‘Food Podcast’: Groups band together to combat food insecurity | TribLIVE.com

‘Food Podcast’: Groups band together to combat food insecurity

Courtesy of Clearview Federal Credit Union
Clearview Federal Credit Union CEO Ron Celaschi Clearview Federal Credit Union CEO Ron Celaschi

More than 37 million people nationwide — more than 11 percent of the U.S. population — lived in food insecure homes in 2018, according to USDA statistics released last month.

September was Hunger Action Month, and the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank was the beneficiary of various fundraisers aimed addressing food insecurity, Brian Gulish, vice president of marketing and communications, said during this week’s “Food Podcast.”

• A WTAE telethon raised $122,755, including a $40,000 corporate match from Nova Chemicals and a $10,000 match from Carrie Holstead Real Estate.

• The Riverhounds hosted a Hunger Action Game, and Entercom Radio hosted a spaghetti breakfast.

• Table Magazine’s Lamb Fest benefited the Food Bank’s Green Grocer program.

Clearview Federal Credit Union is partnering with the food bank to present the weekly podcast. Clearview CEO Ron Celaschi joined Gulish, the podcast host, to discuss the partnership and the credit union’s charitable and volunteer impact locally.

“Our vision is to help people enjoy a better life,” Celaschi said. “We want to help feed the mind, the body, and the soul and the basic need of food is the one where we know we can make a significant impact.

“Our staff, whether it’s through Clearview or on their own, log their own volunteer hours throughout the year,” Celaschi added. “Our goal for 2019 is 10,000 volunteer hours.”

For more details about the food bank, visit www.pittsburghfoodbank.org.

LISTEN: Brian Gulish talks about Clearview Federal Credit Union’s partnership with the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank and its volunteerism in the region.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.