Tag Archives: health

    About the Author

    Tammy L. Anderson is in the sociology department at the University of Delaware. She is the author of Rave Culture: The Alteration and Decline of a Philadelphia Music Scene.

    Feature

    Molly Deaths and the Failed War on Drugs

    To Olivia Rotondo and Jeffrey Russ, the three-day 2013 Electric Zoo (EZoo) festival on New York’s Randall Island seemed like an idyllic end to a summer of part-time work, hanging out in suburban malls, and life with Mom and Dad.

    These two 20-somethings—and nearly 100,000 others—planned a three-day trip to experience pulsating electronic beats spun by the world’s most famous electronic dance music DJs. “Am I ready for @ElectricZooNY or what,” Olivia tweeted in anticipation of the event. But on the second day of the festival, things went terribly wrong. Thirty-one ravers were arrested on drug charges, four were hospitalized, and Olivia and Jeffrey lay dead from Molly overdoses. (Molly is a powder form of MDMA that many consider to be purer, and ultimately more dangerous, than Ecstasy.)

    Such tragedies are not uncommon. At a rave at Washington, D.C.’s Echo Stage nightclub the same day as Electric Zoo, Shelley Goldsmith, a 19-year-old college sophomore, died from Molly toxicity.

    Years ago, 17-year-old Jillian Kirkland from Alabama overdosed on Ecstasy at a 1998 rave at the State Palace Theatre in New Orleans. Her death motivated Congress, led by Senator Joe Biden, to pass a controversial law called the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act (commonly referred to as the 2003 RAVE Act) to halt a perceived rave-related Ecstasy epidemic. This anti-rave and clubs campaign would become the government’s latest battle in the War on Drugs.

    The 2003 RAVE (Reducing Americans’ Vulnerability to Ecstasy) Act prohibits “an individual from knowingly opening, maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing, making available for use, or profiting from any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance, and for other purposes.” It constituted an expansion of a 1986 law wielded against the crack cocaine epidemic.

    The 2003 Rave Act immediately put party promoters on notice for organizing events for drug-related purposes or sponsoring one knowing that drug use might occur. As sociologists Steven Tepper, Julie Baldwin and colleagues showed, copycat laws in cities like Chicago, Gainesville, and New Orleans extended the federal government’s fight to the local level.

    But the 2003 RAVE Act is an ill-conceived law that has not only failed to prevent drug-related harm at raves but has inadvertently caused it to increase. By discouraging electronic dance music business promoters from providing health services to sick or dehydrated ravers, for fear of signaling to authorities that they have knowledge of drug use at their events, the RAVE Act, a relic of the last century’s War on Drugs, does more harm than good.

    From Gen X to Millennial Ravers

    Raves began after disco’s death in the early 1980s, according to Simon Reynolds’s book Generation Ecstasy: Into the World of Techno and Rave Culture. A rave is an all-night dance party featuring different kinds of electronic dance music (EDM). Generation X teens and young adults created raves in abandoned warehouses and other spaces they gained access to surreptitiously. In the beginning, raves were small, but they quickly grew in size as promoters moved them to rural and suburban fields. Typically, organizers announced the gatherings at the last minute in order to keep them hidden from law enforcement.

    Raves featured many different musical styles and lots of DJs. A room or tent might specialize in a musical genre, such as house, drum and bass, or techno, etc. Their general ethos was encapsulated by the acronym PLUR—peace, love, unity, and respect. Participants’ (ravers’) aesthetic style included bright and neon-colored track or parachute pants and t-shirts with rave or antiestablishment messages. Common props were bracelets, pacifiers, lollipops, and stuffed animals—a nod to the ravers’ celebration of the lost utopianism of childhood. Illegal drug use was an early defining rave characteristic, and so-called “club drugs” permitted all-night dancing, such as Ecstasy, (a form of 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine, or MDMA), acid, ketamine, and GHB.

    Though widely popular as an illegal, underground phenomenon in the 1990s, raves eventually declined after the RAVE Act was passed. Generation X’ers (born between 1965 and 1980) aged out—or burned out—of raves. Older members of Generation Y, or Millennials (born between 1977 and 2000) preferred other music scenes, such as hip hop, and were often turned off by raves’ excessive debauchery and drug use. The legal assault on raves at the federal and local levels had a chilling effect on the scene, discouraging club owners and promoters. The commercialism of raves also deterred potential participants by banning alcohol consumption among those under 21 years old, or making the events cost-prohibitive. Large, illegal raves gave way to smaller club-based events that specialized in one type of music, featuring fewer, and less costly, DJs.

    Today, rave parties are coming back to life in a more commercialized form. A global EDM industry, dominated by entertainment companies like Made Events, Go Ventures, and Insomniac Productions, has brought raves to corporate-branded festivals, stadiums and mega-nightclubs. EZoo, Electric Daisy Carnival (EDC), and Ultra Music Festival, in major metropolitan areas, draw thousands of young people to the heart of Las Vegas, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Miami.

    Raves showcase the youngest Millennials—not Generation X. These avid fans of today’s commercial dance music turn out in droves for the parties, festivals, and superclub events where the music is played. As 21-year-old Rotondo announced in a tweet on the day of her death: “The amount of traveling I’ve done today is unreal. Just get me to the damn zoo.”

    As in the 1990s, the popularity of raves today has been overshadowed by drug-related tragedies. Fourteen young adults and teenagers died between 2006 and 2013 at large raves organized by Insomniac Productions in Los Angeles. Since the passage of the 2003 RAVE Act, participants’ MDMA use has fluctuated, declining in the immediate aftermath of the law, and then increasing markedly six years later. Since then, the use of hallucinogens has either plateaued or dropped, especially among teenagers, but also among 18-25 year olds—the age range of Rotondo, Russ and most other EZoo attendees.

    While the number of MDMA users has declined, health complications from the drug have increased. There has been a 128 percent uptick in emergency room visits among MDMA users between 2005 and 2011, according to the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN). The growing incidence of overdose among young college students worries people like C.L. Max Nikias, president of the University of Southern California. After a 2011 rave at the Coliseum in Los Angeles, which led to 17 students being taken to the hospital, Nikias wrote to the USC student body: “I wish to warn you about a specific danger that has become increasingly prevalent in the city of Los Angeles: raves. Occasionally, these are held close to our campuses, often at the Coliseum or the Shrine, and they present serious risks to all who attend. Therefore, with the collective support of the university’s senior administration—and as the father of two USC students—I strongly discourage your participation at rave events.”

    Rants and Raves

    The 2003 RAVE Act places young ravers at great risk of harm. Because the act treats raves’ cultural traits as evidence that promoters are permitting drug use and sales, it places festival stakeholders in a bind over how to protect ravers without being shut down. For example, rave promoters are perceived to sanction drug use if they permit cultural props such as glow sticks, lollypops, and massage oils to be sold at their event, or if they provide chill rooms and free bottled water to ravers. Since MDMA use (in either its Ecstasy or Molly varieties) and dancing at raves can produce extreme dehydration, critics interpret the distribution of free bottled water as a sign that promoters are trying to hydrate, and therefore accommodate, ravers’ drug use. Promoters even told me that “rave” language on flyers or other promotional materials could serve as evidence of a legal violation.

    If they offer drug intervention services, such as drug testing and education, promoters may be at even greater legal risk. Rotondo died from MDMA toxicity; a MDMA/Methylone combination killed Russ. Had drug testing and education been offered at EZoo, Rotondo might have learned not to take so many hits of Molly and Russ would have learned that his Molly had been mixed with extremely dangerous methylone (“bath salts”).

    In short, the RAVE Act discourages rave promoters and production companies from taking the precautions needed to protect their customers. Party promoters walk a fine line between steering clear of the law and putting on a safe and profitable event. A few weeks prior to the EZoo deaths, at the Paradiso Music Festival in Washington, a young man died from Molly complications. A local harm reduction group, Stay Safe Seattle, had approached the festival’s organizers to permit them to test for drugs and educate ravers about the drugs they planned to consume, but the owners and organizers of the Paradiso festival turned the group down. By affording them access, they feared they would “self-incriminate” or admit to violating the RAVE Act.

    As Nathan Messer, a spokesman for the national organization DanceSafe explained, “If we are there educating people about drug use, whether or not they’re using drugs at that particular venue, that might indicate to law enforcement that the venue is being operated for the purpose of drug use and it will make them liable [to the RAVE Act] so they just want to avoid it all together.”

    Ten years ago, journalist Will Doig wrote about the very same dilemma: “Because the RAVE Act’s effectiveness rests on prosecutors’ proof that club owners and party promoters ‘knowingly and intentionally’ made their space available for drug use,” he wrote, “even mild harm reduction efforts could be used against the people throwing the parties.” Therefore, promoters may decide to “eliminate even the most basic safety measures, such as on-site ambulances, for fear that they could be used in court later to prove that promoters knew drugs were present.” In a 2003 Salon article, Janelle Brown put it even more succinctly: “The backward logic of this thinking punishes club owners and rave promoters for trying to keep their customers safe.”

    Researching and writing my book Rave Culture, I often witnessed this dilemma firsthand. In a techno room at a rave, I once saw a young woman vomiting a white frothy liquid over and over again. When I alerted a security guard to the situation, thinking he might be able to get the woman some help, he picked her up, dragged her to the back door, and dropped her outside. Astounded by his actions, I asked the guard if he could call 911 for a medic. He told me he could not, and then told me that the club could be liable for her drug use.

    As Benjamin, a long-time promoter on the rave and dance scenes said, “The RAVE Act has taught us that we [promoters and club owners] have to say that there is a zero-tolerance policy and that there are no drugs going on inside the club. This is, of course, turning a blind eye to what is actually happening, but we can’t admit that it’s even going on, let alone saying, ‘We want to have a medic here just in case what isn’t going on is actually happening.’”

    In an effort to shield themselves from responsibility and stigma, industry stakeholders blame the EZoo or EDC tragedies on the RAVE Act’s constraints—and the hedonistic actions of a few ravers like Rotondo, Russ and Goldsmith. They do not speak of their own complicity. For example, in the FAQ section of EZoo website, there is little discussion about drugs; nowhere on the EZoo webpage is there a clear and compelling message prohibiting illegal drugs. Instead, there is a single entry called “illegal substances” on a long list of things attendees cannot bring to the festival. On the EZoo webpage a blog post entitled, “Helping each other stay safe” contradicts the company’s benign prohibition policy. “Electric Zoo strongly advocates against the use of drugs. Avoiding drug use is the only way to completely avoid drug-related risks,” it announces. “You don’t need drugs anyway when world class music is swirling all around you. Know that mixing drugs and alcohol, or frequent and increased use, will increase your risks of life-threatening problems. Here’s some math to go with that: Drugs or alcohol + Non-stop Dancing + Sun Exposure = Dehydration and a whole spectrum of other dangerous conditions. So stay safe, stay hydrated, take frequent breaks, remember to eat, and you will successfully pull off having the time of your life! If you suspect that someone is ailing from a medical issue or the overuse of drugs or alcohol, seek immediate medical attention.”

    This warning sends contradictory messages to attendees. It discourages people from using drugs rather than prohibiting them from doing so, and fails to warn them about penalties for drug use, sales or possession. It cautions attendees that it is risky to use drugs and drink alcohol when dancing in the sun, but reminds them to stay hydrated, eat, and take frequent breaks— assuming they will take those risks. A stronger prohibition policy and anti-drug educational message on the EZoo webpage may have served as a clearer warning to Rotondo, Russ and friends about taking drugs into the festival—but posting such information may have served as evidence of a RAVE Act violation.

    Ezoo’s webpage remains mostly unchanged for its 2014 festival. However, promoters have responded to last year’s tragedies by requiring participants to watch a short educational video on the dangers of drugs when purchasing their tickets online. This video is likely to warn attendees about drug-related dangers, but it may also signal the inevitability of drugs at Ezoo and ultimately a RAVE Act violation. The addition of drug-sniffing dogs, however, might just keep Ezoo promoters on the right side of the law.

    Repairing the Damage

    Electronic dance music is widely popular among young people today. The commercial EDM industry is thriving because fans like Olivia Rotondo and Jeffrey Russ are turning out to hear world-famous DJs at massive raves that garner huge profits. MDMA use will probably continue to be popular at such events, spurred in part by pop celebrities like Miley Cyrus, Rhianna, Kanye West, Madonna and others, whose song lyrics endorse Molly use.

    But as young people journey to EZoo, EDC, Ultra Music Festival, and other raves, the 2003 RAVE Act will keep EDM business folks in an impossible position, forcing them to balance abiding by the law and protecting partygoers.

    Today, most observers acknowledge that the War on Drugs was ineffective in stamping out Americans’ drug problem, and often makes a bad situation much worse. Collectively, we are now repairing some of the damage it wrought. We are reforming marijuana laws, narrowing sentencing disparities, endorsing approaches that treat drug abuse as a medical rather than a criminal problem, campaigning against mass incarceration, and restoring drug offenders’ right to vote and retain funding for higher education.

    The 2003 RAVE Act has eluded such reforms. By seeking to prohibit parties where drug use takes place, it fails to reduce drug use, and continues to endanger young ravers more than it protects them. Instead, we need a cooperative strategy that is organized to reduce harm, one that entails beefing up health resources at parties and educational efforts to warn about drug-related dangers and other health risks, banning participants from events if found with drugs rather than arresting them, and establishing partnerships among EDM business professionals, local law enforcement, and community officials. It’s our best hope for protecting young ravers like Olivia and Jeffrey.

    Recommended Resources

    Collin, Matthew. Altered State: The Story of Ecstasy Culture and Acid House, updated version (Serpent’s Tail, 2010). Definitive text on ecstasy culture, told by some of the central characters in the scene’s early days. It focuses the drug use, ideologies, criminal activities, and deviant image that ravers adopted to launch a spectacular youth movement of the twentieth century.

    Hunt, Geoffrey, Maitena Milhet, and Henri Bergeron. Drugs and Culture: Knowledge, Consumption and Policy (Ashgate, 2013). Volume offers diverse perspectives on psychoactive drugs, focusing on the socio-cultural features of drug use and how they are controlled in contemporary societies, and how consumption of specific psychoactive substances becomes associated with particular social groups.

    Reynolds, Simon. Generation Ecstasy: Into the Worlds of Techno and Rave Culture (Routledge,1999). Comprehensive discussion of the origins of rave culture in the UK and US. It chronicles the rise of raves, the pioneers of the scene and the cultural traits that would earmark this global youth phenomenon of the 1990s.

    Tepper, Stephen. “Stop the Beat: Quiet Regulation and Cultural Conflict,” Sociological Forum (2009), 24 (2): 276-306. Analyzes raving in the city of Chicago, how moral crusades can take on a form of “quiet regulation,” and how opponents linked raves with drugs, sex, and deviance in order to control them.

    For a limited time only, read this article and the rest of the Fall 2014 issue online at:
    ctx.sagepub.com

    About the Author

    Ashley Wendell Kranjac is in the sociology department at the State University of New York-Buffalo.

    Smorgasbord

    McDonaldizing Croatia

    Formerly a part of Yugoslavia, Croatia has a complex heritage dating back to the seventh century. Because of its diversity, traditional Croatian gastronomy is referred to as “the cuisine of regions.” From the Austro-Hungarian influence of intensive meat consumption in the north, to the Mediterranean-inspired coastal cuisine of the south, culinary traditions differ significantly across the country’s cobblestone streets and pebbled beaches. A typical meal in the north consists of mixed meat and fried potatoes, whereas in the south, seafood risotto is more frequently on the dinner table.

    Today, globalizing processes are challenging Croatian food culture—in sociologist George Ritzer’s terms, “McDonaldization,” a process aiming to increase efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control. The end of communism in the early 1990s left a vast and open land of opportunity for McDonald’s and other corporations to take over and rationalize Eastern European eating. The uniformity of fast food and its predictable dining experience are among the reasons why Croats are consuming such food in increasing quantities.

    While eating at McDonald’s is rather expensive by Croatian standards, particularly when comparing gross domestic product per capita—$47,200 in the United States versus $17,400 in Croatia—more and more Croats are choosing Americanized foods and dining experiences. Not only is this changing Croats’ taste buds and cultural patterns—American fast food restaurants are facilitating new spaces for socialization, particularly for women and children—it is also altering agricultural and farming systems.

    Croatian supermarkets are also McDonaldizing. Until the second-half of the 1990s, Croatia’s retail sector was dominated by socially-owned chains. In the 2000s, foreign direct investment transformed the market and the share of supermarkets in food retail increased from around 25 percent at the end of 2000 to 51 percent two years later.

    During socialism, a wealth of natural resources and well-developed manufacturing and service sectors enabled the Croatian government to satisfy food demand. Today, small, family-owned farms are experiencing diminished returns on investment, due in part to Croatia’s entry into the European Union and the enactment of Common Agricultural Policy.

    Deep-rooted taste preferences for traditional foods such as pljeskavica (a ground meat patty) are weakening; Western-style fast food restaurants are contributing to Croats’ globalizing palates. According to the Croatia Food and Drink Report of 2013, Croats are also snacking more frequently, and the sale of canned and frozen food items is on the rise. Croatian meals, in contrast, are traditionally prepared with fresh ingredients.

    This rapid transformation of food, culture, and economics will lead, some critics predict, to a massive national stomachache.

    About the Author

    Teja Pristavec is in the sociology program at Rutgers University.

    Smorgasbord

    The Social Life of Leftovers

    Thanks to busy schedules, ever-growing food portions, and poor meal planning, many of us find ourselves with a lot of leftovers. Over 36 million tons of food brought home become waste annually, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. But at least some of those reheatables may be finding a second life.

    While many of us see leftovers as food that has lost value, that lacks novelty and excitement, and that is less tasty, the act of sharing leftovers can create closer family ties, according to marketing lecturer Benedetta Cappellini in a 2009 article published in the Journal of Consumer Culture. Leftovers are also, at times, a type of sacrifice. Mothers take it upon themselves to finish yesterday’s meal, while preparing something fresh and nutritious for the rest of the family, expressing care for family members, according to Cappellini and Elizabeth Parsons, writing in The Sociological Review in 2013.

    So the next time you’re staring down a container of leftovers, remember that they say more about us than just what we ate last night.

    About the Author

    Yuki Kato is in the sociology department at Tulane University.

    Smorgasbord

    Growing Concerns

    First lady Michelle Obama attracted major media attention when she took a shovel to the White House’s South Lawn in 2009 and pitched the home vegetable garden as one of the solutions to childhood obesity. She was among a growing movement of Americans who promote gardening’s health benefit by emphasizing how it offers greater control over the food we eat.

    So why doesn’t everyone pick up the shovel and start digging? For starters, gardening requires space, time, and money—not to mention horticultural knowledge—which are not widely accessible. Julie Guthman, in a 2008 article in The Professional Geographer, notes how the movement’s supporters tend to presume the lack of knowledge and will—not resources—as the key impediment. Many Americans believe that low-income citizens are ignorant about the benefits of fresh produce, and would change their eating behaviors “if they only knew.” Yet this attitude blames those who are most vulnerable to health and financial challenges, she argues.

    Alison Hope Alkon and Julian Agyeman, who edited Cultivating Food Justice in 2011, use the concept of “food sovereignty” to describe how poor and minority communities not only lack access to good food, but are often cut out of conversations about what good food actually is. Food justice movements, they argue, empower local communities to gain access to food that is both nourishing and culturally appropriate, rather than “educating” them about what they should do.

    So while the first lady’s call for home gardening raises public awareness about food and health, the broader food justice movement goes even further, showing us that improving food access requires us to think about broader social inequality, and not just where one’s food comes from.

    About the Author

    Michael A. Haedicke is a sociologist in the Department for the Study of Culture and Society at Drake University. He studies alternative food and farming initiatives, including the organic foods sector, with a special focus on environmental sustain- ability and social justice.

    Feature

    Small Food Co-ops in a Whole Foods® World

    Sociologist Michael A. Haedicke explores the world of organic foods co-ops and examines how these countercultural stores are defending their democratic ideals and practices in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

    Purchase this article

    About the Author

    Michael Bader is in the sociology department and Center on Health, Risk, and Society at American University, where he studies neighborhood change and the health impacts of inequality.

    Books

    Weighing the Evidence

    Sociologist Michael Bader reviews two books, Fat Chance and What’s Wrong with Fat?, that hope to reshape the debate about obesity in America.

    Purchase this article

    About the Authors

    Sarah Bowen is in the sociology and anthropology department at North Carolina State University. Her current work focuses on food access among low-income families.

    Sinikka Elliott is in the sociology and anthropology department at North Carolina State University. Her current work focuses on food access among low-income families.

    Joslyn Brenton recently earned her PhD in sociology at North Carolina State University. This fall, she will be in the sociology department at Ithaca College. She does research on families, food, and health. This article was authored by all of them equally.

    Feature

    The Joy of Cooking?

    Sociologists Sarah Bowen, Sinikka Elliott, and Joslyn Brenton offer a critique of the increasingly prevalent message that reforming the food system necessarily entails a return to the kitchen. They argue that time pressures, tradeoffs to save money, and the burden of pleasing others make it difficult for mothers to enact the idealized vision of home-cooked meals advocated by foodies and public health officials.

    Purchase this article

    Online Resources

    Check out Voices Into Action: The Families, Food, and Health Project, an initiative lead by the authors to learn about families’ attitudes and behaviors towards food, and partner with communities to improve access to healthy, affordable food and spaces for physical activity.

    About the Author

    Ivy Ken is in the sociology department at George Washington University. She is the author of Digesting Race, Class, and Gender: Sugar as a Metaphor.

    Pedagogies

    Big Business in the School Cafeteria

    Sociologist Ivy Ken questions the activities of two non-profit organizations that broker agreements with food companies to provide healthier products for schools.

    Purchase this article

    Recommended Resources

    About the Author

    Helene M. Lawson is the director of the sociology program at the University of Pittsburgh, Bradford, and the coordinator of gender studies.

    Smorgasbord

    Happy Meals

    As a child growing up in the city of Chicago, I never gave much thought to where the food I ate came from. While I knew it came from an animal, the meat in the butcher’s glass cases seemed a world apart from the cats and dogs I knew intimately as pets. And I loved my pets very differently than I loved food.

    But moving to rural Pennsylvania as an adult challenged the difference between animals I loved and animals I ate. With a grant to interview farm families in western New York and north central Pennsylvania, I met countless families who loved their animals. At a Highland beef cattle farm, steers came running when their names were called, and young calves hurried over to be bottle-fed.

    But the farmers never forgot that these animals were ultimately food. One sociology major, who also happened to be the local “dairy queen” at her county fair, brought me to her family farm and introduced me to Sweet Pea, whom she described as “a big fat pig that has a good life.” As she told me, “We got Sweet Pea from a shelter. He’s our beloved pet.” I sat with Sweet Pea for a while; he was like a big dog.

    Later, she informed me that Sweet Pea bit her grandfather. “We slaughtered him and ate him for dinner,” she said.

    How could someone eat a pet? On a small farm, it is part of the deal. Livestock may ultimately be food, but they need love to thrive. Again and again farmers told me that their animals led pleasant lives until they were slaughtered—a juxtaposition that may seem strange. Most of us see nurturing and killing as emotionally incompatible with one another.

    But as I watched families care for animals that would ultimately end up on someone’s plate, I came to wonder whether a hamburger from a beloved cow was any better—ethically superior, and tastier, than meat from an unloved one?

    Some observers, such as food critic Michael Pollan writing in his best-selling book Ominivore’s Dilemma, suggest that livestock which are treated as pets may be healthier and tastier than that which is raised in the crowded anonymity of large-scale farms and ranches. They are less likely to subsist on corn and suffer from diseases, and more likely to get the exercise that develops a better-tasting product. They’re also likely to be free of antibiotics and steroids, which most experts agree is dangerous to consumers’ health.

    Livestock that is loved is also more marketable to “green” consumers. Labels like USDA Organic, Third-Party Certified, Hormone-Free, and now “Certified Humane Raised & Handled” help to resolve any potential indigestion a consumer may suffer as they contemplate their meal’s past life. Perhaps that’s why the California Milk Advisory board spent over $18 million to create an ad campaign featuring “happy cows.” In one ad, a herd of Holsteins leaving the Midwest on foot welcome a California earthquake—and the foot massage it will give them—and discuss what they find most attractive in bulls.

    For growing numbers of meat manufacturers, it seems, burgers from happy cows go down much, much better.

    Further Reading

    Read Helene Lawson's full-length article on this topic: The Experience of Existing: small family farms in the Northeast United States.

    About the Author

    John T. Lang is in the sociology department at Occidental College.

    Smorgasbord

    Labeling to Distract

    Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut recently passed legislation requiring companies to label foods that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients, and roughly half of all state legislatures are also considering doing so. While such labels are appealing, giving consumers the illusion of control when making purchasing decisions, the passage of labeling laws for genetically modified food are likely to have a modest impact on the American food system, which in recent decades has shifted toward genetically modified commodity crops.

    According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, roughly 90 percent of all soybeans, more than 75 percent of cotton, and over 80 percent of corn are genetically modified. Food manufacturers use these crops and their derivatives, such as high-fructose corn syrup, cornstarch, soy lecithin, and vegetable oils, as ingredients in a vast array of processed foods. In addition, more than one-third of sugar used in the United States comes from genetically modified sources. At least 75 percent of all processed foods contain a genetically modified ingredient, according to conservative estimates.

    Proponents of labeling note that we label food products even when the ingredients do not pose any health risks. For example, it is common to see religious preferences, such as Halal and Kosher statuses, as well as vegan and vegetarian ingredients, indicated on packages. They say that people have a right to know what’s in their food and that GM labeling gives discerning consumers choices.

    But by labeling, people may believe that they have successfully insulated themselves from the problems of modern agricultural practices and may therefore lack motivation for organizing for change. As sociologist Andrew Szasz explains in his 2007 book Shopping Our Way to Safety, if individuals believe that they have shielded themselves from a perceived threat, there is a false sense of security.

    With GM food labeling, the “protected” consumers would feel less urgency to push for the kind of regulatory controls needed to address structural issues in the food system, and regulators would have little incentive to defy the powerful influence of agribusiness. Therefore, labeling may impede the development of a significant mass of consumers who are committed to critical thinking about the American food system.

    And labeling laws can only do so much. Rather than changing consumer behavior at the point-of-purchase, truly meaningful change must start long before products hit the shelves—in reforms that address the broad availability of diverse and nutritionally adequate sources of food, intellectual property, national sovereignty and colonialism, consolidation in the agricultural chain of production, and the regulation and management of environmental hazards.

    Recommended Readings

    • Charles, Daniel. Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food (Perseus Publishing, 2002). Explores the how and why of the technology rather than making a pro or con argument.
    • Clapp, Jennifer A., and Doris A. Fuchs. Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance (MIT Press, 2009). Places corporate power in the center of worldwide agricultural governance.
    • Falkner, Robert, ed. The International Politics of Genetically Modified Food: Diplomacy, Trade and Law (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007). Integrates political, economic and legal dimensions of the international politics of GM foods.
    • Nestle, Marion. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (University of California Press, 2002). Essential analysis of the intersections between science, politics, and industry.
    • Pinstrup-Andersen, Per, and Ebbe Schioler. Seeds of Contention: World Hunger and the Global Controversy over GM Crops. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000). Argues for the potential of GM crops to address agricultural problems in developing countries.
    • Schurman, Rachel, and William A. Munro. Fighting for the Future of Food: Activists Versus Agribusiness in the Struggle over Biotechnology (University of Minnesota Press, 2010). Shows why anti-GM activists were sometimes successful and why agribusinesses were successful in other circumstances.
    • Szasz, Andrew. Shopping Our Way to Safety: How We Changed from Protecting the Environment to Protecting Ourselves (University of Minnesota Press, 2007). Introduces the concept of an inverted quarantine as a form of political anesthesia that reduces willingness to participate in collective action.