Kellogg's Lego Fun Snacks Sends Mixed Messages To Your Child

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.

[Penny Arcade] (Thanks to Ben!)


Edit Your Comment

  1. Lambasted says:

    Spoken like a real parent.

    Spoken like someone who doesn’t have kids: “What’s the problem? Looks like a nifty idea to me. Kids can have fun stacking them while eating them.”


    As someone who doesn’t have kids, I didn’t see the problem initially. Gabe makes an excellent observation.

  2. coren says:

    I immediately saw the flaw in this, and I’m a 20 something with no kids, who doesn’t work with kids, who never deals with kids. You’d think a major company, full of people who probably do have kids, who target things at kids, who’s freaking DEMOGRAPHIC is kids…you think they’d see the problem here?

    Yeah, me either.

  3. msbask says:

    Wait a minute. A 3-year old shouldn’t be eating fruit snacks in the first place. Seems like a choking hazard to me.

    I don’t see anything wrong with giving these to an older child.

  4. SonicMan says:

    A 3 year old should NOT be playing with the lego that is that size.

  5. Darascon says:

    lghlghlghlghlghlghlgh gummy tacks…*drool

  6. doctor_cos wants you to remain calm says:

    Uhhh…just don’t buy them?
    Try this…”No.”

    Yes I am a parent.

  7. legwork says:

    @SonicMan: I think that’s the point. It’s a confusing message. Worse, picture a house with children of different ages.

    Fuck, these companies… lights on but nobody home.

    Next: Mattel’s Bright-Lights Kiddie Stove that pops out candy when you push the pretty red burners.

  8. I always was eating my legos. There was the one piece which covered two studs, and had just one stud in the center. The stud was hollow. I used to suck on them, and stick them to my tounge. I wonder how many LEGO’s I’ve swallowed in my life.

    I hope Gizmodo cross posts this so the Lego fans over there can chime in, especially someone whom we all know loves her Lego’s.

  9. cbartlett says:

    If you don’t like ’em, don’t buy ’em. My wife and I in our late twenties buy these all the time. For ourselves. They’re yummy.

  10. jbinbpt says:

    I wonder if it’s the same marketing firm that did light-brites and lawn darts.

  11. Leah says:

    @Git Em SteveDave just got compared to Matt Dillon for the t…:

    I hope you didn’t eat too many. I distinctly remember a kid who died from inhaling a lego by accident (he was pulling them apart with his teeth) during my 80s childhood. After that, we could only use our teeth to pry apart legos if our parents weren’t around.

  12. mike says:


    I wonder if it’s the same marketing firm that did light-brites and lawn darts.

    Wait…what’s wrong with Light Brite?

  13. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    Yep, those seem like a really horrible idea.

    Ahh…Mainway toys..brings back childhood memories!…I think “Bag ‘O Broken Glass” was my favorite, although I did have a lot of fun with my “Johnny Invisible Pedestrian” costume.

  14. whatevernever says:

    I have gotten these for my son but he’s 9 and knows not to eat real legos unless he’s trying to do some stupid “Jackass” stunt.

    You can’t stack these things because they are squishy and tumble over like a deflated hot air balloon

  15. ShadowFalls says:

    Lol, he does make a valid point, admit it everyone. You aren’t supposed to make food expected for little kids to resemble toys that they can put in their mouths…

    Lets not attack the parent by telling them what to feed or not to feed to their child.

  16. HalOfBorg says:

    Take those Legos away from the kid! Too SMALL man!

    Give the kid DUPLOs!! Same thing, big as their fist. Think of them as ‘Lego Trainers’.


  17. HalOfBorg says:


    I miss “Log” and “Don’t Whiz on the Electric Fence”?

    “Log…Log….It’s big, it’s heavy, it’s wood!…..”

  18. mmstk101 says:

    maybe they’ll make fruit snacks that closely resemble batteries. man, would that ever be a great idea.

  19. Wormfather says:

    I never get to use thim meme. Yay.

    Mmmm, legos, Nom nom nom Nom nom nom Nom nom nom Nom nom nom

  20. swedelibrarian says:

    We’ve already been encouraging this for some time. They’ve been making Lego shaped candies for years now. You can find them at the bulk candy shops (like the kind in the malls). They taste more like sweet tarts. They kinda stack together, but not that easily.

  21. JN33 says:

    Well, from the tone of the original rant, I’m sure Li’l Gabe will have no trouble learning how not to eat toys, but may thank his $%#(&))&* Mother for filling his (*&#@& head with ()*#^@$% language skills that will get him +}{:#&($# far in life.

    thanks a )(*@#^#$( lot Mom!

  22. Angryrider says:

    That’s why I wasn’t allowed to play with Lego until I was 8… Because of the fear of these goddamn snacks in the future.

  23. aikoto says:

    @doctor_cos: Because children NEVER go to other places where there’s food or snacks provided and if they DID, you’d have FULL control over what that other person provides to your kid.

    Get real.

  24. aikoto says:

    @Leah: Jeeze, I just used my fingernail.

  25. jchabotte says:

    I bought these.. I’m married and have a 15 month old son. He likes them..

    Anyways, they SUCK at building anything out of them.. they don’t interlock!! I tried to make a simple wall and the dang thing fell over, burned down, and then sank into the swamp.

  26. The_IT_Crone says:

    I can see how parents would be upset at the NOM NOM NOMing of LEGOS, but I was more upset (along with some of you) that you couldn’t build anything out of them.

    I mean, even in the LEGO video games you can build things.

    Also they were all the same size, the 4-bit LEGO pieces. Yawn. What would be neat would be to eat the little LEGO people.

  27. Coles_Law says:

    A local candy store has candy Legos. They’re essentially Lego shaped Pez (hard, but chewable candy). Full size, same colors, and you can stack them. I’d say that’s a bit more cnfusing than these even. Loads of fun to play eith though.

  28. induscreed says:

    hey isnt the meme “om nom nom nom”?

  29. oreggie says:

    The fact that you believe these candies are “fruit snacks” is unbelievable. They are CANDY. There is nothing about them that has anything to do with fruit, except for artificial “fruit” flavors.

    A better solution would be to feed your child actual fruit.

  30. induscreed says:

    i’d like to see an edible mindstorm set

  31. MayorBee says:

    I’m not a parent, so I’ll probably catch hell for this, but when did three year olds get to choose what food they were going to be able to eat in the grocery store?

    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.

    What I’m getting from this is “he’s old enough to choose his own snacks, but not old enough to know not to put real legos in his mouth.” I’m sorry, I’m going to have to take the blame the OP stance on this one. Maybe in a couple of years the kid will get a credit card from Bank of America and be able to buy his own snacks, but until then, Mom, you have the pocketbook, you have the reasoning ability, you make the decisions on what to buy.

  32. @Leah: I chocked on one or two. I had a oral fixation as a kid, so I would fall asleep with a brick in my mouth sometimes, and when I woke up, it would be gone.

    @aikoto: B/c of my oral fixation, I chewed my nails, so I didn’t have them to use to pry bricks apart.

  33. Floobtronics says:

    @msbask: A choking hazard? Yeah, like cereal, hot dogs, pieces of chicken, you know, just about anything toddlers want to eat. Even if you deviate from the 4 toddler food groups (pizza, chicken nuggets, hot dogs and pb&j), you’ll still find such choking hazards as string beans and asparagus. Oh the horror!

    Seriously though gang, we’ve got 2 kids (1.5 and 3.5), who eat some form of these fruit snacks like 2-3 times a week (Nemo, Little Einsteins, Cars, etc.). Our kids got the Lego fruit snacks in a birthday party goodie bag recently, I didn’t really give it a 2nd thought. Of course, we don’t have the tiny legos like I had when I was a kid — we’ve got duplos and the knock-offs that fit with duplos. Yeah, I’d like to see the kids choke on a lego the size of my fist…

    I see his point, and loved the humor in the complaint, but get real…

  34. Many of you are missing the point. Kids are impressionable. My two year old LOVES to grab shit off the shelves at the store and throw it in the cart… she sees legos with the other gummies, she’ll think her 7 year old brother’s legos which are off limits EDIBLE!

  35. bubbledumpster says:

    I think the most fucked up part is that, much like Lego branded waffles, they don’t FUCKING STACK.

  36. crackblind says:

    Kinda reminds me of the old Pez dispenser shaped like a pistol. You loaded the Pez in a magazine in the handle and the candy would shoot out the barrel when you pulled the trigger. Kids loved putting the barrel in their mouths and firing.

    Yea, it got pulled pretty quickly.

  37. DashTheHand says:

    Yea, this can go either way. It was a bad move to make the product, but it was bad parenting that accepted their kids choice when they “let them pick it off the shelf.”

  38. forgottenpassword says:

    I am going to say the same thing I did when I saw this on reddit.

    Its the ultimate responsibility of the parent to NOT give small lego blocks to small children who will put them in their mouth.

    So… with that said…. i see no problem with parents giving these snacks to their kids.

    Give them REAL legos when they are old enough to know NOT to try to eat them.

  39. mccxxiii says:


    I get the point of the OP’s complaint. My point is that a)you shouldn’t feed your kid junk food like that, and b) the mom should decide what to buy or not buy, so if you don’t like it, don’t buy it. The market will respond.

  40. SaveMeJeebus says:

    My son is almost 4, plays with real Legos, and loves these fruit snacks (amazingly he knows the difference and can smell food). He hasn’t put non-foodstuffs in his mouth since he was one so maybe he is ahead of the curve or something. He has a little friend his age who eats all of our candles when she comes over. To me, that is a little dense–even for a kid.

  41. Wormfather says:

    @induscreed: fuck, I’m doing it wrong.

  42. Balisong says:

    @jbinbpt: Yeah, what’s wrong with Light Brite???? You have some sort of vendetta against Light Brite?

  43. alice_bunnie says:

    Wow, I never thought of that, and that’s a good point. However, I never buy those because they’re nothing but high fructose corn syrup. Second ingredient behind water. :)

  44. friendlynerd says:

    Just switch to gummy lighthouses. Problem solved.

  45. bravo369 says:

    i hope he knows that they have supersized lego blocks that are impossible to put in a kid’s mouth. At 3 years old, that’s what the kid should be playing with. this guy is just a moron. don’t blame fruit snacks because you gave your kid small choking hazards to play with.

  46. highmodulus says:

    I can’t wait for the Tasty Paint Chip brand fruit snacks.

  47. InThrees says:

    Next up: Kellog’s Electrical Socket Shaped Fruit Smoothies Cups!

    That’s right young impressionable kids, pretend that delicious fruit taste is coming out of a standard house hold wall socket!

  48. Juggernaut says:

    @jbinbpt: I play lawn darts with my neighbors cats all the time, they love it!!

  49. Skipweasel says:

    From my experience, if you remove everything they could possibly choke on they’ll go into the garden and dig up bits of gravel to put in their mouths. The only occasions either of mine choked was on a bacon sandwich!
    At three years old most kids should be eating just what their parents eat (ours started helping themselves off our plates at 4 months) and are going to meet pea-sized bits of food, if only ‘cos they’re peas.
    Seriously – kids are very robust – if they died every time they met a hazard we’d never have got past coming down from the trees.
    Another bugbear is over dressing babies – you see them at the shopping centre (US = mall) on a warm day with half a dozen layers on. Smalls die from overheating long before they’ll die of being too cold. If all you need is a tee-shirt then the chances are you kids needs about the same.

  50. Dover says:

    Man, I love these things; I take them to class and build little sculptures before I devour them. It’s appropriate because LEGO robotics is one of the highlights of our engineering school (Tufts University).

  51. Hugh Jeffner says:

    I bet these have HFCS in them…

  52. bonzombiekitty says:

    @HalOfBorg: The really sad part is that I know that entire song by heart — and I’ve only seen it a couple times.

  53. clnclarinet says:

    Heh, I find it interesting that a few commenters are assuming Gabe is Lil Gabe’s mother. Fathers can be concerned with their child’s welfare too!

  54. Ben Clayton says:

    @Hugh Jeffner:

    What a glorious observation. Do you just like using consumerist lingo? Because I was about the send an EECB about the HFCS to the OP’s CEO.

  55. am84 says:

    Next time, just get them a Teddy Chainsaw Bear.

  56. Rupan says:

    @jchabotte: I did not expect a Monty Python refrence in this thread. Kudos to you. That made me smile.

  57. MisterE says:

    Yawn. This is so simple, it’s stupid. If your kid is not intelligent enough to (or too young) to know the difference between candy & toys, don’t buy. If they sneak it into the cart, responsible parents wouldn’t “buy it anyway”, but simply remove it from the cart and tell the cashier “We’re not buying this…”

    Sometimes all people need is little common sense.

  58. Womblebug says:

    I think anyone who is familiar with Gabe and PA will realize that Gabe is not worried about his boy eating his own Legos. He’s worried about his boy eating GABE’S Legos. Because seriously, man, how hard is it to replace a single piece off a fully completed Millennium Falcon?

    Seriously, though, I believe that Gabe neither lets his child play with itty bitty Legos, nor that he swears in front of him. He saves that for Tycho.

    Me, I’m waiting for the day my daughter gets into my husband’s Perfect Grade Gundam kit and feeds a few of the pieces to the dogs. He will never recover.

  59. Propaniac says:

    What I don’t understand: are the people in this thread talking about how tasty these things are actually saying they don’t taste exactly the same as a half-dozen other “fruit snacks” of different shapes?

  60. darkrose says:

    My 5 year old is developmentally delayed and has eaten the legos fruit snacks. He also plays with the small-size legos. He has never swallowed or tried to swallow an actual lego. He understands the difference between gushy fruit snacks that look like blocks and actual blocks.

  61. Concerned_Citizen says:

    Although it’s a stupid idea, you don’t have to buy them.

  62. bgrigson says:

    My kids dig them. I say make all fruit snacks look like legos. If you don’t want them or live in a constant state of fear then don’t buy them. Why does everything have to resort to “lawsuit” talk. Sheesh.

  63. Skankingmike says:

    @chus3r: don’t know could be the lawyer mentality we have created in this country.

    I love it.. who doesn’t play with their fruit snacks now??

  64. catminx says:

    Hmmmm lets see. Oh I know, maybe don’t feed these lego snacks to your 1-3 yr old ??? So there is no confusion!!!

    Geez, common sense people ! Stop blaming companies and marketing!

  65. oyvader says:

    Great idea!

    Instead of freaking out, go the opposite way. Replace all of your kid’s legos with lego gummies. That way, if you step on one in the middle of the night you won’t spend the nect five minutes hopping up and down on one foot and cussing like a sailor.

  66. dualityshift says:

    @mmstk101: Here’s a novel idea, make fruit snacks that look like food, not toys.

  67. says:

    @Lambasted: theres a local old fashioned candy shop in my town and they have been selling these lego type candies for years. i never through twice about it.

  68. dualityshift says:

    @bravo369: Spoken like a true ‘Blame the Consumer” moron.

  69. Parting says:

    Stupid parents… And where is personal responsibility? You’re the parent? So tell me, how did you survive your childhood?

  70. Parting says:

    @Skankingmike: That’s why I admire one Canadian judge, who was presented with idiotic lawsuit. Basically, judge said ”bullshit” and discarded the suit. As long as Canada has judges like that, lawyers won’t multiply like viruses ;)

  71. erejota says:

    There’s nothing wrong with fruit snacks in general and nothing wrong with Lego shaped fruit snacks. If your child has an issue with swallowing non-food items, then certainly avoid confusing them and don’t buy the Lego snacks. But for my kids (ages 3 & 4), they have no problem differentiating between them and actual toys. I think it’s an overreaction to say this is a lawsuit waiting to happen or that it’s dangerous for children.

    Also, aren’t there all sorts of candies for older kids that are purposefully over the top and gross? Things like candy eyeballs and brains and other nasty stuff? Are those a lawsuit waiting to happen if your kid turns into Jeffrey Dahmer?

  72. Skankingmike says:

    @Victo: um.. my wifes a lawyer.. but uh.. yea viruses :)

    Personal responsibility seem to be almost nonexistent. Why be responsible when you can sue?

  73. bigloaf says:

    Anyone for a jagged metal krusty-o?

  74. MissTicklebritches says:

    I’m more concerned about little Gabe growing up w/a rageaholic father. You know, big Gabe can’t live without rageohol!!

  75. SomeoneGNU says:

    One time when I was little my mom bought me some gummi bears. Because of that I thought all bears tasted like yellow and red, but instead they tasted like hurting.

  76. RUAvina says:

    I would love to know what sick bastard at OP’s home came up with this genius idea of letting three and a half year olds go to the store by themselves. I just spent the combined first nine years of my girls life trying to get them not to go to the store, by themselves, to purchase Lego shaped fruit snacks, and now you’re telling them that a three and a half year old is f#(king buying them by himself. Thanks a lot @$$#0l3s. 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 they will next be allowing him to have a credit card and blame some else for that too.

  77. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    There are a number of different opinions here but in the end this will be decided by potential liability. I am surprised that this product made it past Kelloggs legal department.

  78. Shutaro says:

    @Git Em SteveDave has a crush on the Swedes: In my day, we just ate paste.

  79. wring says:

    gabe, if your kid is 3, he can tell the difference between real blocks and tasty blocks. also, kid must be older than 3 to play with regular-sized legos so i really don’t see any harm in this.

  80. I’m still waiting to find out what’s wrong with Lite Brites!

  81. @bigloaf: I had that poster.

  82. kaptainkk says:

    All you people w/o kids are missing the point. And all you people with kids and think this is ok should not be parents. This item is marketed for kids and sending the wrong idea. Kids at that age are totally impressionable. I don’t care if you’re 20 w/o kids and you buy them for yourself. Find something else to satisfy your HFCS craving.

  83. There's room to move as a fry cook says:


    From the Hasbro website:

    WARNING: Choking Hazard – Small parts. Not for children under 4 years
    CAUTION: ELECTRIC TOY. Not recommended for children under 4 years of age. As with all electrical products, precautions should be observed during handling and use to prevent electric shock.
    110-120V AC, 50/60 Hz, 25 Watts

    WARNING: Shock Hazard. Pull plug before changing bulb.
    Use only round or blunt-tip candelabra base. Do not use bent tip bulb.

    WARNING: Do not use light bulbs larger than 25 watts.

    WARNING: You’ll poke your eye out.

  84. @Lambasted: I had a sample of these once, they don’t really stack so well unless they’ve revamped the product.

  85. NinjaMarion says:

    @doctor_cos, cbartlett, MisterE: Yeah, because it’s that simple. I assume all three of you were hatched fully grown from eggs or something, as you’ve apparently never been a kid to know how the mind of a child works. Did you stop to consider for a moment that the young, impressionable child will SEE these Lego fruit snacks next to the Spiderman, Spongebob, Scooby-Doo, etc. fruit snacks that they are currently allowed to have and won’t have the slightest chance of wanting them simply because mommy or daddy said no? Just because you didn’t buy them for your child doesn’t mean that they won’t then grab a handful of big brother’s yummy Legos to eat because they saw them at the grocery store.

    It’s incredibly irresponsible. Sure, the snacks themselves aren’t dangerous, and any reasonable person wouldn’t think that real Legos are edible just because the fruit ones are. But children aren’t reasonable or logical at that young of an age. And these are marketed towards children. It’s a stupid, irresponsible, potentially dangerous idea, and just from a legal standpoint has to have HUGE potential liability for Kellogg’s should some kid decide to chow down on some Legos just because they SAW the fruit snacks and made the association between gummy legos and plastic ones.

  86. arkitect75 says:

    @JN33: FYI, the OP is the kid’s father, Mike Krahulik, aka Gabe from the awesome webcomic Penny Arcade []

    @Womblebug: You beat me to it. Most of these ppl automatically blame the consumer, but you’ve gotta know who the consumer is in this case.

    Even if a young child is playing with Duplos they do still look like BIG Legos.

  87. luz says:

    @JN33: Gabe is a guy. And I’m pretty sure he doesn’t let his kid read Penny Arcade.

  88. NinjaMarion says:

    @wring: Ok, let’s say you have two children. One is over 3 and thus is allowed to play with regular Legos. One is not and has just seen how yummy and delicious and fruit-flavored they are while in the grocery store and decides to eat some of big sibling’s Legos.

    It’s an INCREDIBLY stupid and irresponsible thing to release. There’s tons of other stuff they could make them out of that wouldn’t carry the risk of a child eating something not intended to be eaten and possibly die, so why risk it?

  89. luz says:


  90. RedSonSuperDave says:

    I saw these at the grocery store yesterday right next to the “Drano” brand juiceboxes.

  91. LouDobbsChivasJersey says:

    As someone who eats Legos like they’re candy I didn’t see the problem initially. But they’re made of fruit? Yuck.

    //lighten up, people.

  92. elislider says:

    i dont care what you people say. the lego fruit snacks are the single most amazing and delicious fruit snacks ive ever come across. except maybe gushers

  93. failurate says:

    What I would like to see is Disney’s “Brave Little Toaster” bath toy.

  94. jimconsumer says:

    @aikoto: No, YOU “get real”; you can’t tell a company, “You’re not allowed to make that product because my kid might go to someone else’s house and have it served to them.” Seriously, what the fuck?

    Here’s an idea, take some fucking responsibility. When my kid makes a new friend, I go over there and meet the kid’s parents. That way, I can assess whether they’re normal people like me. If they’re not, guess what, my kid doesn’t get to play at their house.

  95. jimconsumer says:

    @NinjaMarion: decides to eat some of big sibling’s Legos. – Or you could, you know, supervise your children so the little one is not hanging around the damn legos. I had my second kid when my first was 7 years old. The 7 year old was instructed to keep certain toys in her room, out of reach of the baby, and then – *gasp* – Mom and Dad actually supervised to make sure it was happening. Really, parenting isn’t rocket science and it’s not the fucking snack company’s fault if your kid eats legos.

  96. I don’t know how Lego could ever release this product and think it’s fine. lol@RedSonSuperDave

  97. joemono says:

    This is sort of on par with the liquid-candy filled syringes I recently saw at Plaid Pantry.

  98. NinjaMarion says:

    @jimconsumer: Yeah, because you can keep watch of your kid 24/7 and your 7 year old is gonna be responsible enough to make sure not one stray Lego is ever left where the little one can get to it? I’m all for parental responsibility. But what fucking purpose does this product serve? As I said, there’s so many other things they could choose to use rather than take this stupid and incredibly irresponsible risk.

    Sure, out of reach of the baby is fine, but as soon as your child can walk and isn’t sleeping in a crib, guess what? They can move about while you’re sleeping, but may, in fact, still be young enough to not know better after seeing delicious Lego fruit snacks.

    Sure, it’s not something that’s incredibly likely to happen if you’re a decent parent, but it still MIGHT, simply because you can’t monitor your child every second of every day. Hell, there’s already the risk of children eating Legos to begin with, hence why there’s age guidelines. So to try and associate them with being a tasty treat is fucking stupid.

    Would you be so quick to defend the company if they were actually making thumbtack fruit snacks (marketed to kids, of course) like Gabe equated this to? I’m sure you wouldn’t.

  99. MayorBee says:

    @NinjaMarion: Wow, I think you need some Valium shaped fruit snacks. Or some fruit snack shaped Valium.

  100. NinjaMarion says:

    @MayorBee: Good work on contributing to the discussion in any way. Oh, I forgot, your previous post in here was another useless “don’t buy it for them!” post, which doesn’t at all address anything relevant to the stupidity of this product.

  101. marsneedsrabbits says:

    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.

  102. NinjaMarion says:

    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!”

  103. MayorBee says:

    @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.

    You see, according to Cocteau’s plan I’m the enemy, ’cause I like to think; I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder – “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I’ve SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It’s a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing “I’m an Oscar Meyer Wiener”.

    RIP, personal responsibility, we hardly knew ye.

  104. Kajj says:

    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.

  105. kaptainkk says:

    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.

  106. NinjaMarion says:

    @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.

  107. quieterhue says:

    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.

  108. MayorBee says:

    @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?

  109. gliscameria says:

    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!

  110. SJActress says:

    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.

  111. synergy says:

    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.

  112. Phydeaux says:

    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.

  113. Kajj says:

    @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.

  114. floyderdc says:

    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.

  115. SangitaCadmium says:

    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.

  116. TheNerd says:

    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.

  117. vatica40 says:

    @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.

  118. GothGirl says:

    you could eat a real piece of fruit….. just an idea.

  119. Christo67 says:

    if you go to the kellogg site and look at their Marketing practices to children


    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”

  120. sean77 says:

    parenting advice from the inventor of the Fruit Fucker.

  121. NinjaMarion says:

    @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.

  122. Phydeaux says:


  123. godlyfrog says:

    @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.”

  124. Meathamper says:

    Thumbtacks are a good way to express idiocy. Fruity thumbtacks are tasty.

  125. joemono says:

    @MayorBee: Since you mentioned it: Hypodermic Needle Candy

    In case that link doesn’t work, the URL is:

  126. MayorBee says:

    @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.

  127. MisterE87 says:

    @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.

  128. MisterE87 says:

    @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?