Like so many things in our society today, here is another example of how the "best" is bad for you. These bags were produced with the intent to help reduce plastic bag usage, and it really made a difference. The parallel between this story and how the media works is interesting as well. The media is supposed to be informing the public about important events around the world, telling us about critical issues that may/may not affect us directly. But like the bags, what seems good is not always so. As we read in our book, the media tells us what to think about, which directly leads us to overthink issues that may not be that important, and "underthink" issues that are. If listeners of the news could be as critical of the news media itself, as they are of the stories they tell, media influence may not be as strong as it is.
I read the USAToday article and then followed their link to the source of the study on the Center for Consumer Freedom site to see if the types of bags I have tested safe. I didn't find anything out on that front, but I do have to say that before I take the info seriously I will have to look into some other studies. It appears that the Center for Consumer Freedom is a large lobbying group funded by a huge number of less-than-awesome companies. (and for full disclosure, right now I'm rushed and just got that from wikipedia, and I fully understand the hypocrisy of criticizing a bad source by using another bad source!)With this in mind, coupled with the article criticizing the decision of some areas outlawing/taxing disposable bags it leaves me wondering the motives behind this. Not saying that good science can't come from biased sources, but I'm skeptical. I would say this relates to class in two ways; fear sells and corporations with lots of $$ can skew the news if they so desire.
Great post Patti. The point is it is corporations making those bags, and they are being made in China, thus the lead paint. Ironic, no?Great work Bekki. Nice job looking up the sources.