Safer sex billboard versus fretful mother

AdFreak has a story about how a resident of Van Nuys, California, successfully lobbied to have a safer sex billboard in her community taken down from a public thoroughfare. 

The ad in question?

Via KTLA

According to local news outlet KTLA:

"Eve Ragsdale worried about having to explain the billboard to her 6-year-old triplets. 

... 

Ragsdale had contended that her children, who read now and ask questions about everything, were not developmentally ready to have the AIDS-condom relationship explained to them. 

'It's just an inappropriate image for all of the children in the neighborhood,' she said."

I am raising a young child in an urban environment, too. He's also a kid who is curious about everything, but he rarely asks awkward questions about the condoms we see on the sidewalk, or the streetwalkers we drive past. It's not that he doesn't notice. He just doesn't care much about those things at his age.

But as a 7-year-old obsessed with nature, he knows what sex is. (He surprised an after school caregiver last year by pointing out two "mating" squirrels.) If he asked me straight out what a condom was for, I'd tell him in an age-appropriate manner. Even though young ones don't yet have those feelings, it won't be long. My belief is that it's better to normalize condom use before the occasion... arises?

But, of course, other parents may have different views. My major concern here is a very important public health massage being stifled by an individual's feeling that it is not appropriate for the public media. And the media company, who decided to take the knee-jerk approach, gave in without so much as a second thought.

According to the LA Daily News:

"Van Wagner Outdoor Vice Chairman Bill Crabtree told the Daily News that the billboard would be changed on Wednesday or Thursday. 

'I told my operations manager to move it,' Crabtree said. 'We listened to (Ragsdale), we don't necessarily agree with her, but if it's offensive to her, the last thing we want to do is offend anyone.' 

'We don't put up (ads for) strip clubs, we don't put up anything that is lewd," Crabtree explained. "But the AIDS thing is educational, quite frankly. I know people might look at some of the designs askew, but they're trying to get their point across.' 

'We don't put up ads for strip clubs, we don't put up anything that is lewd,' Crabtree said."

 Ironically, as AdFreak's David Kiefaber points out, Van Nuys is literally The Porn Capital of The World. And a recent LA law requires all adult performers to wear condoms in their onscreen couplings.

But hey, Ms. Ragsdale. Heaven forbid you should have to explain that billboard to your children.

If I were the AHF, I would not take this lying down.

Has McDonald's been forced to label its food carcinogenic?

There's a pic going around showing a "new" McDonald's warning label about cancer-causing ingredients. But here's the kicker: that shit is in most of what you eat.

If you've been paying attention, you've been hearing about acrylamide for years. It's naturally present in ripe olives, and dried plums (prunes) and pears. It's in your coffee. And it gets produced every time you brown many of your favourite foods (like meat, potatoes and bread) at high heat. In short, it's in everything you like.

This picture showed up on Buzzfeed today, but a web search seems to indicate that it is a hoax from 2009, based on conjecture about whether California's strict food safety laws would lead to fast foods being labelled the way cigarettes are. I can't find any evidence that that is actually happening.

Of course, that won't stop this image from going viral, again, with reactionary comments like this:

"It stands to reason that this is a legal/precautionary measure; after reports swirled about fast food wrappers containing cancer causing chemicals that have been found in the fecal matter, blood, and urine of tested subjects, McDonald’s likely placed these notices on their wrappers to save face. 

For us, this is a wake up call. Personally I wish I could throw up the Big Mac I ate last night (if it weren’t too digested) but since I can’t, I’m going to be forced to take a brief hiatus from my local Dirt Ronnies. Will you continue to eat McDonald’s without shame or concern, or is a warning like this big enough to scare you away?"

No, it does not "stand to reason". Even the faux label itself admits that the compound is naturally occurring, and that that the FDA has nothing against it. If McDonald's were forced to issue this warning, so would all those other cooked and prepared foods I listed above. It is simply not a "McDonald's issue."

My feeling is, if you're going to trash McDonald's for selling sugary, fatty, overprocessed and marginally nutritious food to kids and other vulnerable groups, then do that. McDonald's is not a nice company (although I do love an Egg McMuffin). But random and ill-informed anti-McDonald's panic is not helping the conversation about nutrition, culture or corporate ethics.

Related: