consumerist.com — Tossing that box of Lucky Charms back on the shelf at the grocery store after your kid tried to sneak it into the cart is going to be a lot harder, if House Republicans have their way. They're on the side of food companies that don't want the White House telling them to stop marketing sugary cereal and junk foods to kids. President Obama's administration has proposed voluntary guidelines to keep kids from being bombarded with cartoon characters hawking junk food and other marketing attempts to get them to get you to buy them sugary and fatty foods. In order...
Jan 27, 2012 View in Crawl 4
auditortuxJan 27, 2012
I still read the Consumerist, but I have to admit that I moved them from my financial RSS feed to my political RSS feed... they don't bother to hide it anymore.
norman619Jan 27, 2012
It really doesn't matter since you are the PARENT. It always amazes me when I see parents with kids in public and the kids tells the parent what to do. That s**t never flew with my parents. Whenever my siblings or I forgot who the parent was they were quick to remind us.
MusicManGPJan 27, 2012
Though, it really does matter because advertising can be very effective, and as you put it, plenty of parents do what their kids say.
What you meant is "It really shouldn't matter."
norman619Jan 27, 2012
No it doesn't. In any household the Parent lays down the law. A properly raised child recognizes they are not the authority and can't tell the parent what to do no matter how much they wish they could. As I said, my parents made sure to remind us they make the rules and we are to follow them. They had the final say. No debates or negotiations. If you let TV do your parenting you have no business having kids.
MusicManGPJan 27, 2012
Everything you're saying doesn't change reality. You're talking about an ideal world, and it doesn't exist.
norman619Jan 27, 2012
Sorry but the REALITY is that parents are responsible for the raising of their kids.
Do us a favor and don't have kids if you really think otherwise. We have enough f**ked up kids to deal with.
SpycrabingJan 27, 2012
I get what you are saying, but what the parent can do for their kid only pertains to the parents house hold.
Imagine this scenario: A child sees an advertisement for totinoes pizza rolls or McDonalds, or whatever, and begs mommy and daddy for them. Both sternly tell the child "No, they are really bad for you and we don't want you eating them." Said child could go over a friends house, and perhaps eat them there, or at school they could get junk food (at least where I live, there are vending machines and soda machines in every god damn school nowadays.)
So yes, it is up to the parents to make sure they monitor what their kids eat, but the problem is, they can still get the junk food else where, and the parents can't really do anything about it.
MusicManGPJan 27, 2012
My point has nothing to do with what parents should be doing, which is what you're talking about. Ignore reality if you wish.
markglJan 27, 2012
No doubt. I got a beatin when I deserved one. That's why these kids are bad these days. No home training!
peppermintpigJan 27, 2012
If you're implying corporal punishment, no wonder we have a nanny state. It reflects the violent authoritarianism or emotional manipulation that plagues most families.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kamtsaJan 27, 2012
Socialists want big government? What else is new?
UnaBomberrrJan 27, 2012
Commercials with cartoons aren't making kids fat. Parents who can't tell their child no are the problem.
MusicManGPJan 27, 2012
If all parents could tell their child no then it wouldn't be a problem. So clearly, commercials can be a problem.
UnaBomberrrJan 27, 2012
it cant possibly be the dumbass parents fault right?
MusicManGPJan 27, 2012
One's not a problem without the other. This is the point you miss.
UnaBomberrrJan 27, 2012
and commercials with cartoons arent a problem without s**tty parents, it goes both ways.
MusicManGPJan 27, 2012
...that's exactly what I said.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
Let's rephrase.... House Republicans are in favor of letting consumers make their own choices instead of having politicians tell us what we should or shouldn't feed our families.
penglustJan 27, 2012
Commercials aimed at children are pure propaganda. The only reason for it is to convince children to give their parents a bunch of s**t every day. Parents can fight it but it makes their lives a whole lot harder.
It has absolutely nothing to do with choice. A parent can go to the super market and walk a f**king 100 ft isle filled with s**t any time. That does not mean they should have to put up with General Mills not giving a s**t about the health of their kids.
Quite spouting a f**king lobbyist paid for sound bite.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
"Commercials aimed at children are pure propaganda."
Lots of things are propaganda. Get over it and stop shilling for a surrogate parent.
UnaBomberrrJan 27, 2012
propaganda lol
just trying to sell a product bro
readmikenowJan 27, 2012
Wow! This is so messed up on so many levels. I love the "Make Your Child Harass You." What kind of parent is this speaking to? The "I'm a victim to my child's whining so I give them whateaver they want" type of parent? If you depend on government action to keep your child from harassing you, you don't need laws passed for you, you need to attend some parenting classes. Yes I am a parent and NO I was not harassed as it was not something I tolerated.
norman619Jan 27, 2012
"What kind of parent is this speaking to?"
The ones who have no idea how to be a parent.
peppermintpigJan 27, 2012
Your inability to say no, your trouble in obtaining a modicum of willpower in the personal life choices you make, is not a problem so great that the government must get involved and enforce your preferred flavor of dictatorship onto everyone else.
Consumerist should consider some rebranding. The Victim, or victimist would better reflect this politically angled rhetoric.
mikeymondaviJan 27, 2012
Sounds like to me they're just not in favor of nanny state practices or favor freedom of the individual to make their own decisions (at least on this issue)
JustSayNoPartyJan 27, 2012
Are there really that many people that want the Government involved to this degree? I agree with others. Leave this to the parents. I see the Government's role as one of education and helping change a culture that really needs to improve its eating habit. But, pushing for these guidelines is just another example of Government then stepping too far.
To those using this as yet another way to take a shot at 'lefties', give it a rest. We don't all live in your Lefty, Righty world. Stick to the specific issues, please.
bwiiiJan 27, 2012
Voluntary guidelines quickly become mandatory. Nothing stays voluntary with the government.
inajeepJan 27, 2012
False. Guidelines equal guidelines. I doubt the lobbyists would allow these to become mandatory.
The_SovereignJan 27, 2012
That's funny, I don't recall being forced to eat 2-4 servings of dairy each day.
peppermintpigJan 27, 2012
Yeah, I guess if you call that government mandatory processed stuff 'dairy'.
The_SovereignJan 27, 2012
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, but apparently at least 2 people here ARE forced to eat 2-4 servings of dairy each day. Holy s**t, guys, stand up for yourselves!
inajeepJan 27, 2012
The f**king food pyramid is a communist conspiracy. /crazy
peppermintpigJan 27, 2012
Well then, let's never challenge the sacred cow that is the food pyramid. The hyperbole suits you.
/Would you like an all seeing eye on top of that?
inajeepJan 27, 2012
So your against pasteurization then? Maybe if you make clearer statements you would be causing all this confusion.
peppermintpigJan 27, 2012
No. What I am against is dictating to people what their 'choices' are. If you read my initial posts and had a grasp of context you would understand that.
peppermintpigJan 27, 2012
The basis of the food pyramid is made up of grain, which reflects grain lobby interests in the US.
Grains really aren't all that good for you compared to fruits and vegetables, which should take precedence. Even nuts are much better than grains.
peppermintpigJan 27, 2012
How one can be pro consumer by dictating choices in the marketplace is outside the bounds of logic and ethical action. This is the illness of political correction practiced by people who think they know better how you should live and are then enough of a sociopath to carry it out under the guise of an authority on health.
Education is the solution, not force. Government has a habit of making all of these guidelines into mandatory commands anyhow.
Some people must think this is good for people's health under the rationale that other people lack willpower to make changes, but what of the advocates themselves? Just because you're looking for the government to put you on a diet doesn't give you the right to force others onto it. Mikey, stop promoting fascism.
peppermintpigJan 27, 2012
Buries with no replies? What a shock! Come on, won't somebody please "think of the children" who are forcing people to live in agony and defend the state here?
inajeepJan 27, 2012
I didn't bury you but I guess the lack of reading on your part. These are guidelines and not mandatory. You are over reacting much like most of the people in this thread so far.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peppermintpigJan 27, 2012
Get a grip on history and you wouldn't take the government at face value when they talk about voluntary policies. It is because I read and because I have a memory that stretches back more than a few years that I see these changes and they are frequently ramped up into mandates. Not everyone has the luxury of living in the bliss of state assurances.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inajeepJan 27, 2012
So each and every guideline turns into a law? Your memory is flawed as is your deductive reasoning.
peppermintpigJan 27, 2012
You made the implication to serve the rule. But claiming an absolute because the government tells you that in this one instance it is 'voluntary' is faulty reasoning. Your premise is flawed because you're crediting me with arguments I never made, and you're naive about the nature of government and its historical trends.
karmashockJan 27, 2012
Politically biased source leads with a massive strawman?
Shocking.
ridgerunner5Jan 27, 2012
Consumerist is pretty good about not getting into politics. At least they were, until this article...
karmashockJan 27, 2012
Oh this isn't the first time... In fact, every one of their articles I've seen posted on digg has been similar. now that doesn't mean all of their articles are that bad. I don't normally read them. But all the ones posted here tend to be pretty biased.
peppermintpigJan 27, 2012
Just look at who is submitting them. mikey likes it. He's a Grade A nanny state government cheeser. Let's ask him, he'll buy and eat anything.
reaper527Jan 27, 2012
and? as long as those companies aren't lying in their ad, they should be free to market their product as they see fit.
(also, lets not pretend that this is really voluntary. we all know its voluntary unless the industry decides to opt out, at which point it will be forced on them)
arpadJan 27, 2012
You have to understand that with lefties inalienable rights are a function of self-absorption.
If it makes them feel good then it's an inherent, foundational, basic, unarguable human right which all decent, thoughtful and caring people must, naturally, support. If it doesn't make them feel good about themselves then screw it.
Lefties like to think of themselves as courageous defenders against the depredations of the powerful, particularly against the vulnerable. It's a fun narrative but bulls**t. It's the sensation of being a courageous defender that lefties love. Whether the downtrodden are actually defended, need defending or are worse off for their defense by lefties, is a tedious detail. Who cares, sayeth lefties. We've got what we want.
So, freedom of speech is curtailed? So what? Lefties will feel good for a moment and then move on to other, urgent issues from which they might extract a momentary, but false, sense of fulfillment
bookantJan 27, 2012
The sad part is I agree with your opposition to this kind of nanny state s**t. Then you have to go diving off the bats**t crazy deep end.
"You have to understand that with lefties inalienable rights are a function of self-absorption."
There is, in fact, a huge role played by self-absortion and selfishness in our current political climate. It ain't on the left. What you're doing here is what we like to call "projection."
"It's a fun narrative but bulls**t. It's the sensation of being a courageous defender that lefties love. Whether the downtrodden are actually defended, need defending or are worse off for their defense by lefties, is a tedious detail. Who cares, sayeth lefties. We've got what we want."
Or, could it possibly be that we just don't swallow *your* bulls**t narrative that providing some basic social safety net makes people worse off? Nah . . . /s
"So, freedom of speech is curtailed?"
As ridiculous as this nanny state garbage is, so is pretending that regulating corporate advertising is a "free speech" issue.
markglJan 27, 2012
Sometimes you just want a big bowl of lucky charms. I don't need the government between me and a awesome bowl of sugar.
penglustJan 27, 2012
Got to your local super market. Go to shelf. Pick up box. Pay for box. Where does Obama wanting a company to stop shouting s**t at kids fit into this?
limitgovJan 27, 2012
Who would be in favor against free speech?
peppermintpigJan 27, 2012
The submitter?
amnesia10Jan 27, 2012
Here in the UK with a right wing government we are looking at similar rules for public health reasons. Secondly if you can do your grocery shopping online. That way the kids cannot pester you into buying junk food. If they do you can delete it before the online checkout.
I use a website that helps me shop and even shows healthier options. It then allows me to choose which supermarket to shop from and save even more money. Then there are no ads pushing you towards junk food. Even with the delivery charges it can be cheaper than public transport and on a par with driving there. I do very large shops this way. By getting goods that can be stored for a long period I minimise the costs as well. I can get my fresh vegetables and fruit and fresh meat locally. So get the best of both worlds.
bachiavelli1Jan 27, 2012
Democrats: Taking responsibility away from parental duties and blaming it on republicans for over two hundred years and counting...
bookantJan 27, 2012
And Republicans do the exact same thing when it comes to "naughty" or violent books, movies, TV, games, and anything and everything that doesn't conform to their puritanical religious morals. They *both* need to mind their own f**king business.
nickymouseJan 27, 2012
Wasn't it Tipper Gore who pushed for warning labels on music? Jim Matheson ( a democrat), introduced the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act. Who is the MPAA's bitch... that's right Chris Dodd.
bookantJan 27, 2012
And? Did I not say they *both* need to mind their own f**king business? In what way is that refuted by throwing a couple of examples of Dems who agree with the social conservatives in the GOP on these issues? Are you now going to try to pass off "Focus on the Family" as Dems? Who was it that pitched a fit over Janet Jackson's fraction-of-a-second nip slip? Who was it that just had Slaughterhouse Five pulled from a school library? Which would-be Presidential candidates just got done suggesting that Porn should be outlawed? Ditto contraception?
crashdvisJan 27, 2012
What a load of crap but it's from consumerist so I digress. Ads harass you now? Is there anything that isn't harassment to a libbie? Do people have free will in the liberal world or are they all just zombies that do exactly what a commercial tells them to do? I guess we need an entire Cabinet level position to protect the po folk from commercials now too.
peppermintpigJan 28, 2012
The truth in advertising czar? Another do as I say, not as we do sort of thing. rofl.
This form of political dichotomy includes a fallacy of benevolent self-less state protectors and the notion that if you're not with us, you're one of the 'crazy righties'. People who believe like this don't recognize that they've become the sort of dogmatic assh**es they think everybody who doesn't agree with them are supposed to be. They are in fact another form of 'the right', or what should more accurately be called a statist.
But the world is not populated with square peg straw men who should be bent over for the 'social good' of everyone (according to what the politicians in government claim it to be). It's very sad and dehumanizing to watch a fake liberal justify authoritarianism and disrespect volitional ethics of fellow human beings.
ridgerunner5Jan 27, 2012
Apparently the House Democrats are in favor of the government raising everybody's children for them.
stubearJan 27, 2012
I really with you rightwingtards would learn to read. FTA:
"President Obama's administration has proposed voluntary guidelines to keep kids from being bombarded with cartoon characters hawking junk food and other marketing attempts to get them to get you to buy them sugary and fatty foods. In order to use kid-friendly marketing, the guidelines would suggest the foods be healthier."
These guidelines are VOLUNTARY. It's an attempt to get corporations to behave ethically by treating them like adult sand letting them choose how to market their cereal. Instead they prove they really are children so perhaps we should start treating them like many of you rightwingtards (probably without kids of your own) suggest we treat our own children. Perhaps we should be saying no to corporations and setting rules they MUST follow instead of trying to teach them to think on their own.
markglJan 27, 2012
Why even pass them of they're VOLUNTARY?
inajeepJan 27, 2012
Because in corporations we don't trust.
auditortuxJan 27, 2012
So they are voluntary, so worst case we spend all this money creating these guidelines and the industries basically look at it and go "No".
But the bigger question is why even bother with this? Is there a national crisis of young children sneaking to grocery stores, purchasing these cereals without their parents knowledge? No. My parents had no trouble telling me "No, you cannot have Cookie Crunch for breakfast".
peppermintpigJan 27, 2012
You're with the rightwingtards?
bwiiiJan 27, 2012
Simultaneously, the best and most idiotic comment in this thread. In one paragraph, you denigrate those who are suspect of such 'guidelines', then validate the exact reason these 'guidelines' are suspect in the first place.
"...hey dumbrightards, these are VOLUNTARY guidelines because we're trying to teach you how to act. And if you don't VOLUNTEER and follow these 'guidelines', we'll make em laws and FORCE you to VOLUNTARILY submit..."
kasha34Jan 29, 2012
We just had a year of 1.7% GDP. Historic, world-class unpayable debt.
And what does Obama focus on?
phillymozartJan 28, 2012
If you read the headline and chuckled, enjoy the laughter while you can because this man was elected with 53% of the vote in 2008 and still has the advantage for 2012.
If you read the headline and agree with its assessment, please don't ever vote in a federal election (again). You can still elect the fool of your choice to your state and local offices.
laurahoustonJan 28, 2012
they backed the ciggie corps too