When Accessibility Gets Labeled 'Wasteful'
The tweet that started it all:
The original tweet has been shared over 70,000 times. Whole Foods has apparently agreed to remove the pre-peeled oranges from their stores. Environmentalists and those who hate laziness rejoice!
The problem is that this discourse completely ignores how preprepared food impacts people with disabilities. The most common complaints about the sale of these oranges are either the wastefulness of the additional packaging (which is true but somewhat misdirected as I'll discuss later) or that anyone who buys this must be incomprehensibly lazy.
As a person with limited hand dexterity, I look at this and see an easier way to eat healthy food.
I actively avoid eating oranges, not because I dislike them (they are definitely tasty), but because I have so much difficulty peeling them. Any attempt to peel an orange is likely to result in an unappetizing mess because I've squeezed the orange to hard while trying to maneuver it for peel removal.
"As a person with limited hand dexterity, I look at this and see an easier way to eat healthy food."
I don't have access to peeled oranges from my grocery store though I'd probably take advantage of them if I did. I do buy precut vegetables all the time because it is more convenient and safer for me to do so.
Preparing food with limited mobility is both hugely time consuming and potentially dangerous. While adapted cooking tools do exist to help offset those issues they are really expensive (I wrote about that here).
Anything that helps make my regular acts of daily life safer and more convenient is always a plus. So I was one of a number of disabled people who pushed back against the wholesale shaming of preprepared foods. The responses I got were informative in looking at how nondisabled people disregard and try to shut down discussions of accessibility.
Rebuttals to inserting disability and accessibility into the conversation included what I consider the most ridiculous attempt to maintain the moral high ground:
"I mean accessibility is nice and all but you know that wasn't the thinking behind this product. It wasn't designed for disabled people."
You know what, that's probably entirely true. Whole Foods was probably trying to cater to the convenience aspect. This is supported by the fact that the protest against the product on environmental and anti-lazy grounds was so successful.
The thing is this argument is hilariously irrelevant. In fact, it shows that things don't need to be directly conceived as accessible products to function that way. In many ways, things that are accidentally accessible are better than things that are specifically designed to be. This is because things that are accidentally accessible are marketed and available to everyone and are thus likely to be more easily available that an accessible product which is likely only sold in specialized stores. Seriously, accessibility that requires no thought to implement is the best.
"Peeled oranges have a shorter shelf life so how convenient are they really?"
This is true and it indicates just how much planning has to go into living while disabled. I have to plan my meals around the fresh produce I buy more strictly that others because I buy some things precut. This can be inconvenient, but it pales in comparison to being forced to rely more heavily on canned or other processed foods that have a longer shelf life. My disability doesn't disappear just because a whole head of cauliflower will last longer in my fridge than smaller prepared florettes.
"Peeled oranges are certainly going to cost more than unpeeled, and isn't that a barrier?"
Also true, but here's the thing: Being disabled is expensive and costs for accessible products can be prohibitive. It's easier to budget for the extra dollar or two every couple weeks for prepared fruits and vegetables than the dozens or hundreds of dollars buying adapted cooking equipment will cost up front. This is a case where the cost should be the cause for protest not the cost being used as an excuse to protest the product. I'm all for my life being more affordable.
Other disabled activists dealt with other arguments. The person who argued most ardently with me was actually pretty tame and seemed more clueless than anything as they clearly didn't think their arguments through and went away quietly when I calmly rebutted their arguments. Others were not so lucky.
Things got a lot messier and ableist as Twitter user Ana Mardoll learned as she systematically tore apart those arguments (for a full view of this thread click here).
Issues arose when protesters prioritized the environment over the experiences of disabled people. Though as Ana points out those plastic food containers are hardly new. They are a ubiquitous sight at any grocery store deli housing things like artisanal cheese, salads, and mac and cheese.
Yet how is it that the wastefulness arguments crops up over something that is accessible, rather than the widespread use of plastic containers generally? Not to mention at least these look like the could be reused or repurposed. Where is the protest over bags of prepared salad? I guess peeling an orange is too easy but the convenience of salad in a plastic bag is to much to be denied.
Ana further points out that disability inherently comes with a greater need for product consumption. Disabled people need mobility aids and other tools that inevitably have an impact on the environment. Many of the people she encountered appeared to suggest that in the fight for the environment, disabled people are too inconvenient and should not be accommodated.
People who conceded that disabled people should be able to buy peeled and prepared food were sometimes still unwilling to give up the environmental angle and suggested that we should just ask the clerk at the register to peel the oranges upon purchase.
This is both an issue of hygiene because I am pretty sure those oranges in containers were peeled in an environment that was more controlled for hygiene than the store checkout where the clerk has been in contact with dozens of people and their money without the benefit of regular cleaning.
Also, disabled people should not have to jump through additional hoops to get things. It is not only an unnecessary waste of time but also forces us into a role where we must ask for help.
"Disabled people should not have to jump through additional hoops to get things."
The issue here isn't that the environment isn't important. It absolutely is, but environmentalism has most definitely ignored disability and accessibility. Basically if something is billed as environmental, it is almost certainly inaccessible.
Consider the love affair with ogling (though mostly not actually moving into) tiny houses. No micro home is ever going to be wheelchair accessible and many of them depend on loft space accessed by a ladder for sleeping so even ambulatory people with limited mobility can't use them. They are a popular trend in cutting the carbon footprint though.
Downsizing generally is considered the easiest way to become more environmentally friendly. It is, however, just not really an option for disabled people where additional space and adapted devices are required for daily living.
Far too often if a location heavily touts its low environmental impact, you can assume it's going to be inaccessible because they are cutting electrical use by not having things like an elevator.
I would love to see containers with prepared food get more environmentally friendly but more importantly environmentalists need to start considering disability and accessibility whether it be in finding more sustainable way to create the products we rely on to accessible sustainable housing. What I don't want to see is people throwing disabled people under the bus because they'd rather get rid of a product than figure out a way to deliver it sustainably.
Also, if your main concern over the peeled oranges was a rage over widespread laziness, basically anything that benefits lazy people is going to be accessible to some degree so embrace the convenience (or just don't buy it) -- and don't add a level of shame to buying a product that actually makes our lives easier and which in conjunction with other similar products can actually improve our independence and quality of life.
@toni_snark You've survived this long without them you will continue to do so.
— Ssss (@realtinydancer) March 5, 2016
So basically disabled people should not be allowed to expect or demand better access to food because we never used to have it. *sigh*
And the argument is off Twitter, and Whole Foods is being condemned by the environmentally conscious site Treehugger here.
Ableism is unfortunately winning the wider war for narrative dominance.
A version of this post originally appeared on Crippled Scholar.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.