Kelloggs & Nickelodeon sued for lack of nutritional value

For those of you reading the nutrition labels on cereal, how many of you know how many kg of sugar, fat and sodium are considered high?

It's not as simple as just reading the FDA percentage as you have with vitamins.

Here are some examples:
-------------------------------------------------
Anything with more than 10 grams of sugar per 100 grams of product is considered bad.

Nestlé Golden Grahams has 32g of sugar.
Nestlé Honeynut Cheerios has 34.2g of sugar. (not one I would have thought of)
Kellogg's Coco Pops has 39g of sugar.

-------------------------------------------------
Anything with more than 1.25 grams of salt/sodium per 100 grams of product is considered bad.

Nestlé Golden Grahams 2.5g of salt/sodium
Nestlé Cheerios 1.75g of salt/sodium
-------------------------------------------------

news.bbc.co.uk...

That of course doen't count the ones that have little to no vitamins in them.

Ace,

Your absolutely right that a company should take a little corporate responsibility and try and produce a product that has some health benefits especially when the target audience is children. However, this is very idealistic and not the legal responsibility of a company. Perhaps a ethical issue but not a legal issue.

This case is about one thing. A parent who has no control over her children and instead of looking at herself as the problem, she is blaming society for not raising her kids properly.

If anyone should be sued, it should be this parent for sheer stupidity!
Deny lazy parents!

Okay, that's understandable and even admirable. But as a potential business owner, how much do you want people telling you how to run your own business? If someone decided that the healthy kids food you're selling is making their kid an outcast at school because everyone else is eating junk, how would you look at it if they sued you? Would you take the responsibility to make your products "cool" so this kid doesn't get picked on?



Granted, I don't have kids at this point in time, but I know well enough that worrying about your own kids is hard enough without worrying about how everyone else is raising theirs. It may "take a village", but at the same time I'd have plenty enough on my plate between my own family, my job, and any other issues arising from a normal life to get much involved with someone else who doesn't have the guts to stand up to their own child.

Even that aside, if I decide I am going to take on the responsibility of raising someone else's kid for them, it's not going to be so I can put it on the shoulders of a business. Those parents are obviously not fit to raise the kid themselves, and they either need a wakeup call or the kid needs to go with a family that wants to raise the kid right. It's a social issue, not a corporate issue.



Quick fix: buy them healthy cereal. Load up on Corn Flakes, Wheaties, Total, Grape Nuts, Raisin Bran, even Oatmeal. If they don't like it, too bad--when they grow up and get a job and pay for the cereal themselves, then they can get all the junk cereal they want.



Honestly, I don't have a clue. I don't have any reason to, and in fact most of the time I look for stuff that's generally considered unhealthy so that I can hopefully pack on a couple pounds. (Everyone else seems to gain 30 pounds from looking at a cupcake wrong; I could eat an entire bakery and still loose 5 pounds. Annoying as hell...)

As I said above, I don't have kids. When I have kids, it'll be my responsibility to read the labels. It'll be my responsibility to make sure that kid's healthy. If I'm not ready for that responsibility, then I should've let the date end with a movie.

I still don't understand what's so hard with taking responsibility for yourself. If you know you're not going to be responsible enough to raise the kid, then be responsible enough to either make sure there isn't a kid, or make sure they get in with a family that does want a kid and will raise them right. Don't pawn it off on someone else.

This is ridiculous. People are beginning to sue for anything. "My coffee is too hot and I spilled it on myself." "I'm too fat but I eat at McDonald's." "My kids eat sugary crap but they shouldn't market it."

Boo-hoo-hoo.

Most of the posters here have nailed it. The parent is to blame. Kids whine at the store? Hire a sitter. Can't say "no"? Wear a Walkman so you don't hear them ask. Temper tantrums? DEAL with it for crying out loud. Leave the kid to have his tantrum, walk them to the car and speak to them sternly, schedule a visit with the shrink, pop 'em a med...whatever it is that you have to do as a parent to control you own darn kid! Sheesh.

It is also well-known that stores play different music at different times of the day to change your buying habits, as well as strategically place sugary, non-healthy foods at eye level with the average child, keeping the healthy ones waaaaaaaay at the bottom or waaaaaaaaaay at the top of the shelves.

Are we going to sue the stores too?

Well Ace, you're right that the business's responsibility does not end when they become a corporation etc...

BUT you need to accept that the parents' responsibility doesn't end when they hear "It's a boy" as well.

People are just interested in shirking responsibility at every opportunity. Person A is a crappy parent? Well, lets see how many other people he can put the blame on.

What do they want anyways? For the supermarket to only carry vegan goods? Obviously not. So it becomes just as obvious what the ultimate goal here is.

You're missing the point.
This isn't about responsible parents as they have already made the decision to choose healthy products for their children.

This is a problem with irresponsible parents and irresponsible companies and there are a lot of parents out there who just don't know any better.

How many of you had parents who fed them Lucky charms, frankenberry, Cocoa Krispies, Froot Loops, etc... when you were a child?

I'll bet there's quite a few of you out there judging by the sales of some popular cereals out there today.

Kellogg's Frost Flakes had $276 million in sales in one year.
Lucky Charms had $160 million in sales in one year.
link

The sales of some of the healthier products are gaining while the less healthy products are dropping, perhaps because of better awareness by consumer advocacy groups and others like them who draw attention to the problem.


[edit on 22-1-2006 by AceOfBase]

The parents should learn better if they don't already know. That's part of the responsibility. They should open a book or watch the news even, instead of just praying to God that someone else will do their job for them. The parents need to take responsibility. Simple as that.

Should Ford stop making Mustangs because some idiot wasn't responsible enough to buckle their kid in? Yeah, let's punish the company because some one is just too stupid to raise a kid. Isn't that what we have a rather large foster care system for, to take care of kids because their parents are idiots, lazy, or just can't handle the kid?



Me! Me! Me! I did, and I know when something is good for me or not. I lead a rather unhealthy lifestyle--I drink too much, smoke too much, and I still eat crap. But that's my choice, I take the blame if I end up with a coronary at 45, two years after being diagnosed with emphesyma. It's not my dad's fault, not my mom's, not the companies that make those produces. It's mine.

My mom and dad let me have junk food sometimes, and most of the time they told me no. Phillip Morris didn't hold a gun to my head and make me smoke, Budweiser didn't threaten my family if I didn't have one more beer, and McDonald's didn't hand me a lawsuit because I didn't eat enough Big Macs. Unless I'm mistaken, my experience with their business practices isn't much different from anyone else's--please correct me if anyone's been threatened with legal action for not giving a certain business their patronage. If I got brainwashed by various companies, it's because I spent too much time watching television and being spoonfed their garbage instead of learning how to think for myself.

Likewise, the kind of people who would design their marketing to target and exploit child psychology in order to sell a product that is unhealthy...are pathetic.

[edit on 053131p://22u14 by Lucid Lunacy]

I guess I am just stupid but why would anyone want to knowingly produce a product that is harmful to your own children?

Usually I don't like the idea of frivilous(sp) law suits but this one I say is right on.
If a company is producing a toy for children it is tested and ok'd for a safety factor, if it is unsafe is usually isn't sold. Why produce and entice children to eat foods that will not be helpful to their growth? If they are going to produce and market these foods to children, who often have their own money allowance, why not produce something that is nutritious and tastes good-- the two don't need to be mutually exclusive. Companies in the world need to wake up and smell the ethics. This law suit may help

OK fire the flaming cannons now!!!

OK, here is the problem with a lawsuit like this:
The US is supposed to be a free market society, and in a free market consumer demand dictates the market supply. This means that consumers are responsible for what is being produced, because if enough consumers refuse to buy a product it will cease to be sold. Companies are in the business of making money, and what they sell and don't sell depends on what will provide the biggest returns. Before everybody thought the government should do our thinking for us, there was such a thing as a "Boycott". People who didn't like something a company was doing would refuse to purchase their products, and if the boycott started to affect their profit margins, the company would be forced to concede to the people's wishes. That is the way the market works, if there is not enough demand to be profitable then there will be no supply.

In this case, there is a huge demand so there is going to be a supply. Whether or not the people who make sugary snacks for kids are immoral or unethical is beside the point. Our government has no business deciding moral and ethical disputes, unless something illegal has occured. If a parent wants to feed their child crap food and let them watch t.v. till their brains rot, that is their right as a parent, whether anyone likes it or not. It may not be how you would do things, but you are not their parent, and neither is the government (though they may think they are).
Also, sugary snacks may not be the best things for a kid but they are certainly not dangerous. There is nothing wrong with eating Coco-Puffs occasionally, but even if you ate Coco-Puffs every day of your life I doubt it would kill you.
Parents are the ones who are responsible for providing balanced meals and teaching their kids about proper nutrition. If they paid attention to their kids and didn't let them watch so much t.v. then maybe the kids wouldn't be as influenced by the commercials in the first place.

I agree that we shouldn't have to have such types of court cases or regulations to restrict this type of thing but unfortunately the problem with diabetes and overweight children is becoming a plague. Part of the problem is a lack of exercise, part of the problem is food.


deseretnews.com...

What I would like to see the snack food industry produce are healthy snack foods that taste good and are good for kids, something the kids will enjoy and that parents know is nutritious, I know I am dreaming because our society is based on the free market money is god and not one where "lets make a good product that will help people" exists /snarky remark.

No one here has brought up this point. We are not talking about small businesses here, we are talking about corporations. A corporation's first obligation is to make money for their shareholders. If the corporation puts anything before shareholder profits they are opening themselves up to lawsuits from the shareholders(and they will, most likey, lose such a suit). Personally I think this is one of the major problems with our civilization, but that's the way it is. If a corporation that sells childrens foods tried to switch to healthy food they would most likely lose sales and as a result the shareholders would lose money and BAM! Lawsuit.

Vas



[edit on 22-1-2006 by Vasilis Azoth]

Another "Plague" that no doubt would parrallel those every step of the way is the increase in people choosing to be irresponsible, both to themselves and others, and them giving that responsibility over to some "Government" rather than dealing with it themselves. It's has a snowball effect too which makes it even worse.

People choose to have kids but don't want to be responsible parents, so in turn we get Social Services, Corporations and Government Programs that raise them instead. The cycle continues, until everyone is eventually born, raised and owned by those very same Governments and Corporations.

People choose not to be responsible for their actions, so in turn we get Police, Lawyers, Government Authority, Insurance Companies, etc. which take over that responsibility so we can act without thinking. The cycle continues, until we are no longer allowed to think nor act unless ordered or allowed to by, you guessed it, those very same organizations.

You should be able to see some type of pattern taking place. If you haven't already, I urge you to continue applying this into various aspects of your life and reality in general. Eventually, it will result in answering many of the questions about "why everything is so screwed up."



Why do you think such a snack food industry like you imagine is not here already? You're correct, atleast in part, in that it does have something to do with money. In fact Vasilis Azoth's post even expands on where the money plugs into the equation. Let me break it down for clearity:

1. You want the "Snack Food Industry" to make healthy snacks.
2. The "Snack Food Industry" is made up of various Corporate Entities.
3. Corporations are "required by law" and "created for the purpose of making a Profit."

So, as you can see "The Industry" is not concerned with your wants or anyone else's, nor is it allowed to either, unless those wants directly effect it's sole purpose of "Profit Gain".

But wait, because it just so happens that there are others like you who do actually want Healthy Foods and Snacks. So there is a Profit to be gained and "The Industry" does actually know this. However, there is still a catch unfortunately as to why things continue to degrade. The reason for this snag is, once again, reflected in "People Choosing and Creating Entities of Control" rather than taking responsibility for ourselves. Here's why:

Healthy Snack Examples: Raw vegetables, such as celery, carrots, cauliflower, broccoli, green pepper, green beans, cucumbers, mushrooms or zucchini. Fresh fruit in season, cut in slices or halves, such as apples, oranges, bananas, peaches, grapefruit, grapes, melons, pears, plums or strawberries.

Notice something about those Healthy Snacks vs. Unhealthy ones??? No "Industry" is required for the healthy ones. Or at most, only your basic Farming and Packaging/Delivery Industry would be required. You see, it takes an industry and factories and Corporate "gods" to produce Frozen TV Dinners and Puffed Sugar Cereals and Little Debbie Cakes and Twinkie Fillings. The Healthy stuff is out there, but all it is, is natural foods that are being produced already by nature. So, even though "The Industry" does consider your "wants" of healthy foods, which foods do you think generate the most Profit??? And, what is the only purpose the Corporation is allowed to serve???

That's almost exactly what it is, and for at least two very good reasons.

1. Irresponsible parents doing a lousy job of raising their children is evolution in action. Every time that one of the bloated, spoiled, over-indulged, whiny brat offspring of an irresponsible idiot of a parent dies without having reproduced, the human race benefits. Stupidity should be fatal.

2. This sort of invasive social engineering is ultimately nothing more than an opening for expanded government powers. The authority whereby the powers-that-be are invited and allowed to interfere in the choices that consumers are given in the name of "protecting children" is the same authority whereby they are invited and allowed to ban same-sex marriage or censor movies or control school curricula or any of countless other things, at least some of which you would not wish to see them control, and all in the name of "protecting children."

People should take responsibility for their own choices, not only because it neatly weeds those who are unable or unwilling to do so out of the gene pool, but because giving up that responsibility simply allows the government to take it away, and that simply adds to their already oppressive powers.

One should almost always oppose legal remedies to societal "problems," since the power to enforce those remedies will certainly be abused by power-drunk scum for their own ends.

Free people have to take responsibility for their own choices. Those who will not take that responsibility cannot and will not be free.

You hit it right on the money, minus the irresponsible companies part. WE SHOULD SUE THE PARENTS! The companies are doing what they do, advertising a very tasty product. I still buy the good stuff today, fruit loops is my favorite. The parents felt they were responsible enough to bring a child into the world, so they should be responsible enough to raise it and not blame problems they have on someone else. They probably don't even care about the fact they are raising an unhealthy child, they just see this as an excuse to blame someone else and try and get some free money...I think i hit it on the nail with that sentence.

I have to way in on this. Sense when did sugar become evil?

I can’t believe that there are actually people out there that think like Ace of Base on this subject.

I own, of all things, a candy stores, (very profitable candy stores at that). It is not my place to tell anyone they should or should not buy/consume sweets.

Think about this, I have 2 daughters 9 and 12. They accompany me to the stores on a regular basis and neither of them eats much candy, maybe 1 or 2 pieces a week, and they are exposed to not only Nick advertising, but even help me with ours. (We do not let TV or schools raise our children)

We have school groups come in to the stores all the time and most kids are responsible abuot their buying, but yes there are some that are not, and I have a special area for them right next to the register that has .10 and .25 cent candy so they will spend every penny their parents gave them to spend in my store.

I suppose if I put up a sign out front that said "CAUTION: candy will rot your teeth out and make you fat if you eat too much", my sales would go though the roof because I am doing my part to save you and your kids ass from being unhealthy.

When are we going to stop protecting the stupid. Once again saying that Kellogs is responsible for unhealthy children is like saying your pencil is responsible for you failing a test.

Grow up, take responsibility for your own action, and start considering the consequences of those actions.

BTW - we stock sugar-free candy, and the crap don't sell.