As Thanksgiving quickly rushes upon us, it's hard to escape advertising. If there's one thing you can count on more than Christmas displays starting earlier than you're prepared for, it's the inundation of commercialism this time of year. Now, don't misunderstand me - I know that retail is part of economic recovery. I'll even admit that I enjoy window shopping and checking out sales. But something strikes me as off when the holiday is almost absorbed by talk of sales and plans of hitting the stores.
Now, who doesn't like saving money? And there are certainly some good deals to be had, especially by those who start early. There's even a website devoted to finding Black Friday-specific deals. I remember when I was growing up hearing tales of people getting in line for 6am store openings, with the line wrapped around the building. That was early then, but no longer. The big news this year was that several retailers are starting their Black Friday sales even earlier than usual - Thursday evening! Even more are opening at midnight.
It's not surprising that people are planning their shopping, given that there seem to be so many tricks to finding the best deal - most of which need preparation besides a warm jacket, thermos of coffee, and sturdy shoes while you wait for the store to open.
So, as we were trying to get a jump on our holiday shopping, I started thinking about all of this. A few days later, looking at blogs recommended by other blogs that I read, I stumbled across this gem. Gretchen eloquently captures my concern: what about the workers? It's great that people don't have Thanksgiving evening plans can get their shopping in at a time many (myself included) prefer to 5am. but to do so requires thousands of store employees to also give up part of their holiday evening - one of the few that retail employees have historically had. While there may be some who are willing and eager to get in extra hours this way, there are surely others for whom it's just something they have to do.
I worked at Toys R Us in my younger days - it was an especially great job while in college because the store was happy to hire me when I got home from fall finals and "release me" from employment a few weeks later when I had to go to back to school. Truly a mutually beneficial agreement. I don't recall that I ever worked Thanksgiving weekend although I had considered asking if I could a few times. But, I do know this. The seasonal rules were quite clear: everybody worked Christmas Eve, and everyone worked either New Year's Eve or New Year's Day. I am fairly certain that Black Friday was not an option either. So, then, more generally, what about those pre-8am/overnight holiday hours? Undoubtedly there's some negotiation, but it's likely some employees -whether they be cashiers, warehouse, custodial, sales folk, and managers- are being asked to give up or rearrange some of their family time. Just so the rest of us can start our shopping a bit earlier.
Well, while you're out there, remember to remain civil. It's a bit maddening being out in the crowds, but a smile and positive attitude go a long way to helping to keep the madness at bay.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
On Food and Government
At times, I find myself incredibly torn between wanting smaller government and realizing that it seems that we can't trust individuals/corporations/trade associations to police themselves and look out for the public well-being. Chemical and food safety is perhaps the biggest area where these feelings clash.
The simple fact is that there is a lack of education and a lack of knowledge about the safety of things we expose our bodies to - cancer studies show that lifestyle (diet and exercise) and environmental exposures present the greatest risk. Why do I separate education and knowledge? There are a surprising number of substances that we (American industry) put into food and personal care products. This isn't something that can really be blamed on the consumer - how does one know whether calcium caseinate is safe and proven?
Part of the issue here is that Americans, unlike Europeans, take a "safe unless proven otherwise" approach to additives. It is only recently that there's been any agreement (and acknowledgement) that BPA is dangerous, for example. I don't think it was ever added to products maliciously; we simply didn't know better. Now that we do, there is still an education/knowledge gap - where might you be exposed to BPA and is there a safe level of exposure? A common source is canned food liners - in nearly every canned good. Eating only organic food won't protect you here; most of those manufacturers use the substance to line cans and prevent rust and other side effects of food being directly in contact with metal for an extended time (years). (By the way, you'll also be exposed be handling thermal paper receipts, drinking canned soda, and possibly even recycled paper products due to those pesky receipts.)
Then we have the issue of education and access. Now, this is a tricky one to overcome. We know that obesity tends to be higher in poorer populations in the U.S. and that this is largely driven by diet. There is an impression that foods that are not nutritionally-dense (soda, candy, chips) or are processed are cheaper than real, whole, healthy foods. To some extent, there appears to be truth to this. Even more of a problem is that many of the people in the poorer urban environments (and, indeed, those upper-middle suburbs, too) aren't sitting down to a home-cooked family dinner. They're eating food that's fast and convenient, and these foods tend to be less than healthy. Unfortunately, they do tend to be tasty and addictive. This is a complicated issue to solve. We need to teach people about healthier (yet still tasty) choices, and we need to get the food to them. I'm in favor of letting the consumers drive the market and have a real push toward "better" foods - but the consumers can't do that if they don't know how to read food labels to identify what those better choices are. (And they won't do it if there aren't reasonable, affordable choices available to them.) Is HFCS something to be avoided or "no different than regular sugar" and still something to be avoided? ;-) Indeed, that last one is a trick question - it's hard to be educated on "facts" when it's not clear what the facts actually are.
All of that commentary is before even getting into the issue of the national food market (as opposed to local food) and farm subsidies. But I want to point out two food-related issues that you should learn more about and may consider writing your representatives in Washington about:
2012 Farm Bill may be decided by the super-committee without any floor debate!
This is a very important bill that comes up for renewal/revision every five years that really shapes the policies that have a direct effect on what food gets to your table. Whatever you believe about farm subsidies, food stamps, and nutrition programs, how comfortable are you in the idea that this legislation may just be folded into the budget discussions, rather than being addressed on its own, with debate and detail?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/the-secret-farm-bill/
http://www.grist.org/farm-bill/2011-11-15-the-farm-bill-the-view-from-the-grassroots
USDA school lunch proposals
We should all be aware that school lunch is a vital part of a child's diet. For some kids living in poverty, it's their only meal. For many kids who buy lunch, it's an opportunity to continue education onto the plate. the current school lunch guidelines have been in place for 15 years. In light of epidemic childhood obesity, concerned people have been speaking out about the quality of school lunches. Yes, it's an "Obama administration proposal." Frankly, that doesn't affect my opinion of whether or not it's a good proposal; I'm more interested in what it actually is trying to accomplish. I confess, this one does start ringing that bell of local versus national government. It's tempered by wanting all students to have access to healthier food, though.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9R18F800.htm
Chew on those for a while, friends.
The simple fact is that there is a lack of education and a lack of knowledge about the safety of things we expose our bodies to - cancer studies show that lifestyle (diet and exercise) and environmental exposures present the greatest risk. Why do I separate education and knowledge? There are a surprising number of substances that we (American industry) put into food and personal care products. This isn't something that can really be blamed on the consumer - how does one know whether calcium caseinate is safe and proven?
Part of the issue here is that Americans, unlike Europeans, take a "safe unless proven otherwise" approach to additives. It is only recently that there's been any agreement (and acknowledgement) that BPA is dangerous, for example. I don't think it was ever added to products maliciously; we simply didn't know better. Now that we do, there is still an education/knowledge gap - where might you be exposed to BPA and is there a safe level of exposure? A common source is canned food liners - in nearly every canned good. Eating only organic food won't protect you here; most of those manufacturers use the substance to line cans and prevent rust and other side effects of food being directly in contact with metal for an extended time (years). (By the way, you'll also be exposed be handling thermal paper receipts, drinking canned soda, and possibly even recycled paper products due to those pesky receipts.)
Then we have the issue of education and access. Now, this is a tricky one to overcome. We know that obesity tends to be higher in poorer populations in the U.S. and that this is largely driven by diet. There is an impression that foods that are not nutritionally-dense (soda, candy, chips) or are processed are cheaper than real, whole, healthy foods. To some extent, there appears to be truth to this. Even more of a problem is that many of the people in the poorer urban environments (and, indeed, those upper-middle suburbs, too) aren't sitting down to a home-cooked family dinner. They're eating food that's fast and convenient, and these foods tend to be less than healthy. Unfortunately, they do tend to be tasty and addictive. This is a complicated issue to solve. We need to teach people about healthier (yet still tasty) choices, and we need to get the food to them. I'm in favor of letting the consumers drive the market and have a real push toward "better" foods - but the consumers can't do that if they don't know how to read food labels to identify what those better choices are. (And they won't do it if there aren't reasonable, affordable choices available to them.) Is HFCS something to be avoided or "no different than regular sugar" and still something to be avoided? ;-) Indeed, that last one is a trick question - it's hard to be educated on "facts" when it's not clear what the facts actually are.
All of that commentary is before even getting into the issue of the national food market (as opposed to local food) and farm subsidies. But I want to point out two food-related issues that you should learn more about and may consider writing your representatives in Washington about:
2012 Farm Bill may be decided by the super-committee without any floor debate!
This is a very important bill that comes up for renewal/revision every five years that really shapes the policies that have a direct effect on what food gets to your table. Whatever you believe about farm subsidies, food stamps, and nutrition programs, how comfortable are you in the idea that this legislation may just be folded into the budget discussions, rather than being addressed on its own, with debate and detail?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/the-secret-farm-bill/
http://www.grist.org/farm-bill/2011-11-15-the-farm-bill-the-view-from-the-grassroots
USDA school lunch proposals
We should all be aware that school lunch is a vital part of a child's diet. For some kids living in poverty, it's their only meal. For many kids who buy lunch, it's an opportunity to continue education onto the plate. the current school lunch guidelines have been in place for 15 years. In light of epidemic childhood obesity, concerned people have been speaking out about the quality of school lunches. Yes, it's an "Obama administration proposal." Frankly, that doesn't affect my opinion of whether or not it's a good proposal; I'm more interested in what it actually is trying to accomplish. I confess, this one does start ringing that bell of local versus national government. It's tempered by wanting all students to have access to healthier food, though.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9R18F800.htm
Chew on those for a while, friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)