Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

New Study Slams Food Marketing to Children


Recommended Posts

Fascinating discussion going on here. Seems that the corporations-behave-psychopathically meme is really getting a workout here. There was a great discussion of the meme in The Economist about a year ago... http://www.economist.com/business/displayS...tory_id=2647328 The Weber twist in the article was great.

It seems beyond dispute that corporate advertising aimed at kids is intended to exploit the nag and whine behavior that kids use to manipulate adults rather than to encourage toddlers to go out and spend money that they clearly don't have on the products they think they want. Not a good thing, but even without the advertisements, kids will still figure out that sugary fatty things taste good and will ask for them anyway.

How much marginal damage are ads doing, when kids will figure out that the bad-for-you stuff tastes good anyway, and then bug their attendant adults for it anyway?

Christopher D. Holst aka "cdh"

Learn to brew beer with my eGCI course

Chris Holst, Attorney-at-Lunch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow...I missed a lot. :)

One thing I would like to point out to those calling for regulation: There is a consumer-driven kind of regulation, and it is called "don't buy the product."

When I disagree with a company's business practices, I stop buying their goods and services. If there are so many angry parents, then such an action would most certainly make a company stand up and take notice. But if there are not vast numbers of these parents taking direct action, why is it the government's business to intervene? Regulation, more often than not, breeds corruption, not solutions.

It's your money. You have the choice to spend it as you see fit. If a company is unscrupulous, take them to task for it, and hit them where it hurts: the bottom line. If enough people did so, they would then have the company's attention -- *and* the attention of their stockholders. What other parents do with their money, in the end, doesn't particularly concern you and your family, nor should it.

(I really wish there was a smiley with a hammer so I could express my exasperation with this "nanny state" mindset.) :blink:

Jennifer L. Iannolo

Founder, Editor-in-Chief

The Gilded Fork

Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

Home of the Culinary Podcast Network

Never trust a woman who doesn't like to eat. She is probably lousy in bed. (attributed to Federico Fellini)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]Regulation, more often than not, breeds corruption, not solutions.[...]

I live in New York, and I've seen how regulation has cleaned up the Hudson River so that it is now supposedly safe to fish in (though I still would not like to eat fish from the river). Even the Gowanus Canal, previously the paradigm of a toxic body of water (or rather, extremely stinky toxic chemicals in solution), is now fished. I don't think that's due to consumer buying habits. And I don't think that the Clean Water Act which helped clean up those bodies of water bred corruption rather than a solution (or, rather, fewer toxic chemicals in solution in our waterways). I'll take a blue, fishable Hudson River over the brown stench of my childhood any day.

As you see, blanket condemnations of regulation take us way beyond the question of marketing to children...

Michael aka "Pan"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you see, blanket condemnations of regulation take us way beyond the question of marketing to children...

True, which is why I don't think it has to be all or nothing. I believe there is a middle ground between regulating everything and regulating nothing.

Just because I think it is a parent's responsibility to raise healthy children doesn't mean I want food manufactuers to add caffeine to Froot Loops and nicotine to animal crackers, or that I think the food flavoring industry should have no responsibility if they create fast food with addictive qualities.

Corporations have a responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit because the shareholders have invested in them. But what about the investment that taxpayers make? Many food companies receive tax breaks, tax credits, and low- or no-cost financing for expansion and development -- courtesy of our tax dollars. Should these corporations be exempt of any responsibility for taxpayer investment?

What other parents do with their money, in the end, doesn't particularly concern you and your family, nor should it.

There are many things a parent can do to a child that doesn't concern me, but IMO health and well-being are not one of them because it can affect my family's bottom line in the form of increases in health insurance and taxes. That doesn't mean I want to police their child-rearing. All I want is a more level playing field -- arming kids and parents with the education on advertising and nutrition that they need to help them make good decisions in the face of billions of dollars of annual junk food advertising, and helping to protect very young children who don't have the ability to help themselves.

Edited by TPO (log)

Tammy Olson aka "TPO"

The Practical Pantry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last summer (or the summer before, I really don't remember, but recently) there was a situation in NY that I thought was nothing less than horrifying. It was on the news, and I really don't know how it all ended, but here are the basics of the story:

You know those ice pops that are sold, they come in a long plastic tube-like bag, and you eat it by opening one end and gradually pushing up the frozen ices? We used to call them push-ups. They come in all different flavors, they're cheap, and kids love them. Anyway, there was a company (I don't know which) that manufactured and sold them to neighborhood stores, and it was discovered that they had minute traces of alcohol in them. Not enough to taste, but enough to get into the bloodstream and slowly start to create alcoholics out of a bunch of kids. And it gets worse. These particular push-ups were found to be sold only in poorer areas. They were found in stores in Harlem, the South Bronx, Washington Heights, and I don't know where else. They were nowhere to be seen on the upper East side, perish the thought. They were pulled from the market, and I don't remember hearing any follow-up about what happened to the company that made and distributed them (although I sincerely hope they were crippled, financially and otherwise.)

Were the parents responsible for allowing their kids to buy and eat this stuff?

That is an extreme example, but I think we all have a right to expect that people who sell us things, any things, are not deliberately trying to harm us. Unfortunately, that is not the case. And yes, I mean deliberately. It's about the profits, it's not about your health. And it will always be about the profits. That's what businesses are about, whether they're selling alcohol-laced ice pops or sugar-loaded cereals. They want your money, not just for now but in the future as well. They spend a lot of money discovering new ways to continue to part you from more and more of yours, and ethics don't really figure into it all that much.

It's well and good to say, "it's the parents' responsibility," but the world is much larger than a "me and my child" mentality. I shudder to think of everyone living within his own white picket fence. I'm not absolving parents of responsibility for their children, and I don't think anyone is. But parents are up against billions of dollars whose sole function is to deliberately work against everything you might try to teach your child. I think the stakes are just a bit unequal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]Regulation, more often than not, breeds corruption, not solutions.[...]

I live in New York, and I've seen how regulation has cleaned up the Hudson River so that it is now supposedly safe to fish in (though I still would not like to eat fish from the river). Even the Gowanus Canal, previously the paradigm of a toxic body of water (or rather, extremely stinky toxic chemicals in solution), is now fished. I don't think that's due to consumer buying habits. And I don't think that the Clean Water Act which helped clean up those bodies of water bred corruption rather than a solution (or, rather, fewer toxic chemicals in solution in our waterways). I'll take a blue, fishable Hudson River over the brown stench of my childhood any day.

As you see, blanket condemnations of regulation take us way beyond the question of marketing to children...

Today's New York Times Business section--front page carries a piece on this topic.

(I am sorry but I still have not mastered the art of providing a link--hopefully, someone here will be able to post it).

Pan--we do need regulations--most would not argue this. (supposedly shad roe from the Hudson is back!--no small achievement).

Somewhere between anarchy and a police state there is a reasonably happy medium.

Too often this debate becomes a battle of polemics--corporations/capitalism vs government. One is evil the other good. Things are not black and white here. Both entities need to be responsive to people. The government is elected to serve the populace. Corporations are people providing goods and services to people.

And maybe most importantly--people need to exercise responsibility for their own lives (and their children).

We need all three.

We need each to do the things they do best.

In the end, rules and regulations have a price--just as having no rules and regulations has a price. We need to be careful and weigh things before we act.

To hold that outcomes we deem good are acheivable at any and all cost is dangerous and leads

to even greater problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, there was a company (I don't know which) that manufactured and sold them to neighborhood stores, and it was discovered that they had minute traces of alcohol in them. Not enough to taste, but enough to get into the bloodstream and slowly start to create alcoholics out of a bunch of kids.

Interesting theory... I'm no way scientifically up on such things, but I've always been under them impression that ethanol was not an addictive substance in the same way as, say, nicotene and opiates are. I've also always heard that most natural juices, e.g. OJ and apple cider, have trace amounts of alcohol in them due to natural fermentation that the preservatives just can't stop. The idea that microdoses of alcohol make kids alcoholics seems quite a stretch to me, and that makes me wonder if this story is an urban legend.

Even so, it is still a useful tool in this discussion about how far companies may go to lock in their future customers, and what control parents have over such things. However, there are already labeling regulations that were clearly being breached if doses of addictive substances are being laced into snacks and they don't appear on the ingredients list.

Edited by cdh (log)

Christopher D. Holst aka "cdh"

Learn to brew beer with my eGCI course

Chris Holst, Attorney-at-Lunch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]Regulation, more often than not, breeds corruption, not solutions.[...]

I live in New York, and I've seen how regulation has cleaned up the Hudson River so that it is now supposedly safe to fish in (though I still would not like to eat fish from the river). Even the Gowanus Canal, previously the paradigm of a toxic body of water (or rather, extremely stinky toxic chemicals in solution), is now fished. I don't think that's due to consumer buying habits. And I don't think that the Clean Water Act which helped clean up those bodies of water bred corruption rather than a solution (or, rather, fewer toxic chemicals in solution in our waterways). I'll take a blue, fishable Hudson River over the brown stench of my childhood any day.

As you see, blanket condemnations of regulation take us way beyond the question of marketing to children...

Pan, please carefully note that I said "more often than not." I did not say "always."

Jennifer L. Iannolo

Founder, Editor-in-Chief

The Gilded Fork

Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

Home of the Culinary Podcast Network

Never trust a woman who doesn't like to eat. She is probably lousy in bed. (attributed to Federico Fellini)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, there was a company (I don't know which) that manufactured and sold them to neighborhood stores, and it was discovered that they had minute traces of alcohol in them. Not enough to taste, but enough to get into the bloodstream and slowly start to create alcoholics out of a bunch of kids.

Interesting theory... I'm no way scientifically up on such things, but I've always been under them impression that ethanol was not an addictive substance in the same way as, say, nicotene and opiates are. I've also always heard that most natural juices, e.g. OJ and apple cider, have trace amounts of alcohol in them due to natural fermentation that the preservatives just can't stop. The idea that microdoses of alcohol make kids alcoholics seems quite a stretch to me, and that makes me wonder if this story is an urban legend.

I didn't find it at snopes.com, and they are usually up to date.

Heather Johnson

In Good Thyme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, there was a company (I don't know which) that manufactured and sold them to neighborhood stores, and it was discovered that they had minute traces of alcohol in them. Not enough to taste, but enough to get into the bloodstream and slowly start to create alcoholics out of a bunch of kids.

Interesting theory... I'm no way scientifically up on such things, but I've always been under them impression that ethanol was not an addictive substance in the same way as, say, nicotene and opiates are. I've also always heard that most natural juices, e.g. OJ and apple cider, have trace amounts of alcohol in them due to natural fermentation that the preservatives just can't stop. The idea that microdoses of alcohol make kids alcoholics seems quite a stretch to me, and that makes me wonder if this story is an urban legend.

Even so, it is still a useful tool in this discussion about how far companies may go to lock in their future customers, and what control parents have over such things. However, there are already labeling regulations that were clearly being breached if doses of addictive substances are being laced into snacks and they don't appear on the ingredients list.

This has all the earmarks of an urban legend. I googled and the best I could come up with this (scroll way down), a story about New York banning the sale of frozen malt liquor pops -- apparently a hot item on the Dutch club scene -- because they looked too much kids' ice pops.

Given that malt liquor is considered an "African-American" product and that the pops were banned because of their resemblance to kids' treats, it's easy to see this story morphing, as it gets passed along by word of mouth, into a conspiracy to turn black children into alcoholics. But until I see an actual article from a reliable source supporting that theory, I remain very skeptical.

I'm on the pavement

Thinking about the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, there was a company (I don't know which) that manufactured and sold them to neighborhood stores, and it was discovered that they had minute traces of alcohol in them. Not enough to taste, but enough to get into the bloodstream and slowly start to create alcoholics out of a bunch of kids.

Interesting theory... I'm no way scientifically up on such things, but I've always been under them impression that ethanol was not an addictive substance in the same way as, say, nicotene and opiates are. I've also always heard that most natural juices, e.g. OJ and apple cider, have trace amounts of alcohol in them due to natural fermentation that the preservatives just can't stop. The idea that microdoses of alcohol make kids alcoholics seems quite a stretch to me, and that makes me wonder if this story is an urban legend.

Yes, "trace amounts" of alcohol are found in all sorts of things, for instance just about anything made with real vanilla extract.

And in any event, regulating the INGREDIENTS of foods is the job of the FDA, and I don't think anyone here has disagreed with the idea that regulatory bodies which regulate the ingredients in food should exist.

BTW, ethanol is definitely an addictive drug in the same way that nicotine and opiates are, which is merely to say that there is such as thing as ethanol dependence and ethanol withdrawal.

"If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced" - Vincent Van Gogh
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, there are already labeling regulations that were clearly being breached if doses of addictive substances are being laced into snacks and they don't appear on the ingredients list.

Alcoholic ice pops could be an urban legend, but I think there are plenty of other instances where parents and kids might be fooled. For instance, fast-food restaurants don't have to advertise that their chicken is flavored with complex chemicals designed in a New Jersey laboratory to mimic natural flavors, they simply have to put in their nutritional information that the chicken contains "artifical flavoring." I think that the food industry is complex, and to say that all parents need is common sense is realistic only when they are armed with accurate information.

Tammy Olson aka "TPO"

The Practical Pantry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Information is a good thing!

Education and knowledge are very important.

We also have to realize that even our knowledge base is subject to change!

For eg--not too long ago--we were "told" that butter is "bad" margarine is "good."

Science is great but.......

What seems to be missing in this discussion is a focus on "moderation"

Too much of even a "good" thing is "bad."

a "treat" should be just that--an indulgence on a special ocassion--

TV is fine but watching all the time is bad.--the advertising issue would not be so large if kids weren't sitting in front of a screen for hours each day!

eating fast food for dinner several times a week means that not only are kids eating too much of one type of food but that they are missing out on a family meal.

MacDonald's should be an option used wisely--not a way of life!

I cringe when I hear the word "meatnormouse"!!!!!!

rather than try to regulate portion size--it would be far better if people armed with enough knowledge stopped demanding huge portions!!!

Kids are influenced by parents and peers--yes we need to have some regulation of messages they get outside the home but it is the behaviour of adults and peers that carries far more weight! (no pun intended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've also always heard that most natural juices, e.g. OJ and apple cider, have trace amounts of alcohol in them due to natural fermentation that the preservatives just can't stop.

Don't forget bread! Anything made with yeast is going to have alcohol in it.

"If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced" - Vincent Van Gogh
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've also always heard that most natural juices, e.g. OJ and apple cider, have trace amounts of alcohol in them due to natural fermentation that the preservatives just can't stop.

Don't forget bread! Anything made with yeast is going to have alcohol in it.

So that pretty well debunks the microdoses leads to addiction theory right there, no? Everybody grows up eating bread, and not everybody becomes an alcoholic. Therefore microdoses of alcohol don't cause alcoholism all by themselves. QED and hooray for common sense.

Christopher D. Holst aka "cdh"

Learn to brew beer with my eGCI course

Chris Holst, Attorney-at-Lunch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've also always heard that most natural juices, e.g. OJ and apple cider, have trace amounts of alcohol in them due to natural fermentation that the preservatives just can't stop.

Don't forget bread! Anything made with yeast is going to have alcohol in it.

So that pretty well debunks the microdoses leads to addiction theory right there, no? Everybody grows up eating bread, and not everybody becomes an alcoholic. Therefore microdoses of alcohol don't cause alcoholism all by themselves. QED and hooray for common sense.

I don't have a problem with wine or beer but I am "addicted" to bread!

(as my waistline will attest)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's well and good to say, "it's the parents' responsibility," but the world is much larger than a "me and my child" mentality. I shudder to think of everyone living within his own white picket fence. I'm not absolving parents of responsibility for their children, and I don't think anyone is. But parents are up against billions of dollars whose sole function is to deliberately work against everything you might try to teach your child. I think the stakes are just a bit unequal.

Of course it's well and good to say that -- because it IS the parents' responsibility when the children are young. I'd quit harping on this if someone out there could please, please, give me a way these corporations get advertising and marketing to little kids without the parents' consent and active participation.

Hey: Maybe everyone could register their household with the Feds, and then they can tell us what television shows, commercials, and periodicals we are allowed to have! If we are a "fat kids" family, no Ronald McDonald or Count Chocula. The possibilities are limitless.

Maybe someone out there could give their specific examples of who will determine what junk food is, where the money for said regulation is going to come from. And really, if you say this is for the childrens' protection, it's a matter of time before some smart attorney sues on behalf of the children, pockets her/his gazillions, and your kids will all get a free box of Shredded Wheat.

"Oh, tuna. Tuna, tuna, tuna." -Andy Bernard, The Office
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's well and good to say that -- because it IS the parents' responsibility when the children are young. I'd quit harping on this if someone out there could please, please, give me a way these corporations get advertising and marketing to little kids without the parents' consent and active participation.

I just don't see it as being a black-and-white issue. Telemarketers require my active participation -- I choose to answer the phone, to not have caller ID, and even to have telephone service in my house to begin with. But the fact that I could refuse to buy their products did not comfort me when I had to answer the phone eight times a night only to find it was a sales call, or when an elderly friend became convinced that they needed to spend money they didn't have on products they didn't need.

So yes, parents can choose to either raise their kids in a bubble or, if they don't, to say no to them a dozen times a day. But I would favor a situation where we work to make a parent's job easier rather than harder.

Maybe someone out there could give their specific examples of who will determine what junk food is, where the money for said regulation is going to come from.

As I have said before, I would like to see food companies self-regulate in a manner similar to alcohol companies. If corporations can agree that advertising Captain Morgan's on SpongeBob SquarePants is wrong, I see no reason why they can't make a similar effort when marketing food to small children.

Tammy Olson aka "TPO"

The Practical Pantry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So yes, parents can choose to either raise their kids in a bubble or, if they don't,  to say no to them a dozen times a day.

I only wish I could make it through a single day without saying 'no' or 'stop' more than a dozen times. Nevertheless, I don't think we'll be moving into a bubble anytime soon.

Has anyone seen the Austin Powers movie, where Will Farell plays an assassin named mustafa who is trying to kill Austin Powers? The assassin has one quirky flaw -- if he is asked any question more than 2 times, he has to give a truthful answer. The dialogue starts like this:

"Who sent you?"

"You'll have to kill me."

"Who sent you?"

"Kiss my ass, Powers."

"Who sent you?"

"Dr. Evil. "

"That was easy."

"That was."

"Why did you tell us?"

"I can't stand to be asked the same question three times. It just irritates me."

That scene's been popping up in my mind over the last few days, except Austin is replaced with a kid asking for cocoa puffs.

As I have said before, I would like to see food companies self-regulate in a manner similar to alcohol companies. If corporations can agree that advertising Captain Morgan's on SpongeBob SquarePants is wrong, I see no reason why they can't make a similar effort when marketing food to small children.

Well, leaving aside the fact that Captain Morgan's is really more of a drug than a food and is illegal for sale to minors, I think you do raise a good point. The discussion has focused so much on government regulation, but I don't know that anyone has mentioned the idea of economically pressuring television networks and food manufacters to change their ways. I bet if enough parents got together and said "We're not going to watch any more Spongebob as long as you run advertising for high-fat, low nutrient foods," then those ads would end or be modified to make the parents happy.

Edited by Patrick S (log)

"If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced" - Vincent Van Gogh
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, it is interesting to note that smugness and derision seem to know no bounds.

www.foodsubs.com/levenyeast.html

Yeast is a one-celled fungus that converts sugar and starch into carbon dioxide bubbles and alcohol. This has made it a useful ally in the production of bread, beer, and wine. There are many varieties of yeast. Bread is made with baker's yeast, which creates lots of bubbles that become trapped in the dough, making the bread rise so it's light and airy when baked. A small amount of alcohol is also produced, but this burns off as the bread bakes. Beer yeast and wine yeast are used to convert sugar into alcohol and, in the case of beer and champagne, bubbles. You should never eat raw active yeast, since it will continue to grow in your intestine and rob your body of valuable nutrients. But once deactivated through pasteurization, yeast is a good source of nutrients. Brewer's yeast and nutritional yeast, for example, are sold as nutritional supplements, and Australians are fond of yeast extracts--like Vegemite, Marmite, and Promite--which they spread like peanut butter on bread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pan--we do need regulations--most would not argue this. (supposedly shad roe from the Hudson is back!--no small achievement).

Somewhere between anarchy and a police state there is a reasonably happy medium.[...]

We're in complete agreement, John. Indeed, both action and inaction carry a price, as you said. It's obviously best if good judgment is used, and flexibility is needed to deal with the unintended consequences of any action. Extremism on regulation ("No regulation!" or "Total regulation!") does not serve the public good.

In the case under consideration in this thread, however, if there is no clear evidence that advertising to children actually causes changes in kid's eating habits, it seems questionable to restrict that. We know that the corporations buying the ads think those ads will cause people to buy their products, but that belief or hope on the part of the corporations and the ad agencies they hire constitutes tenuous evidence for the ads' actual effectiveness.

Michael aka "Pan"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]Regulation, more often than not, breeds corruption, not solutions.[...] [Edit: My reply snipped.]

Pan, please carefully note that I said "more often than not." I did not say "always."

Noted, but I clearly see the balance between corruption and benefit differently from you, and in any case, this is a much broader topic than can be contained in this thread or even this site. I will say this, though: Some regulations are pure red tape, but others have made things a lot safer for a lot of people. How one quantifies these things in relation to food probably depends as much on which regulations one has in mind as one's ideological biases (which we all probably have in some way or other). Also, deregulation...well, let's not talk about that, or this thread may spiral out of control. [biting my tongue, um, fingers, to prevent them from typing about a non-food-related instance of collossal corruption related to deregulation...]

Michael aka "Pan"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoke without fire? Or not. You decide.

Advertising and Children's Eating Habits: Scholarly Data

Bless you all who have the strength of purpose and sureness of act that will enable you to manage your own children through it all. If you don't have them yet, then when you do.

May you never have to be a single parent, without family support or perhaps without family; or even a parent who for some reason needs to take a low-paying job (through some strange inexplicable action of the universe that would require this even though you may have a degree or two and vast and good work experience) and therefore perhaps have to leave your child(ren) home alone sometimes because babysitters cost more than you can afford to pay on a meagre income.

Ah! Let's not be sure this will never happen to anybody. Life can be stranger than fiction.

Of course the television could be monitored so tightly that no ads could come through and the computer the same. Yes, of course.

And of course when you told the children your very good reasons for not liking whatever junk they were asking you for, they would finally agree and definitely not go against your wishes.

.............................................................

Personally, I've found that each time I've snickered at what someone else thinks is a problem that I may have felt superior to, from just being human and part of the human condition that pushes one at times into being so damn sure that one is *right* about things - and that everyone else should just "get it together" - somehow the universe comes along with a lesson to teach me about the reasons why sometimes not everyone is equally strong or smart or whatever it is that one thinks one is. These lessons are the sort that enter directly into life are not fun to learn. They are, however, humbling.

I say the child and the parent are more important than the advertising dollars that are made through these freedoms that extend into our homes.

I feel for the child and the parents. Not for the corporations or for some pipe-dream of "non-utopian" intellectualized sloppy lines drawn by whomever has the deepest pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, it is interesting to note that smugness and derision seem to know no bounds.

Yes, the thread seems to have plenty of that, along with snark (despite the disclaimer).

Ouch! I'm wounded! :raz: Seriously, I am sure you meant to PM this to one another, instead of posting it for my really curious eyes to see. :wink:

Oh -- PatrickS said:

I don't know that anyone has mentioned the idea of economically pressuring television networks and food manufacters to change their ways. I bet if enough parents got together and said "We're not going to watch any more Spongebob as long as you run advertising for high-fat, low nutrient foods," then those ads would end or be modified to make the parents happ

That's pretty much what JenniferI and I (and someone else -- maybe you?) were saying upthread. I think I mentioned earlier in this topic that a winery my husband worked for pulled their ads immediately when they realized that parents were letting their kids watch The Simpsons.

And it does make me smile that Cinnamon Toast Crunch is now made with "whole grains." What IS a whole grain? Anything like "natural flavoring"? Yick.

"Oh, tuna. Tuna, tuna, tuna." -Andy Bernard, The Office
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...