Demi Lovato’s exaggerated feud with a frozen yogurt shop explains

Does a sugar-free cookie naturally trigger? Are sugary foods naturally forgiving? These are the questions that arise from the drama between pop star Demi Lovato and the frozen yogurt shop Bigg Chill in LA. The answer to both questions is no, but let’s break it down further anyway!

On Monday, Lovato – who has spoken publicly about her experiences with substance abuse, eating disorders and sexual assault (most recently in the documentary series) Demi Lovato: dancing with the devil) – exclaimed Bigg Chill on her Instagram stories. „I find it extremely difficult to order Froyo from @TheBiggChillOfficial when you have to walk past tons of sugar-free cookies / other diet foods before getting to the counter,” she wrote, accusing the store of „malicious news” and using the hashtag # DietCultureVultures.

The Bigg Chill in return defended himself on Instagramand said: „We have articles for diabetics, celiac disease, vegans and of course we also have many luxury articles.” But Lovato has also posted direct messages between her and the Bigg Chill, arguing that the food – which she believes is from a brand called Eat Me Guilt Free, suggesting that it is something nefarious, a sugary treat to eat – should be labeled differently because „in LA it is really difficult to distinguish diet culture and health needs.”

The little cloud of dust has subsided because if you haven’t heard, it’s a pandemic and for one thing, everyone is bored, and for another, some argue that the restaurant industry has posed enough challenges in the past year without a celebrity (with a particularly rabid fan base) view them on social media.

Lovato has ologized, but also explained her stance in an Instagram video where she talked about her eating disorder. how Froyo is positioned as a low calorie foodand how that attracts people with eating disorders. „I stand up for anyone who has problems in LA,” she said. „It’s a difficult thing to live with on a daily basis.” She added, “My intuition said talk about it, so I did. And I feel good about it. What I don’t like is the way it has been interpreted and how the message has been misinterpreted. „

Lovato’s idea of ​​labeling foods with the dietary or heathen-specific communities designated for them has received mixed feedback. The food culture is bad, the pressures (especially on women) to stay thin, and the association of thinness with health are bad too. But just as anyone should be able to eat a biscuit without „guilt”, everyone should be able to eat a sugar-free biscuit without screaming that they are diabetic and not on a diet. “As someone with a chronic illness who has to eat a certain way … I don’t want what is called ‘interstitial cystitis’. It makes us feel worse and lifted out, ”wrote one person on his Instagram. And as Kyndall Cunningham writes the daily beast„There’s also the obvious fact that diet foods and beverages are sold in virtually every establishment that sells groceries, particularly grocery stores and large stores, and not generally to people with eating disorders.”

The Bigg Chill argues that the existence of sugar-free cookies is not inherently fat phobic or leads to eating disorders, but that they are just another product available to customers. Which is true – to a certain extent. Because having more comprehensive options for gluten-free and sugar-free foods is a blessing for celiac sufferers, diabetics, vegans, and people with other dietary restrictions, these items are marketed just as often as foods that keep you from gaining weight are bad. Just because someone might rightly prefer the taste of Diet Coke over regular Coke doesn’t mean the Diet version wasn’t created market specifically for women look thin.

This problem is not solved by having the Bigg Chill wearing or not wearing certain cookies or labeling them in one way or another. When one customer is reminded of their eating disorder through a sugar-free option, another may be delighted because it suits their specific needs and wants. Such is the nature of the world; There is nothing that everyone can agree on, and there is always a risk that someone will not be lawfully harmed by anyone’s express fault.