Why not just legislate the supermarkets to put a label on the respective shelves?
Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
11–20 of 207 posts
Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
#12Nutrition 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 "high in sugar" because, hey, the serving size is only 250/330 of a bottle, so the sugar level is below 20 percent. [Sophisticated level of duplicity]
Most people are not that careful anyway - 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.
Processed foods (snacks and beverages) in India seem to be very high in sugars, sodium and fat, more so than the same brands available elsewhere.
Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
#13Nestlé have the support of the Swiss government to fight the same rules. (Against warning labels on junk food in Mexico: How Switzerland danced to the Nestlé tune) https://stories.publiceye.ch/en/nestle-mexico/
I try to avoid buying anything from all such companies but the concentration of power in the international food and drink business makes it quite difficult.
Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
#14Why 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
#15or just copy tobacco companies and not care they have medical patients on their boxes down there, the trade is a big as ever
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.
Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
#16Why 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
#17There must be some way to add a legal mechanism for preventing obvious and egregious loophole exploitation. Why can it not be done?
Mmm, sounds like the arguments between "common law" and "roman law".
Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
#18Nutrition 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 people are not that careful anyway - 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.
No mate, people in India and in EU are used to looking at the nutritional information per 100g/l as that lets you easily compare nutritional value between foodstuffs packaged in different weights, and figure out what's healthy/unhealthy, for example I saw Coca-Cola and most soft drinks are about 10g/100ml sugar, meaning that 10% of the product is sugar, so that's my yardstick of unhealthiness, or that most chips/crisps have around 30g/100g fats, aka 30% fats, so I seek out variants that have much less.
Having only the nutritional value listed per random serving size or the entire product like in the US is confusing because I can't easily compare sugar/fat percentage content of different products of different weights.
Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
#19[deleted]
Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules
#20I would propose a regulation that if a food package somehow mentions there is not something (sugar, fat, artificial sweeteners etc) in the food, but the food contains some other element of the same list, the thing that is contained should be mentioned with at least as visible labeling than the one that is missing.