foods. Fiber may be responsible for these foods' weight control benefits, since fiber slows digestion, helping to curb hunger. Fruits and vegetables are also high in water, which may help people feel fuller on fewer calories.
Read more about nuts on The Nutrition Source

Nuts and Weight

Nuts pack a lot of calories into a small package and are high in fat, so they were once considered taboo for dieters. As it turns out, studies find that eating nuts does not lead to weight gain and may instead help with weight control, perhaps because nuts are rich in protein and fiber, both of which may help people feel fuller and less hungry. ( 9, 23- 25) People who regularly eat nuts are less likely to have heart attacks or die from heart disease than those who rarely eat them, which is another reason to include nuts in a healthy diet. ( 19)

Dairy and Weight

The U.S. dairy industry has aggressively promoted the weight-loss benefits of milk and other dairy products, based largely on findings from short-term studies it has funded. ( 26, 27) But a recent review of nearly 50 randomized trials finds little evidence that high dairy or calcium intakes help with weight loss. ( 28) Similarly, most long-term follow-up studies have not found that dairy or calcium protect against weight gain, ( 29- 32) and one study in adolescents found high milk intakes to be associated with increased body mass index. ( 33)

One exception is the recent dietary and lifestyle change study from the Harvard School of Public Health, which found that people who increased their yogurt intake gained less weight; increases in milk and cheese intake, however, did not appear to promote weight loss or gain. ( 9) It's possible that the beneficial bacteria in yogurt may influence weight control, but more research is needed.

Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight

There's convincing evidence that sugary drinks increase the risk of weight gain, obesity, and diabetes: ( 34- 36) A systematic review and meta-analysis of 88 studies found "clear associations of soft drink intake with increased caloric intake and body weight." ( 34) In children and adolescents, a more recent meta analysis estimates that for every additional 12-ounce serving of sugary beverage consumed each day, body mass index increases by 0.08 units. ( 35) Another meta analysis finds that adults who regularly drink sugared beverages have a 26 percent higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes than people who rarely drink sugared beverages. ( 36) Emerging evidence also suggests that high sugary beverage intake increases the risk of heart disease. ( 37)

Like refined grains and potatoes, sugary beverages are high in rapidly-digested carbohydrate. (See Carbohydrates and Weight, above.) Research suggests that when that carbohydrate is delivered in liquid form, rather than solid form, it is not as satiating, and people don't eat less to compensate for the extra calories. ( 38)

These findings on sugary drinks are alarming, given that children and adults are drinking ever-larger quantities of them: In the U.S., sugared beverages made up about 4 percent of daily calorie intake in the 1970s, but by 2001, represented about 9 percent of calories. ( 36) The most recent data find that on any given day, half of Americans consume some type of sugared beverage, 25 percent consume at least 200 calories from sugared drinks, and 5 percent of consume at least 567 calories-the equivalent of four cans of sugary soda. ( 39)
Read more on The Nutrition Source about the amount of sugar in soda, fruit juice, sports drinks, and energy drinks, and download the How Sweet Is It? guide to healthier beverages
Fruit Juice and Weight

It's important to note that fruit juices are not a better option for weight control than sugar-sweetened beverages. Ounce for ounce, fruit juices-even those that are 100 percent fruit juice, with no added sugar- are as high in sugar and calories as sugary sodas. So it's no surprise that a recent Harvard School of Public Health study, which tracked the diet and lifestyle habits of 120,000 men and women for up to 20 years, found that people who increased their intake of fruit juice gained more weight over time than people who did not. ( 9) Pediatricians and public health advocates recommend that children and adults limit fruit juice to just a small glass a day, if they consume it at all.

Alcohol and Weight

Diet Patterns, Portion Size, and Weight

People don't eat nutrients or foods in isolation. They eat meals that fall into an overall eating pattern, and researchers have begun exploring whether particular diet or meal patterns help with weight control or contribute to weight gain. Portion sizes have also increased dramatically over the past three decades, as has consumption of fast food-U.S. children, for example, consume a greater percentage of calories from fast food than they do from school food ( 48)-and these trends are also thought to be contributors to the obesity epidemic.

Dietary Patterns and Weight

So-called "prudent" dietary patterns-diets that feature whole grains, vegetables, and fruits-seem to protect against weight gain, whereas "Western-style" dietary patterns-with more red meat or processed meat, sugared drinks, sweets, refined carbohydrates, or potatoes-have been linked to obesity. ( 49- 52) The Western-style dietary pattern is also linked to increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

Breakfast, Meal Frequency, Snacking, and Weight

Portion Sizes and Weight

Since the 1970s, portion sizes have increased both for food eaten at home and for food eaten away from home, in adults and children. ( 58, 59) Short-term studies clearly demonstrate that when people are served larger portions, they eat more. One study, for example, gave moviegoers containers of stale popcorn in either large or medium-sized buckets; people reported that they did not like the taste of the popcorn-and even so, those who received large containers ate about 30 percent more popcorn than those who received medium-sized containers. ( 60) Another study showed that people given larger beverages tended to drink significantly more, but did not decrease their subsequent food consumption . ( 67) An additional study provided evidence that when provided with larger portion sizes, people tended to eat more, with no decrease in later food intake. ( 68) There is an intuitive appeal to the idea that portion sizes increase obesity, but long-term prospective studies would help to strengthen this hypothesis.

Fast Food and Weight

The Bottom Line: Healthy Diet Can Prevent Weight Gain and Chronic Disease

Weight gain in adulthood is often gradual, about a pound a year ( 9)-too slow of a gain for most people to notice, but one that can add up, over time, to a weighty personal and public health problem. There's increasing evidence that the same healthful food choices and diet patterns that help prevent heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions may also help to prevent weight gain:

Choose minimally processed, whole foods-whole grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, healthful sources of protein (fish, poultry, beans), and plant oils.

Limit sugared beverages, refined grains, potatoes, red and processed meats, and other highly processed foods, such as fast food.

67. Rolls, B. J., L. S. Roe, et al. (2007). "The effect of large portion sizes on energy intake is sustained for 11 days." Obesity (Silver Spring) 15(6): 1535-1543. 68. Ello-Martin, J. A., J. H. Ledikwe, et al. (2005). "The influence of food portion size and energy density on energy intake: implications for weight management." Am J Clin Nutr 82(1 Suppl): 236S-241S.
Though the contribution of any one diet change to weight control may be small, together, the changes could add up to a considerable effect, over time and across the whole society. ( 9) Since people's food choices are shaped by their surroundings, it's imperative for governments to promote policy and environmental changes that make healthy foods more accessible and decrease the availability and marketing of unhealthful foods.

References

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beyond Willpower: Diet Quality and Quantity Matter It's no secret that the amount of calories people eat and drink has a direct impact on their weight: Consume the same number of calories tha...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Poor diets are undermining the health of one in three of the world's people, an independent panel of food and agriculture experts has warned.

The report says under-nourishment is stunting the growth of nearly a quarter of children under five.

And by 2030 a third of the population could be overweight or obese.

The report by the Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition is being presented to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation.

The panel - which is led by the former President of Ghana John Kufuor and the former Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government Sir John Beddington - says two billion people lack the range of vitamins and minerals in their diet needed to keep them healthy.

The result is an increase in heart disease, hypertension, diabetes and other diet-related illnesses that undermines productivity and threatens to overwhelm health services.

These non-infectious, chronic diseases have been associated with the fatty, highly processed diet of the developed world. But most new cases are appearing in developing countries.

The panel has warned that on current trends the situation will get far worse in the next 20 years.

It says only an global effort similar to that used to tackle HIV or malaria will be enough to meet the challenge.

Life-years lost

According to the panel, child and maternal malnutrition, high blood pressure and other diet-related risks each cost more life-years than smoking, air pollution, poor sanitation or unsafe sex.

Great progress has been made in reducing under-nourishment, but 800 million people still experience hunger on a daily basis.

Under nourishment is starkly apparent in the rate of stunting among children.

A quarter of those aged under five have diminished physical and mental capacities. Under-nourished women are giving birth to babies with lifelong impairments.

One of the report's authors, Prof Lawrence Haddad of the International Food Policy Research Institute, cites Guatemala, where more than 40% of children are short for their age.

"It's partly driven by inequality", he says. "People on higher incomes have better food and very low rates of stunting. Low income groups eat a diet based on maize (corn), but they don't get enough vegetables, fruit, dairy food or protein such as that found in chicken."

The Global Panel's Director, Prof Sandy Thomas, says it's a similar story in many low and middle income countries, and poor physical condition leads directly to low productivity.

"One or two African countries have had big successes with agriculture. In Rwanda growing iron-rich beans has helped reduce anaemia among women - but across the world anaemia is decreasing very slowly."

Changing diets

In a foreword to the report, James Wharton, a minister in the UK's Department for International Development says the costs of undernutrition in terms of lost national productivity are significant, with between 3 and 16% of GDP lost annually in Africa and Asia.

Overall the losses have been about 10% of GDP, equivalent to the effect of the global financial crisis on a continuous basis.

Attempts to combat under-nutrition have sometimes focused on increasing calories at the expense of improving overall diet.

Many countries have moved rapidly from widespread under-nutrition to a serious problem with obesity.

In China, where diets have changed rapidly in recent years, half the population is projected to be overweight or obese by 2030.

Globally, estimates suggest that the number of overweight and obese people will have grown from 1.3 billion in 2005, to 3.3 billion - about a third of the population.

Although some problems are alleviated by economic development, diets can, and often are, deteriorating as countries become richer.

The panel reports that although people are eating more fruit and vegetables, the effect is being eclipsed by increasing consumption of low-quality food.

Urbanisation is leading many more people to eat diets dominated by processed food, including street food high in saturated fat and salt, and carrying an increased risk of adulteration and infection.

Prof Haddad says the concentration of people in cities also attracts food companies and supermarkets.

"Highly processed food with long shelf life, high in calories but low in nutritional value, maximises profit," he says. "Supermarket buyers are some of the most powerful determiners of national diet."

Indeed the amount of food in the global diet that has undergone a degree of processing is increasing.

Lower middle income countries are showing the fastest growth for processed foods that contribute calories, sugars, salt and fat - such as biscuits, snack bars and confectionary.

In 2000, upper middle income countries already had a third of the "ultra-processed" food and drinks of the high income countries - such as ice-cream, sugary drinks, and sweet and savoury snacks - but by 2015 it was more than half.

Widespread hunger

The Global Panel predicts a dramatically worsening situation over the next 20 years as the population increases - leaving half the world malnourished.

There will be another two billion mouths to feed in Africa and Asia by 2050. It claims that the best evidence suggests that climate change will also lead to more than half a million additional deaths, most in low and middle income countries.

It says worldwide studies show crop yields to be negatively affected by climate change in the tropical areas where hunger is most widespread, although they acknowledge that yields could increase elsewhere.

One danger suggested in the report is that by 2050 the estimated impact of elevated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere on the zinc content of grains, tubers and legumes could place 138 million more people at new risk of zinc deficiency.

People need to be nourished rather than simply fed says the panel.

That means eating more vegetables, fruit, whole grains, fibre, nuts and seeds, and protein low in saturated fat.

Added sugar, sugary snacks and drinks, excessive salt and processed meat should be reduced.

Babies should be breast fed - where possible - for at least six months.

Some countries have largely succeeded in combining development with a healthy diet.

The panel cites South Korea, which has gone from low to middle to high income levels in the last few decades in a way that has supported the supply of relatively accessible and affordable high quality diets.

Obesity levels have been kept to about 6% of the population.

We live in a world in which hunger and obesity increasingly inhabit the same territory.

While many people acquire incapacitating and life-shortening diseases through poor quality food, under-nourishment is contributing to the death of almost half of the 16,000 children under five who die every day.

Such is the cost of poor diet, that it's estimated that every dollar invested in nutrition brings 16 in return.

The global panel insists that tackling malnutrition is a moral imperative, but says it an economic priority too.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Poor diets are undermining the health of one in three of the world's people, an independent panel of food and agriculture experts has warned. The report says under-nourishment is stunting the growth of nearly a quarter of children under five. And by 2030 a third of the population could be overweight or obese.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the Cites meeting in Johannesburg ends, Matt McGrath asks whether celebrities are having a bigger impact on saving species than the international body tasked with regulating the trade in threatened animals and plants.

The poor old peregrine falcon must feel like a total loser at this point.

Driven to the edge of extinction in the 1960s and 70s thanks to the use of pesticides based on DDT, the world's fastest predator has made a remarkable recovery over the past 30 years. So much so that there is hardly a cathedral in the UK that doesn't have at least one of these high flying raptors.

All that progress though, hasn't made a difference here at the Cites meeting in Johannesburg, which has just drawn to a close. Cites (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) aims to ensure that the trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.

Despite plenty of data to say the falcon has recovered and that restrictions on trade should be loosened, the countries meeting here decided to keep it on the highest level of protection.

"The peregrine falcon met the criteria for down-listing to Appendix II," said Heather Sohl, with WWF-UK

"The parties discussed it but didn't agree to follow that, sometimes the science isn't always followed."

Many here would say the peregrine falcon was an unfortunate exception. It would appear that science rather than politics is becoming a stronger factor in these discussions on which species to protect and which to reject.

For instance, at the last meeting in 2013 in Thailand, a number of shark species were up-listed after a huge political battle that succeeded by just one vote.

This time round, new safeguards for other sharks and devil rays, sailed through with huge majorities. Experts say this is because the regulations have been seen to work.

But while there were science-based victories for Barbary macaques, African grey parrots and a host of other species, politics does still play a part in some of the biggest controversies.

The decision to allow the EU to vote as a bloc had a major impact on one of the key debates about elephants.

With about 130 countries actually voting on the floor, the EU group of 28 stopped the proponents of greater protection for elephants from securing the two-thirds majority needed to change the Convention.

The EU argued that the science wasn't strong enough. Many campaigners thought it was plain old dirty politics.

"It just doesn't make sense biologically, it's a political decision," Dr Roz Reeve, an adviser to the David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation, who thinks the EU sided with South Africa, which was against the proposal.

"South Africa is the dominant voice on the continent, it's the largest economy on the continent, that's the only thing I can think of that might be driving this position."

South African ministers were delighted that the up-listing of all African elephants was defeated.

They see it as a justification of their policies that have seen their elephant populations less affected by poaching than almost anywhere else in Africa. They argue that imposing greater protection on their elephants would have been an insult to ordinary South Africans.

"Had we taken this elephant to Appendix I, our people would have been denied the opportunity to benefit from them," said Edna Molewa, South Africa's minister for water and environmental affairs.

"What's making the Southern African elephant population thrive is that the people are utilising them and benefiting and they feel that they are protecting them, they are part of them.

"We feel that the rest of the continent and the rest of the world should go that way."

This question of the uneasy relationship between humans and animals was a strong undercurrent at this meeting.

Country after country argued that more needed to be done to give people living next to threatened species a cash-in-hand reason for keeping them alive.

But perhaps there's another way, and what's really needed is a massive injection of celebrity power.

There is growing evidence that the impact of sports stars, artists and well-known business people are making a big difference in educating people about the impacts of consuming products based on threatened species, and the positive benefits from their protection.

In China, the popularity of former NBA basketball star Yao Ming has made a huge difference on awareness of species - not just with the public but with the government too.

"He proposed to the National People's Congress the ban on ivory sales, which was later adopted by the Chinese government," said Peter Knights from Wildaid, who worked with Yao Ming on a documentary designed to raise awareness of the impacts of consumption on elephants and rhinos.

"That is actually the only non top-down process in China, through the Congress- and the ivory trade ban is an example of that happening."

Connecting celebrities to the Cites process could be a key step forward in forcing countries to take action.

It already seems to be having an impact. Take, for example, pangolins.

"A few years ago most people didn't know what a pangolin was, probably most still don't but a lot more do know something about these scaly anteaters," said Heather Sohl from WWF-UK.

"But there have been campaigns where Prince William has been working with Angry Birds to get the youth understanding that these are the most heavily traded mammals in the world - and from that we've seen at this conference, proposals to give them greater protection successfully passed."

This Cites conference has done much good work to protect threatened species. Apart from the peregrine falcon and perhaps the elephants, governments listened to the science and acted on it. For all its limitations, Cites remains the only safeguard for species that has real teeth.

But there is only so much you can do with regulations. To really ensure the survival of species, you need hearts and minds. And that's where celebrities really can connect the Convention to the public. Some think this combination could make the peaceful co-existence of man and beast a reality.

"It is this whole attitude to wildlife consumption, it is a once and forever societal change," said Wildaid's Peter Knights.

"We used to do this in the UK and US, and then society kind of moves away from it, and this is where Asia is right now - this is a tipping point right now."

Follow Matt on Twitter @mattmcgrathBBC and on Facebook.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are celebs the best hope for endangered species?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the Cites meeting in Johannesburg ends, Matt McGrath asks whether celebrities are having a bigger impact on saving species than the international body tasked with regulating the trade in threatened animals and plants. The poor old peregrine falcon must feel like a total loser at this point.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you lived in Atlanta in 2006, you probably heard a lot about a special little lady named Mei Lan -- unless you were hiding under a pretty large rock. That's because after years of attempting to breed giant pandas Lun Lun and Yang Yang, the folks at Zoo Atlanta were finally successful and Lun Lun popped out a little delivery of adorable.

Despite this win, the fact remains that breeding giant pandas is a challenging and costly endeavor. And while some endangered species respond well to conservation efforts and breeding programs, others aren't as effective. For example, snow leopards and lowland gorillas join giant pandas as notoriously tricky species to breed in captivity.

Captive breeding programs have two main goals: to build population numbers and to maintain healthy gene pools. They may also aim for reintroduction into the wild, depending on the specifics of the situation.

In cases where reintroduction is the goal, there have been several success stories over the years -- California condors, red wolves and black-footed ferrets are a few examples. But sometimes breeding programs are fraught with difficulty. It can be challenging to build up sustainable numbers; there can be complications with reintroducing captive-bred animals; there can be a hefty price tag with little tangible return; and, breeding can distract attention and resources from other important conservation strategies like habitat recovery.

But this doesn't mean it's not worth trying to save some species, especially if they pass a cost-benefit analysis or if they're deemed a flagship, keystone or indicator species. Flagship species, like Zoo Atlanta's pandas, act as ambassadors for lesser-known species, helping raise awareness and funds. Keystone species play critical roles in their ecosystems, perhaps by pollinating plants or spreading seeds. And indicator species demonstrate the health of a habitat, in terms of factors like water quality and toxin levels.

Any species that falls into these categories could be considered for conservation efforts. Some flagship species include big names like rhinos, wolves, elephants, leopards, polar bears, tigers and dolphins. It's hard to imagine anyone wouldn't be able to automatically recognize them, but what about the less calendar-worthy species that share their habitats? Often by working to conserve one species, you help the others and achieve even more powerful results.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you lived in Atlanta in 2006, you probably heard a lot about a special little lady named Mei Lan -- unless you were hiding under a pretty large rock. That's because after years of attempting to breed giant pandas Lun Lun and Yang Yang, the folks at Zoo Atlanta were finally successful and Lun Lun popped out a little delivery of adorable.

# data[].attributes.body
Do Plants Think

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How aware are plants? This is the central question behind a fascinating new book, " What a Plant Knows," by Daniel Chamovitz, director of the Manna Center for Plant Biosciences at Tel Aviv University. A plant, he argues, can see, smell and feel. It can mount a defense when under siege, and warn its neighbors of trouble on the way. A plant can even be said to have a memory. But does this mean that plants think - or that one can speak of a "neuroscience" of the flower? Chamovitz answered questions from Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook.

1. How did you first get interested in this topic?
My interest in the parallels between plant and human senses got their start when I was a young postdoctoral fellow in the laboratory of Xing-Wang Deng at Yale University in the mid 1990s. I was interested in studying a biological process that would be specific to plants, and would not be connected to human biology (probably as a response to the six other "doctors" in my family, all of whom are physicians). So I was drawn to the question of how plants sense light to regulate their development.

It had been known for decades that plants use light not only for photosynthesis, but also as a signal that changes the way plants grow. In my research I discovered a unique group of genes necessary for a plant to determine if it's in the light or in the dark. When we reported our findings, it appeared these genes were unique to the plant kingdom, which fit well with my desire to avoid any thing touching on human biology. But much to my surprise and against all of my plans, I later discovered that this same group of genes is also part of the human DNA.

This led to the obvious question as to what these seemingly "plant-specific" genes do in people. Many years later, we now know that these same genes are important in animals for the timing of cell division, the axonal growth of neurons, and the proper functioning of the immune system.

But most amazingly, these genes also regulate responses to light in animals! While we don't change our form in response to light as plants do, we are affected by lab at the level of our internal clock. Our internal circadian clocks keep us on a 24 hour rhythm, which is why when we travel half way around the world we experience jet lag. But this clock can be reset by light. A few years ago I showed, in collaboration with Justin Blau at NYU, that mutant fruit flies that were missing some of these genes lost the ability to respond to light. In other words, if we changed their clocks, they remained in jetlag.

This led me to realize that the genetic difference between plants and animals is not as significant as I had once naively believed. So while not actively researching this field, I began to question the parallels between plant and human biology even as my own research evolved from studying plant responses to light to leukemia in fruit flies.

2. How do think people should change how they think about plants?
People have to realize that plants are complex organisms that live rich, sensual lives. You know many of us relate to plants as inanimate objects, not much different from stones. Even the fact that many people substitute silk flowers for real ones, or artificial Christmas trees for a live one, is exemplary at some level of how we relate to plants. You know, I don't know anyone who keeps a stuffed dog in place of a real one!

But if we realize that all of plant biology arises from the evolutionary constriction of the "rootedness" that keep plants immobile, then we can start to appreciate the very sophisticated biology going on in leaves and flowers. If you think about it, rootedness is a huge evolutionary constraint. It means that plants can't escape a bad environment, can't migrate in the search of food or a mate. So plants had to develop incredibly sensitive and complex sensory mechanisms that would let them survive in ever changing environments. I mean if you're hungry or thirsty, you can walk to the nearest watering hole (or bar). If you're hot, you can move north, if you're looking for a mate, you can go out to a party. But plants are immobile. They need to see where their food is. They need to feel the weather, and they need to smell danger. And then they need to be able to integrate all of this very dynamic and changing information. Just because we don't see plants moving doesn't mean that there's not a very rich and dynamic world going on inside the plant.

3. You say that plants have a sense of smell?
Sure. But to answer this we have to define for ourselves what "smell" is. When we smell something, we sense a volatile chemical that's dissolved in the air, and then react in someway to this smell. The clearest example in plants is what happens during fruit ripening. You may have heard that if you put a ripe and an unripe fruit together in the same bag, the unripe one will ripen faster. This happens because the ripe one releases a ripening pheromone into the air, and the green fruit smells it and then starts ripening itself. This happens not only in our kitchens, but also, or even primarily, in nature. When one fruit starts to ripen, it releases this hormone which is called ethylene, which is sensed by neighboring fruits, until entire trees and groves ripen more or less in synchrony.

Another example of a plant using smell is how a parasitic plant called dodder finds its food. Dodder can't do photosynthesis, and so has to live off of other plants. The way it finds its host plant is by smelling. A dodder can detect minute amounts of chemicals released in the air by neighboring plants, and will actually pick the one that it finds tastiest! In one classic experiment scientists showed that dodder prefers tomato to wheat because it prefers the smell.

3B. How about hearing?
This is a bit trickier because while loads of research support the idea that plants see, smell, taste and feel, support for plant auditory prowess is indirectly proportional to the amount of anecdotal information we have about the ways in which music may influence how a plant grows. Many of us have heard stories about plants flourishing in rooms with classical music. Typically, though, much of the research on music and plants was, to put it mildly, not carried out by investigators grounded in the scientific method. Not surprisingly, in most of these studies, the plants thrived in music that the experimenter also preferred.

From an evolutionary perspective, it also could be that plants haven't really needed to hear. The evolutionary advantage created from hearing in humans and other animals serves as one way our bodies warn us of potentially dangerous situations. Our early human ancestors could hear a dangerous predator stalking them through the forest, while today we hear the motor of an approaching car. Hearing also enables rapid communication between individuals and between animals. Elephants can find each other across vast distances by vocalizing subsonic waves that rumble around objects and travel for miles. A dolphin pod can find a dolphin pup lost in the ocean through its distress chirps. What's common in all of these situations is that sound enables a rapid communication of information and a response, which is often movement-fleeing from a fire, escaping from attack, finding family.

But plants are rooted, sessile organisms. While they can grow toward the sun, and bend with gravity, they can't flee. They can't escape. They don't migrate with the seasons. As such, perhaps the audible signals we're used to in our world are irrelevant for a plant.

All that being said, I have to cover myself hear by pointing out that some very recent research hints that plants may respond to sounds. Not to music mind you, which is irrelevant for a plant, but to certain vibrations. It will be very interesting to see how this pans out.

4. Do plants communicate with each other?
At a basic level, yes. But I guess it centers around how you define communication. There is no doubt that plants respond to cues from other plants. For example, if a maple tree is attacked by bugs, it releases a pheromone into the air that is picked up by the neighboring trees. This induces the receiving trees to start making chemicals that will help it fight off the impending bug attack. So on the face of it, this is definitely communication.

But I think we also have to ask the question of intent (if we can even use that word when describing plants, but humor me while I anthropomorphize). Are the trees communicating, meaning is that attacked tree warning its surrounding ones? Or could it be more subtle? Maybe it makes more sense that the attacked branch is communicating to the other branches of the same tree in an effort for self survival, while the neighboring trees, well they're just eavesdropping and benefiting from the signal.

There are also other examples of this type of communication. For example a very recent study showed that plants also communicate through signals passed from root to root. In this case the "talking" plant had been stressed by drought, and it "told" its neighboring plants to prepare for a lack of water. We know the signal went through the roots because this never happened if the two plants were simply in neighboring pots. They had to have neighboring roots.

5. Do plants have a memory?
Plants definitely have several different forms of memory, just like people do. They have short term memory, immune memory and even transgenerational memory! I know this is a hard concept to grasp for some people, but if memory entails forming the memory (encoding information), retaining the memory (storing information), and recalling the memory (retrieving information), then plants definitely remember. For example a Venus Fly Trap needs to have two of the hairs on its leaves touched by a bug in order to shut, so it remembers that the first one has been touched. But this only lasts about 20 seconds, and then it forgets. Wheat seedlings remember that they've gone through winter before they start to flower and make seeds. And some stressed plants give rise to progeny that are more resistant to the same stress, a type of transgenerational memory that's also been recently shown also in animals. While the short term memory in the venus fly trap is electricity-based, much like neural activity, the longer term memories are based in epigenetics - changes in gene activity that don't require alterations in the DNA code, as mutations do, which are still passed down from parent to offspring.

6. Would you say, then, that plants "think"?
No I wouldn't, but maybe that's where I'm still limited in my own thinking! To me thinking and information processing are two different constructs. I have to be careful here since this is really bordering on the philosophical, but I think purposeful thinking necessitates a highly developed brain and autonoetic, or at least noetic, consciousness. Plants exhibit elements of anoetic consciousness which doesn't include, in my understanding, the ability to think. Just as a plant can't suffer subjective pain in the absence of a brain, I also don't think that it thinks.

7. Do you see any analogy between what plants do and what the human brain does? Can there be a neuroscience of plants, minus the neurons?
First off, and at the risk of offending some of my closest friends, I think the term plant neurobiology is as ridiculous as say, human floral biology. Plants do not have neuron just as humans don't have flowers!

But you don't need neurons in order to have cell to cell communication and information storage and processing. Even in animals, not all information is processed or stored only in the brain. The brain is dominant in higher-order processing in more complex animals, but not in simple ones. Different parts of the plant communicate with each other, exchanging information on cellular, physiological and environmental states. For example root growth is dependent on a hormonal signal that's generated in the tips of shoots and transported to the growing roots, while shoot development is partially dependent on a signal that's generated in the roots. Leaves send signals to the tip of the shoot telling them to start making flowers. In this way, if you really want to do some major hand waving, the entire plant is analogous to the brain.

But while plants don't have neurons, plants both produce and are affected by neuroactive chemicals! For example, the glutamate receptor is a neuroreceptor in the human brain necessary for memory formation and learning. While plants don't have neurons, they do have glutamate receptors and what's fascinating is that the same drugs that inhibit the human glutamate receptor also affect plants. From studying these proteins in plants, scientists have learned how glutamate receptors mediate communication from cell to cell. So maybe the question should be posed to a neurobiologist if there could be a botany of humans, minus the flowers!

Darwin, one of the great plant researchers, proposed what has become known as the "root-brain" hypothesis. Darwin proposed that the tip of the root, the part that we call the meristem, acts like the brain does in lower animals, receiving sensory input and directing movement. Several modern-day research groups are following up on this line of research.

Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about? Please send suggestions to Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist at the Boston Globe. He can be reached at garethideas AT gmail.com or Twitter @garethideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How aware are plants? This is the central question behind a fascinating new book, " What a Plant Knows," by Daniel Chamovitz, director of the Manna Center for Plant Biosciences at Tel Aviv University. A plant, he argues, can see, smell and feel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One-month-old baby girl Khushi, which means "happiness" in Hindi, would not have been alive had her mother, Sumanjeet, given in to pressure from some relatives and neighbors.

"They would cry and yell, 'What are you doing giving birth to a girl? Push her off the roof of the building, kill her! Why are you keeping her?'" the 25-year-old mother says.

Sumanjeet says people kept telling her to get an ultrasound check and abort all four of her daughters. They told her she wouldn't have enough money for a suitable dowry. Although Sumanjeet wasn't quite sure how she was going to raise them, she knew it was a crime to get rid of them.

"Why are they killing girls, while they're still in the womb? It's a sin for which they'll have to be answerable to God. Small, cute girls like a doll. They kill her in the womb? It's a sin," Sumanjeet weeps.

The brutal gang rape of a 23-year-old student in New Delhi and the wave of outrage that followed brought to light the daily suffering of many Indian women. Thousands of people took to the streets to protest not just rape but the discrimination many women in India often have to live with throughout their lives.

A Thomson Reuters Foundation expert poll last year ranked India as the world's fourth most dangerous country for a woman, behind only Afghanistan, Congo and Pakistan.

Even though the practice is outlawed, 300,000 to 600,000 female fetuses are aborted every year in India because of the preference for boys, according to a 2011 study by The Lancet. And the discrimination that begins while in the womb continues throughout a girl's life.

Women's rights activist and Supreme Court lawyer Kirti Singh says there is a marked difference between how many parents treat their daughters and their sons. She says girls aren't given the same kind of food, they're not educated in the same manner, and they're only raised to become someone's wife.

"From the time they are born -- or not born -- and continuing till late in life when they become wives or mothers, it's a vicious cycle . of discrimination, and violence keeps on continuing."

Sumanjeet says she sees it all the time. "They send boys to good schools, they give them good food, nice clothes to wear. They treat them well. They say, 'Oh, it's my son.' To the daughter they say, 'Get the cow dung, sweep the floors. What will you do with an education?'"

Nearly half of India's girls are married off before the age of 18. Sumanjeet herself was forced to marry a man 15 years older than her when she was just 12 years old. She says she didn't object to the marriage, as she had barely understood what was going on.

Girls are also seen as a financial liability. Once they get married, they leave the house and are often required to take hefty dowries along with them which sometimes can cost a family's entire savings. The practice is banned by the government, but it's still as common as ever.

Once married, many women are subjected to domestic violence. A 2012 UNICEF study found more than half of Indian adolescent males think it is justifiable to beat a wife under certain circumstances.

Outside the household, crimes against women in India are also on the rise, and the evidence is shocking.

In July 2012, a young female student was molested and groped by a group of at least 18 men for 45 minutes in the northeastern state of Assam. People watched and filmed the incident, but no one helped.

In September 2012, a 16-year-old student was gang raped by eight men, and her father committed suicide out of shame.

Just 20 minutes from Jhajjar, a mother of four was allegedly dragged from her home and raped by five men just a month ago. She says they dragged her out of bed to a corner of the cowshed and took turns raping her. They only went away when her children woke up. But while the Delhi gang rape caught the world's attention, this case went unnoticed.

"The difference is that we are poor. We are not heard. When we go to the police station, they just do some formality. We are not being heard. We want justice," she said. One of the men she identified has been arrested, police said. The other got away.

According to government data, more than 24,000 cases of rape were reported in 2011. Most are never reported because of the stigma surrounding rape, but after the gang rape what was a taboo subject in India is now on the front pages and leading TV news.

Indian women, in some ways, have also made some strides. Literacy rates have gone up, maternal mortality rates have gone down, and millions of women have joined the workforce. Leaders like the President of the National Advisory Council and the widow of the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi are role models who show that women can rise to great heights. But they are the exception.

Authorities acknowledge that action is needed and say they are taking steps to try to better protect women. The Home Minister said India plans to recruit more female police officers. Currently only 7% of the Indian police force is female. Helplines have been set up and at least one state, Haryana, is soon putting up a website naming and shaming convicted rapists. A government task force has been set up to look into what more can be done to make Delhi safer. A number of fast track courts have also been established because of the December 16 gangrape, exclusively for cases of sexual assault and rape. But women's rights activists say that when discrimination begins even before birth, change will not come easily.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
challenges of being a woman in india - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One-month-old baby girl Khushi, which means "happiness" in Hindi, would not have been alive had her mother, Sumanjeet, given in to pressure from some relatives and neighbors. "They would cry and yell, 'What are you doing giving birth to a girl? Push her off the roof of the building, kill her!

# data[].attributes.body
plants 'can think and remember'?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plants are able to "remember" and "react" to information contained in light, according to researchers.

Plants, scientists say, transmit information about light intensity and quality from leaf to leaf in a very similar way to our own nervous systems.

These "electro-chemical signals" are carried by cells that act as "nerves" of the plants.

In their experiment, the scientists showed that light shone on to one leaf caused the whole plant to respond.

And the response, which took the form of light-induced chemical reactions in the leaves, continued in the dark.

This showed, they said, that the plant "remembered" the information encoded in light.

"We shone the light only on the bottom of the plant and we observed changes in the upper part," explained Professor Stanislaw Karpinski from the Warsaw University of Life Sciences in Poland, who led this research.

He presented the findings at the Society for Experimental Biology's annual meeting in Prague, Czech Republic.

"And the changes proceeded when the light was off... This was a complete surprise."

In previous work, Professor Karpinski found that chemical signals could be passed throughout whole plants - allowing them to respond to and survive changes and stresses in their environment.

But in this new study, he and his colleagues discovered that when light stimulated a chemical reaction in one leaf cell, this caused a "cascade" of events and that this was immediately signalled to the rest of the plant via a specific type of cell called a "bundle sheath cell".

The scientists measured the electrical signals from these cells, which are present in every leaf. They likened the discovery to finding the plants' "nervous system".

Thinking plants

What was even more peculiar, Professor Karpinski said, was that the plants' responses changed depending on the colour of the light that was being shone on them.

Plants perform a sort of biological light computation, using information contained in the light to immunise themselves against diseases
Stanislaw Karpinski, Warsaw University of Life Sciences

"There were characteristic [changes] for red, blue and white light," he explained.

He suspected that the plants might use the information encoded in the light to stimulate protective chemical reactions. He and his colleagues examined this more closely by looking at the effect of different colours of light on the plants' immunity to disease.

"When we shone the light for on the plant for one hour and then infected it [with a virus or with bacteria] 24 hours after that light exposure, it resisted the infection," he explained.

"But when we infected the plant before shining the light, it could not build up resistance.

"[So the plant] has a specific memory for the light which builds its immunity against pathogens, and it can adjust to varying light conditions."

He said that plants used information encrypted in the light to immunise themselves against seasonal pathogens.

"Every day or week of the season has... a characteristic light quality," Professor Karpinski explained.

"So the plants perform a sort of biological light computation, using information contained in the light to immunise themselves against diseases that are prevalent during that season."

Professor Christine Foyer, a plant scientist from the University of Leeds, said the study "took our thinking one step forward".

"Plants have to survive stresses, such as drought or cold, and live through it and keep growing," she told BBC News.

"This requires an appraisal of the situation and an appropriate response - that's a form of intelligence.

"What this study has done is link two signalling pathways together... and the electrical signalling pathway is incredibly rapid, so the whole plant could respond immediately to high [levels of] light."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plants are able to "remember" and "react" to information contained in light, according to researchers. Plants, scientists say, transmit information about light intensity and quality from leaf to leaf in a very similar way to our own nervous systems. These "electro-chemical signals" are carried by cells that act as "nerves" of the plants.

# data[].attributes.body
IS HUMAN OVERPOPULATION KILLING THE PLANET?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Jody McCutcheon

Is Human Overpopulation Really a Problem?

Facebook pages are full of joyous announcements; gossip columnists live for stories on the subject and economists say we need more to support an ageing population, but the reality is that we should no longer be happy about people having babies.

The twentieth century was a bonanza for the human population, which grew from 1.5 billion in 1900 to six billion by 1999 (and on to seven billion in the twenty-first century's first decade). According to the US Census Bureau, our species has a net gain of one person every sixteen seconds. This seems to be too many.

Unless you're a large corporation that needs unskilled workers, that is. It thought by some economists to be behind global economic injustice to some extent: it's pretty difficult for workers to demand better conditions and higher wages when companies know there are virtually millions of other people waiting to take the place of any employees who start to demand too much.

Urban sprawl and mountains of garbage, industry and industrial agriculture, extinction-inducing levels of hunting, poaching and fishing-these are but a few notorious trademarks of the twentieth century, along with an ever-accelerating human compulsion to consume, consume, consume. Our growing numbers mean this is simply no longer sustainable: as of 2007, we have been gobbling the equivalent of 1.5 Earths a year to support our collective habits, meaning the planet requires eighteen months to regenerate what we consume in twelve.

However, whether this is a problem of consumption habits or sheer numbers is the question. Writer George Monbiot, for example, is passionate on the point that there is no need to reduce human numbers whatsoever, IF we all drastically reduce our consumption. But given the grave economic implications this would have-think unemployment, recession, and a completely different lifestyle to the one that most of us in the developed world are used to-this seems highly unlikely-which means the only realistic solution is to reduce the number of humans on the planet.

Moreoever, even if our consumer habits were curbed, even at a most basic level, an increasing-and increasingly affluent-populations demand ever more food, the farming of which requires more cleared land, which means deforestation, which releases tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere-about three gigatons (three billion tons) annually, according to one collaborative study. Combine this expulsion with the emissions produced by heavy fossil-fuel dependence, and it's easy to see why our atmosphere contains more of the climate change-accelerant carbon dioxide than we as a species have ever experienced. In the next few years, atmospheric CO2 levels will average 400 parts per million. Sure, the blame lies largely at the feet of wealthy countries, which create larger carbon footprints than do developing countries. One Briton, for example, wields the carbon footprint of 22 Malawians, and Qatar has the highest carbon footprint per capita in the world. But the developing world is catching up.

Not the Same Planet

This is a big deal. We have changed the planet, and the implications are grave. Some experts believe warming temperatures could render Arctic summers ice-free as early as 2018. To put that in perspective, that hasn't happened to the planet in three million years. If the Arctic ice melts, the ocean and planet will heat up enough to dramatically alter wind flow, global weather patterns, even the jet stream. We're already experiencing the effects of climate change: extreme weather events are responsible for much of the crop devastation in the last decade or so, including floods in the US, drought in Australia and heat waves in Russia and Europe. The future seems just as grim: a new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warns that unchecked climate change will exacerbate food and water shortages, and cause further animal extinctions, not to mention human misery and the increased likelihood of war for scarce resources. Why would anyone want to bring a child into such a world anyway?

The heartbreak won't just be human: human pollution and overfishing is bringing oceanic devastation and the climate change we have caused is a main contributor to what is likely to be the sixth major extinction. Scientists are lumping the twentieth century's unprecedented reduction of biodiversity into what they call the Holocene extinction, with as many as 140,000 species disappearing annually, according to the species-area theory.

Overpopulation is already affecting the 750 million people worldwide who have no access to potable water sources, and 2.5 billion are without proper sanitation. Many believe we've passed or are in the throes of a peak-water situation, meaning voracious demand has outpaced renewable supply, and ecological costs outweigh benefits of extraction. Besides industrial pollution, much of the water crisis is due to intensive agriculture designed to feed a growing number of humans: the latter half of the twentieth century saw irrigation systems nearly triple worldwide, from 100 million hectares in 1950 to 280 million hectares in 2000, to feed the burgeoning population.

Hungry, Thirsty

Consequently, many nations have dipped into non-renewable underground aquifers as global water supplies have been polluted or strained. The United Nations states that by 2025, 1.8 billion people may inhabit areas of "absolute water scarcity" (less than 1,000m3 of water available per person per year), while two-thirds of the global population may be living in "water-stressed" regions (less than 1,700m3 of water available per person per year). To put Western water consumption into perspective: sustaining the global population on average European or North American water habits would require water from 3.5 Earths.

Many sources (such as here) suggest enough food exists for ten billion people, a number that's close to the UN's estimated 2050 population of 9.6 billion. Yet in the last decade, many factors-including climate change and water scarcity-have already ruined crops, causing rising food demand to outpace production, especially of a quartet of global staples, namely wheat, rice, corn and soy. Resulting food shortages and price spikes have contributed to political instability in places like Haiti, Uzbekistan and nations involved in the Arab uprising.

Keep in mind the average worldwide daily caloric availability per person of 2790 is twenty-three percent more than what was available in 1961. Food production has clearly increased, so the problem isn't scarcity. The problem is unequal distribution, with the affluent, developed world housing twenty-five percent of the world's population, yet drawing forty-nine percent of global agricultural products. Yet with quickly diminishing potable water supplies, this agricultural bonanza is likely to wither soon, and the numbers of people undernourished worldwide (currently set at 900 million) is likely to grow, especially in developing countries.
Earth: the Next Generation
It bears mentioning in an article about saving the planet that we're saving her from ourselves, for ourselves. Earth doesn't actually need us to save her. We may sully her enough to prohibit her from supporting us, but in the long run Earth will be just fine. On the other hand, if we don't take responsibility for and clean up the mess we've caused, Earth will perform that task herself. And we won't like it one bit.

So how can we protect our interests? Must we simply consume less, collectively, while spreading consumption more equally across the population-or is it crucial to control population size?

Considering that educated, empowered women in developed countries display lower fertility rates than their developing-country counterparts, it can safely be said that developed countries lead in consumption while lagging in population. It stands to reason that sheer numbers aren't the main problem, that reducing consumption would be the way to go. But is this a viable option? Not likely. Those most equipped to lead such an ambitious undertaking are also those with the most to lose. Which doesn't mean we can't try. Start small, like foregoing meat once a month, or taking public transit to work once a week instead of adding another car to the highway snarl.

So we're back to the idea of population control. It's certainly possible, through re-education, the championing of women's rights and changes to government policy. Some 220 million women worldwide lack access to family planning, with forty percent of pregnancies unintended. It's encouraging to know the promotion of family planning and gender equality leads to more sustainable birth rates.

Furthermore, governments should nix childbearing incentives, like baby bonuses, rent and tax breaks, and instead increase the tax burden on childbearing families. And what about tax breaks for childless couples?

Solutions exist, but we must act yesterday, before climate change hits a tipping point, before food and water crises snowball into global conflicts. The transition to more sustainable behaviour won't happen quickly or easily, but it must happen-for the double-helixed sakes of our planet and all life on it, including ours.

For a very erudite discussion on overpopulation, please click here: http://youtu.be/1sP291B7SCw
Do you have an opinion on this article? We'd love to hear from you!
Images: 1. Wikicommons 2. Seppo.net 3. World Resource Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Human Overpopulation Killing the Planet? - Eluxe Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Jody McCutcheon Facebook pages are full of joyous announcements; gossip columnists live for stories on the subject and economists say we need more to support an ageing population, but the reality is that we should no longer be happy about people having babies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
© 2016 Smita Sharma for Human Rights Watch

"I had three kids. Two died. Only one is alive," Kamala Kumari Pariyar told Human Rights Watch, sitting in the shade outside her home in Nepal's southern Terai region. Kamala married at age 13.

She attended school to class three but then dropped out. "My father used to be a fisherman," she said. "Sometimes we had fish and sometimes we had none, so it was difficult for me to buy notebooks and pencils. So I left school to work."

Kamala* began working at age 10 as a domestic servant in the home of a wealthier family. Three years later, she had developed a chronic condition in her hands as a result of the work, so her parents told her to leave that job.

Kamala feared her father, who had developed a drinking problem, would send her somewhere else to work that could be more dangerous. She saw marriage to a childhood friend as a means of escape, and her father and brother agreed to the match. She became pregnant almost immediately; her husband and mother-in-law wanted her to have a child.

Kamala's story is all too common. In Nepal, 37 percent of girls marry before age 18, and 10 percent before they turn 15. Boys also often marry as children in Nepal, though in smaller numbers.

Child marriage in Nepal is driven by a many factors, but chief among them is gender discrimination.

Girls are seen as a burden for their families, in part because convention dictates that girls go to live with and contribute to their husband's family, while boys stay with and support parents through their old age.

As a result, girls are more likely than boys to be denied education. Girls are more likely to be kept home to do domestic work, rather than study. As they grow up, families may seek to unload girls through marriage.

Poverty increases the risk. Parents who are unable to feed their children, or pay for their education costs, may seek a husband for their daughters simply so that the girls can eat.
In interviews for a new report, " Our Time to Sing and Play: Child Marriage in Nepal," Human Rights Watch documented how girls are disproportionately likely to be sent out to undertake paid labor, at ages as young as 6. Poor girls lack access to education because they are obliged to work instead of going to school, but also because their families cannot afford associated costs for uniforms, pencil, notebooks, etcetera, even when tuition is free. The government does little to ensure that children actually attend school.

Social pressures, include an expectation in some communities, especially traditionally marginalized ones, that girls should marry soon after they begin menstruating, or even before. This makes child marriage not only accepted but expected in some communities. Lack of access to information about sexual and reproductive health, and access to contraceptive supplies, puts children at risk of a rushed marriage in response to, or in fear of, extramarital pregnancy.

The number of children being married off by their families is gradually falling in Nepal. But there are signs that a growing number of children, like Kamala, are themselves choosing child marriage - sometimes - as a way of coping with dire circumstances.

The harm caused by child marriage is well known. Married children usually drop out of school. Married girls often become pregnant quickly - and are expected to do so. Many suffer serious health consequences as a result of early and closely-spaced pregnancies. Their children also often suffer serious health consequences; infant mortality is more prevalent in cases of early pregnancy. Research globally shows that girls who marry younger are at greater risk of domestic violence, and many of the girls we interviewed described violence and rape they suffered in their marital homes.

There is a unique window of opportunity right now to reduce child marriage in Nepal and elsewhere. Under the new U.N. Sustainable Development Goals, launched at the beginning of 2016, countries around the world have pledged to end child marriage by 2030. The issue is receiving growing attention and growing funding. The Nepal government promised to meet the target of ending child marriage by 2030, and has started developing a plan for reaching that goal.

But progress is much too slow. Ending child marriage will take a lot of work. It will require the Nepal government to strengthen and enforce its own law which makes child marriage a crime. The government will need to figure out how to keep children in school, and end harmful child labor. Nepal's schools should do better at teaching children about family planning, and its government health services need to do more to offer adolescents access to contraception.

None of this is impossible, but none of it is easy. The government spent several years developing a strategy on child marriage that lays out some good ideas, but it lacks the detail needed to launch work on the ground. A detailed plan is in its earliest stages and moving slowly.

It's time for a more urgent effort to end child marriage in Nepal. 2030 will be here in a flash, and girls like Kamala have no time to wait.

* not her real name

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In Nepal, Young Girls are Being Married Off Simply So They Can Eat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"I had three kids. Two died. Only one is alive," Kamala Kumari Pariyar told Human Rights Watch, sitting in the shade outside her home in Nepal's southern Terai region. Kamala married at age 13. She attended school to class three but then dropped out. "My father used to be a fisherman," she said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I'll be the first to admit that I don't always "get" the women in my life quite like I do my male friends and relatives-just ask my girlfriend, who is probably convinced I was raised by a pack of wolves considering how oblivious I am half the time.

(In my defense, there are about a million articles out there attempting to decode what girls "really mean," so there's no way I'm alone in this.)

To be perfectly honest, you could probably say the same about my grasp on issues relating to girls and women in international development. This is a problem seeing as the theme of the month here at Global Citizen is supporting girls and women around the world.

In an effort to remedy my glaring cluelessness in time for Girls & Women Month, I consulted my more knowledgeable colleagues and combed the Web to put together this list of 9 key issues affecting girls and women worldwide. Whether you're new to the topic or a veteran advocate, this cheat sheet should help clarify what we mean when we talk about something as broad as girls' and women's issues.
1. Access to Education
A 2013 report by UNESCO found that 31 million girls of primary school age were not in school, and about one out of every four young women in developing countries had never completed their primary school education. That number represents a huge pool of untapped girl power: that same report suggests that educated women are more likely to get married later, survive childbirth, raise healthy kids, find work, and earn more money, among other positives.
2. Employment Opportunities
Even in a country as wealthy and developed as the US, women still experience major inequality in the workforce: By some estimates, women earn only $0.77 for every $1 earned by men. Globally, the gender gap is even wider: women earn only one tenth of the world's income despite working two thirds of the total work hours . Empowering women to earn their fair share could benefit their entire communities in a big way: women are likely to invest more of their money back into their families and communities than men typically do .
3. Reproductive Health & Rights
225 million women in developing countries have an unmet need for family planning, contributing to 74 million unplanned pregnancies and 36 million abortions every year, according to figures cited by Women Deliver, a women's advocacy group . Helping women take charge of their baby-making reduces unsafe abortions and maternal deaths by over 70% each, and conserves precious resources that would otherwise have gone toward pregnancy-related costs.
4. Maternal Health
The World Health Organization estimates that 800 women die every day from preventable, pregnancy-related causes. That's nearly 300,000 lives per year needlessly lost during what is fundamentally a life-creating event. What more is there to say?
5. Gender-based Violence
1 in 3 women experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetimes, according to WHO. Whether it's domestic abuse, rape, or sexual trafficking, gender-based violence denies far too many women the opportunity to live happy, healthy, and fulfilling lives.
6. Child Marriage
An estimated 140 million girls will become child brides between 2011 and 2020 . Girls who marry before age 18 are typically denied an education, at risk of complications related to premature childbearing, and more vulnerable to intimate partner violence.
7. Female Genital Mutilation
Female Genital Mutilation (or FGM), defined by WHO as including "procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons," is a complex issue with religious and cultural implications for the groups who practice it. That said, the general consensus in the international community is that FGM imposes real health consequences, violates a child's rights, and promotes inequality between the sexes.
8. Water & Sanitation
When clean drinking water and hygienic sanitation facilities are in short supply, women and girls suffer most. Case in point: Girls whose schools lack proper bathrooms will often skip school during their menstrual periods for fear of embarrassment or stigma. It's also true that women in developing countries are frequently tasked with fetching water, which can be a time-consuming process. As my colleague Christina pointed out, the girls and women of the world have much better things to do with their time than shuttle buckets around.
9. Gender Equality
Equality (or the lack thereof) is a recurring issue when it comes to women and girls, whether it's unequal access to schooling for girls in developing countries, or unequal pay for women in the workplace. In a world where 95% of countries are led by a male head of state, it's clear that we as a global community have a long way to go before women are given a fair shake.

While the 9 issues outlined above are specific to girls and women, addressing them will positively impact everyone-even my fellow clueless men of the world. Stay tuned to Global Citizen all month as we explore the many ways in which a win for girls and women is a win for us all.
If you believe that girls and women everywhere deserve equal rights, and that those rights must be protected, click the "TAKE ACTION NOW" button below to show your support by signing a petition NOW.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
9 key issues affecting girls and women around the world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I'll be the first to admit that I don't always "get" the women in my life quite like I do my male friends and relatives-just ask my girlfriend, who is probably convinced I was raised by a pack of wolves considering how oblivious I am half the time.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Hybrid and electric low-noise cars cause an increase in traffic accidents involving vulnerable road users in urban areas