 Tony the Tiger may be filing for unemployment. The Interagency Working Group, comprised of representatives from the Federal Trade Commission, the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration, recently outlined its "Tentative Proposed Standards for Marketing Foods to Children" between two and 17 years of age. According to the new standards:
The issue is: the immediate and concrete future of these marketing guidelines remains unforeseen. The standards were presented at a "Food Marketing and Childhood Obesity" series of workshops back in December 15, 2009, BNET Today reported. The Interagency Working Group stated it would submit a report containing its findings and recommendations on the proposed standards to Congress no later than July 15, 2010. But as the fifteenth of July creeps closer with no recommendations in sight, the study merely exists as another example of the growing awareness of edible advertising's impact on children. Just last month, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) threatened it would sue McDonald's within 30 days unless it stopped pairing toys with Happy Meals. Meanwhile, Yale released a study that showed more than two-thirds of children prefer snack foods with Dora the Explorer, Scooby-Doo or Shrek displayed on the package - and about fifty percent of those kids said foods tasted better from packages with the cartoon characters. In 2010 alone, cereal giant Kellogg's faced the wrath of the FTC twice. First, the FTC said that the company erroneously claimed how Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal was "clinically shown to improve kids' attentiveness by nearly 20%." As Kellogg's agreed to desist its Frosted Mini-Wheat ads, the company simultaneously started packaging their Rice Krispies brand with claims that the cereal "now helps support your child's immunity," with "25 percent Daily Value of Antioxidants and Nutrients – Vitamins A, B, C, and E." Even prior to that, the Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU) expressed its concern over the Kellogg's Pop-Tarts catchphrase: "Made with Real Fruit." In reality, the breakfast pastry contains less than six percent of fruit. "We hope that the Commission action announced today communicates to industry that it has an obligation to be honest with the public, and that the FTC will act swiftly to challenge questionable health claims about children's food products. Our kids and parents deserve no less," Kellogg wrote in a statement after the questioning and cease-and-desist order of their Rice Krispies campaign. And as childhood obesity rates continue to rise in the U.S., challenge children's food products is exactly what the public keeps on doing. Previously – read our Q & A with Top Chef's Tom Colicchio on the topic of school lunches, childhood hunger and the link between poverty and obesity. |
  Recent Posts
 |
 |
|
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
Advertising is totally out of control, in this country, and it is just a matter of time before government has to step in and regulate it.
Hi,
How are you?. How is WEATHER Iin your area . Anyway , I post new topic It is about something important .Hope you post comment
This is my post link
http://learningstep.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/693/
Sean...
Your argument against gov. regulation of the food industry is not only immature and naive but dangerously misinformed...The views that you many others espouse always leads to the muzzling of the regulators whenever a Republican is elected President: the last time during GwB's misguided reign it was tainted peanuts and tomatoes that sickened and killed many consumers. In the case of the tomato industry because the FDA had no way of tracking the outbreak to its source the vast majority of tomato growers were forced to watch their untainted tomatoes and profits rot in the sun until it was too late to bring them to market. In the case of the peanuts it was intentional poor sanitation at the processing plant that a properly trained FDA inspector could have stopped (if the FDA hadn't been hamstrung by the conservative mantra of smaller gov. is better) that led to the outbreak and the pulling of peanut butter from store shelves.
Ignorant and misinformed Viewpoints do indeed have consequences and it would not surprise me if (heaven forbid) one day after you or one of your family members got sick after eating a tainted food product that you thought was safe began singing a whole different tune.
Cigarette packages have a warning about the dangers of cigarettes. Alcohol packaging have a similar warning regarding the dangers of alcohol. Could not foods that contain dangerous ingredients have a warning as well? Rather than making them illegal and thus removing our choice to give children foods that are demonstrably implicated in the rise in childhood obesity, elevated blood pressure, high cholesterol, not to mention the ever-popular tooth decay? Must it be one or the other? Either regulate your consumer choices away or give General Mills and whoever else cartte blanche on the premise that advertising is what comprises freedom of speech for the corporate citizen?
Right now, foods targeting children (food should not be a weapon that "targets" anyone – but anyway), have bright appealing ads and packaging to match. If your package of Fructose-eos had a label that stated "Warning, the Surgeon General has determined that ingestion of high fructose corn syrup has been linked to increased rates of diabetes and obesity in children" – in clear obvious print – does that cover some of the issue?
Just wondering. It is true that parents need to be parents. It is also true that at this time in history we are bombarded with confilcting information.
In the end it's the parents feeding the kids, so it's their responsibility. Apparently many people share the same point of view. So why so many child obesities?
a good article, but in my opinion, this article will be easier to understand if it can be simplified, so as an ordinary people can be easier to apply it daily.
http: \ \ worldbisnis.wordpress.com
Good business is trying to prevent children from smoking that can provide food that is not unusual in life usually
http://theidiotgame.com source
While this is a measure against a serious problem, I am not certain that it is the most relevant measure-in particular, as advertising is also a danger to many gullible adults.
I would prefer to focus efforts on preventing advertising that is untruthful, exaggerated, or irrelevant, including not only fraudulent claims (like the Kellog's cases mentioned above), but also those who e.g. play on emotions in a manner that is independent of the product. The goal should be to turn advertizing into actual product information.
In addition, it might make sense to limit the amount of advertizing that may be present in various contexts.
believe you're referring to Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution. The segment you're describing (at least, the one I saw that was like it) was very disturbing, especially when he had her put out on the table all the food the family ate in a week.
Food is the most fundamental of publicly-influenced necessities of life. As a parent, I ensured that my little ones (pre-2 years) never ate gluten or dairy, nuts or citrus. (I did this mostly due to the growing research that early exposures to foods that are common allergens seems to increase the likelihood of development of those allergies.) In fact, I had them eating a weird non-glutenous grain concoction with hemp protein and omega fatty acid-rich oil; twice a day. The stranger part is that even now that they're older, that's still breakfast. I'll add some yogurt, nut butter or even a choice of a handful of added cereal and more often than not they chose the non-sweet ones. (Choices include: Corn pops, Frosted flakes, plain Cheerios or plain Crispix).
My point is that if parents are firm on what constitutes a meal, the kids will follow. Not perfectly, not every time but they develop a routine. Parents cannot control what's on TV but they can control how much of that TV is being consumed. It's never going to be a perfect system but parenting and limited choices does seem to sway kids' decisions.
Thanks for the insightful post! And although I think it's a great idea to force advertisers to do a better job by their customers, I also think that there are far bigger fish to fry as far as legislation goes.
Wow, I'm glad to see that the eating habits of our children is such a hot topic! At least it's being discussed, and people are passionate.
I've only been a parent for 8 months, but people challenge me every day about the fact that I am trying to help my son establish the healthiest possible relationship with food. I only wish I had the guts to fire back when I see babies gnawing on processed junk or carrying bottles full of soda. I prefer to focus on my own parenting.
When it really comes down to it, I try to eat as many whole foods as possible, and one of the criteria I use to judge food is whether it even needs to be marketed. There are no commercials for my backyard garden or local organic farm.
Also, unless I'm misreading the original story, this is not about how food can be marketed to children, it's about what food that is marketed to children can contain. For instance, unless "candy bars" don't count as food under this guideline, they cannot be marketed in a way that can be construed as advertising to children at all, since there's no real way to get most candy bars to conform to those content guidelines.
And what does "marketed to children" mean? Obviously, no Dora the Explorer in Snickers commercials, no teenagers in M&Ms commercials, but then will it be no TV ads before 10 pm? No print ads in magazines that children might read, including magazines intended for adults but without mature enough content? Will Pop Tart ads be restricted to Maxim and Playboy? I'm particularly concerned about that particular phrasing.
I agree parents should be parents. We DO NOT need the Gov't telling us what to do. Education is ALWAYS the answer. We need to figure things out ourselves like we HAD been doing for years, like strong AMERICANS. People need to wake up before it's TOO late and the gov't takes over EVERYTHING and you will have no choice, no FREEDOMS, we will all be wearing the same uniform, eating the same gruel, and working for the same DICTATOR. Ayn Rand was right. The day is coming . . .
evelyngaronewordpress.com
How many people on this thread addressed the issue of subsidies for corn growers? High fructose corn syrup is an ingredient in most packaged foods as the result of these subsidies. We don't NEED this ingredient – it is poison! Now there are reports that HFCS not only is a major cause of diabetes and obesity, but also that is contains mercury. I have considered this ingredient poison for many years and avoid it whenever possible. Education is the key here, folks, not legislation. We also need to throw out all the corn lobbyists whose job it is to put a stop to fair journalism and education about the politics of the Food and Drug industry (FDA).
The bonus is that is cheaper NOT to buy stuff with this junk anyway. I don't need Congress or TV to tell me how to shop and make my budget stretch. Thank goodness grocery shopping is all about common sense, and yes, you need to develop a discipline in order to use that common sense and resist marketing. TV and Congress are all about money and emotions and sadly, most Americans just don't get that. Every dollar is a ballot folks, cast yours wisely. It may be tough, but you can do it.
Of course, his does not negate the importance of truth in advertising, but I don't think this will solve the problem. It simply a distraction away from the root of the problem, which of course IMHO is always lobbyists.
Wonderful. More regulations for our free society. Tell me, when did people become so trusting of the government to parent our children. Parents decide what to feed their children. If the parents suck and the kid ends up fat then so be it. The food is still available and as long as kids know that whole grains and vegatables taste like a horses a s s then they are not going to want it and they'll pitch a fit until mommy gets em what they want. Businesses who promote this stuff are only playing to the fact that children have control of their parents instead of the other way around. As bad as this problem is it is really not the governments place to solve it. They can suggest parents do a better job and educate them as to how but other than that stay the h e l l out of people's lives.
I really think it should be a little of both. As a 21 year old (just out of the house), I would say that I've done most of the educating for myself, but my parents set a pretty great example as well.
The problem with commercials geared toward children are the psychological effects that result from watching them. Why add more crap to a kid's mind, why add more bad associations, more unhealthy food choices to a child's diet than they already have to contend with? That way, eating healthy as they grow up comes second nature to them, and not as a result of whatever television has made them connotate as foods they should be attracted to for their "fun" qualities, cool characters associated with them, etc.
Wow, for a 21 years old you seem a lot smarter than most "grown-ups" I have read so far!
N, I am a bit confused, like I have been saying for the longest time McDonalds and BK have alternative options on their menus to eat, They offer sliced apples, OJ, and/or Milk in place of the fries and soda. Folks do not order them. Also, are you ignoring the fact that every single time their is some event in a childs life they are rewarded with some unhealthy food? Do parents showcase broccoli or fruit salad at birthday parties, Bar Mizvaths, Proms? Or is it cake and ice cream? During most cook outs, do folks make sure to have a veggie in addition to Ribs, Chicken, burgers and hot dogs? When we sit down and watch a movie do we have a bucket of Carrot sticks or buttery popcorn?
The Food is not the issue, it is our love affair with that is. McDonalds, BK, and KFC did make folks eat unhealthy foods, people choose to. Folk here are sounding like Morgan Spullock that we are mindless zombies when we eat. If they offer to put rat poison on his fries would he eat it? I guess so.
There are some civilized nations out there that make it illegal to market to young children... Can anyone really disagree with the wisdom of that concept? Aren't our children the most precious thing we have? Shouldn't some things in life be sacred and beyond exploitation for profit?
That would hold water if they intensionally sold unhealthy items to children, I have proven that they have other options on the menu like apples, Milk, and OJ but People don't ask for them.
BK® Fresh Apple Fries
BK® Fresh Apple Fries are fresh apples cut to look like French Fries. These fresh, not fried, slices of whole apple are served with low-fat caramel dipping sauce. Try them today in the BK® Kids Meal at participating restaurants.
@Harry(NJ), Sure, they add an healthy choice items to their menu to ward off critics and watchdogs and knowing full well that very few people will get those items. This is not what I am talking about. I am specifically talking about tv ads focused specifically at children that don't know any better. More and more those ads are focused at poor minorities. (Where most of the problem with obesity is) So you are saying that that's OK to target the poor and the ignorant for profit. If that is your ideal of capitalism, you can keep it.
Mauro, so what you are saying is "ok people are poor and ignorant so therefore they should not allowed to make decisions." Last time I checked, I did not see any fast food resturant showcase a poor family getting a happy meal. Typical folks in these commercials appear to be well dressed. You are making a bad assumption that everyone who is poor is also ignorant. I grew up in DC, McDonald's, BK and the rest of the FF places where a treat, you still ate mommy and daddy's food Sunday through Friday, but what has happend is that folks have gotten increasingly lazy in terms of preparing foods and that has nothing to do with social-economic status. I see just as many folks in Meceredes leaving the local shoprite with candy, cookies, ice cream and crackers as I do poor people. Folks eat what they want because of the whole rewardism that we are being brought up with. I worked hard today, so I should be able to get what I want. If I want Pizza I should be able to get one.
Almost every family when I was young cooked a larger meal on Sunday and then ate off of it until Wednesday. You don't see that as much as it used to be because folks have gotten too lazy.
Harry, I understand your point, but on the other hand it seems more than a bit sad that BK feels we have to trick our kids into eating healthy by making apples look like junk food. (Even sadder that it probably works more often than it doesn't.)
Turn off (or get rid of) the TV, don't take the kids grocery shopping, and don't buy bad food. My kids beg me to buy all varieties of fresh fruit (mangos being their favorite) when I go shopping. They have no interest in junk food because they are not exposed to it. Simple.
I've read a number of these comments... and I think by and large we're missing the point here. Yes – we can teach our children not to eat the "convenience foods," to steer them toward healthier options, to ignore all of the advertising. Yes – we can teach parents how to make good food choices – how to maximize the nutrition that their children get and how to avoid childhood obesity. But none of that is the point... what I want to know is this: Why are healthy, fresh fruits and veggies so expensive in the first place?
Here's where the wheels come off of it folks. The reality is, not all parents, as much as they may want to, can provide the fresh fruits, veggies, and healthy snacks that their children need. Why does the American public need more reams of paper outlining what we could do, what we should do? Stop wasting the money on those studies! Leave the corporations alone - we are all responsible for our decisions. Our wallets do the talking. Government should subsidize healthy choices for the less fortunate in our society. Don't allow federal, state, county dollars to be spent on foods that don't mean the commission's guidelines! Require that they be spent on things that do. If we as parents can control what our kids are eating even 75% of the time, they'd be a lot healthier for it to have access to foods that aren't going to contribute to the epidemic of childhood obesity in this country.
So frozen Veggies are prohibitally expensive. This is a tired arguement, Healthy food is more expensive then unhealthy food. The real issue is that folks choose to get the most unhealthiest items because they feel that going out is a reward for a hard days work.
This is from McDonalds site:
Hamburger
Our classic hamburger with a choice of soft drink, low fat milk or apple juice and small World Famous Fries or Apple Dippers.
That's right you can get apples, low fat milk or apple juice in place of soda and fries. But no one orders that.
BK offers apple slices as well:
BK® Fresh Apple Fries
BK® Fresh Apple Fries are fresh apples cut to look like French Fries. These fresh, not fried, slices of whole apple are served with low-fat caramel dipping sauce. Try them today in the BK® Kids Meal at participating restaurants.
I can go on and on forever. The point is that almost every Fast Food resturant offers and alternative option and people decide NOT TO ORDER it.
A Box of frozen broccoli at the local shoprite costs less than $1, you can get chicken for about $1 a lbs for drumsticks. But when I go to most grocery stores I see folks not even trying to get healthy options. This has nothing to do with affordabilty and more to do with depression with being poor.
"Why are healthy, fresh fruits and veggies so expensive in the first place?" Because the government is there to subsidize giant agro-business corporations at the expense of small local farms, that's why. The government no longer works for us. So your suggenstion is good in theory, but it won't work. Armies of lobbyists are out every day fighting for narrow special interests at the expense of the health and well-being of our society in general.
Wow that boz of frozen Broccoli is so high? Only 89 cents at that local shoprite, geez I can't afford that over the 3.99 Smokehouse XL burger at BK.
It is hard to argue anyting that advocates for children, but this is just aprt of the bigger issue of the gov't usurping the role of the parents and telling the citizens what they can or cannot do.
Go ahead, lock your children down tight. It may feel like the right thing to do but once they are out of the house, college, high school, what have you... they will be immediately attracted to that which they were not allowed. Everything in moderation is the key to success. I grew up in an extremely christian household where sex, drugs, and alcohol were condemned... As soon as I was out of my parents cage, guess what? Pot, alcohol, cigs, sex, late nights, wrong friends, you name it, I did it.. If you aren't exposed to it at young age moderately, your first experiences will suck you into a world you never knew. My child hood was bible school, my adult life is that of a rockstar. Now, I'm not a worthless person, I made it through college and now have a job at 90k, but I'm just saying..covering your children's eyes and hiding them in the dark is not what they need.
I fully agree that parents need to take responsibility for the habits they teach their children. Whether or not it's advertised, bright shiny packages with fun characters will always entice kids. So long as we live in a capitalist society, money rules and companies will do whatever they are legally allowed (and then some) to get more. Adults need to be teaching kids how to make smart choices and not leave it up to corporations to raise their kids.
That said, I fully support the restriction on marketing unhealthy foods to kids. Parents can only do so much to instill good healthy habits, but they will never be the only influence on their children. We're evolutionarily wired to crave foods high in fat and sugar, which was well and good when we were an active species that had to hunt for each meal. Even though our life styles have changed, our bodies still crave the same foods. Kids will develop the capacity to make rational decisions as they grow up, but when young they're still creatures of desire. Advertisers come into your home and use flashy gimmicks and cheap tricks to entice us to buy their products, working as hard as they can to undo all your hard work trying to teach your kids good and bad.
Why should we make it harder for parents and kids by making kids want what they shouldn't have and parents have to deal with that much more nagging, begging and pleading? Doesn't it make more sense to have a united force? To have what kids learn from others reinforce the lessons taught by parents? And possibly to help educate parents who need a better idea of what foods to encourage for their kids?
I'm happy to say I have never been over weight(nor will I ever let myself) thanks to healthy eating habbits, staying active and my parents teaching me moderation with junk food.
This is silly, the parents should be held responsible for making sure that their children get healthy meal not the fast food industry. What really bothers me is that every kids meal has a healthier option like carrot sticks or apple slices or milk over fries, cookies or a soda, but the parents rarely ask for it. Who's fault is that? It's like some people believe that McDonald's, BK, and KFC, should only sell healthy food but at the same time no one purchases the healthy food on the menu. Guess what would happen if McDonald's, BK, or KFC started serving only healthy foods? They would be out of business. News flash, People go out to eat want to eat unhealthy, they like their burgers and fries, fried chicken, etc. because it tastes good and it's a reward for a hard days work.
Really the only 'fix' for this food mess is a fundemental change to the way we look at food. Food can no longer be seen as a reward for graduating from school, getting married, having a baby, or any other milestone. It does not take a genius to figure out that our love affair with food creates this mess.
30 years ago if you read this article you wouldn't believe it. It's happening slowly. I think it all started when the government decided they would require all grown ups to drive with seatbelts. then, gradually control more and more. can someone please explain to me why in America do we need the government dictating what is good for me and my family and how to run my business?
Last time I checked the definition of Government was "we the people" If we don't like what the government does or does not do, than it's our fault. But we don't control the government. Corporations do.
If running your business includes lying, cheating, stealing or poisoning the air, water and food supply, than yes, I want my government to stop you. You bet. And by the way, seat belts save lives. People have the right to kill themselves if they want, as long as the cost doesn't get passed down to me in some form or other. Living in society requires responsibility toward others. It's called civility.
I'm actually torn on this. I would love to say parents take responsibility, but lets face it, they aren't going to. Besides parents that are already doing the responsible thing won't have to worry about what Uncle Sam has to say about it. I think its generally a good idea, because the obesity in this country is literally that of epidemic proportions, and it calls for desperate measures.
I guess I may have been the only one that read that Dora the Explorer makes food taste better.... Because all of your fantastic parenting has made you're children think that the picture of wheat on the outside of a Kashi box is more appetizing than Dora. The article was not addressed at parenting, but the effects of marketing on children. I don't think my son likes chicken nuggets from McDonalds, but he sure does love that toy for about 15 minutes. I have an incredibly healthy 7 year old that LOVES fruits and veggies and would reach for an apple over a candy bar at anytime. But I'll never tell anyone that commercials, cartoon characters, toys, and other advertising gimmicks (even down to the Boxtops for Education labels, so he can help his school) don't have any effect on him. No matter how well I parent him, he will, at some point fall for it. And no one can say that they don't give in to advertising. Open your medicine cabinets, how many things are in there that you bought because an ad on TV said it would help something? And you expect Shrek not to rope your children into eating fruit snacks!! I for one think that "extension of truth" advertising should be regulated and since childhood obesity is such a problem, maybe Scooby Doo should hop onto a bushell of apples instead of promoting ice cream cones.
As a parent, I know that I can't keep a watchful eye on every thing that my child consumes nor can I moderate how much he intakes of anything when I'm not there. I am also expecting that not all of his friend's parents make everything from scratch as I do and that he may at some point eat enriched white bread and boxed macaroni and cheese. I also know that childhood obesity is not 100% a parents fault and that the availability and choice of food products, as well as that friendly saying on the outside of a pop tarts box (made with real fruit) is also to blame. I am not a perfect parent, nor are any of you, yet the words and judgments of others slip off your tongues so readily. Maybe teaching our children respect of others and manners should be at the top of your grocery lists as well
In the end, you have to be able to control what happens in your home and you have to be able to teach your kids how to deal with those outside influences. As a parent, I can not go into my son's friend's house and demand the mom make healthy snacks. Quite frankly, I know she gets a little joy giving my kid something she knows I either ban or have very little in my house.
This is what I try to do. Have healthy snacks around, make dinner at home every night like another mom suggested, and do my research whenever possible. Mauro, you are so right about affordability of organic food. It is ridiculous. So try to have a garden if you can. It is amazing how many tomatoes you get from one plant. But most importantly, be the parent who says "no" when you have to and make "yes" to special treats on fun occasions.
Did you ever hear of moderation? I'm 5'5", 109, and yeah, sometimes I have junk food. 90% of the time, I eat healthy and exercise. Growing up, I was in an obese family in Michigan (obese state), but was taught that pizza and candy was a special treat. If you deprive kids of this, they'll go crazy in college because it's "forbidden." Kinda like the ultra-strict religious parents whose kids went nuts with alcohol and stuff as soon as they were free. Moderation, folks.
I agree with Sulavio. The matter is bigger than just parenting issues. Its the limits imposed by the companies with the political power and financial backing to allow the push for all of these poisonous chemicals to be used in our foods.
Open your eyes people. ITs poli-TRICKS not poli-tics.
Your telling me that the companies that pump millions into a product is actually doing it for the "good" of the people?
The mighty dollar will always reign supreme and who cares what little Timmy has to say...or what Mom & Dad have to say for that matter. Besides, this is tainted alike for the adults. We comsume food that even isnt fit for animals at times.
You tell me WHY I can buy a burger for $1 when a most of the important foods that we should be comsuming cost more than that.
START FEEDING YOUR MINDS AND STOP FEEDING YOUR GUT AND OPEN YOUR EYES WHEN YOU CHEW.
Love you all! :)
Frozen broccoli costs less than a Dollar in most supermarkets.
Yep. My toddler's favorite food right now are bananas, which cost 19c each at Trader Joes most of the time (29c when we buy organic). Five bananas is definitely more filling than anything on the Fast Food Value Menu.
I would prefer that things like tax credits for healthy food markets in urban areas where there are no fresh vegetables available for purchase be the focus of my tax dollars! This won't help the problem. Doesn't Subway have healthy meals with Dora the Explorer characters?
I see that the issues of responsibility in choice is being misunderstood. It's not as easy as many here want to make it.
Most food readily available is processed, so it's not an issue of turning the can over to read to content, which by the way, I challenge anyone of you smart folks to interpret and know if any of those long chemical names a will or will not adversely effect your health. Th e irony is that organic, or "good for you" foods are not affordable to the average family.
Everyone is averse to the idea of the government "controlling" their life without understanding that "big brother" is NOT the government but corporations, (which by the way control government) and intrude (adversely) in every aspect of our life and privacy. It's obvious that the average person either doesn't understand this concept or won't accept it (at their own peril.)
We have absolutely no freedom of choice in controlling the quality of our life because we have no control over our own government.
Another lets blame the government person, you forgot that the same government has been trying to get the food industry to cut the amount of sodium in foods and limit the amount of HFC's in most items. It's the same government that also gotten many companies to reduce the amount of trans fats in foods, tha same government who got nutritional labels more informative, the same government that has gotten companies to disclose ingredients, and so on. Is the government perfect? no. But is the government trying to adjust, yes. Have you ever tried to grow your own veggies? I have and what did I find out? Bugs and other pests like the food more that you and I. If food grown on a mass scale was not grown with pesticides you and I could not afford to eat. This is why the government allows for pesticides but they are also evualting the same pesticides to discover if they have adverse affects on humans. But like any other entity they are going to have obsticles. Answer me this one. in 1930 the average life expectency for an adult was 59.7 years, now the life expectency is 78.7 years. What has changed? Better nutrition and public access to health.
Read Sulavio's comment above this one. The overwhelming amount of food that is available to Americans now is over-processed and filled with unhealthy ingredients like corn syrup and articifial sweeteners and chemicals. Livestock and chickens are raised and slaughtered in despicable ways. (Watch Food, Inc for a great intro to this). Even the most well-meaning, concientious parents are prey to what is available in our supermarkets. Much of the the problem lies with corporations and with government subsidy of corn. Imposing nutritional guidelines for children's food products is a start. If we had as many healthy choices as non-healthy, then I might listen to the "It starts with the parents" argument.
Exactly.
So true. I've recently started baking my own bread and on a whim I read the ingredients on the bag of 100% whole wheat bread we were finishing off and it had close to 25 different ingredients in it including high fructose corn syrup. My bread has only 6 ingredients. It's shocking what goes into food!
This is not a "one person responsibility" issue. The thing is, corporations have no boundaries, what-so-ever, and they are able to intrude into your home. Granted, you can turn off the TV and all other media devices, don't take your kids shopping with you, but do you really want to raise your kids in a bubble?
Here is the one thing that really gets me, though. The other day I ran across an add for sloppy joys (spelling?), alleging that eating that crapp gives you a serving of veggies!! In what Universe???? The question is, should it be legal for them to be allowed to count the tomatoe paste in that canned/dried, whatever it is, food and be allowed to sell it as part of a healthy diet?
I am not for government involvement, the less, the better, but the "food advertisement" at this point borders on the advertisement we used to have for smoking. The cigarette companies back then came up with all kinds of half-truth and bending words to sell their product. Now, food companies do the same thing. Reading the ingredients label only goes so far; up until a few years ago, not a single "average person" knew how bad "hydrogenated" was; the reason we didn't know was because advertisement told us it wasn't bad. The stream of information is somewhat one-sided in these cases and looking every ingredient up on the internent can confuse more than clarify.
So maybe the solution is in the middle; parents, be a parent and companies, since you can't regulate yourself, someone has to establish some guidelines. Capitalism only works if we adhere to some morals. If one person throws out self-regulation others will follow and the system fails.
Right on. What a novel concept: corporations with morals. The problem is that in the quest for ever larger profit, corporations have abandoned morals. They are global now and can't care less about the community you and me live in.
It looks like 57% of Americans are not qualified to be parents. I can't believe people want the government to take even more control over our lives. I for one think the government has enough power and I don't want them controlling the media anymore than they already do...including advertising. Just another step closer to 1984. I mean, why bother having advertisements at all then since apparently 57% of parents are worthless and an "impressionable" child can take any advertisement out of context.
I like the IDEA of regulating adds for children..... though it sounds like one more government thing that won't get done completely. I ALSO feel strongly that parents need to regulate it! My husband was raised on sugared cereal and cold cereal EVERY morning of his young life. He has also made other healthy choices and is still a strong healthy man at almost 50. I was raised on hot cereal and eggs 5 days a week, Saturday Dad made pancakes, french toast, etc and Sunday we had cold cereal (Mom's version of day of rest) but NEVER with sugar. We did sometimes have cold sugared cereal on trips and special events.
SO we have had to come to a meeting of the minds. My kids know they have to eat one non-sugared cereal or 2 pieces of toast for breakfast. THEN they can have one bowl of "the sweet stuff".......
OF COURSE the issues go MUCH deeper than just this article or the laws regulating advertisements go. I overheard a friend who is a politician say today "we need to stop voting for fairy tales and get a grip on reality". I think the same issues come up in parenting. We think our parents didn't give us enough "sweet" stuff, things to make us happy, instead they gave us strong discipline that was sometimes hard to swallow. To try to compensate I see MANY parents trying to give their kids ALL "sweet" stuff, happy things, costly things, regardless of whether the kids should have it or not, or if the parents have the money or not....
okay could go on. When we accept that there IS pain and sadness, let ourselves work through it and enjoy the "sweet stuff " when we do get it (not needing to starve ourselves of it) we'll all be happier.
I am so puzzled by the people who disagree with this argue and are using the "parents are responsible, not corporations" argument. Are none of you concerned that 90% of the food in a grocery store is REAL food? Are none of you concerned that non-organic celery in the grocery store has over 71 pesticides and chemicals in it? Have none of you visited a factory meat farm and seen the cows that are half-dying in their own feces, the chickens that can barely walk, the pigs with infected tails? How can you write about the responsibility of parents when it is so difficult as it is to get REAL food; food that comes from local, poly-farms that rotate crops? My husband and I make a point of gardening our own vegetables and visiting the farms of which we purchase our meat - but this is a full time endeavour, just to make sure we are eating real, whole foods. Shouldn't this be the norm, not the exception? I suggest to you boastful commenters, the "Motherof4" and "Steves" - look again at what you are eating. Most of it is crap. Yes, that means the yogurt that has more sugar than a candy bar. Yes, that means the milk coming from "organic" cows that spend their first part of their life as diseased as factory cows. Yes, that means the pre-sliced bread chemically enriched with folic acid and niacin. Yes, that means the berries from Chile that were sprayed in ammonia. Then tell me that a parent can control everything a child puts in their mouths and vouch that its real, good nutritious food. Regardless of how much we educate adults AND children about nutritious food, this is nothing if we LACK ACCESS.
Some good books to start: Omnivore's Dilemma, the blog Fooducate, Animal Miracle Vegetable, CNG website, or just visiting any CSA farm that rotates their crops.
Good luck to all of you.
I meant "Seans" not "Steves."
Great! People just don't want to know all this. They have been conditioned, assimilated, if you will. They just don't understand who really the government is and who controls it. Very sad indeed. They will wake up tomorrow to realize that the democracy they thought they lived in is just a brilliantly constructed illusion!
Sorry, another typo: "Are none of you concerned that 90% of the food in a grocery store is NOT REAL food?"
No one seems to understand the saying "everything in moderation" any more. When I was a kid, my parents gave me healthy breakfasts every morning before school, but on weekends, if I wanted sugary cereal for breakfast, I could have it. The fact that it wasn't taken away from me entirely kept me happy, and let me still buy into what was "cool," but I still wasn't going to school artificially hopped up on sugar. People who believe that parents can't overcome companies' marketing tactics don't seem to have a grasp on strong parenting.
You know, even if they do prevent ads targeted at children, that won't stop this process. Companies will just market cartoon characters at a target audience of adults, and then the kids will want them even more, because they'll be grown up and do cool, extreme things (like a certain Camel I remember, or a cartoon pirate who drinks rum). Government control isn't the answer. Sean and many others are right. It's about being informed consumers and teaching your kids to be informed consumers, too. Those of you who say it won't work are those who are probably too fat and lazy to take the time to do it. It does work, I can say this from personal experience, both because I was taught proper consumer skills and because I teach them to the kids I work with, who are healthy and happy (and have a proper sugary snack once in a while). It's mainly about limits. Most people don't understand that they can stop at half a bowl of cereal or one snack cake.
The problem isn't saturated fat, trans fat, sugar or lack of nutrients. The problem is kids eat a ton of junk and don't exercise. The problem is that good, nutritious food isn't as readily available to lower-income people in lower-income areas where obesity rates are higher. The problem is that agriculture has become a victim of he mass-market as urban and suburban populations have been turning more and more to pre-packaged foods since the industrialization of America.
I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, I hate to hear about government controls on yet another simple thing that really shouldn't need them. I'm a parent, and I don't really find it that difficult to actually read nutritional labels before I choose the food that goes into our home. I realize I can't control what goes into my child's mouth all of the time, but if I make enough good food choices it no longer matters whether or not a bad food choice gets in now and then.
On the other hand, I would appreciate it immensely if something like this pressed companies to create more varieties of healthy food aimed at children. I'm guessing that if these guidelines go through they will create more choice, not less. When the WIC program added a list of allowed canned fruit and vegetable types to the voucher they give out for vegetables awhile back, I noticed I was suddenly able to find inexpensive canned fruit that was canned in fruit juice instead of syrup everywhere I shopped. As someone who always had a guilty love of those cans of fruit that might as well be candy, I was excited to get the option of buying that without the liquid sugar for myself.
lol fat kids!
Believing that parents can overcome the influence of multi-million dollar marketing campaigns is naive. Ads are "cool" and what mom and dad say is "lame", trying to compete is naive. Any law that requires companies to stop lying to our kids is exactly what government is supposed to do.
This is crap. My friends and I grew up eating Frosted Flakes, Sugar Smacks, Corn Pops, Fruit Loops, Lucky Charms, Frakenberry, Count Chocula, Boo Berry, Fruit Brute, Cookie Crisp, Cocoa Pops, the Pebbles, etc. and we are healthy adults. Too much of anything is bad, including healthy ingredients. Also, cereals are a treat that encourages kids to get up and start the day (in this stressful world) with some pleasure. As an adult, I eat one of the worst cereals on the list . . .Cinnamon Toast Crunch (The best cereal ever).
What we should ban from kids are all the additives and supplements sprayed on crops and fed to livestock (steroids in the milk) to boost their production.
Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it will fail for cereals and other "junk" foods. Hmm, I wonder what President Obama's daughters have for breakfast???
Sean is correct. This ultimately comes down to the parents. They can say no to a child when they want to dye their hair pink or beg to please please please buy them (X) like knives, crocodiles, guns and adult movies – why are they powerless over a cereal they have to shell out nearly $5 for anyway?
The temptation thing is right up there with parenting. Your child should be able to resist commercials. If not – then they'll fall for every bright blingy thing that comes along.
People whine about strip clubs and prostitution – maybe even the customers didn't give in to the idea that these things are "acceptable rites of manhood" – maybe there wouldn't be customers. Again: it's all in how someone is raised.
Perhaps we should look into licensed parental training before breeding?
Boy won't that create some squeals of indignation!
A lot of the "We're Americans, we should make our own informed choices!" indignity misses the point: Children are not informed consumers, nor are they suitable targets of adult marketers. Quite simply, children are being used as the liason between companies and parents' wallets, and the bait is both sugary and cartoony - things that we know children really enjoy. The Yale study, where children were choosing food (and even non-food; kids preferred a rock with a spongebob sticker to a banana without decoration) based solely on the cartoon glitz tells us that children don't pay attention to calories, nutrients or healthiness - which is why you see so many cartoon tie ins with food mass marketed at kids. Adults don't tend to buy food with cartoon tie ins; clearly these advertising gimmicks are not targeting adults. Instead, they prey on children, and having a child screaming, "Mommy I want it!" in a grocery store is not really the place to educate them on the value of healthy eating.
Quite simply, kids are being used as pawns by advertising agencies because they know it works - slap a cartoon face onto a can of lard, and it'll sell. Parental responsibility pales before a billion dollar advertising campaign.
No, it doesn't. A majority of children can't walk in to a store and buy their own food, and for those that can the ad isn't going to be the determining factor between whether they get the healthy stuff or not. It's the parents that pay for it, and thus the parents that need to step up and do their job.
I do agree that it's despicable that advertisers target children, but using laws and regulations to make them stop isn't the solution. The solution is to teach your child that advertisements will lie in order to get you to spend money. Like politicians, they'll tell you anything to close the sale. Again, this is the responsibility of the parent to teach their child.
The solution to all of these issues is education of the child, so they can grow up and make their own informed decisions. Papering over the problem by taking the ads off of TV does more harm than good; it takes away a tool I can use, as a parent, to teach my child the nature of advertisements.
While it's all well and good to teach your kids to not believe everything they see on TV, and I commend you doing so, having a favorite cartoon character parading around with a happy meal is not something that is fodder for a rational discussion. Kids aren't exactly rational creatures anyway, and they don't make decisions (again, the Yale study is excellent) based on anything other than how attractive a cartoon character is.
It's also dishonest to say that kids do not influence spending. While kids seldom if ever have checkbooks, they are in the cart with their mom and dad, and they see the products on the shelves. Next time you go to a grocery store, notice how the sweet snacks are at eye level with the cart. Little hands can (and do) reach out to pull those brightly colored, cartoony boxes into the cart, and by the time the parent notices, it is when they're in line. Unless they stop and bring the product right back to the shelf, the child has indeed spent money. Likewise, next time you're in the grocery store, notice the candy free check out lanes. These aren't there because the grocery stores hate candy, they are there because children beg for it when they see it, and will grab at it if they can.
Keep teaching your kids about healthy eating; that is ultimately the right way to make sure they don't go crazy on junk food whenever you take your thumb off of them. But until kids can be trusted to make right decisions about what they eat, they shouldn't get bombarded with opportunities to make the wrong decisions.
If the cartoon characters were all that mattered, companies could just as easily slap the characters on food that's twice the price and far more healthy, it would sell just as well, and they'd continue to make their profit. Companies care about profit. They don't honestly care if they're selling HFCS and lard, or if they're selling dried carrot slices, as long as they make money.
They put the characters on the HFCS-laden products because that's what parents are already buying for their kids anyway, and they want to differentiate their HFCS-laden stuff from the next HFCS-laden product on the shelf.
Taking the big three poisons, dextrose, transfats (anything labeled as "hydrolysed") and the big baddie, high fructose corn syrup out all these packaged foods as well as those sold in the fast food restaurants, will dramatically change diets. it might make food cost more, but all those cheap ingredients have turned us into cheap people. If the Europeans can learn to live without these poisons, we can too. Parents need to read labels, and make sure these poisons are in your house, go to websites of your favourite chain restaurants and learn what is in the food, or even avoid fast food altogether. Let the corporations know that if they want to stay in business, they need to go back to the old ways of making their products. You don't have to be a green vegan to eat better, you just need to stay away from what has been pushed on you over the decades by in forms of free coupons and media ads.
I agree that parents need to step up and be parents, but at the same time it's sucks being considered the mean parents or the uncool parents that are always fighting against the junk food marking and the garbage that they peddle to our kids. My husband and I do our best to make sure our kids eat healthy. It would be great if a major cartoon character endorsed something healthy so I don't have to say no every time my kids go down the cereal isle. If Dora can peddle spaghettios then why can't she peddle corn or peas. Let's get the kids begging for Mom and Dad to buy real food instead of all the processed crap. I think it's a great idea and there are other countries who have similar laws in place as far as marketing to children so why not us? It might help with the childhood obesity problem because it's obvious that too many parents are giving in to the marketing.
yay cupcake!
Actually, I don't let my daughter watch TV. I don't watch it either. We have netflix instant and I can steam in the shows I want her to see. I don't want my child being formed into the whole GIMME GIMME american child. TV commercials are just bombarding our children with the need to consume -toys, food, toys, food... and yes, I do have the ability to say "no" to my child, but that frankly isn't a battle I feel like fighting on a regular basis. She is quite happy when daddy surprises her with a toy, and she is truly thankful. She is a very happy kid, she has a long attention span, and she's super smart and will learn to make her own choices.
Um how old is your child and when will she be introduced to society?
Wow, and she has already been accepted to Yale.
What is a democracy when we allow monster corporations to feed our children genetically modified trash food with scant nutrients barely suitable for farm animals? My vote says that at minimum we do not allow our children to be fed food without nutrition that helps to dumb them down, make them obese and unable to compete. I say let people come before money! Is this too radical an idea in a country where legislation is bought by institutional bribery called lobbying?
The only entity allowing your children to be fed crap is YOU.
If you are too lazy to be bothered by turning over the package and reading the standardized label already mandated by the government then further government intrusion really isn't the answer. If you have a personal definition for what constitutes junkfood (mine is > 50% of refined sugars + fat ) then you can quickly determine what's acceptable by just reading the label.
If your kid asks for it, you tell them no. If your kid asks why, you tell them why. If you kid continues to to press the issue. then you remind them who's the boss.
If ads are a problem then perhaps it's time to turn off the TV.
If you haven't done right by your kids from the start then of course it will be an uphill battle (of your own making).
Read the frelling label that the feds have already mandated.
Yay! More Government Intervention!
Amen to Sean- you give the government the option to control what they can put in our kids food and next thing you know, they'll be monitoring what companies can put in all foods- we'll be ushering in another little piece of socialism. If we dont make sugary foods an option to our kids, then they will learn to love being healthy, and yes there are going to be times when you cant complete protect them in a health bubble of bliss- but you can teach them the difference and trust that over time they'll learn if your setting the example-
It's real simple.
PARENTS: JUST SAY, " NO YOU MAY NOT HAVE THAT."
Unless your little Dora the Explorer fan has access to your check book, last I knew it was the parents who PURCHASED the junk food.
How about we don't waste time, money, and legislative power on such nonsense, and parents start acting like them.
this is interesting.
Parents should be responsible for the diet of their children, but they aren't. That's the problem. A lot of parents let their kids eat whatever they want. If the government has to step in, so be it. Americans are turning into fat unhealthy slobs. Sometimes the government needs to step in and protect you from yourself.
Dangerous talk, my friend.
"Sometimes the government needs to step in and protect you from yourself."
NO, NO, NO, NO! This is a scary concept to me. Thank you, Big Brother, but no. I would rather keep my freedom and risk screwing up my own life in my own way. Live and learn.
That's also because they like it too. Did you see the show on ABC with the Kids food guru when he confronted the parent? He basically put the mother into tears because he explained how the food that she was providing to her child was in fact destroying them. No conincidence the woman was also obease, She liked the food that she was giving to her child. I know a mother who even tried to force-feed bad food to her kids claiming that this is all that they eat when once I asked them, they actually wanted to eat healthy foods. The problem is that some folks are miserable and decide if they like these things it must be okay.
Let me leave you with this: How many times have you seen a pet owner dump table food into their dog or cats dish and all of sudden months later say," they don't like pet food." No dah, you force fed them table food and they developed a taste for it. The same thing we do with children, we force feed them adult food because we like it and we want them to partake in the same activity, why are we suprised years later when they don't want anything healthy and are having all kinds of medical problems.
I believe you're referring to Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution. The segment you're describing (at least, the one I saw that was like it) was very disturbing, especially when he had her put out on the table all the food the family ate in a week.
I'm sensing a lot of sentiment in the comments that it's EITHER the fault of the parents OR the fault of the companies. I think it's both. Too many parents have stopped caring or paying attention to what they feed their kids, especially because it's "too expensive" or "too difficult" to get healthier options, and too many companies have decided to make whatever's cheapest, regardless of the impact. After all, companies are first and foremost in business to make money, and the only way most will voluntarily make more expensive, but healthier, food is if there's more money in it for them in the long run.
My job is to monitor and raise my children. It's not my job to monitor the crap that corporations put in the food I eat. I don't have enough hours in the day to research every little thing I consume. This is why I pay taxes. I need the government to do it's job to protect me, not from hypothetical enemies in faraway lands, but from enemies right here at home which threaten my life everyday with the crap they put in the things I consume.
I really, really don't get why people so vehemently protect the right of corporations to do just about anything, including killing us for profit. Stop talking about freedoms and start talking about responsibilities you have to each other as a society. In case you haven't noticed, America is degenerating beyond recognition. And it's all because people have decided that it's OK to make a killing exploiting and robbing their fellow citizens.
Actually, it is your job to monitor what your children eat. That goes along with the whole job of "Parent".
It's not that I am protecting a corporation's right to advertise, it's that it's not really a fix for anything. Were they able to pull all sugary cereal ads off the TV tomorrow, there would be no significant decrease in consumption in the near or far future. Parents will still make poor decisions regarding what their children will eat, with or without the ads.
If we were truly interested in fixing the problem, LGoose has the right of it; we need to invest this energy in to parent education. Teach parents what is or is not healthy, so they can take those lessons and apply it at home. Then it won't matter what ads are on the TV, the parents will be able to make the smart decisions.
Targeting the ads is treating a symptom, not the condition.
Mauro- "I don't have enough hours in the day to research every little thing I consume."
The government requires all packaged food to have a label (turn the can, box or bag over and you'll see it). It doesn't take that long to see if the food you're buying contains something you don't want to eat. If you dont like or understand whats in the food you're eating, don't eat it. its simple and takes maybe 1 min more to read a label.
All food in grocery stores contains stuff I don't want to eat. it's all genetically engineered, chemically produce crap. I can't afford everything organic... so I should start my own farm, i guess, on top of the 40 hours a week on my job, and the 40 hours a week on my other job, which is parenting and helping with the maintenance of my home. It's so nice to have freedom of choice, isn't it...
I think this is a great thing. I'm tired of hearing how fat our country is!
http://www.denwrites.com
While I agree that good parenting is the best solution, the problem lies in the fact that a large number of parents don't take food quality into account when raising kids. Whether because of low income, lack of time, laziness, ignorance, or deliberate avoidance of healthier choices (or any combination of these factors), producing and marketing foods that are less unhealthy can only be beneficial to these and other parents, as well as their children. Businesses, being an integral part of society because they produce goods, need to start acting like it by making products that benefit society and individuals, rather than harming them, and doing so using processes that likewise do not make dangerous or unnecessary wastes. If they don't do it on their own, then like any other individual entity, they need to be persuaded to, either through incentives or enforced regulation, whichever gets the job done.
This is supposed to be a country about freedom. we shouldn't be restricting the ability of companies to market sugary cereals to children. They do what works for them. If parents teach their children well and do not just give in at the slightest whine, then food companies will no longer have a market for that kind of food and not push it so much. but that will never happen since most of the country loves being overindulgent and obese and unhealthy and all that jazz.
The problem is that we live in a country where people honestly believe they can do whatever they like (including abdicating their responsibilities as parents), and then express outrage when the government doesn't solve all their problems for them.
Government isn't the problem. Big business isn't the problem. People are the problem. People will always be the problem. The only thing you can do is make sure that your own house is in order. Teach your children the same, because I promise you that the irresponsible, the lazy, the freeloaders, the blame-casters, and the entitled are all teaching their own children how to be just like them.
Right on the money.
WTF happened to capitalism?
It died in Nov. of 08.
This is just more government intrusion into our lives. They want to control ever aspect of it. This is just a means of getting their foot in the door in the guise of doing it for the children.
How about the .gov air ads reminding parents to be parents??? Oh that doesn't go along with the current admins plans of making American Citizens, Subjects.
Yes, of course it's the parents responsibility, but it would be nice to get a little help. Why is everybody OK with corporations constantly preying on us in every which way they can? We are being attacked from all sides. Some people don't have the luxury to constantly monitor their children.
We as a society have our priorities misplaced. We need to focus on raising the best young people we can. We need to stop bowing to the almighty dollar. Not everything should be about making a profit.
Corporations: Hands off our children!
I don't usually like to attack a specific person, but your comments are so crazy that I wonder if you're joking.
You said: "Some people don't have the luxury to constantly monitor their children." and "My job is to monitor and raise my children. It's not my job to monitor the crap that corporations put in the food I eat. I don't have enough hours in the day to research every little thing I consume. This is why I pay taxes."
Really??? I have control over what goes in my child's mouth 95% of the time because I am the one who buys and prepares the food. If I don't like the food being served in school cafeterias, I send them with a lunch. I consider it an important part of my job as a mother. I also read labels so I know what is in the food that we're eating. I consider it an important part of my job as a consumer. I teach my children why certain foods are good or bad. I hope that the other 5% of the time, they are making good choices for themselves. If not, it won't kill them.
You ALSO said "We as a society have our priorities misplaced." This literally made me laugh out loud. Priorities indeed!
@Motherof4 and @ Steve– To read your comments makes me ashamed of America. Your lack of compassion and concern for society at whole only underscores why these corporations get away with what they get away with. People like you say "I'm not affected, so why should I care. I figured it out, so should you. Let the corporations do what they want." It is this mentality that lets the corporations run rampant on vulnerable people; people who work multiple jobs to make a living, people who juggle kids and taking care of sick relatives, people who are not as fortunate as you. Until you can develop a sense of social concern for others, I suggest your refrain from selfish remarks, or else your children will turn out just like you, something more dangerous than an physically unhealthy adult - a morally void adult with questionable character.
Sulavio, believe it or not, my concern is spawned from concern for society. It makes more sense to teach a child how to resist ads when exposed to them then to shelter them. It creates stronger children with better world skills.
If society as a whole wouldn't shelter their children, and instead TEACH them how to work with this stuff, society would be much better off than it is now. Society can not survive with the government constantly meddling like this, at least no society I want to live it. If the government takes any actions, they should be temporary in nature and aimed towards encouraging personal responsibility.
@Sean. I disagree. If we care about others and their well-being, we would halt the abuse of power by others on the vulnerable. The power abusers here are corporations, the vulnerable are children and the general public. I do believe in individual responsibility and empowerment, but this does not give predators a free pass. Corporations should not be allowed to create products that can kill people - obesity claims millions of lives every year - and be acquitted of responsibility because the general public finds it easier to blame individuals for the consuming the food. And while I believe capitalism works, I believe in the social responsibility of corporations to provide real products that improve peoples's lives, not hurt them. Does no one believe in corporate responsibilty anymore? Or enforcing it? Its like we'd rather let the corporations do what they want, because its easier to b*tch at your neighbor than demand more from Foster Farms or General Mills.
Sulavio, I spent some time considering your reply. I don't want to be seen as someone who doesn't care about other people, because that's just not true. I have no problem with regulations regarding chemicals in produce, hormones in dairy, nutrition labels, OTC medicine, etc. But, when they say that a specific advertisement is harmful, it crosses a line. They are treating people like idiots, victims at best. Just because a cereal box has a cute bumblebee or colorful tiger doesn't mean we no longer have a choice about whether or not we buy it. There is a fine line between caring about people and seeking to control them. In this day and age, the information is out there!
I am aware that some people don't care about what food they put in their body, or what they feed their kids. But, don't assume that they are ignorant. Maybe they like the taste, and maybe it's more convenient. It is just as easy to grab an apple or some nuts for a snack then it is to grab a pop-tart or a cookie. It is still their choice. Those adults aren't victims, they are just making a bad choice. The kids may be victims of bad parenting, but not of the corporation that made the unhealthy food.
Now, I would feel like a liar to say that I never made bad food choices for me or my children. They've had junk food and soda and sugar cereals. Just not every day. Moderation is key.
You obviously have no clue of what I am talking about and that's alright. I think Sulavio gave you a better response than I could have. Read his words carefully.
I agree. I have 5 children – two teenagers, and the rest under the age of 5. We do not keep sugary sweets around, and my children know that their options for snacks are healthy choices. We always have fresh fruit and vegetables around. We never keep soda in the house (although, we do allow it on occasion if we are at a restaurant as a special treat). My 14 year old has never had soda, and has no desire to drink it – he simply does not care for the carbonation. My children are all very healthy, well-rounded kids. When they are around a bunch of sugary treats, they don't go crazy for them, either. They know people their age who are obese, and don't want to be like that. I think it is in the hands of the parents. If you set a good example and stand fast to your household rules, your children will follow suit.
Not only that, but we eat in just about every night. We don't run through the local fast food restaurant for dinner because it's easier. My husband and I both work full-time, yet we find time for family dinner each night.
While ultimately it is the parent's responsibility to instill good eating habits in their children, the amount of crap food marketed to kids does not make it easier. And since many parents are doing a poor job to the suffering of their kids, and extra boost to better food choices for children can only help.
I agree with Sean. It is the responsibility of the parent to ensure a healthy diet for their children. Placing the money that is spent on FTC advertising complaints on nutrition classes for parents instead – would be a better option. Some parents are just not educated on what's really in the food that we eat.
I completely agree with you – parents are not educated which leads to this issue. However I think changing the foods aimed at kids is a lot cheaper than our taxes paying for mandatory nutrition class for parents (I can already here the roar of socialism at the idea of mandatory classes for parents.) Although personally I think there are A LOT of things parents should be educated about before having kids – which would solve a lot more problems than just childhood obseity.
Parents need to start acting like parents. My daughter is exposed to these ads just as everyone else's, yet what do I find in her cereal bowl? Healthy whole grain cereal with no added sugar. She'll occationally ask me for the sweet stuff ( "even though I know you'll say no, daddy" ), but it's becoming more and more rare.
Parents need to learn that they are the adults, and they are supposed to be the parents. That means putting your foot down and teaching your children proper eating habits. Regardless of the environment you find yourself in.
btw, do they plan on going after grocery outlets too for placing the sugary cereals at child level? Pure silliness, wasting time and resources like this because parents aren't acting like parents.
Sean... father of the year.
yes he is
He's taking responsibility for his children.
Parents need to be responsible, but, you can't control your children all the time. They go to other kids houses, school, activities. Once they are exposed to these foods they start to crace them and will sometimes eat them behind your back. These foods are formulated to be addictive.
All the more reason to teach them responsible eating in the presence of these ads. They'll be exposed to the temptation in an environment controlled by you, the parent. So later, when they are at a friends house they'll have already been taught what is and is not acceptable.
I will always resist the idea that the government somehow knows better than I. Having worked government, I'd say it's 90% staffed by people too incompetent to find employment in the private sector. Government is never a good answer to a problem, and most certainly not this one.
So if you're child was addicted to crack, your excuse would be you can't watch them?
@Sean and @David - So do you believe sex offenders should be allowed to prey on young children as long as we teach children not to be receptive? Do you believe drug dealers should be allowed to prey on young children as long as we teach our children not to take the drugs? Do you believe food companies should be allowed to prey on young children as long as we teach them not to eat that food? Do you believe no responsibility lands on the shoulders of the predators, only on that of the prey? Maybe you are sex offenders and drug dealers yourselves, defending your right to prey on others.
Sulavio: That is what is known as a straw man argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, yet you are trying to equate it to the original argument in such a way that agreement on one means an agreement on the other.
It's dishonest at best. At worse, you actually believe it to be valid. In either case, I have nothing further to discuss with you.
@Sean Perhaps you disagree with Sulavio's rhetorical method, but in using your disagreement to ignore his point, you're being no less "dishonest" than he.
Yes, parents do need to be responsible, and they do need to give their children the resources to negotiate the outside world on their own. I don't see anyone here denying that. I think it's wonderful your daughter knows that commercials "lie," I really do, and I think everyone here thinks so as well. Kudos, sincerely. BUT:
What Sulavio's argument suggests to me is that responsibility for the healthy rearing of a child ought to be shared by those individuals involved (parents/guardians) AND by social authorities.
This principle is already in effect in numerous ways – Patrick points out some examples, and another would be the government's right to remove a child from her family if her family is abusing her.
Why do you think it's a waste of resources to try to get the commercial sector to be responsible and accountable for its actions? Why are you so aggressive toward people who want to do this?
Nicole, if that's what he meant then that's what he should have said, instead of utilizing deceptive argument techniques. And yes, your combine method sounds great...on paper. Takes a village and all that. I'm all for that, I think the more experiences a child has the better.
The truth is you can't enforce such a ban with any hope of success, nor can you rely on politicians to maintain their course. Sure, they'll be hot to get this implemented...right up until the cereal companies make significant contributions to their reelection campaigns. Then it'll quietly fade into the background and no one will notice. The government has proven, time and again, that it can not be trusted to handle such important matters.
The only viable, long term strategy is to teach your children, preferably in the presence of these ads so they have experience doing so. Spending time and money spinning our wheels for a program that won't be implemented, or will be implemented poorly, and ultimately won't have an impact doesn't seem like a sound fiscal strategy.
@Sean You don't believe these efforts will have an impact – fine, so don't put your efforts into them (which you aren't doing – wise you). But what's it to you what others spend their time on? The government has changed in the past and it will change in the future: you don't know with any certainly how it will change. If a person isn't doing something detrimental – rather, is just doing something you wouldn't personally do – does that mean they are wrong? Foolish? No, just different. You've no reason to berate them for it.
oh! I agree with you ,so how to avoid that?
http://www.espow.com/wholesale-car-electronics-parking-sensors.html
You have one point of data. Media is a powerful tool. People spend millions of dollars to get your kid to prefer X over Y and kids don't understand that Y is better for them. Why should they if X is tastier and has repeated reinforcing messages? I think that it's reasonable for the government to step in, much like limiting smoking ads. This crap is bad for the kids, period, and this is a case where your right to free speech is curtailed because you are yelling fire in a crowded theater. The speech is harmful on its face.
It's illegal for children to smoke cigarettes (or drink alcohol, for that matter), so it's reasonable to restrict advertising of such products to avenues outside of where children will see them.
It's not illegal for children to eat sugar.
My parents did this to me as well which isn't bad but when I finally left their household I ate all the stuff that I wasn't able to and gained quite alot of weight. It is the parent's responsibility but I wouldn't go to far in taking away EVERYTHING that is bad.
My question is who is buying the food? My son is almost 4, he goes with us shopping. and his dad and I make the decisions what to buy and what to bring home!!!! he asks for the stuff other kids eat sometimes, we explain to him, sometimes we give him very little as we buy them in the small boxes, but we make the decisions and the grocery shoping
Your nazi parenting is what is going to make your kid go completely out of control when she is older. I've seen it happen to too many people with alcohol. The kid goes away and fails out the first semester/year because they go completely nuts. You might think you're doing a good thing by not allowing her any sweets, but you're actually doing more harm then good. I was raised on lucky charms, mcdonalds, sweet snacks, etc. The thing you should be teaching your child is self control. I am in no way obese, I'm a healthy, active young adult. That's another thing...parents need to get more involved in their children's lives and kick them out of the house until dark, make them join a team. They not only get exercise, but also learn valuable life lessons. That's a problem you didn't have 20 years ago that is a huge one today. I agree with you that the parent is the adult, but that also means knowing what is a good limit for your child. Does your kid even go trick-or-treating? And if she does, what happens to all that candy? Do you throw it away? Pretty cruel...
Now that's just naive. These companies spend MILLIONS of dollars to lie to our kids, it's naive to think that you can overcome that with good parenting.
Any law that prevents someone from selling lies that hurt our kids is a good law in my book.
I just asked my child, "What do commercials do?". Her response? "They lie, just like politicians daddy".
For reference, she's 6 and has been hearing this stuff from me for a couple years now. That's all it takes. Corporations can spend millions, billions, whatever. All it takes is a little parental time and attention to negate the effects.
Sean's got a smart kid there.
or Sean's got a kid that can repeat phrases really well. Look, I used to do the same thing. Doesn't mean I understood it 100%.
Sean is a good dad, yay. But can we stop the back-patting?
Not all parents are bad parents just because their kids eat junk food. Sometime it's what's cheapest or the easiest. I had a single dad who did his best, but sometimes it's too pricey to buy some of the things we know we should be eating.
Cutting back on ads targeting bad foods to kids can only help parents and kids. Yes, you can do it as a parent, but why not have some help if someone's willing to give it?
I bet Sean's lying about his kid. I don't believe for one second that he cooks fresh meals at home every day. Or that he doesn't own products in his house that are dangerous for his child to consume. Its easy to be smug, self-righteous and condescending when none of us will ever meet his child or him.
I am so puzzled by the people who disagree with this argue and are using the "parents are responsible, not corporations" argument. Are none of you concerned that 90% of the food in a grocery store is NOT REAL food? Are none of you concerned that non-organic celery in the grocery store has over 71 pesticides and chemicals in it? Have none of you visited a factory meat farm and seen the cows that are half-dying in their own feces, the chickens that can barely walk, the pigs with infected tails? How can you write about the responsibility of parents when it is so difficult as it is to get REAL food; food that comes from local, poly-farms that rotate crops? My husband and I make a point of gardening our own vegetables and visiting the farms of which we purchase our meat - but this is a full time endeavour, just to make sure we are eating real, whole foods. Shouldn't this be the norm, not the exception? I suggest to you boastful commenters, the "Motherof4" and "Steves" - look again at what you are eating. Most of it is crap. Yes, that means the yogurt that has more sugar than a candy bar. Yes, that means the milk coming from "organic" cows that spend their first part of their life as diseased as factory cows. Yes, that means the pre-sliced bread chemically enriched with folic acid and niacin. Yes, that means the berries from Chile that were sprayed in ammonia. Then tell me that a parent can control everything a child puts in their mouths and vouch that its real, good nutritious food. Regardless of how much we educate adults AND children about nutritious food, this is nothing if we LACK ACCESS.
Some good books to start: Omnivore's Dilemma, the blog Fooducate, Animal Miracle Vegetable, CNG website, or just visiting any CSA farm that rotates their crops.
Good luck to all of you.
and you trust all that media you reference?
Not only do I trust them, but I trust what I have visited with my own eyes - these factory farms. I suggest you go yourself. It is an eye-opening, gut-wrenching experience.
I'm sorry, but uninformed and spoiled parents like yourself make me a little sick.
Yes, I called you a spoiled parent. You had the chance to be a good parent, and now suddenly you think everyone else has that same chance. I am the son of two parents who were and still try to be wonderful parents. My mother did everything possible to keep us healthy and active on an incredibly small budget, and my dad did a great job of supporting her in that endeavor.
Six years ago, we were in a car accident. My mother sustained a spinal cord injury and was in in-patient physical therapy for a year and a half, leaving myself, my younger sister, and my older sister at home alone most of the time. My dad split most of his time between his full-time job and being with my mother, his wife. It was very difficult for him to also make time to raise three very independently minded children (my brother was away at college).
My older sister and I were old enough to make our own choices, but my younger sister was not yet old enough. Raising her was forced on myself and my sister while we were in the middle of academically demanding high school courses, extracurricular activities, and psychological turmoil over the immense changes that just happened in our lives.
My sister is fine now, but those two years were very hard and we did not eat healthily, because my parents were not there to watch over us. Our church stepped in to give us food for a while, but charity can only go so far.
Please don't assume that your way of life is possible for everyone else.
Thank you Justin for sharing your experience. I hope it helps those that argue the "parent responsibility" angle see that not all children are afforded the same opportunities.
Forgive me, but what does your situation have to do with cereal commercials? Are you arguing that you would have eaten better during this period if there hadn't been these commercials on TV?
Forgive me, but as tragic as your story may be, it has little relevance to the overall discussion.
The relevance to the overall discussion is that it attacks one of the main assumptions you make in your post: that parents are able to act like parents. The relevance to cereal ads was implicit, not explicit: Left alone at home, my siblings and I had to do much of the shopping. Uninformed by parenting classes, as neither I nor my sister planned to be parents, we of course purchased things that looked appealing, or would taste good. I understand now that this was the wrong way to go about purchasing food, but unfortunately, I did not then.
"Parents need to learn that they are the adults, and they are supposed to be the parents. That means putting your foot down and teaching your children proper eating habits. Regardless of the environment you find yourself in." – Sean
My parents were, because of the environment they found themselves in, unable to be the parents.
I don't wish to turn this into another ridiculous posting argument. I simply wish to illuminate another possible position, and hoped that others would, rather than attacking me or calling my story tragic.
My story is not "tragic." The vast majority of people in the world (and many in our fine country) deal with far worse than this on a daily basis. Please don't label it that way. That is an obvious attempt to place my experience outside of the "norm," and my family is just as much a part of the "norm" as yours.
I think the fact Sean doesn't understand your story, Justin, shows his inability to understand that people have unequal opportunities. The fool is self righteous, the wise man is empathetic.
Your personal drama is irrelevant to this topic
Paul and Sean can go eat their own sellf-righteous faces. It's one thing to state your point. It's another to attack someone with it. Quit being jerks.
Sean is right, however many parents are not aware of the deceptive tactics used by many in the food industry. They are as ignorant in most cases as their children when it comes to nutritional facts of these products. For example: Many believe that if a products states "Made with 100% fruit" it is made with 100% fruit although there may be twenty other ingredients (possibly very unhealthy) listed.
I don't see this as being simply about "parents not acting like parents." My son suffers from phenylketonuria, which means his diet is severely restricted compared to that of a normal four year old. My daughter has no such restrictions, but still at six she understands the difference between real foods, snacks, and junk (and she knows what my wife and I will allow). Most parents do set guidelines for their children. IMO this is more about large prepackaged food manufacturers (and yes, large grocery chains) deliberately targeting children with junk foods wrapped up with popular cartoon images and placed at child eye level. Any coincidence that those products have very high profit margins for the manufacturers and their distributors? This behavior is simply predatory, and I don't like people who see my children as prey. If there was a drug dealer next door trying to sell your kids heroin, would you be so cavalier? The marketing wizards at Kelloggs walk a fine line between poor judgment and outright fraud, and they have no excuse. They are capable of making a quality product and selling it in good faith. Instead, they choose to target children with deceptive marketing, toys and comics. I find that predatory and unacceptable. There is nothing wrong, as a society, with setting and enforcing fair standards of acceptable behavior for corporations.
Amen! Thank you Chris.
I agree with Sean.
In regards to some of the comments, sugared cereal isn't child molestation or cocaine, it's sugared cereal. Unlike those other things, my child isn't going to be scarred for life because he had a bowl of Happy Sugar Totsy Puffs.
Besides that inanity, though, it's up to all parents to stop abrogating their responsibility, not just a handful. If parents stopped buying sugared cereal for their children, the companies would stop making it, just like as parents increasingly complain about HFCS, companies increasingly remove it. Kellogg's et alia market the sugary stuff because it's cheap to make and easy to sell. If parents stopped making it so easy to sell, the companies would improve those products or focus on other products.
How far do we want the government to intrude on our own purchase decisions?