Friday, August 01, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
Sorry, Amaka, but I have to defend Will's piece about Los Angeles' moratorium on fast-food joints in poor neighborhoods. Other limitatons on consumption are different: Smoking bans help nonsmokers, and limiting alcohol sales cuts down on drunk driving and other ills. But a ban on restaurants is nothing if not paternalistic.
Blocking fast-food joints is not going to lead to an influx of Whole Foods or other full-service grocery stores, and limiting the number of McDonald's is not going to make people start buying organic. If Whole Foods really wanted to be in South Central, nothing is stopping them right now.
Amaka, you write that, "The higher cost of these healthier foods isn't necessarily prohibitive either." Actually, it is. As someone who juggles child care expenses, a mortgage, and other various monthly payments, I can assure you that milk that costs $6 a gallon (as opposed to $4 a gallon for nonorganic) and tomatoes that cost twice and much and spoil in half the time as their nonorganic counterparts almost never find their way into my shopping cart. And I'm fortunate enough to be in a two-income household. Try telling a single mom working two jobs who comes home to screaming kids, or a family that's trying to feed teenage boys, that they should settle for smaller portions and go to the store three or four times a week instead of once. There's a happy medium between eating at Burger King four days a week and spending $400 a week at an upscale grocery store, and it doesn't seem like Los Angeles is working very hard to find it.
If the city wants to do something to help obesity rates in its poor neighborhoods, it should work to encourage supermarkets—just regular stores with decent meat and produce, doesn't need to be Whole Foods—or better restaurants to come there with tax breaks or other incentives. Work with farmers' markets to find a place where they can set up and carry out their businesses. Negative actions like banning fast-food joints are demeaning to the people they are trying to help, and I would suspect counterproductive.
-
sponsorship
I have some gripes about Will Saletan's piece on the fast food ban in Los Angeles. I agree that the law is paternalistic (as are zoning laws restricting bars or strip clubs) but I hardly think this instance is as bad as he makes it out to be. Nor is his logic very sound:
And what about the argument that people in South-Central need the government to block unhealthy food options because they're "in a poor situation" to locate better choices? This is the argument normally made for restricting children's food options at school—that they're more dependent and vulnerable than the rest of us. How do you feel about treating poor people like children? (emphasis added)
Probably similar to the way he feels about treating readers like children. The sensationalism of that last sentence is almost as cheap as the four-buck Happy Meal he so doggedly defends. And the suggestion that the salad menu at Jack-in-the-Box should constitute a healthy food option for a low-income neighborhood is preposterous. I won't even dissect his fleeting, unexamined suggestion that the law is racist ("Opening a McDonald's in South-Central L.A. is not government-enforced racial discrimination. But telling McDonald's it can open franchises only in the white part of town—what do you call that?"). Why do we think that poor neighborhoods shouldn't benefit from the organic food movement?
I think it's deliberately ignorant to suggest that poorer neighborhoods currently have real choices in what they eat. Of course fast-food chains offer salads. But once you throw dressing and chicken on these limp-leafed feasts, they're practically as unhealthy as the burgers. It's important that high-quality, healthy food at least be accessible to every person—even if they don't always prevail. Fast-food chains often crowd out smaller competitors with healthier fare. As a result, the neighborhoods are saturated with Dunkin' Donuts and the like. Shouldn't a poorer neighborhood have the option of an actual organic market or a restaurant that offers fresh ingredients? The higher cost of these healthier foods isn't necessarily prohibitive either; it may just mean that families will be exchanging quantity for quality. That means smaller portion sizes and a healthier meal. If the families so desire they can still go to McDonald's since, from what I understand, it isn't as if the law aims to eradicate existing establishments.
Saletan is quick to defend the right of poor neighborhoods to choose. But he doesn't seem to realize that "Burger King or McDonald's" is not a legitimate choice. This law proposes enforcing true alternatives. And while it is hardly a comprehensive solution—a smattering of Whole Foods supermarkets isn't going to change eating patterns or attitudes—I think it's a step in the right direction ...
-
sponsorship
Nayeli,
I respect that you're standing by your opinion that Miley Cyrus would be a good condom spokesgirl, but I think there are even more reasons it's a terrible idea.
Your concerns—that teens are having sex and need contraception—are well-founded and admirable. But teen sex is not a new thing. We Gen-Xers didn't wait until college or marriage, and neither did our baby boomer parents. (Believe me; I'm living proof of what happens when teenagers don't use birth control.) I'm pretty sure it goes back to at least Romeo and Juliet. There's never been a perfect system for teaching horny young things about safe sex, and there probably never will be. We can all work harder to improve access to contraception and education, but fresh ideas should come from health professionals, family counselors, and educators, not the marketing department at a condom company. I also like Meghan's suggestion the Cyrus herself could volunteer or donate to a sex-ed program if she's so inclined.
You ask why, since the mere mention of an endorsement has been win-win for LifeStyles and Cyrus, why not, um, consummate the deal? Because an actual deal would be lose-lose. Miley Cyrus reportedly could be worth $1 billion—yes, with a "b"—by the end of the year. She's not going to risk her squeaky clean reputation for a mere $1 million. And can you imagine the uproar that LifeStyles would face for using a minor to sell their products? James Dobson would be getting more airtime than Hannah Montana herself.
And finally, the ick factor can't be ignored. Yes, it's important for teens to use condoms. But the fact is that they're important for adults, too. Any grown man who didn't breathlessly await the day the Olsen twins turned 18 will or should be skeeved out by the idea of buying a box of condoms with jailbait on the side. Condom companies can find a way to promote condom use without using a teenager. In fact—and yes, I realize it makes me sound very old to say this—what's wrong with a little cautionary tale? If we must have a pop tart selling condoms, why not Britney Spears?
-
sponsorship
When I wrote about Miley Cyrus not long ago, I was most struck by how profoundly Cyrus had already become a pure product of American culture. Disney, by creating Hannah Montana, has traded on Cyrus' status as celeb-daughter and wannabe pop star to feed the aspirations of scores of young girls across America to become not artists so much as celebrities. Weird. The result for Cyrus has been an attempt by Disney to hyper-stage manage her life, and, in particular, her coming of age as an adolescent. The last thing they want is for any whiff of sexuality to attach to her; but the last thing Cyrus and her parents want is for her to go the way of child stars who can't make the transition to successful adult pop-stardom. Which makes me kinda sympathetic to Nayeli's argument that it'd be interesting if Cyrus did become a spokeswoman for LifeStyles condoms: It'd be inspiring to see a young woman at a sexual threshold refuse to take part in the pretense that she and her peers are not coming of age. And it's a good message for all teenagers: if you are going to have sex (and guess what, they are), just do it as safely as you can. On the other hand, eavesdropping on this whole debate only makes me twinge more with regret that Cyrus—much like the character she plays on Hannah Montana—is so beseiged by pop culture and the media that the ethical decisions she has to make revolve around whether she should be a spokeswoman for a product or whether to appear on a Vanity Fair cover. If she really wanted to send a message to her peers, why not back away from endorsements of any kind and do some low-key volunteer work or donate to a safe-sex ed program? You'd be killing two birds with one stone by rejecting the self-consciousness and hyper-packaged nature of being a young pop star while doing a bit of good.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?