Here is one of the most head-scratchingest (borrowed word) examples I have seen in a long time. Last week CFTO news featured a family whose daughter has melanoma. She suffers from a severe case of tanorexia. Yes. I said tanorexia. This is the newest in an ever-increasing list of “addictions” that people apparently can’t control. This 22-year old Rhodes scholar young woman started her tanning career at the age of 16. When her friends gave her positive feedback about how wonderful she looked with a tan she was compelled to visit the salon more often. Before she knew it she was going for a fake-and-bake four times a week. Shocking she contracted melanoma isn’t it? She, along with her parents, are now pushing for legislation to put a minimum age requirement of 18 on tanning salons.
So if she hadn’t become tanorexic until she was 18 then she wouldn’t have been diagnosed with melanoma until two years later? What kind of logic is this? And what is with her parents? Where were they when she was turning various shades of orange over the last 6 years? And where did she get the money? Tanning salons are not cheap. Were her parents funding the colour change? Most perplexing of all - has this family never heard of the dangers of tanning beds? Have they been asleep under a rock for the past couple of decades???
And yet another example of the blame game from the news this week. A
rocket scientist woman filed a class action lawsuit against Nutella. This wife and mother was “shocked” when friends informed her that Nutella is not healthy.
According to an article in the Toronto Star, she “felt betrayed” by the makers of Nutella when she learned the product is full of sugar and fat. So she exercised her democratic rights and filed a lawsuit. The worst part of the whole story? She won. Any American consumer can apply for a refund and the makers of Nutella will refund them $4.00 to a maximum of three million dollars.
I hereby nominate Nutella woman and tanorexia family for this year’s Darwin awards. Who seconds the motion?