Tag: industry

Categories
Opinions

Don’t damage the earth when getting dressed

Graphic by @spooky_soda

How fast fashion negatively affects our environment and how we can do better as consumers

I know that as a student, it is hard to keep up with the fast-changing world of fashion trends that incite our consumerism while on a tight budget. We tend to buy from the stores right around the corner from our homes. It’s close, it’s cheap and it gives us access to more. But, have you ever stopped and thought about how damaging these stores are for the environment?

Fast fashion is characterized by the mass production of clothes and cheap prices, to the extent that some stores have around 52 different seasons every year, according to the documentary The True Cost. That means new clothes coming in every week, which hooks consumers and attracts those who are more money-conscious. It sounds great in theory—I mean, who doesn’t like variety and low prices? However, the reality and the manufacturing ethics behind these products are not so great.

Behind these clothes are starving women and children who work long hours and for little money, according to The Guardian. Not only that, but these workers are abused in order to meet unrealistic deadlines, according to the same article. According to The Independent, these factories mostly operate in Asia and are known for their use of toxic chemicals, large amounts of material waste and contamination of one of the most precious natural resources: water. Large amounts of water. Thus, fueling the overheating of our planet, according to BBC. Since clothes have become even more accessible than before, we buy more, we use less and we waste on a larger scale.

If you are vegan, vegetarian, or pescatarian, you probably already have a grasp on how harmful agriculture is for the environment. But did you know that, according to Forbes, the second largest industrial polluter world-wide is the fashion industry? If you are committed to minimizing your consumption of animal products and you are already interested in being more environmentally conscious, why not apply this living ethic when it comes to shopping?

Montreal is known for its style—I’m sure you know what I mean. The further you wander out of downtown and into the Plateau-Mile End, the more evident this becomes. Thrift shops also start clouding your vision, as there are plenty, and some are really worth checking out. Buying second-hand clothing is an amazing step towards being more sustainable: you help small businesses, you reuse, and it is affordable (unless you’re shopping in the Plateau). Plus, it has its advantage beyond the environmental question—you won’t be wearing what everyone else already is.

Some of my favourite items in my wardrobe have been found in thrift shops, and surprisingly, I purchased them from Value Village. It is a huge store and can be a little overwhelming, but if you have a good eye and some enthusiasm, you will find some valuable treasures. Another one of my favourite thrift stores is definitely Ruse Boutique; it is a consignment store that always has unique pieces from renowned brands at unbeatable prices. If you are not already sold by these two suggestions, you should try Annex Vintage, Cul-de-sac, Citizen Vintage, Eva B,  Empire Exchange, Bohême Friperie, or just walk up St. Laurent Blvd.

If thrifting is not your thing, you could start being more conscious when you shop by selecting only products made with recycled materials, non-toxic dyes or organic fabrics. Although these small changes won’t fix the global environmental issue at hand, they do make an impact that multiplies as more people adopt them. If this article sparked anything in you, I would highly encourage you to watch The True Cost (available on Netflix), investigate and stay away from the most damaging mass production brands, like Zara, H&M, and Forever 21. Reusing makes you feel and look better. And more importantly, will help the environment. It’s a win-win situation.

Graphic by @spooky_soda

Categories
Opinions

The food industry is trying to kill me

Graphic by Ana Bilokin

Those who are physically unable to eat gluten can’t rely on incomplete and false labels

In July 2018, I was given two choices by my doctor: either I join high-profile celebrities such as Gwyneth Paltrow and Lay Gaga in their gluten-free diet fad, or I continue eating gluten and destroy my small intestine. I was diagnosed with celiac disease, meaning that whenever I consume any food product that contains gluten, my immune system is triggered and begins to attack my small intestine, causing physical pain, and the inability to absorb nutrients, leading to vitamin deficiencies and anemia.

Following a gluten-free diet, whether to lose weight or to “live a healthier lifestyle,” has become popular. With high-profile celebrities praising their gluten-free diet, which is aimed at reducing the chance my intestine turns into a balloon, gluten-free foods have become much more common in the aisles of your local grocery store.

While the increasing amounts of gluten-free options in stores may seem like a good thing––especially for those of us who suffer from wheat-related allergies––it really isn’t. I believe food companies aren’t taking the risks of cross contamination seriously enough. Food products labelled “gluten-free” still contain traces of gluten, which won’t affect someone who is only gluten-free to lose weight but will have negative effects for celiac patients.

Since my diagnosis, I have tried my best to stay as gluten-free as I can in order to live my life as pain-free as possible. However, the gluten-free culture that we’re living in is leading me to accidentally consume gluten at least once a week––and it’s causing me extreme physical pain.

In the six months following my diagnosis, it’s happened too often that I’ve eaten something labelled gluten-free only to later read the ingredients and discover that the product may contain wheat. The food industry doesn’t seem to understand that gluten-free food is not just for people who want to be healthier and lose weight––some of us need to be gluten-free in order to live a normal life.

According to the Government of Canada, in order to be able to label a food item as gluten-free, the product must contain less than 20 parts per million of gluten, which is equivalent to 20 grains of sand. While 20 parts per million of gluten seems like nothing, Very Well Health notes that gluten consumption as low as 50 milligrams per day––which is equivalent to around 1/70th of a slice of bread––can cause intestinal damage to those with celiac disease.

This idea that gluten-free is nothing more than a fad is harmful to those of us who suffer from celiac disease. Food industries are trying to hit a new market, and while they may have good intentions, they aren’t being careful enough to ensure that their “safe” products don’t actually contain gluten.

In a perfect world, gluten-free foods would only be produced in purely gluten-free facilities to ensure that there are no risks of cross contamination. However, no matter how much I would love for this to happen, expecting companies to be willing to spend the time and resources needed to create products that are 100 per cent gluten-free is just wishful thinking. Instead, when producing gluten-free items, the food industry should label how many gluten parts per million the product contains.That way, those of us with celiac disease can decide if it is worth the risk.

Graphic by Ana Bilokin

Categories
Student Life

Tech your discrimination elsewhere

From left to right: Behrmann, Palluet, Gendron, Godoy, Testaouni. Photo by Elisa Barbier

Queer Tech MTL hosts a panel on identifying as LGBTQ+ within tech industries

Getting together. Networking. Breaking free from isolation.

This is what Queer Tech MTL is all about. It’s a group that invites people who self-identify as part of the tech and LGBTQ+ communities to gather at monthly events.

The meetings, which started in October 2016, explore elements of the workplace for members of the LGBTQ+ community. They also offer many networking opportunities.

Attendees arrive for the panel. Photo by Elisa Barbier

On Jan. 18, the group gathered at the Keatext office in the Mile-End. Keatext is a text analytics app that helps businesses quickly review customer feedback.

At the meeting, attendees were welcomed with snacks and beverages to hear about “creating the authentic self at work.” Luc Plamondon, who has worked at Keatext for four years now, offered up the space to Queer Tech MTL.

Queer Tech MTL was launched in September 2015 by Naoufel Testaouni, who was soon joined by Jason Behrmann. Testaouni has been working for tech companies on and off over the last five years, and is now a customer experience manager for the data services company, Local Logic. Behrmann completed a PhD at McGill, focusing his research on assessing the social and ethical implications of technologies in healthcare for the LGBTQ+ population. He now works as a communication corporate strategist for FinTech.

Testaouni said the idea for Queer Tech MTL came when he found himself looking for the LGBTQ+ community within tech corporations, but was unable to find anyone. Queer Tech MTL is made up of 400 members who attend events on and off.

“We encourage startups to come, to learn how to promote diversity in their companies,” said Testaouni.

The meeting featured a panel composed of Marie Isabelle Gendron from Pratt and Whitney Canada, Carlos A. Godoy L. from TD Bank and Elodie Palluet from Keyrus Canada. Before starting, Behrmann presented the crowd with statistics on the LGBTQ+ community within the tech world.

“Nearly half of transsexuals do not get promoted, hired or get fired,” said Behrmann. “And, 63 per cent of graduate students go back into the closet when they get a job.”

The panelists discussed their experiences with coming out at work. Gendron said Oct. 7, 2014 was “like a day of resurgence” for her. That was the day she came out as transsexual at her job.

When reminiscing about her experience, she said she remembers it was a shock for her boss, but she was accepting of her nevertheless. It was a big challenge, Gendron said. “Being transsexual is not a choice, but coming out is the choice to live,” she said.

Godoy came out while working for TD Bank. He said TD bank is known for their support of LGBTQ+ clients and employees. “I have it super easy—I am a white French-Canadian, born in Montreal. I am a man mostly interested in men, and I am a banker,” said Godoy. However, he said he has, nonetheless, lived through instances of discrimination in the workplace. He recalled once being called “the drag queen” by one of his former employers.

Testaouni introducing the panelists. Photo by Elisa Barbier

Palluet said she had a more complicated coming-out experience. She has had to resign from two positions because of her boss’ behaviour. Now, however, Palluet said she is at a job where she does not experience discrimination.

The panelists described the tech environment in Montreal as “very friendly” and “young.” However, Katherine Chennel, an aerospace engineer who attended the meeting but is not a member of Queer Tech MTL, told The Concordian she experienced something very different when she came out while working at Bombardier. She said she was coincidentally offered a retirement package soon after coming out as transsexual.

The panelists also discussed measures taken by their corporations to further integrate the LGBTQ+ community in the workplace. Gendron said she has seen Pratt and Whitney take measures to help all employees of the community feel safe, and she has received a lot of support. The company has psychologists to educate people in the workplace and implement anti-discrimination policies.

“I want my employees to be happy at work,” said Godoy, quoting William Edmund Clark, the executive chief of TD. Godoy added that TD sent a controversial and revolutionary memo in the early 90s to all its employees. The memo read, “We know that there are gays and lesbians. Some of you may have a same-sex partner, and we want you to know that your partner is entitled to the same things as another employee’s wife or husband.”

Attendees during the panel. Photo by Elisa Barbier.

Gendron talked about Fondation Émergence, an initiative to educate the public on the LGBTQ+ community and the problems they still face today. The initiative will be presenting a documentary showcasing the LGBTQ+ community within three different companies in two months. Palluet added exposing the problems the community still faces is an important part of the education process.

Godoy, Palluet and Gendron concluded by saying that listening to oneself and being one’s authentic self are the keys to living a happy life.

The next Queer Tech MTL event will be held on Feb.16 at 5605 Ave. de Gaspé, second floor.

Categories
Music

Hip-hop in danger II: the root of the problem

Last week’s article looked at hip-hop’s beginnings, and we now dive into the genre’s corporate soul

(A continuation from last week’s piece on the issue)

Call me skeptical, but anybody who thinks that the interests of black America will take priority over the interests of corporate America probably has a very optimistic understanding of capitalism. Although some puritans will debate the exact moment corporate America decided, “Hey! We can package and sell this!” hip-hop’s commercialization arguably began in 1986; the first year rap albums started appearing on the Billboards. From then onwards, hip-hop was to be considered as much of a commodity as it was an art form, a class of brandable merchandise whose primary goal was to capture market share by delivering consistent quality and digestible programming.

Unsurprisingly, the music’s capacity to provide insightful cultural commentary took a backseat role. Rap musicians were now contributing to somebody’s bottom line, and maybe if they felt like it, also chose to paint that all-too familiar image of the black American experience in their music. Whatever the case, the profitability of specific musicians and topics would dictate who or what was to be pushed to the majority. Here we are in 2015, and whether or not those same practices remain detrimental to hip-hop culture—and by extension, the black community— has become largely irrelevant. If the financial interests of the music industry were dependent on an artist’s profitability, why change a recipe that has been so historically bankable? For hip-hop to be lucrative in the United States, it must remain familiar to the 63 per cent of people who compose the majority of its population: white America.

The thing is, white America has been listening to hip-hop music for quite a while, now. That is hardly news to anybody. Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats & Rhymes, a documentary directed by Byron Hurt, stated it plainly: white people consume 70 per cent of “all hip-hop produced” (the exact implications of that remain unclear), they have also been making hip-hop music for quite a while, and with great success. The Beastie Boys’ License to Ill became the first hip-hop album to hit the Billboards in 1986. But as we have come to understand, hip-hop music’s original source of inspiration were the laments of the disadvantaged, frustrated and marginalized; the realities that blacks faced in the United States, which was, if we can be blunt, historically the consequence of white people. Macklemore, probably one of the most controversial white people in music right now, provided very germane perspective during his interview on Hot 97, where he affirmed that as a culture that came “from pain, that came from white oppression,” he will not “disregard… [his] place in [hip-hop] as a white [person.]” Indeed, some very constructive dialogue at such a fragile period for race relations in hip-hop culture, and in America.

I’ll take a hot minute to drop a quick PSA for you, humble reader: this is not an article calling for the banishment of white people from hip-hop. White people have been contributing positively to the culture for decades. On top of that, it would be downright insulting towards pretty much every race to equate all of white America with corporate America. Maybe 2014 being the music industry’s most unprofitable year to date (according to Forbes) is just a symptom of how truly out of touch the industry has become with hip-hop culture. Let the eruption of online discussion revolving around Macklemore’s victory over Kendrick Lamar at the 2014 Grammys act as substantial proof of that disconnect. There have undoubtedly been upsets at the Grammys before, but what made this upset particularly remarkable is realizing how people were more agitated by the transparency of the decision-making process than anything else; today, the Grammys are more comparable to a showroom than an art gallery. It serves as nothing more than a presentation of the music industry’s “most popular products,” in much the same way that the Billboards do. Corporate America is focused on delivering prepackaged hip-hop content that caters to a national audience, where two out of three people are Caucasian. So no wonder that we are seeing less and less black hip-hop artists receiving accolades.

I guess we have come to realize that the influence exercised by corporate America over hip-hop is beginning to jeopardize the legitimacy of the genre as an art form. The unfortunate reality of the situation is that when art becomes product, the narrative of its creation is rarely dictated by what the artist thinks you need as a viewer.  Instead, it is dictated by what the industry thinks you want as a customer. Neither the people, nor the sounds of hip-hop continue to serve its modus operandi. People are struggling with the definition of hip-hop because the industry’s presentation and acknowledgement of what truly constitutes hip-hop can no longer be fully corroborated by the black experience in America. It is for this reason alone, that hip-hop is in danger.

Categories
Music

Streaming for success and coping with the norm of free downloads

The consequences of low album sales are cutting deep on those who depend on them

In 1985, Billboard certified platinum albums to over 15 artists such as Bruce Springsteen, Phil Collins and Madonna. By the end of 2014, Taylor Swift’s 1989 was the only album to go platinum. It’s not that people aren’t listening to music, they’re just listening to it in another way.

Music streaming websites have been on the rise for over five years. In the first six months of 2014, music streaming increased by 42 per cent from 2013, according to Nielsen SoundScan, the entertainment industry’s leading music data information provider. Physical album sales dipped 14.3 per cent, and even digital sales went down 13 per cent.

Spotify, a Swedish music streaming company, has recently grown popular worldwide. With over 30 million songs accessible for free, even on mobile phones, Spotify has attracted more than 50 million listeners from over 55 countries. Although streaming sites have affected both physical and digital sales, it is argued that they are an alternative to illegal downloading and music piracy.

“The way I see it, record labels got really greedy in the CD era and started charging truly exorbitant amounts of money for each disc, which pushed younger listeners to piracy as sites like Napster rose in the 1990s,” Zack Greenburg, business and music writer for Forbes, said. “Music’s price was over inflated, but then crashed as a generation got used to downloading it for free.”

Napster, a file-sharing website where music was downloaded for free, caused album sales to plummet in the 1990s. Since then, physical record stores like HMV have resorted to selling other products such as clothing and accessories to keep the business going.

“It’s really hard. We’ve never been able to reverse the whole streaming and illegal downloading movement,” said Nadia Fortin, manager at HMV LaSalle. “People got the impression that music was free, never realizing that people work to put the product out and they never get paid. To increase sales, we have arranged with our suppliers to sell the records at a competitive price.” Though Napster became illegal, retailers like HMV now have to compete with sites like Spotify.

Free music keeps listeners happy, but the reality is different for artists. Brittany Kwasnik, an independent musician from Montreal, plans to remove her music from Spotify.

“You have higher chances of people listening to your music through Spotify, but even if you get 100 people to listen to your album, you hope that out of those people, some of them would go out and buy the album,” Kwasnik said. “The reality, most times, is that they’re not going to actually buy your album. They’ll continue to stream it, and eventually you’ll get left behind, making basically zero dollars.”

While the average amount artists make per stream may have increased with the growth in users on Spotify in 2014, the numbers are still deceiving. Spotify claims that artists receive between $0.006 and $0.0084 per stream. Ed Sheeran’s song “Thinking out Loud” was number three on Spotify’s top 50 songs streamed the week of Dec. 28, and was listened to over 2.85 million times. With the figures provided, he would hypothetically have made between $17,100 and $23,940 in that week alone.

These numbers, however, don’t take into account that the revenue is split between labels, producers, songwriters, artists and others. The artist could in turn only make a small fraction of that revenue.

Sometimes, exposure is more important than money for indie artists: “[We] currently support music streaming services like Spotify,” said Brendan Lucas, president and co-founder of 5on4 Records Inc. in Montreal. “During the infancy stages of an artist’s career we believe that having the music available on any platform possible will be a benefit for their exposure. Although not as financially rewarding as a direct iTunes sale, music streaming exposes the music to a much larger audience.”

With the steady increase of users that listen to music online, the industry is quickly following through with the streaming model. In December 2014, Billboard announced that streams will count towards the rankings on the Billboard 200, and 1,500 song streams from any streaming service will count as an album sale. Streaming is here to stay, and artists can only hope that streaming revenue will soon equate that of a standard album sale.

Exit mobile version