"Can shopping at The Gap save the World?"
Exploring the implications of the (PRODUCT) RED campaign, this was one of the questions asked at last Wednesday's BRANDING AIDS conference, hosted by New College and Gendering Adolescent AIDS Prevention (GAAP).

Though I felt that the keynote speaker's lecture relied too much on popular culture references I thought that the conference brought to the forefront a number of worthwhile issues of which I would like to summarize a few.

There is no easy solution for dealing with poverty and AIDS in Africa; if there was, it wouldn't still be a problem. Bono has said that he is trying to add "sex appeal to the idea of wanting to change the world" - I think this overly simplifies the issue. In my mind, raising money for an issue - especially one as desperate as this - is never a bad thing but I do think that in simplifying the issue in the way that he has Bono ignores too many factors.

This program has contributed to the trend of making AIDS synonymous with Africa. AIDS is a disease that effects millions of people worldwide and yet AIDS has become intrinsically linked to Africa in a way that it is with no other place. Not only does such linkage falsely suggest that Africa is a homogeneous continent but it implies that this is where AIDS is most rampant when in fact it is not. India was recently identified by the World Health Organization as having the highest rates of infection. The negative impact of such branding is huge and not something that can be justified by the "sex appeal" of the (RED) campaign.

Additionally the economic implications of distributing free medication need to be explored. Such an influx of free medication makes it virtually impossible for an African pharmaceutical market to develop organically. So while AIDS gets attention (albeit, perhaps not enough support) from the international community other diseases are ignored at the population's peril. Programs like (RED) encourage this type of AIDS-washing.

The simplicity of the program's marketing implies that all that is required is two pills which ignores how difficult life is even when the illness has been assuaged by these drugs. The manifesto of (RED) states: "You buy the (RED) stuff. We get the money, buy the pills and distribute them. They take the pills and stay alive." It just isn't that simple. As Dr. Vinh-Kim Nguyen explains: "Not everyone is as happy to be on anti-retroviral drugs as we expect them to be." Nguyen continues by telling us that though he loves ARVs and prescribes them all the time he is also aware that there are complications. In reference to these drugs AIDS patients have candidly told his researcher that "All we eat are ARVs" implying that with the improved health of the ARV-taking patient their appetite also returns whether there is food available or not. The simple solution proposed by (RED) ignores the social and economic problems that are fundamental within the society in spreading the disease to begin with.

I largely agree with Dr. Colleen O'Manique who said "Buy (PRODUCT) RED products or not, it really doesn't make a difference, but this isn't going to be THE easy solution to poverty and AIDS in Africa." In one respect in particular I think that (RED) is doing something good. (RED) is a highly specialize marketing campaign that is not targeting the usual Birkenstock-wearing activists. (RED) is bringing AIDS to the attention of a group of people who might not have had anything to do with the crisis to begin with and getting them involved.

Given the consumerist lifestyle prevalent in North America I prefer the idea of not buying anything and simply giving to the cause (or an individual) directly. To do that go to the BUY (LESS) CRAP website or contact me at cari(at)exetergolfclub.ca to give to a good friend of mine who I support as he finishes his journalism degree in Mali, West Africa.

(Click the photo to see the other Annie Lebowitz Vanity Fair covers)