Kellogg Won't Market Sugary Cereal To Kids
Cereal/Snack-Maker Agrees To Stop Advertising Too-Sugary Products To Children
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Kellogg Cuts Back On Sugar
Kellogg says it will raise the nutritional content of its products or stop advertising them to kids under 12. Alexis Christoforous reports.
-
Video
No More Sugary Saturdays?
Kellogg has vowed to reformulate some of its most popular products to meet specific nutrition standards or stop marketing them to young children. Nancy Cordes has more.
-
Video
Sugary Cereal Ads Canned
Kellogg's vows that it will no longer advertise high-sugar cereals during TV programs aimed at kids. Furthermore, cartoon characters will be eliminated from marketing campaigns. Nancy Cordes reports.
-
-
Photo
These cereals could disappear from Saturday morning television. (AP)
-
Photo
Tony the Tiger is one cartoon character who is "grrrrreeeeaaaat!" on cereal boxes. The cereal makes the cut, too. (AP)
-
-
Interactive
Diet And Nutrition
Are you eating right? See the government's guidelines, calculate your body mass index and quiz yourself on healthy food choices.
-
Interactive
Food Pyramid
The government's latest guidelines for healthy eating get personal.
-
Interactive
HealthWatch
Explore health issues including AIDS, cancer and antibiotics.
In the face of a lawsuit, cereal-maker Kellogg is clamping down on marketing sugary cereals and snacks to kids, reports CBS News consumer safety correspondent Nancy Cordes. It's a move food safety advocates hope will spread to the rest of the brands in the cereal aisle.
Kellogg Co. said Thursday it will increase the nutritional value of the cereals and snacks targeted at children or stop marketing those products to them altogether
The company said it won't promote foods in TV, radio, print or Web site ads that reach audiences at least half of whom are under age 12 unless a single serving of the product meets these standards:
- No more than 200 calories.
- No trans fat and no more than 2 grams of saturated fat.
- No more than 230 milligrams of sodium, except for Eggo frozen waffles.
- No more than 12 grams of sugar, not counting sugar from fruit, dairy and vegetables.
The cereals that would fall into the "too sugary" category include Apple Jacks, Cocoa Krispies, Corn Puffs, Froot Loops, Raisin Bran, and Smacks, reports Cordes.
Frosted Flakes made the cut, however. It has exactly 12 grams of sugar, while Raisin Bran has 19.
"Because a lot of that sugar comes from fruit (the raisins), that's OK," explains Cordes. "The problem with Raisin Bran is that it goes over the sodium cutoff. So does Rice Krispies."
Kellogg was facing pressure from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the same organization that dropped a lawsuit against Kentucky Fried Chicken only after it promised to stopping frying chicken with trans fats.
"Over the years, Kellogg has marketed so many foods that are so high in sugar. They call them breakfast cereals. They should really be called breakfast candies," CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson said.
CSPI counted 54 commercials for Kellogg products in 27½ hours of Saturday morning television; 98 percent of them were for foods the Center says had poor nutritional quality.
"Have you seen ads for those cereals on the TV?" Cordes asked a young viewer.
"A lot!" replied 9-year-old Nagaen Fazeli, adding that she has seen the commercials on Nickelodeon, Disney and Cartoon Network.
Jacobson's nutrition advocacy group, along with two Massachusetts parents and the Boston-based Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood, had served notice in January 2006 of intent to sue Kellogg and the Nickelodeon cable TV network under a Massachusetts law to stop them from marketing junk food to kids.
Center spokesman Jeff Cronin said Kellogg contacted the plaintiffs shortly thereafter and began negotiating the new standards, so the lawsuit was not filed and will not be filed.
"By committing to these nutrition standards and marketing reforms, Kellogg has vaulted over the rest of the food industry," said Jacobson. "This commitment means that parents will find it a little easier to steer their children toward healthy food choices — especially if other food manufacturers and broadcasters follow Kellogg's lead."
"We are pleased to work collaboratively with industry and advocacy groups to unveil these standards," said David Mackay, Kellogg's CEO. "We feel the Kellogg Nutrient Criteria set a new standard for responsibility in the industry."
With 2006 sales of almost $11 billion, Kellogg is not only the No. 1 cereal-maker but also a leading producer of snack foods. Its brands include Kellogg's, Keebler, Pop-Tarts, Eggo, Cheez-Its, Rice Krispies and Famous Amos.
The agreement disqualifies Pop-Tarts, Cheez-Its, some Keebler cookies and crackers and dozens of other products made by Kellogg and the brands it owns, reports Cordes.
"What this means is that foods that don't meet the criteria, which is a huge number, like 50 percent of our products, will either have to be reformulated or retargeted," Kellogg chief marketing officer Mark Baynes told CBS News.
Kellogg also has agreed to stop using popular cartoon characters to market sugary or fatty foods to young children. That means no more Shrek or SpongeBob Squarepants on the box or in the commercial.
"That's a great idea because you can't even take your child to the grocery store because they're clamoring for the products with cartoon characters on them," commented CBS Early Show co-anchor Hannah Storm, the mother of three young children.
The advertising agreement does not apply to marketing characters Kellogg owns, like Tony the Tiger.
Susan Linn, co-founder of the Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood, said Kellogg was the first food company to agree to restrict advertising using licensed media characters like Shrek.
"These characters play an incredibly important role in children's lives. Kids see them every day; they have toys of them," Linn said. "The media characters are much more powerful (than company-owned characters like Tony the Tiger). The food companies want to keep using them because they sell a lot of food; kids really respond to them."
Kellogg also announced that it will continue to refrain from advertising to children under age 6, and will not in the future:
- Advertise to children any foods in schools and preschools that include kids under age 12.
- Sponsor placement of any of its products in any medium primarily directed at kids under age 12.
- Use branded toys connected to any foods that do not meet the nutrition standards.
American companies spend about $15 billion a year marketing and advertising to children under age 12, the Institute of Medicine said when it warned that one-third of American children are obese or at risk for becoming obese.
In response, Kellogg and McDonald's Corp. joined eight other major food and drink companies last November in an industry-sponsored pledge to promote more healthy foods and exercise in their child-oriented advertising. A year earlier, Kraft Foods Inc. had promised to curb ads to young children for snack foods, including Oreos and Kool-Aid.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.



As a child, my parents were responsible enough to tell me NO when I wanted enticing cereals I saw on TV, but that was 45 years ago. It appears that parents succomb to their children's wishes much more easily now.
I don't purchase everything I see advertised. Otherwise, I would be an obese, egotistical, alcoholic constantly dialing my doctor because I had a problem that lasted over 4 hours.
But, these days, parents just give in to shut kids up. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
I think what's really interesting is that we all overlook one important thing. Look, KFC cooks without transfats. Cigarette companies can't advertise like, at all. But, who is one of the sponsors of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament? Beer companies. More than half the players are underage, but beer companies still sponsor the tournament. Every beer commercial or alcohol commercial is like a party these days. It's encouraging younger people to drink because of the party atmosphere. Yet, nothing is happening to these companies, and that's a more serious issue I think, with the increased rate of binge drinking on college campuses. It's embarrassing to everyone that our country is so blind to real issues.
I do not appreciate the tactics they are taking. They do not have the right to make these decisions for me yet that is precisely what they are doing. They threaten a lawsuit and the companies are knuckling under. Welcome to "Big Brother". Welcome to the beginning of the end of our freedom of choice. If groups like this keep on, we, the basic consumer, will only have the choices THEY approve of.
I agree with Reel-Crazy. My parents also taught me that I can't have everything I see and I have survived just fine. Parents need to take control; their kids should not be controlling them.
In another view of this whole thing, the medical problem of obesity has become the new witch hunt. I wonder what they plan to do with people who don't fit into their perfect world. Burn them at the stake?
These same tactics are causing many young girls (and some boys) to face problems such as bulima today.
I think people need to take a step back and think about what they are doing rather than just blindly rushing into things. We could be replacing a smaller problem with an even bigger one.
12 grams of sugar per serving still A-OK!
Not only is our country ovrepopulated, but it's overpopulated with lazy parents raising lazy kids.
Good grief, this country is in real trouble.
It will be interesting to see if sales of their sugary cereals decline. My bet is that they wont.
Maybe I'm getting cynical in my old age.
And stop with the it's a parent's responsibility when your marketing seductively and consistantly how healthy this poison is. Remember there are many parents who aren't educated nor even speak english.
Of course it is. But they shouldn't have to fight the brainwashed children when they do so.
Maybe some companies need to be responsible as well...
The same goes for the music and media; corporations who shred the moral envelope because derogatory and incitement-breeding filth will sell can't be bothered to fess up their small part in our current day mess? (those who listen need to remember it's not real and not to base real life action from such incitement, but that's another argument...)
Surely, as a nation, we're all responsible for its current situation to *some* extent? The mantra "nobody owes anybody anything" only leads to anarchy. And guess who complains about anarchy? Usually the same folks who say "nobody owes anybody anything"... irony is funny. Of course, when things change, at some point you can either go along with it or reject it. But I digress.
When everyone is out for himself, people aren't as willing to assist, they have their own needs to look after. This isn't rocket science, it's basic psychology one can learn in their quest to obtain a high school diploma...
I will agree; in grocery stores at 10PM, the parents caving in to screaming obese children who want that candy is not a good sight to behold...
Posted by avanburen at 12:55 PM : Jun 14, 2007
Bravo, avanburen. This probably also sums up a lot of other issues as well.
Posted by imaok1
No, I have not lost my mind and yes I did read the article. I am 50 years old and when I was a child, cereal commercials and toy commercials and candy commercials and snack commercials were marketed to children. Buy, back then, parents were parents. So who has lost their mind? The person that can't control their own lives they need "protection" from the "powers that be" You're the fool.
Another pointless arguement. *yawn*
Presumably, they feel that people should not be allowed to freely make their own choices, and to accept the consequences (good or bad) of those actions. Instead, they feel that people should be regulated... coerced by force and threats to make the "right" decisions.
If you feel you should be able to live your life however you want, so long as you are not directly harming someone else, there's good news. Thousands of people who feel the same way are working to be free of these endless small attacks on our freedoms.
freestateproject.org
From seatbelts the special interest groups moved to cigarettes. Smoking isn't good for us. Now that we have been programed that a smoker is the worst kind of person and we shoouldn't be around that person, employee that person, interact with that group of people. The special interest groups have moved to food. Companies that make cereal, cookies, ice cream etc are at fault they are making us fat. Those companies need to change. People, WAKE UP, it will not be long before only blond haired, blue eyed, a certain height and weight of people will be accepted. Check out your history books and see who is reminds you of.
Our U.S.A. is becoming the U.S.S.R. We are longer the home of the free, our freedoms are being taken away, one by one, if I as a adult want a bowl of cereal and a cigarette afterwards I SHOULD HAVE THAT CHOICE. Wake up before we have no more freedoms left.
When will people start taking responsibility for their own actions?
So let's see... at 50, it's reasonable to say you were really the first generation of children heavily marketed to by corporations to eat cheap, sugary junk food that made big profits for them. Your generation grew up, and continued to purchase this food for yoru children, who are now part of the larges group of obese adolesants and children our nation has ever seen. Yeah, you're right, marketing has no effect on kids, and your generation has it all worked out just fine with "how things were." hahahahahaha
"Presumably, they feel that people should not be allowed to freely make their own choices and to accept the consequences (good or bad) of those actions."
"If you feel you should be able to live your life however you want, so long as you are not directly harming someone else..."
The problem is that it is the parents making the choices to buy these things for children. Children don't know any better. There are so many parents out there that have no backbone when it comes to saying NO to their kids. AND the kids are the ones paying for it. It is one thing if you want the freedom to choose bad foods for yourself but another that you choose them for your children just because they are crying that they want something and you can't say no. If you are choosing these kinds of things for your kids, you ARE "directly harming" them. It is up to the parents to make good choices for their children until they are old enough to know the consequences of eating that kind of food, themselves.
With so much childhood obesity, parents need to wake up.
"That's not the norm anymore."
You've got that right!
You have some parents who are tired when they get home from work and just can't deal with all their other responsibilities. Then you have parents that are just plain and simply LAZY.
Sometimes both parents don't need to work but they are greedy and having MORE money is more important than staying home and raising their own kids, instead of a babysitter doing it.
I am trying to understand why these people have children. No one should have children unless they are going to live up to their responsibilities with raising them. That means it don't matter whether they are tired or not, they chose to have kids, so they need to get off their a-s-ses and start looking after them.
To all who complain about the quality of TV, how do you propose to raise the standards of television, if the capital for production is cut?
Some of the "golden age of television" programs of the late fifties and early sixties, including news, was sponsored by cigarettes, some of sport's truly historic moments were captured for posterity by cameras sponsored by beer.
Jazz festivals, which were important to the development of a truly American music form, and the epitome of cultural cooperation, were sponsored by Kool, Newport, even Playboy magazine.
Now most jazz is history, as its' traditional sponsors were forbidden to display, the festivals, clubs and other events where artists could make a living simply went extinct, so now you have such as Mariah Carey and Justin Timberlake as the standard of musical excellence...
You sound as if you have seen a few years, please don't forget there used to be a time when one man's income could actually raise a family. The fact that it is no longer possible is not due to consumer greed, rather producer greed, the cost of living has risen much faster than the average income, any statistic covering the past 40 years will confirm the truth of this.
Moxichick,
You and your other both work FT just to make ends meet. This means there can be no stable parental presence constantly at home that can truly prioritize familial norms. Your list of what he "is allowed to eat", and "doesn't watch TV"
suggests that his future will be filled with unhealthy inhibitions, low self esteem, and fear to express himself in a healthy manner, or, in a rebellious burst of pent up, suppressed emotion, harm himself and/or others. It is a common occurrence, and since you both work FT, how do you know it is not already happening?
uh, two points....
*if people need more sugar they can add it to their bowl via the sugar bowl.
*If parents don't want their kids to have sugar loaded cereal they should just say no......thats what I did when my kids were little.
so silly being afraid of your kids eh?
brian, you need to get a grip!
Now as far as both parents working, there was a study done that showed if both parents worked your kid would probably end up being a juvenile delinquent. Even if one parent worked full time and the other only worked part time.
And from what I have seen with the people around me, I would say they were right!
I myself, stayed home with my kids. It was tough, but it was worth it. I know that a lot of people don't have that option, but there are also many that do.
About "over population", don't worry, with all you gun toting Americans shooting each other, it should be no time at all before you start noticing a definite decrease in population. :)
-
by grammawhamma
June 17, 2007 3:47 AM PDT
- I can't believe that adults can let little toddlers become "morbidly" obese...as I have seen the on Dr. Phil show etc. This is child abuse!! If parents were starving their child...they would be arrested and the child removed from that home. These little kids can't jump in the car and use the debit card to purchase junk food...the problem is that parents feed them whatever they whine for to shut them up. Another article on CBS right now is about diet pills for fat dogs that can't control their appetite...give me a break!! My dogs don't raid the fridge at night when I'm sleeping they eat what I give them and they are at healthy weights.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 49 Comments