Warning: This May Not Be Safe to Consume

I thoroughly enjoyed the food and beverage warning labels that three creative artists came up with featured in the New York Times. I wonder if such blunt packaging would actually deter consumers from buying the products. Check it out for yourself!

Even though the Food and Drug Administration requires food and beverages sold to the general public to be labeled with the ingredients and nutrition facts, many people simply don't care to look or they don't know what to look for when deciding if something provides enough nourishment. I decided to go to the FDA's website to learn a few things myself, but I quickly felt discouraged as I gazed at the overwhelming amount of information. I particularly wanted to know the FDA's requirements in listing nutrition facts on packaging, but instead of providing clarity, the site actually make me question the administration we trust and rely so heavily on.

The recent controversy over Four Loko, the highly caffeinated alcoholic energy drink which over a dozen people had to be hospitalized after consuming, reinforced my skepticism. It was only after the media stirred up concerns about the safeness of the beverage that the FDA stepped in. If the beverage is too highly caffeinated and alcoholic to be consumed, then why was it even allowed to be sold in stores across the U.S.? And would the FDA have even issued a warning if the news hadn't been publicly released that dozens of people got sick from it?

I hardly ever read food labels, but I've read enough and watched enough documentaries to have a pretty good idea what is "healthy" for me to eat and what I actually want in my body. Unfortunately, many people don't realize that just because something is being sold, it doesn't mean it should be consumed. If we want Americans to be healthier beings, we're going to have to start thinking for ourselves more and about the things we put in our body rather than taking the easy way out and relying on others to decide for us. After all, just because a food label may say "Nutrition Facts" doesn't mean there's actual nourishment in it.

(Photo from http://www.theworldsprophecy.com/poisonous-foods/)

A Keen Eye for Quality

"Rather than rely on obvious logos, expensive products use more discreet markers, such as distinctive design or detailing. High-end consumers prefer markers of status that are not decipherable by the mainstream." - Teddy Wayne, The New York Times

Apparently for those who can distinguish the work of a well-known designer, apparel bearing the logo of that designer is not necessary in order for them to purchase it. On the contrary, those who have a trained eye for spotting designer wear tend to be more interested in the goods that have the details and sophistication of the designer without the logo that makes it apparent to others, according to an article I read on NYTimes online.

I can kind of relate to this information. For example, when I was fifteen and bought my first Coach purse (which was like a whole paycheck's worth after a month of lifeguarding ha) I made sure it was littered with the Coach "C's" so that all my friends would know I was rocking a designer purse. Now, after having developed a more sophisticated taste and being able to afford a little better than Coach, I have found that I look more for the design and material used rather than how conspicuous the brand logo is.

While this Coach purse above is cute, it's very mainstream. Sometimes being too identifiable and too easily attainable takes away from prestige of the product.

I think it's nice when people can appreciate something nice based on little details that usually go unnoticed by the general public. If you're buying something designer, you're going to pay a pretty penny for it no matter if it boldly displays the logo or not, so I agree that I'd rather base my purchase on the uniqueness of the product rather than trying to show off the fact that it's designer and that I have the money to afford it. It becomes another way of differentiating between those who know something about style and someone who simply has the money to afford it.

Logos aren't something that someone who knows anything about fashion needs to show off. Just take Ed Hardy for example. Hardy clothes are not cheap but, in my opinion, they are tacky as hell. Money can't buy someone style (unless they pay for a stylist). Wearing a designer logo doesn't make one stylish.

I absolutely love this Coach purse on the right. I think the color would be great for the Fall. I also like the fact that I haven't seen a hundred people on the street with it.

College Or No College?

I read an article in NYTimes yesterday about how going to college may not be the best solution for everyone. While I do agree that some are just not "school" kinds of people, the article does report statistics that the majority of those with college degrees make more money than those without degrees and that their chances of being unemployed is less. That to me makes sense because if students are going to school for a few years to become knowledgeable about certain topics, and they are paying thousands of dollars in the process, they should be rewarded for their dedication, time, and money put into furthering their education with a good job afterward. I sometimes shudder when I think about how much money went towards getting a dual B.A., but I just have to hope that it will pay off eventually.

Today, I think it has become not only increasingly important but also almost expected of young adults to continue on the path of achieving a college degree after graduating high school, but I also understand that not every benefits the same amount by continuing school. While a college or university can help culturally enrich lives, cultivate new, open-minded outlooks, and serves as a great place to network, others may argue that those who go straight to the workplace are more prepared for what it takes to live in the real world. I understand that becoming a part of the workforce helps to develop a whole new set of problem solving skills that may not be achievable in the classroom, but I really think it just depends on the individual and how he/she makes use of the time out of school in order to make the claim that the individual gained more than a college student.

While it's difficult for me to understand why one wouldn't want to stay in school for as long as possible (partly because I am a nerd and like learning and partly because college is so much different than high school, it is like a whole new experience), I do think that one who does not attend can still be successful as long as there is determination and self-discipline to make use of that time.

In the Times article, Morton Schapiro, an economist who is the president of Northwestern University said, “I’m not saying don’t get the B.A. I’m saying, let’s get them some intervening credentials, some intervening milestones. Then, if they want to go further in their education, they can.” I like what Schapiro is saying here. Since job competition is growing fierce, it is important not only to get that degree but to also gain some "real" experience in addition. Building up one's resume while in college is ideal. Schools are now stressing those summer internships more than ever, even if they are unpaid, because experience is essential to landing a good job, not just the name of the university you attended.

I'm nervous about finding a job for myself, but the young adults to come are going to have to be even more intelligent and experienced. Yikes!