Editorial: For the reasons they say it is, lest the internet be broke again

Whether it be to divert attention from child labor lawsuits, or to whet the appetite and test the audience waters before the biggest advertisement splash on the planet, the makers of candy M&Ms have taken a desired spotlight.

Now to see what they — and we — do with it.

Because if there’s one thing to count on in this 21st century where everyone has an opinion and an outlet to let it be known, the Mars folks who make the chocolate favorite now have it. And then some.

“Broke the internet” is not far off accurate.

In case it was missed, a little information. About a week ago, the Mars company decided it was time the candy mascots we’ve seen advertised needed change. Everybody has argued why, but Mars said it was to create a “sense of belonging and community.”

A reminder, this is for a chocolate candy we eat.

So, the green lady M&M is going to be less defined by her sexuality. The orange M&M will embrace his anxiety, and he’ll tie his shoelaces. The red M&M will bully less. And overall, they will be defined by “personalities, rather than their gender.”

As one astute columnist quickly questioned in the hours after the announcement, “They are more accepting of one another and their own issues, but at the end of the day, they are sill for eating, right? I can still eat them?”

That was followed by a rational analysis of, in this year of 2022 and with all of its troubles, who felt this was what really needed to be fixed?

The funfest that followed was expected.

The Babylon Bee, the satirical conservative website, offered that M&Ms is introducing a trans character who identifies as a Skittle. Not true, of course.

There was a photo circulating on social media with a former president being told what this meant, about M&Ms. Caption there, of course, was not true either.

Talk show hosts, a few of them, lit up their audiences with the easy attention grab. Roundly, many were scorched or worse on social media, or applauded.

So, yes, the news did just about break the internet.

For a fair number of folks sharing the information with friends in various places, like the watercooler or at meetings, the reactions were, “Really?” “No way.” “Seriously?”

And of course, lest we lead anyone to believe everyone hates the decision, there are a large number of people and entities thrilled.

Inclusiveness is in. We see it and hear it intentionally more than we have in our lifetimes. And that is a good thing.

As for the child labor accusations, the published reports say a number of candy companies are linked to illegal enslavement of thousands of children on cocoa farms in the supply chains. Mars is among them. These world leaders in chocolate get a lot of their chocolate from the Ivory Coast — that area actually produces close to half of what is used — and the lawsuits filed in Washington reference the farms there.

This isn’t new among the big boys we patronize. Nike has faced child labor accusations for better than a quarter century. So have many others. It’s usually in a foreign country in the supply chain, not on U.S. soil. But, the profit is here, nonetheless.

For our 2 cents, the choice of advertising mascots appearances and “personalities” surely can influence what people buy — no matter how crazy others think that is. But so can child labor issues, whether real or just perceived.

We just hope our attention wasn’t diverted for such a reason.