About 2 weeks ago I was reading an article in the paper about how a study showed that marketing was shaping toddlers’ taste buds.

The article states that Stanford University did a study of preschoolers and discovered that food wrapped in a McDonald’s wrapper “tasted better”. And then it goes south. Ready?

It quotes a childhood development specialist who campaigns against advertising to children – a role which I applaud heartily. However, such an individual should have a better grasp of the English language than to say “You see a McDonald’s label and kids start salivating”. Is that to say whenever I see a McDonald’s wrapper, somewhere in the world I’ve made a kid salivate? Try this on for size Ms. Specialist: “When kids see a McDonald’s wrapper, they start salivating”. This same specialist goes on to say that it’s “the first study [she knows] of that has shown so simply and clearly what’s going on…”. Seriously? 63 kids and you’re ready to decide it’s simple and clear? It’s simple, I’ll give you that much. Has the paper left out pertinent information, or did the study? Because between you and me…

The parameters of the study are sketchy. We’re told they studied 63 low-income children. So right off the bat not exactly big numbers to establish a trend, now is it? Nor are 63 low-income kids exactly representative of toddlers in general, sorry. Sadly the author feels his tiny sampling would reflect the same results for children from wealthier families. Somehow I doubt that, as I also doubt that income matters as much as parenting style. And speaking of parenting style, what the newspaper fails to mention, and what cannot possibly be accounted for in such a small sampling of toddlers is…

…whether eating habits were taken into account. Two of the 63 stated they’d never eaten at McDonald’s but we’re not informed as to how often the remaining 61 ate there. If they ate at McDonald’s on a frequent basis, can you honestly say marketing is to blame for the childrens’ response? Bullshit. This is something I noted when I subscribed to U.S. News and World Report. I used to take their stories and studies at face value before I realized that by carefully omitting details the gee whiz factor can be intensified. If you actually think about what pertinent information is missing and how it affects the presentation of said facts you’d realize you weren’t getting all the information necessary to shape an informed opinion.

It’s not until the second to last paragraph that they quote a marketing professor as saying that parents play a strong role in controlling food choices for children so young. Bully for him. It’s wake up and smell the coffee time for pete’s sake. If these kids are salivating over a McDonald’s wrapper… c’mon parents! Be more selective in what you allow your child to eat. Be more selective in what you allow your child to see/be exposed to. My child hardly watches the television, and when he does, it’s movies, not television interrupted every 5 minutes by advertising aimed at him. My child eats home-cooked meals 99% of the time. He’s eaten a hot dog on rare occasion, enjoys pizza a few times a month, PB&J when mommy and daddy are at their absolute worst at parenting, and at 5 years old has eaten at McDonald’s maybe TWICE that I know of. I’m not going to say he doesn’t know what McDonald’s is, but he sure as heck wouldn’t salivate over a wrapper and sure as heck wouldn’t think something tasted better because it was wrapped in a fast food wrapping.

It’s been suggested that it takes a village to raise a child – most notably of course by Ms. Hillary Clinton, however please take note Ms. Clinton – as long as the village is targeting and bombarding my child with inappropriate material, the village can kiss my ass – I’LL raise my own child, thank you very much.