 The real big issue right now is that so many kids are suffering, they're suffering from under nutrition, they don't get enough to eat, they don't get enough micronutrients, they don't get enough calories and at the same time we have a rapidly increasing prevalence of overweight, obesity and chronic diseases. Now more recently what we are seeing is an increasing attention to emergencies because we have many more emergencies, failed states of various kinds. Climate change is resulting in extreme weather events. You have droughts, you have floods, you have strong winds and every time something like this happens in a low income area, people are suffering. There are some very severe consequences. This is not just a matter of maybe eating a little less today and a little more tomorrow. This is a matter of survival for many of these people. Because the news media is paying attention to that as they should, there is a tendency to take money from the long-term development assistance and long-term investment by the countries themselves, the developing countries themselves and put it into emergency relief. The money can be found to solve those problems that they would have to be taken from somewhere else like military expenditures. But of course if we say we are only going to invest this much on improving the well-being of people and the environment, then of course it becomes an economic problem because then the question is are we allocating enough to solving these problems? And the ethical question of course is are we going to avoid that children die today and tomorrow or are we going to invest in future generations and making sure that the environment is going to be sufficient to feed future generations. It's an ethical problem. And I am not going to tell a mother that her child needs to die today in order for me to save future children. I cannot do that. We have to do both. The real policy message is to prioritize good nutrition and to alleviate poverty and to protect the environment today and in the future. And the policy message therefore is to allocate the necessary funds to make that happen and take that funds from something that's less important because it is definitely possible to do both. Absolutely it is.