What do you think about Kellogg's decision to cut back on kid-centered marketing?

Kellogg's has announced they will stop using characters like Toucan Sam to market cereals if they don't meet a certain nutritional guideline. They will also stop using movie promotions like Shrek on these cereals. The reason for this is in response to pressure from a lawsuit from the group that recently sued Kentucky Fried Chicken.

My question is: who do you think is responsible for regulating what our children eat? Do companies have a duty to remove this kind of marketing or is it the parents' job to watch these kinds of things. Asked by BarbieM 55 months ago Similar questions: Kellogg's decision cut back kid centered marketing Food & Drink > Food.

Similar questions: Kellogg's decision cut back kid centered marketing.

I think that consumers need good product info. Then the parents need to parent! It’s disconcerting (maybe .. .) when the children’s TV shows and ads all seem to look alike, to blend together.

But so what! Kids have begged for stuff forever; parents have varied in their effectiveness at rebuffing the begging forever. Every generation has had spoiled children, but those kids also stand out like the sore thumbs they are.

If a child will eat a certain cereal because Wilhelmina Oglethorpe is on the box, then good for the company who put Wilhelmina Oglethorpe on the box, and good for the parents who have a child who will eat without fussing. What we need is nutritional information (which we now have on everything). And we need the availability of healthy cereals (for example), not just sugar-coated sugar.

Kellogg’s should be working to improve nutritional content because it should be good for their public image, because consumers should respond favorably, because their profits ought to increase if they do. But Toucan Sam et al should stay, if for no other reason than to annoy the lawsuit-crazy do-gooders who are trying to turn us into even more of a nanny state than we already have become. Let the parents parent!

Pam_I_Am's Recommendations Kellogg's Cereal: Toucan Sam 12" Plush Doll You're a Better Parent Than You Think! : A Guide to Common-Sense Parenting Amazon List Price: $13.00 Used from: $0.04 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5 (based on 5 reviews) .

We as parents can control what our kids eat, most of the time. I do think it's the parents job to regulate what our children eat. I don't totally understand why they would go away from characters like Toucan Sam, or even Shrek--cartoon characters have been part of the cereal industry history forever.

It just seems like another case of parents who aren't willing to parent, and need the government to do it for them. And probably kids wouldn't be as influenced by those characters if they spent more time playing outside or with other toys than just watching television. They can eat those cereals, as long as it's done in moderation or as a special treat, I feel.

After all, is candy any different? Are parents up in arms with the candy industry? I dunno, it all doesn't really make sense to me.

Cereal, despite it's sugar, isn't a poison. It can be a once a week special breakfast; but that would mean that the parents would have to provide eggs, or waffles or something else that requires a bit more work. Cereal is easy, the kids can do it all themselves usually, so parents can use it to make their own life a bit easier.

I hadn't heard about this decision from Kelloggs's, but I was pleased to see last night as I walked down the cereal aisle that little tabs had been attached to the shelves where Post and Kelloggs cereals were that said "Made in Michigan"! That was so cool to see, with our history of cereal production here. And better than seeing "Made in China"!

*Poppet*'s Recommendations Froot Loops , 11 oz Average Customer Rating: 3.5 out of 5 (based on 3 reviews) KEEP TOUCAN SAM! He's a cultural icon!.

I think anything that gets kids to eat healthier is a good start... ...but I don't think this is a company's duty. It's a lot more morally gray when you get to ad campaigns like Joe Camel, advertising products that absolutely are not for children's consumption. But sugary foods in particular are always going to be craved by children, and are , in moderation, suitable for them.

Children's taste receptors are more sensitive than adults, hence the common 'kid-friendly' foods that avoid strong bitter tastes. Kids are particularly susceptible to advertising, but it should be the parents' responsibility to turn off the TV (to limit the message), and to keep track of their childrens' diets. Saying 'no' to junk food or sugary cereal seems harder to do than saying 'no' to expensive or violent video games and toys, because it's usually right there in the supermarket, and it's not prohibitively expensive.

Some of the litigation in this country makes me think that people have stopped thinking for themselves, expecting big business to look out for their best interest instead of its own. The more absurd ones have thankfully been dropped- McDonalds isn't responsible for making people fat, but it obviously isn't helping keep people svelte either. Consumer pressure will eventually bring business in line, if people vote with their pocketbooks, and that's beginning to show up in the reduction of trans fats and some healthier alternatives restaurants and food producers have brought to the table.

But when it comes down to it, Man is designed to crave sweet and fatty: calorically dense nutrients, a holdover from centuries of food scarcity. It's what makes things taste good, and we need to learn to survive in surplus by moderating ourselves, same as we learned in scarcity to eat it whenever we had the chance. Kids need to learn how to eat well, and it's their parents who bear the responsibility for that.

And if Frosted Flakes still makes the cut, the sugar requirement can't be that Grrr-eat. Sources: My opinion. Dondon's Recommendations Kellogg's Family Assortment, Individual-Serving Boxes, 1.02-Ounce Boxes (Pack of 72) Average Customer Rating: 4.5 out of 5 (based on 5 reviews) Kellogg's Rice Krispies Treats Cereal, 14.2-Ounce Boxes (Pack of 4) Average Customer Rating: 4.5 out of 5 (based on 11 reviews) Kellogg's Pop-Tarts Frosted Strawberry, 29.3-Ounce, 16-Count Boxes (Pack of 8) Amazon List Price: $30.32 Not for kids any longer- but is a 'family' pack still OK?.

I think its a good idea I know that characters and commercials influence our 4 year old and what he wants me to buy him in the cereal row. I know have the choice not to buy, but its sad that the worst cereal for you is the kind that is marketed to kids. It is parents ultimate responsibility, but we can see its not working, kids eat so much crap these days.

Many parents are uneducated or just don't get it (my grandsons other grandma feeds him ding dongs,kool aid and candy and hes only 9 months old). My understanding with Kelloggs is that they were going to reformulate some of the recipes for kids cereals so that they would meet their new advertising standards. That is a good idea, nobody needs that much sugar in their cereal anyway..

I think it's great - a sign of corporate responsibility ...and should be encouraged by those of us that want to see more of it. The typical breakfast commercial during children's programming shows a bowl of cereal, toast, juice, the milk carton and maybe some fruit. And the bowl of sugar-cereal is clearly the worst part of that 'nutritious' breakfast.

The truth is that other breakfast cereals can be tastey and based on whole wheat. Add some fruit, low fat milk, and you are much closer to the nutritious breakfast promised. Of course I think the parents are responsible for what their children eat, but I also think that there should be rstrictions of marketing towards children.

We know that parents will sometimes have the kids with them while shopping, and the high powered marketing campaigns for non-nutritious foods can leave children asking, begging, crying and screaming for the sugar-coated cereal. Some parents will give in simply to appease their kids, perhaps assuming the FDA wouldn't approve a food item that leads to insulin resistance and possibly diabetes. I have the opposite opinion for the Kentucky Fried Chicken case, as this marketing was targetted on adults who must be presumed able to make their own health and diet choices.

While children need special protection, to apply those same 'protections' to adults is actually to empower them to be irresponsible. In a nation where 'we the people' are the government, we need to be held accountable for our decisions - even if those decisions are to eat such a terrible diet that we kill ourselves from it. So Yes, corporations should be accountable for responsible marketing to children even though the parents are ultimately responsible for what kids eat.(Let's be sure not to be overly protective of the poor, defenseless corporate empires at the sake of children's health.

I'm sure they can determine adequate marketing for hopefully healthy products whithout being quite so overbearing. ) .

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.