Why making children living in care homes leave when they turn 18 needs to change








For most teenagers, turning 18 is a cause for celebration, but for those living in care homes, it means suddenly having to make their own way in the world

By: EhowShare . Jemma Hooper was two years old when she was taken into care. Her parents struggled with addiction and the world she was born into, she says, was one characterised by drugs, chaos and fighting.
By the time she was 17, Jemma was in a children’s home, having already lived in 18 different places. While other kids her age might have looked forward to their 18th as the moment to enjoy their first legal pint, Jemma’s landmark birthday was significant as the date on which she would, for the final time, be thrown out of the place she called home.
There are nearly 70,000 children in care in Britain. The vast majority live with foster families and, owing to a change in law last year, these young people can expect to remain the responsibility of the state until they turn 21, unless they feel ready to move on beforehand.
But for the 6,000 or so young people living in Britain’s children’s homes – who were not affected by new legislation piloted by the previous government and bought into force in 2014 – this is not the case.
Jemma’s removal from residential care came at a time when she was finally beginning to settle, with the help of a brilliant key-worker: “She was ace. There were nothing going wrong when she was around. She listened to what I had to say. She made time for me and we did things together.”
Suddenly having all that pulled from under her was a heavy blow: “For me, it’s like Social Services kicked me out when I needed them the most, when I had nothing and I had no-one.”
The practice of rescinding responsibility for the well-being of young people at an age when many simply aren’t able to cope is the subject of a moving documentary, Kicked Out Kids, which airs Tuesday evening on Channel 4.
Janes Van Vollenstee qualified as a social worker in South Africa before moving to the UK in 1996. Having worked in a local authority until 2012, involved with children in and leaving care, and also child protection, he is now the manager of the Moving On team for the children and families charity Break, which offers transition and mentoring services to young people at this critical juncture. Leaving home is difficult at the best of times, he says: “Now imagine a young person has been in very negative environments, received forms of abuse – with fostering placement breakdowns which have resulted in them moving to a children’s home – it is understandable then that there will be a lot of anxiety and anger, while grappling to understand why they are living differently from their peers...
“For those young people, with everything that has happened in their life, at age of 17 telling them, ‘On your birthday you are going to move on, ready or not...’?”
It is unsurprising, he concludes, that so many are terrified of leaving care and struggle to settle on the outside.
Demornia Cattrill was a baby when he and his twin brother were first taken into care – before being returned to their mother, who remained violent. Years later, when the boys were in Year 9, his brother refused to go home from school one day. Demornia’s response at the time was: “Oh my gosh, it’s happening. Someone’s finally plucked up the courage to say something.”
Though he says it was a relief, he also felt “panicky” because there were also two younger brothers at home, who he now knows went straight into foster care, while the older twins ended up at a children’s home. Now aged 18 and having left full-time care nearly a year ago, Demornia says care was “all right”. “There was a good understanding between staff and kids. You got out what you put in. Even though you could be an arsehole, some of the staff would see that you were still good; finding your feet and that. Obviously there were also a few members of staff who were arseholes, but the staff that cared actually did care a lot.”
He is glad of the opportunities he wouldn’t have got if he’d been living at home. “I got to go to basketball camp on the Isle of Man, twice, and I went on a trip to France.” Mainly, he devoted himself to training in mixed martial arts, first as “something to get my mind off everything”, now with a dream of going pro.
Since leaving care, however – initially to a semi-independent lodging in someone else’s house when he was 17, before moving to full independence – Demornia says he’s been “left in the dark”. “I was almost brought to court because of my council tax. I didn’t have a clue what I was doing. One minute everything’s being done for you, the next you’re out of their hands and you’re all on your own. I have a friend in foster care. He’s 20 and has everything provided. What’s that about?”
After finishing college, where he studied catering, Demornia started looking for work.
“I worked in a warehouse from October to January, getting minimum wage. (At 17, it was £3 something an hour; when I hit 18, it went to £5.13.) In January I got laid off. Since then I’ve had no income whatsoever and nobody’s helped me. I managed to stretch my last week’s pay, then got some overtime before I left. Obviously that’s now run out and I’ve got letters saying bills are due.”

Denornia Cantrill, a young man who was brought up in care and now has his own home (Warren Smith)
The long-term prospects for care-leavers are not good. Of  the adult prison population, 27 per cent have been in care at some time. And almost 40 per cent of prisoners under 21 have been in care as children, as have one third of rough sleepers, and 70 per cent of women working in prostitution.
New figures, published last week, revealed the long-term cost in Britain of “picking up the pieces from damaging social problems affecting young people” – totalling around £17bn a year, according to research by the Early Years Foundation charity. Around £5bn of this came directly, it said, from looking after children in care on a yearly basis – but the long-term expense is perhaps more significant. An estimated further £4bn a year – nearly a quarter of the total cost - is currently spent on benefits for 18-24 year olds not in education, employment or training (NEETs), with a further £900m spent helping young people suffering from mental health issues, or battling drug and alcohol problems. Just the sorts of difficulties young people who leave care unsupported are likely to face, as Natasha Finlayson, chief executive of the Who Cares? Trust, points out. “Research consistently shows that leaving care before a young person is ready for independence tends to lead to poor outcomes, with mental health – particularly depression – the biggest factor we see, followed by debt,” she says.
In the coming weeks, the Department for Education will consider the recommendations made in a joint report by the NCB, the Who Cares? Trust and other organisations, which suggests models for rolling out so-called Staying Put arrangements across residential homes, while acknowledging that this is not a straightforward prospect. Not least because of child protection issues: if you mix children and young adults, it requires plenty of legislative and practical frameworks. At an estimated £76m, it won’t come cheap. But considering the long-term financial and emotional burden on services and young people, Enver Soloman of the National Children’s Bureau says this is surely a small price to pay: “If you support a young person properly up to the age of 21, it is much less likely they will fall into difficulty and impose a financial burden on other services and state agencies.”
Another problem, Finlayson suggests, is a deep-rooted culture of children’s homes, which are often “seen as a placement of last resort”. “It is really unhelpful that we have these ideas,” she says. “There are examples from other countries, like those in Scandinavia, which show how really good, constructive work can be done, rather than using children’s homes like a holding pen as we do, with workers who are not well-trained or properly qualified.”
Break’s Van Vollenstee believes the greatest challenge is building a system that allows social workers to invest time in relationship-building rather than constantly filling in forms and assessments. “At the point when they leave care, many young people are still processing what happened to them prior to coming into care, adjusting and learning to be accountable for their actions.” What they really need is continuity and support; people in their lives who will take a parental role in the absence of any other guiding figure. In reality, though, support workers – who are only obliged to see young people once every two months after they’ve turned 18 – often only have time for phone calls or sign-posting to other organisations that offer practical help.
“You can teach young people how to budget or to cook, but no-one can prepare them for what it’s like to be home alone at 9 or 10 at night with no-one to talk to. That is what we hear time and time again – the loneliness – and that’s when they often get tempted to move in with negative circles to reduce the loneliness.”
On leaving care, Jemma moved in with her aunt, her late father’s sister, last year, but that didn’t work out. “There were lots of complications. We didn’t get to know each other well enough. I was there for three or four months, then from there into temporary accommodation, then to another place which was like your own flat but there were staff who came in during the day, which made me feel well uncomfortable – I had more privacy in a kids’ home.” After getting kicked out of there, she ended up in a B&B in Huddersfield, a two-hour walk from her friends in Halifax. Now she is in Halifax in social housing.
On the phone, Jemma is bubbly and upbeat, but over the years, she has tried to take her life several times. “I don’t know; it’s like an issue of not being able to control it sometimes,” she says. “Even though I can speak so openly about things, sometimes I don’t tell the things I need to tell. Sometimes I’ll think I don’t even know who I am. When you’ve been through so many families you aren’t going to know who you are by the end of it.”
In practice, the age of leaving care is often younger than 18, with 31 per cent of the 9,990 care-leavers in 2013 aged just 16 or 17. Moving on at this age to live semi-independently is something that is encouraged by local authorities on the basis that the young person ‘transitions’ at a time when they will still have their rent paid and are entitled to ongoing support.
But some feel that local authorities are often too keen to get young people off their books. Pressures are such that staff often feel they have to prioritise younger charges, Van Vollenstee says, and the older children feel that – and don’t understand why – their needs are no longer of importance: “When a young person leaves care, what they need is someone to say, ‘Let’s talk about what is happening in your life. I’m here, let’s have a coffee and talk.’
“They need to know this is life and it’s full of challenges, that it can be stressful and you need to learn to be resilient and receptive.”
That’s where organisations like his step in, to offer the message: we won’t drop you.
Demornia was just 17 when he moved out of residential care, into semi-independent lodgings. Now that he is no longer entitled to the £55 a week he got when he was living semi-independently, he says his support workers are no longer guardians so much as an advisory service. In that case, he wonders: “Why are you here? If you’re not going to help me in any way, you might as well fuck off.”
Now he is back in college every day on a military preparation course and hopes to join the Marines. “I want to prove to everybody who says I’m just going to be a drug dealer or in prison – I want to prove them wrong and show that just ’cause I had a shit upbringing doesn’t mean I can’t change it.”


Indian millionaire charged with murder after ramming slow security guard

Local media reported that Mohammed Nisham, 39, rammed a 50-year-old security guard who later died in hospital

An Indian millionaire has been charged with murder after he deliberately rammed his car into his security guard.
Mohammed Nisham allegedly drove his Hummer jeep into a security guard, named only as K Chandrabose, after the man delayed opening the gate to the millionaire’s home in Thissur two weeks ago.
Mr Chandrabose, 50, succumbed to his injures yesterday. It is believed that he died of cardiac arrest after spending two weeks on life support.
Local news outlets reported that the controversial millionaire – a regular on India’s gossip pages – chased the security guard around a fountain in his car before battering him with an iron bar.

A Hummer car, pictured here in the US
Mr Nisham has now been taken in custody, police official Biju Kumar told the Mail Online.
The 29-year-old millionaire is reportedly facing several other criminal charges.
“We are planning to slap on him various provisions under Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act (KAAPA),’’ a police officertold the Indian Express. The warning is similar to a British ASBO and is more commonly used on members of local gangs.  
Mr Nisham is a well-known tobacco supplier, and has a hotel and jewellery business in the Middle East.


It is not the first time he has had a brush with the law. In 2013 he allowed his then nine-year-old son to drive his Ferrari. The incident was filmed by his wife and posted on social media, causing outrage.
In the same year he allegedly locked a female police officer in another of his cars after she pulled him over for a routine check.
The millionaire refused to allow the distressed officer out of the car after she entered to take the keys to prevent him driving away. Standing outside, he locked the car remotely and did not release the woman until the arrival of her colleagues.
















Ash Wednesday 2015: What is it and why is it an important day for Christians?

Ash Wednesday is marked 46 days before Easter Sunday

Today is the first day of Lent – the period of self-restraint and abstention for Christians ahead of Easter.
What does the day signify?
It marks the first day of fasting, repentance, prayer and self-control. Luxury or rich foods such as meat and dairy are often avoided by those taking part in Lent.
Abstention from personal “bad habits” such as watching television or eating too much sugar is also commonly practised.
When is Ash Wednesday?
The day is marked on different dates each year. It falls on 18 February this year, the day after Shrove Tuesday or Pancake Day.

Rich ingredients are traditionally used up before Lent on Shrove Tuesday


How is it celebrated?
During church services, clergy use ashes burned at the previous year’s Palm Sunday mixed with holy water or olive oil to mark a cross on a worshipper’s forehead as a sign of repentance.
This is to signify the Biblical passage in Genesis 3:19: “For dust you are and to dust you shall return.”
Why is it 46 days before Easter, and not 40?
Although Lent lasts for six weeks, Sundays are not included as they are considered a day for worship and rest.
Ash Wednesday is marked 46 days before Easter to imitate the full 40 days Jesus spent fasting in a desert before being blessed by John the Baptist.

How to Protect Google AdSense Account From Invalid Clicks

For an ordinary blogger, Google Adsense is the most easily and the most trusted means to make money through blogging. Nowadays, getting Google Adsense approval is somewhat hard, especially in some selected countries.
And moreover, even if you get your adsense account approved, the next threat against your account is about getting banned. Your Google Adsense account may get banned for a variety of reasons, the main two reasons are that of terms and condition violation and invalid clicks.
And among the two, invalid clicks are the major threat against your Adsense. If you do not detect and report invalid click activity to Google at the early stage, then Google may ban your Google Adsense account, making you un-eligible for the amount you earn through Google Adsense.
Even if you’re facing invalid clicks issue on your blog, there is no need to worry. As there are lots of ways to discourage invalid click activity and protect your Google Adsense account from being banned.And below are some important and commonly used ways to protect Google Adsense account from invalid click activity.

1. Notice Sudden Growth In Your Google Adsense Earnings

The main point that leads to clues of invalid click activity, is your earnings itself. Therefore, in order to protect your Google Adsense account, it is your duty to notice your daily earnings.
Notice your Google Adsense analytics at least once a day, and if you see sudden growth or fluctuation in your Google Adsense clicks, earnings or CPC, then it’s time to act quickly.
If you suspect an invalid activity according to these stats, then remove Google Adsense ads from your blog for a while.

Also Read :- Low Adsense Earnings ? How to Increase

2. Notify Google If You Smell Some Kind Of Invalid Activity

If you smell some kind of invalid click activity on your blog, then the first and foremost action to do, is to notify Google Adsense team about the same. So that, they can take care of such clicks and that you do not lose your Google Adsense account.
Below is how you can notify Google Adsense team about invalid click activity on your blog:


  • First of all, navigate to the contact page for reporting invalid click activity, here [link: http://goo.gl/20raAX ].
  • Now, fill up the form and hit submit.
  • And now, your file will be viewed by the Google Adsense team, and they will contact you back, if necessary.
Basically, what this step does is that it allows Google Adsense to return the money earned at the time of invalid activity back to advertisers, thus helping you safe-proof your Google Adsense account.

Also Read :- Top 5 Adsense Earners

3. Use Plugins To Prevent Invalid Click Activity

If you’re using WordPress as your blogging platform, then the best method to prevent invalid click activity on your blog, is by using related plugins to prevent invalid click activity on your blog.
One of the best free plugin to prevent invalid clicks is the Adsense Click Fraud Monitoring Plugin link: http://goo.gl/fPHLGK. It is the most commonly used plugin to protect invalid clicks on your Google Adsense ads.
This plugin also monitors invalid clicks on other PPC networks. And hence, this plugin helps you protect your Google Adsense account from being banned due to invalid click issue.

Final Words o Protect Google AdSense Account From Invalid Clicks

The above mentioned are some common ways to protect your Google Adsense account from invalid fraud clicks. As I said in the beginning, getting an approved Google Adsense account is getting harder nowadays. And once approved, it is our responsibility to prevent invalid clicks and safeguard our Google Adsense account.

I hope this article helped you to protect your Google Adsense account from fraud clicks. If you have some more interesting ways to protect invalid clicks activity for PPC ads, do share them below.

So can we really feed the world? Yes — and here’s how


Over the past six months I’ve been trying to figure out how we can feed ourselves sustainably and equitably without wrecking the planet. I’ve been reading, interviewing experts, and blogging as I learn. This, the final post of the series, is a synthesis of what I’ve found out.
If the world goes on with business as usual, there’s not going to be enough food to feed everyone by 2050. A lot of things would have to change.
And a lot of things should change! Currently, the daily effort to satisfy the collective appetite of humanity is causing deforestation, erosion, extinction, and massive release of greenhouse gases. In changing how it feeds itself, humankind can drive down poverty, sequester greenhouse gas, conserve wild environments, and put organic matter back into the soil. All of that is plausibly within reach.
Let’s start with population. If we can’t get a handle on our swelling numbers, everything else is moot. So what would make human population level off, or even fall? There are always political measures — like China’s one-child policy — but laws like that are hard to pass and even harder to enforce. They restrict freedom while producing terrible unintended consequences — like families getting rid of girls.
There’s another option that actually works better: Improve the lives of poor women and children.
“If you want parents to make the choice to reduce their number of offspring, there’s no better way than making sure those offspring survive,” said Joel Cohen, author of the magisterial book How Many People Can the Earth Support? “There’s no example of decline in fertility that has not been preceded by a decline in child mortality that I know of.”
This is counterintuitive. But there is abundant evidence of this pattern all over the world, regardless of religion. Where children die and women are repressed, population booms. Where children thrive, and women are empowered, population growth stops.
As sustainable agriculture expert Gordon Conway writes in his book, One Billion Hungry: Can We Feed the World?:
A popular misconception is that providing the developing countries with more food will serve to increase populations; in other words, it is a self-defeating policy. The more food women have, the more children they will have and the greater will be their children’s survival, leading to population growth, so goes the argument. However, the experience of the demographic transition described above suggests the opposite. As people become more prosperous, which includes being better fed and having lower child mortality, the fewer children women want. Providing they then have access to family planning methods, the fertility rates will drop and the population will cease to grow.
To control our impact on the environment, we have to stop growing. A measure of freedom and security for women and children is a precondition to ending population growth. The key factor connecting child mortality and lack of women’s rights is poverty. Therefore, environmental efforts have to be, first and foremost, campaigns for social justice.
If ending all poverty were as simple as producing enough food to feed everyone, our work would be done. Farms already grow enough food for every person on the planet — 2,800 calories a day, if it were divvied up equally. But we have never shared resources equally, and no one seems to have figured out a realistic way of making people start. Attempts by governments to distribute food in equal shares have failed; they almost immediately lead to black markets, with the poor selling food and the rich buying it. An investment banker in New York will always eat better than a beggar in Lagos.It doesn’t work for governments take complete control of food markets, but it’s also a bad idea for governments to completely wash their hands of responsibility for feeding people. If left entirely to market forces, food flows toward wealth and away from poverty, which leads to famine. Governments must intervene to prevent hunger. Social safety nets — in the form of meals, money, healthcare, and education — really do increase the likelihood that children born into poverty will be able to go to school and make better lives for themselves.
So there’s been a huge shift in thinking from the days of the Green Revolution, when the driving imperative was to increase production. The goal has gone from increasing farm yields to decreasing poverty.
It turns out, however, that if you want to decrease poverty, one of the best ways to do it is to increase farm yields. As the economist Michael Lipton put it: “No country has achieved mass dollar poverty reduction without prior investment in agriculture.”More than 70 percent of the world’s poor are farmers, or work for farmers in the rural economy. In places where there are no jobs, and the economy sucks, people survive by carving up the land into smaller and smaller plots and working it more intensively. Because of this, typical farm sizes are actually getting smaller in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. As of 2000, the average farm was 2.5 acres in Asia and 3.7 acres in Sub-Saharan Africa, not counting South Africa.
Americans like small farms, but this trend toward tiny landholdings in poor countries is not a good thing. When I spoke to a pair of Ethiopian farmers, they told me that what they really wanted was for their children to go to school rather than working on the land and eventually dividing it up. They wanted labor-saving tools — herbicide, plows, planting machines — so that the children could spend time on schoolwork rather than farm work.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, farmers get a little over a ton of grain per hectare in an average year — about what farmers in Europe were getting during the Roman Empire. Clearly there’s tremendous room for improvement, and increasing yields puts money directly into the pockets of the poor. At the same time, it allows their children to go to school and brings down the cost of food — a benefit to both rural and urban poor.
Another argument for increasing yields is that, in the last decade, we got closer to the bottom of the world grain barrel than we have since the 1970s. Economists largely agree that this lack of supply was the primary factor in causing price shocks: The price of food spiked twice, which caused suffering and hunger among the poor.
The final argument for increasing farm productivity is that it will keep people from clearing forests and infiltrating the last remaining wild lands. The world is making progress on this front. Environmental scientist Jesse Ausubel has made a convincing case that we are already past the point of peak farmland. Since 1998 the amount of land devoted to agriculture has fallen, while the global food supply has continued rising. Reducing the human footprint means increasing farm yields.And yet, despite all the arguments for increasing yields, the goal is controversial, thanks to the legacy of the Green Revolution. During the Green Revolution, the push to increase yields was focused on large farmers, and sometimes smaller farmers did not benefit. There’s a huge amount of conflicting literature on this point. As Conway writes, “A review of over three hundred studies found that for 80 percent of the studies inequality had worsened.” In addition, the heavy use of pesticides and fertilizer during the Green Revolution caused all sorts of environmental problems.
It’s possible to learn from the mistakes of the Green Revolution and strive to increase yields in a way that benefits the poor and is environmentally friendly. The current jargon for this is “sustainable intensification,” which — as happens with jargon — is taken to mean everything and nothing.
Sustainable intensification includes a panoply of agroecological techniques. Farmers are planting nitrogen-fixing trees, which shelter crops, prevent erosion, and provide fertilizer. There’s the push-pull strategy, where farmer push bugs away from grain by growing insect-repellent plants along the rows, while also pulling pests away from the crops by planting an attractive plants outside the fields. Aquaculture is on the rise, creating an opportunity for more fish polyculture. There is significant evidence that these techniques are already providing a part of the solution.
However, I don’t think that they can, or should, be the only solution. In Ghana, farmers trained by 4-H in agroecological techniques abandon them when they actually have to manage their own land and make a living. And an organic farmer training people in Malawi has found that teaching small farmers how to use a little bit of synthetic fertilizer and herbicide is much more likely to work than the all-natural alternatives. As the U.N.’s former special rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, put it, “While investment in organic fertilizing techniques should be a priority, this should not exclude the use of other fertilizers.”Farmers in poor countries have more important priorities than strictly dividing organic from industrial farm tools. As I put it in this story, farm technology isn’t a war between good and evil — it’s a quest for whatever works. Small farmers have proven that they can use tools of industrial ag in a non-industrial way. They use high-tech hybrid seeds to get record-breaking yields with an alternative cropping technique. Across India, small farmers have found that genetically engineered cotton decreases their pesticide exposure while increasing their earnings. And in Niger, farmers developed a method of using Big Ag fertilizer on a tiny scale: by filling a soda-cap with a mix of phosphorus and nitrogen, and dumping this micro-dose in with each seed.

GMOs, because they are politicized, are especially controversial. I’ve heard the argument that we won’t be able to feed the world without GMOs. I doubt that’s true. Genetic engineering is not a silver bullet. At the same time, the goal of helping small farmers improve their lives gets a lot harder if they are held to an impossibly Edenic standard, and we keep rejecting the tools that they’d like to use.
Many people worry that giving poor farmers industrial technology will lock them into an industrial path. There’s no doubt that is true, as far as it goes. If it’s easy to get nitrogen, you may not want to do all the work, and develop the skills needed, to nurture nitrogen-fixing trees to maturity. But as I’ve argued here, small farmers are already taking a middle path — it’s not as if use of some modern technology will forever corrupt them. When I looked at path-dependency in agriculture, I found that it exists in many small forms, but can be overcome with government assistance and regulation. It’s also worth noting that many small farmers already suffer from path-dependency: They are locked into generational poverty. For me at least, the most important goal is breaking out of poverty, even if that leaves people short of true sustainability. How can I demand perfect sustainability from the poor, when I haven’t achieved it myself?
OK, you’ve reached 2,000 words, it’s time to pause, stretch, regroup, and look at a picture of a baby meerkat.




So far, I’ve argued that the goal is to decrease poverty — that means building social safety nets, and increasing small-farm production. (Because I’m a food and ag guy I’m focusing on farms, but the safety nets are just as important.) I think that increasing yields should be done according to the rule of whatever-works-best, rather than going all natural or all industrial.
And that brings us to solutions: First, what do poor farmers need to make more money? And second, what can those of us living in richer countries do to make food more sustainable and equitable?
Helping poor farmers increase yields
To make more money, farmers need information, inputs, and infrastructure. Information, to learn better techniques; inputs, like fertilizer, disease-resistant seeds, and nitrogen-fixing trees; and infrastructure, which comprises everything from roads and irrigation ditches to agricultural universities.
Governments and charities are spreading information with agricultural advisors. There are also innumerable technological efforts to spread knowledge. I wrote about Plant Village for example. Or there’s Digital Green, which makes videos of farmers carrying out various techniques, and then, in the evening, goes into the village and project the movies. It’s entertainment for the local farmers, and they also learn from someone who speaks their dialect and looks like them.


 


Inputs and infrastructure go together, because the lack of good roads is the main reason that farmers have trouble getting the supplies they need. Roads also allow farmers to get their crops to market with less spoilage.
Roads are terrible for the environment when built through undeveloped wilderness, but great for the environment when built through poverty-stricken farmland where many people are carving up the land into tiny plots for farms. You need roads to get sustainable intensification — without roads, people keep pushing farther out into marginal lands.
My jaw just about hit the floor when Birtukan Dagnachew Tegegn, a farmer from Ethiopia, told me that there’s no road to her land, and it’s a four-hour walk to the nearest town. Imagine how difficult it is for her to get tree saplings, or a bag of fertilizer, to her farm. A road would save her a lot of time and money.
Conway writes that roadbuilding is a proven intervention:
In India, every additional million rupees spent on rural roads during the 1990s was found to lift 881 people out of poverty. Villages in Bangladesh with better road access had higher levels of input use and agricultural production, greater incomes, and greater wage-earning opportunities.
Roads, canals, and electric systems require government intervention. But small, distributed infrastructure is important too. For instance, when farmers get the machines to process their crops, like the banana farmers of Talamanca, it drastically reduces food waste, while opening up international markets to small farmers.
There’s one other thing beyond information, inputs, and infrastructure that farmers need: money. Farmers all around the world go into debt to buy the things they need to start a new crop, and then pay it off with the harvest. Poor farmers frequently don’t have bank accounts, and take high-interest loans. Banking via mobile phone is solving this problem, and it’s even possible in some places for small farmers to buy affordable crop insurance on their phones.
I’m been making the argument here for some serious government intervention to build infrastructure and train farmers, but it’s also important for governments to help by getting out of the way when farmers want to start businesses serving their growing rural economy. Poor countries tend to have a mind-boggling amount of regulation that hampers homegrown businesses.
What can the people reading this actually do?
A lot, actually. Unless you are the agricultural minister of Kenya or the director of the Rockefeller Foundation, there’s not much you can do with any of the preceding. But people living in richer countries  have tremendous influence over multinational corporations that do business, for better or worse, in poor countries. We can also be a lot better at sharing our portion of food, by eating less, wasting less, and choosing more environmentally responsible meals.
There are just a small number of corporations that serve as multinational middlemen — buying crops from farmers in one place and selling them to food makers in another place. Jason Clay, a senior vice president at the World Wildlife Fund, has narrowed it down to 100 businesses — get them to act responsibly, he says, and you save the world. We’re already seeing this working with soy in the Brazilian Amazon, and it’s beginning with palm oil in southeast Asia. The key to getting these companies to commit to sustainability are regular people with reasonable requests, putting strategically targeted pressure on companies. When big companies make sustainability promises, they do a 180 — and instead of resisting regulation, they begin asking governments to regulate their competitors to level the playing field. This really does have the potential to change the world.
The other thing we can do — as I put it here — is to eat with smaller forks. That means changing our diet so that we eat less meat, less food in general, and throw less of it away. There’s also a side benefit: We’ll be healthier. As I wrote:
Right now we live in an upside-down world where the people who get the least food are the ones who are doing the most manual labor. (They’re also the most likely to suffer from infectious disease.) And in the most developed countries, we have technology taking care of all our physical, calorie-burning labor, while we sit on our butts all day and drink everyone else’s milkshake.

All this can seem overwhelmingly large. And it is. The challenge of feeding humanity is enormous and unprecedented. No species, that I know of, has ever organized itself to ensure that every one of its kind is fed. We have the means to meet this demand in the short term, and we are in the process of figuring out how to meet it in the long term. Human welfare depends on our figuring this out. So does the welfare of thousands of other species that live alongside us.
The good news is that, after studying this for six months, I can say that meeting the challenge seems entirely possible. It requires the rich to eat more responsibly, poor farms to become more productive, and all farms to be continuously improving their sustainability. To make this possible, governments must provide safety nets and infrastructure, while cutting red tape.
All this requires a series of political and social changes that are difficult to implement but almost universally supported. No one is morally opposed to reducing food waste, or to increasing the income of small farmers. The most serious impediment is inertia, and we’re already moving in the right direction.

I’ll end with one small, easily achievable suggestion for people who want a well-fed world. (In this piece I also make some recommendations for shrinking forks.) Learn a killer lentils recipe — not just something edible, but something that excites your friends and family as much as steak does. Legumes, like lentils and beans, fertilize the soil and provide a good nutritional replacement for meat, which generally has a big environmental impact. (Though not always — carbon-negative beef exists and is a great alternative.) If everyone replaced one meat dish a week, deliciously, we’d all take a big step toward an equitable and sustainable food system.
Correction: This story included a reference to Zaire as a tossed off  example of a developing country. That was a mistake, since the territory previously known as Zaire is now called the Democratic Republic of Congo. Grist regrets the error and the writer has been sentenced to remedial third-grade geography.

Grist is looking for the fall 2015 class of fellows

Are you an early-career journalist, storyteller, or multimedia wizard who digs what we do? Then Grist wants you!

We are now accepting applications for the fall 2015 class of the Grist Fellowship.
Once again we’re inviting writers, editors, and online journalists of every stripe to come work with us for six months. You get to hone your journalistic chops at a national news outlet, deepen your knowledge of environmental issues, and experiment with storytelling. We get to teach you and learn from you and bring your work to our audience. You won’t get rich — but you will get paid.

You’ll work closely with our editors in Seattle, and with the program’s director, Andrew Simon, on reporting and executing stories for Grist. Our primary subject areas are food, climate and energy, cities, science and technology, pop culture, and environmental justice. If your skills extend into realms like video, audio, and data visualization, all the better.
For fellowships that begin in July/August 2015, please submit applications by March 30, 2015. Full application instructions here.
Good luck!

Don’t believe anything you read at Natural News

Last week, Mike Adams, who calls himself the Health Ranger and runs the site Natural News, posted a truly insane article which seems to advocate violence against scientists and journalists who support genetic engineering.
I wasn’t going to write about this at first: It’s just so far out there, so beyond the fringe, that I assumed it wasn’t worth anyone’s attention. But Natural News articles pop up on my Facebook feed so frequently that I figured it might be a valuable public service to publish a post about the site for future reference.
My friends who share stories from Natural News aren’t nuts. They just don’t realize how crazy the site is. They’ll see something that aligns with a pet peeve and assume that it must have some basis in reality. (The thinking goes something like this: Aha! I knew antidepressants were bad. I should let my friends know …)
Natural News has 1.2 million followers on Facebook, and it publishes on themes that appeal to people who (like me) worry about effects of technological disruption of natural systems in our bodies and in the environment. But the site is simply not credible. It’s filled with claims that vaccines are evil, that HIV does not cause AIDS, and that Microsoft is practicing eugenics — see this Big Think post, or this Slate article, for a pseudoscience rundown.
The health-science stories have a surface-level gloss of technical language, which make them seem plausible unless you read them carefully. But if you look at some of the articles on politics it becomes a little more transparent: This is nothing but a conspiracy-theory site.
Here are some selections from the Adams oeuvre:
On President Obama’s goals:
“We told ya so” just doesn’t quite cut it anymore. As the American sheeple slept, selfishly refusing to take a stand against tyranny, the Obama administration has been plotting what can only be called a total government takeover of America.
On gun control:
If gun control passes, there will come ‘free speech control’ and the government banning of websites, books and art
On the spymasters:
The NSA might even be the puppet pulling Obama’s strings, as they no doubt have all sorts of dirt on Obama’s history which we already know to be largely fabricated. (Real birth certificates don’t have a dozen layers stitched together in Photoshop.)
It seems, however, that Adams has changed his position on Obama’s birth certificate. He’s replaced a birther story with this explanation:
The article which originally appeared here has been removed because it is no longer aligned with the science-based investigative mission of Natural News … Through scientific investigation powered by university-level analytical instrumentation, Adams found that, much like the majority of the population, he had been suffering over the past several years from chronic exposure to cumulative toxic elements found in the food supply, including in many organics and “superfoods.”
The implication seems to be that Adams was poisoned by “toxic elements” in his food, which caused him to write stuff that even he now recognizes is bonkers.
Look: Every story I’ve ever seen from Natural News has been, at the very least, wildly speculative. Often, the stories are filled with paranoid ravings.
But social media loves Natural News! These days, when people see a headline that seems to confirm one of their suspicions, they tend to click “share” without reading the story, and certainly without investigating the source.
So I offer this post as a quick primer. And the next time friends share something from Natural News, I’ll gently suggest that they might want to find a more reliable source.

71 Food Rising grow system donation requests approved: 179 more donations still available to schools, churches and community centers

(Ehow Share) I'm thrilled to report we have received and approved donation requests of the Food Rising grow systems for 71 schools, home schools, churches and community organizations! (www.FoodRising.org)

Because our goal is to raise enough funds to donate 250 of these systems, an opportunity still exists right now for up to 179 more schools to request these donations.

Donation requests can be made by following the instructions at this page.

This project is being conducted by the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center, where I serve as the executive director in a non-paid position. Click here to confirm the CWC's active public charity status with the IRS.

If you'd like to help support this project, click here for the donation page.
Next week we'll be releasing photos of these grow systems!

Companies support the donation effort

Living Fuel (www.LivingFuel.com) has already pledged funding to support 100 grow systems. Boku Superfood (www.BokuSuperfood.com) has pledged 20% of its online sales through the end of February, 2015.

Organic Lifestyle Magazine (www.OrganicLifestyleMagazine.com), a publisher of health-related news and practical advice columns, has sponsored 15 grow systems.

LuvByNature (www.LuvByNature.com), manufacturers of the pristine, hormone-free, low-temperature "Grazing Goat Whey Protein" that's a customer favorite at the Natural News Store, has sponsored 10 grow systems.

And new this week, the owner of these websites has pledged 8% of online sales through March 15th, 2015: www.AquaGarden.com www.GreenHome123.com www.FastFurnishings.com

Now is the time to urge your local school to request a donation

We currently have funding for over 170 grow systems, yet we only have 71 donation requests so far. This is a great opportunity to contact your local elementary school, middle school or high school and make them aware of this generous donation program.

Shipping of these grow systems begins the first week in March, and schools will receive the complete grow system, 3D printed parts, plant nutrients and almost everything they need to get the system up and running. All they need to add is sunlight, seeds and water!

This is a change to help children in your local area:

• Experience the joy of growing their own food

• Learn food self-reliance skills

• Learn principles of seed sprouting and seed saving

• Learn about the revolution of 3D printing / additive manufacturing

• Share the knowledge of home food production

Learn more at www.FoodRising.org

Despite Show of Force, Pagoda Visit Peaceful

Deputy Phnom Penh governor Khuong Sreng, center, visits Wat Samakki Raingsey on Tuesday as part of an official investigation into what City Hall has called ‘anti-government acts’ by the pagoda. (Ehow Share)
Deputy Phnom Penh governor Khuong Sreng on Tuesday reversed course on a City Hall announcement that it was investigating Wat Samakki Raingsey over alleged anti-government behavior and secessionist designs, comments that sparked fears among its monks that the independent-minded pagoda would be shut down.
During a visit to the pagoda with more than 50 police and military police in tow Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Sreng told its head monks that Samakki Raingsey would need to secure approval from the Ministry of Cults and Religions before it was fully accredited. But he left without making an explicit threat to shut it down or curb the unorthodox activities of its residents. 

“I want the pagoda to follow the rules and laws,” he told acting chief monk Thach Ha Sam Ang. “You should not try to hide things from me. I know everything you do. When you act like this, I am not happy about it.”
Samakki Raingsey is one of the few pagodas in the country that regularly defies the country’s Buddhist hierarchy by speaking out on politically sensitive issues. Over the past year, it has raised the ire of local authorities by offering shelter to out-of-town villagers protesting in Phnom Penh against the private companies they accuse of stealing their land.
Last month, City Hall said it was investigating the pagoda over the fatal stabbing of one of its senior monks and other unspecified “anti-government acts.” In a subsequent interview, municipal spokesman Long Dimanche went so far as to claim that the pagoda’s alleged lack of cooperation with authorities was “like a secession.”
During Tuesday’s saber-rattling visit, however, the deputy governor said the city was only interested in the murder—a suspect has already been arrested and charged—and whether the pagoda was fully accredited, nothing else.
“After the notice [of an investigation], there was a war in the news between the monks, supporters and City Hall, but this is all confusion,” Mr. Sreng said. “This issue has been exaggerated because of politicians and extremists…. It is not like people say, that City Hall is coming to destroy Samakki Raingsey pagoda. It is not true.”
He said the municipal spokesman’s talk of secession was also blown out of proportion.
“You might be confused,” he said. “[Mr. Dimanche] said ‘like a secession,’ not that it was a secession. Khmer words are rich because they have 33 consonants and many vowels, so listen…. He said ‘almost like.’ This is not an issue.”
Reporters attempted to ask Mr. Dimanche, who accompanied Mr. Sreng to the pagoda, to clarify his words for himself. But the deputy governor stepped in to stop the spokesman from speaking.
“I do not allow him to speak,” Mr. Sreng said.

A municipal official records the personal information of a monk at Samakki Raingsey pagoda on Tuesday.

As for accreditation, Mr. Sreng said the pagoda would first need to get an official seal from the Ministry of Interior before going to the Ministry of Cults and Religion. But to get the seal, he said, the pagoda needs to prove it owns the land on which it stands.
Thach Ha Sam Ang, the acting chief monk, said the original title was lost in a fire and asked the deputy governor for help to replace it. Mr. Sreng said he would try, but added that it would be difficult.
After about two hours, Mr. Sreng left Samakki Raingsey to songs and cheers from monks and supporters who were relieved that the pagoda had not been shut down.
But not all of them were convinced by his claims that the city was only interested in the pagoda’s paperwork and the recent murder. Some pointed out that the murder of monks at other pagodas had not attracted the same scrutiny.
During the deputy governor’s visit, his staff recorded the name and age of every monk living at Samakki Raingsey. They instructed the pagoda to notify commune officials any time a new monk came to stay there.
Thach Thavry, the pagoda’s head of administration, said the heavy police presence was clearly meant to scare the monks out of continuing their activism.
“We can see that they want to show their muscle and threaten us,” he said. “What [Mr. Sreng] says is different from what he does…. But we will continue to protest for social justice and support the villagers because it is our right.”