View Full Version: Kellogg Changes Cereal, a LNT rant

DOA Kunoichi - Forums > General Discussion > Kellogg Changes Cereal, a LNT rant



Title: Kellogg Changes Cereal, a LNT rant


l33t_ninja_thug - June 17, 2007 03:50 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Kellogg to raise nutrition of kids' food @ Y! NEWS)

WASHINGTON - Kellogg Co., the world's largest cereal maker, has agreed to raise the nutritional value of cereals and snacks it markets to children.

The Battle Creek, Mich., company avoided a lawsuit threatened by parents and nutrition advocacy groups worried about increasing child obesity. Kellogg intends to formally announce its decision Thursday.

The company said it won't promote foods in TV, radio, print or Web site ads that reach audiences at least half of whom are under age 12 unless a single serving of the product meets these standards:

_No more than 200 calories.

_No trans fat and no more than 2 grams of saturated fat.

_No more than 230 milligrams of sodium, except for Eggo frozen waffles.

_No more than 12 grams of sugar, not counting sugar from fruit, dairy and vegetables.

Kellogg said it would reformulate products to meet these criteria or stop marketing them to children under 12 by the end of 2008.

"By committing to these nutrition standards and marketing reforms, Kellogg has vaulted over the rest of the food industry," said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "This commitment means that parents will find it a little easier to steer their children toward healthy food choices — especially if other food manufacturers and broadcasters follow Kellogg's lead."

Jacobson's nutrition advocacy group, along with two Massachusetts parents and the Boston-based Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood, had served notice in January 2006 of intent to sue Kellogg and the Nickelodeon cable TV network under a Massachusetts law to stop them from marketing junk food to kids.

Center spokesman Jeff Cronin said Kellogg contacted the plaintiffs shortly thereafter and began negotiating the new standards, so the lawsuit was not filed and will not be filed.

"We are pleased to work collaboratively with industry and advocacy groups to unveil these standards," said David Mackay, Kellogg's CEO. "We feel the Kellogg Nutrient Criteria set a new standard for responsibility in the industry."

With 2006 sales of almost $11 billion, Kellogg is not only the No. 1 cereal-maker but also a leading producer of snack foods. Its brands include Kellogg's, Keebler, Pop-Tarts, Eggo, Cheez-It, Rice Krispies and Famous Amos.

Globally, 50 percent of the products Kellogg markets to children do not meet the criteria, said Mark Baynes, Kellogg's chief marketing officer. A third of the cereals it markets to children in the U.S. fall outside standards.

Pop-Tarts and Froot Loops don't meet the criteria, though most cereals fall inside the calorie guideline, Baynes said. Meeting the sugar and sodium standards could be the most challenging.

Kellogg also announced that it will continue to refrain from advertising to children under age 6, and will not in the future:

_Advertise to children any foods in schools and preschools that include kids under age 12.

_Sponsor placement of any of its products in any medium primarily directed at kids under age 12.

_Use branded toys connected to any foods that do not meet the nutrition standards.

_Use licensed characters on mass-media ads directed primarily to kids under 12 or on the front labels of food packages unless they meet the standards.

The advertising agreement does not apply to marketing characters Kellogg owns, like Tony the Tiger, but it does apply to characters the food company licenses, like the cartoon figure Shrek, said Susan Linn, co-founder of the Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood.

She said Kellogg was the first food company to agree to restrict advertising using licensed media characters like Shrek.

"These characters play an incredibly important role in children's lives. Kids see them every day; they have toys of them," Linn said. "The media characters are much more powerful (than company-owned characters like Tony the Tiger). The food companies want to keep using them because they sell a lot of food; kids really respond to them."

Earlier this month, a Federal Trade Commission study found that half the ads for junk food, sugary cereals and soft drinks are on children's programs, double the percentage 30 years ago. Children between ages 2 and 11 saw approximately 5,500 food ads on television in 2004, half of them on kids' shows with audiences of 50 percent children or greater.

American companies spend about $15 billion a year marketing and advertising to children under age 12, the Institute of Medicine said last year when it warned that one-third of American children are obese or at risk for becoming obese.

In response, Kellogg and McDonald's Corp. joined eight other major food and drink companies last November in an industry-sponsored pledge to promote more healthy foods and exercise in their child-oriented advertising. A year earlier, Kraft Foods Inc. had promised to curb ads to young children for snack foods, including Oreos and Kool-Aid.

I have to voice my mind on this. People have officially lost their d4mn minds!! Parents are suing cereal companies because they say its making their kids fat (yea, I said fat. I hate politically correct and I'm a blunt speaker). So if the kids are fat, its sounding like parents haven’t done anything domestic to fix this problem. Parents are getting lazy and shirking their jobs. I see this a lot. This “sue Kellogg” thing is the same as “McDonalds makes me fat” cases. They are skirting from their duties and putting blame on someone else.

Example: when I was a kid, I either rode on bikes with the other kids or played basketball or football with the same neighborhood kids everyday. Was I fat, no. I did stuff, I.E. exercise. Now, not being a father I doubt what I say will be accepted, but is it hard to get a ball and send your kid outside to play said ball? It’s simple. Buy a ball, a goal (if needed), and a cinderblock or bricks or something with a weight. And all that costs $100 for a goal and $15-$20 a ball. And I can guaran-d4mn-tee you that goal will last like 8 years before something bad happens to it.

These prices are from wal-mart.com, maybe you can find something cheaper. And I bet you can find cheaper stuff if you do some searching at other places and throw a sale or two in the mix. Your kid goes outside, plays ball and burns energy. And burn fat. Therefore, no fat kids. Same with bikes; just get a cheaper 50 dollar one. Or a football, which is $10-$20. And all these prices are also from wal-mart.com. Or they go somewhere else like get karate lessons, lord knows that’s healthy and it disciplines the kid. Or let them run around in a park or one of those giant track circles.

But this is about cereal, so I’ll make this about cereal. You hate the cereal, change what you buy. Smart Start advertises that the cereal is healthy for some reason. I bet they don’t make the commercials for sh1ts and giggles. Granted healthier cereal may cost a little more, but you can make a coalition! If enough people buy the cereal, the price could drop. Or you can not get the Frosted Flakes and switch to regular flakes, Tony won’t be mad. And if the kid complains about how it doesn’t taste like Frosted Flakes, slip some NutraSweet in the milk. And tell them they changed the recipe a little.

And sue Nick also? What is this, take out the world en masse? Granted I don’t watch Nick except for The Fresh Prince, Avatar, Drake & Josh, and Just Jordan. But out of those four shows, all the Kellogg cereal commercials you get are Tony the Tiger, Toucan Sam, and CinnaMan and Bad Apple. Quite frankly, the only one that says their cereal is the sh1t is Tony, and his has a non-frosted version. So, as I said in the above paragraph, switch cereals. And suing Nick is useless, because you know… your kid could be outside playing basketball in the driveway and not sitting down all day.

In short, instead of slinging blame on others, solve a simple problem yourself. Use your d4mn heads and change the subject of your problem before you go lawyer trigger-happy. It’s like a deflated tire. Do you replace it with a spare, or do you sure Michelin because their tire busted a hole because there was crap on the road. You use that spare, because that’s common sense.

Pixel - June 17, 2007 04:51 AM (GMT)
I agree with a lot of what you said there, LNT. Parents should take more
responsibility for their children. If not by making them exercise, then at least
refusing them the types of food they (the parents) feel are so dangerous.

Ever since the Nutrition Facts label became mandatory, parents have had good
opportunity to figure out whether they should be feeding their children this or that food.

Many of them can't (or more than likely won't) restrain their children in what they eat.
Then they want to turn around and say "Oh, you made my kid want this cereal, I'll sue
you." That's silly. Of course companies do try to get children to want this or that
product, including cereal. A parent's job is to watch out for things like that, and make
sure their children don't eat such things if they feel it is unhealthy. Kellogg's didn't let
little Junior have Froot Loops to eat. Nor did McDonald's a Happy Meal.

I'm not sure what this lawsuit threat was really about- money, control, or really just a
misguided attempt to look out for children. I suspect these parents are the type that
would sue the football maker if they sent their kid outside and he or she got hurt
playing with the football.

Before threatening to sue someone else, parents should look at what they are doing
in raising their children.




blueboy - June 17, 2007 08:41 AM (GMT)
parents.......have no "spines".

l33t_ninja_thug - June 18, 2007 12:14 AM (GMT)
thanks for the replies




Hosted for free by InvisionFree