Kellogg and Nickelodeon are sued for promoting junk food

[Charlie Brown]

http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=38717

ACTIVIST GROUPS AND PARENTS SAID they intend to file suit against Viacom for ads on Nickelodeon promoting foods that are harmful to kids.

The suit, to be filed in a Massachusetts court, will also charge cereal giant Kellogg with marketing foods to children that are low on nutrients and high in sugar and health risks.

The plaintiffs want the court to block the companies from promoting the foods on platforms where children under the age of eight account for at least 15 percent of the audience, plus halt marketing via Web sites, toy giveaways, and other tactics.

The plaintiffs are the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, and two Massachusetts parents.

[fortyfeetunder]

1. Activists and parents : Sorry, Wrong approach

Cut the #+&&@% TV off!!!!

[brainshrub]

4. Yup.

All it's going to do is make the court system look bad.

Stop going to McDonald's, and make them eat some fruit.

[KittyWampus]

7. What the FUCK! This Shit Is In The Schools. What is WRONG with DU'ers

Americans are being mindfucked and you blame the victims?

The schools can't pay for sports cause the corporations don't pay taxes... but they bribe the schools with sporting equipement if they'll serve their SHIT.

Once again, I stand vindicated. I predicted these lawsuits were coming down the pike with the bullshit articles posted on how Americans were now happy being fat and living longer being fat.

Once again I was correct.

Oh, and if you REALLY gave a shit about Justice you'd realise that this garbage contains corn syrup which leads to obestity/diabetes. They put corn syrup in crap they didn't used to. It's addictive, it causes physical reactions in the brains. And it also desensitizes your taste buds to regular food. All the while the Junk Food Corps. KNEW all this and intentionally put corn syrup in their food. Then they figured out how to market this crap to CHILDREN.

I suppose you support Big Tobacco too?

:puke:

This isn't a matter of "Personal Responsibility". It's a matter of Corporate Accountability. They pollute our airwaves and our bodies.

But I guess you are too fucking SMART to fall for any of that...

[pop goes the weasel]

15. Yeah, I blame Americans on this

They aren't victims; they are perpetrators of self-abuse.

The general public indulges children's demands and uses television as a babysitter--I think they do it out of guilt for all the time the kids are sat in front of the TV instead of outside playing with their parents.

It's easy to defeat the advertisers in your own home. All you have to do is say "no." Worked great for me. My kid was reading labels and doing price comparisons along with me by the time she was in third grade. We successfully passed through the Rainbow Brite, My Pretty Pony, Transformer, GI Joe, Smurfs era with only one box of nasty cereal that was thrown out after one bite. If parents exercise control over what they feed their preschoolers, by the time the kid is old enough to be hit with peer pressure, they will have no taste for corn-syrupy food coloring pellets.

[reprobate]

31. Parent's fault, yes. But also THEIR parents fault.

The parents of grade school children of today were raised by parents who were so permissive that their children didn't learn anything about discipline and control. Anything was OK so long as it felt good.

Well, that attitude is coming back to bite us in he ass. A recent article right here on DU stated that one in eight New Yorkers had type two diabetes. In some Native American populations it's more like one in two.

If there were two things I would drum into the head of every American they would be:

1. YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT!


2. Corporations are NOT your friends. They'll watch you die slowly for an extra penny of profit from the shit they peddle with lies and deception.

[seriousstan]

18. It is not bribery to offer money for a sole distribution contract.

Nobody has a right to anybody else's money. If you want my money you dance to my music.

[KittyWampus]

25. When schools are underfunded due to corporations not paying taxes

as states give them tax incentives to move into an area?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

33. Alcohol is bad news too, so bring back Prohibition.

That went REALLY well, didn't it?

"Americans are being mindfucked." Yeah, but on the whole we LIKE it.

They're not going against the products, they're suing for advertising. Unless the ads are misleading, they have no case - First Amendment. Sorry. Just because the kids want it doesn't mean you HAVE to fucking buy it for them. My kid eats healthy, (even though I don't - I can make my own choices, thank you), because he can't choose for himself. Giving your kids that shit is child abuse.

And since "personal responsibility" isn't at play here (according to the above post), the we should ban naughty Internet sites that kids could see, too. And thank God for the FCC!

[KittyWampus]

42. No one mentioned making junk food illegal. This is about MARKETING

especially marketing to CHILDREN.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

50. According to your argument, it SHOULD be illegal.

You say that it's addictive, and they do it intentionally. The mention of the marketing to kids sounds like showing how evil the companies are.

You even say "especially" marketing to children. So the product should be legal, but can't be advertised? Cigarettes aren't on TV, but they ARE allowed to market them.

I agree that children should be protected, but there are limits. Should EVERYTHING be childproofed? Like, for instance, the Internet? Kids can see some bad stuff on there, and apparently parents can't be bothered to supervise. Just like they're apparently powerless against their kids asking for stuff that isn't good for them. And as far as kids going behind the parents' backs - guess what? Taking away the marketing to kids ain't gonna help. As you say, it's addictive. The only way to stop it is to ban it legally. And that's out of the question. So let's just educate everyone about how bad these products are, and let the decisions be up to them.

[Idioteque]

39. I'm in high school and I love my junk food.

Sorry, if you don't like the stuff, don't buy it for yourself or your kids.

[GrumpyGreg]

2. Makes me ashamed to be from Massachusetts.

I had kids. I bought the food. I didn't buy junk food.

End of subject.

[KittyWampus]

10. Were McDonald's And Vending Machines In The Schools?

I love how DU'ers start playing the personal accountabiltiy game when it comes to food. As if McDonalds and Coke don't bribe schools to put their crap in the schools.

As if that shit wasn't ubitquitious.

AS if that shit wasn't being advertised to CHILDREN.

Tell me, do you know anything about how other countries regulate advertising to children?

Do you know anything at all about how advertising works?

And if you think your kids didn't get that crap when they were growing up... you might as well know now they were sneaking it behind your backs.

[GrumpyGreg]

12. This lawsuit is about advertising,not what's in school lunchrooms.

Kids have been subjected to junk food advertising for many years and the parents shouldn't buy it. Easy solution.

As far as sneaking behind my back and eating it,of course they did,but they never got it at home. They also sneaked drinks,tried cigarettes and smoked pot but they never got that at home either.

These Massachusetts parents have too much time on their hands.

[KittyWampus]

27. Junk in Schools isn't a covert marketing campaign? LOL!

And it's interesting how DU'ers take the Nancy Reagan approach here.

"Just Say No" to drugs.

And apparently are totally fine with stuff like advertising products to children that, when consumed, leads to disease and addiction.

Joe Camel and cigarette ads aimed at kids?

No problem.

[depakid]

44. deleted- wrong space

[dddem]

3. Campaign for a commercial free childhood?

Have these people ever heard of Public Television? My kids are older now, but when they were young enough to be so strongly influenced by the things they saw on television, they watched Sesame Street and (ugh) Barney. And they watched with me. By the time they were old enough for Nickelodeon, I was watching Sponge Bob right along with them. And I said no to a lot of stuff. They lived throught it!
It's not healthy to shield kids from too much, they grow up being afraid of things they don't know, and then they become close minded republicans. So I guess it boils down to choosing the lesser of two evils - physically less healthy, or emotionally and mentally less healthy. I choose physically less healthy - heck, grab some cocoa puffs, then go for a walk - it'll balance out!

[LeftyMom]

5. There are commercials on PBS now

I stopped letting my son watch PBS kids after he threw a screaming shitfit going past McDonald's one day. We're vegan, he's never been there and can't eat anything on thier menu except soda (if they have a caffine-free soda with no food color,) but the commercials (PBS calls them something else, but that's what they are) on PBS had convinced him it was the coolest place ever and he really wanted to go.

That's why marketing to young kids is so dangerous, they have no way to filter the good info from the crap and commercials can convince them to want anything.

[dddem]

9. evidently, it's been a while for me and pbs.

I recall Juicy Juice before the Arthur program, but that's it. And although I can appreciate what you are saying about the danger of marketing to kids, with all due respect, there's a lot of dangerous stuff for kids, and it's our job as parents to make those decisions. I wouldn't recommend doing away with Comet cleanser or Advil pain reliever, and I keep them in my house, but I make sure my kids understand that not everything in the world is theirs for the taking.
As far as "screaming Shitfits", I can relate (boy, can I relate!), but most kids act out due to tiredness, rather than deprivation. And if it's any consolation, most of the time, they outgrow it!

[LeftyMom]

13. It was over quickly

all it really took was explaining that the "food" there was hurt cows (he doesn't really understand death yet) and he lost interest. Of course I won't get him a drive-thru cheeseburger, a box ofsuger frosted cocoa bombs or a GI Joe, but he deserves a childhood without marketing for such crap or fights with me over getting it.

I really object to the idea that preschoolers are a consumer demographic and subject to marketing. I do my best to shelter him from that stuff until he's old enough to reason (we got directv to get some commercial free kids channels and a tivo box so we can skip commercials on the rest, we watch videos instead sometimes, etc) but many parents don't have the time or energy to do so, let alone tell the kids no and stage a big argument in Safeway when it's so much easier to throw the boox of sugar frosted air cereal with the disney-tie in toy inside in thier cart.

[dddem]

29. I understand your sentiment, and I don't disagree

that it's a struggle sometimes, and I think you made a good point when you said that many parents don't have the time or energy to shelter their kids from things they don't approve of. Unfortunately, I have seen that all too often, and I believe that's what really needs to be addressed. Parents NEED to find the time and energy to raise their children. Kids are so worthy and deserving of their parents time and energy.
Please let me give you an example; my issue, as the mother of 2 girls, is fashion trends. I was shocked to find that pretty much once they get out of toddler clothes, the go right into junior slut-wear, and I've had to have many a discussion with my girls about how different families have different rules, and democracy ends at my doorstep! My daughter's 3rd grade teacher sported a belly-button ring, a tattoo, and wore very trendy , junior style clothes. A lot of the parents thought she was inappropriate, and maybe she was. However, she was a good teacher, who my daughter adored, and I learned a long time ago that I can't control what others do (trust me, I tried). I also don't want my children to judge people by how they look, so I couldn't really gripe about the teacher; but I did emphasize that 8 year old girls need to dress differently than grown-ups, and until she's of legal age, she is my responsibility, and unfortunately, she has to go along with what I want. I pick my battles, but once I decide what I'm going to fight, I don't back down or give in - I think that's where the time and energy issue comes in. And I don't know if you can appreciate my position, since you have a boy, but it used to frustrate me that my job wasn't being made any easier by the people who design children's clothes! It is a hard job to go against what kids perceive to be "what everyone else is doing, or what everyone else has", but I remember our parents doing it, and we should be too. It IS a free country, and we have the obligation to respect other peoples rights while doing our part to influence our children to "use their powers for good"!
Sure it would be nice if everyone felt the way we do, and had the same values and ideals, but isn't great that we live in a country where it's okay NOT to? That, in my opinion, is where our efforts should be focused and what we should be teaching our children.
Peace.

[pop goes the weasel]

40. completely with you on the clothes

Parents of boys have no idea what an ordeal it can be to find age-appropriate clothing for young girls. Especially if the girl is tall or starting puberty early (when it becomes even more important that she dress her age and not her size) it is hard to find clothing that's child-sturdy, modest, fits, and is still fashionable enough that she won't be ridiculed.

I am so glad those days are behind me! The heaps of clothes on the dressing room floor, the tears, the days spent looking for one acceptable pair of pants....

[laundry_queen]

41. I can relate to the clothes problem.

We've resorted to high end clothing to get 'normal' but not 'slutty' looking clothes for my young girls. Frightening what's out there for girls in the 5-12 age group. We end up spending too much on clothes but at least my girls aren't walking around looking like they're 16 at 8 years old.

I agree also with the sentiment that parents need to find the time and energy to raise their kids. Although I'd could go on and on about how isolated today's nuclear family is and with both parents working with no additional family support or neighborhood network (I grew up where if your parents had to go somewhere, they could just make you pop over at the next door neighbor's house, and they felt free to do the same, it's just not like that now). it makes it much more difficult than in the past! Add all the extra advertising and actual research the advertising companies do just to see what works best to brainwash our children, it's a far more monumental task protecting our kids than in generations past.

[killbotfactory]

6. Should companies be allowed to market directly to kids?

They have gangs of psychologists who determine how best to get the kid to nag their parents for their product. Is that crossing the line? We don't tolerate cigarettes advertising to children, why junk food, when it can be quite addictive or just as dangerous?

[KittyWampus]

11. Thank You! I Cannot Believe It Took This Long For Someone To Make

sense.

[LostinVA]

22. Excellent point, and one I've never thought of

I agree, marketing specifically directed at children shouldn't be allowed. JUnk food disguised as real food is destroying America's youth. And, parents certainly don't need someone pushing their kids towards this stuff any more than necessary.

[hughee99]

8. How does an 8 year old

go out and buy junk food? How many 8 year olds are in charge of managing their own diet? So the problem is that the commercials are making the kids want the food... we'll it's the PARENTS that are buying it. If they want to encourage children to eat healthier, it's the parents they should be concentrating on.

From the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood press release
“Their marketing tactics are designed to convince kids that everything they hear from their parents about food is wrong. It’s a multimedia brainwashing and reeducation campaign—and a disease-promoting one at that. And parents are fed up.”

Parents are fed up? They're the one's buying the crap!

[onenote]

16. Thank you,

[seriousstan]

19. agreed

[KittyWampus]

23. Really? This Shit Is In The SCHOOL SYSTEM. They Bribe Schools

with sports equipment the schools can't afford to put their crap/vending machines in schools.

So basically, you are pulling a Nancy Reagan. "Just Say No", eh?

You better take some time to research how other countries care enough about their children to protect them from aggressive, manipulative advertising.

So you don't let your kids eat the stuff. They are still exposed to it from birth in tv, movies, radio, magazines, buses, billboards. And they WILL get it from friends... and buy it behind your back.

And also research human's, and especially children's, genetic predelection for SWEET tasting food.

Then do some research at the grocery store and find food that does NOT contain corn syrup, heavy amounts of sodium, and/or fat. It won't be easy, you'll have to spend a lot of time you don't have reading every label... and come home with stuff that is either from the natural food section (read expensive) or requires longer preperation time.

Yes, parents have a job to do. But DU'ers need to get off their smug, sanctimoniuos high horse and realise the extent that junk food corporations KNOWINGLY put unhealthy and addictive crap into their products and then use marketing that saturates our public square.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

35. THEN HOLD THE SCHOOLS RESPONSIBLE!

Demand a bond election, a property tax increase, whatever it takes to fund the schools properly. Then the corporate reps can't pull this shit.

Or ban the corporate deals with schools. Simple.

The "protect the children" idea is good on the surface, but it results in things like FCC and Internet censorship too.

Again, if the companies put out bad products, then sue them for that. Don't buy it then whine about how bad it is. Don't buy pre-packaged food. Actually PREPARE meals! Don't pass up nutrition in favor of convenience, then blame the people who put it there.

I avoid the crap for my kids (hell, he's 6 and has never had caffeine), but I do allow an occasional cookie or some candy as a treat. He's learning moderation (something I wasn't taught, but somehow manage anyway).

[Deja Q]

47. Then regulate the mandates. Allow the people to get involved.

That's the point; it's even said on the Constitution, FOR the people to get involved.

THAT is what makes a more perfect union. Along with common sense, but in 1784 nobody was brainwashed by limpy little cartoon kitties doing a colorful jig and singing a song next to a bunch of real 10 year olds as if it's cool that all of them eat and do the same things... the lemming principle at work too. (it's also, and inaccurately, known as the "herd principle" - after all, "lemmings" do the same things. A herd is technically the strongest male with all the females it wants, to ensure ideal breeding conditions.)

What we do have is selling out to the highest bidder, often the same handful of folks who have by far the most money. That's a plutocratic oligarchy!

So maybe the upcoming crash is a GOOD thing. We've all whined about peoples' indolence and stupidity. Well, something's going to change all that. It can't be stopped, so you've got to adapt. The alternative isn't pretty. And I am going to adapt as best I can.

[Scooter24]

14. The suit should be tossed.

I myself am a very fit young man. I exercise and try to watch what I eat as much as possible, however I do eat junk food from time to time. But the key is that I control how much of it I consume. Candy and junk food might not be the healthiest choices of food, but are hardly a life-threatening problem if consumed in moderation and with proper exercise. My parents raised me to know what is healthy and what is not.

I cannot blame a company whose marketing ads generate interest in a legal product even if its among children. It should be the responsibility of the parents to regulate their child's eating and exercise habits not the company.

This lawsuit will be tossed just like the McDonald's lawsuit. Corporate responsibility should is fine if we were talking about product liability but nobody forced these parents to buy the products for their children. Ultimately, personal responsibility holds as precedent in these cases. Blaming the company for advertising to children and making them want their products are not a crime when the products themselves are perfectly legal. The blame should lie solely on the parents who are the buyers. They shouldn't be so quick to blame others for their own irresponsibility.

[KittyWampus]

24. So you had no problem with Joe Camel & tobacco ads aimed at kids?

[Scooter24]

26. Is it legal for kids to smoke?

I think that's the relevant question here.

My response was aimed at legal products like cereal and candy.

[KansDem]

28. It's illegal to sell kids tobacco...

As for it being illegal for them to smoke, I don't know. Can a 10-year old be arrested for puffing on a cigar?

After all, the 18th amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol:

Amendment XVIII

Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.
The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Doesn't say anything about actually drinking hooch.

If I recall correctly, the tobacco lawsuits dealt with the manufacturing of known addictive products, and the fact that the tobacco CEOS went before Congress and lied under oath about not knowing their products were addictive when their own internal memos said otherwise, didn't do much to bolster their defense.

I watched "Super Size Me" a couple of weeks ago. I have no doubt that McDonald's or the rest of the fast-food corporations are manufacturing junk for the world to eat. Is it addictive though? The documentary suggests out that high levels of sugar and caffeine (and sodium?) tend to lead to a kind of "high," and I surmised that this might be appealing to consumers. But there was no "smoking gun" like with the tobacco lawsuits. But it doesn't really matter anyway. The documentary points out that in 2002 (2001?) the GOP Congress, acting no doubt on whining from corporate executives in the wake of the tobacco lawsuits, passed legislation to prohibit the suing of fast-food companies that market an unhealthy product. So even if, say for example, internal McDonald's memos show that execs conspired to load their products with hereunto unknown, known addictive ingredients, we still couldn't sue them.

[depakid]

49. So totally off base

But assuming your narrow minded postion prevails- you know what I'd advocate? A nice fat sin tax on these "legal products" marketed to kids with no cognitive ability to protect themselves.

That at least would recoup the MASSIVE externalized costs that EVERYONE has to bear for this reprehensible corporate behavior.

Want "personal Responsibility?" Then how about a little "corporate responsibility" or at least "accountabilty."

[NaturalHigh]

17. Are these people stupid or just trying to make a buck?

I mean, c'mon now. I've heard of some dumbass lawsuits, but this one just about takes the cake.

[0007]

20. Stupid and making money is the theme for today.

[Moosepoop]

21. Protect the kiddies from advertising!!!

That'll sure be in their best interest in learning how to see through marketing tactics as adults. :eyes:

How about parents using advertising of this type to educate their kids, rather than throw them out there at 18 or so, completely unprepared for the onslaught of advertising they will be deluged with then?

Or would that be too much work?

[Shine]

30. How ridiculous. Once again, parents abdicating their own

responsibility in the matter. Just turn the damn TV OFF!!!

Duh. :eyes:

[Rufus T. Firefly]

32. Yes, because the children are the ones buying the cereal.

Not the parents. Take some f**king responsibility.

THIS kind of crap is what the right-wing uses to make people on the left look ridiculous.

[RSchewe]

34. Anyone see "Super Size Me", they explain how this affects schools...

it has a lot to do with the power of the food lobbyists. There is a lot of blame to go around but I think the influence and power of the food lobbyists tend to go a little to far at the expense of the health of kids.

Check the movie out if you get a chance, it is towards the end if I remember correctly.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

36. I've seen the movie.

Loved it. Great story. Yet I still eat Big Macs on occasion, and I don't blame McDonald's.

If we can stop the marketing to kids, great. But a parent who caves in when the kid whines about wanting a Happy Meal is setting a HORRIBLE example for the child. It's abuse, because it's screwing up the kid's development. They think they can always get what they want, then they get into the real world and can't handle it. Then drugs, drink, etc. because all that matters is that THEY feel good.

[WindRavenX]

37. I think a lot of DUers are missing the point RE: schools and junk food

A lot of DUers in this thread are screaming that it's the parents responsibility to 1)turn off the TV where young kids have access to junk food advertising and 2) don't buy the advertised junk food

Although both points are valid and should be practiced by any responsible parent, a lot of DUers are missing how schools fit in here.

In school, kids 1)aren't able to have their food choices approved by their parents 2) often little or no access to good food at all

Literally, kids are in school with NO GOOD FOOD choice availible. Food is usually heavily processed, fried, and all are extremely calorie dense.

And then there is the matter of soft drink/candy machines. Kids buy that even if the parents tell them not to, or even if they don't give them money.

I don't think people realize how big of a problem this is. It's an area where adults can't control kids' diet.

Although many schools are now offering more healthy alternatives, it's something that's still very much correlated with the wealth of the school-- the more money the school has, the better the kids eat. This isn't anything new either, because this trend is observed more generally in America as well. The poor continue to have shitty food, and the wealthier can usually afford to eat better.

So while on the surface, this may seem like a dumb lawsuit, the intentions are just. The marketing has made it so that kids are being 1) programmed to eat shit 2) in enviroments where adults can't control their kids, like schools, kids have no options but the poison that they've been brainwashed to want.

[dddem]

43. I live in a Massachusetts town, not wealthy by a long shot,

and we do not have soda or junk food vending machines in the cafeterias. Water machines that sell powerade is the only thing besides the milk or juice that comes with the lunch. As far as kids buying the crap, there is an easy solution that I'm trying to convince the middle schools to implement: lunch tickets. They offer them in elementary school, and as a parent, I love it! Instead of scrounging for $1.00's every day, or trusting a little kid with a larger denomination bill, once a week I have the option to purchase tickets (for the week, or the whole month). This way, my daughter has to buy lunch only - no ice cream or extra's. Is it all natural or gourmet? No, but it's healthy, and you can't put a ticket in a vending machine!

[HuffleClaw]

38. what a complete waste of time

suuuuuure. its THEIR fault that people buy their products. and just what the hell is the 'Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood' anyways?

[depakid]

45. A lot of Du'rs can't see beyond the end of their noses

on this issue- which makes them PART OF THE PROBLEM. The whole "personal" or "parental" responsibility "arguments" are a bunch of narrow minded libertarian garbage that has little basis in the reality of the situation.

Advertisers spend 100s of millions of dollars and use child psychiatrists to hook kids on unhealthy products that are major causes of the diabetes epidemic in theis country. They're nothing less than parasites. Kids at these stages of cognitive development have no defenses against the sophisticated and insidious marketing techniques these corporations develop.

Try reading the recent NY Times series on diabetes, and you'll see just how much Viacom and others externalize their costs onto society- and wreck young lives in the process.

http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=diabetes&srchst=nyt&d=&o=&v=&c=&sort=newest&n=10&dp=0&daterange=full&frow=19their

If it were up to me- I'd go so far as to bankrupt the bastards if they persist in this willful behavior after a court judgment is leveled against them.

[Deja Q]

48. .

:applause: :applause: :applause:

In some ways, I am libertarian. In concept. I like learning new things and doing what I can to support myself (partly because I've got nobody else TO rely on; you humans are a feckless lot and wilfully chose the worst sorts of people to be with... 500 lounge threads revolving around why people like to be with utter jerks can't be wrong...) But you are spot-on with your analysis.

Unfortunately, ours is a country that's by, of, and for the corporation. Common sense laws don't work. And those being made and given a lebel of 'common sense', when looked at, seem less sensical than how they were pitched. The bankruptcy 'reform' coming to mind, oddly.

[Deja Q]

46. Those in power should have responsibility.

No complaints from me on this. If the "food" companies want to peddle processed sugar to our kids and tempt them with colorful animals printed on the boxes, who should be complaining when Lil Miss Normal 8 Year Old has a gut that's twice the size of mine (and I'm only 33 with a physiological impairment)?!

Hell, I saw GUMMY BEAR VITAMINS in the pill section too. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Overpriced, nothing but friggin' SUGAR, things just get worse and worse and worse.

And, BTW, why the frig do children need vitamin pills anyway? Won't they eat real food, or be taught how to eat it? I had to, and it wasn't tasty at times! But I sure as frick appreciate it today!!