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

101–110 of 207 posts

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

#101

Post by anonyfox »

herbst wrote: post #89
Kbelicius wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being from EU, and just checked a few products, they all have 2 lists. One for serving size/per product and one for 100g. What don't you get?

The nutrition label is based on serving sizes which don't make sense in the real world making the whole label and wasted space nonsense. Like: The box says score A but when you check the 100g list you realize that you are eating a complete meal calorie wise as snack using a realistic serving size. With little to zero nutrition value. Why A?

nutrition labels are a lobbied-for scam. it compares products within _the same category_ against each other. Like, cereals against cereals, and boom: doesn't look too bad! The reality (cereals are pure carbs and not healthy whatsoever) is labelled over and simple-minded consumers think its better than it actually is and buy it.

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

#102

Post by Woshiwuja »

anonyfox wrote: post #101
herbst wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nutrition label is based on serving sizes which don't make sense in the real world making the whole label and wasted space nonsense. Like: The box says score A but when you check the 100g list you realize that you are eating a complete meal calorie wise as snack using a realistic serving size. With little to zero nutrition value. Why A?

nutrition labels are a lobbied-for scam. it compares products within _the same category_ against each other. Like, cereals against cereals, and boom: doesn't look too bad! The reality (cereals are pure carbs and not healthy whatsoever) is labelled over and simple-minded consumers think its better than it actually is and buy it.

Thinking carbs are unhealthy is such an american take.

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

#103

Post by FirmwareBurner »

3np wrote: post #68
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Yeah, that's indeed a stupid loop-hole in the EU. Although i suppose most people wishing to get wasted don't care much about the nutritional value same how smokers don't acare about the cancer warnings with gross diseased pictures on them.

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

#104

Post by pjc50 »

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?

Always weird when people advocate for the right of others to defraud them.

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

#105

Post by pdpi »

rmm wrote: post #97
refurb wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t tobacco use trending down anyways? How could you possibly tease out the drop in tobacco use from one change to packaging? This reminds me of the analysis I’ve seen for marketing campaigns.

This. Smoking was going downhill anyway

Until vapes came along, anyway. I really don't understand what happened there.

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

#106

Post by jasonkester »

ivanhoe wrote: post #98
jasonkester wrote: post #88

The company replaced sugar with the sweetener allulose. This is so infuriating. Either put less sugar in, or let people eat less of it. Replacing sugar with some random chemical just ruins your thing. Heinz Beans did this in England. They have a "Reduced Sugar" version right next to the normal ones on the shelf. "No Artificial Sweetener" written in the same big font on the label. Cool. Those beans sure are crazy swee…

> I don't want your synthetic poison in my kids food. Allulose is not a poison by any measure, but if you're so paranoid about what your children eat why feeding them with instant foods like FruitLoops in a first place? Breakfast cereals are highly processed food, even without any added sugar - parent as concerned about the food quality as you certainly can come up with a healthier breakfasts for their kids?

I’m not. As I said, I’m feeding them beans. Low sugar beans if possible.

The point is that I want to be able to buy “food” without this garbage in it. It’s a pretty crap precedent to allow it in anything other than explicitly labelled “diet” food.

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

#107

Post by selimthegrim »

santiagobasulto wrote: post #72

I am a bit torn about these new labels. I'm from Argentina and they were implemented over there some time ago. On the one hand, I think it's great to warn "ignorant" people about the content of their foods. And by Ignorant I don't mean poor uneducated people. You'd be surprised how many college-educated, well-off people in Argentina think that a cereal bar is a "healthy food". Or that corn flakes is a healthy food. S…

How is whole milk the only healthy type?

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

#108

Post by FirmwareBurner »

refurb wrote: post #76
shoo wrote: post #51

Go Mexico! Unregulated markets often don't produce great outcomes for society. Regulate them for the public good. I live in Australia, this reminds me of our tobacco plain packaging legislation [1]. A post implementation review was conducted a few years afterward [2]. Some interesting bits from the PIR conclusion: > Applying the government’s RBM framework, the regulatory burden was estimated as $73.87 million across…

Isn’t tobacco use trending down anyways? How could you possibly tease out the drop in tobacco use from one change to packaging? This reminds me of the analysis I’ve seen for marketing campaigns.

>Isn’t tobacco use trending down anyways?

Depends where you live. Visiting the US I don't remember ever seeing anyone smoking, but in Europe it's huge, especially in centra/southern/eastern Europe, including the Balkans where coffee and cigarettes are the staple of any nutritious breakfast.

I see plenty of teenagers smoking, plus on outdoor terraces and outside of offices, clubs, bars, even the balconies in my building, it's full of smokers.

Europe is a few decades behind the US on giving up smoking. Also, now the hipster thing is to switch to these e-cigarettes.

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

#110

Post by WeylandYutani »

refurb wrote: post #76
shoo wrote: post #51

Go Mexico! Unregulated markets often don't produce great outcomes for society. Regulate them for the public good. I live in Australia, this reminds me of our tobacco plain packaging legislation [1]. A post implementation review was conducted a few years afterward [2]. Some interesting bits from the PIR conclusion: > Applying the government’s RBM framework, the regulatory burden was estimated as $73.87 million across…

Isn’t tobacco use trending down anyways? How could you possibly tease out the drop in tobacco use from one change to packaging? This reminds me of the analysis I’ve seen for marketing campaigns.

Tobacco companies are shifting to emerging markets. India, Indonesia.
Post reply on HN