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

