Interesting article about kids and junk food - food for thought, no pun intended

jcc64 wrote: This is sort of relevant to a conversation we had awhile back about the relationship between childhood obesity and the manipulative methods of manufacturers and advertisers. Some pretty interesting reading, what do we all think:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/business...ssyahoo&emc=rss

ammommy replied: I appreciate that companies are changing their marketing strategies, but I still say that it's the parents' jobs to just tell their children no. I had McDonald's and all of the sugary cereal constantly thrust in my face growing up (more so than my kids actually since all I had was network TV to watch) yet my parents managed to keep me on a healthy diet. I think that all of this is just another way for parents to shirk their responsibility and place the blame on someone else.

3_call_me_mama replied: I agree that itisi ultimately a parents responsibility to set limits for their childrne and theri food choices. If you choose to feed your child McDonalds that is your choice. You have control over what adn how much they eat when they are in your care. Sugar sweetener cereals are also your choice. Jsut because a certain character appears on a box doesn't mean that you HAVE to buy it or that your children will or will not like it any better. Parents often fall into teh trap of buying everythign DORA because their kids liek Dora. Wether it be cereal or toys clothing. That is a parents decisioons. i do not place the blame on marketing companies fo rthat. They are doing theri job, adn we as parents shoudl be doing ours.
Also if a child eats junk and a parent is fine with that and eat teh junk with them then the parent has aright to be blamed for teh obesity, because tehre are SO many ways to keep your child active and healthy even if you do allow those foods to be consumed.

C&K*s Mommie replied: to what was said above. Shifting blame is not going to make our kids less unhealthy. It starts at home, and the examples and choices that we make for our children. Now I do agree that pulling sodas, and junk foods in vending machines from schools is a good idea. No matter how well you have taught your kids, there still is some attraction to sugary foods/drinks that draws them in. Sometimes they may be able to fight them urge to give in when they are not under your supervision while at school, but not always. Most of all, it begins at home. The big companies still want to make the big bucks, too!~

Hillbilly Housewife replied: I try not to feed my kids junk food... but they do get a little bit of it...

I hardle ever had some when I was younger...and when my parents split, all of a sudden I was allowerd to eat whatever I wanted... si I quickly gained a lot of weight. I was a very heavy pre-teen.........it impacted me a lot growing up.

My kids cannot have a meal out of junk - but the occasional fast food, pizza, fried chicken etc... is ok. They can't have packaged cookies for a snack... they can have peanut-butter oatmeal cookies made at home for a snack. The packaged ones, they can have one afyter a meal, or as a special treat.

I don't limit what my kids can't have - but I can control the "when" and the "how much", and I can try to teach them about healthy choices. To this day, my children still prefer an apple, some cheese or some grapes over chocolate or chips.

To control the loimit... I tell them that they can have a little bit, but not too much, because it can hurt their tummies if they have too much at once... and/or they're not eating healthy, so it will be harder to play because of the sluggishness. I tell it ti them in terms they can understand... but they know that i'm more like;y to say yes thatr they can have something junky if they ask for a small piece instead of the whole thiung.... like: can i have a small piece of cookie? i'll give them a piece of it... and they can have the other piece after dinner.

I wouldn't blame the companies... i'd blame the parents who buy the stuff regularly. The cereal of choice around here is Cheerios. We buy both - with honey and without... we mix them, together and they go in a big tupperware container anyways... the kids don't know that's not how it is really.... occasionally we'll buy fruit loops and put a few in their ceral as a treat...

if my kids start packing it on... then either it's a medical problem - or it's a parent problem... and it'sd my responsability to get my kids active.

jcc64 replied: When we had this discussion last time, I posed the question about cigarette and alcohol advertisements, and I'm gonna bring it up again. I agree that ultimately it is a parent's responsibility to oversee the child's diet. Pretty basic premise- hard to argue with.
But does that then mean that we as a society collectively have no responsibility to protect the well being of our kids? If we operated on that theory alone, then why can't we have soda machines in schools? It's the soft drink industry's right to maximize their profits, and it should be up to the parents to teach their kids to resist, right? Similiarly, if it's only a parent's responsibility to protect a child's health- why did the gov't step in and ban the infamous Joe Camel cigarette ads several years back, and why aren't cigarettes advertised on tv? (I think some of you were in diapers at the time, but Camel cigarettes launched a highly successful ad campaign featuring a cartoon character named Joe Camel, which was aimed directly at kids.)
My 10 yr old is participating in a class at school which is designed to teach kids to resist the constant bombardment and enticements toward an unhealthy and destructive lifestyle. (including smoking, drinking, junk food, and distorted body image ads). They are being taught how to defend themselves by being critical consumers. I think it's great, and he's learning alot about the deceptive and manipulative practices of the marketplace. But at the same time, it's a little ridiculous that we have to have the class in the first place.
I don't think it's asking too much to pressure food manufacturers to find alternatives to nasty stuff like partially hydrogenated oils (which is in every form of junk food) and high fructose corn syrup. There are other ways to manufacture these products that are less damaging- but they cost a little more, and of course the bottom line is always profits. Why people are so willing to let these multi- billion conglomerates maximize their profits on the backs of their children without holding their feet to the fire is curious to me.
And finally, I think most of us here understand how to present our kids with a healthy diet. But Jeanie's post the other day about the kid with pepsi all day in the sippy cup should reveal that there are many people out there who do not. Their negligence is not just the problem of that child or family. It's all of ours.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
As always... so eloquent!!

I think it's interesting your son is participating in that kind of classroom environment - sounds like you'll have a little mirror image to communicate with in the future!!!

and, I whole hearttedly agree... it everyone's problem... but I hardly think the masses will gather to protest sugar. kwim? so it's more our individual duty...as well as globally I mean

jacobsmama replied: ITA.. Intresting article.

MommyToAshley replied: Fascinating article. The thing that I find interesting... and we touched on it in your other post... is that the two companies that are changing their marketing and promoting healthier choices are doing so because they found it to be profitable (not because it is better for our kids). The companies even stated this themselves on the second page of the article. They just happen to get the extra benefit and PR for being the good guys, while their true motivation is profits. So, if we stopped buying all the sweet sugary snacks, I am sure there wouldn't be any cute commercials with cartoon characters promoting them.

I understand what you are saying about advertising cigarettes and alcohol and how it is the same principle. But, I don't think the government can regulate the advertisement of cereal and McDonald's in the same way. It's illegal to sell cigarettes and alcohol to minors, so I can understand why there are laws preventing these companies from targeting their ads to children. However, I do agree with the laws that require proper labeling of what's in the food, and now McDonald's is going to print it on the package. (I think before you had to request a pamphlet with this information.) At least this way parents are informed and can make wise choices and teach their children how to make healthy choices.

As for the parents that put Pepsi in a sippy cup to replace fruit juice... they probably also gave the child a gameboy because the ped said he was watching too much television. I don't think having the government regulate television commercials is going to help this situation... someone needs to educate the parent. Instead of trying to regulate advertising, the gov't could create and sponsor a television show on Parenting, how to prepare a well balanced meal, and why you shouldn't put Pepsi in a sippy cup... it'd be a better use of funds.

Just my thoughts... but as always, you bring an interesting conversation to the table.

ammommy replied:
Just to quickly put in my 2 cents on this topic. The reason I feel that alcohol and cigarette ads should not be targetting children is because it's illegal for them to consume the products. Period. The end. I do believe that if the consumption of these products by minors was legal (and thankfully it's not) that companies in the US should have the right to target that market. It's not a popular opinion, I'm sure, but it's what I feel is right.

MyBrownEyedBoy replied:

ITA The federal government has an obligation to keep companies from advertising to/enticing children into wanting products that are illegal, but until we as a society decide to ban McDonalds and Cocoa Puffs, it is ulitmately each individual parent's responsibility to make the decision for and guide older children to the healthy decision. We can't expect the government to make those decisions for us. As for the class your son is taking, I sort of wish I had had one like it in school. If you are educated as to the methods used by these companies, you are better able to spot a lure rather than be caught by it.

jcc64 replied:

I laughed out loud when I read that, Dee Dee, but the sad fact of the matter is you're probably right on the money!