Photo credit: John Henry Mostyn/Flickr

“It’s no fun being a kid when you’re fat.”

“It’s hard being a little girl when you’re not.”

This is the rhetoric used by the Strong4Life Obesity Campaign recently launched in Georgia.  According an  ABC news article, the campaign uses negative portrayals of obese children to “scare” parents into awareness about the issue.

To view the campaign propaganda, check out the following videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaFhB1fu31k

With childhood obesity on the rise, it seems that Strong4Life is attempting a new angle.  Instead of promulgating positive messages of healthy eating and exercise, the campaign is instead relying on negativity and shame to galvanize parents into action.

In one video, an obese boy looks into the camera and asks, “Mom, why am I fat?”  Such images are startling and heartbreaking…as intended by the campaign organizers.

The recent firestorm of controversy raises two important questions.

First, are these videos effective?  Strong4Life cites that public service announcements which showed the harsh realities of drug-use were highly effective in the 90’s anti-drug campaign.  These recent print ads and videos are similarly eye-catching, but it is still unclear whether the “shock-value” will translate into action.

The rhetoric of the campaign is entirely negative.  “Stop sugarcoating it, Georgia,” the ads demand.  And instead do what?  The Stop4Life campaign does not provide any positive guidance.  It sensationalizes childhood obesity, but once the buzz dies down, will parents imbibe the message and attempt to instill healthier behaviors in their children?

Even if parents do compel their children to lose weight, how feasible is weight-loss and keeping the extra pounds off?  A recent article in the New York Times suggests that once obese, children may be condemned to the “fat trap.” Scientific studies have shown that losing weight is difficult because diets send the body into starvation-mode.  Moreover, keeping the weight off is even harder- the New York Times article chronicles one woman’s effort to maintain her weight-loss which includes exercising every day, counting every calorie, carrying a scale around- even on vacations ‑and still she is overweight.

More importantly, the campaign raises the question of whether it is ethical to use obese children as the spokespeople.  In an era where we try to encourage children to build self-esteem and embrace their bodies, is a campaign where children admit their shame over their condition a step in the right direction?

Although parents and children need to take accountability for their own health, the Strong4Life campaign seems to take it a step too far.  It turns a war against obesity into a war against obese individuals.  It implies that obesity is a shameful condition.  It implies that parents of obese children are entirely at fault.  It accepts the teasing and bullying of obese children without challenging its cruelty.

The videos breed further intolerance toward obese children and their families.  What the campaign, and the larger public, fails to understand is that losing weight for an obese individual is not the same as slimming down for the average person.  We try to lose a pant size.  They try to lose 100 pounds.  We cut fries and soda.  They need to go on medically supervised diets.  An Atlantic Monthly article points out that often, it’s not that obese children and their families don’t care, but rather, that losing weight is a whole different ball game.  Although the campaign is well intentioned, it only further propagates the myth of obesity and weight-loss.

Obese children are already vulnerable and marginalized; we don’t need to put them up on billboards.  There are other ways of calling attention to the issue without using these children as a neon-sign.

Credit: AchillesEffect

Credit: AchillesEffect

The answer may surprise you—or maybe not. They are visual representations of words used in advertisements, where the size of the word correlates to the frequency of its use (more on this, including the original images, here). The top image is for boys, and the bottom for girls. This, of course, brings up the question that is at the root of this matter—what does it mean, in contemporary American society, to be either a boy or a girl?

As a child, my aunt once helped me paint my nail (that’s right, just the one) purple. I didn’t care too much for the feeling of it, and soon afterwards got rid of the nail polish. I’ve never gone back to it, but I’d like to think that’s primarily because I don’t like the feeling of nail polish (and the wonderful acrylic smell doesn’t really help matters). However, I have numerous friends (both female and male) that enjoy painting their nails (albeit in obnoxiously bright colors, which never ceases to annoy me). I’ve never felt that my initial painted nail or the nails of my friends confused us about our gender, but this debate has been brought up recently due to an advertisement in a J. Crew magazine where a woman is painting her son’s toenails pink. Does a boy lose sense of what it means to be a boy if he partakes in activities traditionally held for girls? I don’t think so.

And yet, there is a substantial public opinion that suggests that only men or women take part in certain activities. Like it or not, we begin socializing children from a very early age. How do we balance the normative pressure to be masculine or feminine with ideals of gender equality? Is it fair to tell a boy that he can’t be on the cheerleading team? Is it fair to tell a girl that she can’t wrestle? In a nation where the government emphasizes a sense of equality amongst all human beings, it is ironic that even today, there is still a large divide amongst what it means to be a boy or a girl. What would happen if this weren’t the case? One only has to look to cultures in which there is an inherent advantage to having a son over a daughter, such as in China and India. Currently, both are suffering from large gender disparities, with an overpopulation of men.

If we agree that the 100 million missing women in Asia are a problem, we should be equally concerned about marketing in America that clearly defines gender roles for children here. The stakes are lower, but the principle is the same. And besides, if I (as a boy) want to play with Barbie, shouldn’t that be ok?

My first interaction with this elimination tactic was at my public high school in South Dakota. This is a brutal paraphrasing of what happened, but a mother was concerned that her child had gained weight despite healthy eating habits at home. Therefore, the mother blamed the school, where her child could buy soda and snacks in the vending machines and in the school store. After a tumultuous battle with the school district, the mother’s efforts were successful and no longer could you find ‘unhealthy’ food in school. Gone were the days of buying candy in the school store; gone were the days of purchasing regular chips – not Sun Chips or Chex Mix – with your lunch; and gone were the days of having a soda to get you through that afternoon sleepiness. Instead, we were presented with trail mix, Chex Mix, and sugary sports drinks as our ‘healthy options.’ It’s a far cry to call these alternatives healthy; healthier than before, but still, not truly good for you.

Now, mass recipe re-engineering in companies such as PepsiCo and Kraft is seeking to eliminate the ‘unhealthiness’ before it is presented to consumers. As discussed in this Wall Street Journal article, Frito-Lay (yes, the company that makes your beloved barbecue potato chips, Doritos, and Cheetos, among other snacks) wants to make half of its products with only natural ingredients by year’s end. This means no more artificial ingredients. Their ‘natural’ fleet of chips won’t contain MSG, but rather “molasses, malted barley flour and paprika” the article states.

So, where is there ethics in this? First, I think it should be pointed out that I’m hesitant to call potato chips – natural or not – healthy: yes, they are less bad than before, but it’s a stretch to call them good. By stamping ‘natural’ and ‘better for you’ all over their new products, which Frito-Lay will undoubtedly do in marketing this new fleet, they are giving consumers the idea that eating chips is now good for you. Frito Lay and similar attempts to move to fewer artificial ingredients is relatively better, but it’s not an absolute good. If snackers think they are making a healthy choice by eating these chips, then they are going to think it is ok to eat them when in reality there are much healthier choices. Moreover, these advocates are never going to completely eliminate all ‘unhealthy’ foods and artificial ingredients, so why not take a more realistic approach? And finally, what gives other individuals the right to say what I can and cannot eat? The fundamental problem I have with both scenarios is that instead of promoting healthy eating habits, advocates are seeking to eliminate our options. If they presented me with healthy and unhealthy options but I had proper eating habits in my arsenal, there would be no need for Frito-Lay to tell me their chips are made of ‘real food’ because I would choose the truly healthy option such as an apple.

My belief that people have the right to choose the healthy or unhealthy option was my rationale for my lobbying efforts to get some healthy options put in vending machines on campus. There is no reason to get rid of all the traditional junk food in a vending machine, just have a few healthy options for those who want to make that choice.

Photo Credit: Wrote via Flikr

It seems the latest group targeted by cosmetic marketers is… pre-tween girls. Just when you were starting to get used to the idea that such a term as “tween” exists (that would classify girls aged 9 – 12), there is now a new category brand of consumers, individuals who are so young the best label the marketing world could come up with for them was “pre-tween.” This month, Wal-Mart is launching its beauty cosmetics line GeoGirl targeting girls aged six to ten. The line includes blush, eyeshadow, eyeliner, mascara and lip gloss, and, according to Wal-Mart representatives aims to teach young girls how to maintain beauty care in an environmentally responsible way.

Don’t make me laugh. It is rather absurd to suggest that the best way to teach children environmentally conscientious behavior is to buy them a particular line of cosmetics (“No need to recycle, honey, your eyeshadow is all-natural!”). One wonders if it is actually significantly “green” enough to even be discussing as a legitimate benefit to our environment. Wearing this make-up will prove you care about the environment? Talk about greenwashing. One of the major selling points for GeoGirl is its environmentally safe nature; yet to argue that GeoGirl is worth anyone’s while because it somehow instills a “green attitude” among its users is about as effective as arguing that guns would be a better idea in schools if they were biodegradable. Right.

GeoGirl certainly is a bold move towards socializing girls to base their self-worth in their appearance even earlier than they already experience; but are we really surprised? Girls today are perpetually bombarded with manipulative, negative messages from the media, their peers, and even their parents. It is more than a little nauseating that pre-pubescent girls are now considered a consumer group for cosmetics and not just, say, Johnson & Johnson baby wipes, but you can’t fairly blame Wal-Mart for causing the problem; perpetuating it, yes, but marketing is usually about cashing-in on consumer interest that already exists. Hate the game, not the player.

Wal-Mart’s launching of GeoGirl points to a larger issue in American society: paradoxically, even as we strive towards equality between men and women in schools and in the workplace, women are subjected to intense social pressure to focus most of their time and energy on their appearance. A cosmetics line geared towards eight year-olds, though in itself concerning, is part of a wider picture in which girls are encouraged to be pretty before they are encouraged to be smart or creative or happy. In many cases girls sacrifice their happiness or creativity or intelligence by spending so much time in front of the mirror. The truth is that a cosmetics line like GeoGirl is merely a symptom of the American perception of what it means to be a woman. More important than placing blame on Wal-Mart is addressing the societal forces that engender consumer interests that made it possible for GeoGirl to launch in the first place.

photo credit: Coreena_C via photobucket

On the way to class last week, I stopped to buy an iced coffee. I drank most of it immediately but left some for later so I could get one more caffeine blast before my next class. I took a drink of my hour-old coffee and found it unpleasantly diluted, sour, and room temperature. I was kind of annoyed at myself; I know that coffee loses its piquancy as it sits, and ice melts. There was not really anything else I could have done to prevent this unpalatable experience. According to business owner Michael Dozois, however, his product could remedy this situation.

Dozois’ two-year old business, Névé, has become wildly successful and is now an essential ingredient for any high-profile event. Névé specializes in “luxury ice,” which can, Dozois says, transform the taste of any cocktail. By using reverse osmosis, “aging” the frozen water for 48 hours, and cutting the ice with painstaking detail, Névé ice is able to chill your drink without diluting it. Although the ice has a simple appearance, Dozois insists that it’s the pure contents of the ice that matters.

Brooding about luxury ice feels more than a bit persnickety. I can see that luxury ice, like pâté or a nice bottle of wine, could really be the pièce de résistance for a classy evening. But, seriously? It’s frozen water, for God’s sake.  “Oh yes, last night I was telling Angelina Jolie about my new custom-made Jimmy Choos when none other than Madonna comes to me with a cocktail on the rocks. I told her I couldn’t drink it, though, because of my pure-ice diet. Can you believe she’s never heard of Névé?”

Who could blame my upper-crust alter-ego, though? She’s trying to go pure – consuming only organic foods to be healthy and eco-friendly. To her, ice cubes made in her own freezer are like Wal-Mart brand ice cubes. In his book, The Authenticity Hoax, Andrew Potter argues that this this organic craze is all in vanity – people are competing to be the most natural. He calls this “a positional good, which is valuable precisely because not everyone can have it.” My alter-ego isn’t really taking part in this ultra-cool trend for her health and the environment; she’s proving moral superiority.

However, I believe that this perpetual quest for all that is pure actually accentuates immorality and ignorance. Mass-produced products are cheap and readily available. Most people can’t afford to live in a pure way; people who live and eat organically are automatically separated economically from those who buy food (and bags of ice) at Walmart. Whoever has the most organic, free-trade, home-grown (and consequently more expensive) diet, has an elevated status because this false sense of moral superiority is subconsciously associated with socioeconomic status. Also, people are not always living as pure as they think they are. It takes tremendous amounts of energy to make a hybrid car; is that offset by gas mileage? Kombucha, an expensive “raw” beverage made of fermented tea leaves, has been linked to several deaths; should we still choose that over a Lipton tea? Névé’s filtering process loses eight ounces of water for every single ounce it uses; is the purity worth it?

I probably wouldn’t get an iced coffee poured over Névé ice spheres – at least not for $2.00 – but there is definitely a market out there for this product, and I wouldn’t mind seeing, or rather tasting, the Névé magic. For now, I’ll let nature take its course and try to drink my beverages before the ice has time to melt.