Talk:Cheerios

In New Zealand (and possibly other countries), the word Cheerios is generally taken to refer to saveloys, the cereal having only been introduced relatively recently. Perhaps there should be a disambiguation at the top of the page. Markdarb (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

The information about the conflict between the FDA and Cheerios (GM) needs clarification, to be written in an unbiased manner, and to not have a broken link as a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.147.86 (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Cheerios are only manufactured by General Mills in the United States. They are manufactured by Nestle and sold with the Nestle logo elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.177.127.118 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

4g of fibre is more than 2% of the daily value, this needs editing.Fireemblem555 (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree, 3g of fibre is actually ~12% of the normal person's daily value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.219.11 (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

I came to this article wondering when General Mills figured out that Cheerios work well as a snack for infants. Their shape and edibility teaches infants to develop their pincer dexterity. My daycare provider told me she was giving Cheerios to babies 20 years ago. Babies start putting everything in their mouths after about 5 months or so, and Cheerios are interesting objects to babies. And they dissolve in the mouth.

Recently I saw a Cheerios ad touting it as a baby snack, so I wondered when General Mills figured this out, and whether the idea originated with them or if they learned it from customers. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

As it currently stands, this article is practically a stub. There's no history of development, there's no manufacturing process (it's quite interesting), there's no usage analysis (as pointed out above regarding baby use), there's no sales figures...there should be a lot more for such an iconic part of modern culture that tops popularity charts around the world. It's the 70th anniversary of Cheerios this year, it deserves a lot more than this. I'm going to tag this as a stub and hopefully we can start improving the article. -Etoile ✩ (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

The Canadian package says sugar or golden sugar

But what is "golden sugar" ?

WP is no help on that one ... or have I missed something ? Is this the corn syrup that I tolerate so poorly in Honey-Nut Cheerios ?

Sticking to my oatmeal porridge with soy juice for now ...

G. Robert Shiplett 20:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Way after the fact, but back when Post changed the way they frosted Alpha-Bits they used what they called 'golden' frosting. It is basically a reference to brown sugar. This may be the same here, but I have no way of knowing this is truly the case.THX1136 (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

• Davidson, Alan (1999). Oxford Companion to Food. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
• Smith, Andrew F. (2007). The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.
• Gitlin, Marty and Topher Ellis (2012). The Great American Cereal Book: How Breakfast Got Its Crunch. Abrams Image, New York, New York.

I'll be checking the library. --Lexein (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC) [reply ]

• "Just Cheeri-yodel": need RS.
• The Peanuts Gang: Peanuts Cheerios ads are available on YouTube, but need RS.

--Lexein (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC) [reply ]

Cheerios ran an ad that featured bi-racial couple. Apparently this caused some sort of controversy. It's also insanely stupid to have in this article. Just cause Billy-Bob is stuck in a time warp. Deleted. You're welcome!

Spliffaz (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC) [reply ]

A lot of that section reads like it is poorly written and lacks a lot of citations for the number of claims it makes. 81.97.253.59 (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

In the second paragraph of the "History" section there is a mention that the "cereal" helped General Mills success. The implication is it is referring to Honey Nut Cheerios. Is that indeed the case? If so - or not so - the sentence could use a bit of tweaking to make clear it's intent. Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

It appears an editor has made the necessary clarification. Thanks!THX1136 (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

The statement "In February 2015, the company announced they would be making Cheerios gluten-free by removing the traces of wheat, rye, and barley that usually come into contact with the oat supply used to make Cheerios during transportation to the General Mills plant in Buffalo, New York along Lake Erie" is incorrect. In February 2015, General Mills actually said, "We’ve developed a way – years in the making – to sort out the small amount of wheat, rye and barley in our supply of whole oats that are inadvertently introduced at the farms where the oats were grown, or during transportation of the whole oats to the mill" ^[1]

Given General Mills' large investment into making Cheerios gluten-free, the part about gluten-free should probably be expanded on with information from https://blog.generalmills.com/2015/07/how-did-we-make-cheerios-gluten-free/ and http://www.startribune.com/fda-says-125-people-complained-about-problems-from-gluten-free-cheerios/330957131/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.4.74.186 (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC) [reply ]

I am now 70 years old and I have been eating these things all my life. They are not only my favourite breakfast cereal, they are my favourite snack food -- I eat them by the handful. There was a time, back in the '70s and/or maybe the '80s, when GM (proudly) claimed in not small letters on the front of the box that there was "No added sugar". I know that those words have not been there for a while but I didn't notice when they were removed. It would be interesting to discuss any development / tinkering with the recipe over the years that could be documented. For example, maybe somebody could find a food ad from years ago with a picture of a Cheerios box where those words appear. HenryLarsen (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

I remember a similar claim on the box that a serving of Cheerios contained only one gram of added sugar. That is the amount that is currently listed on the nutrition label present day.THX1136 (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

The notation where Cheerios started advertising their cereal as "all gluten free" is heartening for sufferers of Celiac disease but needs the cautionary annotation that this is no longer true; the very existence of Ancient Grains Cheerios, made with wheat, contravenes that earlier claim. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE80:2AA0:FA6D:4379:7B03:6FE3 (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

The amount of sugar in this product is unhealthy for most consumers (period). The company also switched from sodium tripolyphosphate to potassium tripolyphosate to lower sodium with all the potential problems associated with this alternative. We need something in the article that refers to this product as a sugary confection that doesn't obscure the toxicity of corn syrups and sugar. ^[1]

 Not done. Wikipedia content is determined by reliable sources. The source must directly confirm what's in the article. Your source has nothing about Cheerios, or any brand of cereal for that matter. You cannot leap to the conclusion that because sugar is identified as "toxic", that the amount of sugar in any specific product is "unhealthy for most consumers (period)" because no cereal product is identified in the article as being "unhealthy"; that's your synthesized conclusion based on one story about sugar and your assumptions about the sugar in cereal. The source also presents expert opinion that questions the validity of the study in question, which you ignored. Your comments about either form of tripolyphosphate is based entirely on your opinion, with no reliable source to back it up. I also suggest that you read WP:MEDRS because your suggested edit pertains to a medical issue. Your suggested edits would be immediately rejected by any reputable encyclopedia. Give us reliable sources about the toxicity of any particular cereal and we may have something to discuss. Sundayclose (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't think 45mg of iron is correct, at least for the American Cheerios. Did someone mistype 45%? My box says 12.6mg in a 1.5cup serving. I can make that change but would appreciate verification. Cody Jung (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Article says the name was changed because " Quaker Oats, claimed to hold the rights to use the term "oats"."

That is utterly absurd. There are hundreds if not thousands of products that use the word "oats." It is a generic word, and for oat products cannot be trademarked. 96.237.184.133 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]