Opinion JENNIFER CALFAS EDITOR IN CHIEF AARICA MARSH and DEREK WOLFE EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS LEV FACHER MANAGING EDITOR 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com 4A — Thursday, October 15, 2015 R ecently, I had the extreme pleasure of being in a choco- late shop, which is where I would be all day, every day, if given the option. This enjoyment, how- ever, was under- cut by a strange trace of melan- choly. The entire time I browsed, I was barraged by a mixture of mournful- ness and nostal- gia. Had I been here before? Why was I thinking about how much I missed my dog and hadn’t talked to an old friend in ages? How had my thinking suddenly turned into existential dread where all I could contemplate was how use- less everything we do is since our sun will eventually become a Red Giant and consume us anyway? Just as I was coming to terms with how alone I am in the universe and how we are all born to die, I realized that the chocolate shop was actually playing a string of incredibly sad songs — “Say Something” by A Great Big World, “Fix You” by Coldplay and “Can’t Feel My Face” by The Weeknd, among others. At first glance, this seemed like a terrible marketing plan: who wants to associate chocolate with sadness or the confusion and futile nature of living? In the American value system, chocolate is supposed to be a source of joy and meaning in the endless, empty void that is the uni- verse, but they’d now linked it with anguish. After some discussion with my shopping companions, though, we brought the meaning of this mar- keting campaign into new light. The business owners were actu- ally — on purpose or not — employ- ing a psychological strategy called priming, in which the use of one stimulus (like sad music) influences the response to a different stimu- lus (in this situation, for example, our need for chocolate went from merely extreme to dire). By making loneliness and unhappiness salient for the consumer, the need for the dopamine boost that chocolate pro- vides grew. In all honesty, it seems to be a rather depressing tactic, but if it works, it works. Having established this, it should follow that this tactic of priming could be used to market just about anything, even ourselves. Isn’t that exactly what we’re doing at events like the Career Fairs? Des- perately trying to get the attention of recruiters who are already too overwhelmed with other resumes and elevator pitches to care? There has to be a better way to get a foot in the door, and I think we might all be able to take a leaf out of the book of this strange chocolate shop and extend this marketing strategy to us as individual commodities. So how would one go about doing this? At the next networking event you have the opportunity to attend, you should try executing your own subtle priming on the recruiter. One that I would try is helping the recruiter make the association between you and someone they would natu- rally want to assist, such as a child. As humans, we are programmed through evolution with the impulse to help children. To execute this, refer to the recruiter as “mom” or “father” throughout the interview. This will forge a connection in their mind between the idea of being a par- ent who wants their child to succeed and you as a candidate who is asking for a job. This plan is foolproof and will work, 100 percent guaranteed.* Another priming tactic you could employ would be to go the opposite direction and prime the recruiter to have a great deal of respect for you. To do this, all you need to do is pre- tend to be the company’s CEO and appear offended when they claim they don’t recognize you. You could even go so far as to threaten their job. This combination of fear for their livelihood and intimidation from speaking to the CEO of their organization will mentally prepare them to be very receptive to what- ever you demand. They might be confused as to why their boss’ boss is asking for an entry-level position, but they can’t possibly turn you down; it’d be a pretty unwise career move for them.* (* I am not legally able to give either such guarantee and am not liable for any consequences of attempting any of these tactics. In fact, maybe don’t try them.) I realize that both the LSA Fall Career Expo and Engineering Career Fairs have just passed, so maybe this advice is a little late, but there are always opportunities to try and get people to buy what you’re figuratively selling. In fact, these potential marketing schemes might be your ticket to not only an internship or job, but also a ticket to whatever it is you want — a date, a discount or another extension on a project that was due two months ago but you just couldn’t bring your- self to do it because you just started binge watching “Breaking Bad” and you can’t just stop now because you need to know what happens to Jesse. The sky is the limit. So give these ideas a try and tell me how they go. If all else fails, you always have the option of sitting in a chocolate shop and crying. — Sarah Leeson can be reached at sleeson@umich.edu. SARAH LEESON I ’m new to The Michigan Daily, and if anyone had told me a year ago that I would be sharing my writing with thousands of stu- dents and alumni and countless others, I would have taken it as a joke. I’m science- minded, to say the least, so the prospect of put- ting my opinion out there in writ- ing for anyone and everyone to criticize is frighten- ing. Though criticism can be negative at times (luckily I haven’t received anything too tough to handle, yet), it can also be constructive, which was the type I received in regards to my last article. After my last article, “‘Organic’ and ‘healthy’ are not synonymous,” was published, I was contacted by Mischa Popoff, author of the book “Is It Organic?” and a long-term supporter of the organic movement. His response was not only positive, but also revealed a few facts about the organic industry that were interesting and conflicting at a fun- damental level. Needless to say, no industry as large and rapidly grow- ing as the organic industry is perfect, but Popoff peaked my interest, and was able to provide me with a follow- up interview about his experience. Popoff has been immersed in the organic-food realm his whole life. He grew up in Saskatchewan, Canada, on a grain farm that became fully organic in 1993, far before Canada (in 2009) and the United States (in 2002) had national organic programs. For five years, Popoff worked as a United States Department of Agriculture contract organic inspector. “I left the organic movement when I realized it was a bureaucratic scam designed to propel a political agen- da,” he said. Popoff’s arguments cen- ter on a few points: that “43 percent of all organic food sold in America actually tests positive for prohibited pesticides,” that organic-crop field testing is practically non-existent, and that the organic industry is fuel- ing a fire against GMOs which has little to no scientific grounding. I entered the interview expecting to speak to a man who only ate local foods, grass-fed meat and purely organic produce. I have realized now that nothing is so simple. Perhaps I was naive to think that the National Organic Program could be articu- lated by a single man in such a linear manner. Though Popoff presented a number of good arguments, the issue is more complicated than simply con- demning the entire organic industry. “Some people say I’m anti- organic for speaking out with the media like this, but the truth is I’m pro-organic, and I’m trying to save the industry I love,” he admitted. Popoff’s is only one of thousands of opinions about the successes and failures of the organic industry, and it’s important to approach each new one with caution. From the research I have done on Popoff’s points, I’m in agreement with some of them, yet left in con- fusion with others. The first of his statistics — essentially that every time you buy something bearing the organic seal (which is a complicated issue within itself) there is a 43-per- cent chance it will actually test positive for pesticides — is more com- plicated than just a single percentage. First, it’s important to distinguish that the pesticides that are prohib- ited in organic farming are synthetic. There are some organic pesticides that the USDA approves to be used on products, and for those products to be sold under the label “organic.” Even still, according to the USDA, “Organic agriculture practices can- not ensure that products are com- pletely free of residues; however, methods are used to minimize pollu- tion from air, soil and water.” The USDA claims that the main purpose of organic farming is to maximize “the balance of natural systems,” and to enhance “biodiver- sity, biological cycles, and soil bio- logical activity.” It seems naive to assume that doing such things in a 100-percent natural way, without any inten- tional or unintentional influence of technological advancements, is actually possible. Additionally, according to a 2010-2011 pilot study on pesticide residue testing, “As long as the operator hasn’t directly applied prohibited pesticides and has documented efforts to mini- mize exposure to them, the USDA organic regulations allow residues of prohibited pesticides up to 5 per- cent of the EPA tolerance.” Popoff’s second claim, that there is absolutely no field testing of organic products, is also a compli- cated issue to address, based solely on the issue of semantics. Words such as “testing” and “inspection” are thrown around as if they identify specific activities that are conducted on farms. The USDA identifies that, “Before a product can be labeled ‘organic,’ a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules nec- essary to meet USDA organic stan- dards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restau- rant must be certified, too.” As a consumer, “inspection” sounds fine, but does this include lab- testing to ensure that the products do not exceed the allotted 5 percent of residues? Or does the term “inspection” simply imply passive observation of methods and crops. Additionally, only 5 percent of an organization products are tested once per year. What this means to me is that by the time it is found that a farm is not complying with organic standards, individuals could have purchased products from this farm under the impression that it was, in fact, organic. Maybe more pre-sale testing could benefit the industry after all. The third and perhaps most worrisome issue with the organic industry is the rising push against the use of GMOs. Currently, according to the Organic GMO Policy, “The use of genetic engineering, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is prohibited in organic products.” A report by Packaged Facts dem- onstrated that of the $5 trillion retail value of the global food and bever- age market, $500 billion dollars are attributed to the non-GMO market. Additionally, Packaged Facts pre- dicts that the non-GMO market will almost double by 2019. There are con- siderable resources being allocated to the marketing of GMO-free markets, that perpetuate the fear of these “alien” foods. However, the problem with this is that there is little scien- tific evidence backing the claims that GMOs are harmful. In this regard, the money being spent within the anti-GMO movement should be allo- cated to something more useful. It’s evident that any industry as large and quickly growing as the organic industry is not perfect. The main issue, I believe, is transparency. Despite the countless annual reports and guidelines that are published by the USDA, the Agricultural Market- ing Society (AMS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and prac- tically any other three to four letter acronym of an agency that exists under the umbrella of “food adminis- tration,” there still seems to be little consensus on what’s actually going on and in what ways it’s truly neces- sary to take action. Until then, my biggest suggestion? Keep doing your own research. — Grace Carey can be reached at gecarey@umich.edu. The problem with organic It’s radical we haven’t divested Some of you may have heard of the Divest/ Invest Campaign on campus. However, we aren’t talking about the Israel-Palestine divest- ment campaign; we are talking about the fossil fuel divestment campaign. What even is fossil fuel divestment? That’s a good question. On the Fossil Free campaign’s website, divestment is defined as, “the opposite of an investment — it simply means getting rid of stocks, bonds or investment funds that are unethical or morally ambiguous.” For our university, that means get- ting rid of investments in our endowment that don’t meet our University’s moral standards for investment. These fossil fuel investments are not only risky for investors, as they are liable to become stranded assets, but they are also con- tributing to the global warming of our planet. That’s why we are calling on the University to join the hundreds of other institutions that are divesting from fossil fuel companies. Our campaign (which you can find out more about at divestum.org) has been doing a lot to try to get University President Mark Schlissel and our Board of Regents to do just that. Last year our campaign — like our climate — really heated up, as we increased pressure on the administration to begin the process of divesting from fossil fuels. Our first major action of 2015 was Global Divestment Day on Feb. 13, as part of more than 450 events in 60 countries worldwide! We don’t mean to brag, but we also had one of the largest events, as more than 100 stu- dents came out in single-digit temperatures for a rally in the Diag. On March 16, our Cen- tral Student Government passed a resolution in support of our campaign with a 32-2 vote. On March 27 and 28, we participated in the Climate Teach-in +50, which was the largest climate event ever on campus. We heard from notables like Amy Goodman and Bill McK- ibben telling us why we need to take action on climate change and why divestment is a great way universities can take action. Fast- forward a couple weeks to April at one of the Board of Regents meetings, which we attend every month: We delivered a letter written by some faculty and staff that support divest- ment. The cool part? We had more than 100 other faculty and staff members sign on in support of the letter. These are only the high- lights; we had numerous meetings with fel- low students and numerous faculty and staff members to build up all the momentum we had last year. Finally, some of Schlissel’s advisors, and later Schlissel himself, met with us to dis- cuss divestment. Long story short: They don’t believe we’ve met the three-pronged standard that warrants a committee to sim- ply look at the issue of divestment. Despite opposition from up top, we are not going away because this campaign is so much big- ger than this campus. The divestment move- ment began on college campuses and now has spread all around the world to religious insti- tutions, nonprofit organizations, charitable foundations and even national governments. So far, there have been commitments to divest funds from fossil fuels from more than 2,000 individuals and more than 430 institutions that span 43 different countries. Clearly, we are not alone, as there are still hundreds of divestment campaigns around the world with universities leading the way. Other universities, such as Stanford Uni- versity, the University of Maine and the Uni- versity of California system, have pledged to divest their endowments from fossil fuels. Prominent institutions like the Guardian Media Group, Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund and even the Rockefeller Brothers Fund — history’s original oil barons — have pledged to divest. And even cities like Seattle and Ann Arbor have made commitments. That’s right: Our own city is completely divesting from fossil fuels, but our University won’t even form a committee to look at divestment from coal and oil. OK, so we know that the University has bil- lions of dollars in its endowment — just under $12 billion, to be exact — and because of the secrecy of the endowment, our best guess is that more than a billion of that is invested in fossil fuel companies. But why does divest- ment matter? The core purpose of divestment is to morally, politically and socially bank- rupt the fossil fuel companies. Because of the amount of money they pump into our political system and because our society is so reliant on fossil fuels, these multinational compa- nies have control over our everyday lives and global geopolitics. These companies have enormous assets and divesting from them may partially disrupt their finances, but more importantly, will send a strong signal that the world is standing in solidarity against these companies. We are saying that these companies are uniquely responsible for cli- mate change, and that we agree with people all over the world that action must be taken against climate change. We continue to trumpet this call as every nation in the world meets in Paris in early December for the COP 21. We will stand up to the University and won’t back down until they commit to divest and join the hundreds of other institutions and universities that are on the path to divestment. We are not alone and can join the movement in making fossil fuels history, just like the more than 200 coal plants that have closed since 2008, the Key- stone XL pipeline that still hasn’t been built and the Shell drilling operation abandoned in the Arctic. We are the Leaders and the Best, and we won’t rest until we divest. Written by LSA senior Nicholas Jansen and LSA sophomore Daniel Wu on behalf of the Divest and Invest Campaign. DANIEL WU AND NICHOLAS JANSEN | VIEWPOINT “W hy would I sit around sober when I could sit around fucked up?” A friend posed this ques- tion to me a few days ago as we chatted over lunch. I pondered this thought as I took a sip of my water. I drink water because cof- fee, tea and sugary drinks give me migraines. In fact, I have reached a point in my life where almost anything can trigger a migraine. Choco- late, stress, caffeine, lack of sleep, rain, gluten, you name it; it gives me a migraine. However, the migraine trigger that has affected my life the most is alcohol. Thanks to walking through football Satur- days and watching the “I’m Shmacked” videos that litter YouTube, I’m guessing that we’re all well aware that there’s a lot of underage drink- ing that happens at the University. A lot of it. To be completely candid, throughout my freshman year, I did a lot of drinking. Every party I attended, I would have at least three drinks unless I was a designated “sober sister.” This is a job in which you refrain from drink- ing in order to help out any sorority sisters who may need someone in control and aware of their surroundings to help. Over the summer I began experiencing crippling migraines and very soon started an aggressive diet and lifestyle that focused on decreasing my headaches. This includes the paleo diet, no caffeine, obsession over sleep control and, of course, no alcohol. I spent the month of August nervously antic- ipating my return to Ann Arbor. What would it be like being sober all the time? Would I be able to have fun? Would I feel awkward? What would tailgates be like? I read articles about being sober in college, and I texted everyone I knew who didn’t drink. As it turns out, being sober is not so terrible. In fact, it can be really fun. You remember everything, you feel great the next day, and I take it as an opportunity to eat extra cook- ies because I’m not drinking so many calories. Being sober at parties has been an eye-opening experience for me because it has caused me to realize that we rely way too much on alco- hol to have a good time. We rely too much on alcohol to be able to talk to someone we’re ner- vous around and make new friends. We rely too much on alcohol even just to feel comfortable dancing. Being sober has taught me to embrace my awkward grandma dance moves. Now I just look like a proud grandma on an elevated sur- face at tailgates. I don’t think this means we have to all be sober all the time. It’s OK to occasionally want a drink here and there. I still wish for it some- times, and sometimes I cheat. I also want to say that I’m not here to go into the debate of the current drinking age; that’s a can of worms I’m going to hold off on opening. I’m simply saying that going to a party and realizing how much fun you can have without being “shmacked” can be a very rewarding experience. It forces you to be comfortable in your own skin. Every- one is too self conscious to see what you’re doing anyways. I encourage you to at least entertain the idea of not drinking at the next party you go to. Don’t do it for me, or to be sober to protect your friends. Do it for yourself. Do it so you can wake up the next day feeling great, because you’re hangover free and because you went out of your comfort zone. — Alison Schalop can be reached at aschalop@umich.edu. Do it for yourself Advanced self-marketing ALISON SCHALOP GRACE CAREY