View previous stories
	5 ways that malnutrition is costing Latin America billions by World Food Programme   Can you put a price on the cost of poor diets? The World Food Programme has, and it’s a hefty bill. 5 ways that malnutrition is costing Latin America billions.   Obesity, from eating too much of the wrong foods, and undernutrition, from not getting enough of the right ones, are two sides of same coin. More and more, these two seemingly separate forms of malnutrition are being seen side by side in the same countries, communities and even families. It’s known as the ‘double burden of malnutrition’ and countries are paying a heavy economic toll.   The Latin America and the Caribbean region has made significant progress in reducing undernutrition over the past 20 years, but at the same time there has also been an increase in overweight and obesity (overnutrition) and related chronic disease.   Now a ground-breaking study by the World Food Programme has put a price tag on the burden, showing how Latin American countries are paying for malnutrition directly through healthcare and schooling, and indirectly through lost productivity.   The study analysed data from Chile, Ecuador and Mexico, and estimated that the combined impact of the double burden of malnutrition represented a net loss of gross domestic product of 4.3 percent (equivalent to US$4.3 billion) a year in Ecuador and 2.3 percent (a whopping US$28.8 billion) in Mexico. In the case of Chile, where undernutrition has already been eradicated, this cost reaches 0.2 percent (US$500 million).   Here are the main reasons why.   1. Undernutrition costs the education system   Undernutrition affects a child’s education in two ways. Children who don’t get adequate nutrition in the first thousand days from conception to their second birthday have poorer cognitive development. Then when they reach school age, not having enough to eat during the day means they have trouble concentrating in class. Undernourished children are therefore more likely to have to repeat school years, at a cost to governments and families.   2. Unfulfilled education potential leads to lost productivity   Children who suffer from undernutrition are more likely to have poorer cognitive development and lower educational levels than well-nourished ones, limiting their work potential throughout life. When they become part of the working-age population, their contribution may be inhibited as a result.   3. Premature death means lost productivity   Lost productivity through early death, as a result of undernutrition, was found to create a significant burden on countries’ economies. Premature death from malnutrition means that people either stop being part of, or never even become part of, the working-age population.   4. Missed work leads to lost productivity   Chronic illness related to overnutrition can lead to missed days of work for medical visits, prescribed rest or sick days. Studies on work absenteeism have found that overweight and obese workers are absent from work more days per year due to illness, regardless of occupation type.   5. Malnutrition has direct healthcare costs   Both under-nutrition and over-nutrition have associated healthcare costs. Children suffering from undernutrition have increased chances of getting sick, particularly with diarrhoea and respiratory infections. Overnutrition can lead to non-communicable diseases such as type II diabetes, hypertension and cancer. Although the health effects may be slow onset, they are long-lasting and can require years of medical attention.   According to the study, although undernutrition is declining, overnutrition is expected to become the largest social and economic burden in the region. The authors recommend that governments promote consumer education through clear policies and incentives to ensure reliable food labelling, physical activity programmes, and the support of community-based nutrition education programmes.   They also encourage the food industry to work with governments to guarantee the production, availability and accessibility of healthier food products, and to play a positive and responsible role in educating consumers on healthy food choices.   The study was carried out by the World Food Programme and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), drawing on a methodology originally designed to measure the cost of child undernutrition and updating it to include the impact of overweight and obesity.   * Access the report via the link below.   Aug. 2017   New study examines links between emigration and food insecurity in the Dry Corridor of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.   A new inter-agency study released today found a correlation between the prolonged droughts in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras – exacerbated by El Nińo phenomenon from 2014 to 2016 — and the increase in irregular migration from these countries to the United States of America.   “Food Security and Emigration: Why people flee and the impact on family members left behind in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras” shows the need to invest in long-term programmes to discourage people in the Dry Corridor from emigrating, and to reduce the risks for emigrants and the impact on the families left behind.   The study shows a trend of younger and more vulnerable people leaving food-insecure areas, especially in the Dry Corridor, a drought-prone area that crosses these countries.   “The study provides an important insight into why people flee and the impact on the family members staying behind,” said WFP Regional Director for Latin America and the Caribbean, Miguel Barreto. “It is perhaps this second aspect which makes this study stand out from much of the analysis conducted on migration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to date.”   “Human rights are the cornerstone for social inclusion, democracy, and peace. However, when millions of our fellow citizens of the Americas still suffer from hunger, it is an indication that much remains to be done. We welcome this study, that can help us to find solutions for those who are forced by hunger to leave their homes”, said OAS Assistant Secretary General Nestor Mendez.   Family members left behind face the burden of paying the debts of those who have migrated. If the emigration is unsuccessful, the family faces the problem of growing debt and of how to meet their food needs, the report said.   The document also pointed out that 47 percent of the families interviewed were food- insecure; such levels of food insecurity have not been previously recorded in the region even in the assessments carried out in the past three years in the Dry Corridor.   Some 72 percent of the families interviewed said they were applying “emergency” coping strategies such as selling their land, farm animals and tools to buy food.   Meanwhile 78 percent of the family members left behind are receiving a monthly remittance and indeed 42 percent of the surveyed families reported that remittances were their only source of income, according to the study. More than half of the money received from emigrants is used by family members to buy food, followed by agricultural investments – like buying land and animals -- and investing in small businesses.   The study was funded and jointly produced by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Food Programme (WFP), with the collaboration of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the Organization of American States (OAS).   The research is a follow-up to the results and recommendations of the exploratory study on the links between migration, violence and food security, “Hunger without Borders”, released in 2015. http://bit.ly/2wHwRS7 Visit the related web page
	Forcing customers to give up their rights to join class action suits by Senator Elizabeth Warren USA   Oct. 2017   Washington, DC - United States Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) today delivered a speech on the Senate floor in support of a rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that gives consumers who have been cheated the ability to hold their banks accountable.   The CFPB''s forced arbitration rule prevents banks and other financial firms from forcing customers to give up their rights to join class action suits. Republican leadership has said they will schedule a vote to overturn the rule this week. The full text of Senator Warren''s remarks:   Wells Fargo creates 3.5 million fake accounts, charging customers fees and ruining credit scores. Equifax lets hackers steal personal information on 145 million Americans, putting nearly 60% of American adults at risk of identity theft. And somehow, we''re about to vote on a Republican proposal that makes it harder for consumers to hold companies like Wells Fargo and Equifax accountable. I know it sounds nuts. But it''s true.   Here''s the issue: If you have a checking account, or credit card, or private student loan, or any number of other financial products, there''s a good chance you''ve given up your right to go to court if that financial firm cheats you.   That''s because tens of millions of consumer financial contracts include a forced arbitration clause that says that if a financial company cheated you, you can''t join with other customers in court - you have to go to arbitration by yourself. Tens of millions of consumers - including around 80 million credit card customers - can''t go to court if their banks cheats them.   Think about what this means in the real world. You wake up one morning and find a mysterious $30 fee on your account statement. You call the bank and say, "hey, I didn''t agree to this!" The bank tells you to pound sand. What are your options?   If there''s no forced arbitration clause in your contract, you have a choice - you can go to court or, if your bank offers it, you can pursue arbitration. Chances are you''re not the only customer with an unauthorized $30 fee and if there are other consumers in your same boat, you can join a class action lawsuit against the bank for free. A class action gives you a chance to get some money back and it doesn''t cost you anything. A class action also means the bank might have to cough up some real money and think twice before hitting you and their other customers with hidden fees again.   Now think about what happens if there is a forced arbitration clause. You can''t join with other customers in court. Your only option is to file a solo arbitration claim - which will cost you $200 or more just to get started. Who''s going to pay $200 upfront to get a $30 fee back? No one. And that''s exactly what the banks are counting on. They can get away with nickel-and-diming you forever.   But say the bank steals a bigger amount and you can''t stand it anymore so you decide to be one of the roughly 400 consumers a year to go before an arbitrator. If you don''t like the result, there''s no appeal. Even worse, the banks are allowed to swipe your wallet in secret - the records of these proceedings are not public so the regulators and the American people don''t get to know what their banks are up to. Does that sound like justice in America?   Earlier this year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau put a stop to that. They issued a new rule that prohibits financial companies from forcing you to give up your right to join other customers in court and hold your bank accountable.   House Republicans already voted to reverse the rule. The Senate will soon decide whether to follow suit and take away American families freedom to choose to go to court if they are cheated by their bank.   Make no mistake: anyone who votes to reverse this rule is saying loud and clear that they side with banks over their constituents - because bank lobbyists are the only people asking Congress to reverse the rule. Every other organization - all the ones that represent actual human beings, not banks - want the rule to be saved.   The Military Coalition, which represents more than 5.5 million veterans and servicemembers, supports the CFPB rule because "our nation''s veterans should not be deprived of the Constitutional rights and freedoms that they put their lives on the line to protect, including the right to have their claims heard in a trial."   The Coalition says that "forced arbitration is an un-American system wherein service members claims against a corporation are funneled into a rigged, secretive system in which all the rules, including the choice of the arbitrator, are picked by the corporation," and warns that "the catastrophic consequences" these forced arbitration clauses "pose for our all-voluntary military''s morale and our national security are vital reasons" to preserve the rule.   The AARP, which represents nearly 40 million American seniors, says the CFPB rule should be preserved because it "is a critical step in restoring consumers access to legal remedies that have been undermined by the widespread use of forced arbitration for many years." Older consumers are at increased risk of financial scams so the "AARP supports the availability of a full range of enforcement tools, including the right to class action litigation to prevent harm to the financial security of older people posed by unfair and illegal practices."   And the Main Street Alliance, which represents thousands of small businesses, says the CFPB rule will help small businesses fight against big financial firms that try to drive up their fees. Since almost 20% of small business owners "rely on credit cards as a source of investment capital - many of which contain arbitration clauses - forced arbitration makes it nearly impossible for small businesses and consumers alike to protest hidden fees, illegal debt collection, and other deceptive practices."   Veterans, service members, seniors, small businesses, consumers - all lining up to support the CFPB rule. But that''s not all.   Let Freedom Ring - an organization that proudly touts itself as "supporting the conservative agenda" - likes the CFPB rule too, saying it is "in keeping with our Framers concerns that without appropriate protections, civil proceedings can be used as a means to oppress the powerless."   That''s the thing you have to understand. The effort to reverse the CFPB rule isn''t about promoting a conservative agenda. And it''s sure as heck not about promoting a working people''s agenda. It''s about advancing the banks agenda. Period.   The banks and their lobbyists actually have the gall to claim that they want to kill the rule because it''s bad for their customers. That claim is laughable. According to a rigorous, three year-long CFPB study, consumers recovered an average of $540 million annually from class actions settlements, while receiving less than $1 million annually in the arbitration cases the agency reviewed. It''s not even close.   And even if there are instances in which arbitration is a better option for consumers than a class action lawsuit, the CFPB rule doesn''t prevent consumers from choosing arbitration. The rule simply says that consumers should also have the freedom to go to court if they prefer it.   I''ll tell you one thing: when it comes to what''s right for consumers, I listen to service members, veterans, seniors, consumers, and small businesses - not bank lobbyists. When a bunch of bank lobbyists tell you they know what''s best for consumers, hang onto your wallets.   Millions of Americans - of all political parties - think the game in Washington is rigged against them. This vote is Exhibit A.   Companies like Equifax and Wells Fargo have hurt millions of consumers and tried to escape accountability using forced arbitration clauses. The Republican Congress hasn''t done a thing to help the people hurt by Wells Fargo. The Republican Congress hasn''t done a thing to help the people hurt by Equifax. Nope. Instead, they are actually taking away one of your few legal tools to hold companies like Wells Fargo and Equifax accountable. This is shameful. http://bit.ly/2zlv9Yf http://bit.ly/2h3dnOW   * Nov. 2, 2017   President Trump signed a congressional resolution that allows financial institutions to block customers (that’s us) from filing class-action lawsuits. In doing so, he grabbed back a tool we were given in July by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that would have helped us fight banks or credit card companies or mortgage lenders and others if they rip us off. The rule, which was supposed to go into effect this spring, would have banned something called a “mandatory arbitration clause” that prevents people from joining together in a class-action lawsuit.   http://bit.ly/2nAPNvP http://bit.ly/2rZV6dF http://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senator-warren-discusses-negative-impact-of-bank-deregulation-bill-on-american-consumers- Visit the related web page
	View more stories