Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 207 posts

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#31

Post by Ekaros »

alkonaut wrote: post #25
badcppdev wrote: post #21

Nutritional 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 does make sense to have the same "serving size" for a beverage across 0.33, 0.5 and 1.5L bottles though, regardless of whether no one actually shares the smaller ones. If anything, the "what's the sugar content of this whole package" should perhaps be declared separately.

For Finnish on quick check 0,33 can has 0,33 as serving size, same for a bottle. However 1,5 l bottle has serving size of 250 ml.

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#32

Post by theshrike79 »

badcppdev wrote: post #21

Nutritional 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.

Isn't this why Tictacs are "zero calories" because the serving size is one Tictac and it's so small that the nutritional values round down to zero :D

While actually it's basically 100% sugar.

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#33

Post by rqtwteye »

gillytech wrote: post #9

Junk food manufacturers depend on the addictive nature of the sugar and fat they cram into their products. I don't see how this is any different than cigarette warning labels.

Sometimes I buy sugar free corn flakes and although they should be cheaper theoretically, in reality they cost a multiple of the super sugary flakes. It would be great if we could get more products that aren’t sweetened when you buy them. Like corn flakes, cereal, bread, chocolate milk and lot of others.

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#34

Post by simiones »

sn41 wrote: post #12

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. 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…

> they might glance at the nutritional label, and see that the sugars are only 7.5% and think: that's pretty good, I'll have one, not seeing the 100 ml gotcha. [Basic level duplicity]

> The only thing that will alert you is the cloying sweetness of the drink which will cause you to pull out a calculator and see what that small bottle is going to really cause.

Not sure I understand this point. Something that is 7.5% sugar will taste the same whether you drink 100ml of it or 2l. There are definitely problems with the concept that a serving from a 330ml bottle is 250ml - that is clearly meant to deceive. But if you have some concept of how much sugar is too much for your taste, the 7.5% sugar figure is enough.

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#35

Post by EliRivers »

badcppdev wrote: post #21

Nutritional 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.

A bottle of Coca-Cola used to be six fluid ounces (about 170 ml), and a McDonald's single serving was once about seven fluid ounces.

Maybe nobody drinks half of a modern 500ml bottle, but people certainly used to think of less than half of that as a single serving.

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#36

Post by sneak »

gillytech wrote: post #9

Junk food manufacturers depend on the addictive nature of the sugar and fat they cram into their products. I don't see how this is any different than cigarette warning labels.

It's still compelled speech. It's possible that you think commercial communications are a special case, but I and many others do not, and find it just as reprehensible as any other form of compelled speech.

What other sorts of solutions are possible other than forcing people to put things on their packaging that they don't want there?

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#37

Post by jerojero »

OfSanguineFire wrote: post #10

Mexico’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…

The same policy was applied in Chile and it had an impact on the consumption of sugary drinks and most importantly sugary breakfast cereals which all ran on a "we are so healthy and the best way to start the day" platform; while actually being full of sugar and fats.

So I would say if what you want is for people to eat less of a certain food, it works. It's not ridiculous.

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#38

Post by sam_goody »

Many years ago, the FDA tried to pass a rule that that nutrition labels should have either a red, yellow or green border.

The idea being, you could eg. tell your kid that they can have any cereal as long as the border is yellow, and have to mix it with one whose label is green.

The black "BAD" labels are not as effective, they desensitize to BAD, and if all sweets are BAD you just ignore the label (though they do help some, according to data from Israel which implemented such labels a few years ago).

The color codes (not as direct, but even more universally recognized) and the chance for a middle level is a better system. And they could put Allulose in that level, for a compromise that has a better chance of passing.

That plan was lobbied to death; no surprise.

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#39

Post by PoignardAzur »

OfSanguineFire wrote: post #10

Mexico’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…

> Mexico’s big black hexagons warning across excess fat/sugar/calories are kind of ridiculous. I don’t think they are serving to dissuade consumers

If they didn't at all, the food companies probably wouldn't be fighting so hard against them.

Post reply on HN