The Lorax

The Lorax, a classic Dr. Seuss book, has been turned into a Hollywood movie. It is currently playing in theatres right now. But what children and some adults might fail to realize is that Dr. Seuss originally wrote The Lorax as propaganda.  Some of Dr. Seuss’ underlying themes are “anti-pollution, anti-greed, and anti-logging (Fenkl, 2001).”  The book has evoked a strong response from the timber industry, requesting it be removed from elementary school libraries and reading lists. It is popular because “it sticks  with readers at many different levels in the same way that a good parable sticks with us and survives repeated reflection as we become progressively older and (we hope) wiser (Fenkl, 2001).”

I think it is an interesting message and is packaged in a way that children will understand it. It brings to light important environmental issues today, such as sustainability. Children need to realize the effects that they have on the environment and that even they are capable of helping the environment. As a country, we have gotten into the mind set of getting as much as we can and using as much as we can, but The Lorax shows the effects of greed and will hopefully help children and even adults understand how our actions effect the world we live in.

The original book by Dr. Seuss was released in 1971, when environmental issues were not main stream or important. The movie reintroduces The Lorax at a time when the message will be received better than before.  Also, as previously mentioned, it is also a great way to introduce the topic of environmentalism to children.  However, even Universal has received complaints from both sides of the movement over the message of the movie: those who complain the animated movie aims to "indoctrinate children and turn them into millions of little eco-warriors," and those who question whether the marketing and promotional tie-ins, including one for an SUV, are sufficiently eco-friendly (Rome, 2012)."  There was even controversy about the message Universal was sending at the red carpet premiere, where attendees received potted plants upon exiting the theater, but some complained there were no recycling bins for the complimentary plastic bottles of soda given to viewers (Rome, 2012). Many more people complain that Universal teamed with Mazda and not an electric car, and there are also complaints that the trailer and the website do not display the environmental message and that Universal needs to stay true to Dr. Seuss' lesson (Rome, 2012). But in Hollywood, it is still about making money, regardless of the theme of the movie.

Here is the movie trailer:

"An adaptation of Dr. Seuss' classic tale of a forest creature who shares the enduring power of hope. The animated adventure follows the journey of a boy as he searches for the one thing that will enable him to win the affection of the girl of his dreams. To find it he must discover the story of the Lorax, the grumpy yet charming creature who fights to protect his world.”

See the reviews and movie times for Tallahassee here.

Has anyone else seen the movie yet? What did you think about it? Do you think it is a good example of  what’s really going on?


Sources:

Fenkl, Heinz. (2001). The secret alchemy of Dr. Seuss. Retrieved from http://www.endicott-studio.com/rdrm/forseus.html

Rome, Emily. (2012). 'The Lorax' targeted for its green credentials. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/01/entertainment/la-et-lorax-20120301

Environmental Comics

Many forms of media have embraced the issue of global warming and environmental issues. One popular comic strip, by Neil Wagner, is called "What on Earth?" Here are a few examples of his comics that express many controversial environmental topics. More from "What on Earth?" can be found on their facebook page.

Neil Wagner isnt the only one talking about environmental issues. Here is a comic from the International Herald Tribune, Cartoonist Patrick Chappatte also portrays environmental issues using popular media. Find more at globalcartoon.com.

Green Marketing and Green Advertising

Pop Culture icon, Kermit the Frog, is often quoted as saying "It's not easy being green!" And this translates across corporate America, too! Being "GREEN" is a current trend of corporate marketing and advertising. Corporations attempt to associate their products and identity with environmental values and images, and even advertise their products as having a minimal impact on the environment. But how “green” are these companies really?

In an article in the Boston Globe, Beth Daley discusses the new Chevy Tahoe Hybrid which was named ‘Green Car of the Year’ by an automobile magazine. The Chevy Tahoe Hybrid, which only gets 20 miles per gallon, is an example of “green washing” - the marketing of faux green products (Daley, 2008).

The article also states another common product that claims to be good for the environment, the household cleaner Simple Green. However, one of Simple Green's key ingredients, butyl cellosolve, is the same toxic solvent found in traditional all-purpose cleaners. The label even cautions users not to "dispose of . . . near storm drains, oceans, lakes or streams." (Daley, 2008).

The Federal Trade Commission has the authority to investigate false marketing claims, but has not updated its ‘green guides’ since 1998. The agency has not issued any decisions about green marketing in the past five years. Too many customers trust companies’ claims. According to a survey released by the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Cone LLC, about 47 percent of respondents said they trusted companies to tell them the truth in environmental messaging, and 45 percent said they believed companies are accurately communicating information about their impact on the environment. But, when it comes to advertising correct environmental information, there is virtually "zero enforcement," said Scot Case of TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, a consulting company based in Philadelphia and Ottawa. Last year, his company conducted a study that found that 99 percent of 1,018 green advertising claims of everyday consumer products could be misleading. (Daley, 2008).

I think it is absurd that companies can claim anything they want on their products without having to prove it, especially environmental claims. A company can claim that their product is “nature’s finest” or “uses no chemicals” but the government does not require the company to be telling the truth. If there is no regulation to what can be said, how is the consumer to know what actually is in the product that they are buying? There really is no way. It is kind of a sticky situation because environmental information campaigns encourage people to buy organic foods, use less, recycle more, and be more environmentally friendly. So consumers who react to these advertisements then go buy these products that claim to be “green” which may actually not be any better for the environment, just more expensive for the consumer. Are environmental information campaigns really to benefit the environment, or could they just be a conspiracy to perpetuate this trend of purchasing environmentally friendly, ‘green’ products?

“What’s really going on?”

Sources:

Daley, Beth. (2008). Not As Green As They Claim To Be. The Boston Globe, May 14, 2008. Retrieved from
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/05/14/not_as_green_as_they_claim_to_be/?page=full

What "they" tell us vs. the truth

Food, Inc by Robert Kenner

The film Food, Inc by Robert Kenner shows us that although the practices of food production and distribution have changed, it is still portrayed the same old-fashioned way by the food conglomerates and the media. There are still pictures of farmers, picket fences, silos, and cattle grazing on product labels and in advertising. His film makes the claim that the industry doesn’t want us to know the truth about what we are eating, so it hides it with claims of being “farm fresh” and using old-fashioned pictures on their products. Food now comes from assembly lines and not farms and ranches. The film claims that the food conglomerates don’t want farmers talking and limit what they are allowed to say, so, “What’s really going on?”

The film also discusses McDonald's role in modern society and how it has become the largest purchaser of ground beef, potatoes, and even pork and chicken.

Four companies control 80% of the meat market. Even if labels say farm fresh or farm grown, it is produced by one of four main companies designed to produce as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Tyson is the largest meat packing company in the world and has changed the way the chicken is raised. Birds are now raised and slaughtered in half the time they were just fifty years ago, and are twice as big. The chicken was redesigned to have large breasts and provide more white meat since that is what the consumer wants. It is all a money making business that Americans feed into. We demand the product and in order to meet our demands and grow both cows and chickens faster, these companies inject them with growth hormones and feed them diets that will increase their weight unnaturally fast. In the end, we are left with a product that is unhealthy, yet highly available.

Is it fair that labels can use pictures of white picket fences and old-fashion farms, label something ‘farm fresh’ or even claim to be ‘nature’s best’? Should there be guidelines for food labels that strictly enforce what is allowed to be portrayed? The food companies and the mass media combine to portray false images of where food is actually coming from and how it is produced. Commercials, food advertising, and food packaging give false impressions to what really is inside the package, and our government allows it! Environmental information campaigns and films like Food, Inc., and Supersize Me have started to guide people in the right direction by making people think about where the food is coming from before they put it in their mouth. The government is pressured by large food producers and does not require them to adequately and truthfully describe their products; it is up to the consumer to find out, "What's really going on?"

School Lunch and Organic Foods

Organic Consumers Association has introduced a campaign to reduce children’s exposure to pesticides, toxins, and junk foods. The campaign includes four “Appetite For A Change” goals: stop spraying pesticides on school property; kick junk foods out of school; start converting school lunches to healthier options using local grown, organic foods; and, teach kids about healthy food choices and sustainable agriculture. Find out more information about the campaign on their website by clicking here.

The Organic Consumers Association has a leaflet for the Appetite For A Change program and encourage people to circulate their leaflet which can be found by clicking here.


The association aims to draw attention to the problems that face children “a literal epidemic of food allergies, obesity, asthma, premature onset of puberty, childhood cancer, and diet-related behavioral and learning problems(Organic Consumers Association).”

This topic has become more interesting to me since reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma for another class. The book fits in with this class and article because it is an example of one form of media trying to heighten awareness of the social and environmental issues that result from the changing ways in which meat is produced in mass quantities and the effect that it has on our health, especially the health of children as the “Appetite For A Change” campaign addresses. It is another form of an informational campaign to change behaviors and promote eating organic and practicing environmentally friendly practices.

I never realized the need for organic and locally grown food until reading this book. After reading it, I have decided to try and eat more organic and locally grown food myself, I therefore think it is only fair that we try and protect the health of our children by doing the same and introducing organic food into school lunches.

The Omnivore’s Dilemma addresses the issue of the mass amounts of commodity corn that the government has to find uses for; it is now fed to animals, such as the cow, which are traditionally grass-fed animals and are not able to process the grain. We need to ask the question, “What’s really going on?”  These animals are fed corn which their bodies can’t handle processing and they get sick. They are then given antibiotics to fight the illnesses. Now, we are eating corn and antibiotics. Furthermore, the cows just don’t grow fast enough on their own, so they are given growth hormones to increase their weight to get them to slaughter faster. So now we are eating corn, antibiotics, and growth hormones.


Michael Pollan describes the CAFO's (concentrated animal feeding operations) where cows are fattened up and prepared for slaughter. The cows have no room and stand around all day in their own filth. They do not clean the cows before they slaughter them, so there is a mixture of feces in the meat, which they attempt to clean with bleach, but some particles get through. It was an unsettling description to read and an even more unsettling picture.



Paying attention to the way food is grown and processed needs to be a priority of every person in this country. In the book, the author Michael Pollan states that “three of every five Americans are overweight; one in every five is obese (102)”. But the reason why this is so important to children and introducing organic foods to school lunch menus is because the Journal of the American Medical Association predicts that a child born in 2000 has a one in three chance of developing diabetes (Pollan, 102).

This commodity corn is not edible in its current state by humans so the government has to feed it to animals or process it into other forms. The government has helped turn these mass amounts of commodity corn into high fructose corn syrup, which is found in the majority of foods that children (and adults) eat.  It really is a money-making scheme for the government. The more ways they can use the corn, the more money they make. It is all profit for the government, and all loss for the health of Americans, especially our children.

If school systems start to use locally grown (or raised) animals, they will not only be providing healthier, cleaner meat to the children but supporting the local economy as well. Organic foods will make sure that the steroids, antibiotics, growth hormones, and other unnatural substances that are found in mass produced cattle will not affect the health of the children.

Reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma has changed the way I eat, and I am positive it will change the way you think about the foods you eat as well. It is a book that's worth your time reading. It will help us all answer the question, “What’s really going on?”

　

Source:

Organic Consumers Association. Appetite For A Change. Retrieved from http://www.organicconsumers.org/afc.cfm

Pollan, Michael. (2006). The Omnivore's Dilemma. London, England: Penguin Books.

Greetings!

I’m Cozmo Dee from outer space and I’m going to talk about some environmental issues on this planet (Earth).


“Information campaigns use the techniques of public relations and advertising to “sell” people on prosocial behaviors. They seek to achieve specific changes in their audience, such as heightening public awareness of a health or social problem and changing related attitudes and behaviors (Straubhaar, LaRose, & Davenport, 2010, p. 427).” My blog will focus on the effects of public relations and advertising on environmental communications which encourage prosocial behaviors. 


Environmental information campaigns have started to appear in an attempt to change social behaviors regarding the environment, such as recycling, going green, conserving natural resources, and even organic foods. These information campaigns are necessary to bring attention to the drastic effects that modern consumerism is having on the environment. However, by portraying both sides of the issue equally, the media often masks how drastic global warming actually is. In addition to environmental information campaigns, this blog will address the negative effects of media on the environment, or how the media might mask issues of the environment both unintentionally and intentionally

In spite of experts warning of the catastrophic effects of global warming on civilization, most of us continue living our lives as if there is not a problem. This ad from the WWF (found here) shows the world melting. I think it is crazy. We need to start paying attention to these issues, the world is coming to an end around us but the hegemonic society attempts to brainwash us into thinking that everything is under control. But, facts show that this really is happening in the world at an alarming rate. I want to know, what is really going on?

Greenpeace is another example of an environmental campaign that tries to raise awareness of environmental issues and change consumer attitudes and behaviors. One example of their advertising is this ad which attempts at drawing attention to global warming. The ad claims, “Winter: You’ll miss it when it’s gone.” (Can be found here.)  This ad tries to get our attention by showing that winter is disappearing with the effects of global warming. What would happen if winter did disappear? What would happen if, due to global warming, there was perpetual summer? What would happen if polar bears and penguins disappeared? Or can they all live in San Diego? I don't know, let's talk about it. What's really going on?

In order to find out more about these issues, I took another class at FSU, called Media, Culture, and Environment. Many of the issues brought to my attention in that class relate to this current assignment. This blog will further investigate the relationship of media on environmental issues, through the use of information campaigns and green marketing and advertising. 




This blog is to encourage discussion and debate from my classmates. What, in your opinion, are the major environmental issues concerning this planet and the survival of the human species and other life forms on this planet? Or are there any at all? 

Feel free to make any comments or suggestions on issues or questions that can be further investigated. What do you think? What's really going on?


References:

Straubhaar, J., LaRose, R., & Davenport, L. (2010). Media Now: Understanding Media, Culture, and Technology. Boston, Massachusetts: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.