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

