What is new is that parents used to have support of the greater society. More people in prior generations were parents (now people get married later if at all, and have fewer children), and so they were parents themselves and would support other parents. Now there are many more adults who are not parents, and society at large (and marketers in particular) are not helping matters.

For example, several years ago when my children were 4 and 2, we stopped at a Burger King to go to the bathroom. The Burger King had a poster that was posted not at adult eye level, but 3 feet below at the kids’ eye level. It was blatant marketing to very young kids. It was some ugly monster toy that my child decided that she wanted. It caused a big fight, and my child didn’t get the toy. But why should a marketer be causing extra fights between parents and children? Being a parent is hard enough without some marketer somewhere making it harder. That’s assuming the parents are strong and do their jobs. If the parent caves, then the child is not getting what is best for them, and the marketer profits. It’s just not right.

Also, many parents don’t have the energy to do what it takes to be a good parent. Many households are dual income, and the parents work long hours. Our family has made other choices, so I (the mom) am at home and I have the energy to be the heavy when necessary. But good parenting requires energy, and mathematically most households aren’t going to have enough energy to do the job well, especially if other forces in society are not helping.

Most commentators are focusing on the “should gogurt be illegal” side of the discussion. That is, who’s responsibility is it to purchase healthy food for a child? — the parents of course. But marketing goes so much farther than this. Marketing exploits children in order to make money from them and erode the parent/child relationship and I think there should be limits to this just as there are limits to child labor or any other type of child exploitation.

Channel One. Exclusive vending contracts to captive audiences in schools. Invasive paid peer marketing. We as a society have an obligation to our children. Parents naturally, but more than just them.

It was recently “take your kid to work day” and our upscale office building had some kid-friendly activities in the lobby… brought to you by Radio Disney who had some new baby-pop princess out cavorting around, microphone in hand.

I couldn’t bring my daughter in that day (our company is relaxed enough so that she can visit from time to time anyway) but if I had it would have turned an interesting and educational adventure into a fuss in the lobby. I don’t mind saying ‘no’ to my child. It’s part of my job. But when the whole world is pushing unhealthy, negative messages ALL THE TIME, you end up saying no a whole whole lot. Suddenly you look like the kill joy and the bad guy.

So I have to disagree that the weight should fall entirely on the parents’ shoulders.

Yes, the onus is absolutely on us parents to set the rules. Yet nobody should dismiss what a huge onus that is. When almost everything the child experiences pushes her toward crap – sugar, packaging, flashy colors, it’s not surprising that parents – as the lone dissenting voice – have a tough time. We don’t watch TV at home, but she still gets the messages. I think the onus is ALSO on society, but that part has been completely turned over to marketing professionals.

For us, and I bet for many, it’s a matter of picking the fight. I’m NOT going to make all our lives miserable by insisting on whole wheat. I will however include acceptable alternatives that are sweeter/more processed that I’d prefer but still healthier than much.

Gogurt is a case in point: I don’t buy it. But I DO buy those little yogurt containers with the fruit at the bottom – lots of sugar yes, but not so much as Gogurt. I give her fig bars instead of pop tarts. I give her dark chocolate instead of candy (she actually likes the 70% stuff – most kids don’t)

When I think back on how *I* ate – Cheerios with about five heaping tablespoons of sugar, and lots of bologna – I think she’s doing pretty well.

On the other hand, I have also known people who are food Nazi’s. They put their kids on unreasonably strict diets. (I’m not talking about medically needed diets – I’m talking about crazy diets.) Then, when the kid gets in a situation away from their parents where junk food is readily available, they gorge themselves on chips, cookies and wash it all down with a quart of soda pop.

I have actually seen this in action. My daughter attended classes with such a child, and this kid was always begging the other kids for their chips and sweets and sodas, and because she was so well-liked they each gladly gave her some. My child usually ate a turkey sandwich, a piece of fruit, and some chips or pretzels for lunch, with juice to drink. I also made cookies or bought graham crackers or vanilla wafers from time to time. My child was in K and this kid was in 1st, but they became friends and ate lunch together.

The point is, yes it’s the parent’s responsibility to feed their children good food and teach them to make good choices. However, as has been mentioned, there are times when the child will have to make their own choices. The girl mentioned above was in first grade. She, obviously, didn’t want to make the decisions about food that her mother would make for her – and who would expect that a first grader would? Not me.

I wouldn’t even expect good dietary decisions from a second, third, or possibly even fourth grader.
By the time kids get to middle school, they want to fit in and will probably choose to follow their peer group. So, even if parents do their job at home, who is to say their child will actually make good choices when away from home?

Will kids still eat junk food? No doubt. Will they think twice about eating it all the time? If you raise them right. Kids are consumers, and it’s up to someone they trust to tell them that marketing is hype, advertisements are bogus, and parents NEED to step up to the plate and put their health first to show their kids that they, too, can escape the vicious consumer cycle.

My husband and I formed this rubric:
The first no is the easiest. From the beginning, with each opportunity to decide what our child would learn of the world, we decided in the moment based on what we thought the long-term consequences would be. Example: candy. My first-born did not even eat candy until his 4th year. He went trick-or-treating 2 times before he knew what was going into his bag.

We don’t know many parents like us, even now that our children are teenagers.

Visit my blog for bit more about parenting a lot more opinions on services for children with disabilities. www dot therextras dot com

I would say that this is where letting kids learn from their mistakes falls in. An allowance spent on food cannot be spent later on a coveted toy; I see in this an extra opportunity for teaching responsible consumption.

Not to sounds too self righteous, but it’s just not right.

I think that the government has to set some minimum standards to keep kids from falling through the cracks. That means limits on junk food in schools, no marketing to a captive audience of public school kids, and maybe limits on what kind of products can be advertised on kids tv shows.

What happened to our society where accountability is a thing of a past?

One issue that I am thinking about though is allowances? If you pay your kid an allowance and say that is for him/her to spend on whatever he/she wants, can you still restrict them from buying bad food or succumbing to commercialism? Stopping them from eating unhealthy things seems more reasonable than stopping them from buying something not harmful but is still directly because of advertising.

I think the argument is that it’s more of an issue for children who haven’t had a thorough level of consumer education and maturity yet.