Thursday, June 14, 2007

Trix is NOT for kids

Kellogg's is caving to threats of lawsuits over the marketing of 'junk food' to kids.
Wanting healthy food for kids is a good thing. But isn't this the job of the parents?
Have parents gotten that lax? Maybe so, but is this the way to handle it?

I remember Joe Camel. Never smoked, but I remember what happened to him.
They might have been marketing to younger age groups than they should have.
But don't adults like cartoons as well? Was it just aimed at kids? Or were they just using a successful marketing tool? I honestly don't know.

Kellogg's will quit marketing their cereals with characters like Shrek featured on the box, because it would aim for kids.
Isn't that what Toucan Sam and Tony the Tiger are supposed to do?
And getting Shrek off the boxes won't be enough.
Eventually Sam and Tony will have to go as well.

Silly 'psychos who think they can run everyone else's life better than the person actually can',Trix ARE for kids.


Billiam said...

Right now, it's just the threat of a Lawsuit from the food Nazi's. And yes, they ARE Facists. That said, if the Feds pass Natl' Health Care, it'll soon be the Feds tellng us what and how much to eat. Most Americans are too blind to see this, however.

Lord Omar said...

Um, is it not the reality of unbelievable amounts of sugar contained in these breakfast cereals that is at issue? Breakfast "candy" is a product that cereal companies know must be modified or done away with all together.

And as far as fascist National Health Care schemes perhaps promoting healthy lifestyles, well maybe slovenly America could well do with such advice. But as America is deaf, as well as blind, I won't hold my breath.

Roland said...

Billiam, yes it will probably turn out more like "Soylent Green", the very thing the liberals were trying to 'warn' us against is what they will institute. Sad.

Omar, you still make me chuckle. I'm glad you know how to run my life so well. I'm glad you know how to run everyone else's life better than they do. Although the advice and idea may be good, the way it's going to get accomplished is not. I guess it does balance the playing field a little. The little guy can take on the big corporations and win. I remember a lady who drank her coffee from McDonald's and spilled some on her lap and... well, you know the rest.

I'm not against helping others eat healthier, but I am against demanding it. Of course, if you disagree, my point proves itself. :)

Pablo said...

Yet again I point out that there is no one less interested in liberty than a liberal. No one should be held responsible for their own choices, and surely parents can't be trusted to decide what their children can have for breakfast, so let's have the courts and the government decide what's best for us.

Lord Omar said...

I would suggest that based on runaway child obesity rates and ever increasing ailments such as Type-2 diabetes being as prevalent as they are that it is proof positive that in many instances "parents can't be trusted to decide what their children can have for breakfast".

eaglewood said...

"I would suggest that based on runaway child obesity rates and ever increasing ailments such as Type-2 diabetes being as prevalent as they are that it is proof positive that in many instances "parents can't be trusted to decide what their children can have for breakfast."

Again, alot of your concerns can be addressed through education. People should still be free to make their own choices. Just because you do not agree with them is not a reason to bring the heavy hand of government down upon them. Diabetes is not just caused by the foods we eat, there are many factors involved in the development of this disorder. Many of them are genetic.

Lord Omar said...

Polygenic genetic factors are present in most individuals afflicted with Type-2 Diabetes (my 63y/o mother and 42y/o brother come to mind). However, environmental factors such as obesity, lack of exercise and a sedentary lifestyle (better known as sloth and gluttony) are thought by most medical observers to lead to insulin resistance.
Certainly not all Type-2 diabetics have a family history of the condition.
Not the foods we eat and the amounts we consume them? give your head a shake.

eaglewood said...


It still does not address the situation of government control of our lives.

Who is in control, you or the government?

My wife is diabetic and I am well aware of the foods that can cause her problems. I am also aware that it can be controlled through diet. My wife takes no medications for her condition. My point was that you were exclusionary in your comments about the causes of diabetes. While food can play a role in the formation of type 2 diabetes it is not the exclusive cause.

Still even if it was, does the government have the right to MAKE us eat in a certain way? Who decides what is a proper diet? My wife had to experiment and find what the proper levels of carbs and proteins were to control her condition. If she had followed the strict advice of her dietitian she would still be having problems.

Making grandiose proclamations about how we should live does not solve any problems. Neither does government over site. People will make wrong choices, it is not the government's job clean up after them or to police simple choices in how we live.

Roland said...

Things we can agree on:
1) Many cereals have too much sugar.
2) Many children consume too much junk food.
3) Diabetes can be caused by nutritional factors.

None of us would argue that not all food is as healthy as it could be.
The government has been getting bigger and bigger and trying to help people choose the right things. Unfortunately the term "help people choose the right things" now means "make people do the right things"
In a perfect world, everyone would eat healthy (yum, lettuce :p), exercise plentifully, help their neighbors, etc. etc.
We disagree Omar on how to achieve that end.
Eaglewood and Billiam and myself as well, feel that we are each individuals. We are able to choose. Not only the wrong things, but the right things too. My job is not to run Eaglewood's life or you life. And you would resent it if I did.
Omar, you feel that some people need more supervision. Although I won't argue that (it is sometimes true), we cannot force them to do the right thing.
For example:
If I think Omar should give 10% of his money to those in need, should I ask or force this to be done?
Is it Omar's money and life?
Or is Omar's money not really just his, but is everyone's money, and he must give it up for the good of all?
Although the 'power over' method may get short term results, it will fail. People hate oppression. Whether their is a benefit to them or not, they despise being oppressed.
When you get under people and try to educate them and help them to see the best choice, and yet still leave that choice up to them, you end up with people doing what they think is right. And doing it without tedious oversight.

I know you don't want anyone else to run your life, Omar.
So why do you think anyone else would like it?

Wonder Woman said...

Sugar, the breakfast of champions!

Coffee the breakfast of adults.

Oatmeal the forgotten past...

This reminds me of the guy who got himself fat, and sued McDonalds. Why is accountability such a hard concept to grasp?

MikeT said...

Who would have thought that the rabbit would have actually started going to the government for help? What he could not do fairly, he did through the government... bloody socialist...