Skip to comments.Millions of Europeans Require Red Cross Food Aid
Posted on 03/12/2013 4:47:43 AM PDT by DeaconBenjamin
European Union families and individuals are increasingly reliant on charity organizations like the Red Cross for basic needs like food, water and shelter. While Germany is relatively unaffected, unemployment and austerity in countries like Spain make the problem even more severe.
Two-thirds of national Red Cross societies within the European Union distribute food aid -- a sign that the economic crisis in Europe has an alarming effect on poverty.
Yves Daccord, Director-General of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said that the scope of food distribution is the highest since the end of World War II.
The Spanish Red Cross supports 3 million Spaniards with food aid. Daccord said Spanish needs are so great that the organization solicits donations for domestic and foreign operations.
Middle Class Hard-Hit By Crisis
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies provides more detail on the food need. Last year, the Spanish Red Cross provided 73 million pounds of groceries to the needy. It also supported 21,500 people with water and electricity, or with financial aid in paying rent.
The organization's counterpart in Romania has operated a donation-based food distribution program since 2009. Three million people live in absolute poverty, according to the aid group, a figure that constitutes 14 percent of the country's total population. The relative poverty rate in Romania is also shockingly high, at 40 percent. Last year, the Romanian Red Cross distributed more than 1.1 million pounds of food to more than 81,000 needy families.
The IFRC also noted a rise in poverty in previously middle-class families and individuals. In Italy, the group noted a rise in the homeless population includes "separated and divorced men who end up impoverished or on the streets as they struggle to maintain themselves while keeping up child support and alimony payments."
(Excerpt) Read more at spiegel.de ...
Id like a discussion. Is it possible that doing good; aid, unemployment, etc. allow politicians to avoid making the hard decisions? Do aid organizations or unemployment benefits allow bad situations to continue by ameliorating the effects of those situations? If there were no outside, and, lets face it, socialist, handouts would the resulting pressure spur permanent corrective actions?
If starvation is caused by drought, then one could argue sending food until the drought ends is good. But if starvation is caused by politics; say, not allowing genetically modified crops that will grow in the parched region, then what does the food aid accomplish but defusing the pressure that might instigate change?
Until the masses feel the pains of hunger - there will be no revolution! Gotta love those socialist banking hordes who promised everything but gave nothing...
Keep an eye on food supplies in this country. An industrial food system is much easier to manipulate or control than a more locally grown supply. If you’re too weak to pull a trigger, then the 2nd ammendment doesn’t mean squat. It’s a part of the Gulag Principal.
The article mentions Red Cross and Red Crescent societies. I’d like to see a breakdown of which one gives how much - actual amount and percentage.
I’d like to know what other organizations are supplying food. I bet more than one so the number of families needing help is far larger.
Austerity? Would that be government dependents having problems because they havent been self-reliant?
A lesson in becoming frugal and resourceful even if your income is derived from government.
Though it may be due to the fact that we’ve started buying organic and non-GMO food where we can, our grocery spending has tripled in just 2 years.
So we’ve started backyard gardening to supplement, and expanding the gardens when we can.
Go ahead and laugh at the non-GMO thing. Heirloom plants are not patented and the seeds can be kept and planted again, the way God intended.
Amen. Incidentally, what sources are good for obtaining heritage seeds?
No, not laughing at all. Wise move on your part. Did you know that Obama's "Food Safety Czar", Michael R. Taylor, was the Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto Corp. from 1998 until 2001?
Part of your grocery bill increase is due to the disguised downsizing of products,i.e., you are paying the same money for less product. 16 oz cans are now 15 or less. A package of bacon is now 12 oz instead of a pound so you end up buying more stuff to get the quanity your accustomed to.
Good (real)food is going to cost more, but you will get more genuine nutrition out of it. A lot of 'food' is is relatively cheap because it has so much corn in it. Corn prices are artificially low because it's so highly subsidized.
Keep doing what you are doing and encourage others to do the same. Food freedom will be the key to keeping our other freedoms, I believe.
There is also a side benefit. I had a discussion with some people the other day whom I believe to be your typical ignorant left-winger types about this very subject. They were very interested in hearing about non-GMO food and home gardening. Then one of them brought up Monsanto in a negative tone without actually using the name. It was the perfect opportunity to mention that the guy from Monsanto was made Food Safety Czar by Obama, especially since I gave not a single clue as to my political leanings.
We just did a Google search and shopped around. I can't remember where we ended up ordering from (my wife did it). I do know we got a few sample packs for about a dollar each and that got us off to a good start.
In a normal world, being hungry would cause most people to direct their anger at government, but we have the constant lying from the media brainwashing the public that all their problems stem from “capitalism”.
I haven’t researched this site, but it’s a start.
I have a very liberal friend in the Seattle area (that may be redundant) to whom I mentioned that very fact. She was totally agast.
If you want to find some real common ground with lefties and evironmentalist just get on the subject of food safety, food security, or food sovreignty. There is a revolving door in Washington between government and the big food and drug industry. It doesn't much matter what party is in control. What is going on is a generaly limiting of our freedom of choices to that of eating factory food and getting health care through increasing medication.
The only way to overcome this is at the grassroots level. That would be having we, the consumers, spending our dollars on food that we can trust. Even the lefties will understand market forces in those terms. Rather than try to outlaw GMO's just let us exercise our right to choose what we put in our bodies.
I spent last Saturday at a "Sustainable Living" event at someone's homestead. It was a mixed crowd both in age and world views, but there was general agreement that we should all take responsibility for meeting our basic needs. And there was the idea that what you couldn't eat, you could sell and/or give it to someonw who was hungry.
I totally agree. I have no problem with label requirements; there's nothing wrong with knowing exactly what you're eating. But bans are stupid. All they do is give the FDA a reason to keep expensive militarized SWAT teams.
P.S. I really didn't intend to hijack this thread. I just wanted to say that people who need food assistance might be better off learning to grow it first. The dual positives being that the food is healthier and you learn self-sufficiency. (There, I didn't even mention how fat EBT users seem to be.)
I applaude your...ahem...restraint.
It's a great way to get started, even if you know nothing about growing plants.
Nothing given for the ‘’greater good’’ in a socialist society is ever ‘’voluntary’’.
That's the truth.. and a nice way of pointing out the coercion endemic to liberals.
At the beginning of the 20th century this was almost precisely the argument used by "progressives" to undermine private charity, which had functioned well in this country for generations. They opposed private charity because "it let the government off the hook." In other words the operating assumption was/is that it is government's responsibility to feed and water everyone who falls on hard times. Bad idea. Very bad.
The way to get politicians to make hard decisions is by voting in responsible people. Of course, by this late date the electorate has become sufficiently depraved that that is unlikely to happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.