4
Thursday, October 28,1993
OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
Vitamin claims should have evidence for FDA
Vitamin and health supplement companies should no longer be able to make claims about
their products that are not supported by reliable evidence. In the next 18 months the Food and Drug Administration will be making the decision whether or not to allow vitamins and health supplements to make such claims. This decision naturally has huge vitamin chains, such as GNC, as well as local establishments here in Lawrence angry. However praise for honest business should tell us to favor the labeling change.
The advocates of label change are looking out for the best interest of the consumer by removing unsubstantiated claims from packages. These amazing claims range from aids for thinning hair to cures for cancer, in addition to other claims. By including this kind of claim without any substantiation, the consumer is taken for a ride that eventually leads to frustration and wasted money.
The opponents of label changing argue that a producer has the right to make whatever claims they want to on their products. They also contend that these supplements are a tradition that shouldn't be tampered with. They claim that the supplements do have special properties and should be conveyed. However, what the FDA recommends is that the claim isn't the problem as long as there is evidence to support the claim. As to the argument of tradition, for hundreds of years healers used to bleed their patients with ailments. When evidently this provided no immediate benefit other than curbing the human population, it ended.
The most important issue and question is, can a producer make a claim that people will assume is true if that claim is not backed by clear-cut proof? The answer is obviously "No." And the FDA shouldn't let them.
CARSON ELROD FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Ozone shrink reminds all of ecological duty
It is always the right time to show concern for the environment. A new report on the ozone hole stated that it was smaller than last year.
However, last year the ozone hole was the largest ever measured, and it had scientists worried about the deteriorating state of the atmosphere.
This report shows progress and should be used to highlight the usefulness of ecological awareness. It should serve to remind us that all the ecologist, business owners and even politicians who have been working toward a more environmentally aware society are helping.
It also must remind each of us our duty to be environmentally aware at all available opportunities. This means we must remember to recycle not only pop cans but also newspaper, all colors of glass, and plastic containers.
The Lawrence community is lucky to have good recycling facilities available. Residents must be willing to use them.
In addition to recycling, other options need to be used to encourage ecologically sound habits. Shoppers need to be aware of the amount of waste they purchase, giving preference to products with minimal packaging. Composting and car pooling are two practices which need to be utilized in the Lawrence area.
This report makes an excellent time to mark the progress our society has made and to remind ourselves of our ecological duty.
DAVID BURGETT FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Families should stop playing blame game in kids' tragedies
I have an idea for a new game show. It combines elements of "Family Feud" and "Match Game." I call it "Blame Game."
The first game in today's show involves Jane, whose five-year-old son burned his little sister to death. The contestants are Jane's sister, Mary, and brother, Ted.
Richard, the master of ceremonies,
begins by saying, "We surveyed 100 people in the Smith family. I want you to tell me the most popular answer to
the following question: Who gets the blame for the death of Jane's daughter?"
Abuzzer sounds.
"Mary?" Richard asks.
"Uh, the company that made the lighter."
Richard turns around to the Big Board. "Survey says," he yells.
COLUMNIST
"Bic" shows up at No.2.
"Good answer, Mary. But Ted, there is a better answer. If you name it, you win."
"Uh, uh, uh ..." Ted looks at the audience, but their answers are too scattered and chaotic.
"Darn. Uh, I don't know - Jane's son?"
"Ted?"
The audience gasps. Richard looks
Mary squeals in delight as Ted is led off the stage. "I think I've got it, Richard," she says excitedly.
down for a moment. "Ted, Ted, Ted," he says. "I'm sorry, but that answer just disqualified you. You can't sue a 5-year-old, you know. Besides, that answer is as ridiculous as blaming poor Jane herself."
"Then give it to me, Mary."
"How about 'Beavis and Butt-head," she asks. "The television show that made him burn his sister?"
"Survey says..."
response is to remove the show forever.
Lights flash and bells ring. But, alas, Mary misses the Bonus Question when she says that "Beavis and Butthead" should be televised only after prime time. Richard shakes his head and tells her that the weasel television producers did that. But the correct
After a commercial for a personal injury lawyer, the second game begins. This game centers around the Jones, whose son decided to play a variation on the game "chicken" by lying in the center of a busy highway as cars whizzed by him. The two contestants are a mother, Dana, and another mother, Arlene.
Richard says, "Top 100 relatives surveyed. I want the most popular answer to the question: Who gets the blame?"
Arlene buzzes in.
"Dave's Restaurant in Omaha," she says. "They let my daughter drink alcohol while she was pregnant."
Richard smiles. The answer is No. 2 on the Big Board.
"OK. Dana. Can you ton that?"
Arlene responds, "I'd say it was the movie 'The Program.' That's where he got the crazy idea from."
The audience screams, knowing her response is correct. After getting rid of Arlene, who is promised wonderful parting gifts, Dana gets ready for the Bonus Question.
"OK, Dana," Richard says, "how would you respond to this grave injustice?"
The audience yells their ideas. Dana looks confused and turns to Richard, who merely smiles at her. Finally, when her time is just about up, she presses the buzzer.
"Richard, I'd protect my grandchildren and everybody else's too by burning every copy of the movie that was ever made."
Bells, whistles, lights, and the audience erupt.
"You've just won the Grand Prize, Dana!" Richard says. "Tell her what she's won. Johnnv!
The announcer says, "Well, Dana, your family has just won free litigation for an entire year! What's more, you, Dana, have won a trip around the entire world!"
The announcer continues, "Of course there are some countries you won't be able to see. Certain countries that, and we know you'll agree with us, are just too violent to visit. Countries like South Africa, China, Indonesia, Yugoslavia and Israel, as well as Germany, England, France, Russia, Holland, the United States..."
Nathan Olsen is a Chicago graduate student in English.
TV viewing is a personal matter
Do you want the government involved in what you watch on television? Well, it is thinking about doing just that because lately, some people have found someone else to blame for their problems.
Unfortunately, the media have become the cop-out of the day, and they are giving in. And, it is no longer just MTV doing so. Corporations such as Walt Disney Co. now are allowing people to blame them for the stupid things that kids are doing, and most importantly, the government is contemplating involvement.
Yes, it was a tragedy that a little girl was set on fire and killed by her brother, but you cannot justify blaming a cartoon. We all have heard this issue beaten into the ground, but MTV nevertheless will remain a disgrace to the airwaves for backing down. The channel that changed a generation is letting this woman decide that its
KANSAN STAFF
most popular show is dementing the minds of today's youth. MTV is no stranger to controversy, but now it is throwing in the towel, and other large companies are following.
looking for excitement and the thrill of a lifetime. These kids were looking for some action, and even if they hadn't seen the clip, they definitely would have found something dangerous to do.
But perhaps the most serious issue of this controversy is that the government is debating whether to become involved. Frankly, the idea of government deciding what I can watch scares me. Political interests now could influence what we watch on television. I suggest that we keep an eye on Congress because it is thinking about regulating show times and rating programs.
to be able to decide whether you are mature enough to watch one of the most inventive TV shows to hit the waves?
But that is only the beginning. When the government has its foot in the door, who knows how far it will go. Something is seriously wrong and disturbing about the idea that the government could control what comes into our living rooms. Do you want it
Now, Disney has decided to cut a scene in its new movie, "The Program," in which a bunch of college students lay in the middle of a highway. This comes after two separate incidents in which high school boys tried to mimic the scene and got hurt. Children, especially teen-agers, are
KC TRAUER,Editor
So, I guess the only way to shelter our children from the harsh realities of television is to lock them in a closet, and I certainly don't suggest doing this. We need to teach our children what is right and what is wrong. Then, when they do watch television, they understand what is acceptable and safe in society and what is simply a reality only in TV land and the movies.
If you don't like what is on the tube, then turn the thing off. For the moment, you still have the choice to push that button.
Anne Bailey is a Denver sophomore majoring in psychology.
JOE HARDER, CHRISTINE LAUE
Managing editors
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
Editors
Assistant to the editor ... J.R. Clairborne
News ... Stacy Friedman
Editorial ... Terryln McComkill
Campus ... Ben Grove
Sports ... Kristi Fogler
Photo ... Kip Chin, Renee Knoebeer
Features ... Erwolf Weale
Graphics ... John Paul Fogel
BILL SKEET, Systems coordinator
AMY CASEY
Business manager
AMY STUMBO
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES
Sales and marketing adviser
Business Staff
Campus sales mgr...Ed Schager
Regional Sales mgr...Jennifer Porter
National sales mgr...Jennifer Evenson
Co-op sales mgr...Blythe Focht
Production mgrs...Jennifer Blowey
Kate Burgess
Marketing director...Shelly McConnell
Creative director...Brian Fucoz
Classified mgr..Gretchen Kotterleinchtt
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas must include class and homework, or faculty or staff position. Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall.
Personal attacks can discourage discourse
Is it ever possible for students at a university to engage in substantive debate on a controversial topic? In his guest column, Jay Jackson demands an immediate apology from the Kansan and columnist Lance Hamby for their collaboration in an article that criticizes protests against Columbus Day. Jay Jackson accuses Hamburg of racism and insists that he renounce his politically incorrect opinions.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Jackson's reaction is typical of people in the university community. Instead of debating the issue raised, he levels a personal attack at Hamby.
Such attacks detract from the sensible discourse that should exist at a place of higher learning. If Jackson
disagrees with something he read,
he should explain his disagreement;
but he should not seek public chastement of Hamby simply for expressing his opinion.
Hamby's column could not be reasonably construed as racist. He specifically mentions the deplorability of the many atrocities committed by Europeans against American Indians.
Hamby merely suggests that, despite its many faults, European society has had significant achievements in the New World that are worthy of commemoration. By calling Hamby a racist, Jackson clouds the debate.
Russell Laws Lawrence law student
LesBIGay not a threat to others' expression
Joseph asserted that "special" treatment should not be given to people who "enjoy homosexuality." First of all, being gay is not a choice. The only choice I had was whether or not to accept it. As I accepted my sexuality, I felt as normal as the next guy. It's not a matter of enjoyment, it's just a part of who I am. Many
JosephSuber's Oct. 14 letter offers no proof that equal rights for lesbians, bisexuals and gays threatens other's free speech. Joseph has as much right to promote his message as anyone else on campus, as evidenced in part by his letter to the Kansan. I'm gay, and I support his right to free speech as well as the right to affiliate himself with any group to help further his "cause."
Furthermore, about Joseph's point of the LesBiGay community's right not to have their feelings hurt, I would offer a report released by the Department of Health and Human Services in 1989 that asserts that up to 30 percent of teen suicides can be attributed to gays and lesbians. Homophobia and ignorance are killing society's children. Is this all right with you, Joseph, or would you place the preservation of western "tradition" over the lives of our kids?
homosexuals and bisexuals don't enjoy it. Second, I haven't met anyone who wants "special" rights. We want to be protected from losing our homes, our children or our jobs.
Gordon Lyons Lawrence junior
V