Greater Pittsburgh food bank debuts ‘The Food Podcast’ |

Greater Pittsburgh food bank debuts ‘The Food Podcast’

Courtesy of the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank

The Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank is raising its voice in its quest to quash hunger.

“The Food Podcast” will be a weekly installment on the TribLIVE Podcast Network and shared on

“Our mission to end hunger and food insecurity won’t happen overnight, but this platform gives us the opportunity to promote our mission by educating the public on the need to help our neighbors in need,” said Brian Gulish, vice president of marketing and communications for the food bank. “We are excited to launch this podcast, which will not only highlight our mission to end hunger and food insecurity in southwestern Pennsylvania, but also elevate our efforts to break down the barriers that exist separating people from food.”

The nonprofit food bank distributes more than 35 million meals annually across 11 counties in southwestern Pennsylvania. One in 7 people and 1 in 5 children are food insecure in southwestern Pennsylvania, according to the food bank.

The debut episode of the podcast, sponsored by Clearview Federal Credit Union, features an interview with food bank CEO Lisa Scales.

“Where we are today is the most exciting time to be engaged with the food bank,” Scales said. “We are in a time of significant transformation both in terms of the type of food we distribute and the type of services that we’re providing to families and individuals who are food insecure.”

For details about the food bank, visit

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.