Sweets at checkout

Qualitymark · 13-02-2014 12:10pm #1

I see TheJournal is running a poll on whether supermarkets should ban sweets at checkouts, as Lidl do in the UK. At the moment it's running at around 70% saying no, sweets should remain at checkouts.
Does this make a difference - to adults, to children setting up a habit of eating, to families? What do you think?

homemadecider · 13-02-2014 12:47pm

I heard this mentioned on Operation Transformation last night, they were petitioning the government to do something about it. Totally ridiculous IMO. Where a private shop places their products has nothing at all to do with the government.

Again it comes back to personal responsibility. Don't go to the supermarket hungry, stick to what's on your shopping list and you won't buy a load of impulse junk items.

Precious flower · 13-02-2014 12:54pm

homemadecider wrote: »

I heard this mentioned on Operation Transformation last night, they were petitioning the government to do something about it. Totally ridiculous IMO. Where a private shop places their products has nothing at all to do with the government.

Again it comes back to personal responsibility. Don't go to the supermarket hungry, stick to what's on your shopping list and you won't buy a load of impulse junk items.

I think it has more to do with parents trying to control and watch their children at the checkout. It must be a nightmare when your trying to deal with shopping and the child is asking for sweets, possibly throwing a tantrum if they are refused. Be no harm if they got rid of them, they have sweets at the very front of most shops on the shelves. There's no need to have them on the checkout as well.

Alf Veedersane · 13-02-2014 12:56pm

It kind of goes against the ads they have against allowing the kids to eat junk that they have during Operation Transformation.

Why don't they just let parents parent and say 'no' to sweets at the checkout rather than legislate for it?

homemadecider · 13-02-2014 12:59pm

Precious flower wrote: »

I think it has more to do with parents trying to control and watch their children at the checkout. It must be a nightmare when your trying to deal with shopping and the child is asking for sweets, possibly throwing a tantrum if they are refused. Be no harm if they got rid of them, they have sweets at the very front of most shops on the shelves. There's no need to have them on the checkout as well.

Parents can simply say 'no'. If the child has a tantrum, remove them from the shop. It's not that hard.

Stench Blossoms · 13-02-2014 1:07pm

homemadecider wrote: »

Parents can simply say 'no'. If the child has a tantrum, remove them from the shop. It's not that hard.

If the child is having a tantrum over not getting sweets the parent should be re-evaluate how they've raised them.

Orla K · 13-02-2014 1:27pm

One of the supermarkets near me have one or two of the checkouts with things like batteries sometimes i go to that one sometimes i don't. I don't remember any fuss that anyone has had at the sweets checkout with parents saying no just a few disappointed looking kids. The biggest problem i'd have is with the processing of food.

Another thing is its not so much what you put in the trolley at the end of a shop its the rest of the stuff that you put in that matters more.

PlanIT Computing · 13-02-2014 2:15pm

Dealing with tantrums is a way of life. They come and go - can't stay wrapped up in cotton wool with your kids.

Most annoying part is when strangers stop, drop everything, turn and leer. Like it's some type of circus act.

siochain · 13-02-2014 2:16pm

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

If the child is having a tantrum over not getting sweets the parent should be re-evaluate how they've raised them.

Do you have many kids?

Qualitymark · 13-02-2014 2:22pm

One of the big reasons I went to Superquinn was that there were no sweets at the checkout. Calm and kindness reigned.

Precious flower · 13-02-2014 3:35pm

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

If the child is having a tantrum over not getting sweets the parent should be re-evaluate how they've raised them.

I don't agree with that and I don't think that's a fair thing to say. Let us be honest here, a child (or children) can be in a bad mood and have a tantrum over almost anything even if the child is 90% of the time fine, and it may not be so easy to pacify them once they start. It's not so easy to say 'no' while a child is screaming and refusing to listen to you.

Not every child will react calmly when you refuse them chocolate/sweets if they are in a particularly great mood that day, especially if it is a young child. I've no doubt that shopping with young children in tow is hard enough as is. I'm just saying there is really no need for sweets to be by the checkouts, it just creates hassle and creates a distraction for anyone with children who is trying to sort their shopping and pack their bag while keeping their eye on them.

Alf Veedersane · 13-02-2014 3:42pm

Precious flower wrote: »

I don't agree with that and I don't think that's a fair thing to say. Let us be honest here, a child (or children) can be in a bad mood and have a tantrum over almost anything even if the child is 90% of the time fine, and it may not be so easy to pacify them once they start. It's not so easy to say 'no' while a child is screaming and refusing to listen to you.

Not every child will react calmly when you refuse them chocolate/sweets if they are in a particularly great mood that day, especially if it is a young child. I've no doubt that shopping with young children in tow is hard enough as is. I'm just saying there is really no need for sweets to be by the checkouts, it just creates hassle and creates a distraction for anyone with children who is trying to sort their shopping and pack their bag while keeping their eye on them.

Do we really need to go down the route of having legislation to minimise the chances of children having tantrums?

Precious flower · 13-02-2014 3:52pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Do we really need to go down the route of having legislation to minimise the chances of children having tantrums?

I see no reason for the sweets to be at the checkouts? There is usually a whole aisle full not far away in most supermarkets. I don't see any reason for the need for them I can obviously see how it creates more spending for shops but I really think parents would appreciate not to have to deal with that every time they go out to shop. It would hardly be the end of the world for people to just go through the sweet aisle if they did want some.

turbot · 13-02-2014 3:55pm

homemadecider wrote: »

I heard this mentioned on Operation Transformation last night, they were petitioning the government to do something about it. Totally ridiculous IMO. Where a private shop places their products has nothing at all to do with the government.

Again it comes back to personal responsibility. Don't go to the supermarket hungry, stick to what's on your shopping list and you won't buy a load of impulse junk items.

I completely disagree.

Sugary sweets are highly addictive and packaged in a way that is very misleading for peoples brains. Children are too young to understand this and to be able to make responsible decisions - especially when marketers have spent billions on normalising the idea of eating food that is completely unhealthy and habit forming. Marketing companies understand the idea of adherence-which is that people will typically adhere to the conditions set up for them-because in practice people have very little willpower.

The government has a responsibility to counteract the multiple influence strategies used by FMCG companies which go largely unchecked and essentially teach people to think about sugary food in the wrong way and form unhealthy habits that are ultimately disastrous for health.

From exposure to advertising by chocolate companies, I still have a jingle in my head that goes as follows on "A Mars a day helps you work rest and play."

However if you do the maths on the real effects of a Mars a day, it does not help you work (due to blood sugar imbalance) it does not help you rest, and it does not help you play. In fact, it doesnt help you at all, but if you eat a mars a day for 5 or 10 years, theres a good chance its consumption will impair your clarity of mind, wellbeing *and* leave you overweight/obese with manboobs.

Conclusion: Chicolate should have similar labels as cigarette packets-because in the words of Patrick Holford, sugar is the cocaine of the food world.

Conclusion: It is grossly irresponsible to systemise the supply and marketing but incredibly unhealthy food and this must be changed because there is an oncoming health apocalypse of similar magnitude as the environmental apocalypse driven by global warming, based upon the mass availability of unhealthy food, promoted using misleading psychological tactics.

For the sake of children and who they grow up to be, it is irresponsible to place sweets at checkouts in supermarkets where families must queue to buy food. This is simply a habit activation strategy on the behalf of candy mega corporations.

Similar thinking here:

http://whatsheonaboutnow.com/why-is-coca-cola-advertising-everywhere/

Alf Veedersane · 13-02-2014 3:57pm

Precious flower wrote: »

I see no reason for the sweets to be at the checkouts? There is usually a whole aisle full not far away in most supermarkets. I don't see any reason for the need for them I can obviously see how it creates more spending for shops but I really think parents would appreciate not to have to deal with that every time they go out to shop. It would hardly be the end of the world for people to just go through the sweet aisle if they did want some.

If you were running a business would you care more about your profit or parents not having to deal with saying 'no' to their child?

For every parent that would appreciate there being no sweets at the checkout, there's another 10 or more people impulse buying sweets at the checkout.

Until such time as its having a negative impact on their business, or it becomes apparent that making the change would have a positive impact on their business, then they won't change.

Stench Blossoms · 13-02-2014 4:00pm

siochain wrote: »

Do you have many kids?

Raised my ex's twins.

So technically they didn't come out of me but they were pretty much 'mine'.

And yes they had tantrums but never over sweets.

Alf Veedersane · 13-02-2014 4:04pm

turbot wrote: »

I completely disagree.

Sugary sweets are highly addictive and packaged in a way that is very misleading for peoples brains. Children are too young to understand this and to be able to make responsible decisions - especially when marketers have spent billions on normalising the idea of eating food that is completely unhealthy and habit forming. Marketing companies understand the idea of adherence-which is that people will typically adhere to the conditions set up for them-because in practice people have very little willpower.

The government has a responsibility to counteract the multiple influence strategies used by FMCG companies which go largely unchecked and essentially teach people to think about sugary food in the wrong way and form unhealthy habits that are ultimately disastrous for health.

From exposure to advertising by chocolate companies, I still have a jingle in my head that goes as follows on "A Mars a day helps you work rest and play."

However if you do the maths on the real effects of a Mars a day, it does not help you work (due to blood sugar imbalance) it does not help you rest, and it does not help you play. In fact, it doesnt help you at all, but if you eat a mars a day for 5 or 10 years, theres a good chance its consumption will impair your clarity of mind, wellbeing *and* leave you overweight/obese with manboobs.

Conclusion: Chicolate should have similar labels as cigarette packets-because in the words of Patrick Holford, sugar is the cocaine of the food world.

Conclusion: It is grossly irresponsible to systemise the supply and marketing but incredibly unhealthy food and this must be changed because there is an oncoming health apocalypse of similar magnitude as the environmental apocalypse driven by global warming, based upon the mass availability of unhealthy food, promoted using misleading psychological tactics.

Similar thinking here:

http://whatsheonaboutnow.com/why-is-coca-cola-advertising-everywhere/

I know that Mars jingle. I have it on a loop in my head now. I haven't had a Mars bar in years.

The one tv ad I will probably always remember (other than the Budweiser Christmas ad with the horses) is the Coke ad with the coke pouring on top of the ice cubes with the ice cubes dancing about in it. I can't remember the last time a drop of Coke passed my lips (or Budweiser for that matter).

Regardless of how good the marketing is, people still have a choice about what food they eat.

What label would you put on a chocolate bar anyway? A picture of Augustus Gloop?

siochain · 13-02-2014 4:31pm

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

If the child is having a tantrum over not getting sweets the parent should be re-evaluate how they've raised them.

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

Raised my ex's twins.

So technically they didn't come out of me but they were pretty much 'mine'.

And yes they had tantrums but never over sweets.

Then you should know that a parent shouldn’t have to re-evaluate how they've raised them.

3 kids from the same parents raised the exact same way can all react differently to any given situation. This points back what others above have said whereby some stop a stare at people like their an alien family because a kid is crying.

siochain · 13-02-2014 4:31pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Do we really need to go down the route of having legislation to minimise the chances of children having tantrums?

Defiantly not. If people don’t like it shop elsewhere.

Alf Veedersane · 13-02-2014 4:37pm

siochain wrote: »

Defiantly not. If people don’t like it shop elsewhere.

Or get some valium...

Stench Blossoms · 13-02-2014 4:40pm

siochain wrote: »

Then you should know that a parent shouldn’t have to re-evaluate how they've raised them.

3 kids from the same parents raised the exact same way can all react differently to any given situation. This points back what others above have said whereby some stop a stare at people like their an alien family because a kid is crying.

*Slightly off topic*

Ok maybe I said that wrong. I'm talking about a tantrum here. Not a child just crying. I'll give you an example of a different situation.

A friend of mine ALWAYS gives into her kid. Always. We were in Dundrum and paying for parking and my friend went to put the ticket in. The child let out the biggest roar I've ever heard and started screaming and stamping her feet because she wanted to put the ticket in.

What did my friend do? Let her put the ticket in. She rewarded the child (by letting her do what she wanted) after this little tantrum.

For a quiet life yeh, letting the kid put in the ticket was a good idea but realistically, there is something not quite right about kids throwing absolute tantrums because they don't get what they want.

A child will quickly learn that behaving like that will not result in them getting what they want if they aren't given what they were looking for.

Precious flower · 13-02-2014 5:02pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

If you were running a business would you care more about your profit or parents not having to deal with saying 'no' to their child?

For every parent that would appreciate there being no sweets at the checkout, there's another 10 or more people impulse buying sweets at the checkout.

Until such time as its having a negative impact on their business, or it becomes apparent that making the change would have a positive impact on their business, then they won't change.

Oh, I'm well aware of that, I'd say they make a nice little bit from it, naturally they are going to consider profit first just like the way they have designed the aisle so that essentials are at the back and they have that lovely smell of baking bread that is all around the shop.
But I think was it Super Quinn that have taken away the sweets from the checkouts (think they were on Operation Transformation last night taking and they don't seem to have been adversely affected by it and I doubt that it solely had to do with them feeling morally obligated to do it.

I just think a parent who may have three young children swarming around her/him, to be allowed the peace of mind that at least the children wouldn't be tempted to start something at the checkout, at least over sweets.

Alf Veedersane · 13-02-2014 5:07pm

Precious flower wrote: »

But I think was it Super Quinn that have taken away the sweets from the checkouts (think they were on Operation Transformation last night taking and they don't seem to have been adversely affected by it and I doubt that it solely had to do with them feeling morally obligated to do it.

Well, unless you count them going into receivership as a positive

siochain · 13-02-2014 5:17pm

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

*Slightly off topic*

Ok maybe I said that wrong. I'm talking about a tantrum here. Not a child just crying. I'll give you an example of a different situation.

A friend of mine ALWAYS gives into her kid. Always. We were in Dundrum and paying for parking and my friend went to put the ticket in. The child let out the biggest roar I've ever heard and started screaming and stamping her feet because she wanted to put the ticket in.

What did my friend do? Let her put the ticket in. She rewarded the child (by letting her do what she wanted) after this little tantrum.

For a quiet life yeh, letting the kid put in the ticket was a good idea but realistically, there is something not quite right about kids throwing absolute tantrums because they don't get what they want.

A child will quickly learn that behaving like that will not result in them getting what they want if they aren't given what they were looking for.

Looking at from that point yeah your friend is not doing herself and more so the kids any favours.

An example from our estate where neighbours of ours have 3 boys, from looking on the parents are very balanced and I would say are good parents you know what I mean. Their kids are often in our house and I see them in the GAA during training. Two are like your average young boys and one is a total nightmare in all situations. I guess my point it's not always down to the parenting.

Cheers

Penny Tration · 14-02-2014 11:40am

Precious flower wrote: »

Oh, I'm well aware of that, I'd say they make a nice little bit from it, naturally they are going to consider profit first just like the way they have designed the aisle so that essentials are at the back and they have that lovely smell of baking bread that is all around the shop.
But I think was it Super Quinn that have taken away the sweets from the checkouts (think they were on Operation Transformation last night taking and they don't seem to have been adversely affected by it and I doubt that it solely had to do with them feeling morally obligated to do it.

I just think a parent who may have three young children swarming around her/him, to be allowed the peace of mind that at least the children wouldn't be tempted to start something at the checkout, at least over sweets.

My local superquinn haven't taken them away. The self service checkouts have two massive stands full of family sized bags of crisps, and the surrounding shelves in the self service enclosure at full of chocolate and sweets.

Bit silly legislating to have them removed, though.

Say no to your kids, and don't buy them for yourself.

Surely we, as adults, shouldn't need to be babied to such an extent.

ted1 · 14-02-2014 1:39pm

homemadecider wrote: »

Parents can simply say 'no'. If the child has a tantrum, remove them from the shop. It's not that hard.

Parents should say NO but some parents have no idea or interest in either themselves or their kids eating healthy and as such legislation maybe required.

legislation was provided to protect people from inhaling passive smoking. Passive bad diet and general eating of sh1t is equally as bad and regrettable their are parents out there that encourage this.

sweets at the check out are a quick and easy impulse buy.

in my opinion yes they should be removed.

drkpower · 14-02-2014 2:59pm

green_screen wrote: »

Surely we, as adults, shouldn't need to be babied to such an extent.

I suppose the same could be said for a million other things (cigarette & alcohol availability/advertising, sale of paracetamol in limited sizes, the list goes on).

As with anything, it is about balancing the pros and cons of every measure, particularly as they impact upon each party. The placing of sweets at checkouts is primarily a marketing tactic aimed at children. Prohibiting it arguably acts to protect children (and by extension parents) from that form of subtle marketing. Is removing that tactic an unreasonable attack on the rights of the retailer?

It is easy to say that parents should have the cop on to say 'no' (and especially easy to say when not in the middle of a shop with a child who is acting up). But its also easy to say that retailers shouldnt be subtly aiming their marketing practices at young children; yet saying it doesnt stop them from engaging in this practice. Making them stop doesnt seem like rough justice to me.

Alf Veedersane · 14-02-2014 3:05pm

drkpower wrote: »

The placing of sweets at checkouts is primarily a marketing tactic aimed at children.

Primarily aimed at children?

I doubt it. The number of adults wihtout children in tow that go through checkouts hugely outnumbers the adults that go through with kids.

It's a tactic to catch out people prone to impulse buys, which is a large proportion of the adult poulation.The number of sweets sold to parents who have been asked to buy them buy their kids would be a small proportion.

drkpower · 14-02-2014 3:11pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Primarily aimed at children?

I doubt it. The number of adults wihtout children in tow that go through checkouts hugely outnumbers the adults that go through with kids.

It's a tactic to catch out people prone to impulse buys, which is a large proportion of the adult poulation.The number of sweets sold to parents who have been asked to buy them buy their kids would be a small proportion.

Even if that is the case, the same point applies; is that 'marketing right' worth preserving when weighed against potential harm (whether it is harm to children or adults)?

Prohibiting that tactic does not seem like an unjustiable interference when weighed against the potential harm.

Alf Veedersane · 14-02-2014 3:13pm

drkpower wrote: »

Even if that is the case, the same point applies; is that 'marketing right' worth preserving when weighed against potential harm (whether it is harm to children or adults)?

Prohibiting that tactic does not seem like an unjustiable interference when weighed against the potential harm.

Why not remove sweets from the shop altogether so?

drkpower · 14-02-2014 3:20pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Why not remove sweets from the shop altogether so?

Is that a genuine suggestion? When they introduced restrictions on the amount of paracetamol that could be sold to an individual customer, did you ask 'why not remove paracetamol from pharmacists/shops altogether so?'.

As I said at the outset, it is about balancing the pros and cons of every measure, particularly as they impact upon each party. Prohibiting the sale of sweets would be a disproportionate interference with the retailer (not to mention their customers). Issues like this cant be solved with binary choices (as per your suggestion) or with mathematic formulae. They require a bit of thought and judgment, and sometimes hard choices.

Sweets at checkout

Comments