I
f you haven’t yet seen the
eye-opening
documentary
“What the Health,” I highly
recommend you watch it. My
mouth was gaping wide open as I
watched the entire film.
The directors, Kip Andersen
and Keegan Kuhn, reveal that
consuming meat and dairy can
promote chronic illnesses like
cancer, heart disease and diabetes.
They cite the 2015 World Health
Organization
report,
which
declared processed meats (think:
bacon, hot dogs and cold cuts) as
“carcinogenic to humans” and
also claimed dairy consumption
is associated with prostate and
breast cancers. These assertions
serve as the foundation for their
argument that adopting a vegan
diet is optimal.
The
friends
and
family
members who I forced to watch the
documentary immediately wrote
it off as “vegan-propaganda.”
This is undoubtedly true, but I
still found it intriguing. From a
young age, I had always believed
meat, along with a glass of milk,
was an important part of every
meal. I even believed the two food
products were healthy (unless,
say, the meat was deep-fried). The
documentary challenged these
established beliefs. I decided to
do some digging on my own to see
if Andersen and Kuhn were on to
something.
It turns out that the WHO
report categorizing processed
meats
as
carcinogenic
—
effectively
grouping
them
together
with
tobacco
and
asbestos — is misleading. The
WHO panel found “sufficient
evidence”
to
support
the
idea that meat consumption
contributes to cancer, but that
does not mean that meat is even
close to being as carcinogenic as
tobacco or asbestos.
In
fact,
much
of
the
documentary
is
viewed
as
intentionally
misleading.
Several sources, including Time,
have criticized the directors’
exaggerated
claims
and
misrepresentations of science.
As I continued to dig for
information regarding what a
healthy diet looked like, I found
a wealth of information but no
definitive answers. There appears
to be a general consensus that
doctors
are
recommending
patients to consume less meat
along with less sugar, but many
believe that moderate meat and
sugar consumption is not as
harmful as Andersen and Kuhn
depict it.
Andersen and Kuhn discussed
claims of deceptive research by
the meat and dairy industries
in the documentary, and while
researching, I, too, came across
biased scientific studies. The
New York Times broke a story in
2016 when it was discovered that
the sugar industry paid scientists
to downplay the link between
sugar and heart disease. Knowing
this, who are we as consumers
supposed to trust when it comes
to determining what is truly
healthy?
The U.S. government has
attempted to step in to help
consumers make wiser, more
health-conscious decisions, but
even the government’s efforts
aren’t completely unbiased. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture
introduced their Food Guide
Pyramid in 1992 as a nutrition
education tool to recommend
what types of food consumers
should eat every day. The USDA
continues to release updated
tools like MyPyramid and their
most recent MyPlate. Despite
doctors across the country urging
patients to reduce their meat and
dairy consumption, the tools
continue to display meat and
dairy as prominent portions of
every meal. It’s clear to see why
people, including myself, believe
meat and dairy are necessary
ingredients to every meal, and
thus why they are a part of a
balanced diet.
Meat and dairy have been able
to persist as a necessary ingredient
in every meal because of the
industries’ power (read: money)
to influence governmental actors.
The meat industry spent $17.7
million in 2014 on contributions
to various political campaigns
and direct federal government
lobbying to ensure that their
products stay a staple in the
American diet. The Washington
Post reported years ago about
how the USDA attempted to
deemphasize the importance of
meat and dairy when creating a
new nutritional tool for consumers
and how the organization quickly
abandoned the plan after private
sector backlash.
I find it worrisome that
the public can’t even trust the
government
to
produce
an
unbiased and accurate depiction
of what a healthy diet should
look like. If the private sector is
willingly taking part in deception
and
devious
marketing,
the
government should step in to protect
consumers, no matter what losses
may be incurred by producers.
If the government, or any
organization, were to fund a
completely independent series of
studies to decipher what a truly
healthy diet looks like, the obesity
epidemic that plagues the world
could be halted. Research may not
initially lead to a swift change in
consumption, but with the passage
of time, habits are malleable.
Nobody initially thought that
tobacco was harmful to humans,
but
after
extensive
research
and many years of consumer
adjustment, people finally began
changing their habits. I propose
that the same progression can
occur with people’s diets.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, February 22, 2018
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors
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.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Alex Satola
Kevin Sweitzer
Tara Jayaram
Ashley Zhang
Mass shootings have a gender
R
ecently, I have been
feeling a bit stressed
out about my future. As
a second semester
freshman, I already
feel
pressure
to
get good grades,
choose my major
and, not to mention,
get an internship.
However,
in
a
strange
way,
it
has felt good to
be stressed about
these
things
because I feel as if
I am on the way to becoming
an adult.
Then, I saw Kylie Jenner’s
announcement regarding the
birth of her and rapper Travis
Scott’s daughter, Stormi. I also
found out that she had her first
child at 20-years-old, only one
year older than I am.
When
I
first
saw
the
announcement, I was shocked.
Granted, I didn’t tweet about
it and express my anxiety like
so many others did, but I did
frantically ask my friends if they
had heard the news. I wasn’t
judging Jenner for being “too
young” or “too immature” to be
a mother. I freaked out because
I’m only a year younger than
her, yet while I can barely take
care of myself, Jenner manages
to run a $420 million company
and keep up with several other
business
ventures
including
endorsement
deals
and
a
clothing line. And now, she has
a child.
I realize now I shouldn’t
have been so shocked that
someone my age had a baby. I’m
at a point in my life during which
my peers will undoubtedly go
through critical life changes,
both in their professional and
personal lives. I, too, will go
through these changes. It’s
terrifying, but then again, the
prospect of going to college
scared me a year ago, yet I’m
getting by. I think the reason
so many people have something
to say about Jenner’s baby is
not because of some misguided
need to hate on her. It’s because
young people are taught to
compare themselves to others
their age, and when they see
someone who seems to be more
“advanced” than them, they
tend to get frightened.
As
a
college
student,
I constantly see my peers
compare themselves to each
other.
Students
ask
each other questions
not
because
of
a
genuine interest, but
because
they
want
to know how they
compare.
Ranging
from inquiries about
summer
plans
to
GPAs, these questions
students
ask
each
other are a way for
them to gauge where
they fall on their made-up
spectrum of success. This need
to compete is perfectly natural
and important, because it keeps
young adults in touch with
their peers and aware of the
world around them; however,
it’s also important to be aware
of this competitiveness and
keep it in check.
College pits students against
each other as well, with exam
curves
depending
on
how
others’ score and special awards
given to those with high GPAs.
While
healthy
competition
drives students to do their best,
I’ve found students often lose
confidence and motivation to
do well if they feel they are not
as accomplished as their peers.
I sometimes feel this way when
I see how my peers are doing.
Other times, I become scared,
because they seem so ahead of
me in every way. Jenner, while
not my peer, was a person who
made people, including myself,
feel this way.
Seeing Jenner have a baby
made me feel as if I’m suddenly
being forced to grow up and
be an adult. Suddenly, my own
issues about school seemed
juvenile and less monumental
than hers’, as if I was behind
her developmentally because
she’s dealing with being a new
mother while I complain about
my class workload. I don’t know
exactly why I feel this way, but
I think part of it is because I’m
almost the same age as her and
she’s going through perhaps
one of the most monumental
life changes a person can ever
go through.
It doesn’t make sense that
I would suddenly feel this
way, given her many other
achievements. Yet, her wealth
never made me feel as if I had
some “growing up” to do because
I’ve
become
desensitized
to young people with large
amounts of money. There are
so many young YouTubers and
celebrities who show off their
wealth on social media. Yet,
none of these wealthy people
around
my
age,
including
the ones who are married or in
committed
relationships,
have
children.
Non-wealthy young people
are waiting to have children, too;
in January 2016, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention
reported,
“the
mean
age
of
mothers has increased from 2000
to 2014 for all birth orders, with
age at first birth having the largest
increase, up from 24.9 years in
2000 to 26.3 years in 2014.” While
I know there are mothers globally
who are even younger than Jenner,
hearing about her daughter still
shocked me.
Despite
how
surprising
Jenner’s pregnancy was to so many
people, there’s no need for anyone
to feel frightened when they see
Jenner has had a baby at such a
young age, nor is there any reason
to criticize her. She’s an extremely
wealthy celebrity and is therefore
in a completely different position
than most people her age; it doesn’t
make sense for me to compare
my life to her life. In addition, as
someone who is in an awkward
transitional phase in which I feel
like neither a child nor an adult, I
believe it’s important for people my
age to remember there’s no need
for them to compare their lives to
anyone else’s, much less to that of
a beauty mogul with a multimillion
dollar empire. Everyone progresses
to different stages of their lives at
different rates, and that’s okay.
There’s no need for people
to feel as if they need to compare
themselves to their peers at all,
either. Competition should be
healthy and meant to motivate
everyone to succeed, not just those
who have the highest GPAs or
the most impressive résumé. As
young adults, we need to focus on
ourselves and how we are doing
instead of trying to outcompete
our peers. Jenner is not our peer,
and with this in mind, we should
leave her alone.
Thoughts on Kylie Jenner’s baby
What’s in a healthy diet?
ERIK NESLER | COLUMN
Erik Nesler can be reached at
egnesler@umich.edu.
Krystal Hur can be reached at
kryshur@umich.edu.
W
hen I first decided
to
write
columns
on mental health, I
knew I would eventually
have to write one in
the wake of a mass
shooting. In fact, it was
the only column I was
positive I would write,
because, like clockwork,
mass
shootings
keep
happening
again
and
again.
Last
year
in
America, a mass shooting
—
which
is
defined
as an attack in which
four or more people are killed
indiscriminately in a public space
— occurred about once per month.
In fact, the two deadliest mass
shootings in American history
(Las Vegas and Orlando) have
occured during my time as an
undergraduate. This is insane.
What is also egregious is the
use of mental illness as a scapegoat
by the National Rifle Association
and their political vassals. People
with mental health problems are
easy targets for those looking to
wash their hands of blood without
actually doing anything.
According to the Scattergood
Foundation, one of the most
common stereotypes about people
with mental health problems
are that they are dangerous
and unpredictable. Per a 2006
national survey, 60 percent of
respondents thought a person
with schizophrenia was likely
to be violent, and 32 percent of
respondents thought the same
of those with major depression.
This, of course, flies in the face
of
reality;
Jessica
Henderson
Daniel, president of the American
Psychological Association, said in a
statement after last week’s shooting
that, “it is important to remember
that only a very small percentage
of violent acts are committed by
people who are diagnosed with, or
in treatment for, mental illness.”
Despite
this,
President
Donald Trump and the NRA have
repeatedly
associated
mental
health
problems
with
mass
shooters. For instance, in the
aftermath of the recent shooting at
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High
School, the President tweeted:
“So many signs that the Florida
shooter was mentally disturbed,
even expelled from school for bad
and erratic behavior. Neighbors
and classmates knew he was a
big problem. Must always report
such instances to
authorities,
again
and again!” Mind
you, as a candidate,
Trump
once
boisterously claimed
that he could shoot
someone and not
lose any voters.
Like with most
of the president’s
sage
tweets,
my
eyes
rolled.
First
off, the FBI received a tip in
January concerning the Parkland
shooter. Furthermore, when law
enforcement is called to the scene
of an incident where someone is
having a mental health crisis, that
person, usually a person of color,
may well end up being shot, as
was the case of Quintonio LeGrier
in Chicago and Bobby Bennett in
Dallas. Not surprisingly, the victim
has a mental health problem in 25
percent of all police shootings in
the U.S.
But I digress. If Trump, the
Republican Party and the gun lobby
want to talk about populations who
pose a greater risk of committing a
mass shooting, then we need to talk
about men, not people with mental
health problems.
You have probably heard the
term “toxic masculinity,” which is
the harmful manifestation of social
norms associated with masculinity,
such as aggression and entitlement.
Mass shootings are a particularly
bloody manifestation, but toxic
masculinity also drives sexual and
domestic violence. For instance,
classmates of the Parkland shooter
say that he stalked and abused his
ex-girlfriend and was expelled for
fighting her new boyfriend.
If you want to know more of
what I mean, look no further than
the final video manifesto posted by
the shooter who killed six people
near the University of California,
Santa Barbara, in 2014.
“For the last eight years of my
life, since I hit puberty,” the shooter
says, “I’ve been forced to endure an
existence of loneliness, rejection
and unfulfilled desires, all because
girls have never been attracted to
me. Girls gave their affection and
sex and love to other men, never
to me.”
The transcript of the video
is hard to read but the shooter’s
message is crystal clear: He
believed that he was entitled to
have women fulfill his desires.
What was he to do when his
entitlement was denied, something
he considered “a crime I can never
get over?” The answer was, of
course, violence.
The dangerous sense of male
entitlement these shooters feel
and the wrath that consumes
them when they feel rejected
extends beyond women’s bodies.
In 1991, a former postal worker
killed three people in Royal Oak,
Michigan because he felt entitled
to a job. In fact, approximately 30
percent of mass shootings occur
in the workplace, usually by angry
or recently fired male employees.
Whatever these men feel entitled
to, they use extreme acts of violence
as retribution once they perceive
themselves to have been slighted.
Toxic masculinity is learned.
About five years ago, I had a
jarring conversation with an 11-
or 12-year-old boy and his father,
who had gone through a rocky
divorce. During our conversation,
the boy casually asserted, to his
father’s approval, that all women
were deceitful and out to trick
men. Here was this young boy
who
was
already
harboring
sexist
sentiments
because
of
his disgruntled father, who was
probably scorned because the
divorce challenged his perceived
entitlement over his ex-wife. I am
not saying that this boy will grow
up to be a mass shooter, just that
one does not have to have a mental
health problem to fall under the
influence of toxic masculinity.
Discourse on mental health in
the wake of mass shootings is just
a red herring in a sea of bullets. In
order to create a truly safer country,
we need gun control as well as
a movement to challenge and
empower men to unlearn what we
have been taught about aggression,
violence and entitlement. Imagine if
the president had tweeted that toxic
masculinity is a national problem in
the aftermath of this latest school
shooting. Perhaps that will happen
when our president is a woman.
Ali Safawi can be reached at
asafawi@umich.edu.
ALI SAFAWI | COLUMN
KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN
MICHELLE SHENG | MICHELLE CAN BE REACHED AT SHENGMI@UMICH.EDU
ALI SAFAWI
KRYSTAL
HUR