So you get 500 ml bottle with nutritional info shown for every 100 ml and 250ml because that's the 'serving size'. No-one has ever drunk 250ml (8 ounces) and then left the rest for later.
Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
21–30 of 207 posts
Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
#22Why not just legislate the supermarkets to put a label on the respective shelves?
Perhaps supermarkets should be required to divide the floor area into two with all the stuff that is bad for you further from the entrance than the good stuff.
Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
#23Nutrition Labels in India are strange. Many drinks (like refrigerated shakes etc.) have nutritional information per 100 millilitres, whereas the actual bottle is say 330 millilitres, and the "serving size" will be defined as 250 millilters. The point being, the added sugars will probably come to 20-25 percent of the daily allowance if you drink a single bottle of beverage. At the same time, it will not be seen as "hi…
>Nutrition Labels in India are strange. Many drinks (like refrigerated shakes etc.) have nutritional information per 100 millilitres, whereas the actual bottle is say 330 millilitres, and the "serving size" will be defined as 250 millilters. Why is it strange? The metric system? It's exactly the same in Europe. Nutritional information is per 100ml/g, so that you can easily understand compare nutritional values. >Most…
Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
#24Why not just legislate the supermarkets to put a label on the respective shelves?
Because that doesn't help when you are outside the supermarket. It isn't uncommon for folks to eat things other folks buy (for example).
Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
#25Nutritional labelling is such a cesspit of lies. My pet hate is the 'portion' or 'serving' sizes which are blatantly wrong just so the companies can lie about how much sugar they are selling to you. So you get 500 ml bottle with nutritional info shown for every 100 ml and 250ml because that's the 'serving size'. No-one has ever drunk 250ml (8 ounces) and then left the rest for later.
Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
#26There must be some way to add a legal mechanism for preventing obvious and egregious loophole exploitation. Why can it not be done?
So in this case the intention is to make people eat healthy and Kellogg is violating that intention by replacing sugar with an ingredient that they know isn't covered, because they specifically lobbied for it not to be. Similarly Coca-Cola by designing their labels to only have the warning on one side and asking the supermarket to place the items so that the warning isn't visible.
There's no real way that these companies come out of this looking good. Either they label correctly and people can see that their product is a lot more unhealthy than they might have realized or they go to court to protect their "right" to knowingly damage the healthy of their customers for profit. I fail to understand how you can have so little moral integrity. Why not just embrace the new labels and design better products.
Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
#27Nutritional labelling is such a cesspit of lies. My pet hate is the 'portion' or 'serving' sizes which are blatantly wrong just so the companies can lie about how much sugar they are selling to you. So you get 500 ml bottle with nutritional info shown for every 100 ml and 250ml because that's the 'serving size'. No-one has ever drunk 250ml (8 ounces) and then left the rest for later.
It's crazy that Coca-Cola is paying restaurants to only offer their poison (no still or sparkling water). These companies are literally making us sick.
Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
#28Mexico’s big black hexagons warning across excess fat/sugar/calories are kind of ridiculous. I don’t think they are serving to dissuade consumers, and even foreigners stop noticing the labels after just a couple of weeks in the country. The problem seems to be a wider one: Mexico is importing the convenience-store junk-food culture of its northern neighbor. People are often eating crap because there isn’t much else a…
Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
#29Mexico’s big black hexagons warning across excess fat/sugar/calories are kind of ridiculous. I don’t think they are serving to dissuade consumers, and even foreigners stop noticing the labels after just a couple of weeks in the country. The problem seems to be a wider one: Mexico is importing the convenience-store junk-food culture of its northern neighbor. People are often eating crap because there isn’t much else a…
This song from Fito Olivares is quite old and is still a hit in most parties. You'll also encounter it in many tiktoks and instagram reels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-RV8ZbMcdQ
Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
#30Nutritional labelling is such a cesspit of lies. My pet hate is the 'portion' or 'serving' sizes which are blatantly wrong just so the companies can lie about how much sugar they are selling to you. So you get 500 ml bottle with nutritional info shown for every 100 ml and 250ml because that's the 'serving size'. No-one has ever drunk 250ml (8 ounces) and then left the rest for later.
Yes, there's 20 servings in this package if by a serving you mean 1/5th of what you average adult eats in one sitting.
The one exception here is when a portion actually equates to a portion, eg. '80 calories per cookie'. Those are wonderful, and probably what the original motivation for that type of labeling was; tangible.