It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kelloggs & Nickelodeon sued for lack of nutritional value

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Nickelodeon and Kellogg cereal's parent company, Viacom, is being sued because they target kids when advertising their sweet and unhealthy food products. They are also targeting web sites, toy giveaways, contests and other marketing tactics aimed at attracting young kids.
 



news. yahoo.com
Advocacy groups and parents are suing the Nickelodeon TV network and cereal maker Kellogg Co. in an effort to stop junk food marketing to kids.

The plaintiffs are citing a recent report documenting the influence of marketing on what children eat. Ads aimed at kids are mostly for high-calorie, low-nutrition food and drinks, according to the government-chartered Institute of Medicine.

The lawsuit seeks to stop the companies from marketing junk food when 15 percent or more of the audience is 8 years old or younger. It targets not only commercials but Web sites, toy giveaways, contests and other marketing aimed at that age group.

CSPI said it had analyzed food advertising on Nickelodeon and during Saturday-morning TV shows as well as in magazines and food packages. The majority of the food ads involving both companies were for nutrition-poor foods, CSPI said.





Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The woman filing the lawsuit claims that she tries to feed her kids healthy foods, but then they see the ads on tv for junk food and.... And what? Do they go on a hunger strike until they get it? Do they take their own money to the store and buy it? Or, does she buy it for them, because it's easier than listening to them whine? Of course the snacks and junk being marketed to kids are full of sugar and of course kids will ask for it instead of something healthy. But, since when does a kid's desire for junk food trump a parent's ability to tell them they can't have it?


When I was a kid, my parents provided healthy meals and snacks, whether I liked it or not. I either ate what I was given or nothing at all. There was no whining or begging for Fruit Loops or Cheetos, because having them wasn't an option. Instead, I learned to appreciate fresh fruits and veggies and rarely even thought about the sweets and junk food I was missing.

If people really want to convince these companies to stop marketing their products to children, they should leave the courts out of it, and simply stop buying their merchandise. Companies are trying to make money, and marketing to kids is a proven sales tactic. Not because the kids are buying their stuff, but because their parents are. If parents don't have enough sense to do what is best for their children, then it is their own fault when they end up with kids who are overweight and refuse to eat right, not Tony the Tiger's.

(edited to fix link)

[edit on 19-1-2006 by jezebel]




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I don't really have any problem with this lawsuit.
These companies should be making products with a little more nutritional value when they're selling to kids.

[edit on 19-1-2006 by AceOfBase]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Yeah, i'd agree with you ace of base.On a business side, I wonder if Kellogs will loose its "good" reputation among parents after this?

[edit on 19-1-2006 by speight89]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Got to luv America. Nobody wants to accept responsibility for their screwed up kids. Can't be me the parent - has to be big bad evil corporations. It's not like the nutritional info is not right on the side of the damn box which the little monsters can't read but mommy can....

Hope the case get's tossed and the woman has to cough up the fees for the defense and would someone point her to the fruits and veggies section of the store....



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   
I remember watching some stupid show on Nick when I was a kid, and now I don't drink any liquid that isn't green. Seriously.
I want my piece of the $ pie.

That being said...

Parents need to say no most of the time. If they can't, it's nobody's fault but their own.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
How funny, We watch that same channel at our house and those un-nutritional foods dont control our buying habits. I guess because its never been a habit of mine to buy them. My 6 year old even asks me if something has MSG in it before he eats it. Something tells me this lady might not be quite the example of health that she is so worried about. Now what nickelodean does control in our house is flatulence. Yes, thats right, A commercial about " How to be well" Its a short little piece that explains how teachers do it, movie stars do it even your dog does it. It states " gas bubbles go right through your intestines and out your dairy-air(sp), thats called flatulence" The commercial ends with a saying that I hear many times a day " Be smart know your farts and let them rip..."
Cool, now I can blame them for glamourizing and encouraging the constant pollution of my enviroment.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by UofCinLA
Nobody wants to accept responsibility for their screwed up kids.


that sums it all up.

there was a thread here about how the NWO had taken over the school cafeterias because some kid's school was no longer serving junk food. when I raised the concept of suing the schools because they contributed to a kid's illness or, gasp, his being a fat pig I was pointing to this very type of suit.

this is no different than suing mickey dee's for making you fat.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Where is the parents and their "control" over their kids?
I am sorry, I cannot see how a responsible parent will allow commercial ads to overly influence what they buy for their kids to eat.
This is just too much like the recent lawsuits against McDonald's because their food would make you too fat.
Common people, take responsibility for your own actions!
Don't these ambulance chasing lawyers have nothing better to do?



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
I don't really have any problem with this lawsuit.
These companies should be making products with a little more nutritional value when they're selling to kids.

[edit on 19-1-2006 by AceOfBase]



Wow. Friggin ridiculous



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
I don't really have any problem with this lawsuit.
These companies should be making products with a little more nutritional value when they're selling to kids.


Yes, arguably they should make products with more nutritional value, but kids aren't buying these products-- their parents are. If the parents refused to give in to their whining kids and didn't buy them junk food, these companies would stop making money, and would have to sell those nutritional products that parents claim to want.

That's the way the market is supposed to work, and that's the way it would work if there weren't so many people in the world who can't or won't take responsibility for their own lives and their own choices.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SE420
Wow. Friggin ridiculous


Why is it friggin ridiculous?
If I start up a food company that sells to kids do you feel that I have no responsibility to produce and promote foods that at least have some nutritional value instead of just selling sugar and food coloring?

It's great to talk about personal resposibility but there should also be corporate responsibility when talking about kids.

It's not like they don't have the ability to make nutritional products.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
It's not like they don't have the ability to make nutritional products.


No, you're right, they do have the ability. That's why there's shelves full of candy bars and oatmeal that the kids just go straight past so they can whine at their parents for twinkies and fruit rollups.

Kids don't want nutritional stuff. Kids want sugar, they want sweet stuff, they want junk food. I know I did when I was growing up, and my parents gave it to me, but in moderation. Even without watching any commercials, if you would've put a Snickers bar and a granola bar next to each other, I would've taken the Snickers. That's where mom and dad come in--they know better, I don't.

The businesses know that the kids are going to whine for junk food, and weak parents (like the lady in this case) are going to give in and shell out their money. The company isn't raising that kid--that's the parent's job. It's the parent's job to make sure that kid knows what's good to eat and what isn't. If you start up a food company, is it going to be so you can be a babysitter for parents who don't care enough about their kids to say 'no'?

Which would be easier and more cost effective--for these companies to go to the drawing board, spend thousands of dollars researching different recipes, changing supply lines and whatever production equipment might be needed, as well as retraining hundreds of production staff; or mom saying "No, you're going to have a carrot." Maybe I'm a bit dense, but I think it'd just be easier to say no.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Its not Kelloggs responsibility to sell people nutritional foods, Its Kelloggs responsibility to sell whats safe to eat and what tastes good /what people buy,
the nutritional side of the coin is up to the parents...

Lawsuites like this should be banned, and tbh the type of people who would file a suite like these are pathetic human beings.

[edit on 21-1-2006 by C0le]



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
The company isn't raising that kid--that's the parent's job. It's the parent's job to make sure that kid knows what's good to eat and what isn't.


A lot of parents don't do their job and when that happens it isn't the parents that suffer the consequences, it's the kids.

You and I know the value of nutrition and we will ensure that our families get the proper nutrition.

If you and I start a company, knowing what we know, what would it say about us if we sold food to other peoples kids that we wouldn't feed to our own?

Wouldn't we be just a little scummy for doing that?



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
A lot of parents don't do their job and when that happens it isn't the parents that suffer the consequences, it's the kids.


So the businesses have to take responsibility because the parent shirked theirs? I don't see the logic in that. If this woman succeeds in her lawsuit, that's the message that it's going to be sending to potential parents--you don't have to worry when you don't care enough to teach your kid right, these guys over here will foot the bill. Sorry, but that's crap in my book.



You and I know the value of nutrition and we will ensure that our families get the proper nutrition.

If you and I start a company, knowing what we know, what would it say about us if we sold food to other peoples kids that we wouldn't feed to our own?

Wouldn't we be just a little scummy for doing that?


Yeah, we would. And there should be some moral obligation in the businesses to do so. But it shouldn't be brought on by a lawsuit or legislated. That's the joys of this so-called freedom we so proudly say we have when we want to sue someone--we also have the freedom to not buy the crap that's put on the shelves. We can be grown-ups and walk right on past it. We can look at the nutritional blurbs on the side and say "You know kid, you can't have that." There's no need to take up a court's time because you can't tell your kid no.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Kids have ALWAYS wanted what tastes good. They have ALWAYS wanted what looks like a fun food, colorful, etc.

Kids don't know or care about the nutritional information on the side of the box. Oh hey little 5 year old Tommy, did you know Total has 100% of Thiamine? Whatever.

This has been the same for decades. The children want the cookies and candy, and the parents are supposed to make them eat the evil brussel sprouts and broccoli. Unfortunately half (at least) of the parents today are asleep at the wheel.

I said this ages ago during the McDonalds debate: your kids won't be so fat if you take an active role in what they eat every day.

A parent who purchases 30 pound boxes of Oreos from Costco or BJ's should be forced to sign a waiver that they can't sure the company for making their little ones fat.

Let's establish one thing crystal clear for everyone: A company is not REQUIRED to make anything. They can/should make whatever the consumer will buy. That's what our economy is based on. They supply to meet our demand. If you think it's evil that Kellog's makes cereals in rainbow colors with empty nutrition, don't buy it, and they'll stop making it.

This lawsuit is attempted bullying, nothing more.

I'm getting rather tired of parents putting in zero effort into raising their kids and then complaining to anyone who will listen about why their kids are all fat, hyperactive and unhealthy.

If your kid is eating trash, be a parent, take it away and make them eat healthy.

Somewhere, someone is saying I'm advocating child abuse by saying parents should take charge and dictate what kids eat, but think about it logically... if children were capable of deciding everything for themselves, we wouldn't require parenting in the first place would we?



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums

If you think it's evil that Kellog's makes cereals in rainbow colors with empty nutrition, don't buy it, and they'll stop making it.


They wont stop making it because even though many responsible parents have already made the choice to not buy those items there will always be some parents out there that either don't care or don't know any better and they will buy it.

It's not the same as when an adult makes themselves unhealthy as a reult of their own decisions.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
They wont stop making it because even though many responsible parents have already made the choice to not buy those items there will always be some parents out there that either don't care or don't know any better and they will buy it.

It's not the same as when an adult makes themselves unhealthy as a reult of their own decisions.


My understanding of the argument you're posing is that, because some people are not responsible enough to handle using a product--for their kids in this case--that the companies that produce those products should be punished. Because Joe Bob down the street stuffs his kids full of Chips A'Hoys all day, the company that makes those cookies should be punished. That it would be better if the Keebler Elves kept their snack cakes in the tree, and all of the companies that produced such sugary evils were forced to stop production of them. Is that roughly correct?

Okay, let's look at a perfect world here, where all of a sudden all of the companies that produce consumables and other items that are unhealthy if not used responsibly are forced to drop those product lines. Not looking at the economic fall out from this--vaguely referred to in a previous post of mine--what would we be missing?

If not used responsibly, cars can kill children, both in a direct pedestrian collision and by improper seating. So we walk every where. Too much television can cause eye strain (although not irreperable), and of course detracts from excercise time--much more unhealthy than a pack of Ding Dongs after school. So that big screen plasma Sony monolith in the corner is gone. Of course, we don't have cars anymore, so if they want to go to school they need to walk--there's some exercise. Then again, we've lost the ability to tell our kids what we think is best for them, so when they say "I don't want to go to school" (which they will, every day, until they graduate), we say "okay, just have another Twinkie."

If you let your kids play on the computer any time they want, and visit any website they want, sooner or later they'll run across websites discussing the "benefits" of drugs, they'll find pornographic or hateful material, and they're quite prone to being seduced by the various predators on the website. Since we're apparently not able to tell our kids "No", no more computer, no more internet (and no more ATS :0)

The vast majority of pharmaceuticals, if not properly managed, can lead to impaired judgement on the parent--a definite safety hazard. Of course, if the kid gets ahold of them because the parent was irresponsible enough to leave it somewhere the kid might get ahold of, or if the kid wanted more of that orange-flavored Triaminic and the parent didn't want to say "no", that kid gets a night in the hospital if they're lucky. No more NyQuil, Tylenol, Aspirin, so on and so forth.

Electricity? Nope; fires, shocks, no good. Swimming pools are banned, no glass containers, no metal--sharp edges, might put an eye out! No machinery, so you can't mass produce anything--hey, that solves our original problem right there!

Our entire society is based on items and products that require people to act responsible, and most of that responsibility we just take for granted. We've gotten to the point now where we take it for granted so much that we forget it's there at all, and when it blows up in our face we want someone else--Kellogs, Rockstar Games, Marilyn Manson--to take the blame. We can't sit there and say "You know what, my kid is screwed because of me." It has to be someone else's fault, and I'm sorry, but that's something that needs to be fixed before we worry about whether little Tommy is getting too much sugar or not. I'd rather my kid grow up to be a fat, cholesterol-ridden but mature adult than a healthy but whiney, spoiled 40 year old brat who thinks the whole world owes them something because they can't make up their own mind.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Aside from the parent having a choice about what they purchase, why don't we throw in turn off the TV. The irresponsibility of the parent is obviously the problem.

I know Nickelodeon is suppossed to be a kids channel, but there is a lot of trash being aired there filling the kids brains with nonsense, not to mention the downright annoying habits children are picking up from it. I've noticed some fairly obnoxious behavior in my own neices and nephews and a lot of it came straight from this channel. Most parents seem to see it as hysterical or cute, but personally I think it's obnoxious and pathetic, and the example posted by ZEHN1999 just blows my mind.

There is just no way anyone should be allowed to sue for behaviors the parents are suppossed to be responsible for (or your own bad choices for that matter). Turn off the TV and control what your children eat, as a parent, that's your job.


[edit on 1/22/2006 by Relentless]



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Some of you feel that personal responsibility should end once you obtain a business license but I feel that a person's responsibility should actually increase at that point because their actions no longer just affect their children.

I say this not as a possible litigator but as a possible business owner who realizes that my choices don't just affect one of two people but caould affect thousands or hundreds of thousands depending on the size of the company.

It's obvious that some persons here are viewing this as an issue where they care only about their own kids and not the kids of their neighbors, who may be irresponsible.

I guess the attitudes expressed here explain why we have ceareals like Cookie Crisp and Choco Donuts on the shelves.



Those might be extreme but does anyone know what percentage of kids cereals on the market are actually healthy?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was under fifty percent.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join