After posting about Disney princesses yesterday, I was chatting with Rebecca from A Little Bit of Momsense and she pointed out that she was She-Ra for Halloween when she was little. I responded saying that I was once Wonder Woman. The conversation got me thinking about the female heroines of my youth and I realized that none of them are the Disney Princess types. Sure, I liked Snow White, but it was the story that intrigued me and not the Snow White character in particular (I loved the dwarfs!). I also played with typical girl toys like My Little Ponies and Strawberry Shortcake, but I would say that the majority of my childhood media influences were either strong heroines or were male. Not all of my  heroines are the perfect feminist ideal, but they are certainly not the typical princess type that is so popular today. Here is a sampling…

She-Ra – Princess of Power

Yes, she’s a princess, but certainly not your typical Disney Princess.

Wonder Woman

Nancy Drew

ShellyS on flickr

Pippi Longstocking

Caitlin Ryan on Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi High

Charlie’s Angels

Ramona Quimby

Elizabeth Wakefield from Sweet Valley

Peppermint Patty from Charlie Brown

The girls from the Facts of Life

I loved the girls from the Facts of Life, except the pretentious Blair of course.

Velma and Daphne from Scooby Doo

Lisa Simpson

Note: Most of these images and the corresponding links are from Amazon because I was having trouble finding good Creative Commons images of the heroines of my youth and Amazon provided a good alternative. Clicking on the links and purchasing the products from Amazon does provide me with a much appreciated yet small affiliate payment.

My partner is a stay-at-home dad and he sometimes fills me in on the deep conversations he has during the day with our little girl. Ones like this:

Emma: Daddy, what are you thinking about?

Daddy: I’m thinking about putting the tiles on the backsplash. What are you thinking about?

Emma: I’m always thinking about princesses.

Such is the life of an almost three year old girl.

As a thirty-something feminist, I don’t expect to spend a lot of my time thinking about princesses. But these days, it does seem like I’m spending a lot of time thinking about them. From princess books, to princess movies, to princess birthday parties and princess pretend play, princesses are invading my home, my life and my thoughts. As if that wasn’t enough, when I try to escape into the world of adult conversation and news, I find princesses, princesses, and lots more princesses.

I don’t really like princesses. At least not the popular image of a princess. I don’t like how focused they are on their looks. I don’t like that their life’s goal is to meet and marry a rich and handsome prince. I don’t like their completely impractical clothing. I don’t like the fact that every single girl in Julian’s preschool class was a princess for Halloween. I don’t like the entitlement attitude. I don’t like the lavish lifestyle. I don’t like the snobbery. I don’t like the daintiness.

Since I’m not a huge princess fan, you would think I would welcome news from Disney that it is trying to make its next big animated movie less princess-focused. But I don’t. At least not the way they are doing it. According to the Los Angeles Times article “Disney restyles ‘Rapunzel’ to appeal to boys“:

After the less-than-fairy-tale results for its most recent animated release, “The Princess and the Frog,” executives at the Burbank studio believe they know why the acclaimed movie came up short at the box office.

Brace yourself: Boys didn’t want to see a movie with “princess” in the title.

This time, Disney is taking measures to ensure that doesn’t happen again. The studio renamed its next animated film with the girl-centric name “Rapunzel” to the less gender-specific “Tangled.”

But that isn’t all. In addition to changing the name of the movie, they also introduced a new male character, an infamous bandit Flynn Rider just to appeal to boys. A character that isn’t there in the original. The New York Review of Books A Girl in the Tower article on Rapunzel stories explains:

In the Grimms’ tale of “Rapunzel” (though not in the Pentamerone), the prince is a fairly ineffective figure. After he climbs Rapunzel’s hair into the tower and is confronted by the witch, he jumps from the window in despair and is blinded by thorns. Both he and his beloved then wander about alone in misery for several years, but at last they are reunited and when Rapunzel’s tears fall on his eyes his sight is restored.

The NPR’s blog on this topic, called “Dear Disney: Boys Aren’t Stupid, But Renaming ‘Rapunzel’ Is” explains that other Disney princess movies like the Little Mermaid did fine at box offices [emphasis mine]:

There are princess characters who do just fine with boys, but I think the word “princess” now carries an implication of passivity and romantic fixation and therefore a lack of interest that Disney has created, not discovered.

The blog post goes on to explain that Alice in Wonderland is expected to do well despite not being called Hatter! and that Up would probably not have failed if Russell had been a girl instead of a boy.

I recognize that Disney’s primary goal is profit and not ensuring an appropriate cultural education for my children, but I wish that instead of keeping the princess and adding a “cool guy” on top, that Disney would think about what role it can play in deconstructing gender stereotypes and showing girls that they don’t have to be princesses and boys that they don’t have to be charming machos. As a feminist, I don’t object outright to girls wanting to pretend that they are princesses, but I do object to them being consistently brainwashed with the princess mentality. As a pacifist, I don’t object outright to kids playing with swords and guns, but I do object to them being consistently brainwashed into thinking that violence and war is a way to solve problems. We need some balance. Balance that allows all kids to experiment, use their imagination, and have fun without being told “girls don’t do this” and “boys don’t do that“.

My challenge to Disney: Instead of thinking about how to appeal to girls and appeal to boys, think about how you can create strong characters that help to break down the gender stereotypes you’ve invested so much money into building.

Image credit: Express Monorail on flickr

Language is a powerful thing. I sometimes object to other people’s choice of words. They sometimes object to mine. We let words impact us and give them power they may or may not have earned. There are words that cut like a knife and words so powerful and so objectionable that they really shouldn’t be used. Yet they are thrown around lightly. Nazi is one. Retard is another.

March 3rd was National Anti R-Word Day. My friend Ellen, who previously wrote a guest post here called How you should treat my child with special needs, wrote about it in her post One of the most awful words on the planet. The discussion in the comments was interesting and one commenter asked how replacing the word “retarded” with another one was going to do anything. Ellen replied that no one is suggesting the r-word be replaced with anything else.  She is right, but at the same time the word retarded has become such a huge part of so many people’s vocabulary, that I think they do need something to replace it.

So, I wrote an epic comment outlining exactly what I thought the r-word should be replaced with. Ellen turned it into a guest post on her blog. I hope you’ll take a moment to read it:

On alternatives to the r-word

I hope you’ll read it and comment over on Ellen’s blog if you have something to add to the conversation.

I far too often hear “but I don’t want my children to see THAT” in people’s objections to nursing in public.  I think we need our children to see more of THAT.

Instant Classic by G.J. Charlet III on flickr

Moeder en kroost by inferis on flickr

Be a mentor!

Most days, I’m proud to be Canadian. Whether I’m talking about our health care system, our maternity and parental leave programs, feminist leaders, or other topics close to my heart, my country usually makes me proud (even if it isn’t perfect). Today, however, my heart sunk. I was hit with bad news and then slapped with some more. I was disgusted by my country.

Association for Research on Mothering: CLOSED

I am a mother. I am a feminist. Despite not currently being enrolled at a university, I consider myself an academic and a researcher. I love the Association for Research on Mothering. I love what it stands for. I love its books. I love its journal. I love the fact that it brings thought leadership to the important role that mothers play in society.

Today, I learned that it is closing next month. York University, where it is located, is continuing to refuse to provide any base funding to the association and no one else is stepping up to provide it a home either. You can read the details in a letter from Dr. Andrea O’Reilly over on the Parentopia blog.

I am so much in shock over this that I can’t come up with anything intelligent to say about it, but I am devastated. I own a couple of the books published by Demeter Press and had put the rest of them on my Christmas wish list this past year. They are apparently going to be going on sale at a discount on their website and I plan to buy each and every one that I don’t own already.

But I’m disappointed that there will no longer be a place to bring together the important research on mothering and to foster the research and thinking on this topic. I’m heartbroken that I may never get to read some of the forthcoming books, like Mothering Canada (Spring 2010),  Disability and Mothering (Spring 2010), Giving Breast Milk (Spring 2010), The M Word: Real Mothers in Contemporary Art (Fall 2010), You Say You Want a Revolution: The 21st Century Motherhood Movement (Fall 2010), The Palin Factor: Politican Mothers and Public Motherhood in the 21st Century (Fall 2010), Adoption and Mothering (Spring 2011), Latina/Chicana Mothering (Fall 2011), Queering Parenting (Spring 2012), Living Feminism Through Mothering (Spring 2012), and Being a Mother Academic: Theory and Narrative (Spring 2012).

Is there someone out there who can save the Association for Research on Mothering? Please tell me there is. This is too precious to lose.

Mention of Gay Rights in Immigrant’s Guide: REMOVED

Homosexuality was decriminalized in Canada in 1969. Gay rights are protected under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2005. But shhhhhh…..don’t tell the immigrants. Today CBC reported that Jason Kenny, a Conservative Member of Parliament and current Immigration Minister removed all references to gay rights in the study guide for new immigrants who are learning about Canada in preparation for their citizenship exam.

According to the CBC’s article Gay rights section nixed for immigrant’s guide:

Internal documents show an early draft of the guide contained sections noting that homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969; that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation; and that same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in 2005.

But Kenney, who fought same-sex marriage when it was debated in Parliament, ordered those key sections removed when his office sent its comments to the department last June.

Senior department officials duly cut out the material — but made a last-ditch plea with Kenney in early August to have it reinstated….In the end, however, Kenney’s view trumped that of the bureaucrats. The 63-page guide, titled Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship, was released with fanfare last November and contains no mention of gay and lesbian rights.

While Canada welcomes the diversity that immigrants bring to this country, there are certain core values that we will not compromise on. The rights of all Canadians, especially minorities, are protected under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ensuring that immigrants are aware not only of their own rights but of the rights of everyone they share this country with is key to achieving harmonious diversity. The removal of those sections amounts to silencing or hiding the rights of Canada’s gay and lesbian communities. This is yet another example of the Harper government’s further attempts to marginalize what it considers to be “fringe groups“.

I’m disgusted and I won’t shut up

I’m disgusted by the announcement on the Association for Research on Mothering. I’m disgusted by the removal of references to gay rights in the immigration guide. I’m disgusted, disgusted, disgusted. Will you join me in expressing your disgust?

Ugh.

I won’t stand by and watch Stephen Harper’s Conservatives continue with their plans to marginalize what they consider to be “left-wing fringe groups” (yup, people like women, gays, minorities, people with disabilities, francophones, or basically anyone who isn’t an English speaking heterosexual white male).

I’ll continue to express my disgust here on this blog and I’ll stand up to tell you all more about why I do this and why you should too when I speak about being a Radical Blogging Mom with Joanne Bamberger (Pundit Mom) and Stephanie Roberts (Picture Hope) at BlogHer 10 in New York this summer.

When people talk about baby-led weaning, they are usually referring to the method of introducing solid food that involves introducing finger foods and allowing the baby to decide what and how much to eat, rather than the parents spoon feeding baby food. Over time, feedings at the breast are gradually replaced with self-feeding of the same types of solid foods eaten by the rest of the family.

But breastfeeding is about more than just food. So in families that have chosen child-led weaning, meaning that the child (not the mother) decides when to stop nursing, the gradual process of weaning involves not only introducing other forms of food, but also other forms of comfort.

In our family, our babies were always nursed to sleep. That meant that I, as the nursing mom, lay down with them at bedtime and nursed them until the gulps turned to flutters and they drifted off to sleep. I could then sneak out and go about the rest of my evening. If I wasn’t there, Daddy would do, but their preference was always to nurse to sleep.  We never pushed or forced independent sleep, knowing that like eating, walking, talking, reading and so many other things, they would one day be able to do it on their own. It might require some guidance and some reassurance, but certainly not force.

As it happens, both of our children were ready to give up nursing to sleep before they were ready to give up having a parent present at bedtime. Nursing is a powerful sleep tool and our kids needed something to replace it. Something that would help them go off smiling and secure into the Land of Nod. They didn’t stop nursing at bedtime all at once. It happened gradually. With both of them, they went from nursing to sleep to nursing at bedtime but not falling asleep while nursing.

So then what do you do with a still awake child that has finished nursing?

In our case, in child-led fashion, each of our kids decided for themselves what comfort they needed that would help them doze off. With Julian, it was an involved process. He wanted his back rubbed while being sang to. The Thomas the Tank Engine theme song, the Elmo Song, the Wheels on the Bus, over and over and over again. He wasn’t always quick to fall asleep and I would find myself drifting away mid-song as I tried to get him to sleep. With Emma, who is now just shy of three years old and only nurses at bedtime about every third night or so, the request is clear and simple: “Mommy, cuddle my bum.”

So I cuddle. Because she wants me to, because it comforts her, and because one day she won’t want me to anymore.

Photo credit: ibu menyusui on flickr

A 2009 study called Social disparity and the use of intrapartum epidural analgesia in a publicly funded health care system by Ning Liu MB, MSc et al concluded that in Canada “the use of labor epidural analgesia is decreased with decreasing neighborhood economic and education levels.” Or, in plain language: rich highly educated women are more likely to get an epidural than poor less educated women. Those are facts which are supported by an excellent data set. I won’t argue with the facts [edited to add screen capture of basic results set].

However, I take issue with some of the study’s assumptions and the conclusions drawn by some of the researchers involved. From the start, the study presents the use of epidurals as the smart choice, referring to the increased use of epidurals as “1 [sic] of the most significant achievements of modern obstetric practice.” The whole study seems to question whether women of lower socioeconomic status are just not smart enough to understand how great epidurals are.

Education level could influence a patient’s acceptance of epidural analgesia.26 We speculate that in our study women from a high-education neighborhood may have had more knowledge about labor epidural and considered that it could alleviate pain more effectively. These women could then be more likely to accept epidural when clinicians recommended it to them, or they request the service themselves.

Despite conceding some cultural reasons for some women refusing epidurals, ultimately, they seem to conclude that if you are educated about epidurals you will make the smart choice and get one. If you are not educated about epidurals, you will not know what a wonderful thing you are missing out on.

The pros and cons of epidurals

I think the first mistake the study’s authors made was to assume that getting an epidural is a smarter choice than not getting an epidural.  There are both pros ans cons to epidural use during birth. According to Sam Leeson, a doula with babyREADY in Toronto in her post on epidurals:

PROS
May offer pain relief
May offer mom the chance to rest
May be medically necessary

CONS
May not work the way mom wants
Mom will be unable to get up to urinate
Some moms complain of long-term back ache at the epidural site**
May slow labour
May drop mom’s blood pressure (an IV will be administered)
May increase the need for surgical interventions (i.e. vacuum, forceps, episiotomy and/or caesarean section)
Will increase the risk of tearing
May give mom a spinal headache
May affect the baby
May result in an allergic reaction to the narcotic (mom would need more medication)
Is cumulative (results in increasing physical disconnection the longer it is in place)
Limits options of positions for pushing in second stage labour

There is a detailed examination of the pros and cons of epidural use, giving a full explanation of these factors, in Weighing the Pros and Cons of the Epidural by renowned childbirth education expert Penny Simkin. In her article she concludes that:

The childbirth educator’s duty is to inform, not to talk women into or out of using an epidural. Many women will choose an epidural, when well informed of benefits, risks and alternatives; others will choose to avoid it if their labor allows.

When women are well informed, they will consider the information, along with other factors – such as their fears, self-perceptions, their goals for their birth experiences, their support system – and make the most suitable decision.

This is a reasonable, balanced conclusion. Assuming that an epidural, which has many risks including increasing the likelihood of need for other birth interventions (each of which carries its own risk), is a better smarter choice is inappropriate. Assuming that the decision to refuse an epidural is something that only uneducated or unaware women do, is insulting.

A brief tangent on inductions, epidurals and c-sections

One of the key risks of epidurals that is mentioned above is the likelihood that an epidural will result in the need for additional interventions, like a c-section. But often the story doesn’t start with the epidural. Experts say that a lot of women are induced unnecessarily just because they have passed an arbitrary date by which the obstetrician thought they should have given birth. In an article about Canada’s increasing c-section rate, this logic is questioned:

Today in Canada, one in five women who gives birth in hospital is induced.

What doctors fear are stillbirths. But alarmed by the rising rates of inductions, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada recently urged doctors not to consider an induction until a woman is at least one week past her due date.

Claudia Villeneuve says that women are getting induced “if they’re two, three, four days overdue.”

“Inductions are rampant,” says Villeneuve, president of the International Cesarean Awareness Network of Canada. “You have a perfectly normal mom who comes in with a perfectly normal baby, and now you put these powerful drugs into her system to force labour to start.”

The “humane” thing is to offer an epidural, she says. With an epidural, a woman can’t feel pain in the lower half of her body. But epidurals slow labour, sometimes so much that labour stops. “Now you have to get this baby out,” Villeneuve says. Two-thirds of first-time C-sections are done for “failure to progress.”

Interestingly, despite this logical explanation for part of the increase in the c-section rate, one of the authors of the study this post is about (the one about how smart women get epidurals), Dr. Mark  Walker, is quoted in the same article as saying that “We don’t know what the ideal rate [of c-sections] is. I think it’s fair to assume it’s lower than where we are now.” (note: the WHO says it shouldn’t be higher than 15 percent and Canada’s c-section rate is 29 percent).

An alternate hypothesis

Back to the epidural study. In addition to rejecting the authors’ assumption that an epidural is a smart choice, I also reject their conclusion that education level is what causes women of higher socioeconomic status to  have a higher epidural rate.

**WARNING: Evidently from the comments so far my attempt to facetiously poke fun at myself and my socioeconomic cohort in the next paragraph was a complete failure. Please take it with a grain of salt or feel free to join in telling me what a jerk I am while I ponder whether I want to keep writing at all if there is no room for a bit of sarcasm and creative license here and there to make a point (going to keep writing…and keep learning). **

Instead of saying that rich educated women are making the “smart” choice by getting an epidural, I’d be more likely to say that women with perfectly manicured nails, pretty shoes, and a white collar job in the city who have never done a day of manual labour in their lives or endured any type of hardship are more likely to be unwilling or unable to endure the pain of childbirth than rural blue collar working women with practical shoes, callouses on their hands and whose life experience has taught them how to fight and endure. That is, of course, a generalization since not all rich educated women chose to have epidurals and not all poor uneducated women refuse them. However, I think it is a more likely explanation for the difference in epidural rates across socioeconomic groups than the one the authors of the study put forth.

Or, if I am wrong and women of higher socioeconomic status are truly choosing epidurals because they think it is the smarter, safer choice, then we need to seriously reconsider how women are educated about epidurals and find ways to ensure more of them learn about the risks of epidurals and are given the confidence in their body’s ability to birth a baby and to endure the pain of childbirth.

My experience: I had an epidural for my first birth because I was “educated” about the “benefits” of the epidural and scared of the pain. I ended up spending a very uncomfortable night, lying on my back, waiting for my baby to be born. I needed a nurse to tell me when to push and for how long.  They had to use the vacuum extractor to get my baby out (and I’m very lucky that is all they had to use). For my second birth, I refused the epidural because I was educated about the risks of an epidural. I was able to labour in whichever position was most comfortable for me, which mostly meant standing up and using gravity to help move things along.  I was able to feel when it was time to push and knew how long and how hard to push because my body told me and not because a nurse was counting for me.

Image credit: mangpages on flickr

A few days ago, I wrote about how I despise the McDonald’s and Coke sponsorship of Olympic athletes. Today, I want to share a few better Olympic sponsorship videos with you.

American Ski Champ and Organic Farmer: Bode Miller

Hockey Players and Egg Farmers of Canada: Hayley Wickenheiser and Kim St.Pierre

Thanks to Lisa from from Borden Communications and Design and Rebecca from A Little Bit of Momsense for tipping me off to the Bode Miller video which was also posted on The Green Fork.

The continued marketing of formula, bottles, pacifiers, or complimentary foods for babies under six months of age is dangerous and unethical. Not only do they undermine the efforts of moms who want to breastfeed, but they also create risks to the health of mothers and babies, and have a detrimental impact on the environment.

According to Marsha Walker, a registered nurse, International Board Certified Lactation Consultant, and Executive Director of the National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy:

Many people feel that they are too savvy to fall for deceptive claims but this is not true. Research has shown that more and more people feel that infant formula is equivalent to human milk, based on manufacturer claims that are false, misleading, and not supported by the evidence. Many mothers fall prey to thinking that fancy feeding bottles and artificial nipples are similar to their breast, but this is not true either.

According to the WHO ’s FAQs on the International Code:

The protection, promotion and support of breastfeeding rank among the most effective interventions to improve child survival. It is estimated that high coverage of optimal breastfeeding practices could avert 13% of the 10.6 million deaths of children under five years occurring globally every year. Exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months of life is particularly beneficial, and infants who are not breastfed in the first month of life may be as much as 25 times more likely to die than infants who are exclusively breastfed.

No one disputes the fact that formula and bottles should exist. However, the World Health Organization, breastfeeding and health advocacy organizations, and many governments agree that they should not be marketed to expectant mothers, new mothers, and health professionals. People should be able to access these products when they are needed, but should not be faced with deceptive messages and imagery that suggest that a bottle is the standard way to feed a baby or that formula is as good as breastmilk.

What is the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes?

In order to reduce the negative effect of formula marketing and save lives, the World Health Organization developed the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (World Health Organization). The Code restricts marketing and related practices of the following products:

• breast-milk substitutes, including infant formula and other milk products
• any foods and beverages, including bottle-fed complementary foods, when marketed for babies under 6 months of age (e.g. baby food and cereals marketed for young babies)
• baby bottles
• teats, like bottle nipples and pacifiers

Some of the provisions in the Code include:

• No advertising to the public of any product within the scope of the Code. This includes ads in any media–print, websites, TV, radio. It also includes in-store promotions, special displays, coupons and discounts (lowering the price of formula is allowed, but promoting a sale price or offering a coupon is not).
• No free samples to mothers. Cans of formula or gifts from formula or bottle manufacturers sent to homes, given to mothers by pediatric or obstetric offices, given to mothers when they leave the hospital, given as prizes or in contests, given at clinics or anywhere in the healthcare system
• No promotion of products through healthcare systems. Booklets, leaflets, posters,name badge holders, crib cards, tape measures, calendars, etc
• No gifts to healthcare providers. Anything from formula companies or feeding bottle manufacturers that are given to physicians, nurses, dietitians
• No words or pictures idealizing artificial feeding or pictures of infants on labels of formula cans, feeding bottles, etc. Packaging of these products should not have idealizing language or pictures of infants and mothers. Idealizing language means that claims are made such as “most like mother herself” or claims that the products are similar to breastmilk or breastfeeding

Governments in more than 60 countries have adopted the Code and made it law. Some countries have gone a step further by making formula available only by prescription or requiring warnings on labels. In the absence of legislation, the Code encourages manufacturers and distributors to comply with its provisions.

Why are companies still violating the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes?

Unfortunately, many of the countries that are signatories to the Code have not gone through the process of turning it into a law. Even in cases where there are laws in place, governments often do not have sufficient resources to monitor compliance and penalize non-compliance. So companies continue to do what they want and continue to aggressively promote their products in order to increase their profits. Nestle, for one, has made it clear that it does not even attempt to comply with the Code in developed countries (like Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Australia and others) and it falls short in developing countries. Other companies like Enfamil, Similac, and Heinz continue to violate the code regularly, as do bottle manufacturers such as Avent, Medela and many others. Despite what they may tell you, these companies are more focused on profits than on the health of babies.

How can I report a violation of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes?

• United States: In the US, that organization is the National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy (NABA). Violations of the Code can be sent via mail to NABA, 254 Conant Rd, Weston, MA 02493, email Marshalact@aol.com, fax 781 893-8608 along with the monitoring form.
• Canada: INFACT Canada monitors the Code in Canada and has a form you can fill in on its website.  It also offers some sample letters you can use to contact politicians, health care institutions and store managers with regards to violations in their jurisdiction.
• United Kingdom: In the UK, you can report violations to the WHO Code and there is also a banner you can add to your blog/website to inform other people about the need to report violations to the code.

Again, in other countries you can use the standard monitoring form and send it to the Code monitoring organization for your country.

Go forth and report!

If you see a violation, please take the time to take a picture/scan it in, note when and where you saw it, and report it. I have a few photos on my blackberry that I will be sending in to INFACT Canada, including several in-store coupons, discounts and promotions by Heinz that I have seen recently at IGA and Loblaws.

Thank you to Marsha Walker from NABA and Mike Brady from Baby Milk Action for their input into this post.

Earlier this week, Canada welcomed a new hero into its hearts. Not only the winner of our first gold medal during these Olympics, but the winner of the first Olympic gold ever won by a Canadian on Canadian soil, and a genuine good human being too.  Alexandre Bilodeau is just the type of person I would like my kids to look up to. Not because sports are super special and sports heroes are better than anyone else, but because he had goals, he worked hard, and he achieved them all while being a great family guy and talking genuinely about how his older brother with cerebral palsy is his inspiration.

Until…

Hours after winning his gold medal, Bilodeau headed off to McDonald’s. Almost everyone eats fast food now and again. I get that. We do too. But when I’m trying to convince my kids that McDonald’s is not good for you, that fast food will make you sick if you eat it too often, they get to see their Olympic heroes smiling and talking about how great McDonald’s is and how much they love it. Mommy isn’t an Olympian. If I want to achieve something big like those Olympians, I’d better listen to them instead of listening to Mommy. I’d like to say my kids are smarter than that, but who am I kidding? They are five and almost three. Advertising works on them. If the TV says they must have it, they believe it. If an Olympic gold medalist says they must have it, they REALLY must have it.

It isn’t just Bilodeau. Check out Cindy Klassen, yes the one wins lots of medals and who flew back anxiously from competition in Europe to be with her sister who had been in a horrible accident.  Again, the ability to win and the human element. Just what McDonald’s wants. Just what any sponsor would want. Take a look at this video where Klassen and other Canadian olympians talk about how they eat Egg McMuffins and McDonald’s Fries “every chance they get”.

Peddling junk to our kids

Our children are increasingly obese and ingesting dangerous amounts of sodium. The processed foods and fast food industries are largely to blame. The last thing I need, any of us need, is for our children to be convinced by their heroes that McDonald’s fries will help them become a sports star.

In his column in today’s Ottawa Citizen, “Not lovin’ Olympic junk-food peddlers“, Dan Gardiner wrote:

Governments give public money to the Olympics, in part to encourage healthy lifestyles, and this money helps make the Olympics a brand so powerful that McDonald’s and Coca Cola pay to associate themselves with it in order to strengthen their own brands and improve sales of junk that contributes to the spiralling rates of obesity and obesity-related diseases which governments are fighting by spending large and growing amounts of money on, among other things, the Olympics.

If public policy were a competitive sport, this performance would not own the podium.

A British Columbia pediatrician also strongly criticized the association between junk food firms and the Olympic Games.  According to a CBC article, “MD critical of Coke’s Olympic sponsorship” :

The Olympics might promote physical activity among young people but that does not make up for the potential harm of too many sweet drinks and too much fast food, according to Dr. Tom Warshawski.

“The nutritional damage so much of their products probably do outweighs or exceeds the good things that happen in terms of physical activity,” Warshawski told CBC News Tuesday.

It is not only seasoned journalists and medical doctors that are making this argument. In a blog post for the Good Food Revolution, 12 year old Hanna Stein writes:

Any athlete training for the Olympic games could never risk eating a diet consisting of fast food. (ie. McDonald’s). They have to stay on a strict diet to keep their weight perfect for training and competition. There is no way they are living up to the things they are telling us from the televisions all over the world that they value McDonalds as a nutritious meal. Who could possibly be proud to say you value a way of eating that is not possible for an athletic when we suspect it is simply for the money they obtain through endorsements. Where is the dignity and pride that we want to see in all of our Canadian athletes that are representing Canada itself at the Olympic games? McDonalds presents a false value to our youth in telling us that a McDonald’s meal is nutritious and a substitute for real food. This can potentially have a long-term impact on the health of our future generation.

She rightly questions the government for allowing McDonald’s to be a major sponsor of the games, given how much taxpayers are paying for these games and the fact that Canadians should be able to expect our taxes to benefit our country and positively reflect on our identity. Instead, we are telling the world that we love junk.

Where are our farmers?

Where are the agricultural marketing boards in all of this? Why aren’t the taxpayer supported organizations that exist to promote Canadian farmers and their products, the ones who sell real food, stepping up to sponsor Olympic athletes? Why isn’t the government helping those types of sponsorships to take place. Not only are Canadians eating the wrong things, but our farmers are also struggling financially. The Olympic Games could have been a huge opportunity to showcase Canada’s food to the world and to see athletes supporting healthy eating habits.

It turns out one of the agricultural marketing boards is supporting a few Olympians. The Egg Farmers of Canada are sponsoring female hockey players Hayley Wickenheiser and Kim St-Pierre (thank you to Brian Rice from Processing Politics for letting me know):

Egg Farmers of Canada is proud to support Olympic and World Champions Hayley Wickenheiser and Kim St-Pierre. As the official nutritional partner of Team Canada, we know that athletes need energy to perform at their best. Eggs are packed with 6 grams of the highest quality protein giving our athletes the energy they need before a game. To perform at your best, start your day with a gold medal breakfast!

I’ll take my eggs without a side of McMuffin, thank you. I’m glad to see the egg farmers supporting our olympians, but wish it was higher profile and wish there were a lot more sponsorships and advertising spots featuring partnerships between Canadian farm products and Canadian olympians.

But…big profits = big money to spend on sponsoring athletes = even bigger profits. No profits = no money for sponsoring athletes = bankruptcy. This is a dangerous cycle.  The government needs to step in to help our farmers, help our athletes and help our kids. If they don’t do it now, they’ll be shelling out the money on health care costs anyway.