Cocoa Krispies No Longer Prevent Swine Flu

Kellogg decided that it isn’t such a good idea to pretend Cocoa Krispies build your immunity.

Here’s Kellogg’s tail-between-the-legs press release:

Kellogg Company today announced its decision to discontinue the immunity statements on Kellogg’s Rice Krispies cereals.

Last year, Kellogg Company started the development of adding antioxidants to Rice Krispies cereals. This is one way the Company responded to parents indicating their desire for more positive nutrition in kids’ cereal.

While science shows that these antioxidants help support the immune system, given the public attention on H1N1, the Company decided to make this change. The communication will be on pack for the next few months as packaging flows through store shelves. We will, however, continue to provide the increased amounts of vitamins A, B, C and E (25% Daily Value) that the cereal offers.

We will continue to respond to the desire for improved nutrition, and we are committed to communicating the importance of nutrition to our consumers.

Cocoa Krispies still give you x-ray vision and web-shooting ability though.

Kellogg Company Discontinues Immunity Statements On Rice Krispies Cereals [Kellogg]
(Thanks, NORMLgirl!)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. PLATTWORX says:

    One would think after past run-ins with the FDA that they wouldn’t even try something like this. Did no one at Kellogg’s look at that Cocoa Krispies product box before it even got printed and realize it looked foolish?

    • RPHP says:

      @PLATTWORX: I don’t think the FDA is mandating the change I think they just realized they were making themselves look like clowns and therefore voluntarily instituted the change.

  2. seegull says:

    Because calcium is so overrated!

  3. Homerjay is utterly alone. says:

    Damn! I should have been eating it when it DID!

  4. ARP says:

    I think Kellogg’s played this exactly how they wanted. They’re going after the gullible and those who respond to fear. Informed consumers would’t buy this crock of sh*t. Informed consumers are also likely aware of the media blowback. The fearful and gullible might actually believe this claim and only a slightly larger group may become aware of the controversey. They’ve already printed the boxes, so they’ll be on the store shelves for the next few months.

    This is no different than a politician tossing out a falsehood (e.g. death panels, the CRA requied banks to loan money to people who couldn’t afford, etc.), or using a song without permission. Their target is the uninformed and a correction or media story a few days later does little to reverse the initial impression they’re trying to make.

    • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

      @ARP: Informed consumers are also most likely aware that feeding this shit to your kid is like giving them candy for breakfast.

    • Hoss says:

      @ARP: I dont see any reason that you should feel you have a greater understanding of reality. I dont see anything on the package that a less educated person might misinterpert.

      • ARP says:

        @Hoss: “I dont see anything on the package that a less educated person might misinterpert.”

        I’m not sure I understand. Then why are they remove the labeling? Why are there complaints that it may be misleading or preying on fear? Why was the original article put on consumerist? Are you suggesting its a media campaign that has simply run its course (that conveniently happens when there is a lot of complaints)? I’m having trouble following your arguments when put in the context of the story. I’m sure I’m dim, but can you help a brother out?

        • Hoss says:

          @ARP: I’m thinking the reason they are removing the statement is that potential buyers were taken aback by an inference of immunity. The ad executives were the gullible ones. In all likelihood, the agency did a focus group where the conclusion was that cereal should be healthier so kids aren’t to susceptible to illness. So in response they added vitamins and found either no impact or negative impact to sales. I don’t know of any segment of society that would see the big immunity word and assume cocoa puffs are as good as a shot in the arm.

      • Blueskylaw says:

        @Hoss:

        Politicians lie to get elected.
        Car dealers lie to sell cars.
        People lie to cops to get out of a ticket.
        Brokers lie to get your money.
        Cereal makers lie to sell cereal.

        There is a reason that P.T. Barnum became a wealthy
        man.

        Even educated people wanted to see the egress.

    • blandname says:

      @ARP:But don’t you know that eating one bowl of Cocoa Krispies for breakfast gives you over 35% more vitamins and calcium than three bowls of beach sand? Or that kids who eat Cocoa Krispies do better on standardized tests than kids fed a diet of twigs and gravel?

  5. kaceetheconsumer says:

    Aw man, and here I was thinking it was a viable option in areas of H1N1 vaccine shortage!

  6. Coelacanth says:

    In a few more months, the H1N1 hysteria will likely be over. Kelloggs can feign enlightenment after they’ve reaped the full benefit of their tactics.

  7. Quake 'n' Shake says:

    You know what else Cocoa Krispies can’t prevent?
    Diabetes.

  8. microcars says:

    These particular boxes of Cocoa Krispies are on sale my local supermarket.

    $1.50 ea but you have to buy 3.
    It would appear they have an incentive to get them off the shelves.

  9. nerevar says:

    coco crispies and juicy juice make a great complete breakfast.

    juicy juice also makes juice for brain development!

  10. el elarmist says:

    It’s not any worse than the Clorox commercials acting like if you don’t use their products, you’ll all get H1N1 and die. That commercial should be banned.