Lawsuit obesity issues at the kid level

[collwen]

Nickelodeon and Kellogg to be sued for promoting junk food to kids

I heard a little about this on the radio before getting into work. Basically, a consumer group and some parents are putting together a lawsuit against Nickelodeon and Kellogg to try to stop marketing junk food (and other low nutrition foods like sugary cereals) in venues (like Nickelodeon) where most of the audience are kids. Since they're filing in the lawsuit in Massachusetts, they have to notify the company 30 days in advance of filing.

While I understand that more kids are getting fat (speaking as someone who was one of the fat kids in school), I don' t think that a lawsuit is the best way to deal with it.

Parents have a responsibility to buy and serve healthy foods to their children and teach them about good nutrition. Parents also need to learn how to not to give into a child's demands for junk food, or if they do give in to limit the amount that the child has. Parents also need to encourage exercise, and lead by example in all healthy habits.

I also understand that it's hard to tell a kid no when they go to the store and see a box of super sugary cereal or Pop Tarts with Spongebob Squarepants on the front and it's their favorite show and they're begging for it.

But this food isn't illegal. Selling it to (or giving it to) kids is legal (unlike tobacco products and alcohol). And the junk food for kids market is there and strong and companies won't really change until the demand goes down (by parents not buying the product) and the demand for healthier kid-oriented food grows.

Pressuring them with a lawsuit is only going to encourage them to get creative in how they continue working the junk food for kids market and not solve the underlying issues..

Comments

[rtreesbane.livejournal.com]

There's a reason why I don't let the kids watch Nikelodeon... Not because of the adds, but because of teh shows. I miss "You can't do that on Television" and "Danger Mouse". Now, they watch PBS kids where the worst 'snack' food that is advertised is "Danimals yogurt".

We're at an age where NO ONE is required to take personal responsability for their actions. Just sue someone else because they told you to do it and we can't think enough without a lawyer there saying "Hey, that's stupid!"

[collwen.livejournal.com]

I miss "You Can't Do That On Television" too. That was a good show.

Personal responsibility seems to be a rare commodity these days.

[auntiegrizelda.livejournal.com]

I miss shows like "You Can't Do That on Television" too. Now all the shows are the same. Considering the crap on Nickelodeon and even the Disney Channel, I wouldn't let any kids I had (which are currently non existent and will hopefully stay non existent for a good while) watch it. They'd get better entertainment from the Discovery Channel (okay, maybe that's just me hoping that any kids I ever have turn out to be geeks like me).

And it's just sad that we live in a society that has that thought process. Course, the celebrity role models out there for kids teach them a lot about how anything can be fixed with a law suit or something quick.

[collwen.livejournal.com]

PBS Kids isn't bad either (I end up seeing a little of it at times when I'm waiting for one of the news programs to come on and it's in that between time just before it starts).

PBS Kids, Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, Food Network (ok, so the food isn't always the most balanced, but it's interesting and I'd be watching it anyway. And if you're watching a show on cake, you'd know beforehand to specify to a kid that this is treat food and not everyday food), the do it yourself shows.... there's a lot of programming out there that isn't mind numbing for kids to learn from.

That's if I have cable tv when I have kids

[auntiegrizelda.livejournal.com]

I think it also stems from the fact that people born and raised in the mid to late 70s and the very beginning of the 80s, the so called "Me Generation," are starting to have kids. And it today's society, it's never their fault that something wrong happens, it's always someone else's fault. And it's more and more parents that are going off working and just handing their kids the $5 or whatever to go to McD's or something and getting the not so great food. Hence lawsuits against McDonald's for making kids fat. It isn't so much that they don't know better (which they don't) it's because a healthy lifestyle isn't encouraged.

Growing up, my parents always tried to feed us well. My brothers and I weren't allowed to have iced tea or soda for dinner when we were young kids, those were special treats. And we were taught to *ask* for dessert after dinner. Sometimes we got a yes and sometimes we got a no, it depended on whether we ate dinner or behaved well.

Lawsuits like this just annoy me. And it's because there are too many parents out there with the idea that parenting stops when the kid starts walking and talking. Yes, companies have a responsibility cause they're marketing junk food, but parents have the ultimate say so and responsibility because they're the ones who buy the products. Oy.

[collwen.livejournal.com]

It's putting the parents' responsibility on the companies, where it doesn't belong.

Now, I can understand pressuring schools to not have junk food and soda in the cafeteria and halls. I remember bags of chips being part of the options you could get with your lunch even in elementary school (and that's something that I now see as a big problem). Schools meals should be nutritious since the schools are acting "in loco parentis".

I remember the shock of visiting my old HS and seeing Coke machines around (Coke had made a sizeable "donation" to the school). And how many schools and kid organizations (like athletic clubs) have fund-raisers where the kids are selling huge candy bars??

Granted, there is a level of "how far do we go" in regards to that. I for one wouldn't want to try to tell the Girl Scouts that they can't have their cookie sales, but then again, they have introduced lower fat and lower calorie cookies into their product line over the past few years (allowing for that parental choice thing to happen).

[auntiegrizelda.livejournal.com]

Yup, that's a good point. Parents don't want to raise their own kids anymore. It seems that it has to be the responsibility of everyone else to do it for them.

We had the chips and junk option too. Even moer so in high school. And the soda machines as well. Course, being in suburbia, we also has a 7-11 across the street from the school as well. Schools, especially more on the elemenary level, should be pressure to have more healthful snacks in school. By high school, kids know what is healthy and what isn't and can make a more active decision.

And don't get me started on the candy bar sales. I went to a Catholic, private school my entire life, which meant that every month there was a fund raiser, particularly in grammar school. It got to the point that we just took the boxes home and left them there cause it was a pain in the ass for us and our neighbors. One summer I had thought about working at the local day camp, and even the people running that wanted us to go out and sell this stuff. It's like, yes send us your children and have them be active....but make sure that they're jacked up on sugar and junk first.

I actually like that the GS have introduced lower calorie/fat cookies. Cause it's a two fold purpose. One, there's the parental choice, and two, it's like saying "Yes, you can have a snack AND be healthy about it at the same time."

[auntiero.livejournal.com]

I also understand that it's hard to tell a kid no when they go to the store and see a box of super sugary cereal or Pop Tarts with Spongebob Squarepants on the front and it's their favorite show and they're begging for it.

My folks had no problem telling us "No" when it came to junk food and sugary cereal beyond Frosted Flakes. Our breakfast foods consisted of Cherrios (regular - this was before they started introducing other flavors) or some type of egg (usually scrambled with lots of catsup) and milk with a small class of juice. There was never any junk food in the house - lots of fruit, but no junk food. I don't recall having soda in the house either. We usually drank milk or water. Sometimes we'd have juice with seltzer for a "fancy" drink. So they brought us up with a basic knowledge of "balanced meals." Unfortunately for me that didn't really stick once I was out of the house and doing my own shopping and cooking. But that wasn't my parents' fault. I'm the one making the poor food decisions. I'm getting better now, though. :)

[collwen.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately for me that didn't really stick once I was out of the house and doing my own shopping and cooking. But that wasn't my parents' fault. I'm the one making the poor food decisions. I'm getting better now, though. :)

I know that feeling- for example I got into college and found out what real butter tastes like on a regular basis instead of margarine type spreads. And then proceeded to use as much of it as I did margarine. And free refills of soda in the cafeteria (which is where I got my Mt. Dew addiction).

Now that I'm thinking more and more, some of the habits did come from my parents, but some are my own.

Pretty much, drink mixes, canned veggies, and not telling me to cut back on the margarine or the sugar on my previously unsweetened cereal were about the worst things they did for my early eating habits.

Now that I'm older and I'm on my own I've found that the real drinks (juices and fresh brewed ice tea and lemonade as opposed to mixes) taste a lot better. And with fresh veggies, you don't need as much butter/margarine because you're not masking the flavor anymore, but enhancing it and you don't need as much to do that. And I've been losing the taste for refined sugar over time (helped by actually watching how much I use).

[dwarven-brewer.livejournal.com]

It's a start. As long as they are advertised something that appears tasty & fun kids will wnat that. Yes, parents do have a repsonsibility to promote a healthy lifestyle, resist the whining & limit junk. BUT, if the advertising to children is limited (as it would be in this venue assuming the lawsuit works) kids will be less likely to go for it when they are beyond their parents control (i.e. in school). While the marketing and selling the food isn't illegal hitting companies in the wallet (read: lawsuit) is one way to get companies to change.

[collwen.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that using the courts to regulate this is the way to go. I think the impact would be greater if it came directly from the loss in sales as parents and schools get a clue instead of the courts cramming down their throats.

[dwarven-brewer.livejournal.com]

Were this a utopian society I would agree with you completely. Sadly, it is not (nor can any society ever be, but I digress) In today's society the two-pronged approach of courts and parents being parents are required to bring the corporations in-line.

[dwarven-brewer.livejournal.com]

Did I reply to this one already? Don't recall. In any event I had a recent comment to one of your posts relating to in a perfect world yes, however ... The same thing would apply here. In a perfect world companies would take note of a 'relatively' small segment of the populations buying preferences and adapt accordingly. Unfortunately, it would only be a small segment that would change their buying habits on their own. Hence, the need for the courts and a greater single financial impact to the companies.

[collwen.livejournal.com]

I think you did get this one....

[dwarven-brewer.livejournal.com]

earlyheimers on my part per chance?

[collwen.livejournal.com]

nah... just busy and mentally busy... things fall through the cracks... :)

[curlyeric.livejournal.com]

I agree that personal responsibility ( and parental responsibility ) is key here. But I think there is plenty of responsibility to go around to both the schools and the companies that are selling these products.

Do you know that they do in depth studies on how to get the kids attention, what commercials are most likley to get the kids ( or parents ) to purchanse these unhealthy items. They push the envelope to something like 20-25 minutes an hour of 15-30 second commercials designed to overstimulate and under inform about the product that they are selling. Junk food is a big portion of those commercials because the margins on the items are huge.

This does not remove the primary responsibility of the parents to make sure their chindren are healthy, but when they can't even get away from junk food at school it's unhealthy and explotive. The industry needs a good slapping upside the head and it will probably require regulation to make sure they are staying in compliance.

[collwen.livejournal.com]

I think the slap upside the head would be harsher if it came from the consumers, rather than a lawsuit.

[auntiegrizelda.livejournal.com]

Probably. I mean, you can sue someone for say (just for the sake of a round number) $1 million. For a large corporation like Company X, a million isn't so hard to recover. That's probably like, a day of sales (again for the sake of easy numbers here). And then Company X could just continue with business as usual.

But if you get people to stop buying, Company X could stand to lose say, $1 billion. Okay, now they're shakign in their boots cause that's a lot of cash. So now they've gotta re-work marketing and ad campaigns, which cost more money, and by the time they make that push to recover losses, Company X is bankrupt and parental responsibility has found it's reward in one less junk food product on the market.

Wow...economics makes sense now. Does that mean all economics is is just people taking responsibility for their own actions (gasp) instead of laying blame somewhere else?

[curlyeric.livejournal.com]

The company will not stand to loose out. The will just change names or tactics. With how large most of them are you can't even really boycot them either since you will just be paying them through higer prices on their other goods.

Short of the smaller mom+pop companies you can't really boycot sony, not will any attempt really cut into their bottom line since they will raise other prices in order to compensate.

[collwen.livejournal.com]

but the lawsuits aren't going to be as effective from a financial stance either, because these companies can stand to pay a million in a lawsuit and not even shake in their boots.

[curlyeric.livejournal.com]

The real hope from a lawsuit like this is to get either an injunction or agreement barring them from specific behaviors. I would bet that Nick will be barred from advertizing junk food items more than a specific number of times per hour.

[curlyeric.livejournal.com]

"The lawsuit seeks to stop the companies from marketing junk food when 15 percent or more of the audience is 8 years old or younger. It targets not only commercials but Web sites, toy giveaways, contests and other marketing aimed at that age group.

CSPI said it had analyzed food advertising on Nickelodeon and during Saturday-morning TV shows as well as in magazines and food packages. The majority of the food ads involving both companies were for nutrition-poor foods, CSPI said"

So they are not looking for money, but a change in practice of the stations who are targeting those younger than 8 years old. I think that it is a very worth while lawsuit and I hope they get them from such unsavory practices.

[collwen.livejournal.com]

now, can a lawsuit actually do that or would they have to get a regulation/law change to back it up?

[(Anonymous)]

The courts can do so on a case-by-cases basis where someone can prove they have been wronged or that they are likley to suceed at trial. Sweeping changes can only be done through legislation at the federal level.