What's new

The End Of Toucan Sam ????

Kellogg to raise nutrition of kids' food

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press WriterThu Jun 14, 7:51 AM ET



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. ___
 
On balance this whole article is irritating :mad:.

Sure, I think that kids (especially in America) should eat foods that are better for them. However, I see the occasional box of sugar-laced cereal as a good thing. A treat if you will. It should be available for purchase based on the preference of the child's parent.

Susan Linn, co-founder of the Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood.... "The food companies want to keep using [the advertising characters] because they sell a lot of food; kids really respond to them."

The children may respond to the advertising strategies, but parents are not required to. And whoever thought is was a good idea to create the "Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood"... I'm sure they're a fun bunch to hang around :rolleyes1

I know I'm ranting a bit here but it irks me a lot when you have:
1. A small group of busybodies
2. who create a "campaign"
3. for the purpose of filling lawsuits
4. that will "save the children"
5. from their own parents who, in the "campaign's" opinion are too stupid to be entrusted with their children's care.

Alright... off soapbox. I hope you all have a great weekend :redface:
 
On balance this whole article is irritating :mad:.

Sure, I think that kids (especially in America) should eat foods that are better for them. However, I see the occasional box of sugar-laced cereal as a good thing. A treat if you will. It should be available for purchase based on the preference of the child's parent.



The children may respond to the advertising strategies, but parents are not required to. And whoever thought is was a good idea to create the "Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood"... I'm sure they're a fun bunch to hang around :rolleyes1

I know I'm ranting a bit here but it irks me a lot when you have:
1. A small group of busybodies
2. who create a "campaign"
3. for the purpose of filling lawsuits
4. that will "save the children"
5. from their own parents who, in the "campaign's" opinion are too stupid to be entrusted with their children's care.

Alright... off soapbox. I hope you all have a great weekend :redface:

Amen. On top of that, Kellog has to pretend like it's in their best interests not to market to kids. I hate groups like this :mad:
 
On balance this whole article is irritating :mad:.

Sure, I think that kids (especially in America) should eat foods that are better for them. However, I see the occasional box of sugar-laced cereal as a good thing. A treat if you will. It should be available for purchase based on the preference of the child's parent.



The children may respond to the advertising strategies, but parents are not required to. And whoever thought is was a good idea to create the "Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood"... I'm sure they're a fun bunch to hang around :rolleyes1

I know I'm ranting a bit here but it irks me a lot when you have:
1. A small group of busybodies
2. who create a "campaign"
3. for the purpose of filling lawsuits
4. that will "save the children"
5. from their own parents who, in the "campaign's" opinion are too stupid to be entrusted with their children's care.

Alright... off soapbox. I hope you all have a great weekend :redface:

Based on the rate of childhood obesity, it would seem that those parents are indeed too stupid. Really, this seems like a sensible, voluntary move by a corporation to be more responsible with the marketing. Granted, we're still talking about products they shouldn't be selling at all, but advertising less to kiddies seems like an excellent start.
 
Based on the rate of childhood obesity, it would seem that those parents are indeed too stupid. Really, this seems like a sensible, voluntary move by a corporation to be more responsible with the marketing. Granted, we're still talking about products they shouldn't be selling at all, but advertising less to kiddies seems like an excellent start.

Agreed. However, something tells me these kids aren't getting fat off of just sugary breakfast cereals. If their parents didn't stop off for dinner at McDonalds every day, let them drink loads of soda at home, and sit around playing video games all day, I don't think the occasional bowl of Cocoa Puffs would really hurt anything. I honestly think schools could be doing more to teach kids about smart eating and exercise decisions, and other outlets (besides the companies that make the offending food) should be reaching out to their parents, because so many of them clearly aren't setting the greatest examples
 
Hi Xert,

I'll be the first one to agree that an awful lot of kids need to loose weight. Although, I won't agree that pressure on the free-market (and not even brought by the parents) is the best or even a good way for this to be accomplished.

this seems like a sensible, voluntary move by a corporation

I don't think you can call this a voluntary change it seems more like cow-towing to group of whiners. However, it may be one that makes good business sense given our overly-litigious society.

Anyway, I was never allowed to eat those cereals on a regular basis while growing up. However, once a year for our week at the coast, my parents would let my sister and I eat the really sugary cereals every morning. (They knew that we would be outside for several hours and the running/swimming would tire us out :biggrin:) Just one of many fun memories growing up...

I don't think that products should be banned because a group of chumps on their high-horse stamp their feet.
 
I only was allowed to eat cereal on the weekends-mainly corn flakes while I lusted for frosted flakes, sugar crisp, and sugar pops. Plus, my parents had this rule while shopping in the grocery store- "where you show out, is where you get wore out!"

So my lusting was only in the looking and dreaming. Now that I can choose to buy whatever I want, I have froot loops(rarely eaten), aplle jacks(ummm boy), corn(yeah, right)pops but no frosted flakes(make my teeth feel funny). To balance those out, I also have raisin nut bran and special k red berries.

I find myself reaching for the nut bran and special k much more than the others. However, my weight gain is due to all the fast food I eat-not to 1-2 bowls of cereal per week.

My $0.02.

Marty
 
Agreed. However, something tells me these kids aren't getting fat off of just sugary breakfast cereals. If their parents didn't stop off for dinner at McDonalds every day, let them drink loads of soda at home, and sit around playing video games all day, I don't think the occasional bowl of Cocoa Puffs would really hurt anything. I honestly think schools could be doing more to teach kids about smart eating and exercise decisions, and other outlets (besides the companies that make the offending food) should be reaching out to their parents, because so many of them clearly aren't setting the greatest examples

Agreed entirely, though I see no reason for the existence of the manufactured trash of Cocoa Puffs (or even the Corn Pops, my childhood favorite) even if all of those much more important steps were taken. A freshly baked chocolate croissant is far more appropriate for the occasional sugary breakfast treat.

Hi Xert,

I'll be the first one to agree that an awful lot of kids need to loose weight. Although, I won't agree that pressure on the free-market (and not even brought by the parents) is the best or even a good way for this to be accomplished.

I don't think you can call this a voluntary change it seems more like cow-towing to group of whiners. However, it may be one that makes good business sense given our overly-litigious society.

Anyway, I was never allowed to eat those cereals on a regular basis while growing up. However, once a year for our week at the coast, my parents would let my sister and I eat the really sugary cereals every morning. (They knew that we would be outside for several hours and the running/swimming would tire us out :biggrin:) Just one of many fun memories growing up...

I don't think that products should be banned because a group of chumps on their high-horse stamp their feet.
But the whole point of having a free market is that people are free to place "demands" on corporations - nothing is being coercively "banned".

For the record, your parents sound an awful lot like mine, but unfortunately there seem to be fewer and fewer of their sort these days.
 
But the whole point of having a free market is that people are free to place "demands" on corporations - nothing is being coercively "banned".

Wouldn't threatening companies with civil suits count as coersion? This wouldn't even get press time if the protest group did not have the resources to damage Kellog's income. And if you noticed, Kellog isn't going to halt production of these "horrible" breakfast cereals. They're just going to get rid of the cartoon characters on the boxes, and maybe slow down their advertising agreements with children's television programming.

Kellog by no means need me to defend them. They have a whole staff of lawyers for that. But these protesters need to understand that this not by any means a solution to our obesity problem.
 
Wouldn't threatening companies with civil suits count as coersion? This wouldn't even get press time if the protest group did not have the resources to damage Kellog's income. And if you noticed, Kellog isn't going to halt production of these "horrible" breakfast cereals. They're just going to get rid of the cartoon characters on the boxes, and maybe slow down their advertising agreements with children's television programming.

Kellog by no means need me to defend them. They have a whole staff of lawyers for that. But these protesters need to understand that this not by any means a solution to our obesity problem.
Well, there are two basic ways to ensure that corporations act responsibly: the government can regulate them or people can sue them. The second option is the one typically preferred by libertarians as being uncoercive - or at least less coercive - because it depends on claims of harm being brought and proven by individuals instead of the government imposing cumbersome regulations and penalties.

And I agree entirely that this is not a solution to child obesity - nowhere close. But then again, I really don't see how it can do anything but help.
 

Doc4

Stumpy in cold weather
Staff member
Unless I missed it (Friday afternoon ... distinct possibility) I didn't see them promising to cut out high fructose corn syrup.

I see this as corportate pandering to try to create a good public image rather than a real change in the products that are going to be marketed. This is done in the face of the obese results of too many parents abdicating their parental responsabilities and not managing their children's diets. Besides, nothing in this will stop the kids from grabbing the sugar bowl and pouring on a few hundred calories of empty carbs!! :huh:
 
Sooo, the sugar bomb cereals have been sold for decades with no ill effects. Now, there's high levels of obesity among children. Hey, must be that cereal, nevermind that kids managed to stay within healthy weights all those years. I don't suppose it could be, oh, the fact that PE isn't mandatory to the same extent it was, or, say, that home entertainment has basically supplanted playing outside or getting any kind of exercise? Just an alternate thought. :wink:
 
Ah, but where is the example of ill effects? :001_smile Obesity? All of a sudden? I think that oversimplifies things. The point I was trying to make is that the cereals have been sold for decades before America ballooned outward, so to say that obesity is caused by sweetened cereals doesn't begin to give a complete picture. As you probably noted, I tend to think that the increase in childhood obesity is caused mainly by a marked decrease in physical activity among children in the past few years. In any event, there is rarely a simple answer to complex problems.
 
Sooo, the sugar bomb cereals have been sold for decades with no ill effects. Now, there's high levels of obesity among children. Hey, must be that cereal, nevermind that kids managed to stay within healthy weights all those years. I don't suppose it could be, oh, the fact that PE isn't mandatory to the same extent it was, or, say, that home entertainment has basically supplanted playing outside or getting any kind of exercise? Just an alternate thought. :wink:

It simply does not work to compare the sugared cereals of today with those of yesteryear, because the quality and type of sugar has drastically changed. Foods used to be sweetened with a relatively simple sugar, something like glucose, sucrose, or fructose. But in recent history, the industry developed something called High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). In short, this stuff is the devil's favorite sugar. It does all sorts of nastiness to your body, including being linked to heart disease and suppressing the body's ability to feel satiated. In other words, it's much easier to gorge yourself on foods rich in HFCS.

Also, we are finally seeing the conclusion to the God-awful 90s "fat is the enemy" craze. This sad chapter in dietary history led to the oversweetening of just about every processed food that exists. Why? Because fat tastes good, and when it was removed, sugar was added to keep things tasting good. As it turns out, sugar, not fat, is what makes you fat.

Sure you can blame lack of activity, but in reality it's the sugar gluttony and American craving for the processing of everything that is to blame. Simple carbohydrates and sugars require little or no effort for the body to convert them into glucose, which means they are rapidly absorbed into the blood stream. When the body recognizes a rapidly rising blood-sugar content, it releases insulin, which helps to bring blood-sugar content back down to a normal range. An unwanted side effect of this process is that insulin triggers the body to store fat. Sugar, not fat, makes you fat.

Kids should be eating eggs and whole grains for breakfast, not the cheap crap companies peddle to them to make a quick buck. Parents need to adjust their attitudes from the "kids are kids, let them eat what they want" attitudes that are killing them, to a more informed mindset that minimally processed foods are best.
 
Ah, but where is the example of ill effects? :001_smile Obesity? All of a sudden? I think that oversimplifies things. The point I was trying to make is that the cereals have been sold for decades before America ballooned outward, so to say that obesity is caused by sweetened cereals doesn't begin to give a complete picture. As you probably noted, I tend to think that the increase in childhood obesity is caused mainly by a marked decrease in physical activity among children in the past few years. In any event, there is rarely a simple answer to complex problems.

I think we're pretty much in agreement, Tom. I was objecting to the "no ill effects" part of the above post, in that simply because people weren't fat before doesn't mean that there weren't ill effects from eating a less-than-nutritional breakfast, but you're certainly right that sweet cereal cannot be the scapegoat for obesity today. I just don't think it's helping.
 
I think we're pretty much in agreement, Tom. I was objecting to the "no ill effects" part of the above post, in that simply because people weren't fat before doesn't mean that there weren't ill effects from eating a less-than-nutritional breakfast, but you're certainly right that sweet cereal cannot be the scapegoat for obesity today. I just don't think it's helping.

Stephen, what can I say but I agree! :biggrin: And I see what you mean about the "no" part--sloppy writing without a doubt!
 
Top Bottom