Tag Archives: media and the environment

Translating definitions

The following blog post appears on my “Media and the Environment” class blog. I’ve posted it on my blog to share some of what I’ve been learning this semester.

Recently while eating at Angler’s in Lawrence, I saw something on the menu I hadn’t noticed before.

On the back side of the menu, it was noted at the bottom that the restaurant was a sustainable seafood restaurant. I pointed it out to my boyfriend, feeling better about our decision to eat there, but I also wanted to know more about exactly what that meant. Below the headline, there was some information that kind of explained what the term “sustainable seafood” meant, but the two short paragraphs on the menu didn’t really inform me completely.

Since then, I’ve checked out their Web site to see exactly what the restaurant meant by their sustainable seafood statement. They give some good explanations as to what they mean by sustainable seafood, but I wonder how the term translates to other restaurants and to those restaurants’ consumers.

The term “sustainability” has been thrown into a lot of media coverage about environmental or political issues. Often the word is defined as a balance between people, planet and profit. But I think it’s interesting that the word at one point didn’t include anything about the environment.

I looked up “sustainablility” in the Oxford English Dictionary through the KU Libraries Web site and found that up until December 2001, no definitions included anything about the environment. The definitions before 2001 did include descriptions of maintenance and the ability to be upheld or stand alone, which I am realizing is essential for others to understand in order to apply it to the environment.

I agree that it’s important to include the planet in the discussion when people take on sustainable projects or talk about making things more sustainable, but I’m not so sure that sustainability — the word itself — fully encompasses the aspect of the environment within its definition. It is nice to have a go-to word that can be used when discussing green or environmental issues, but I don’t think a single word cannot possibly sum up the planet, profit or people.

Instead of just labeling some project or item as “sustainable,” I believe meaningful discussions and definite definitions should be given to the public. Honestly, I don’t have a great answer as to who should give that definition, but I see more news outlets and blogs who are trying to offer some guidance. But of course, there’s always the question of who, if anyone, will actually take the time to educate themselves? My hope is that the term won’t try to define or take on too many aspects, and I hope more people begin to understand that research should be done in order to truly have a meaningful discussion about the environment and the food we get from it.


Deconstructing blissful ignorance

The following blog post appears on my “Media and the Environment” class blog. I’ve posted it on my blog to share some of what I’ve been learning this semester.

I’ve recently become addicted to Mad Men. The show, set in the 1960s, depicts the lives of people in the advertising industry in New York City, including the family life of the main characters, which as a modern day viewer can show some past flaws that now seem ridiculous.

I can’t help but chuckle when I see pregnant characters on the show reach for a cocktail or smoke a cigarette in nearly every scene. Obviously, we, as a society, know now that alcohol and tobacco can have serious, harmful side effects for pregnant women, but in that time period, they were oblivious to those. Imagine their reactions when studies came out proving the awful side effects their actions.

Well, after reading reactions to Twinkie, Deconstructed, I experienced what I imagine was the same type of revelation that those characters in Mad Men would have had. Of course, the degree of revelation would probably be different, but the same kind of realization after ignorance occurred with me.

I’d like to give myself some credit and say that even before reading about Twinkie, Deconstructed I figured that Twinkies weren’t healthy and definitely weren’t natural — in the way they look and taste — and therefore, probably weren’t made with natural ingredients. But like most other consumers, I was ignorant to all of the harmful ingredients in Twinkies and more importantly, where those ingredients come from. If more consumers knew about the off-shore food additives that appear in most foods they eat, I think they would be more inclined to eat natural, local-grown foods.

It’s amazing to me that even in 2010, we still don’t know everything about the food we eat, but we’ve learned all about the negative components of things as alcohol or cigarettes that aren’t consumed everyday. The Twinkie was made in 1930, and I don’t know if the same ingredients were in that version compared to today’s version, but I’m sure there were some overlapping ingredients.

As the popular saying goes, ignorance is bliss, but what happens when that ignorance evolves into problems that have major consequences? If people are happier being oblivious to what they’re eating, than knowing about unnatural substances, then those same people should realize the eventual health issues they might encounter.

Consumers should realize that they might have to pay more for healthier, natural foods and that to find those kind of foods might require some education. Reading about Twinkie, Deconstructed can be a start to realizing that ignorance toward what we’re putting in our bodies isn’t so blissful.

— Lauren Cunningham