Why, thanks for asking. I can see only one issue here: marketing a product that is not only not healthy but potentially harmful to children simply to make more more more money.Candy companies (and all companies) do have a responsibility to refrain from harm. (Caffeine actually removes calcium from the body.)

Of course kids will use these products. As a parent it is my responsibility to see that my kids don't, of course, but not all children have parents who can be with them 24/7.

I'm also a firm believer that no products should be available for sale in public schools.

I can't say that I'm surprised candy marketers are going this route to make up for lost sales. God forbid they spend any energy thinking about the societal repercussions of what they produce -- just keep on appealing to the market. It's the American way.

P.S. See also Caffeinated Kids: A Nutrition Deconstruction at http://www.shapingyouth.org/blog/?p=1173

Lisa,

You've made many thoughtful, articulate points. As parents, many DF readers will be in agreement with your assessments. Myself included. Thanks for adding your thoughts to this post, and for a link to a strong article.

Arg!

Just EXACTLY what my 7 year old needs.

I think all companies have a responsibility to 1) operate responsibly (as green as possible, paying fair wages, offering a fair return) 2) manufacture a responsible product and 3) encourage its responsible use.

Just because there is "demand" for it is wrong - there is demand for cigarettes, saturday night specials, and cheap clothing made by Chinese children, but that does not mean such indifference to the suffering caused by these products should be tolerated.

Frank,

When consumers object to specific products, they vote with their wallets. If consumers refuse to purchase these caffeinated candy items, you can be sure the trend will come to an end. However, I don't see that happening. I do believe these products will be very popular, among kids and adults. Caffeinated energy drink sales are soaring, and I'll bet, caffeinated candy sales will, too. Thanks for sharing your views with us, Frank. I'm sure many DF readers will agree with your assessments.

Ted, I'll criticize these companies as I sit here drinking my Starbucks. ;)

One of my biggest challenges here is how as parents (and consumers) do we keep up? Yes it is our responsibility to read labels and understand what we are giving ourselves and our kids, but something as innocuous as a candy bar? I'm running out of hours in the day.

Paul,

I'm in your corner as a parent. "One of my biggest challenges here is how as parents (and consumers) do we keep up?" Isn't that the truth? There are so many new pop cult phenomena out there, happening with lightning speed, how do we as parents keep up?

At least, I'll say this: the candy companies seem to be differentiating these new products with their graphics and language to make it clear these aren't your usual candy bars. . .that might help a little. In the end, you know and I know, kids will be very eager to try these new products. We can educate our kids about making the best choices for themselves, of course. But then, their peers will endorse the new candy as "cool", and we can't be there 24/7 as Lisa pointed out. There's nothing new in any of this, except the speed at which it's happening. . .

Thanks for weighing in, Paul, and thanks for the tip on the WSJ article. Much appreciated.

"Of course kids will use these products. As a parent it is my responsibility to see that my kids don't, of course, but not all children have parents who can be with them 24/7."

Lisa is correct, except what would she have us do about children whose parents are absent regarding what their kids eat?

Here's my take: Businesses create products to meet consumers wants and needs. If consumers want or need spiked candy, businesses are correctly responding by creating these products. Cautions should be included on labels and in all marketing efforts. The onus for responsible marketing lies with each business, regardless of the product. The onus falls on individuals and on parents as to who and how the products are consumed.

If the products are not profitable they will disappear; if they are profitable, they won't. And that is how capitalism works.

This is a free market system, Lewis. I agree with your sentiments. As I said above: "When consumers object to specific products, they vote with their wallets. If consumers refuse to purchase these caffeinated candy items, you can be sure the trend will come to an end."

My gut says that these products will be extremely popular, though, given recent developments in the marketplace. . ."warnings" or "no warnings". Let's hope consumers don't overuse these products. Anything, taken to excess, can be harmful. And some kids really don't have strong adult role models, so if this becomes a problem, I would expect community backlash against these products. Thanks for adding your excellent insights, Lewis. I appreciate it.

Community backlash against these products would be a great way to send a message to business. I just don't want government stepping in.

Given the recent backlash against the soft drinks and snacks being peddled in the schools via vending machines and cafeteria programs, I think there is more attention being paid to children's nutrition, by parents and educators. If kids get into caffeinated candy in a big way, I'm betting there will be a swift community response to this, Lewis.

The candies are just solidified versions of the drinks - they both contain similar ingredients - and it really comes down to a preference - whether you take your drug in liquid form or as a solid.

The increased competition factor creates attention seeking branding tactics, and names like "Cocaine" are proof of this.

I look forward to the day when these drugs can be taken intravenously (sarcasm).

Levon,

I'm sure the ingredients in energy drinks or the new caffeinated candy products are similar, as you say; if not exactly the same. You raise an interesting issue. I believe that the "Cocaine" energy drink has been taken off the market due to public pressure. At least it has in some states, if not nationally. Maybe some of our DF readers will let us know the status of that. That was, as you point out, quite a provocative way to market an energy drink. One that did not meet with approval from consumers and politicians alike. Thanks for your input, Levon. I appreciate it.

Levon raises a great point. I am forever waiting for Starbucks to introduce a caffeine IV drip for poor souls like me... perhaps I need to start lobbying the candy companies instead?! YES!

: )

I know from trying to stop drinking coffee for a few days that caffeine is an addictive drug.

Since candy is mostly for kids, this raises serious ethical questions.

To Lewis' points: I don't buy that businesses create products to meet consumer wants and needs, not anymore anyway, especially when they are marketing to children whose brains are not developed enough to even understand wants and needs. I think businesses create the needs through excessive advertising and knowing which buttons to push. This is quite different than fulfilling a real market need.

The fact that these products are purchased over and over says more about the cost of what is produced in China and our disposable income than it does about consumer wants and needs.

No one wants government to step in, but what happens when no one is tending to the greater good?

A classic liberal/conservative debate, I know, and goes beyond the scope of caffeinated candy.

We'll see if these candy bars end up at a seven-year-old's eye level in the store or not.

By the way, I am all for the free market but most agree there are limits and the market sometimes fails. There is a concept in economics called market failure.

When a train sets contain lead, the government has a role. When sick cows are processed and sent for school lunches, the government has a role. When the market fails, we do need the government. Otherwise, we have anarchy.

Even the "Chicago School" of economics recognizes market failure. I am not saying spiked candy is a cause for government intervention but there are cases when regulation is appropriate. Most reasonable people agree on this point.

Just one more thing -- I'd add that INFORMED consumers vote with their wallets.

Yes, the informed consumer votes with a his wallet, but kids are not allowed to vote in real elections for a reason.

It is the same reason we do not grant an 8-year old the right to vote, cash in hand, for a bottle of Scotch.

Too funny, Ann. Many of us are in the same boat, I'm afraid.

We have yet to see how these new caffeinated candy products will be advertised, Neil. I suspect this will be aimed at adults, but I do see kids getting into the act. They're going to find these items very attractive.

Thanks for adding your comments, Ann and Neil.

"We'll see if these candy bars end up at a seven-year-old's eye level in the store or not." Exactly, Lisa. That would be very telling, of course. While I agree that in some cases, companies can create a marketing demand for products where there wasn't one. In most cases, though, demand is already there. The huge market for energy drinks is undeniable. If adults, who have far more disposable income than kids choose to, they can make this new caffeinated candy category an equally huge success. On the other hand, if parents and other gatekeepers, like teachers become aware of a growing problem with kids, significant grassroots pushback can occur. In the case of the Cocaine energy drink someone cited earlier in this discussion, I am aware that local and state politicians got involved due to pressure from their constituents, and they forced the product from the shelves. So that is another option consumers have. We'll have to see what happens in regard to this category. Thanks for your well-articulated views and argument, Lisa. I appreciate it.

Neil,

Thank you for making some excellent points.

As you stated, there are some public health hazards that are so serious, the government steps in. That is appropriate. In other, less serious cases, the markets have a way of correcting the problems themselves. We'll have to see what happens, as I said to Lisa, in this case.

Thanks for weighing in, Neil. I appreciate it.

The "do as I say, not as I do" attitude so many have taken should be admonished. If you're drinking coffee, but telling your kid not to eat a caffiene-laced candy bar, not only are you a hypocrite--you're also a bad parent. Not for trying to protect your kids, but for trying to tell them how to live instead of showing them how to live.

Products like this can be marketed to kids because products like this have been a success with adults. Candy companies think that since college kids like energy drinks, the younger kids would like the boost too. Hence if we (the majority of a society) were not buying the products, companies would not produce them.

The same goes for alcohol, tobacco, sugar, salt, or anything else that Americans (including minors) intake too much of on a regular basis.

Sorry to be harsh, but it is reality.

You make some excellent points, Michael. . .however, this is an open and free society. As you point out, we have access to all kinds of things, many of which, if used in excess, are harmful. Therein lies the responsibility we all have to use our own compasses in determining what is best for ourselves and our children. You're right: setting a good example is important where children are involved. Thanks for making some good points, Michael.

Michael,

While I do agree that probably the most important thing adults can do is set a good example, I do not believe that the same standards of behavior apply to adults as kids.

It is perfectly appropriate for adults to have coffee, for example, while denying caffeine to their children.

Adults drive but we do not let a 10-year old drive. By your logic, we should never drive in front of a child lest they be tempted.

We as a society recognize that adults are usually competent to make decisions for themselves, while children need rules and guidance from adults. While I do not think that giving an 8-year old run of the liquor store is as bad as access to caffeine laced candy, I think that adults need to think hard whether it is appropriate for children to be consuming an addictive drug ad hoc.

When I was a kid, I could easily eat 3 or 4 candy bars. Now, I could eat one. Kids love candy. I remember Halloween being the height of excitement for my friends and me. I maintain that caffeine in candy is a bit dodgy and blurs some lines that should not be blurred.

Soft drinks have long contained caffeine. Energy drinks was a sort of natural next step, and I would hazard to guess the main consumers are mainly teenagers and young adults. Candy, on the other hand, is the domain of the very young.

Neil,
While I would certainly agree that adults should be given the freedom of choice whereas children should not be, I wonder:

Which is more useful to functional life as an adult in America: being able to drive or consuming coffee?

Surely more people would chose no caffiene and driving 12,000 miles a year to consuming caffiene and walking 12,000 miles a year.

My point isn't suggesting minors should be allowed to do whatever they want. My point is that we've created this monster as consumers and bad parents. I have a coworker that rarely allows her 2 year-old sugar-laced treats. Do you think that kid is missing out on life because he gets 1 cookie a month instead of 3 a day? Doesn't that make the 1 cookie a month a treat instead of an entitlement?

As a nation we overconsume and overeat. It's no wonder kids want things that are bad for them--that's what we offer them at every commercial break in front of the babysitter, err television set.

Ted,
Unfortunately, our compasses have a bent needle because there are multiple "strong earth magnets" constantly moving too close to us.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic, Neil and Michael. You both raise some valid points.

"I have a coworker that rarely allows her 2 year-old sugar-laced treats. Do you think that kid is missing out on life because he gets 1 cookie a month instead of 3 a day? Doesn't that make the 1 cookie a month a treat instead of an entitlement?"

Good observations and questions, Michael. Just one question back to you: Do you think as that child gets older, goes to school and has friends, he might be more likely to overindulge in sweets out of his mother's sight? It's smart to limit young children's intake of sugar, but sometimes if we curtail kids too much and for too long, they'll make up for it in spades as they get older. Teaching kids about moderation, and leading by example, are the best ways to impart our values to them. Hopefully, through the ups and downs of the growing up process, these values will ultimately stick in the long run.

Michael,

Point well taken, you are saying adults should set good examples and be careful with things such as TV and sugar, which are readily available yet hardly benign.

My dad allowed me 1-hour of television per day and and set a good example there by watching almost none. At the time I hated the rule but now I understand fully.

He did, however, drink coffee every morning and it was not on offer to me. Though at a certain age he offered a small glass of wine at dinner. My mom, understandably, vetoed that one.

I wonder, though, is the binge drinking common in the teenage and college years partly related to the taboo status of alcohol? Would demonstration of and allowance for moderation remove some of the mystique?

It is kind of a game where we pretend alcohol is illegal for teenagers but wink, wink, nudge, nudge, it is party time. Official sanctions against can be earnest at times but hardly effective.

I'm going to have to disagree with the if-you-forbid-it-now-they'll-go-crazy-later bit. I've heard that argument a lot, especially when discussing limiting my kids' exposure to advertising (they won't know how to handle it when they're older!). And a popular variation is: if you don't allow your kids to watch American Idol and play Nintendo, won't they soon become social outcasts among their peers?

Giving a child limitations teaches them that yes, they do survive even though they don't get everything their friends do, and perhaps even encourages them to limit their own consumption as they get older.

It is a battle, as Michael points out, because of the constant marketing directed at them.

Of course, as any parent knows, it all depends upon your child.

Lisa,

Thanks for rejoining the conversation with more salient points. I'll grant you this: it is an ongoing battle. Setting an example as parents is important. Ditto on setting guidelines and limitations. And it does depend on the inclinations of each child, also. Thanks for adding more good arguments to the conversation, Lisa.

Not to beat a dead horse, but since you asked a direct question here's my answer:

"Do you think as that child gets older, goes to school and has friends, he might be more likely to overindulge in sweets out of his mother's sight?"

Ted,
I have the hardest time with this, merely because I was a kid who didn't "rebel" by doing things I wasn't allowed to do. But it wasn't because it wasn't allowed, it was because I knew why I wasn't supposed to smoke or drink, etc. etc. I know this will sound quite arrogant, but I do realize the majority of people find (and do) things they consider acceptable that I don't. And I don't have a problem with that, I say within reason let people do what they want. Smoking? Sure. Drinking? Sure. Drinking and Driving? Not reasonable.

"I wonder, though, is the binge drinking common in the teenage and college years partly related to the taboo status of alcohol? Would demonstration of and allowance for moderation remove some of the mystique?"

Neil,
Yes, 100% I believe binge drinking is because it's forbidden. People certainly don't do it because it makes them feel good. (Do people who don't drink miss out on life?) So yes, demonstration of moderation would greatly help.

Great point, Michael:

"But it wasn't because it wasn't allowed, it was because I knew why I wasn't supposed to smoke or drink, etc. etc."

The reasons behind parental limitations, once understood by more mature kids, makes sense to them. Question: do you think all parents are taking the time to sit down with kids and giving them the reasons they are setting limitations and guidelines, though?

As Lewis pointed out early on, "Lisa is correct, except what would she have us do about children whose parents are absent regarding what their kids eat?" In saying that, he also made a very valid point. Thanks for continuing to add thoughtful comments to the conversation. I appreciate it.

Ted,
Sorry to help derail your post on candy. This has really turned into a parenting post. Before I forget, do you have your own blog or do you just blog here?

"Question: do you think all parents are taking the time to sit down with kids and giving them the reasons they are setting limitations and guidelines, though?"

Absolutely not. Mine didn't. It was usually my dad telling a story about drinking and doing something stupid as a teenager and everyone having a good laugh. Then followed by a, "I catch you doing that, I'll kick your ***."

Why learn from my own mistakes when I can save myself the trouble and learn from someone else's?

I used to be a high school teacher so I know as well as anyone how ignored some kids are.

The problem is not that parents don't care, it's that they don't show it for whatever reason: have financial hardships and have to work 2 jobs so they never see their kids, have to take public transportation for 2 hours to get to work, think that because they don't know how to eat right/do math/whatever they can't teach their kids to, etc. etc. etc.

It's an unfortunate fact that although caring counts, it doesn't count for everything. There is a time when people have to work through their problems and take action to give their kids a better life.

Michael,

To answer your question: no, I do not have my own blog. I've been blogging here for a while and just started on www.thedieline.com blog since it focuses on packaging and design. Given the demands of running a business, it would be tough for me to do more than this for now.

Actually, I thought this topic would inevitably turn to parenting and it has. I do think a number of people have made some excellent points, yourself included. The observations of parents and current/former teachers, are meaningful. It's true that parents these days are juggling a lot and it's tough to sometimes give kids the attention they deserve and need. Yet, with everything that's going on in our world, how can we afford not to give our kids the guidelines and help they need when young so that they can make good decisions as they grow up? It's vitally important, isn't it?

Thanks for sharing your insights, Michael.

Ted,
Thanks for the compliment. I hope I can be an asset; especially since I'm an outsider.

You're welcome, Michael. Just one thing: no one who contributes thoughtfully to the Daily Fix blog can be considered an outsider. This marketing blog was developed to spur discussion on topical marketing subjects. Many people have valuable view points and information to contribute based on their business acumen and experience. Whether we agree or disagree on various issues, there is value in everyone's views. I personally appreciate the fact that so many people take the time to post meaningful, well-articulated views on my posts. Thanks, Michael, and thanks to everybody else who is weighing in on my posts.

This is it, I promise:

"What would [Lisa] have us do about children whose parents are absent regarding what their kids eat?"

Here's what Lisa would like: for corporations and marketers to acknowledge a responsibility to a greater good -- and to BACK OFF with the products and advertising directed at young children.

I think a lot of parents would welcome a break from the onslaught (ads on public school buses? come on!).

Would it do any good? I don't know. But I'd sure as heck would like to see what happens.

Lisa,

It may make you feel better to know that a number of large food companies, like Kraft, have signed a pledge to stop advertising snack foods in school settings, on kids' TV networks, etc. This came because of push-back from parents and educators. Hopefully, advertising on school buses will follow. . .

Thanks for adding more good insights to this post, Lisa.

Lisa,

I agree with setting limits and said so in other points but, also, I mentioned that demonstrating *moderation* can have its benefits.

That is not to say, watch all the TV you want but, instead, say you can watch a moderate amount such as one-hour per day.

And as Michael notes, set a good example by not having the television on all the time. Same with alcohol, demonstrate having a glass of wine with dinner but don't demonstrate getting hammered in front of kids.

I've taught my kids that some of us have a body chemistry that causes them to crave certain things (chocolate say, instead of broccoli) because it makes them feel better.

If you look back at portion size over the last 30yrs, you'd see that 12oz. sodas have become 84 oz. buckets (sugar/caffeine)--same with candy (sugar), fries (salt), burgers (fat)--all things our bodies crave because salt/fat/sugar USED TO give us a survival advantage. “Energy” drinks used to come in those tiny little cans and now they come in pounders. Beer probably once only came in smaller packages too. I think of those things as really fast sugar---my brain doesn’t much know the difference & doesn’t care, it just knows it needs sugar (glucose) to survive.

If I have a type of body chemistry that for whatever reason contains lower amounts of naturally-occurring “feel good” chemicals (endorphins/dopamine), these things will be more attractive—I’ll eat, drink, smoke, take “energy” supplements to feel better. Since those are short-term fixes, and powerful ones, they're called addictions. I need more and more for the same effect and my body chemistry screams for more when you take it away—that’s withdrawal.

Unfortunately the “feel goods” we get from broccoli, exercise, safe sex, and good sleep aren’t marketable. They’re slow-release, boring and no fun at a party. So in order to stay in business and grow, companies have to keep upping the ante---provide a bigger size, a larger punch, a different delivery method to keep consumers from going to the competitor who WILL provide it. That delightful-sounding new Snickers has: sugar, fat, salt, chocolate, some protein, and now caffeine too---they’ve increased their competitive edge. I just got back from a field trip where Jr. High kids had caffeinated lip balm! Where can I buy stock in THAT company? (smile)

So back to the kids: I’ve taught them tobacco, alcohol, casinos, shopping malls, fast food, cola, and “energy” drinks aren’t “bad” in and of themselves. What’s bad or sad is in the reasons we reach for the “drug” in the first place---something else is sick (or tired or worn out or stressed out or sad or generally out of balance). If they understand that—then they can be not only better caretakers of their bodies, but by extension better consumers. They won’t be caught unawares when they turn 40 yrs old and add up what they’re spending on coffee/pastry/burgers/beer/soda/cigs/poker/shopping—whatever their thing is.

This is why banning (Just Say No) usually doesn’t work—people will find what they need to make them feel better. Think bathtub gin during Prohibition in the 30’s. Or turning to smoking if they quit drinking. Or overeating if they quit smoking.

When we figure out different, healthier ways to feel better, or at least balance ourselves out, then we just don’t buy as much of the stuff and market forces take care of it.

This is all much easier to say than to do. I someday hope to see this approach taught in the schools. Sorry if I got carried away.

Bravo for pointing out something we all missed, Karen. We as Americans are so used to eating fatty, salty, sugary foods that our tastebuds crave more and more of the same. You also make other good points: most things aren't bad in and of themselves if we approach everything in moderation. As, I believe Neil said (thanks, Neil), Lastly, reasoning things out with kids rather than prohibiting without reason, as Michael also pointed out, makes sense. Thanks for saying so many things so articulately, Karen.

Aristotle pointed to the importance of moderation. He call it the "golden mean."

I wish I could say I always live up to it but it is a good ideal to strive toward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_%28philosophy%29

Moderation is a good thing for everyone to strive for, isn't it, Neil? Thanks for adding more perspective to this for DF readers.