This is a follow-up post to the Blog-a-Thon I did on January 31.
On January 1, 2009, Julie Forward DeMay began her blog cell war notebooks
to document her “journey to healing;” she was battling cancer. On
August 10, 2009, Julie died peacefully at home, only two days after her
thirty-seventh birthday. This book is the collection of her blog posts.
Each
post is given its own chapter, separating the book into short and easy
to read segments. The book itself is short and can be read in a single
sitting. The chapters are loosely centered around themes, but mostly
chronicle Julie’s thoughts on any given day. Her writing style is
casual and inviting, and the reader is drawn into the personal
reflections of a young woman conscripted to fight a battle no one would
ever choose for themselves, but which far too many must face
nonetheless.
She begins optimistically, determined to defeat this
invader in her body and resume her life. She is surrounded by the
support of family and friends, and her love for her husband and
five-year-old daughter are recurring themes throughout the book. But as
treatment after treatment fails to deliver on the promise of good
health, her optimism begins to turn to desperation. Continue reading...
Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Monday, March 11, 2013
Banking on Our Ignorance
The FDA is currently soliciting opinions regarding a petition they've received from the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF). In brief, the petition is requesting that the definition of 'milk' and seventeen other dairy products be changed to include the addition of "non-nutritive" sweeteners (such as aspartame) as an optional ingredient. This would mean that while aspartame would be included on the list of ingredients, it wouldn't be called out anywhere else on the label.
There are so many posts I could write about why this is a bad idea. I've already mentioned in another post about the challenges involved in not letting my family be a chemistry experiment at mealtime, but dozens of other bloggers have already covered that territory. Google 'aspartame in milk' and you'll find plenty of them.
What bothers me about this is the reasoning behind the petition. Putting non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame in milk and milk products is already allowed, but the label has to advertise the addition by calling it "reduced calorie" or the like. According to the IDFA and NMPF, however, "nutrient content claims such as 'reduced calorie' are not attractive to children." They also state that "consumers do not recognize milk—including flavored milk—as necessarily containing sugar..[and] milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can 'more easily identify its overall nutritional value.'"
In other words, milk sales are down and people are too stupid to understand what they're drinking, so let's not confuse them with too much information so they'll just buy our product.
Where do I begin?
I appreciate the fact that they at least stated the real cause behind this petition: they're trying to combat slumping sales. Of course, this statement was buried towards the end of the petition after several paragraphs detailing how this action would enable the milk industry to promote healthful eating practices and combat childhood obesity. Particularly amusing, however, is their assertion that redefining milk to disguise the fact that it contains artificial sweeteners would somehow "promote honesty and fair dealing in the marketplace."
Explain to me how allowing the exact same label be displayed on milk-as-we-know-it and on milk containing aspartame promotes honesty and fair dealing in the marketplace. The argument they're making is that the difference is called out on the ingredients list, but the truth is that they're counting on the fact that most people don't read the ingredients list. People glance at the label, process the data that is readily available, and make a quick value judgment. That's why products that claim to be "all natural" sell so well, even if there's nothing healthful about the 'all natural' ingredients. (Did you know that cyanide is all natural?) Many people buy wheat bread thinking it's healthier than white bread, but several brands of wheat bread have no more dietary fiber than their white counterparts. People would know that if they read the nutritional value information, but they don't. They just take a quick look at the label, see the word 'wheat,' and assume it's healthier. The requirement that added sweeteners currently require the label to say "reduced calorie" turns off some buyers (and attracts others, but apparently not the ones the milk industry is targeting: children).
At present, the IDFA and NMPF claim they just want to be able to add these artificial sweeteners to milk products that are already being sweetened by regular sugar (i.e. chocolate milk). However, the wording of the petition makes no distinction or limitation. If this is approved as written, plain, regular milk may suddenly sprout aspartame with no indication other than a tiny notation in the ingredients list. Given that there is evidence that aspartame and other artificial sweeteners are addictive, I can see how this could certainly help solve the problem of slumping sales.
The IDFA and NMPF know that consumers are largely ignorant of what's actually in what they consume, and they're banking on that ignorance. When's the last time you looked at both the nutritional information and the ingredients list of a product you buy regularly? Or even of one that you only buy every once in a while? Would you notice if your milk suddenly included an artificial sweetener in the ingredients list if the label stayed the same?
Pay attention to what you're eating and drinking. Regularly check the nutritional information and the ingredients list. You'll probably be surprised by what you see; I know I was. And I've drastically changed my shopping and eating habits as a result. You may, or your may not. But whatever you do, you should do it will full knowledge and awareness.
The IDFA and NMPF think we're stupid. Let's not prove them right.
There are so many posts I could write about why this is a bad idea. I've already mentioned in another post about the challenges involved in not letting my family be a chemistry experiment at mealtime, but dozens of other bloggers have already covered that territory. Google 'aspartame in milk' and you'll find plenty of them.
What bothers me about this is the reasoning behind the petition. Putting non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame in milk and milk products is already allowed, but the label has to advertise the addition by calling it "reduced calorie" or the like. According to the IDFA and NMPF, however, "nutrient content claims such as 'reduced calorie' are not attractive to children." They also state that "consumers do not recognize milk—including flavored milk—as necessarily containing sugar..[and] milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can 'more easily identify its overall nutritional value.'"
In other words, milk sales are down and people are too stupid to understand what they're drinking, so let's not confuse them with too much information so they'll just buy our product.
Where do I begin?
I appreciate the fact that they at least stated the real cause behind this petition: they're trying to combat slumping sales. Of course, this statement was buried towards the end of the petition after several paragraphs detailing how this action would enable the milk industry to promote healthful eating practices and combat childhood obesity. Particularly amusing, however, is their assertion that redefining milk to disguise the fact that it contains artificial sweeteners would somehow "promote honesty and fair dealing in the marketplace."
Explain to me how allowing the exact same label be displayed on milk-as-we-know-it and on milk containing aspartame promotes honesty and fair dealing in the marketplace. The argument they're making is that the difference is called out on the ingredients list, but the truth is that they're counting on the fact that most people don't read the ingredients list. People glance at the label, process the data that is readily available, and make a quick value judgment. That's why products that claim to be "all natural" sell so well, even if there's nothing healthful about the 'all natural' ingredients. (Did you know that cyanide is all natural?) Many people buy wheat bread thinking it's healthier than white bread, but several brands of wheat bread have no more dietary fiber than their white counterparts. People would know that if they read the nutritional value information, but they don't. They just take a quick look at the label, see the word 'wheat,' and assume it's healthier. The requirement that added sweeteners currently require the label to say "reduced calorie" turns off some buyers (and attracts others, but apparently not the ones the milk industry is targeting: children).
At present, the IDFA and NMPF claim they just want to be able to add these artificial sweeteners to milk products that are already being sweetened by regular sugar (i.e. chocolate milk). However, the wording of the petition makes no distinction or limitation. If this is approved as written, plain, regular milk may suddenly sprout aspartame with no indication other than a tiny notation in the ingredients list. Given that there is evidence that aspartame and other artificial sweeteners are addictive, I can see how this could certainly help solve the problem of slumping sales.
The IDFA and NMPF know that consumers are largely ignorant of what's actually in what they consume, and they're banking on that ignorance. When's the last time you looked at both the nutritional information and the ingredients list of a product you buy regularly? Or even of one that you only buy every once in a while? Would you notice if your milk suddenly included an artificial sweetener in the ingredients list if the label stayed the same?
Pay attention to what you're eating and drinking. Regularly check the nutritional information and the ingredients list. You'll probably be surprised by what you see; I know I was. And I've drastically changed my shopping and eating habits as a result. You may, or your may not. But whatever you do, you should do it will full knowledge and awareness.
The IDFA and NMPF think we're stupid. Let's not prove them right.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Indies Forward: The Cell War Notebooks Blog-a-Thon
January
31st is IndiesForward day – a special blogging event dedicated to
spreading the legacy of Julie Forward DeMay and her touching memoir, The
Cell War Notebooks.
What
would you do when faced with a battle for your life? Author, photographer and
creative spirit Julie Forward DeMay took on her fight with cervical cancer like
she was playing for the new high score in her favorite video game, Asteroids.
Inspiring, witty, beautiful and brutally honest, The Cell War Notebooks is a compilation of the blog Julie kept
during the last seven months of her life. It’s a powerful read for anyone,
whether your life has been touched by cancer or not. Check out the paperback on
Amazon and keep up with the latest news on Facebook. All proceeds from book
sales go to Julie’s nine year-old daughter Luka.
The Cell War Notebooks on Amazon: http://amzn.to/W17WN4 (This is NOT an
affiliate link)
The Cell War Notebooks on Facebook: http://facebook.com/cellwarnotebooks
Julie’s
Original Blog: http://cellwarnotebooks.blogspot.com
Duolit’s
IndiesForward Page: http://selfpublishingteam.com/indiesforward
I haven't read The Cell War Notebooks yet, but I have ordered it from Amazon, and will post a review of it over at Quiet Publications soon.
Those of us participating in Indies Forward have been asked to write about an obstacle we've overcome, how cancer has touched our lives, or something that gives us inspiration to push forward every day.
Cancer is a nightmare that hasn't touched me directly, and I can only imagine what it must be like to find the strength to battle it day in and day out. A battle I am familiar with, however, is depression. I know what it feels like to not be able to get out of bed in the morning. Or afternoon. Or evening. I know what it's like to think about everything that is waiting for me out in the world--both the good and the bad--and realize that I have no desire to do any of it.
This isn't my life every day; I have periods of days or weeks (though usually not months) when I'm doing pretty well. And then I have periods of days or weeks (and on a few horrible occasions, months) when every day is a struggle. But I no longer allow myself to just lie in bed all day when I'm gripped with a deep depression.
I'd like to tell you my secret is something amazing, courageous, triumphant, etc. But it really boils down to duty.
Duty and obligation.
Duty and obligation that are born out of love.
I am married to a wonderful man, and we have two wonderful children. I'm also a stay-at-home and homeschooling mom, and my husband and I have divvied up our responsibilities along fairly (though not rigidly) traditional lines. As the sole breadwinner my husband simply has to work every day. Which means I have to get out of bed and take care of our three-year-old daughter and four-year-old son. Whether I want to or not.
What gets me out of bed is knowing that I am the Mom. This is my job. And the kids will suffer if I don't do my job. And this consequence to them resonates with me, because I was raised by a Mom who often didn't do her job because of depression. I'm still living with those consequences decades later, and I do not want to burden my kids in the same way.
When I'm in a deep depression, I can't feel love. I can't feel joy at their antics. I don't even feel frustration when they get into trouble. I'm just empty. So trying to remember how much I love them is ineffective as a motivator, because depression prevents me from feeling that love. But duty and obligation don't require me to feel anything. I just have to do it. And if things need to get done, then I can make myself do them.
I'm not up to my usual standards at those times, but as an incurable perfectionist I rarely am anyway. I see what needs to get done and I do it, no feelings required, no feelings present.
Or are they?
In 2006 I had a six month period when I could barely get off the couch. (Did you know that it takes less than twenty-four hours to watch an entire season of 24? It's true!) Getting to the grocery store was a major accomplishment. There were a lot of things I needed to get done then, but frequently didn't. I wasn't married, and I didn't have kids.
The periods of depression I have now are no less severe (2010 was a particularly rough year), but I manage to do the things that need doing. Why? Because my husband and my kids need me to. And even though I may not be able to access my feelings of love for them, that love is what compels me to get up and get busy. That love is what inspires my sense of duty and obligation. If I didn't love them, then I wouldn't care about their suffering for my inaction any more than I'd care about my own (which is very little). But depression can only block me from feeling love; it doesn't stop me from having it.
I hope I never have to face a diagnosis of cancer and fight the battle that Julie Forward DeMay had to fight. But if I ever do, I trust that the love I have for my family would inspire the sense of duty and obligation necessary to fight it with everything I have, and that would be a gift to them, regardless of the outcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)