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

61–70 of 207 posts

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

#61

Post by em500 »

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. 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.

"Per serving/portion" seems like an American quick, like "tablespoons" or "cups" as units in recipes. The EU the labeling standard is per 100g or 100ml.

> 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.

What do you mean? I do that all the time.

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

#62

Post by Pet_Ant »

fredrikholm wrote: post #30
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.

Agreed. 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.

I feel like there needs to be another column for the entire package as long as it’s possible to consume the whole thing in a single sitting.

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

#63

Post by kar1181 »

I recently read ultraprocessed people and while it's a bit hyperbolic it's still eye-opening about the state of the packaged food business.

My son is allergic to Soya, Nuts, Eggs, Dairy and since he started eating solids we've have to label check everything and in doing so as a family we've basically stopped eating packaged foods alltogether. Do you know just how hard it is to avoid Soy now, it and it's derivatives are in pretty much everything, and even if it's not a raw ingredient it's in the bulk of the 'supply chain'.

I think when we look back in 20 years the packaged foods business is going to look at lot like the tobacco one does today...

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

#64

Post by XorNot »

erfgh wrote: post #53

I don't believe such measures have a significant impact on obesity because they don't target the main causes of obesity which are the easy availability of food and the reliance on private cars for transportation. Furthermore, they push the misleading idea that you can still drive to the supermarket, buy processed foods, load them in your car, drive home, eat them in front of the TV and be fine, as long as you don't b…

We have effective weightloss drugs now like ozempic and semaglutide.

What effect do people report from them? Reduction in appetite. Which tells us the obvious truth: you need to eat less or parity calories in then you do going out. A nutrition professor ate nothing but Twinkies and lost weight[1] while doing so. Probably wasn't fun, but it worked. Someone did the same with nothing but McDonald's[2].

Your entire list is just a list of your perception of "virtuous" activities, and has nothing at all to do with whether or not you'll gain or lose weight. It's lies, judgement and irrelevancy to push an agenda about how people should live, rather then sticking to the observable facts of the matter.

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.profe...

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/woman-says-mcdona...

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

#65

Post by herbst »

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.

This is getting a huge issue. While more and more producers 'reduce' sugar the list of normal food items I simply can't eat is just growing.

I get stomach problems from nearly all common sweeteners, especially at the dosages they throw them in. Assumingly because I never really ate them before this all started.

There are now whole categories of items in the supermarket where no product is digestible for me.

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

#66

Post by wasmitnetzen »

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…

Do people actually pay attention to the "daily allowance" numbers? I never do, they have to be way too broad anyway to cover all adults.

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

#67

Post by berkes »

erfgh wrote: post #53

I don't believe such measures have a significant impact on obesity because they don't target the main causes of obesity which are the easy availability of food and the reliance on private cars for transportation. Furthermore, they push the misleading idea that you can still drive to the supermarket, buy processed foods, load them in your car, drive home, eat them in front of the TV and be fine, as long as you don't b…

I fully agree. But I'm often flabbergasted at how unfathomable large something like "throw out the TV altogether" or "start walking/cycling to places" is for many.

I guess it's part herd behaviour and part natural resistance to change, but what has made "us", the human species so entrenched, that we think we need cars, TVs, premade meals? Humans "never¹" had them, yet now, within one or two generations somehow believe we cannot do without it? All while the rational evidence is clear that it's hurting both individuals², all of humanity and in some cases all of nature?

¹ statistically seen, if we take the entire history of the human kind ² to clarify the difference with something like "health care" that the human kind also statistically "never" had.

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

#68

Post by 3np »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #18
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…

>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…

One thing I find wild in EU is that apparently adding alcohol to a drink obviates the need for a nutrition label. A can of coke needs to declare its sugar content but no need for the precanned Jack&Coke from the same supermarket fridge.

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

#70

Post by berkes »

XorNot wrote: post #64
erfgh wrote: post #53

I don't believe such measures have a significant impact on obesity because they don't target the main causes of obesity which are the easy availability of food and the reliance on private cars for transportation. Furthermore, they push the misleading idea that you can still drive to the supermarket, buy processed foods, load them in your car, drive home, eat them in front of the TV and be fine, as long as you don't b…

We have effective weightloss drugs now like ozempic and semaglutide. What effect do people report from them? Reduction in appetite. Which tells us the obvious truth: you need to eat less or parity calories in then you do going out. A nutrition professor ate nothing but Twinkies and lost weight[1] while doing so. Probably wasn't fun, but it worked. Someone did the same with nothing but McDonald's[2]. Your entire list…

Nonsense. There is a clear and proven correlation and causation between those "virtuous activities" and health.

From my country, where "everyone" cycles to work, two random papers:

https://www.uu.nl/en/news/dutch-bikers-live-six-months-longe...

https://www.kimnet.nl/binaries/kimnet/documenten/rapporten/2...

Post reply on HN