Comments on: General Mills’ big news: less sugar!

By: Small Storage Boxes

Small Storage Boxes — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 19:25:28 +0000

To be a skeptic about what is claimed in the product especially in the matter of kid’s cereals is good and advisable. And moreover, raising such issues in public forums like blogs etc is welcome one as these moves will prompt the producers to keep their word for better business and good will. Reducing sugar in baby cereals would be an easy one. Thanks for public utility reporting.

By: Wheat Grinder

Wheat Grinder — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:03:08 +0000

Reducing sugar level in children is essential and the effort of General Mills to achieve it is a good move.Lets see how much it’s implementing its plan in doing so.

By: Emily

Emily — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:43:27 +0000

I grew up in the ’70s, and sugary cereals and soft drinks were strictly verboten in our household. In fact, my mother made all our bread (which is really something, since she worked full-time) and cooked at least 80% of our meals. (Dad pitched in with another 10% or so.) End result? I loathe sweetened cereal. I also can’t eat Wonder Bread, and soft drinks made me gag. So maybe I’m a bit of a Pollyanna here, but I really believe that if we give our kids real food, they’ll grow up appreciating it.

By: Anthro

Anthro — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:05:27 +0000

@Helen

You and I must have gone to the same “mommy school”. I, too, spent a fair amount of time ridiculing the marketing practices of the cereal companies in the grocery store for my children’s consciousness- raising education. I explained how the big brands were right at the eye-level of children and how the companies paid for that spot–all to lure innocent, unknowing children into nagging their parents for little bits of smushed grain in a colorful box. They do thank me for this and pass it on to their own children.

By: kari Sullivan

kari Sullivan — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:50:21 +0000

In my opinion the only reason there was a full page add in the NY Times was for marketing. Unfortunately that one page is going to spark the interests of parents across the country who aren’t well educated in the area of nutrition.

By: Helen

Helen — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:25:32 +0000

It would be instructive to find out the sugar content of the original formulations of many popular sugared cereal. Fruit Loops and Lucky Charms started out with plenty of sugar; 20 or 30 years ago when our kids were small, Fruit Loops held a whopping 23 grams of sugar, before you even added the milk. There was probably even more added to the cereal in the 1950s when I wanted them and our mother, a public health nurse, refused to buy them.

I actively ridiculed the sugared cereal whenever we were in the grocery isle. I explained to the kids that this was the “part of your good breakfast” that you could omit entirely and be better off. The big deal was to have little boxes of sugared cereal as treats at Christmas, and maybe at Easter. I’m thinking that the companies have a long way to go.

By: deb belcore

deb belcore — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:45:32 +0000

How do we get people to eat “real food” for breakfast? These highly-processed/highly advertised items should not even be considered an option. Same question/issue re: soda.
Also – does USDA publish any data on the $ spent on sugar cereal/soda via SNAP/food stamps? I suspect not, but the info must be available somehow – would love to make it public if anyone has any ideas how/where to find it!

By: Ross Hunter

Ross Hunter — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:28:42 +0000

At about minute 9:00 of this interview with Michael Pollan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV6z_ANDvdY
Pollan notes how clever the food industry is at taking the latest scientific critcism and turning it right around into a marketing message.

Honestly, why not just accept we’re being gamed and lied to, it’s just marketing – it’s not cynical to understand that General Mills truly doesn’t care about our children, it’s just wisdom.

By: Erik A from Norway

Erik A from Norway — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:51:34 +0000

Great point, “W”!

I also wonder – do they mean “sugar” as in added sucrose/fructose?

By: DennisP

DennisP — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:16:49 +0000

Of course the take-home message I get from Marion (and alluded to by Mark D.) is that these companies should just stop selling these sugar-loaded products. And referring to an earlier post, that Coca Cola should just stop selling its sugary soft drinks (and water). Now I happen to know that Coca Cola is making some strenuous efforts to become more environmentally sensitive in their business. I had a middle-level manager in the course that I taught last spring and he was really enthused about all the things that the company was doing.

But what is really wanted by many folks is for these companies to stop producing and selling their products, the things that many consumers like to buy. That’s asking these companies to commit suicide and put 10s of 1000s of people out of work. Obviously they ain’t a goin’ to do it.

I support stronger regulation of the companies to make them behave more responsibly (maybe, if the regulations are drawn up well – but that’s always crap shoot). But criticizing them for not committing suicide seems to me to be rather misplaced.