Could Cereal Mascots be on the way out?

Also, cereal companies like General Mills and Kellogg's do make sure that their cereals have vitamins in them, thus making them safe.
 
No more CinnaMon and Bad Apple?! NOOOO!!!!

In all seriousness, I do remember those two were toned down from being bitter rivals ("Stay out of my Apple Jacks!") to being friendly rivals ("I was first!" "No you weren't!"). But banning them altogether? That will do nothing!
 
Well, it's not an outright ban. The way I read this is, they're trying to limit where and when the characters can be used, unless you can prove the food has nutritional value. Goldfish crackers have decent nutrition, so I think Gilbert and friends are safe enough. At the very worst. they'd only be able to air those commercials during certain times of day.
 
IDC if it isn't an outright ban. I live in a free country. If I want to advertise my "unhealthy" (Which is why you eat SERVING SIZE) foods, I'll advertise them as I damn well please!
 
If the spoiled brats with huge entitlement complexes at the high school I work at show for anything, this last generation of parents didn't even know what the word "No" existed.

Besides, it's so much more easier for parents to have a scapegoat to blame for bad parenting, especially when it comes to nutrition.
 
Not to kids if it's deemed harmful to them. If it were a violation of rights to say what age demographic people could target, cigarette companies could target kids. I'm not saying that they want to but they could in that case.
 
This topic feels a bit more appropriate for the Cafe board given that its focused more on commercial mascots than animated series/movies. So, I'll go ahead and move it there.



I didn't know that there was an age where it was legal for people to smoke. I had classmates back in elementary school smoking, as well as a few during high school.

Anyway, I don't think that it's that bad. It does sound a bit weird that they would try to limit how cereal and snack foods are advertised to kids instead of people trying to limit the amount they eat or parents telling their kids that they can't have a lot of snacks all the time, but that's just me. I don't think that this is a violation of rights, but just another attempt to get kids to know that they shouldn't be eating a lot of healthy food. I like some of these commercials, mainly for the cereals and the Goldfish snacks, but I'm not heartbroken if they have to reduce the amount of time they air the commercials or play them during only a certain part of the day.
 
Problem is, the standards of what is healthy and what is not are constantly changing. Trans fat, for example, wasn't a big issue ten years ago, but thanks to recent studies it's now a required part of the nutritional content labels. These standards also vary from country to country; parts of Europe have far stricter guidelines on artifical additives than the US, and so on and so forth.

More importantly, if you ask me, I don't think entrusting the increasingly incompetent US goverment with setting these guidelines is a good idea. Even if they did succeed in banning certain companies from advertising, the regulations would undoubtedly be filled with inconsistencies and exceptions, and by and large would do little to reduce the amount of junk food american children consume. The buck ultimately stops with the parents, and considering that many moms and dads are morbidly overweight, its not suprising why there's an obesity epidemic in their children.
 
Seeing as the general carb-heavy diet recommended by the Food Pyramid is flawed in an of itself (the majority of dieticians say too many carbohydrates are the reason for diabetes and all the other crap that affects people), yeah, I'd be worried.

Out and out banning mascots though seems no different than banning Joe Camel.
 
Banning/limiting cartoons in cereal and junk food commercials will help prevent obesity like giving an alcoholic a bottle of wine will help them kick the habit.

What the administration should focus on instead is ensuring schools have plenty of in school and after school sports and programs conducive to healthy activity.

In this way cereal companies at least with cartoon mascots will be if not already safeguarded in the fact that they have already modified cereal to be whole grain since many a parent never could figure out how to give their children nutritional meals on their own.

I kind of feel discouraged however that any governmental administration feels it has to play nanny whether their choices/ideas be right or wrong in order to compensate for families either too ignorant or cutting corners in terms of children's dietary health. The reason children become obese is because of failings of the parent/parents to teach and emphasize proper eating habits first and foremost.
 
Well, you have to be 18 in order for a clerk to sell tobacco products to you. Those kids probably either got it from someone older than them, be it giving the money to someone that's clearly older to buy it, or from a family/friend that already has the product on them. Hell, you can't even market smoking to kids. Ever heard of a mascot called Joe Camel? Then there's the fact that the MPAA is willing to bump up the ratings of certain films if a character is shown smoking.
 
Where I'm at, it used to be that the law only applied to purchasing the cigarettes, not to actually smoking them. But they fixed that eventually.
 
Well I searched the news feeds on the subject at hand and I can't find anything about legislation. However I found one on AP headlining the government is urging companies to limit advertisement to children. The government is pleading with them. However they cannot legislate any action that would limit advertisements. The first reason would be the violation of free speech. Second the companies can appeal in the supreme court which would get it turned over.

One reason is that unhealthy foods is really a fluid term. Any food at any sufficient level is "Unhealthy". There is no real definition of unhealthy. Without any definition of unhealthy congress isn't going to even look at this bill. Your mascots are safe.

Again I will say. No need to get worked up over this. I'd take it with a grain of salt Second there is nothing on any legitimate news feed about this other than the minor article above.
 
Back
Top