Well, if you're not going to make kids move more than your thumbs... the only option is a pseudo-eating disorder if you don't want them to be fat. There's nothing healthy going on here. Nothing at all.

That being said, I don't think the diet pill popping eating disorder is at issue here. Society is trying to maintain the status quo without any effort. If you refuse to move, you'll need to cut the daily calorie count by 40%.

Yeah, I'd say this is just an attempt to maintain the status quo. There's nothing here about these snacks being nutritionally sound or advantageous, and they reinforce consumption of the very media that is, in part, responsible for both the obesity epidemic (couch potato kids) and the eating disorder epidemic (at least for girls, thin princesses). I suppose you could argue that the product supports both disorders, and overall, a very disordered approach to eating in general, which is hardly a surprise.

These are clearly marketed to parents who are too lazy to do a diet overhaul with their family, and who just want quick, convenient foods for their fast-paced, convenience-based lifestyle (oh, and yes, they are clearly marketed to kids as well...let's not forget who really holds the purse strings in most American households here). Perhaps these parents have a small awareness that their kids need to cut calories, but they are unwilling to do what it really takes in order to make a healthy life for their family (and let's face it, society doesn't really want them to either).

I can't really see these being protested right off the shelves even 15 years ago (they would have just been labelled as "lite" or something). Ever since the introduction of diet Coke, there has been (and probably always will be) a market for these so-called "illusion" foods.

The message that these send to both children and parents is pretty disturbing. Calories are a measure of food energy, something which growing children need in abundance. (And limiting a child's caloric intake actually increases, on average, his/her adult weight, as the body adapts via permanent metabolic changes to substandard energy intake in childhood.)

Also, kids need a much higher percentage of fat in their diets than do adults; the consequences of inadequate fat intake in youth are dire -- permanently impaired brain and nervous system development.

Chocolate, while it obviously should not be the centre of every meal because of its incomplete nutrient content, does provide the calories and fat needed by growing kids. (BTW, it's a shame that almost every chocolate marketed to kids is this low-quality milk chocolate -- dark chocolate is both healthier and edible by kids with milk allergies and/or lactose intolerance.)

Now, I'm rather curious about something here, so forgive me while I try and articulate my thoughts. From what I've seen, the whole "Childhood Obesity Epidemic" stems from the fear that children who are overweight* will grow into overweight adults. I'm sure there have been studies proving a correlation between these, but I wonder if being overweight as a child somehow causes a chemical change that leads to obesity as an adult, as the general public seems to think, or if it's just that the situations that lead to obesity as a child (sedentary lifestyle, little money for healthy foods, little time to prepare healthy meals) just tend to carry over into their adult life. I'm far from a sociologist or behavior expert, and even farther from a doctor, so I really don't know...

*How do they determine if children are overweight, anyways? Do they just scale the BMI down to their height? Cuz if so...that doesn't sound terribly medically accurate...

The Disney licensed characters are just the cherry on top of this boxed food disaster.

I think the problem is the tunnel vision. We need to focus on good nutrition with children.

Agree with all the posters above, but.... sometimes, just sometimes, as a mom, I let my son have some snacks and/or food that is not necessarily just for nutrition-sake. Sometimes it's because he wants a little treat, or a little dessert, and knowing that there is NO nutrition in these, I like to buy snacks that are a little lower calorie. I do have difficulty myself in eating right, and had to learn to calorie count for myself in order to get back to a normal weight after being obese. I emotional eat, so knowing the calorie count (as well as other nutritional values) is helpful for me. (I also try to eat nutritionally, not just reduce calories - such as shopping from the perimeter of the grocery store, trying to eat organic, and trying not to eat "food" that has more than five ingredients or ingredients I can't pronounce.) Anyways, all that was a long way of saying that, while trying to make sure my son has a nutritionally-balanced day, sometimes it is nice to have the lower-calorie count right on the front of the package. These would just be extra calories - not using them as part of my son's daily calorie count. It's not a perfect world, and if all my son's calories could come from fresh ingredients that are great for his body all the time, that would be awesome. But it doesn't always work that way, for one reason or another. He's very active, both in free play and organized sports, and like I said, these would not be counted as part of his overall caloric intake. So buying the ones with the least amount of calories makes sense.

"These are clearly marketed to parents who are too lazy to do a diet overhaul with their family, and who just want quick, convenient foods for their fast-paced, convenience-based lifestyle (oh, and yes, they are clearly marketed to kids as well…let’s not forget who really holds the purse strings in most American households here). Perhaps these parents have a small awareness that their kids need to cut calories, but they are unwilling to do what it really takes in order to make a healthy life for their family (and let’s face it, society doesn’t really want them to either)."

I really take umbrage with this, Sadie. I am a single-parent mom, working full-time while taking care of my kid. I do have a fast-paced life, but it certainly isn't convenient! God, I wish it was! My son is the most important thing in my life, and the reason I overhauled my own eating and exercise habits, in order to 1. provide a good example for him, and 2. be around longer to take care of him. Providing for him, working, shopping, taking care of what needs to be taken care of... I would hardly call myself a lazy parent. As someone whose day starts at 5:30am and ends at midnight, with no rest in between, I really resent the implication that I am too lazy to properly overhaul my child's diet. That's a pretty broad statement and pretty black-and-white. Unfortunately the world, and parenting, isn't that simple. Sometimes these items get bought, and knowing up front how these calories are contributing to my child's diet (as in nutrition, not as in weight control) is helpful. I don't think I would buy these just because they were marketed as only 80 calories, but again, because I am NOT LAZY and am frantically trying to get everything done at once, having the info on the front of the box is helpful.

I can't stand it when people represent children as little automatons that have no preferences, but will just eat what we put in front of them with no questions. If we just do it right, then kids will eat whatever is placed in front of them, right? And if they still refuse to eat certain things because they don't like it, well, we must have failed as parents because we obviously didn't present it right. Whatever. I don't like dark chocolate. I know it's better for me than milk chocolate, and when I was pregnant with my son, the latest research was saying that a bit of dark chocolate a day contributed to healthier, happier babies after birth. It's too bitter for me - and it's a strong flavor for children to eat. If you are a parent at all, you know most kids don't like extreme flavorings - their taste buds tend to be a little more sensitive. I think that is why most kids like milk chocolate better, but that's probably just my lazy parenting skills talking.

Why does it always have to be all-or-nothing? I try to make sure my son has plenty of opportunities for active play, and a well-balanced, nutritious diet. Sometimes, these are included as a treat. So what? And again, having the info on the front of the box is nice, even though I am aware they are using it as a marketing tool.

Well said, Keri!

As someone who has struggled with anorexia/exercise addiction, the biggest thing I have had to learn is that healthy, normal eating DOES include 'treats'. You know, things that aren't necessarily chock-full of vitamins. Making groups of "bad foods" and "good foods" complicates eating in a way that often leads to disordered behavior. As in most things, balance and flexibility are key.

Since I don't have kids I can't speak to their eating preferences, but I will say that from my experience learning to manage my weight, food packages like these are not the right way to address obesity.

A diet that successfully tackles obesity is one that is full of delicious, filling, and satisfying food with low amounts fat and sugars and lots of fiber. Simply decreasing the portion size of an unhealthy food leaves the eater feeling unsatisfied/hungry afterward, and likely to eat something else in addition. I look for ways to treat myself that are more healthy - fresh berries or low fat frozen yogurt - so I can eat them until satisfied.

I agree that this is just companies trying to maintain the status quo. They understand that there will be more and more pressure for them to address obesity in children, and this is their effort to stall that without making any real changes to the foods they produce.

I'm staying out of the kids and diet debate, but I want to point out one thing: those are not "generic princess[es]". Those are DISNEY princesses, instantly identifiable, heavily marketed and pervasive, tied in to everything you can imagine. The _Cars_ one isn't generic cars, and the princesses aren't generic princesses. They are brands, and highly coveted ones, too.

Both discourses will probably continue side by side, hopefully merging into a sensible center which is basically "healthy eating". This is not only more practical but more connected to the root of these issues.

Obesity and eating disorders are far from polar opposites, rather they rise out of the same condition which is the loss of strict social control over food consumption. (Keohane, K. 2008) Depending on the country, this has occurred in the past 50ish years. People are left to decide for themselves when and how much to eat, which means how we feel is in a position to influence how we eat. How we felt did not influence our eating *as much* before, as you ate breakfast lunch and dinner with your family and if you didn't feel like eating or you wanted an extra snack well, tough s***. Once feeling gets involved in eating all sorts of complicated issues arise, and occasionally new unhealthy norms of eating can spontaneously solidify around these complicated relationship with food. This leads to families or groups of friends with norms of unhealthy eating.

A discourse which strictly regulates food would be beneficial, stopping eating disorders manifesting in either obesity or anorexia/bulimia etc. But discourses are only as effective as the people that enforce them. It has to be not just talked about, but enforced by all us every day people

Keohane, K. 2008. Obesity, Insatiability, and the Mutation of the Symbolic Order of the Meal

I noticed this too -- when I began high school, all of the health classes just played B-movies about anorexia and bulimia on loop, and told us that worrying too much about lunch was a disease. By the time I graduated, everyone was talking about the obesity crisis, and how we all had to be careful what we ate. I remember being completely mystified how one national crisis transformed into its opposite over 4 years. Naturally, I threw up my hands and dismissed both as pure hysteria.

I'm torn. On the one hand, these are probably snacks for desert in their lunch boxes. Their mothers are probably packing them a substantial lunch and want to make sure their kids have just enough chocolate to stop demanding it, but not enough to fill up on so their sandwich and carrot sticks go in the garbage. It's not like they're marketing entire lunches that only contain 80 calories. This is dessert, junk food. Kids don't really NEED more than 80 calories worth of Disney Princess chocolate gems, they need most of their calories to come from healthier sources.

On the other hand, the attitude towards what is healthy or not in this country really sucks. People base it more on 'number of calories' than 'is what I'm eating healthy.' Of course, eating 4000 calories worth of apples and carrots is STILL not healthy unless you're Michael Phelps, but people think of low-calorie diets to be inherently healthy, when people still DO need somewhere between 1200 and 2000 calories a day to be healthy (depending on age, gender, body type, blahdity blah blah, ask your doctor). I one recall reading an article about 'how to eat healthy at McDonald's' by a girl who had no idea what she was talking about. Her main suggestion (for a meal, not for a snack) was the side salad, with nothing else, simply because it was only 90 calories. Of course, vegetables are healthy, but only 90 calories worth? That isn't enough, not by a long shot, for an adult's (or teen's, as this was who it was aimed at) meal.

I don't think selling tiny portions of junk food is an issue at all, because we sure as hell don't need to be encouraging kids to eat as many calories worth of candy as they can. THAT ISN'T HEALTHY. What should be examined, more than the existence of small portions for small people, is the fact that we focus more on number of calories than a balanced diet.

Amen. I have issues with weight at 30 that started at 6. I don't know what would have happened to me if I had grown up in the "childhood obesity epidemic."

As an aside, this is also an example of gendering the exact same item. There's the snazzy racecar for boys and the Disney princesses for girls.

"What do kids carry with them anyway?!"

It's a combination of security and innovation (real or imagined.) Maybe a few budget issues thrown in.

Many schools are banning lockers and desks to put all your items for security reasons. (Although budget sometimes figures into lack of desks and lockers. Esp. desks.) Often kids with giant backpacks are carrying every single book and notebook they need for all their classes.

I'm 30 and I went to a middle school where backpacks were banned. Things seem to have come full circle. Some schools only allow see through backpacks.)

Also, it's common for every single teacher to require a binder for their individual subject. If you're lucky, they'll settle for a folder. (I had one teachers who insisted that everyone in her class have a specific color of folder to make it easier on her. I was 8th period, do I had to get a black binder since there were no black folders.) Some teachers require this on their own, and sometimes schools think they're come up with a brilliant system.

By high school most of my teachers wised up and told us to put organize our papers however they work best for us.

I don't know how many schools have students carrying laptops everyday. That's a possibility.

And this is one that isn't new, but is a problem. If every subject has it's own book, that adds up, even before you factor in the separate for each class.

There have always been fat kids, if I look back at my school photo's from the 70's and compare them to my daughters current ones the kids look no different. There is plenty of sound scientific evidence around that shows the childhood obesity epidemic to be a myth. Overall the population may be a couple of pound heavier but kids are also taller. Same with the exercise thing, kids these days actually do more organised sport and exercise than they did in my day. Lots of people here need to question their assumptions and not just buy into the dross dished out by the media and the diet and drug industry.

There are only two variables… Diet and Exercise.

Except... nope.

Though I hate to rely on anecdotes, it only takes one example to debunk this idea: my sister and me. We grew up in the same household, eating the same meals. I was the sporty one - baseball, tennis, soccer. I'm fat, and was fat while doing these things, so I obsessed over portions and only ate SnackWells cookies. She spent her time smoking pot, eating pizza rolls, and listening to Korn. She's thin; was then, and is now.

We are not built the same. She is no more disciplined or morally righteous than I am. She is not more active than I am. Her diet is not better than mine (I turned into a whole foodie).

I recommend this for further reading (links to a pdf). Under Michelle Obama's program, only I would be getting the directive to "eat less and exercise," which a) wouldn't have made much sense, and b) leaves out all the kids who aren't fat who would also benefit from carrots and movin' around.

I'd like to first admit that I'm not someone that does a lot of shopping at the super market. I don't like the institution, and some of that may well color my ideas and commentary. Having said that, I see that the competing discourses you mention are at odds with yet another discourse: that espoused by Michael Pollan, which might be called "real food." Basically, if you can't read its ingredients, it's not real food. If it's "enriched" or "bleached" or "fortified" (etc) then it's not real food. Take a walk through Onivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food and you'll see the discourse that rarely makes it to the super market shelves; a discourse of local organic food and of non-processed food.

The history of "nutrition science" or "food science" (as with "agricultural science") has become more and more divorced with the eating, enjoyment, and natural engagement with food, focusing more on nutrient labels and levels; increased production; lengthened shelflife; etc.

We evolved to desire certain things that used to be very rare: sugar and fats. We evolved away the ability to produce vitamin C (which is why we are the only primate that can get scurvy), and so we also must have access to this nutrient -- through plants (like shoots or citrus) or (raw) meat. Our evolution diverted away from an ability to metabolize fructose in the same way as we do other mono- and di-saccharides (which may be why HFCS is not so good for us; there are more studies coming out about metabolic pathways for fructose).

Our social choices have brought us into a condition in which food choices are centered around the supermarket. It is a place in which shelf-life is an important consideration for all its items, which meant (in the past) the addition of preservatives and stabilizers, and it means (now) the consideration of genetic modification to slow down natural rotting processes. It is a place where the better-looking item is more likely to sell, which has meant the addition of food coloring (in meat, for example), a preference for looks over taste (think shiny eggplants and tomatoes that are mostly water and flavorless rind), and a packaging war that we have all witnessed, most easily if we walk down the cereal or soda aisles.

Our social choices have also brought about farm bills that have led to a preference for large factory farms that concentrate production into only a few potential food crop items: corn and soybeans. This centralization on corn and soybeans has led to rather interesting contortions in getting these two items into various food products (corn sweeteners, soybean oil, the two most commonly seen, but far from the only ones on ingredients lists), in ways that we do not yet know the impacts of.

Add on top of this the greater social changes that don't directly deal with food: the possible impact of a) computers and the Internet on kids activity levels, b) latch-key kids, c) highly centralized children's sports and camp activities, d) diminishing amount of physical education in public schools, etc. (These impacts are currently under study, and we can't objectively and conclusively say one way or another.)

Yeesh, mental dump on the subject, and not well though-out (sorry for that). I tried to keep it dealing generally with society and food. Thanks for reading if you got this far.

It's a tough problem. On the one hand, eating disorders are a serious problem. On the other, there are children who have medical conditions that are normally not seen until a person is in their 40s. MANY children are GENUINELY obese, and what's more, they are very unhealthy for it.

At the same time, these kids WANT sweet snacks. They want them because they taste good, they're comfort food. You can make them snacks sweetened with Splenda that are healthy, but having made diabetic-safe sweets I can tell you it takes FOREVER. As we mature, the sweet tooth fades a little, and we can find delicious foods that are healthy, but what to do for kids? Most kids I've met think yogurt is DISGUSTING unless it has sugar in it, even if it's sweetened with fruit.

Now, add into that that the accessibility of fresh fruit is a class issue-- inner-city kids usually can't get more than mealy apples. So you have families who have sugar all around them, no real fresh fruit, and what do you expect? At least this is an alternative-- something you could find in convenience stores that is a little better than candy.

In my high school and the high school I sat in on for education classes last year, BOTH the obesity crisis AND the eating disorder crisis are taught. The attitude is "moderation." Ie, health. They're very clear about what is unhealthy and what is not, and healthy includes a huge range of body types, while unhealthy includes both extremes. So don't assume that just because the media shifted their focus that the schools aren't still teaching kids about eating disorders.

...aand, zooom goes the OP! I realized I didn't even discuss the original question.

I think the anti-obesity discourse has taken center-stage as the "health" issue, and the anti-eating disorder discourse has been translated into entertainment with shows like "Intervention" rather than seen as a legitimate discussion about health. It's taken for granted that eating disorders are bad, m'kay?

The problem is, eating disorders are not separate from the anti-obesity discourse. In fact, they can be a result of the anti-obesity discourse. That connection has been largely lost in our national discussion of how unhealthy being fat is; eating disorders are pathologized and attributed to the individual, rather than connected to a societal obsession with thinness.

I don't think these are really that bad. They aren't a "lite" version of a junk-food product; they're a portion-controlled version of a junk food product. "When you decide to have a treat that isn't very healthy for you, choose a small amount" is actually a pretty good message to send to kids (or anyone, really).

The reason we don't want kids eating too much junk food is not that junk food is evil, but that if they eat too much of it, they'll spoil their dinners and not eat food with nutritional value. These packets make it easy to give a kid a reasonably-sized portion of candy and not have to deal with the whining that would ensue if you gave them 80-calories-worth of a 150-calorie candy bar.

I AM a busy mom... I DO look for convenience. And I am neither apologetic nor ashamed of it. I do not take personal offence to "lazy mom" comments because frankly I consider that sort of over simplification "lazy thinking".

The first thing I thought when I saw this was "At least the Cars snacks aren't labeled 'boy's' and the princess ones 'girl's!' Haha wow.

I think there are genuine reasons to be concerned about childhood obesity. Not because the kids might grow up to be fat, but because in children, obesity tends to be the result of inactivity (tends to be, is not always). Kids should be active, yet too many are lying around playing video games.

That said, this food clearly does nothing to promote activity or encourage healthy behaviors in children. In fact, the sugar in these foods is likely to cause an unhealthy approach to activity, as kids crash and burn on sugar.

Binging is an eating disorder as well, one I suffered from as a kid and still struggle with daily. So this isn't necessarily anathema to the anti-eating-disorder train of thought. Just the commonly accepted eating disorders like bulimia and anorexia.

I think quite a few kids today binge, and it would help them to learn how to control their portions and not eat out of boredom or depression. There is this strange feeling that food equals love, and that really isn't so if it's causing people to harm themselves.

Well, as you can see in this example, the anti-obesity discourse is often highjacked to sell fattening food.

But this is not new.

Kinder has been selling its snacks for years, if not decades with argument "plenty of healthy milk..."