Left-wing group turns cereal killer

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Is not the goal here to prevent children from eating frosted flakes and apple jacks?

must be 18 and over to buy fruit loops
cant buy them with soda, chips or cookies
must have 3 fruits/vegi servings per box

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

must be 18 and over to buy fruit loops
cant buy them with soda, chips or cookies
must have 3 fruits/vegi servings per box

You know it's not far off.

[thatguyoverthere]

I have to break ranks on this one. Sorry, guys!

I have a few reasons, let me attempt to list them.

1. Cereal ads have had disclaimers for years. Remember the phrase "part of this nutritious breakfast" with the picture of a glass of milk, a glass of juice, and toast? Cereal ads don't imply that cereal should be the sole source of breakfast nutrition, and they haven't for a decade or two now.

2. Cereal isn't that bad for you anyway. Not nowadays, as I see it. And they're not comparable to cigarettes. I'm looking at the nutrition labels of Trix, Frosted Mini Wheats, and Grape Nuts right now. (That covers the spectrum of breakfast cereal nicely, I think.) All three of these cereals give you at least 25% of your RDA of Iron, Thiamin, Riboflavn, Niacin, Vitamin B, Vitamin B12 and Zinc. They're low in sodium and fat, and all three are cholesterol free and less than 300 calories a serving when prepared with skim milk. Trix is made from corn and the other two from wheat.

3. Parents should make the purchasing decisions. If you as a parent cannot compete with the influence of Toucan Sam upon your child, you've got bigger problems than what's on the breakfast menu. Just wait 'til she gets offered meth in middle school! You're screwed!

The only real question I can see here is "should companies be allowed to target advertisements to children?"

Well, should toy companies be allowed to advertise? What about advertisements for movies based on toys, like the upcoming "Transformers?" Going to see that movie would be no more nutritious than eating a straight bowl of sugar, and buying "Transformers" toys will do nothing to enrich the child. In fact, the effect of buying the toy or going to the movie will actually make the parent lose money. Should the government step in and restrict toy and movie and candy advertising? To me, that's the logical extension. In fact, it seems MORE logical to ban toy and candy advertising, since they offer less of a tangible benefit to the child than the consumption of cereal like Trix.

Growing up, I had cereal as part of my breakfast, and I had desserts after dinner. As an adult, I'm not fat and I have no cavities. And, I still eat cereal, obviously. My mom knew that sugar is bad for you, so when I was a kid she didn't give me candy. She was the parent in charge of the food I ate and she made the decisions, not me. And, she remained in charge no matter how hard Tony the Tiger twisted my arm.

Having the government come in and do your parenting for you is a little too Orwellian for me in this particular case.

[thatguyoverthere]

Someone please send me a message and tell me how to post a picture in the forum. I have a picture and a comment that I would like to contribute to the discussion in this thread.

Thanks!

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Freedom does not mean anyone can do anything they like.

It does mean something pretty close to that though. Buying any kind of cereal you wish, and advertising any cereal you wish, would definitely be things a free society would allow.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Someone please send me a message and tell me how to post a picture in the forum. I have a picture and a comment that I would like to contribute to the discussion in this thread.

Thanks!

[img]yourimageurlhere.jpg[/img]

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Freedom does not mean anyone can do anything they like.

Freedom certainly isn't restricting cartoons on cereal boxes. Nobody is saying businesses should be able to do whatever they like. What we're saying is denying them the right to put a cartoon on their product is wrong.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

I have to break ranks on this one. Sorry, guys!

I have a few reasons, let me attempt to list them.

1. Cereal ads have had disclaimers for years. Remember the phrase "part of this nutritious breakfast" with the picture of a glass of milk, a glass of juice, and toast? Cereal ads don't imply that cereal should be the sole source of breakfast nutrition, and they haven't for a decade or two now.

2. Cereal isn't that bad for you anyway. Not nowadays, as I see it. And they're not comparable to cigarettes. I'm looking at the nutrition labels of Trix, Frosted Mini Wheats, and Grape Nuts right now. (That covers the spectrum of breakfast cereal nicely, I think.) All three of these cereals give you at least 25% of your RDA of Iron, Thiamin, Riboflavn, Niacin, Vitamin B, Vitamin B12 and Zinc. They're low in sodium and fat, and all three are cholesterol free and less than 300 calories a serving when prepared with skim milk. Trix is made from corn and the other two from wheat.

3. Parents should make the purchasing decisions. If you as a parent cannot compete with the influence of Toucan Sam upon your child, you've got bigger problems than what's on the breakfast menu. Just wait 'til she gets offered meth in middle school! You're screwed!

The only real question I can see here is "should companies be allowed to target advertisements to children?"

Well, should toy companies be allowed to advertise? What about advertisements for movies based on toys, like the upcoming "Transformers?" Going to see that movie would be no more nutritious than eating a straight bowl of sugar, and buying "Transformers" toys will do nothing to enrich the child. In fact, the effect of buying the toy or going to the movie will actually make the parent lose money. Should the government step in and restrict toy and movie and candy advertising? To me, that's the logical extension. In fact, it seems MORE logical to ban toy and candy advertising, since they offer less of a tangible benefit to the child than the consumption of cereal like Trix.

Growing up, I had cereal as part of my breakfast, and I had desserts after dinner. As an adult, I'm not fat and I have no cavities. And, I still eat cereal, obviously. My mom knew that sugar is bad for you, so when I was a kid she didn't give me candy. She was the parent in charge of the food I ate and she made the decisions, not me. And, she remained in charge no matter how hard Tony the Tiger twisted my arm.

Having the government come in and do your parenting for you is a little too Orwellian for me in this particular case.

I just want to say I agree with every point you've raised in this post.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

I
Having the government come in and do your parenting for you is a little too Orwellian for me in this particular case.

I totally agree, but that does not mean organizations can't seek a civil remedy if they believe it is desirable.

Obviously the Kelloggs couldn't be bothered to fight about it.

[thatguyoverthere]

While Tony the Tiger will remain, this could mean the end for long-time cereal box characters like Snap, Crackle and Pop, who have been an icon of Kellogg’s dating as far back as 1933. It also could mean the death of Fruit Loops’ Toucan Sam and Sugar Smacks Dig ‘Em.

"I don't like the statue, and I don't like the contraction "apostrophe-EM." As far as I'm concerned, his name is 'Dig Them.' You're not welcome here, Dig Them!"

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

I just want to say I agree with every point you've raised in this post.

Awww... cats and dogs, living together...

I'll enjoy it while it lasts. We're always just one global warming thread away from being back at each others throats like rabid weasels!

Welcome to the board, btw.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Freedom certainly isn't restricting cartoons on cereal boxes. Nobody is saying businesses should be able to do whatever they like. What we're saying is denying them the right to put a cartoon on their product is wrong.

That depends on what impact of doing it has. I think what some people are taking issue with is the manipulation of children for commercial gain.

While parents ultimately make the choice, the idea that all parents are capable of saying no is obviously flawed, and no amount responsibility will change that.

The question really is about if manipulating people into buying goods (not just advertising them) is actually acceptable to society or not. Some people say it is, others do not.

Few people claim you should have the freedom to do anything you want (the more freedom you have, the less others have - freedom is basically power)

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by thomez

yeah, let's make certain cereals illegal.... that's freedom loving

Well, if Cocaine Flakes were frosted with cocaine, and then everyone suddenly realized cocaine was bad for you, then wouldn't you just make Cocaine Flakes illegal?

So on to the breakfast cereals. What, exactly, is making kids fat? Eating sugar? Well, if that's the case, we better ban kool-aid, pop, and even Sunny Delight (which has enough high fructose corn syrup in one serving to raise the dead).
But it's not the sugar, is it? No, folks, kids aren't eating five bowls of cereal. It's that they're not eating other foods, nutritious foods, that they should be eating. This is a problem with parenting, not with marketing or making "evil cereals".

[thomez]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Well, if Cocaine Flakes were frosted with cocaine, and then everyone suddenly realized cocaine was bad for you, then wouldn't you just make Cocaine Flakes illegal?

no, I'd expect people to stop buying them

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by thomez

no, I'd expect people to stop buying them