Much of the stress of parenting, we imagine, stems from keeping your child out of danger. Just when you thought you had taught your child not to put small objects in their mouth, Kellogg’s introduces Lego Fun Snacks! Penny Arcade blogger Gabe discovered the snacks which resemble Lego building blocks but have a fun fruity taste. Gabe’s rant, inside…
Lil’ Gabe is 3 and a half now and so it’s very important that we always have a ready supply of fruit snacks. If we’re out shopping or at the bank or whatever, fruit snacks have the ability to soothe the savage three year old. We like to let Gabe pick out his own fruit snacks and he usually will choose Spider-Man or maybe SpongeBob. However I came home recently and found these in the pantry.
I would love to know what sick bastard at Kellogg’s came up with this genius idea. I just spent the first three years of my sons life trying to get him not to eat blocks, and now you’re telling him they taste like fucking strawberries. Thanks a lot assholes. Seriously, how in the hell did this ever get past their legal department. You can’t tell me that this isn’t a lawsuit just waiting to happen. I can only assume that their next product is fruit flavored thumbtacks.
We’re just happy to see Irwin Mainway, the controversial toy manufacturer, is back on his feet and working at Kellogg’s.
Amazing [Penny Arcade] (Thanks to Ben!)
More From Consumerist
-
Pringles Multi-Grain Changes Packaging, Size, Grains Under New Owners
-
LEGO Set For Girls, Slurpee-Maker For Kids, Top Nominees For Worst Toy Of The Year
-
Catastrophic LEGO Incident Leaves West Virginia Highway Strewn With Bricks
-
Target Claims Tech Exec Created His Own Bar Codes To Buy LEGOs On The Cheap
-
What Is This “Football” You Speak Of? Survey Says 91% Of Consumers Excited For Super Bowl Ads
FTA: Lil’ Gabe is 3 and a half now and so it’s very important that we always have a ready supply of fruit snacks.
Nu-uh. It’s important that your kid eat fruit, not highly sugared, processed fruit snacks.
It’s summer. Give the kid a peach or an apple or a bowl of mixed berries. Raw fruit is much better/cheaper/tastier anyway.
/Mother of many.
//None ate/eat fruit snacks. All ate/eat fruit.
To put it simply, there’s no defending this idea. None. At all. “Hey, you know those little plastic toys kids aren’t supposed to play with until 6 and pose a choking threat to small children? Let’s make some fruit snacks of those and market them to kids! I see no way this can cause any problems in the future!”
@NinjaMarion: You know what, you’re right. Let’s go ahead and nerf and sanitize everything because it could possibly give kids the wrong idea. I think we should add corn starch to all drinks to make them more of a slurry, that way you’re much less likely to choke on them. Let’s require parents to sign a release at the store if they buy anything with small parts if they have small children at home. Or, better yet, if they have kids, they won’t be allowed to buy things with small parts. You know what else? McDonald’s. That is definitely not healthy. The government should shut that place down and, barring that, parents should be brought up on child abuse charges if they feed their kids that “food”. No ice cream, no fatty meats, no fish (there might be mercury in it!), can’t drive the kids around because you MIGHT have an accident with them in the car. Oh, and take Desperate Housewives off the air and condoms off the store shelves because those things only encourage kids to have sex. Since parents are obviously too stupid to watch their own kids, everyone else has to do it for them. Now for a quote from the oddly prophetic Demolition Man.
RIP, personal responsibility, we hardly knew ye.
I am sure Gabe Jr. eats plenty of nutritious food and doesn’t play with age-inappropriate toys. Gabe Sr. was mostly being funny in his post and doesn’t swear around his kid, who, I might point out, is too young to read and thus is ignorant of both his father’s vocabulary choices and the fact that the squishy candy squares he eats are labeled “Lego”.
So calm down, you self-righteous hand-wringing idiots. This site gets worse every day.
God damn!! Do you people live in a fucking utopia? You say parents should be responsible enough to supervise children. Well that’s true. Parenting may not be rocket science but the truth is the majority of people that have kids have no reason having them. Just watch an episode of Cops and maybe you can see the type of people that actually live outside your sheltered bubble. You may be a responsible parent or pretend you know how easy it easy to be a parent (like those that write a book about kids, but never had any) but 95% of the rest are not responsible. The comments from the ones that want to dictate how easy it is to be a parent just need to shut it! The world is so screwed up and you make it sound like everything is just so peachy.
@MayorBee: Yeah, because that’s the same thing. There’s a difference between something that’s unhealthy or that on its own might present a choking hazard if it falls into a child’s hands and a product that is designed to be eaten that resembles a fucking dangerous item! How can you possibly defend this idea? Yes, there does need to be parenting involved to make sure nothing bad happens and in general, companies shouldn’t be held responsible for every single possible misuse of their product. But this is a very flawed, very fucking stupid idea. There’s no way you can look at edible Legos marketed towards children as being a good idea. You can’t, so stop trying.
I’m VERY for parental and personal responsibility, but that doesn’t mean that something can’t be just a genuinely fucking stupid, horrible idea. How about you just shape the things like a fucking Care Bear or Ninja Turtle or something so that the risk of a kid eating Legos because of your dumbass product isn’t created in the first place? It’s a stupid idea that isn’t necessary, and to argue that the company is angelic and innocent for coming up with such a thing is insane, regardless of whether or not a parent should monitor their child.
Would you be saying that it’s not the company’s fault and that responsibility’s dead if this were people complaining about thumbtack fruit snacks? Thumbtacks aren’t designed to be used by children either, so what’s the harm in feeding them gummy versions? Oh, right. Because it’s stupid, irresponsible, insane, and has the potential to make the kid think that thumbtacks are yummy, increasing the risk of the kid popping one in their mouth should they come across one ever.
Ok, this was stupid on the part of Kellogg. But still, there are lots of gummy candies that are shaped like items kids shouldn’t eat. Do dinosaur-shaped gummies encourage kids to eat model dinosaurs? Do spongebob-shaped gummies befuddled children to the point that they can’t tell the difference between food and their spongebob doll? Do the bear shaped gummies prompt the mass consumption of stuffed Teddy Bears?
I could be really wrong, but I think we’re underestimating these kids. Most children above toddler age can tell the difference between a soft, chewie, lego-shaped candy and a hard, plastic lego block. If they can’t, they’re too young to be eating gummies in the first place.
@NinjaMarion: You can say “the idea can’t be defended” till you’re blue in the face, but that doesn’t make it so.
In my opinion, something that is dangerous on its own should be even more restricted than something that looks like something dangerous. For example, is a picture of a gun more dangerous or less dangerous than a real gun? Is a TV show or movie showing drag racing more dangerous or less dangerous than actual drag racing? Finally, are video games depicting violence more dangerous or less dangerous than the child actually being involved in violent situations? By your logic, the picture of a gun will make the kid want a real gun, the movie showing drag racing will make the kid want to drag race, and the video game will cause the kid to commit violent acts.
If the parent smokes, what lesson does that send to the kid? Obviously that it’s okay to smoke. But since we’ve removed all responsibility for raising the child from the parent, it’s okay. It reminds me of the drug commercial where the dad asks the kid where he learned to do drugs and the kid says “I learned it from watching you, okay!”. That’s just fine by you because at least it wasn’t some big bad company teaching him to smoke or do drugs.
The parent has an inherent responsibility to watch what the kid is putting in their mouth until the kid is old enough and/or wise enough to know what not to put in there. I’m not saying it’s the parent’s fault if the kid puts something in their mouth that isn’t supposed to go there, but if it happens, the first question asked is “Where was the parent?”.
As for the thumbtack fruit snacks, that’s a strawman argument. We’re not discussing if fruit snacks are shaped like thumbtacks, hypodermic needles, ecstasy pills, or cans of Drano. We’re talking about Legos. I could come right back and say “Well, look at the gummy bears! The kids will think it’s okay to eat a bear now! OH NOES, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!”, but that would be another strawman argument. Similarly, gummy lighthouses will make kids want to eat penises, gummy turtles will make kids want to eat turtles (that can carry salmonella), and gummy worms will make kids want to eat worms.
Your raving and profligate use of curse words is hardly an example to set to children. That type of behavior as an example will teach them all to be whiny, spoiled, potty mouths. But hey, if it gets you what you want, it’s fair game, right?
The question is why don’t parents want to actually parent their children? What’s wrong with that? Why does it take the rest of society bending to their will to make them happy?
Are these marketed to kids or stoners? Because I realllly want some….
Maybe they can sell an drinkable window cleaner or nightlight that looks like a fork!
So, if you feed your kid Flintstones vitamins, do they assume they should suck on the television when the cartoon’s on?
Kidding. I can understand the frustration, and I hate kids. This is a stupid product.
This guy’s letter just cracked me the hell up!
He does have something of a point, but I also agree with the commenter who said that if you’re the parent, you’re the one with the wallet. Just say no.
And if your kids go somewhere else and start going through other people’s cupboards, you need to feed them better, teach them better manners, or stay home. Dang.
I think that it’s awesome that so many of you people are making judgment calls into Mike’s parenting because of his cursing in his blog, which is what his readers have come to expect. He’s putting his kid through college with this sort of humor and reader interaction, which I can’t really say for the vocal religious morality majority whose kids can’t adapt to higher learning and drop out.
Have sensitive ears and never accomplish anything, claim that someone is less intelligent than you are because they say /a word/? Or express yourself fully when appropriate, as is the case here?
I swear, there’s some real idiots on here.
@synergy: It’s not a letter, it’s a repost from the Penny Arcade blog. Mike was writing for HIS audience, which is markedly different than this audience, which is why he didn’t feel the need to justify his family grocery list or his child’s snack food preferences. He was just saying “Check out this product, isn’t it dumb, boy you never know what’ll turn up in my house, lol.
Being histrionic morons doesn’t actually make everyone else on the internet go “Wow, what a smart and principled person. I should model my life after this blog poster’s.” All this overreacting is just a form of showing off and I am sick of it.
Well if he purchased them with a good credit card that he pays off every mounth that gives him a lot of miles like he should he could do a charge back.
In all honesty I do not see the fuss, I mean it is just a damn fruit gummy. I think even the most dense of kids could tell the diffrence.
You can rationalize and intellectualize all the principled libertarian
reasons why Kellogg ought to be able to make whatever legal product its
wants and parents ought to be responsible for their kids actions and
what foods they buy or eat. That doesn’t change a thing. It is simply
and undeniably a bad idea to make a product designed for kids that
resembles in name and form a product that is a choking hazard to those
very same kids, and Kellogg ought to give its corporate head a shake.
IMHO.
I have to say, I have fallen in love with these Lego fruit snacks. Not because my 21-month-old son likes them (he won’t even eat them), but because they are so fun to play with! Just because I’m a parent doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy food items marketed to children.
As far as if they’re appropriate for children: I think that it’s the parent’s responsibility to decide which products their children bring home. If your 3 year old child likes the taste of plastic Legos, DON’T buy Lego fruit snacks! It’s that simple! As for my child, he’s never eaten non-food. He’s just not that stupid.
Oh, and stop letting a 3-year-old do the purchasing.
@Kajj: You get your logical well thought out face off of this site. We can’t have any of your ‘making sense’ crap here. We’re too busy spouting off fake outrage and judging other people to recognize blog jest.
you could eat a real piece of fruit….. just an idea.
if you go to the kellogg site and look at their Marketing practices to children
[www.kelloggcompany.com]
they say
“…principles such as:
No advertising to children under 6
Promoting appropriate levels of consumption
Portraying safe activity, exercise “
cleary eating food that looks like a toy that is a choking hazard is outside the realm of “portraying safe activity”
parenting advice from the inventor of the Fruit Fucker.
@MayorBee: Jesus Christ, are you even listening to your own arguments? You just equated a gun with Legos. And a mere picture of a gun with the marketing of a product, to kids, that implies that said Legos are tasty and should be eaten. IT’S NOT EVEN REMOTELY THE SAME! A better example would be if the kid lives in some completely fucked up househould where guns may be laying all over their slightly older brothers floor and then in the middle of watching their Spongebob cartoon, a commercial telling kids how much fun it is to shoot things comes on.
Legos aren’t guns. They aren’t a super-dangerous product that needs to be restricted. They are a toy. For children over the age of 6 (Because usually by 6, the child is old enough to be know better than to eat them). Fruit snacks are marketed towards young children. Here, however, there can be some overlap with children under the Lego 6 year guideline regularly having fruit snacks. Those children may not know the difference, and unlike A GUN, which should be kept locked up at all times, their older, 6 year old brother is perfectly allowed to play with them. All it takes is ONE stray Lego left out, even if you’ve actually taught the 6 year old to keep the Legos from their younger sibling, and your small child may now be choking because of the stupid idea Kellogg’s had that adds nothing to anything and could have been replaced with something less dangerous.
Real bears and turtles? Yet I’M the one grasping at straws and making nonsensical arguments? Bears and turltes aren’t red, green, yellow, orange, blue, etc. and of a very similar size to fruit snacks. Legos come in the same colors and are almost the exact same size as fruit snacks, depending on the block. Seriously, how you can try defending this idea is beyond me. Parental responsibility can only go so far, especially since unlike violent videogames, these don’t even have to come in into the house to do the damage. If a small child SEES the brightly colored box advertising the assorted flavors of the delicious Legos right next to the Spiderman fruit snacks that they are normally allowed to have, just seeing the box may have done the damage and made your 3 year old think it’s cool to eat Legos.
And don’t you dare compare this being an incredibly fucking stupid idea to being the same as videogames with violence in them. The first difference is that violent games are not marketed towards children, fruit snacks are (probably almost exclusively so). Second, it’s easier to stop a child from playing a violent videogames than it is to keep your young child from eating the one stray Lego their brother dropped under the bed. Third, many violent videogames have context to them, allow you to do things other than purely killing everyone you see, etc. If there’s a game where your only goal is to kill as many cops and small children as possible and rewarding you for it, that is a bad idea, and probably a game that shouldn’t be made. If there’s a game where you’re supposed to rape as many people as possible, that’s a horrible idea and probably a game that shouldn’t be made. Those are both completely different than a game that basically simulates the freedom of life, where there’s tons of things to do like bowling, driving, eating, watching comedy shows in the club, etc, while also having a gangster storyline as you go through it, comparable to a movie like The Godfather targeted towards adults.
And to criticize my use of profanity is childish. Ooh, I said fuck on a blog mostly directed at adults on the internet. I must be so horrible with children.
And raving? I’ve made a logical, well-explained argument, which you’ve just been sidestepping by equating it to insanely unrelated things. Don’t even respond to this post, in fact, unless you can explain to me how making fruit snacks, marketed towards children, that look identical to and are modeled after an item the small children should not eat is a good idea and how the company should be completely absolved of any and all social responsibility they have when making a product like this.
I’ve even admitted, numerous times even, that parents do need to parent responsibly. BUT THIS IS STILL A HORRIBLE IDEA that at best, serves the same purpose a bag of Scooby-Doo fruit snacks would. At worst, this product will kill children, which Scooby-Doo fruit snacks would not do. So please, explain to me how this is a good idea and how the company shouldn’t have any responsibility for that kind of risk.
tl;dr
@NinjaMarion: MayorBee is right, you know. Your posts have all of the appearance of raving, so your arguments simply fly out the window.
Here’s a rational argument for you: the stage at which a child will put anything and everything into their mouth as a means to explore their environment usually ends by the time they start to discern what should and should not go in their mouths. This means that by the time the toddler is old enough for this product to make enough of a difference that they would be willing to put a lego in their mouth instead of a fruit snack, they’ll be able to tell the difference between a squishy fruit snack and a hard plastic toy.
On a side note, choking is not the only hazard that children face when growing up, and there are many toys that resemble some very dangerous objects which I’m sure you can turn your energy on, as well. For example, there are battery powered cars that kids can ride in, which may make them think it’s ok to drive a real one. There’s toy kitchens that have stoves which have real knobs but don’t burn you, which may lead children to believe real stoves aren’t hot. There’s toy tools which may lead children to believe it’s ok to hit someone with a hammer, or use an electric drill on their head. There’s toy guns which may lead a child to believe it’s ok to fire them.
The list goes on and on, and if you assume that children are stupid, and not little sponges soaking up everything around them, each and every one of them is dangerous. Personally, I like things like this, because it allows me to have a conversation with my children, and in the end, there’s always, “No.”
Thumbtacks are a good way to express idiocy. Fruity thumbtacks are tasty.
@MayorBee: Since you mentioned it: Hypodermic Needle Candy
In case that link doesn’t work, the URL is: candyaddict.com/blog/2006/11/14/sweet-shot-hypodermic-needle-candy/
@NinjaMarion: I did not “equate a gun with legos”. That would have gone something like “a gun is like legos”. I said that dangerous things should be more regulated than facsimiles of dangerous things, i.e. a gun is more dangerous than a picture of a gun. If you can’t understand what I’m saying, that’s one thing. If you are trying to put words in my mouth, it means you understand the futility of your own argument.
You say “all it takes is one stray lego left out…” and then, magically, Kellogg’s has 100% of the blame if the child has even just seen a picture of the gummy legos, eh? So there’s absolutely zero responsibility if someone happens to leave a lego out around a toddler and is not supervising the child? Again, I point out the death of personal responsibility in this country. You also say about gummy legos “adds nothing to anything and could have been replaced with something less dangerous”. I challenge that adding value to something does not necessarily make a product good, bad, or neutral. If that were a valid criterion, why are cars made in different colors? Why do clothes come in different styles? Why don’t we get all our nutrition in a pill by now? Your argument about that does not make sense. An item is for sale because there is a market for it. If there is no market, or the market is not sufficient, the company will lose money on that product and will probably pull it.
I pointed out that you’re using strawman arguments when you honestly put out “what’s next, thumbtack candy?”. I then proceeded to describe what other strawman arguments would look like, i.e. bears, turtles, and lighthouses. I believe you know what I was saying and that I presented it clearly. I also believe you’re trying, once again, to put words into my mouth.
Is the reason you say “don’t you dare compare this being an incredibly fucking stupid idea to being the same as videogames…” because you, also, see the parallels in your own rantings? Violent video games are displayed right alongside more kid-friendly video games. This fact alone, in your own words, “may have done the damage and made your 3 year old think it’s cool to” shoot people, run them over with cars, rape prostitutes, etc. Using your own logic, those video games, with their resplendent bright, flashy colors and their engaging sounds have just turned that once innocent three year old into a mass murdering rapist. In case you haven’t figured it out, or are planning on putting words in my mouth, I’m using your own logic to refute your argument.
I criticize your use of profanity because, according to you, children will absorb anything in their environment like a sponge. They will do whatever they see and repeat whatever they hear, as per your arguments. Additionally, your profanity makes you come off as a nutjob at best, or the lady at the next table over in the restaurant that’s cussing out the waiter because there’s too much pepper in your soup at worst. Having the “f” word every other sentence does not strengthen your argument one iota. But, then again, maybe you learned it was cool to curse from some brand of fruit snacks that were pulled in the early 80s.
I’ve not been sidestepping the issue, I’ve been pointing out, in a methodical manner, exactly how your arguments don’t hold water. They’re not sound and I’m exposing that. Of course, you don’t like that, and you then put words into my mouth. I’m pointing that out as well.
As others have pointed out, there is a big difference between the hard legos and the soft, chewy gummy legos. As floyderdc put it, “even the most dense of kids could tell the difference.” And, to paraphrase godlyfrog, what about the battery powered cars, play kitchen sets, and toy tools? Don’t they market exclusively to children and encourage dangerous behavior? And yet I don’t see your outrage at these items. Why do you have a beef specifically with lego fruit snacks? Are you a shill for a competing fruit snack company? Maybe Chewlie’s gum?
I can’t believe that you, of all people, would encourage a company to make a socially irresponsible product like Scooby-Doo Fruit Snacks! Kids will see it and then think it’s cool to eat dog food! What if it was some of the contaminated dog food they ate and died? Then it would be the fruit snack company at fault for killing the kid! Therefore, Scooby-Doo fruit snacks are kiddie killers and don’t care about America!
How is this a good idea, you ask? If it sells enough to make the company money, there are obviously enough parents buying it to make it worthwhile. The three year olds are not out there hoarding the lego fruit snacks. The parent has the responsibility, apart from the existence of the lego fruit snack, of ensuring that their child does not put things into their mouth that could harm the baby. Who is to blame if a child gets into the medicine cabinet? The cabinet maker? The homebuilder? The drug companies? No, the parent has responsibility to supervise the child 100% of the time. Yes, parents will make mistakes because nobody is perfect. This does not absolve them of responsibility. Let’s look at a couple of scenarios: Child A chokes on a lego but has never seen lego fruit snacks. Child B never chokes on a lego and has never seen the fruit snacks. Child C chokes on a lego and has been fed the fruit snacks. Child D never chokes on a lego and has been fed the fruit snacks. According to your logic, Child D would never exist because simply seeing the lego snacks on the shelf is enough to send the kid on a raging, lego eating bender that will end only in his or her death. I would say that perhaps the kids that choke on a lego with or without having seen the fruit snack probably had a different level of supervision than the kids that never choked on a lego.
Your arguments have no merit and your histrionic style is off-putting at best. Other than that, keep up the good work.
@forgottenpassword: I’m not a parent, and I might actually want to try these snacks if they weren’t loaded with artificial coloring and corn syrup. While it is totally the responsibility of the parent to decide both what toys are appropriate for their child as well as the toys they play with, you can’t tell me this is not an idiotic idea and keep a straight face.
Wouldn’t it be sad if you were a parent that thought you were so smart for not letting your kid play with legos, so you decided these snacks would be fine and gave them to your child who went over to their friend/relative’s house who was either had older kids or just wasn’t as thoughtful as you? And the kid, who had never seen legos as blocks but just as snacks, chokes on one? The consequence is a dead child, for the negligence of both the snack company and for the naive parent, in my opinion. Sad.
@MisterE: Wow, I didn’t realize there was someone on this site with such a similar name. I promise I didn’t steal it – I use it for everything and it’s even my license plate! Great minds. Question – do you use this name other places? Do idiots ever ask you what “misteer” is?