New Anti-Smoking Campaign Could Be Hazardous to Your Health
Patrick Cameron
Raving Can Kill You
Geneviève Pagulayan
Poverty vs. the Olympics
Lorna Brown
On-Calls: "a waste of time"
Cordelia Karpenko
Got Milk? I don't.
Carrie Chau
What's the McDeal with McDonalds?
Anna Kiil
"Everybody In"... the Same Clothes
Tema Smith
Playing God: Should genetically modifying food be within human ability?
Sarah Houghton
See No, Hear No, Teach No Evilution
Victoria Dobbs
Bulimia: Digesting the Facts
Teddy Wakim
New Anti-Smoking Campaign Could Be Hazardous to Your Health
Patrick Cameron
On Wednesday, January 19, 2000, Canada's Minister of Health Alan Rock announced new, supposedly more effective warnings on cigarette packages. The new warnings, unlike the previous text-only warnings introduced in 1994 that take up only about 20% of the cigarette package, would take up fully 60% of the front of new tobacco packages. They would be placed on the "slides" of the packages, the piece the smoker has to flip up to open the box. Currently, these spaces are either empty or contain a calendar. The new warnings, depicting among other things a dead lung, a mouth with gum disease, or simply an empty cradle (a suggestion that cigarette smoking causes Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - a syndrome whose existence has been called into question by several scientists over the past decade).
Rock said that the warnings would help discourage adolescents from taking up and continuing to smoke. The images were picked based on the results of focus groups conducted in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa.
One female OAC student who describes herself as a "casual smoker" participated in one such of the focus group last school year. "I was standing on the sidewalk in front of school smoking and a woman came by and gave me a business card." She and several other Jarvis students were told to come to an office building north of Bay and Bloor to help with the study. her and about twenty other smokers were paid $50 each and shown different proposals for pictorial warnings, then split up into small groups where they discussed which warnings were effective. The group seemed to find the warning which pictured a mouth with gum disease the most effective, and this image will be put on cartons if the warnings are approved. Two designs that she was shown that did not make the final cut were one comparing a healthy lung to a diseased one and a warning with an image of a child smoking.
Certainly, new measures are desperately needed to curb teen smoking. A recent study done by the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit at the University of Toronto revealed that, from 1998 to 1999, adult smoking has decreased from 27% to 21%, but the number of students in grades 7 to OAC who have smoked in the past year has risen - from 22% to 28%. But will the bigger warnings stop teen smokers? "I wouldn't ignore them, but then again I wouldn't really change my smoking habits that much either," said a female Grade 12 student, a regular smoker who wished to remain anonymous, "I wouldn't ignore [the warnings], but I wouldn't listen to them either - they'd be like a smack in the face every time you saw a pack of cigarettes."
Peter O'Sullivan, an OAC student and a regular smoker, only found the warning showing diseased gums disturbing. "That one doesn't scare me, neither, does that one…" he says, pointing nonchalantly at warnings such as 'Each Year, The Equivalent Of A Small Town Dies From Tobacco Use' and 'Tobacco Smoke Hurts Babies'. He is, however, unconvinced that he can get gum disease from smoking, let alone that he could become ill from smoking. "I even read a study saying that smoking improves short-term memory, so why would I want to quit?" he says. "That one's really gross, though," says a girl sitting next to him, who describes herself as a "very casual smoker", pointing to a warning with an image of a woman inhaling a cigarette through a hole in her throat.
Like many smokers, Liam Musgrave of Grade 12, when shown the proposed warnings, said only that he's already addicted, and the warnings won't make any difference.
There seems to be no real evidence that Mr. Rock's plan will work, judging from the failure of the previous text-only warnings and my own random survey of Jarvis smokers. Other methods of preventing teen smoking have already proven themselves, however. The State Of Florida launched the "<a href="www.wholetruth.com" target="new">Truth Brand</a>" last year, a series of billboard, TV and print advertisements with the expressed purpose of making cigarette smoking as un-cool as possible. One billboard ad shows an old man, cigarette in hand, lying by a pool in a zebra-skin bikini, with a caption reading "No Wonder Tobacco Executives Hide Behind Sexy Models" and, at the bottom: "WARNING: Their brand is lies. Our brand is TRUTH." In a TV ad, two friends, Jared and Josh, make a crank call to a tobacco advertising agency and harass a sales rep over whether or not smoking will make them look older. Another ad, a spoof of award ceremonies such as The Academy Awards, dubbed the 125th Annual Demon Awards, depicts an award show "coming to you live from downtown Haiti" with shots of Hitler and Mussolini, clapping and waving to the camera, in the audience. A man takes the podium and announces the nominees for the Most Deaths In A Single Year award - suicide, illicit drugs, tobacco, and murder. "And the winner is," announces the host, "TOBACCO?" A man takes the stage, waves his trophy in the air and says "I want to thank all you smokers out there - this one's for you." Ten months after the campaign was launched, smoking in Florida's schools has gone down 19%.
Florida had launched a sister-program to the Truth campaign, called Students Working Against Tobacco. The S.W.A.T. mission statement reads: "SWAT dukes it out against some of the toughest enemies around: Big Tobacco and its merry band of supporters. They've been beating up our generation by getting us hooked on a lame addiction that kills. All because they're looking to replace the millions of smokers that die each year. Help us defend our generation from their lies and manipulations." By becoming a member of S.W.A.T., you get a S.W.A.T. card, similar to an SPC card, awarding discounts such as 50 cents off a coffee at Dunkin' Donuts. It sounds corny, but if giving confused teenagers a sense of identity worked for the skinheads, it can work for the anti-smoking campaign.
The reason the Truth campaign succeeds is because it is cool, and it talks to teens at their level, instead of talking down to them. Compare this with the Canadian government's current ad campaign, showing a woman whose voice box has been removed but still smokes. This ad has failed because it goes after maximum shock-value, alienating the audience.
The average age that the smokers I spoke with started smoking was ages 14-15. Though most of them did see the pack of cigarettes from which their first cigarette came from, and therefore would have been able to see the warnings if they had been around when they first smoked, none say that seeing the new warnings would have changed their decision to inhale that first breath of tobacco smoke. As the OAC student who participated in the focus group said, "[my first cigarette] was out of curiosity, and not much else. I already knew it was unhealthy." Rock's plan seems confused - if the warnings cannot stop first-time smokers from taking up the habit, and cannot stop current smokers from kicking the habit, then what good does it do?
The reason campaigns such as the Truth campaign succeed while Canada's own anti-smoking campaign fails is that it fails to address the main reason so many teens are attracted to smoking: the coolness factor. Years of seeing heroes of action movies lighting a cigarette after, for example, blowing up the bad guy's secret base and seeing the Marlboro man (now just a generic cowboy due to new U.S. government regulations), cigarette dangling from mouth, herding cattle or participating in one of several "tough" activities, contribute to a teen's impression that smoking is a rebellious and different thing to do. By the time teens realize that they've been had by tobacco manufacturers, they're already addicted to smoking or consider it something that defines their personality. Educators and school board officials add fuel to this fire by banning smoking on school property - reinforcing the idea that by smoking, teens are being rebellious and going against the status quo. The new warnings talk down to teenagers, like a parent scolding them for staying out past their curfew. It is obvious that until Health Canada learns to stop preaching and start talking to teens at their own level, teen smoking will continue to be one of the greatest social issues facing Canadian youth.
Raving Can Kill You
Geneviève Pagulayan
Approximately 10 000 kids in Toronto ranging from 13 years of age to their mid-twenties are catching the craze every weekend: raves. Though they have just surfaced onto mainstream culture, they have been going on in Toronto for the past decade and a half.
For the uninformed, raves are weekly all-night electronic music dance parties which are described by police, social workers and politicians as one of the fastest growing and worrisome social trends among teens.
Are teens aware of the harm raving could cause them? Could going to parties, using illegal substances, and dancing until the break of dawn possibly be bad for you? "Yes," states an OAC Jarvisite, "but it's worth it. I'd rather live a happy short life than a crappy long one."
"I go to raves because it's fun...the atmosphere is great! Everyone is having fun and people dress up for them," said Amanda Finkle, another OAC Jarvis student.
When asked, many adolescents comment on the great atmosphere. Everyone seems happy, like a big family -- everyone is accepted. "[Raves] are a place where you are with a family of friends which get together to bond and unite without prejudice to one another," states Adrian Segeren, 18. "It's a place where frowns become smiles, where smiles become truth...a place where plush toys revive and handshakes become hugs."
This is one of the reasons why the rave scene is so popular: the outcasts of the outcasts can be loved. Ravers who have the fattest pants, the best moves, do the most drugs, and have the longest partying history tend to be the most popular -- it does not take much to feel special there. Everyone likes to feel special, to feel wanted, and raves are a where many turn to achieve this.
Despite the rave philosophy, PLUR (Peace, Love, Unity, and Respect), there is somewhat of a hierarchical and elitist society that exists. "You dance well, you get noticed," says Jay, a former Jarvisite. "At a party if someone isn't dressed like a raver, a lot of people feel they don't belong there. I used to look at someone's fat pants and automatically assume that I had something in common with them."
However, there are reasons why raves are dangerous: The popularity. The "love" can suck people into the scene. It can almost be compared to being in a gang. "Drugs themselves make this 'love' even more apparent," notes Paul, 22.
Substance abuse is another reason why raves are popular. "[I went to parties]...for the music and to escape from reality. I don't go anymore. I went because I wanted to have fun, to take drugs, to get high," admits a former raver, also a Jarvisite.
8 out of 10 Jarvis students surveyed lately who went to raves admitted that they went under the influence of drugs. One reason for this is that drugs are more available at raves than at school or at work. Upon walking into a rave, one might be offered drugs (such as "e," "crystal," "k" or "acid") several times in the first half-hour.
"I think people use e because it makes you feel good. I did it the first time out of pure curiosity, because it sounded interesting," states Paul. The effects of ecstasy that attract people to use it are entactongenesis (the "at peace" or "happy" feeling one may feel within), empathogenesis (the close feeling to others), and enhancement of the senses.
"People told me that e doesn't cause brain damages, that it's safe. That's why I tried it," says a 15 year-old raver. This is not true; ecstasy may cause permanent neurological damage as well as insomnia, convulsions, learning inability and memory loss. It weakens the immune system and lowers the levels of serotonin in the brain and spine, which is a fluid that aids in balancing out moods. The lowering of these levels results in depression and anxiety. Metham-phetamine (also known as "crystal," "jib" or "meth") is the drug that ecstasy (methylenemethamphetamine) branched out from. It is highly addictive both psychologically and physically, and very popular at raves because it keeps people up on their feet, and speeds them up. "It's like being really awake and nervous at the same time," explains Jay.
"[When the effects of crystal wore off] I felt hungry, then nauseous...very jittery and fidgety and my teeth were grinding...and when I finally came down, I was exhausted," said Jaime, 18. Upon stopping abruptly, the user goes through withdrawal sickness, feeling extremely tired, ravenously hungry, irritable and depressed.
One hallucinogen often taken by ravers is LSD. People take it because it goes for $5, lasts 12 hours and is definitely an escape from reality. It commonly causes insomnia, and may release psychosis or depression, leading to irrational behavior.
Sammy, a 19-year-old raver, shares her experience: "I had a bad trip once. I saw this path like bugs bunny...digging a tunnel...in a cartoon... And it traveled over certain people, then to me. I heard a voice tell me to stand up on a path, but there was no one there. It'd tell me that it was my turn to get on the path, and when I'd try to get away from it, out of the warehouse and walk forward...I couldn't. I could only walk sideways...I broke down and started to cry."
"I'm never going to do acid again...I had deep bad emotions, remembered things I didn't want to," says Paul. These experiences, called flashbacks, are common in acid users. A flashback is the replay of an intense emotional experience in the user's head, such as the death of a loved one, the moment of discovery that one is in love, a past traumatic event, or even the trip itself.
One of the most dangerous drugs available to ravers is ketamine, refered to as 'K.' "[I use it because] it makes me feel detached from the rest of the world, living in a happier space," says Jaime. Ketamine is a disassociated, consciousness, memory, perception and motor activity are all disassociated from each other. Veterinarians commonly use ketamine as a cat tranquilizer.
K may be highly addictive (depending on the user) It may also cause brain damage and trigger psychosis, seizures, depression, and other neurological and psychological diseases. "K is fun, but I'd never do it again. I'd rather drink if I wanted to feel that way, plus it is safer," states Paul.
"I think it's worth it to go sober, because you still have fun," states Gaby, Grade 11. "I go sober. I've never tried any drugs...I'm afraid of trying it...I have other things more important to me," says Amanda Finkle.
Even attending raves sober can be dangerous. At the Effective (a production company) rave this past August, a teenage girl was found raped. Someone slipped a drug called GHB (Gamma Hydroxy Butyrate) into her drink and was sexually assaulted -- again another important factor to consider.
In the rave scene, there is a big movement against the use of GHB, the killer drug known as the new date rape drug (roofies, or rophynol being the drug of choice commonly used for date rapes). GHB is also known as "liquid ecstasy," for in dosages of only 0.5g it causes feelings of relaxation, inner-peace and happiness. Taking only slightly more can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headaches, confusion, dizziness, seizures, comas and even breathlessness. When mixed with an alcoholic drink, chances of overdose and death are greatly increased. "[GHB] made me feel like I was really drunk, drowsy, disorientated...then I felt sick and threw up," noted Kari, a 19 year old raver and a first time user.
The most obvious reason as to why raves are dangerous is the mere act of staying out all night which is unhealthy. The body is not only deprived of a good night's rest, but is also over worked (ravers tend to stay up on their feet, dancing for hours) and deprived of quality water. The water bottles at raves range from $1.50 to $3.00 and a body that dances and sweats profusely needs more than just one. As a result, ravers fill the bottles up in the washroom. Owners of venues sometimes turn off the water supply resulting in the dehydration of many ravers, and the lack of water for those on e is fatal.
Up until two years ago, raves happened in warehouses where there would be no running water, no washrooms, nomedical aid, no fire extinguishers, fire alarms or sprinklers, insufficient exits, and hazardous materials stored on site. When the police caught on, they started shutting them down due to the lack of a permit. Raves are now only legally allowed to happen in above ground, rented spaces (such as the International Center and the Toronto Congress Center), and they are now a bit safer.
Still, they are problematic for many reasons. Police and politicians continue their mission in shutting down the scene due to factors such as noise disturbance, increased drug use amoung teens, health and safety risks, and corruption of youth.
Poverty vs. the Olympics
Lorna Brown
Billions of dollars will be spent for the 2008 Toronto Olympic bid. The main reason why Toronto should not host the Olympics is because of other issues that could be dealt with by using that money.
Only a short time ago an announcement was made that 1 out of 5 children in Canada live in poverty. This figure can also be applied to Ontario where we have many children and adults living on or below the poverty line.
The 1998-'99 Ontario Report Card on Child Poverty, part of Campaign 2000 (a campaign started in 1989 in which the House of Commons stated that they would eliminate child poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000) states that since 1989, the number of poor children in Ontario has more than doubled to 538,000 - one in five children in Ontario still live in poverty.
This means that the number of poor children has risen 118%. The number of children living below the poverty line in two parent families has risen 146%. And the number of poor children in single-parent families went up 92%. Campaign 2000 reports on poverty use the Statistics Canada Low Income Cut-Off (LICO). The hourly wage required to reach the poverty line is $11.96.
Jarvis has a population of 1400 people, so if one were to apply these figures to JCI it would mean that 280 Jarvisites would be in poverty.
A question one may ask at this point is, what does that have to do with the Olympics?
First of all, both the municipal and provincial governments always complain of not having enough money to help the number of destitute people of Toronto. Yet, they are willing to spend billions on the Olympics.
So, the government makes quick solutions for the problem of poverty. They open up more shelters. But that's just a "Band-Aid" solution that so far hasn't worked well. The governments' claims of why the Olympics should come to Toronto may seem pretty noble. They say it will generate jobs for the people of Ontario and Toronto. True, it most certainly will, but these "new" jobs would most likely only last the few weeks the Olympics were here for.
The government also claims that the Olympics would generate a great amount ofwealth for our economy. This, or course, could also be true. Bringing the Olympics here would be like one big advertisement for Toronto. We would have a huge influx of tourists, who may possibly fall in love with Toronto and want to visit again, which goes with generating money for our economy. They say Toronto, as other Olympic cities in the past, would be remembered for hosting the Olympics, and it would keep tourists coming back.
The government claims that for all these reasons, the Olymics will produce a higher standard of living for us. That could be true, but for how long? How long can we ride that Olympic wave after it is gone? Probably not very long.
And let's not forget the 1976 Olympics in Montreal. This city went "all out" for it. They spent obscene amounts of money (billions) on the Olympics - new stadiums, flashy light shows -- and what did it get them? Some recognition? Sure. But after all the glitter and glamour of the Olympic show was pulled away from their eyes, they were left with the harsh reality of bills. An enormous bill, which to this date, 23 years later, hasn't been fully paid off yet. And besides that, their main stadium is crumbling to pieces as you read this article.
We should realize the consequences if Ontario is left in the same predicament; social funding would be cut, and we would end up paying higher taxes.
Nagano, Japan, it seems, is facing the same problem. They overestimated the benefits of the Olympics: the increase in tourism, the publicity the Olympics would bring, and as a result they are deep in debt as well.
A female OAC student had mixed feelings on this topic. She claimed, "It could be good because it could accumulate money, but we could also just end up accumulating debt. The whole point of the Olympics is to make money, because it's an attraction. So, in terms of [the] economy it could be good. Plus, it'll be cool."
Some believe there is a real danger in spending too much money to prepare for the Olympics, which might not end up being very prosperous.
Another female OAC student said, "Look at Atlanta, or Montreal - they gained a lot of debt. Besides that, did you read about all the bad publicity Atlanta was getting? They were unorganized. Things were always running late, transportation for Olympians weren't there - they made a lot of mistakes. Very unorganized. And I don't know if we're like this."
This is quite true. Atlanta was very unorganized and got a lot of "flack" for it.
The Olympic committee has already been to Toronto, for the 2000 Olympic bid. The fact is, they claimed that although we were a fairly clean and friendly city, we had too many homeless people on our streets.
The government claims that bringing the Olympics here could create higher standards of living. For example, create low cost housing, instead of shelters, for the poor and homeless. The government now tries to hide the problem of homelessness in Toronto by, for example, cracking down on squeegee kids. Both the provincial and city governments want to kick the squeegee kids out of Toronto, and also stop panhandling (or, at least, "aggressive" panhandling) in the streets. They instead could use that money to give much-needed tax breaks.
When asked whether or not the Olympics should come to Toronto, Jarvis student Carrie Chau replied a resounding "No! It'll make us bankrupt. Look at Nagano. Mel Lastman, he's the only one who wants this. I think he's going to destroy the waterfront to build a lot of crap for the Olympics!" In actual fact, Mike Harris said he was going to remodel the waterfront - Olympics or not.
If the Olympics came to Toronto, we would have to build new stadiums and arenas that would cost billions of dollars. There are questions about the location of venues, like a 22 000-seat tennis centre and an 18 000-seat gymnastics pavilion at the Exhibition Place, which hasn't been decided on yet.
According to the November 1999 article from the Toronto Sun's editorialist John Downing, "If you add all the shimmering schemes, the three Olympic rings of venues to go with the promenades (of the waterfront) that our leaders and Olympic enthusiasts have conjured for our lakefront, the price tag climbs beyond $7 billion."
A male student in Grade eleven stated, "I think Toronto is a big enough tourist attraction anyway. Give [the Olympics] to some little town that doesn't get a lot of tourists. Although they might not have a lot of money."
But you need a lot of money. If a city runs up a bill of billions on the Olympics, the IOC (International Olympic Committee) rules that the regional government must cover a city's Olympic debts. Therefore, it would be up to the provincial taxpayers to pay for the debt.
This issue always boils down to money. If the government is looking at the Olympics for a quick fix or a short term solution to pressing social and economic problems, they should think again. If the Olympics come to Toronto, sure it will be fun and exciting. It will bring a new energy, so to speak, to our city. And I would love to see the Olympics come here - I watch them fervently, whenever they're on.
But there are more important issues right now, such as poverty, that should be dealt with realistically, before we commit.
On-Calls: "a waste of time"
Cordelia Karpenko
I was sitting in class when my biology teacher walked in and sat down at the teacher's desk. Now this isn't really unusual, but there was one minor problem: I was in French class and my biology teacher doesn't speak a word of French.
So the question was, what is he doing here? Most people probably know the answer to this, but just in case, I'll spell it out: he was serving as an on-call teacher.
There's a big difference between on-call teachers and supply teachers. Supply teachers are part-time teachers whose job it is to fill in for absent teachers. They go from class to class and they are generally qualified to teach the subject they are supplying. On-calls, on the other hand, are regular teachers who spend their preparation periods (spares) filling in for absent teachers when needed. Unfortunately, this means that you could end up with a phys ed teacher in your math class.
Now most students groan when they walk into a class and see a supply teacher. The stories about them are endless and there are plenty of jokes. But now, many students would be glad to see supply teachers back in the classroom.
The practice of using on-call teachers was instituted last year after the teachers' course load was returned to six classes from seven midway through the year. The idea was one of the Ontario government's "ingenious" money saving strategies. Now don't get me wrong, if you're looking to save money it's a great idea. Unfortunately, the system has a big negative consequence: it's a dismal waste of time for both students and teachers.
On the teachers' side, they end up being little more than glorified babysitters. With no knowledge of the subject, they can do little more than supervise the students and make sure no one gets too rowdy.
Think about all the other things teachers could be doing: preparing for other classes, marking, or getting photocopying done. Not to mention the total pointlessness of students having to sit in class for an hour without learning anything.
As Helena Loh, and OAC student, said, "It would be better to dismiss students in older grades and allow them to work on their own."
So, just what makes supply teachers so much better? Well, to start with, they know the subject. So in French class, if you have a question you can ask and get a viable answer. Also, the work can be more than just busywork.
There are advantages to both systems. As mentioned, the on-calls do save money to compensate for budget cuts. Unfortunately for the students and the teachers, it's nothing but a complete waste of time.
Got Milk? I don't.
Carrie Chau
A few weeks ago, in my OAC English class, I read an enlightening article on how corporations infiltrate schools via advertisements, such as for milk and milk products. Ever since then, I began to question the importance of dairy products in our lives. Exactly how good are they for our health? And why do many people think that it's so good for them?
According to the people I have interviewed, everyone felt -- some vehemently -- that of course dairy is good for us, how dare I question its goodness? Are you so out of touch you don't even enjoy a tall glass of milk? Needless to say, I felt some antagonism towards my doubts on milk.
Many people think that milk is the best source for calcium. One female OAC students even echoed the exhausted motto: "Drink milk, love life!" Does this mean that those who are lactose-intolerant or allergic to milk cannot get the calcium they need in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle? Are they also missing out on life by not consuming this overly exposed product?
Milk is over-exposed. Look at the milk advertisements; they're everywhere: on billboards, on television, in magazines, on the radio, in every place you look, you'll probably see an ad for milk. The milk industry must spend billions of dollars on the advertisements because they know that they can rake in huge profits with it. The way they have almost every known celebrity in their advertisements is the trend of today; you're nobody if you're not advertising milk. Most of the celebrities are role-models for young adults - exactly who the milk industry wants to target: fresh, young blood, or in other words, teenagers.
What's in a glass of milk? According to the book, Marilu Henner's Total Health Makeover, the author (a renowned crusader against milk and dairy products) believes that milk and milk products are the main causes of maladies that inflict us, the latest being the mad cow disease. Dairy products may have calcium but it's very fattening, high in cholesterol and has almost no iron content at all (but you can get that mineral by eating spinach and other leafy vegetables).
"All I know is that milk is nutritious," one Jarvis teacher protested. "As long as I am not lactose-intolerant, why shouldn't I enjoy a refreshing glass of milk?" I was at a loss for words because what she said was quite logical.
However, if you really love milk and other dairy products and you don't want to give it up despite its bad qualities, you should try substituting it with healthier choices. Soy is an incredibly versatile food product. It, as well as rice, can be used to make milk. There are soy cheeses available without the fat and the cholesterol. There's even soy ice cream in most health food stores. But you won't find it in most mainstream supermarkets; you have to look pretty hard because dairy products have such a commanding influence on consumer goods, not to mention that they're relatively cheaper than soy products.
There's good news for those who choose not to (or cannot) consume dairy products. There are healthy alternatives that can provide an efficient amount of calcium in your daily diet. Calcium can be found in most green vegetables, including broccoli, collards, onions, and brussel sprouts. Legumes (beans, lentils, tofu), grains and fruits are also rich in calcium as well as other nutrients. There's no need for those expensive calcium tablets. You can enjoy tasty foods and get the nutrients you need at the same time.
One of the best things about not consuming dairy products is that it may clear your complexion of acne. This is great news for many teens because acne is an insufferably common ailment for them. Milk products are a factor, but not the main cause of acne.
As one teacher remarked, "The key is in moderation. As long as one can control the intake of dairy, there should be no problems. Otherwise, fat consumption would not be an issue." She's right, I have to admit. Every food has its downside, so keeping everything balanced is a good way to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Just think about what I've said concerning dairy before eating that slice of pizza loaded with cheese, or gulping down that glass of milk. Otherwise, bon appetit!
What's the McDeal with McDonalds?
Anna Kiil
Have you ever wondered, as you sunk your teeth into a juicy Big Mac, special sauce dripping down your chin, guilt creeping into your head, what it's really all about? No, I don't mean The Meaning of Life, I mean McDonald's!
Ever worried about what you've been eating all these years? Ever wondered how anyone could work behind a cash counter, serving greasy fast food while wearing a purple visor with the Big Arch on it? Ever ask yourself, "How exactly do they make me a whole meal in, like, two minutes?" Many people do ask themselves these questions, but most of them frankly don't give a damn. They say, "if it itches, scratch it," "if it tastes good, eat it," and "if you really don't know what the hell it is, EAT IT ANYWAY!"
McDonald's is the largest restaurant chain in the world. There are over 21 000 McDonald's restaurants in 101 countries around the world. They sell about $30 billion worth of fast food every year. They train more personnel than the United States Army. (Just think: if there were ever a corporate war, McDonald's would win.) Their business has grown so much that by 1989, any person in New York City could walk to a McDonald's in 4 minutes. Imagine what that statistic is now.
So what's the real McDeal? One issue is the food itself. When asked what she thought of the food at McDonald's, Julia Ford, a Grade 12 student at JCI, said, "The only thing I'd ever eat there are the fries. The rest of it is pretty gross." The quality of the food is all opinion, but some things remain factual. The new Deluxe Filet O' Fish sandwich contains 510 calories and 20g of fat. A crispy McChicken Deluxe has 530 calories and 26g of fat. One Big Mac burger has a shocking 587 calories and about the same amount of fat as the McChicken Deluxe. And for all of you who enjoy washing it all down with a shake, each of these beverages contains 377 calories. This isn't to say that the occasional McDonald's binge is a sin, but if the restaurant continues to grow in popularity, we may find the clothing industry doing a bit of altering to accommodate our big McButts.
McDonald's has recently been doing some alteration of their own to try and raise the quality of their food. As of now, fries sit under heating lamps until they're served and burgers are popped into microwaves. Right now, buns take 24 seconds to heat, and hamburgers take 80 seconds to fry. They've almost devised a way to heat a bun in 10 seconds and they're working on a method of cooking a hamburger in the same amount of time -- all of this to serve the customer more efficiently. (And if a ten-second-burger seems a little unnatural to you, THAT'S 'CAUSE IT IS!)
Some of our fellow students at Jarvis have even worked at McDonald's. Judy Huynh, a Grade 12 student at the school, feels quite differently about the food after being a McDonald's employee. When asked if working behind the scenes at the restaurant changed her opinion about the food she said, "Uh, yeah! I never eat there anymore…it's disgusting!" Who better to hear it from than someone who actually had to serve the food to people, knowing how it was made?
Due to the amount of food that sits around so long that it has to be thrown out, they're trying to find a way to keep it fresh longer, (finally something that might benefit the environment). Newholding cabinets are being designed to store cooked chicken and beef patties so that they will keep for 20 minutes without drying out. This will save the company money on wasted food (their main concern), and at the same time cut down on the unfathomable amount of garbage produced daily.
However, the McDonald's restaurant chain has created more severe problems than the stale hamburger. In 1997, a group of activist in England published an anti-McDonald's pamphlet that contained a list of accusations about the company. A trial was held and the judge ruled that most of the accusations were unprecedented…except for a few. One was the cruel treatment of animals. The conditions that pigs, chickens, and cows live in before they are slaughtered are small cramped cages in rooms without sunlight. Footage was found of the slaughtering process where many chickens had their throats slit while they were still conscious, and died unnecessarily slow deaths. Almost three years after the trial, McDonald's has shown no effort to improve this situation.
Another charge that McDonald's was found guilty of was the manipulation of the minds of children through advertising. (This may not be as shocking as the chicken thing, but is still interesting.) The judge agreed that their advertising technique exploits young, impressionable children who have no control over these ads that target their desires. They then pressure their parents into buying McDonald's food and toys (found in Happy Meals), and in turn, McDonald's profits. The company uses the vulnerability of kids to make a buck.
Remember, back in the day, when each McDonald's would have a sign outside with a big, yellow arch and a sign telling you how many people they'd served? Now the signs have gotten to 99 billion and they've stopped counting. Their business has grown to a dangerous size. Beautiful European cities have been blemished by tacky McDonald's franchises, such as Paris, which now has one under the Eiffel Tower. India, a country centered on Hinduism (a religion that prohibits the eating of beef) has McDonald's restaurants in its largest cities, although the menu doesn't feature cow products.
There are a few things to think about as you decide whether or not to go to McDonald's at lunch or at any other time as a matter of fact. First of all, you'd be supporting a restaurant that; a) serves pretty low-grade food; b) doesn't give two *$%*s about the animals it serves; and c) probably got inside your head when you were young to try and tempt you to eat their food. But the most important thing to think about is that you'd be supporting a corporation that is slowly teaching the rest of the world to be wasteful. They are subtly teaching the world the fast food culture: to appreciate quantity, not quality. McDonald's is creeping into all corners of the world, showing people how to be like real North Americans. Is that what we want? I'm really asking you!
There are a few things to think about as you decide whether or not to go to McDonald's at lunch or at any other time as a matter of fact. First of all, you'd be supporting a restaurant that; a) serves pretty low-grade food; b) doesn't give two *$%*s about the animals it serves; and c) probably got inside your head when you were young to try and tempt you to eat their food. But the most important thing to think about is that you'd be supporting a corporation that is slowly teaching the rest of the world to be wasteful. They are subtly teaching the world the fast food culture: to appreciate quantity, not quality. McDonald's is creeping into all corners of the world, showing people how to be like real North Americans. Is that what we want? I'm really asking you!
"Everybody In"... the Same Clothes
Tema Smith
It's Saturday night and, like many of my friends who just aren't in the mood to go out. I'm lying on my bed, channel surfing. I turn to a station just in time to catch a Gap commercial. The expressionless faces of twenty or so young adults sitting in a white room, all of them wearing cords and singing "Mellow Yellow," stare out at me. Instantly recognizing the design signature of this clothing store, I await the catchphrase that I know is coming up. Sure enough, the words "Everybody In..." grace the screen, followed by a white screen with only the navy and white Gap logo, thus concluding the commercial.
I stare at the screen, puzzled, thinking. I realize that as far above this susceptibility I like to believe I am, no one really is. Corporations spend millions of dollars paying psychoanalysts to figure out the way they will influence the most people. They pay "cool-hunters" to go out and find out what the target audience is interested in so that they can address these interests in their advertising campaigns and win over the most consumers.
The Gap has successful marketing under its belt. Its commercials have been ingrained in the minds of those who have seen them, most notably its holiday commercial featuring the skaters/dancers frolicking to a medley of the known Christmas song "Sleigh Ride" and the pop song probably best known to the teenagers of today, Vanilla Ice's "Ice, Ice, Baby." Because of the commercials, when people think of Gap, the think of cords, or vice versa.
Many people are disgusted with the Gap's method of appeal. "I really don't see what they're trying to show. It's like they're promoting a lifestyle dependent on material goods rather than the clothes themselves," states Robert Whillans, 15. Others do not see a problem with the advertising at all. Jay Torres, 16, stated, "Gap is like any other brand. There are many designers and they all want people in their clothes. They all just want to make money and there's nothing wrong with that."
Apparently, a large company, such as Gap, has adjusted quickly and used the influence of advertising to its advantage. Coinciding with the increase of money dispensable for promotion and a revamping of their ads' images, their sales have soared, increasing, for the holiday season of December 1999, close to 50%, based on last year's sales. A single store can sell more than $50 000 of merchandise on a ten and a half hour day, and employees are expected to sell more than $150 worth per hour worked, selling on average three units per transaction. Shockingly, these are the minimum sales goals and are considered to be easy to meet and surpass on a half-decent day.
Exemplary of the far-reaching influence of the designation of some items "hot" were the Gap's Crazy Stripe items for the holiday season. The sweater sold out soon after every shipment was received; the scarf was outof stock at the supplier. GapKids at the corner of Bay and Bloor Streets was down to three extra-smalls with no chance of replenishment, even though the sweater, being made of lambs wool, hand wash only, and costing $54, was impractical for children. Furthermore, the Warmest jacket, this season's line of bomber jackets, was sold out at Gap in every size but extra-large. By the time many of the items went of sale for Boxing Day, there were no sizes left.
Furthermore, the Gap offered promotions on nearly all of their Pro-Fleece items over the holiday season. All employees were informed that, over the weekends during the holiday season, they would be required to wear Pro-Fleece items. Incentives such as prize draws for people selling the most Pro-Fleece were occurring on an almost weekly basis. Promotion prices were in effect on at least one Pro-Fleece item from each section of each store, including Gap, GapKids, and BabyGap. By creating the illusion that Pro-Fleece was the most economical and popular item in the store, many gift-seeking shoppers purchased the items to present to people for whatever holiday they may have been celebrating.
The Gap has been successful in manufacturing the desire for many products. By telling us that everyone should be wearing leather, vests or cords, they are creating an ideal image for teenagers desperate to fit into. They have made their products affordable, so as to appeal to teenagers on limited budgets, and they have hired themselves a young, energetic staff to appeal to people much the same. By clothing their employees in Gap items, they have created a desire to look "just like that person" and adapt personal style to fit into their standards.
We have been trained to associate products with brands, and the Gap has benefited from this through catchy advertisements. They have been fortunate enough to be accepted into the everyday culture of today's youth and will continue to, provided they keep their name known and respected. Today though, we need to ask "Everybody in" what?
Playing God: Should genetically modifying food be within human ability?
Sarah Houghton
For those of you who have been hiding in a dark cave, genetic engineering is the (relatively) new science that uses the DNA of other species to create organisms that are more useful to humans. It involves "snipping, inserting, recombining, rearranging, editing, and programming" DNA from other plants or animals -- including humans -- to create a superior organism. Sounds like a lot of work, but bio-engineers are expected to create -- in addition to countless new creations already existing -- thousands of new such species over the next few year.
This idea has resulted in a lot of controversy because some people think that genetically engineered food (or anything) should not be within the jurisdiction of human activity. Many argue: What's wrong with genetic engineering? After all, it means that what we eat is perfect: fruits bruise less, potatoes have fewer eyes, and chickens are less prone to disease. Food production is more predictable, protected against natural influences (like insects and frost), and efficient. And most importantly, agro-industries argue that it could be used to help feed all the hungry people in the world. Clearly genetic modification is a good and useful tool for us to invest in, right?
Wrong. The list of problems associated with genetic engineering is considerably more drastic, all things considered.
First of all, it should be noted that North America already has enough food to feed the world, they don't need biological engineering to solve the world hunger problem. (If this were possible, would that be their first priority anyway?) With the population of the world rising at a phenomenal speed, the solution lies in careful planning of crops and population control, not genetic engineering. The notion put forth about feeding developing countries is a promotional tactic of the bio-chemical industry.
Genetically engineered organisms can have devastating effects on the environment if they escape form laboratories: like biological weapons, they can drastically disrupt the dynamic balance of nature by reproducing and mutating. Furthermore, the creation of these organisms is unpredictable and not always successful. And like antibiotics, they may cause what they're resisting to grow stronger and resistant. That means that stronger chemicals will have to be pumped into the environment, and the cycle goes on.
Other than these environmental problems, genetic engineering also poses problems for humans. For example, in 1989 and 1990, a dietary supplement which contained genetically engineered bacteria sold over the counter in some American pharmacies that caused a painful and fatal blood disorder killing over 30 Americans and injuring about 5,000. Those people had no way of knowing what they were consuming. Similarly today we can't know whether tiny proteins from food such as peanuts (for example, a product causing allergic reactions among many) were used to modify what we're buying.
This is partly because there is no legislation as of yet which requires labels on food to indicate whether or not the product has been genetically engineered. The means that if you disagree with genetic engineering, you are still buying unnatural foods without knowing it. The spicy fries in the cafeteria may well be made from genetically engineered potatoes. The tomato sauce Pizza Pizza uses may well be made from genetically engineered tomatoes. And if you had chicken for dinner last night, it was most likely genetically modified with DNA from plants, cows, or even humans. The only way you will know about what you're buying is if you buy organic foods.
Another problematic factor is that at this rate, genetic engineering will make the farming business -- one that has provided humans their livelihood since the earliest civilizations -- obsolete. In effect, genetic engineering may cause hundreds of millions of farmers and other related workers jobless. Biotech companies, on the other hand, could grow to monopolize the food producing industry, carefully controlling access to seeds, DNA, and genetic engineered species.
As a philosophy student, I will come across this question in the unit on Ethics. Is it morally wrong to create genetically engineered foods? Some feel that it should not be within the reach of human ability to tamper with nature's creations. It is foreseeable that this could get out of hand: perhaps one day we will have a species of only purebred genetically engineered humans who eat genetically modified food, creating some sort of "superior" race. Such predictions may seem ridiculous, but they are a valid concern considering the rate at which things are changing.
Jarvis students seem to have varying opinions about genetic engineering. "It's all right to make genetically engineered foods," say Will Jung, an OAC Jarvis student. "I don't disagree with it if it's helping to feed people in Third World countries." This is something many students think is the justifiable reason to promote biotechnology. "It's morally wrong, but it's necessary to feed the population," says Elma Moore, Grade 12. "As long as it doesn't harm anyone, if someone benefits from it, then it's okay," agrees Grade 12 student Sabah.
Whereas some people simply don't have an opinion, other Jarvis students are strongly opposed. Grade 11 student Jay Pundit says, "It's ruining the ecological balance by creating things that shouldn't be. I hate bio-engineered food, it's wrong." Tallish Chased explains: "I don't think it's healthy, people should eat natural foods. Back home in Syria, my father had a farm that we used for food. It tastes better, more natural. And it's satisfying to pick my own food."
Many students, however, seem to find a balance between the negative and positive effects of genetic engineering. "In some ways it's good and in some ways it's bad," says Grade 10 student Dag Gebremedhin. "Humans could use this power strategically to recycle human DNA. But it's good because it feeds Third World countries."
This complex issue has received a lot of coverage by the media (hence the fact that people think it will solve world hunger), but not enough, because this information is potentially dangerous to producers. But it has become -- and will continue to become -- increasingly prevalent as humans develop more efficient and advanced methods of genetically modifying foods. The more science advances and genetic tampering becomes easier and more sophisticated, the more abundant it will become.
Just thought you should know. Perhaps now when you eat KFC, you'll think about what the last letter really stands for.
See No, Hear No, Teach No Evilution
Victoria Dobbs
On August 8, 1999, the Kansas State Board of Education (BOE) passed new standards for the Kansas science curriculum, which dropped the theory of evolution from the list of required topics and excluded references to the theory from statewide standardized tests. Suddenly, Kansas found themselves in front-page headlines across the continent as the decades-old debate between creation and evolution resurfaced for the one last time this millennium.
Almost 75 years earlier, on July 21, 1925, John T. Scopes, a high school biology teacher was convicted for violating the Butler Act, a state law in effect until 1967 which prevented the teaching of evolution. The press dubbed it the "Monkey Trial" because of the popular misconception that Darwin's theory of evolution states that humans descended from monkeys. In reality, the theory suggests that humans and other primates, like monkeys, share a common ancestor.
For the last decade, Kansas has based their science curriculum on a set of standards, drafted by a committee of 27 science teachers and professors, which stated that an understanding of evolution was necessary for students to succeed in the life sciences. However, the newly implemented standards, drafted by Kansas board member Steve Abrams with help from members of the Creation Science Association for Mid America, in Cleveland, Montana, don't mention evolution.
Actually, the new standards only omit references to "macroevolution", which produces new species, while leaving in the references to "microevolution" which involves change within a species. Mr. Schroeder, a Jarvis Biology teacher, explains, "It's as if they're saying, 'We know [evolutionary] change does occur, because we've observed that, but we don't believe that change can occur to the extent that it can create new species'."
OAC Jarvis student, Martin Munoz accepts microevolution, but, on the subject of macroevolution, he comments that, "Until the steps of the development of the eye, or some other difficult piece of anatomy, are intelligently placed before me, I will not think too much of macroevolution." However, not everyone shares Martin's point of view. In an online interview, freethinker Josh Thomson suggested that, "it's selective science, they only allow evidence which doesn't debunk their myth of choice." Mr. Schroeder believes that, "instead of presenting all the evidence, and leaving people to form their own opinions, they're basically telling students what to believe." He feels it's important to present all sides of the argument.
Contrary to popular misconception, the new standards don't ban the teaching of evolution, nor do they force the teaching of creationism, instead, they have left the choice up to each of the 304 district school boards in Kansas. Naturally, some districts will continue teaching the theory, while others have already looked into creationist textbooks.
"If they made [evolution] optional here, I'd probably still teach it," said Mr. Schroeder. However, the school system here varies from Kansas's system. In Ontario, the exams students write are prepared by the subject teacher, while in Kansas, all biology students write the same statewide assessment test, which teachers must prepare their students for. Those against the standards fear that since there is no mention of evolution on these tests, even teachers who plan to continue teaching the theory won't be able to spend as much time on the subject.
Some believe that the statewide tests are a major cause of the problem. Teachers have no choice but to teach the material that's on the test, so they have little freedom in their lesson plans. It's almost as if a small committee on the BOE determines what students in all of Kansas are learning. Nathanial Moses-Weiner, a grade 12 Jarvis student against the Kansas standards, believes that the issue "reflects badly both on Kansas for having statewide standardized tests in the first place, but also on close-minded Christians trying to use schools to indoctrinate students with Christian beliefs." He feels that, "education should be determined by the students, teachers and community; it shouldn't be up to the state to dictate what schools should teach."
However, these "close-minded Christians" have turned the same arguments around and used them in support of their views. Kansas BOE officials claim that they passed the standards in the first place so that students could be exposed to all sides of the argument. "I'm tired of seeing evolution presented as the only answer," exclaimed Kansas mother Lucy Reynolds, in an online interview. "At least now my kids can learn some of the other possible explanations."
Pratt High School, in Pratt, Kansas, is the first school to officially begin teaching some of those other possibilities. Beginning this September, they have added to their biology curriculum the textbook, Of Pandas and People, co-written by Percival Davis, a professor of Life Sciences with a masters in zoology, and Dean H. Kenyon, a professor of biology with degrees in physics and biophysics. Pandas introduces the concept of intelligent design, a theory which suggests that life is too complex to have occurred by chance, and is most likely the result of an intelligent cause.
Pandas does not make any references to God or a divine creator, because it was impossible to show scientifically who or what it was. However, if you have intelligent design, you need a designer. In an online interview, Ecologist Maryanne Winters stressed that Pandas is simply religion in disguise.
Consider this excerpt from the book's introduction:
"Walking along a beach, you may be impressed by the regular pattern of ripples in the sand. The scene may be artistic but it isn't likely that you would look around for an artist who might be responsible. A natural cause, you rightly conclude. But if you come across words unmistakably reading 'John loves Mary' etched into the sand, you would know that no wave action was responsible for that. Nor would you be likely to imagine that, given enough time, grains of sand would spontaneously organize themselves so uniquely. Rather, you would look around for an intelligent cause: John... perhaps even Mary."
Although the ideas presented in Pandas are important to discuss, are they really biology? Mr. Schroeder doesn't think so. Jarvis Philosophy teacher, Mr Lazare, suggests that this sort of argument belongs in a philosophy, rather than a biology class room. "Sure, evolution is a theory. What's a theory? What do we know about anything? These are credible questions!" he exclaims. "Unfortunately, creationists are unwilling to examine their own assumptions based on the same criteria."
It seems that people on both sides of the debate believe that teaching all aspects of the issue is important. Although the Kansas BOE claims that they passed the new science standards for that reason, I'm not convinced that removing evolution from the curriculum is the best solution.
Bulimia: Digesting the Facts
Teddy Wakim
About a year ago I asked a girl out on a date. She was a tad reluctant at first, but after a second glance at my masculine physique, she had to accept. It was then and there, at that moment, that I knew I was the man. The evening that I had planned for the two of us was going to be perfect. I tried to have a limo pick us up, only to find that it was a little over my budget. I settled for a taxi. For dinner we would dine at my uncle's steak house. When the clock struck seven I hurried to the shower. I shampooed, conditioned, and even scrubbed those hard to reach places. I then proceeded to dress. For good luck I wore my lucky boxers. For a smooth first impression, I tucked in all of the chest hairs that were protruding from my shirt. A dash of fragrance and I was good to go.
When the cab pulled up to her house, she was already waiting. I stepped out of the car and opened the door for her. She gracefully entered the rear driver side door, and I closed it behind her. Up until this point (aside from the sordid stench of the cab), the evening was a success. The dinner was beyond all expectations. French onion soup, Caesar salad, and a beautiful serving of fillet mignonette. The conversation consisted of Puff Daddy and Nirvana.
Before I knew it a couple of hours had passed. When the bill came I ordered a couple of coffees and decided we would stay a little while longer.
Then my date excused herself and went to the washroom. A few minutes went by, then five. I began to reassure myself that she was not ditching me because girls take a little longer with these things than guys do. Finally she returned. Her face was blushed, her eyes were watery, and her breath smelt like an old tuna sandwich. I knew it and she knew I knew it. She had used the washroom as an instant walk-in Weight-Watchers clinic. She had induced vomiting, and wasted the fillet. To my surprise, my date was a bulimic.
Bulimia is one of the most common eating disorders in North America. It is most often young women aged thirteen to twenty-five, affecting some five percent of this group. The disorder entails a person eating as much as they can, often referred to as "bingeing," followed by self-induced vomiting. However, experienced bulimics postpone vomiting anywhere from one to three hours after eating. This enables their body to absorb some of the food nutrients without having to digest and store fat. It is important to note that the stomach comprises less than ten percent of the nutrient extraction process. In layman's terms, a bulimic would have to eat ten bananas in order to receive the nutritional value of one.
The consequences of bulimia are drastic. Frequent vomiting causes acid from the stomach to erode tooth enamel, decay teeth, infect the gum area, and inflame the throat. Complications such as pancreatitis, and electrolyte abnormalities can form. Lastly, dehydration, constipation, and hemorrhoids are often associated with bulimia.
The exact cause of this disorder is still open for debate. Some factors that are thought to contribute to its development are family problems, (maladaptive) behavior, and depression. The most shared theory is society's overemphasis on physical appearance. Seeing as how most women in magazines and on billboards look like concentration camp survivors I would agree with the appearance notion. For some different perspectives I decided to interview a few of the female students here at Jarvis. My attempt was a valiant one but unsuccessful. When I asked one girl if she knew anything about bulimia she threatened to physically assault me. Another girl replied with ruthless, colourful language. After facing rejection as a journalist I opted for the easy route out. I telephoned the Eating Disorder Trauma Hotline. I had the good fortune of talking with Mary Haddad, an eating disorder counselor. The most profound, and yes most subtly obvious factor in the debate over bulimia is the calculation of how many people are bulimic. As bulimia is concealed by the sufferer it is difficult for doctors and specialists to provide a more concrete figure on the actual number of bulimics. Mary also pointed out that there are people who might only induce vomiting after eating a few times a year, without realizing they have a problem. Not knowing the full extent of bulimia's incidence hinders the understanding of the illness, as well as any possible new methods.
Treatment for bulimia consists of behaviour modification techniques and group, or family, counseling. It is important to identify the fact that bulimics are aware of their abnormal eating habits, but have emotions of fear and guilt, and therefore remain extremely secretive. Most bulimics do accept help if they are strongly urged by close friends and loved ones to seek it. Symptoms of bulimia are as follows: erratic eating patterns, overachieving behavior, figure obsession, and frequent weighing. Please remember that confronting and dealing with a problem is not a bad thing. No one will tie you to a log in the middle of your neighborhood and throw stones at you.
No comments:
Post a Comment