Opinion
SHOHAM GEVA
EDITOR IN CHIEF
CLAIRE BRYAN
AND REGAN DETWILER
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
LAURA SCHINAGLE
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, March 17, 2016
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan,
Jeremy Kaplan, Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala,
Kit Maher, Madeline Nowicki, Anna Polumbo-Levy,
Jason Rowland, Lauren Schandevel, Melissa Scholke,
Kevin Sweitzer, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung,
Stephanie Trierweiler, Hunter Zhao
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
— Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, in response to a question about
judicial activism at his 1995 confirmation hearing.
“
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
Federal judges do not have roving
commissions to solve societal problems. The
role of the court is to apply law to the facts
of the case before it … not to legislate, not to
arrogate to itself the executive power, not to
hand down advisory opinion on
the issues of the day.
T
he last time I ate fast food
was in November. I watched
the employee at Wendy’s
pour
frozen,
asymmetrically
shaped chicken
nuggets
into
the deep fryer
and my stomach
churned.
I
observed another
employee
emerge from a
dark, mysterious
area in the back
of the kitchen
with bundles of
buns,
burgers
and
lettuce.
The smell of grease and salt filled
my nostrils as I watch french fries
unthaw in the deep fryer. I gently
rested my hand on my stomach,
offering an apology to my body for
waiting so late to eat that fast food
restaurants were our only choices for
nourishment.
I apologized to the chickens
that were likely mistreated and fed
with hormones or unnatural foods
because people like me demanded
it — one in three American children
and adolescents receive a portion
of their daily intake of calories
from
fast
food.
Most
people
would assume that economically
disadvantaged groups make up
the
majority
of
this
statistic,
but researchers have noted that
middle-class people are frequent
fast food consumers, too — because
this demographic is made up of
people with increasingly busy lives
who are often pressed for time, they
appreciate the convenience of drive-
through
windows.
Additionally,
most food stamp programs do not
permit fast food orders, though
this is circumstantial on a state-
by-state basis, varying by a state’s
participation in the Restaurant
Meal Program.
Economics
are
at
the
core
of
food
sustainability
issues.
Nutritionally deprived foods are
produced with less input costs and
in higher quantities. Nourishing
foods that are recommended by
the Food and Drug Administration
dietary guidelines, such as fruits,
vegetables and proteins are more
expensive to buy. Population studies
have demonstrated the disparities
between food and social class:
According to the American Journal
of Clinical Nutrition, food-desert
and
food-insecure
communities,
which are often low-income, tend to
consume unbalanced diets.
Food insecurity is not a natural
construct; it was made by design.
Certain communities are restricted
geographically and economically
from attaining the four dimensions
of
food
security:
availability
(sufficient amount), access (physical,
social and economic ability to
obtain), food utilization (nutritious
and safe food that meets dietary
needs)
and
stability
(available
consistently
over
time).
People
should not have to choose between
purchasing fruits and vegetables
or a full meal at McDonald’s, yet
millions of Americans must make
these decisions daily. Fresh and
nutritious
goods
have
become
luxury goods, which means it is
“economic elitism” to advocate
widespread adoption of nutritious
diets without also addressing issues
of affordability.
Even though economics are clearly
at play here, lower-income families
could also be consuming fast food
simply because, just like missions of
other Americans, they like the taste
of sugary, fatty and processed foods.
This is just as legitimate a reason
to consume fast food as potential
economic advantages.
The
industrialization
and
commodification of food, paired
with
the
on-the-go
American
lifestyle, has also led to an increase
in engineered food in general,
which
ultimately
impacts
our
health, nutrition and our lifestyles.
These updates in technology and
legislation
have
permitted
the
use of cheaper products, such
as refined wheat, high-fructose
corn syrup and artificial meats,
which
have
proliferated
store
shelves, commercial restaurants
and
school
cafeterias.
Studies
have shown that these foods are
linked the exponential growth of
health complications Americans
have. A large percentage of our
foods are injected with fat, sugar
and artificial preservatives that
some scientists argue override our
appetite-suppressing
hormones,
stimulating an addiction to food
that can ultimately lead to obesity.
A
number
of
consumers,
filmmakers and legislators have
challenged
the
way
companies
process our food. But the food
industry’s profits are so deeply
entrenched
in
inexpensive
production
strategies
that
any
transformative
change
seems
virtually impossible.
Food sustainability seems to be a
less politicized issue to rally around,
yet food industry lobbyists still
strong-arm politicians in a way that
perpetuates inequities in the types
of food available in communities.
Eating has henceforth become a
political act.
Though the food industry may
not modify its practices to be more
sustainable and consumer-friendly
in the short term, consumers have
demanded to know what is in the
products they are eating. Consumer
choice plays a large role in ensuring
a sustainable food system for all,
but in order for consumers to make
informed choices, consumers need
to be informed and educated about
the foods available to them. Food
education, therefore, is an important
part of developing a knowledgeable
consumer base.
The language about food has
changed just as quickly as seasonal
fashions. Labels such as non-GMOs,
natural,
all-natural,
gluten-free,
organic,
farm-raised,
free-range,
refined, enriched and fortified are
just a few of the many markers
on store-bought products used to
both entice and inform consumers
of what ingredients comprise the
final product. This jargon can be
bewildering, but it can also serve as
a key element in building consumer
efficacy in their food choices.
The distinction between “healthy”
and “nutritious” is just as important
in determining sustainability. Food
itself cannot be “healthy.” We as
humans can be healthy, but food
is nutritious. “Healthy” describes
overall well-being, whether that
is in food or finances. “Nutritious”
describes a food or drink that
provides nutrients.
Adopting a nutritious diet has to
begin early. Children are not born
liking avocados or donuts. What
adults feed their children shapes
children’s taste buds and their
tolerance of specific foods. The
food industry uses advertisements
to entice children to eat sugary
cereals, cinnamon rolls and candy.
Parents have to be autonomous
in educating their children about
the variety of foods available that
best support our bodies’ needs. We
must not jeopardize the present and
future needs of generations to come.
American
food
production
practices
obstruct
food
sustainability, an issue that impacts
the American political and social
landscape. The demand for food
systems to adjust their practices is
an immediate need — by 2050, the
world will need to feed 9.7 billion
people, evoking a consequential
human and environmental cost on
our Earth’s resources.
Food sustainability is not just
about food. It intersects with
land use, housing, poverty and
democracy. Legislatures need to
be more proactive in promoting
food sustainability by addressing
issues of nutritious food access
and production. The agriculture
industry has a three-part challenge,
as SciDevNet outlines: “to increase
agricultural production, especially
of nutrient-rich foods, to do so in
ways which reduce inequality and
to reverse and prevent resource
degradation.”
—Alexis Farmer can be reached
at akfarmer@umich.edu.
Food politics
ALEXIS
FARMER
FROM THE DAILY
Much needed change to MIP law
The Michigan House must support fairer punishments
O
n March 3, the Michigan Senate passed a bill that would reduce
the consequences of a minor in possession charge. If approved
by the state House, the bill would make an MIP a civil infraction
for the first offense, becoming a misdemeanor only in subsequent
offenses, meaning a first offense would not go on the offender’s record.
Fines would also be lighter for MIP offenses under the new law. While
further evaluation of the laws regulating the drinking age itself, as
well as the implementation of such laws may be warranted on both the
state and national level, this new state law concerning consequences is
a much needed change. The new law can potentially serve to lessen the
disproportionate impact of MIP laws on underprivileged minority groups
and will help create a safer climate around drinking.
The penalties for receiving MIPs under
the current law are too harsh. As it stands,
anyone under the legal drinking age of 21
found in possession of or attempting to buy
alcohol can be charged with a misdemeanor,
and can receive up to a $100 fine with
probation. A second violation includes up to
a $200 dollar fine and possible jail time of up
to 30 days if the party violates probation. A
third violation may have consequences of a
fine up to $500 and possible imprisonment
of no more than 60 days if the charged party
violates probation.
Lessening
the
severity
of
overall
punishment along with reducing fines for
MIPs can lessen the disproportionate effect
laws like this have on underprivileged
minorities. Minorities are more likely to have
lower socioeconomic status, which puts them
at a disadvantage in the legal system. While
students with access to financial resources
may easily pay any fines incurred and hire
lawyers who will help them avoid jail time,
those with lower socioeconomic status face a
more significant financial burden to cover the
cost of fines, and they may be unable to hire
lawyers all together.
By changing the first offense from a
misdemeanor to a civil infraction, the new
law also lessens the long-term impact of
a first-offense MIP on citizens. Having a
misdemeanor on one’s record after just a first
offense can have consequences that reach far
into the offender’s future beyond fines and
jail time.
Law enforcement already acknowledges that
underage drinking occurs, as evidenced by the
state of Michigan’s medical amnesty law. To
promote safe and responsible practices, the
law exempts those who voluntarily present
themselves or their friend to law enforcement
from
receiving
an
MIP
because
they
demonstrate an alcohol-induced “legitimate
health care concern.” This new law for MIPs
follows in the trend of the medical amnesty law
because it seeks to create a less punishment-
heavy approach toward underage drinking.
This kind of law-enforcement mentality
can serve to make campus climates safer
on college campuses across the state (Just
as the medical amnesty law works toward
this goal, a more affordable fine and lighter
consequences from a first violation could
make students less concerned about trying
to hide their activity.) The medical amnesty
law recognizes that when students are less
likely to hide underage drinking, they are
more likely to seek help when something
goes wrong. This new MIP law could serve a
similar purpose.
And while some may argue a disadvantage
of this law is that the police may be more
willing to write the first citation, this
willingness could actually be an advantage,
serving as a justifiable warning to offenders
who violate the law. Since the first violation
does not result in a misdemeanor and
therefore does not appear on one’s record,
a first offense as a warning wouldn’t be
detrimental
to
the
offender’s
future.
Additionally, law-enforcement officers who
feel more comfortable issuing citations may
be less likely to issue them subjectively. A
police force that is less likely to cherry pick
who gets cited is more likely to garner respect
from citizens.
As
well,
studies
have
shown
legal
punishments
are
not
necessarily
the
determining factor in one’s decision to
commit a crime. Therefore, a more severe
law like the one that currently stands doesn’t
necessarily curb underage drinking. Further,
a weaker law cannot be argued to encourage
underage drinking.
It is all too clear that the MIP law needs to
change, as the current law employs unjustly
harsh punishments. The new legislation has
the potential to lessen the impact of MIPs on
underprivileged minority populations, makes
the important shift from a misdemeanor to a
civil infraction upon the first offense and can
help create a healthier mentality surrounding
underage drinking and relations with law-
enforcement officials.
When someone finds out that I
actually know a thing or two about
baseball and basketball, I get a few
different reactions: “Wow, I didn’t
know you liked sports. That’s
cool,” “It’s funny how into sports
you are; I wouldn’t have guessed”
or “I don’t meet a lot of girls who
like to watch sports as much as
you do.” And by now, I have come
to largely anticipate an eyebrow
raise or head tilt, as if to say, “Are
you serious?”
Looking back on the countless
times I’ve heard someone utter these
phrases, I realize that the majority
of these comments come from guys.
These comments seem to come from a
widespread disbelief that women can
be, and are, serious sports fans, too.
And it’s not just guys — there have
even been a few times my girlfriends
have made similar comments, as if
they have internalized the notion
that female sports fans have to be
something rare.
My favorite comment came from
my one of my closest girlfriends a
while back: “Guys think it’s cool
when a girl is into sports.” She
said this as though one of the
reasons I should like sports is
so guys will think I’m cool. And
while not everyone has reacted
in these ways, comments like this
one are among the most common
I receive from people outside my
own family. These reactions speak
to the ways in which we have
gendered sports to the point that
female sports fans seem to exist as
anomalies.
When I was younger, I was
content knowing people thought
it was exceptionally cool that I, as
a girl, liked sports. But then it got
to be a chore, constantly explaining
why I got into sports (“because
your mom certainly was never this
into sports”) or if I just liked the
San Francisco Giants after they
won their first championship, even
though they’re my home team. And
it got tiresome trying to explain
that I liked sports because I was
interested in sports and I wasn’t
trying to impress anyone. And after
a while, I realized it shouldn’t be
considered cool that a girl likes
sports. It should be considered
normal. But the sad reality is that
it isn’t, because many people — at
least many I’ve talked to — think
that female sports fans are few and
far between.
Contrary to this popular notion,
women attend professional sports
games in significant numbers. A
study conducted by Scarborough
Sports Marketing in 2010 showed
that females comprised 41.2 percent
of MLB game attendees and 36.4
percent of NBA game attendees.
What’s more, the study found
that percentages of females who
attended
professional
hockey,
football, soccer and NASCAR events
also hovered at about 40 percent.
Even though I realize I shouldn’t
have to, I still rush to justify why
I’m a fan, explaining how my dad
got me into sports when I was 4
years old and that I’ve loved them
ever since. I even throw in the
name of a player who is no longer
on the team to prove I’m not just a
bandwagon fan; to prove that I’m
not just talking a big talk. But I
need to stop doing this because I
shouldn’t have to prove myself.
Some people are fanatics. They
know every stat, every player
and every rule of the game. I
am definitely not one of those
people, but I feel like I have to
be in order to be considered a
fan at all. But do men hold each
other to these same standards?
Sometimes
I
mistake
two
players, but don’t we all?
I shouldn’t be held to a higher
standard of knowledge than my
male
counterparts,
simply
to
prove that I enjoy sports. Can’t
I ask questions, too, like a guy
would ask his buddy, without it
being chalked up to me being a girl
who doesn’t know as much about
sports as she says?
Women are often met with
similar surprises when they say they
want to be doctors, businesswomen,
scientists or lawyers. And the
reality is that until a few decades
ago these fields, along with sports,
were “boys’ clubs.” For many years,
women weren’t allowed at Ivy
League schools and there were zero
women in many top professions.
And though the numbers have not
changed significantly, they have
changed at least a little for the
better. In 2015, according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, women
comprised 27.9 percent of chief
executives, 34.5 percent of lawyers
and 37.9 percent of physicians and
surgeons combined.
We shouldn’t have to qualify our
answers or choices with reasons
why. As mathematicians or sports
fans, we shouldn’t be treated as
anomalies, or we will always be
anomalies. I shouldn’t have to
prove myself and nor should any
other woman.
No, it’s not cool I like sports. I
just like sports. End of story.
—Anna Polumbo-Levy is a
senior editorial page editor.
Not an anomaly
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY | OP-ED