Strollerderby : junk food

Hannah Montana's Gone Fruity

JeanneSager — Sun, 03 May 2009 16:16:00 GMT

I'm all for a brand using its sway with kids for good, but do we really need Hannah Montana bananas?

What about Mickey Mouse apples? High School Musical avocados?

Disney has gotten healthy to face the childhood obesity crisis head on, cutting ties with McDonald's (you'll notice there are no Disneyfied happy meals on your summer road trip this year) and slapping giant mouse ears on good, wholesome fare.

So, is it working? According to a look by the Washington Post, yes. When supermarket chain Winn-Dixie linked its bagged apples to High School Musical, sales spiked by forty-seven percent. The Disney Garden line is now appearing in eighteen of the top twenty mass and grocery retailers in the states, and sales grew seventy percent from 2007 to 2008.

I can admit I've fallen victim. My daughter needed a grab and go snack, and she saw Mickey apple slices on the shelves. She asked because they were Mickey. I bought because they were apples. With the same characters in a different aisle on sugar-packed "fruit" snacks, the real thing worked for me. We've also been known to pick up Princess soup because she begged for princesses, and my first introduction to Hannah Montana came in the supermarket when my daughter started shrieking about the pop star on her yogurt. Again, yogurt, much better than potato chips! Trust me - their branding is working on my impressionable three-year-old.

But I'm not sure how I feel about Disney selling health food to my kid. Is it better than peddling the junk? Sure. But does it have to be either or? I shy away from Sesame Street's organic pasta and breastfast offerings too, because as much as we all love Cookie Monster, he's not making me feel better about a processed box of waffles. And I'm not ready for the forecasted Mickey whole wheat chicken nuggets to replace the homemade version I make and freeze in my own kitchen.

Frankly, I'd prefer my kid make her food choices based on things like "amount of whole grains included" or "no trans-fats." I'd like to think she'd pick up an apple because we live in New York and have raised her on some of the nation's best apples, not because there's a cartoon character stamped on the flesh. Ditto avocados. They're fantastically flavorful and you can't have guacamole (yum) withouth them - so do we really need Zac Efron's mug to get them in my cart and on her plate?

Disney is such a powerful brand, I'm happy to see it inching back from the heart attack on a plate foodstuffs its traditionally backed. For parents who have had to measure just buying a requested item over the tantrum in the middle of the supermarket, it's definitely good news. Trust me, been there, heard the screeching. But I can't help wishing food would just go back to being food, no Hannah Montana, no Elmo, no Mickey. It's why I've fought the organic branding too.

Because in fifteen years, she won't be picking food because it has her favorite superhero printed on the front of the bag. She'll just have to go with her gut, and I'd like to think it's one filled with healthy choices.

Image: Washington Post

Hooray for Book Banners - No Really

Kids Put Pregnant Women's Food Cravings to Shame

Also on Babble:

Bad Parent: Organic Schmorganic

Kids to Obama: Read Books, Eat More Ice Cream

JeanneSager — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:36:00 GMT

Ah, if only life were this simple. A collection of letters written by children to President-Elect Barack Obama were highlighted in the New York Times last week.

Their number one pick? A series of junk food suggestions from a little girl who thinks the president elect needs to put on some weight.

The letter is, of course, pure kid - "You look too skinny. You should eat more food. this is what you should eat:" followed by a list of foods I'd love to eat but only let my daughter have on special occasions. You can get all upset that this child doesn't value "healthy" foods, or you can look at it purely from the eyes of a child. She thinks the president looks hungry. She likes him enough to suggest he eat better. And, hey, who wouldn't want a buddy to fatten up on ice cream, buttered popcorn and cotton candy?

Others in the list were written by older children, and with that comes a bit more worldliness. Most moving to me is the letter from a twelve-year-old who says her parents are split down political lines, with one highly conservative and the other ultra-liberal. "Thank you for bringing my parents somewhat closer together. :) You are my idol Mr. Barack," she says.

I admit it; it doesn't take much to get me all weepy about the future of our country. But that letter in particular brought on the little pricks in the corner of my eyes. Because after reading about the parents who refuse to let their kids attend school on Tuesday lest they see the wrong (in their eyes) president inaugurated, it's nice to know there are parents out there who don't agree with the president-elect and are still raising kids to be thoughtful, accepting, and productive members of society.

To read the whole list - from suggestions that he get more kids reading to requests to help their families get jobs, check out the Times piece. Bring the tissues.

Image: New York Times

Via Jezebel

Entire School Board Recalled By Angry Students

Protect Children: Prohibit Divorce

U.S. Military Making Virtual Mom and Dad

Linda Ellerbee Says Kids Should Skip School To Watch Inauguration

A Mother Celebrates the Return of Mother’s Cookies

SunnyChanel — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:13:00 GMT

There are certain things that you just can’t wait to share with your offspring; participating in holiday traditions, playing your favorite board game and indulging in your favorite childhood treat. I was heart broken earlier this year when I thought I would never able to share my own childhood junk food guilty pleasure with my own daughter, the sinfully sugary delight that is Mother’s Circus Animals.

Mother's Cake & Cookie Co., the makers of this hot pink and white, frosted and colorfully sprinkled confections, filed Chapter 11 last October. The factory was in San Francisco, my hometown, and it had operated there for 92 years. Being that is was a home grown delicacy made it seem all the more close to my heart (and cavities).

But my daughter and I now have a reason to celebrate and invest in more tooth paste. Kellogg’s, the maker of Frosted Flakes, Cheez-it’s and Eggos, has bought the recipes of all of Mom’s goodies, which includes such superstar treats like Chips Deluxe, Fudge Shoppe, Sandies and the Circus Animals. No word on when he new incarnation of the cookies will hit the market, but I do relish the day when I can let my kid bite into a piece of my own childhood. Unheathy, yes. But worth it? Ohhhh yes.

Source: Dlisted/CNN

Angelina and Britney - When Cheetos and Comments Attack

SunnyChanel — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:45:00 GMT

Cheetos, yes Cheetos have been the topic of countless comments on websites featuring photos of Britney Spears and, more recently, Angelina Jolie, allowing their children to indulge in this unhealthy “chemical ridden” snack. Personally, I don’t let anything of that ilk pass thru my child’s lips. But if I did, I’m so glad I’m not a celebrity and that my child’s snack choice would be the fodder of so many judgemental, angst filled, and just plain mean, comments from total strangers. The gist seems to be that Saint Angelina can do no wrong and Britney, well, is Britney. It’s like Angelina’s brood just visits Cheetoville where as Brintney’s boys live there.

Here are some comments from various sites on the children’s Cheetos consumption.

On Britney:
From the Superficial:
"OK...I seriously wonder how these kids will survive to adulthood, and if they do, will the world want them? They're probably already brain-damaged from an all Red Bull-and-Cheetos diet."

From Mollygood.com
"Hey, my daughter eats Cheetos and I'm a great mom! Cut her some slack; at least she is trying."

“no it probably isn't necessary to give 2 year olds cheetos and orange soda but come on. This is the USA, i'd rather have my kids eating cheetos than whatever the sh*t is that they are putting in a "happy meal" these days. She probably is putting on a show for the cameras. It's not like the boys are eating only cheetos, there is a sandwich on their plates.”

On Angelina:
From D-Listed:
“Those little deities aren't eating Cheetos. That's what the bag says, but I'm sure when Shiloh puts one to her mouth, all the preservatives melt away and it becomes a piece of Sacramental bread.”

From Skinny Website comments: “I think that’s cool. When Mom’s are in great shape and don’t touch bad food, but then let their children indulge. It’s healthy. Nothing’s worse when you’re a kid then going to your friedns house who’s mom is a health crazed nut and having fruit for snack!

“I don’t think there’s nothing wrong with ocasional junk food consumption. Specially if you’re under the age of 10 when you tend to move a lot…obviosly kids shoulnd’t be kept alive on junk food - thats what leads to obese children. so I think it’s very cool that Angelina allows her kids to eat Cheetos once in a while. They’re kids!!!!!!!!”

Us weekly Comment:
“Cheetos? Seriously? Angelina buying her adorable kids cheetos is a top news story? Who cares? If that was they only thing she ever fed them, then it would be news but it's just a snack for crying out loud!”

and last but not least:
From E! Online: “So what if she lets her kids eat Cheetos. No parent has the right to judge another...”

Babble Talk: The Worst Food to Feed Your Kids

Jen Chaney — Mon, 12 May 2008 14:03:00 GMT

Amy Kalafa and Dr. Susan Rubin recently spoke to Babble about their documentary, Two Angry Moms, in which the pair investigate cafeteria junkfood. Some of the offending school lunch offerings the two mentioned by name: Blue slushies, candy and the balanced meal of chicken nuggets and tater tots. Not exactly the nutritionally sound stuff we would hope our kids get every day. All of which got me to thinking about the food we serve our children at home: Do we do better than some of the schools Kalafa and Rubin describe?

Generally speaking, we probably do but my guess is that many of us also could try harder. Lots of Americans, and I count myself in this group, can be a little lax in the diet department, especially when our schedules are particularly hectic. Sometimes the fastest things to prepare -- which might be some frozen nuggets or, worse yet, nuggets of the McDonald's variety -- are all we can muster.

My son is still young enough (and toothless enough) to avoid the really hardcore stuff, like Rock Candy and licorice. But I will admit to giving him some bites of burgers and fries. So confession time: What's the worst meal you have ever served your kids? Don't worry, none of us will report you to Child Protective Services. Besides, telling the truth makes wonderful therapy ... as do delicious, sugary slushies.

Daily Duh: Less junk food leads to weight loss

Brett Singer — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:00:00 GMT

This is a new occasional feature where I'll highlight studies that seem to confirm the obvious.

In Philadelphia, land of the cheese steak, five elementary schools participated in a program where candy and soda were eliminated from the vending machines, and kids were rewarded with raffle tickets for "making healthy food choices." And guess what? If kids eat less sugary snacks, they gain less weight. Astonishing stuff, this.

One interesting finding was that kids spend $2 per day on snacks that add up to about 600 calories, presumably of the junk food kind. Those things come from the corner store, where there may not be a lot of options besides Drake's cakes. The group that conducted the study, The Food Trust, says that they are "working with" local shops to get them to stock more fruit, vegetables and water. Because storeowners love it when people who aren't their customers tell them what to sell.

The language used in the story is very interesting when you consider the climate of weight loss. The writer refers to "kids who got fat" and then switches to "obese" and "overweight". This doesn't give you much information. If a kid is 2 or 3 pounds overweight, is that fat? When does overweight become obese? (I personally prefer the term "fatty-boombalatty", but that's just me.)

Getting kids to eat healthy is important, and it certainly would help if the food offered in school were better for you. My school lunch choices were pizza, hamburger, or cheeseburger, all of which came with French fries, or the disturbing looking hot lunch of the day. The fries were -- and this is not a joke -- "vitamin C enriched," which probably was meant to meet some sort of mandate. A study like this at least calls attention to the issue, which is great, but the conclusions aren't exactly earth shaking.

image: Yahoo.com

Weekly Check-Up: Skittles and Wellness

Kelly Mills — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:31:00 GMT

Maybe you heard this story: An honor student at a Connecticut middle school got busted for buying Skittles on school grounds. He was stripped of his job as class president, banned from attending an honors student dinner, and suspended for three days, later communted to one day (maybe for good behavior, like he ate an apple in front of the principal or something.) The latest breaking news is that he was cleared of the charges and had his records cleaned up. The student says he didn't know candy was contraband, though he did notice the student dealing in sweets was acting all furtive. Candy is forbidden as part of the school's wellness policy.

Ah, back in my day the schools themselves sold candy to kids at a snack bar, and I'm super glad that's a thing of the past. But this level of punishment is ridiculous, unless the Skittles came with an accompanying bag of weed and a switchblade. On the one hand, this must be an extreme example of a school taking a no-sugar policy to the nth degree, and I'd hate for folks to rise up and cry foul when the food industry and soda lobbies are working hard to push crap-food on our kids by sweetening the deal for schools (sponsoring football fields, generating revenue through soda machines, etc.) However, it does raise one point I think is key: Keep perspective on junk food so we don't lapse into hysteria. Sugar and candy and cupcakes (mmmm) are not going to make anyone "unwell" unless they are consumed in mass quanities very regularly (or you have some medical reason for not being able to eat them, of course.) We don't have to allow them to be pimped in schools, but we also don'thave to make candy a crime. Teaching our children the value of moderation and balance is far better.

Amazing! Kids Don't Prefer Junk Food After All!

Karen Murphy — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:04:00 GMT

Hey, you know all those studies saying that kids don't know their asses from a Big Mac and that they'd rather eat said Big mac than a plateful of broccoli? And the conventional "wisdom" that says kids would rather eat fat and that to make healthy school meals for kids would just cost too much so why bother because kids won't eat it?

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

At least, wrong according to another! new! study!

(And I'll bet also wrong according to what goes on in your kitchens and dining rooms).

Yep, a University of Minnesota study has found that school lunch sales don't decline when healthier meals are served, and that more nutritious lunches don't necessarily cost schools more to produce. Wow, rocket science! Amazing! And true: good food doesn't necessarily cost more than junk (unless you're talking organic free-range meats or wild-caught fish, and somehow I don't think we're talking those in the same sentence as "school lunches").

But some people need a study in order to believe things, so this is for them.

5 years of data for 330 Minnesota school districts were studied, and in the end everybody agreed that the schools serving the healthiest meals had no drop in demand. Which totally proves the old phrase "if you put it in front of them, they'll eat it." (which works in most cases)

And, it was found that the healthy food didn't cost any more in the long run than the junk: labor costs to prepare it were higher but the cost of the raw materials of real food versus processed junk was lower. And schools opting to start serving healthier meals will have to train staff to actually cook rather than open bags of frozen stuff, but all in all it's a good deal for Minnesota kids. And I hope it catches on.

Weekly Check-Up: Now Eating Fat Makes You Sleepless

Kelly Mills — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:01:00 GMT

Since I posted earlier this week about how not getting enough sleep can make kids gain weight, this study on how eating a high fat diet messes with sleep cycles caught my eye. Makes you think about the little chicken-and-egg action happening here. Rats fed a diet with 45 percent of the calories coming from fat spontaneously showed disruptions in the sleep-wake cycle. So researchers are loking at how eating a high fat diet contributes to weight gain and less sleep, which contributes to eating more high fat food, which results in more weight gain and good lord let's hope it stops at some point because now I'm tired and hungry.

See, here's what's interesting about this: Guess what the rats on the high fat diet did during what was once sleep/rest time? They ate more high fat food. The lead author says, "We found that as an animal on a high-fat diet gains weight it eats at the inappropriate time for its sleep/wake cycle -- all of the excess calories are consumed when the animal should be resting. For a human, that would be like raiding the refrigerator in the middle of the night and binging on junk food." Yep, vicious cycle, also known as "Midnight twinkies beget midnight twinkies."

Wimpy Obesity Campaign, But the Whole Idea Is Junk, Really

Kelly Mills — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:36:00 GMT

There's a story on how critics say the U.S. government's public health campaign on obesity is too tame to do any good. The campaign, called "Small Steps," advocates healthier snacks and using the stairs, but some health groups say the ads won't effect meaningful change because they aren't hard-hitting enough. Interestingly, in the middle of the article on MSNBC was a Hoodia weightloss spot showing an obese woman rapidly shrinking. Ha! But here's my favorite part:

Young viewers pay more attention to ads that evoke feelings of personal loss, sadness, anger, disgust or fear, according to an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Kids also tend to remember such ads longer.

That drama is lacking in the obesity spots — for example, none have offered a surgeon's view of fat, or dramatized a death from Type 2 diabetes, or shown a person complaining about how a fat neighbor's medical bills are costing taxpayers.

Oh yeah, I'm sure the kids would be just scared healthy by a spot on wasted taxpayer money. But really, is that the route to go? Second-hand money wasting? Look, one part of the problem is addressed at the end of the article: there's a serious reluctance to criticize the junk food industry in these ads. Imagine if the anti-smoking campaigns just told people to smoke less and breathe more clean air.

And here's the other reason I doubt any massive obesity awareness campaign is gonna have the desired effect. The prescription is different than in something like smoking. With smoking, the public health world took on the cigarette companies, were very unambiguous about the effects of smoking, and showed people how second-hand smoke could be harmful as well. But obesity? First of all, people do have to eat, so there's no abstinence solution, and second, there's already a stigma around obesity, so I doubt it has to be made unglamorous (as in the case of smoking.) And third, I don't think we have ever given people very clear guidelines about what and how to eat or how much to exercise or what kind to do and so on. Really. Forty bajillion articles on diet and exercise and I think people are still just lost at sea.

Micheal Pollan's NY Times article on food confusion remains one of the best things I've seen on the subject. Until we can give folks crystal-clear direction, I doubt we'll see much change.

Kids Know McDonald's is Just Better

Karen Murphy — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:05:00 GMT

All the healthy eating in the world apparently can't undo the power of branding, even to a preschooler. A new study of 3- and 5-year olds showed that kids overwhelmingly preferred the food in the McDonald's wrapper to its identical twin in the generic wrapper. I think I'm going to be sick now.

"This study demonstrates simply and elegantly that advertising literally brainwashes young children into a baseless preference for certain food products ... Children, it seems, literally do judge a food by its cover. And they prefer the cover they know."

Does this tell us anything we don't already know? Advertising works. That's why they do it. McDonald's rots the brain even when you don't eat it. Of course, most of the kids in the study admitted to eating McDonald's "food" (I'll use the term loosely) more than once a week, and most had McDonald's toys at home. So they are quite familiar with the golden arches.

I'm guessing though that even kids like mine who eat mostly at home and don't see much TV have, by osmosis, the same branding preferences as the kids in the study. It's pervasive and inescapable. I think we'll be doing a little experiment soon to find out.

Kid's TV Food Ads are Supposed to Improve, Sort Of

Karen Murphy — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:29:00 GMT

Yep, lots of people want to blame the fat-kid problem on junk food ads on TV, and the jury's still out on that one. But meanwhile, eleven of the U.S.'s biggest kid's food advertisers have agreed to new standards of the products they advertise.

Sounds good in theory, doesn't it?

But the reality is a bit, well, watered down. For instance, Campbell's will advertise its low-sodium soup as opposed to regular old chicken-noodle. Trix won't advertise until it changes its formula (WHAT?? Mess with Trix?!! Sacrilege!). And McDonald's will still advertise, of course. Only it will be for kid's meals limited to 600 calories or fewer. So kids can still see junk food, only, what, in smaller portions? Reduced-fat? Couldn't we just have ads that didn't actually feature any junk food? Or is that too much to ask?

Yeah. I know the answer to that one. But consider this: will the new initiative cause more marketers to actually change their products or will they simply spend less on kid's advertising and spend their dollars elsewhere? A Nickelodeon spokesman predicted their financial impact from loss of advertising revenue based on the new standards would be “a non-issue” because most products advertised already fit the criteria have plans for reformulation.

So like I said, the changes won't amount to much in practice. Oh well.

Kid's Nutrition Education Useless: They Still Eat Junk

Karen Murphy — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:50:00 GMT

Over $1 billion spent this year alone by the U.S. government on nutrition education for kids, and just about all of it will go to ~~waist~~ uh, waste. The Associated Press reviewed 57 scientific studies about the various nutrition programs across the country and found only 4 exhibiting any sort of success. Despite dancing carrots and broccoli, prizes for eating vegetables, and kids who lie about their habits, kids are still eating junk and they're still fat. Obesity rates in kids ages 6-11 is five times what it was in the 1970's, and for kids ages 2-5? Three times what it was back then. I'm still astounded at the thought of an obese toddler: don't they burn zillions of calories simply by existing (whining, mostly)?

So if these federally-funded nutrition programs don't work, how come?

1. Parents. Yeah, blame the 'rents. But how can you expect kids to eat broccoli while the parents are chowing down on Doritos? That hardly seems fair. Plus, prenatally, babies will develop a taste for what mom eats during pregnancy. Which explains my kids' tendencies toward cupcakes, bananas, and pineapple.

2. Poverty. Sad but true: junk food is cheaper and easier to find than the good stuff. Highly urban, low-income areas tend to have fewer grocery stores where fresh food is available. And there aren't a lot of good choices for kids to play outside in inner-city areas either, and sports teams cost money. What's to do, then, besides sit inside and watch TV and have a snack or three?

3. Advertising. Have you ever seen an ad for vegetables? I don't remember many either. 'Nuff said.

But here's some more heartening news, which perhaps will help bring on some real change: "This spring the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation announced plans to spend $500 million over the next five years to reverse the trend of childhood obesity. It will fund programs that bring supermarkets into poor neighborhoods, studies that measure the weight of children who exercise more at school, meetings of advocates who are seeking to restrict junk food ads." In other words, by cutting back on ads, bringing more "real" food to those who need it, and getting kids to exercise more, there just might be some change to this alarming, and, uh, growing trend of childhood obesity.

Shrek Continues Health Campaign With...Happy Meals?

Patti — Sat, 19 May 2007 19:35:00 GMT

If you were shaking your head when you found out that the US Department of Health and Human Services had enlisted Shrek as a mascot, you'll be rolling your eyes right out of their sockets when you hear about how Shrek and McDonald's are teaming up to promote "healthy" Happy Meals. Shrek and his pals are pushing the items that McDonalds has added over the years as a sop to the pressure they've been under for marketing such garbage to families—the apple slices (with corn syrupalicious caramel dip), the water, the so-called-chicken nuggets.

This week I played hardcore investigative journalist, and I pulled up to the McDonald's drive-thru and ordered four Happy Meals (two for my kids, two for Strollerderby blogger Alisyn's kids). I'm happy to report that despite reports to the contrary, Happy Meals are still utter shite. Nobody forced apples on me or even offered them; I was able to obtain fries with no problems. And the milk was not only chocolate, but the plastic bottles had a special Shrek label on it. And the straws were also Shrek-green. And the toys talk, and in fact, one of them burps. See the lengths I'll go to in order to get to the bottom of things?

You're welcome.

What I've Always Suspected - Kids Make You Fat

Karen Murphy — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 19:01:00 GMT

This tip from Inked Mama leads to this Science Daily article that cites a University of Iowa and University of Michigan Health System study claiming that adults living with children consume more fat, particularly saturated fat, than adults living in homes without children. While I'm naturally skeptical about a study that examines only a 24-hour slice of 6600 parent's lives and only stabs at conjecture for the causality of their findings, somehow I know in my parent's heart of hearts that this claim is absolutely true.

Think about it -- how many of us have finished a half-eaten plate of mac and cheese or that last wizened hot dog simply so it wouldn't go to waste? I know we'd rather be eating things liked Baked Mango-Ginger Swordfish, or perhaps some nice Tournedos of Beef with Chardonnay Mustard Beurre Blanc, or even some Garlic Grilled Shrimp, but how many of our children, especially the younger ones, will willingly consume anything besides the Holy White Trifecta of bread, pasta, and potatoes, with a few goldfish crackers and M & M's sprinkled on for variety? So we compromise with a pizza and call it a day.

Finally, I can blame my children for something besides lack of sleep.