Is Toucan Sam (Whole Wheat) Toast?

I imagine that in 20-25 years there will be college age students who will see old kids’ cereal ads and be amused/confused. Sort of the same way that there a few generations of folks who now find the Flintstone’s pushing Lucky Strike cigarettes to be so odd.

What I don’t understand is why now (threat’s of lawsuits aside)? There have been ads for kids’ cereal for decades. Are kids today dumber or are parents lazier?

I am a huge proponent of free speech for everyone, so my serious distaste/mistrust for commercials may seem like a contradiction - I see no reason why commercial speech shouldn't be strictly regulated. Corporate messages shouldn't be given the same protections as, say, a citizen's right to protest against the government. As far as I am concerned, the number of commercials that kids see is way more dangerous to their social and emotional development than any sex or violence they might encounter in the media - commercials are carefully-designed corporate brainwashing to make people dissatisfied with their lot in life, and always leaving people (and particularly kids) wanting more and more junk and material possessions. My kids can watch all the movies and DVDs they want, but I am not going to let them be held as a captive audience while some corporate entity convinces them that they must have a steady supply of unhealthy food and pointless toys. Kids are being increasingly targeted as a consumer demographic by corporations - to a ridiculous degree - and parents need to take steps to protect their children, either by limiting their access to media with commercials till a certain age, or by watching programs with their children so that they can discuss together about implications of what is being watched. I wouldn't be opposed to strict limitations on the amount of time that a program is allowed to advertise in any given time frame, and that the content should be controlled. Or, alternatively, parents can take advantage of all the alternative ways for their children to consume media that do not expose them to commercials.

So, let's say I keep my daughters sheltered from commercials entirely from birth to 18-years old. Will they refrain from commercials once they leave the nest? Advertising, commercials and a consumer culture are a fact of life that I don't believe is going away any time soon.

If you want to protect your kids from advertising, that's great. I wish you the best. But the pious attitude about advertising is lame. I'm reading this article on a site that's littered with advertising. I have a subscription to Time that is full of ads. I grew up on advertising as a kid. Yes, it would be grand if we all grew our own food and helped each other and didn't buy anything we didn't actually need, but that ain't happening. And then JP wouldn't have a job, either!

"My kids can watch all the movies and DVDs they want, but I am not going to let them be held as a captive audience while some corporate entity convinces them that they must have a steady supply of unhealthy food and pointless toys."

If you don't want your kids to watch commercials, that's fine. Keep them away from it, by all means. But don't delude yourself into thinking that there aren't "hidden" commercials within what they're watching. Also, don't think that they won't hear about those products from kids at school or on the playground. Instill in them the proper values and appreciation.

As for pre-Baby Einstein nostalgia: my sister hates that her son responds to strongly to Elmo, but couldn't care less when we turn on the Looney Tunes DVDs.

I guess my only problem here is that sugar is the line of distinction between good and bad. So, Frosted Flakes are safe, but something like Kellog's Fruit and Fibre gets flagged. Doesn't that seem odd? Shouldn't we take into account other factors here?

Take juice, for example. Grape juice contains a high level of vitamins, anti-oxidants, and other nutrients (some even has added fiber or calcium) and yet sales are lagging because of the high sugar content. Nevermind that that sugar content is all derived from natural sources. Now, I don't advocate filling our kids with juice, but I would argue that a glass of juice is probably healthier than a bowl of Cap'n Crunch (which is also safe under these guidelines).

I think this is nothing more than Kellogg's trying to look good especially in the face of the General Mills whole wheat move. The fear of childhood obesity has pushed parents to only focus on banishing sugar. As long as the sugar is gone, my kid is healthy. Bring on the Diet Coke!

In fact, don't be surprised if we start seeing Splenda or other sugar substitutes in these cereals as Kellog's notices sales lacking.

Of course children are exposed to ads every which way they look. Which is exactly why my family chooses to steer our kids away from their most blatant form, while still making sure they are aware and involved in enough media to be able to develop a critical awareness. I am not talking about instilling any sort of ignorance in kids, or dark-ages nonsense. Just making sure that the little ones don't spend much of their formative time watching commercials - commercials are increasingly targeting kids at younger ages, and that isn't fair to the kids.

I do, however, think that some cereal commercials should be banned for other reasons:

Lucky Charms - promote burglary

Trix rabbit commercials - promote animal cruelty

Corn Pops - Again, with the burglary

Cocoa Puffs - makes fun of the mentally unstable

Fruity/Cocoa Pebbles - Seriously, again with the burglary?

Also -

Count Chocula, FrankenBerry, BooBerry, Yummy Mummy, and Fruit Brute - er, promotes being a monster

Cookie Crisp - Stealing is fun!

Frosted Flakes - promotes trying to high-five a tiger

For those who wish to revel in cereal-fueled nostalgia, might I suggest:

"Breakfast of the Gods," an all-cereal mascots comic (including many mascots I don't even recognize).

http://www.webcomicsnation.com/poyorick/botg/toc.php

Yikes. They take away the cereal commercials and all that will be left is "Be sure to drink more Ovaltine!"

The last thing that's needed is government regulation (the "strict limitations" I assume Jen refers to) on advertising. Parents need to step up and 1) limit the number ads their children are exposed to and 2) say no to those foods their children request that they consider unhealthy. Remember "no"? It worked so well whan I was kid, and works well with mine. We should retool Nancy Reagan's anti-drug slogan and gear it toward parents: "Just say no to your kids!"

I let my 6 year old watch only channels that are advertising-free, if you don't count the fact that the shows themselves are advertisements for toy tie-ins. But again, that's where "no" comes in handy. To my knowledge she has never seen a Fruity Pebbles commercial, but she still notices the box at the supermarket. Guess what I say when she asks for it?

Then again, I ate Crunch Berries as a kid until the skin on the roof of my mouth was sandpapered off. The differece, I suppose, was as a child I rode my bike everywhere and played for 8 hours a day outside. You could eat 4,000 calories a day, but if you burned off 2,500 you wouldn't gain weight. Locking our kids up for the unsubstantiated fear of kidnappings might be part of the problem.

As for juice vs soda, sugar is sugar. Soda contains high fructose corn syrup, which is roughly half fructose and glucose, whereas juice contains fructose, glucose, and sucrose. Juice also has more calories per ounce compared with soda. Once again, the supposedly "natural" product is not always better for you. Your body also reacts to these suagrs in the same way. Complex carbs are more slowly converted into sugar; the sugars mentioned above are simple sugars that are broken down quickly by the body. At least that's my understanding of the issue. Correct me if I'm wrong. Of course juice has vitamins in it, but a good daily vitamin can help keep your child juice-free.

Bottom line: If your kids are thirsty, give them water.