The View From 1776

-------------------
The following essay appeared recently as an op-ed article in the Stamford Advocate.

Just Say No

By Dariel A. Colella

There is no doubt about it, raising children is a tough job; and it’s even more difficult in a world filled with temptations.  The supermarket aisles are filled with fun and exciting looking packages that have prizes inside and beloved cartoon characters enticing our children from boxes of cereal and snack packages.  This creates a problem for some moms and dads because their normally wonderfully behaved children become monsters and pester the beleaguered parents for the sugary and fun items that they crave.  However, instead of just saying no to their children, parents have taken to filing lawsuits to solve their troubles. 

In a moment of clarity, a U.S. judge dismissed the 2003 lawsuit against McDonalds because, after all, who is really to blame when a child eats at McDonalds four times a week and puts on a little weight?  Unfortunately, this wise decision has not stopped the filing of additional lawsuits by parents who do not want to take responsibility for their children.  In December 2005, the Washington Post reported that a coalition of lawyers (who live in million dollar tobacco-funded homes) plan on filing a class-action lawsuit against the makers of soda.  Spearheading this effort is Richard A. Daynard, an associate dean at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston.  Daynard stated that “You want to keep kids away from dangerous objects, and a soda machine is demonstrated to be a dangerous object for kids.” So, instead of something reasonable like limiting the amount of soda a child drinks per day, let’s just eliminate it from their world. 

Not to be outdone by the soda litigators, on January 18, 2006 parents and advocacy groups announced that they plan to file suit against Kellogg and Viacom’s Nickelodeon for marketing harmful products to children.  According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (“CSPI”), these businesses “engage in business practices that literally sicken our children.” CSPI litigation director, Steve Gardner echoes the sentiments of soda litigator Daynard:  “Parents are ultimately responsible for making sure their young kids don’t get hit by cars.  But if someone’s recklessly driving around your neighborhood at 80 miles an hour, you’re going to want to stop them.” The message is clear, the junk food and soda companies are killing our children.  The problem with this theory is that the children are not being force-fed. 

Sherri Carlson, one of the plaintiffs in the case and a mother of three, claims that she tries to provide her children healthy food, but the junk-food advertisements and cartoon characters on junk food “undermines my efforts as a parent and must be stopped.” My advice to Ms. Carlson is:  get used to it – junk food is just the beginning.  Certain music, drugs, friends and clothing trends will all undermine Ms. Carlson’s efforts as a parent.  Perhaps it is naïve to think that Ms. Carlson could feed her children healthy food, but occasionally indulge them with their favorite treat. 

This lawsuit clearly highlights the issue of personal responsibility.  Ms. Carlson has many options open to her to alleviate all of the litigation stress:  1) she could say no when her children ask for something she does not want them to have, 2) she could turn off the television so that her children are not so immersed in the junk-food/cartoon world that they cannot live without those items, or 3) she could tape the shows and sit with her children while they watch and fast forward through the enticing yet hateful commercials. 

Corporate America is certainly capable of doing more to assist parents in their efforts to provide healthy diets for their children.  For instance, the CSPI reported that “One company, Kraft, has set nutritional guidelines for the foods it markets to children, and does not advertise to children under six.” But for some adults, corporate profits, much like the sugary sweets their children crave, are too enticing to ignore.  The Wakefield Observer reported that CSPI believes the Viacom/Kellogg lawsuit would cost each company $1 billion in damages.  This litigious behavior does not set a good example for children and may lead to a future generation of adults attending Plaintiffs Anonymous meetings in church basements. 

Adults are role models for children and, of course, while shopping at the market a child will want to buy something – just like Mommy or Daddy.  They will pester the parent for a treat or a toy and sometimes it doesn’t really matter what the item is, most of the time even a pack of gum will do.  However, if parents feel so strongly that they just cannot say no to their little darlings, then perhaps Mom or Dad should shop while the kids are at school.  If Ms. Carlson cannot say no to her kids now, just wait until they reach the Abercrombie & Fitch age. 

Visit MoveOff Network Members