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

41–50 of 207 posts

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

#41

Post by simiones »

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…

I believe the much more contentious problem is the prohibition of using mascots on packaging when these warnings are applied. That is bound to hurt sales much more, especially for the lucrative childhood obesity market.

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

#42

Post by faeriechangling »

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…

If they didn’t work they wouldn’t be fighting them this hard.

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

#43

Post by sneak »

rqtwteye wrote: post #33
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.

This is a grocery store and grocery distribution consolidation/duopoly/monopoly problem, which is a separate issue than the food that is sold.

This is actually one reason I love FBA - I can buy all sorts of small brand specialty health foods from Amazon, bypassing what the local stores choose to stock (or, more often, not stock).

Amazon's anticompetitive practices mean this will become harder in the future however, as they will use this sales and pricing and customer data directly against any mom and pop product that becomes sufficiently successful.

We really need better protections for small businesses that sell via giant online platforms. There is no shortage of healthy, tasty food, people who want to sell it, or people who want to buy it.

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

#44

Post by Dylan16807 »

sneak wrote: post #36
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?

> just as reprehensible as any other form of compelled speech

Do you feel the same way about the ingredient list?

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

#45

Post by simiones »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #15
justinclift wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tobacco companies seemed to care quite a bit in Australia, judging by the legal bullshit they tried here when the government made their packaging unappealing. The tobacco companies lost, thankfully. :)

It wasn't just Australia: They've basically fought warning and package legislation wherever it has been introduced.

Yup, Australia is just one of the few places where it succeeded, since it's big and rich enough not to be easily bullied with "international law". The Philippines lost in trade tribunals - apparently the commercial interests of these companies are easily found to trump public health.

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

#46

Post by mymac »

sneak wrote: post #36
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?

(1) it's not speech. (2) it's not political. (3) it is essential information for consumers that manufacturers have routinely lied about in the past. (4) it is already a compromise between what manufacturers would like and what 'the people' (you know, those pesky voters and their representatives) actually need. And finally (5) corporations already have outsized power, to carry their water to the point that you believe that documents a few hundred years old should be interpreted in the most literal way possible so that they can have even more power is not rational.

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

#47

Post by shmde »

This is a drink[1] which millions of Indian kids drink while growing up. Just see the amount of added sugar. And parents wonder why is the kid addicted to sugar growing up. Out of 100grams, added sugar = 32.2 grams. 32% of the drink is just pure sugar. People wonder why kids have rotten teeth growing up.

[1] https://www.amazon.in/Cadbury-Bournvita-Chocolate-Health-Dri...

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

#48

Post by sofixa »

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.

> Nutritional labelling is such a cesspit of lies

That's why there need to be strict rules on that. In the EU, serving sizes make sense (1 cookie or 2 slices of bread) (probably because they have to), and there always has to be the normalised by 100ml / 100g too, so you can compare even if serving sizes are lying.

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

#49

Post by XorNot »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #40

> They included a provision in the policy that required companies to also warn when products contained artificial sweeteners. Well there goes half the incentive to remove the excess sugar.

I'm unconvinced. Artificial sweeteners still have the problem that you prime yourself to expect sugar-flavors in everything.

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

#50

Post by Dylan16807 »

simiones wrote: post #34
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% s…

7.5% of your daily allowance, not 7.5% of the beverage.
Post reply on HN