Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal bethanie's Journal: Right Problem, Wrong Solution 22

Journal by bethanie

February 23, 2006
Editorial
Selling Junk Food to Toddlers

For all the talk about protecting children in America, too many of our youngest are threatened by a steady blast of industrial-strength advertising on children's television. Some ads, like those for toys and games, mostly threaten the family budget. But the commercials hawking sugary treats or empty calories can be more pernicious. Many health professionals now fear that junk-food advertising to toddlers and pre-teenagers is contributing to soaring rates of obesity and diabetes among the young.

The Institute of Medicine, in a report last December sponsored by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that "current food and beverage marketing practices put children's long-term health at risk." It argued that the onslaught of commercials directed at such very young children can set bad dietary patterns for life. And children under 8 are generally defenseless against sophisticated barrages from the giants in the food industry.

Parents are the first line of defense, but it's tough to hold the line in the grocery store against the piercing whines of little ones when they spot a sugary treat sponsored by a favorite cartoon character. The government and the food and media industries need to help out.

The government, however, has barely noticed this problem. The Federal Trade Commission decided last year that the food industry should police itself on marketing low-nutrient foods to increasingly fat children.

Some companies, like Kraft Foods, appear to have gotten the word. The company has agreed to stop marketing such sweets as Oreos to children under 12. And networks that televise cartoons, including Nickelodeon, are trying to add more advice to the young on how healthy food and outdoor exercise can make you feel good, too.

But progress has been so slow that the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and two Massachusetts parents have announced plans to sue Viacom, which owns Nickelodeon, and the Kellogg Company. These advocates of healthy food have accused both companies of "unfair and deceptive" junk-food marketing to children under the age of 8. They have argued that high-powered ads aimed at children as young as 2 years old is "creepy and predatory."

It is not clear that a lawsuit like this can prevail, even in consumer-friendly Massachusetts. But the message should be clear. Americans pride themselves on protections for the young, but they're ignoring an issue that may be as important as car seats. With more than nine million obese youngsters over 6 in this country, it's time to stop encouraging another generation to eat wrong.

First off: Massachusetts is "CONSUMER-FRIENDLY"?!?!

Dude. I think that maybe consumers need to consider exactly what we value in a friendship.

But getting to my main point: Yeah, our kids are fat -- and getting fatter. They're not playing outside enough and getting enough exercise, and they're eating a bunch of crap. So what does the NYTimes propose as the solution?! Oh yeah, of course! PASS A LAW.

I'm sorry... but I hadn't realized that it wasn't *my* job to say NO to my kids anymore. Apparently not, since "it's tough to hold the line in the grocery store against the piercing whines of little ones."

Tough? Ooooohhh... You mean that when something is TOUGH I can just relinquish my responsibility to do anything about it and cede it to the *government*?!

Awww man!! This is just TOO awesome!

I am going to LOVE having the government get THEIR asses out of bed at 6:30 every morning and come manage the whole "getting ready for school" process. And of course, after they drop Kiddo off, they're gonna come back and fold this HUGE pile of laundry that's built up because I've been running around taking care of the rest of my life, right? And if feeding my kids the right kind of thing is what's important, I KNOW they're going to manage to get to the store without depriving the kids of their naps, and then come home and cook it all up into a nutritious meal.

It's not terribly hard work, but managing to balance all these things while maintaining some semblance of my own identity and mental health *IS* tough. I'm glad that the government will be right here to help.

And I am SURE that Hubby would appreciate someone coming to fill in for him at least part of his 14-16 hour workday. 'Cause that's what's tough on him.
















But... wait. You mean that they AREN'T coming to do that? But I thought that when the going got tough, the government was supposed to pass a law...

Hmmm.

You know, maybe I should work on that thing about learning how to say NO to my children when they want things that are bad for them. 'Cause it starts out with TV (of course, which is what the law is all about), moves along to junk food, pretty soon before you know it, it's scanty clothing and whorish makeup and unfettered/unsupervised access to the internet, unlimited curfews, and endless amounts of pocket cash to go out and do lordknowswhat with.

On the other hand, I could just go with the easy way out and vote "liberal" -- Oops. Sorry. I mean "progressive", of *course*. I mean, they'll ALWAYS do the right thing to protect my kids, particularly when it comes to telling them "NO," won't they?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Right Problem, Wrong Solution More

Right Problem, Wrong Solution

Comments Filter:
  • There was once a time that Americans could say to kids "Be good and you could grow up to be the president"
    Now they can say "Be good or you'll grow up to be like the President"
    • Well that was a pointless post. But from a person who Nicks with Fidel one would expect you'd like a NannyState.

      B, of course you are right. The Government does NOT need to be involved in parenting.
      • Well that was a pointless post.

        (1) He's not an American. (2) He's not even in the U.S.

        On the other hand, if my kids grew up to be like Clinton, I'd beat them like a drum. I don't care how old they are.

        The Government does NOT need to be involved in parenting.

        I think you'll notice that I agree completely, from the hugely-long diatribe/commentary I just posted. :)

        • On the other hand, if my kids grew up to be like Clinton, I'd beat them like a drum. I don't care how old they are.

          I dunno; Clinton is about a representative sample.
          This violent ideation towards your offspring...very unhealthy, Mr. Timex. Are you, yourself, a victim? We must send Anderson Cooper and a palate o' pills to your location, so that he can empathize with you in modern, progressive, medicated comfort.
          Modern US culture wrestles with a paradox: how do we make any statements in favor of "what ou

          • This violent ideation towards your offspring...very unhealthy, Mr. Timex. Are you, yourself, a victim?

            This judgemental attitude is exactly why I get extremely offended when people accuse me of being "politically correct".

            First, I think you're out of bounds with your "unhealthy" comment. I am a firm believer in spanking, but I use it as a last resort. I prefer to adhere to the "punishment must fit the crime" stance. When my children are adults, they will be too old for spanking... ...in theory, anyway...
            • Troll Tuesday was two days ago. Lighten up.
              Fair enough.
              I apologize: I thought I was making a dry remark about the shallowness of contemporary American culture, and the attempt backfired horribly. Please excuse me.
              Anderson Cooper is the MSNBC fellow who has been accused of "promiscuous empathy" (I think it was on Slate). Again, the point was to mock contemporary American culture, not you yourself, in the slightest.
              • Fair enough.
                I apologize

                You sent an email to me privately about this (the apology) and I replied telling you that I accepted it. Since you also apologized publicly, it's worth stating that here, as well.

                I also apologized for coming across a bit harsh in my reply. I hope you can accept that. I was a bit peeved about the response, and I don't think that my reaction was apropriate. I leave that for you to decide.

                Anderson Cooper is the MSNBC fellow who has been accused of "promiscuous empathy" (I think it w
                • I also apologized for coming across a bit harsh in my reply. I hope you can accept that. I was a bit peeved about the response, and I don't think that my reaction was apropriate. I leave that for you to decide.
                  Done deal: no blood, no foul.
                  I'm taking it as a rather inexpensive lesson in Unintended Consequences.
                  Got to be less glib in the future.
                  Thanks,
                  Chris
  • First off: Massachusetts is "CONSUMER-FRIENDLY"?!?!

    Depends. People in Massachusetts (except for yours truly) seem to tend toward Politically Correct... ...expecially around Newton. I've been through there at lunch hour, only to find some loony-tune whackos staging a Pro-U.N. rally. The idiots. But, I digress.

    Yeah, our kids are fat -- and getting fatter. They're not playing outside enough and getting enough exercise, and they're eating a bunch of crap. So what does the NYTimes propose as the solution?!

    • A quick aside before my main comment:

      I've heard enough stories from my mother about what she used to pull (wearing jeans under her skirt, then taking the skirt off when she got out of sight of the house, etc)... If my boys felt the need for this, then we'd have to talk about things. In the end, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

      Enquiring minds want to know - what WOULD you say if your boys were wearing jeans under their skirts :-)

      Okay, on to the "main event":

      We pass laws because:

      • un
      • we realize that as a society, it is in our best interest to lend assistance rather than place the burden completely on the individual;

        There's assistance, and then there's eliminating consequences for stupid choices. You don't let your toddler stick his hands in the oven, but you don't put him in a sling to stop him ever falling down either.

        The problem is, our blinkered political system here in the states reduces all solutions to one extreme or the other instead of actually finding a common sense path betw

  • I think the point of these laws is to deal with parents that don't realise they should be saying no.

    I don't really support either the law or the following concept but I throw this out as an idea: Someone complaining that making murder illegal was insulting because they know that killing is wrong while completely different does run the formula of "Making laws to deal with X is wrong because I already can handle X"

    While laws generally cover everyone they generally are designed with particular people in min

    • I think the point of these laws is to deal with parents that don't realise they should be saying no.

      As long as there is no abuse involved, why should the government interfere in the rights of free men to raise their children as they see fit? Your analogy with murder and other crimes is falacious, as laws against murder exist not to establish punishment for the crime, but to standardize it. In the absense of laws against murder, rape, and burglary, I can guarantee that there will be punishment meted out aga
      • We should not presume that the government - of which we are part - knows more than the individual how to properly raise their children.

        The problem is that "the individual" doesn't exist. I think it's pretty obvious that not everyone is a capable parent.

        I will concede your points about murder but I still stand by the concept that not every law is there to deal with everyone and that sometimes it takes a law for some people realise what is considered acceptable.

        • I will grant that there are unfit parents. However, I do not believe that the proper course of action is to penalize, or inconvenience the fit from the unfit. Society can put pressure on unacceptable behaviour without criminalizing it. In the United States, so long as you do not incite people to violence, you can say whatever you'd like. That means that people who are unfit to speak are still free to. Society discriminates against people like David Duke, without there being legal controls on what he can say
  • Great JE, Bethanie.

    My wife and I are planning to have our first within a year or so, and let me tell you, out of everything I've ever done, nothing scares me more than the thought of me being a father. I hold the opportunity in my humble hands to help my child either grow up to be well-adjusted or totally messed up.

    I like reading your posts on parenting because I always try to gleam pieces of insight from them. Although I realize my kids might be nothing at all like yours, and I'll have to parent in a tot
  • Sometimes I feel like couples have kids cause its the 'in' thing to do. They see someone elses baby and think its all the greatest things in the world afterward (just costs a little money).

    I really, really wish the only law they'd pass is a requirement to get a license to breed.

    And while I'm ranting, Hollywood is a buncha greedy asses. How many 40+ year olds are having their first child? How many mid-40s? How many 50+'s?
    Christ, people, you have to parent until at least 18! Chasing around a 4 year
    • I second the "license to breed" law. In general I say leave people alone, but having kids not only impacts the parents, but the rest of society as well. Having kids (without a clue/too young/etc) realllly impacts society in bad ways. Oh and we need mandatory birth control until you get your license :-) (yeah that would go over well in this country)
    • Sometimes I feel like couples have kids cause its the 'in' thing to do

      It's more than the 'in' thing to do. It's the expectation. More often than not, it's the parents of the aforementioned baby that are touting kidlets* as the "Greatest Thing Ever, and when are you going to have some?"

      For most people, it takes conscious thought and effort to not have a kid. If you just kind of go with the flow, do what you're supposed to do when you're supposed to do it...you end up with a couple of kids that didn't come
  • I doubt many people who vote for a law like this think they are the kind of parent who would need the law. It's those OTHER irresponsible parents that the law is really there for. Or, we should say, it's there to help the poor little children with irresponsible parents. Except, if a parent really is irresponsible and caring, how much difference is a law going to make? Absolutely none unless they "get caught" breaking it.

    You know, I was just talking to my daughter yesterday about the whole MySpace thing
  • We had 1800 (6 o clock) cartoons on ONE channel, mostly anime imported from Japan. We had TWO TV channels and one was propaganda ONLY, so that meant we had news, cartoons and movies ONLY... no commercials, but the anime programming was superb (in fact I saw Space Firebird BEFORE it came to the USA, AND it was UNCUT... it even had the nice sex scene you won't see on the USA DVD edition... yep... strangely, I'm neither a child molester, nor a communist dictator... I did grow up to understand that being a res
  • Also three state statutes, a federal regulation or five, and the FCC to raise a child.

    Or, you could just try imparting some discipline and restraint on your children, but then who will you sue? (Right now I'm a big fan of Playhouse Disney and it's lack of commercials for our little-one's tv time.)

Slashdot Top Deals

Your computer account is overdrawn. Please see Big Brother.

Close