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

111–120 of 207 posts

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

#111

Post by kubanczyk »

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…

> extremely simplistic

In this case I'd take "extremely simplistic" any time over well-balanced-through-slightly-more-complex-set-of-rules. Thing is, the rules will be gamed in the long run, period.

Simpler rules would eventually allow consumers to easily determine how are they being cheated.

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

#112

Post by ThunderSizzle »

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?

It is perfectly legal for compelled speech to exist in business activity, and is well within the interstate commerce clause.

As one of those evil American conservatives, I'm perfectly okay with targeted compelled speech in business activities, such as requiring marketing to be truthful.

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

#113

Post by FirmwareBurner »

Kbelicius wrote: post #84
herbst wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the EU, serving sizes make sense Like 1 child hand full of muesli, totally typical serving size for a breakfast. Totally legit to label the sugar with A or B then. I just get EU labels on Import products but so far I don't get it. They all have A or B and are full of sugars, sweeteners and aroma products.

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?

[flagged]

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

#114

Post by selimthegrim »

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…

Surely people dilute squashes like in England?

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

#115

Post by bruce343434 »

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…

> which it is now known that is the ONLY healthy type of milk

That seems like a strong claim, according to whom?

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

#116

Post by FirmwareBurner »

Woshiwuja wrote: post #102
anonyfox wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A bit uncalled for. Nutritional quackery is everywhere.

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

#117

Post by em-bee »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #108
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.

>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 buildi…

it was somewhat of a surprise for me, visiting europe after many years, how many people still smoke there compared to what i saw in asia and africa.

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

#118

Post by mfru »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #83
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…

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1846046 look at this indian governmental press release mandating photos to be posted on tobacco packs edit: CW. NSFL imagery on the page

this was disgusting, a content warning would have been appreciated

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

#119

Post by em-bee »

selimthegrim wrote: post #107
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?

apparently it's because it is less processed than other milk.

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

#120

Post by FirmwareBurner »

em-bee wrote: post #117
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 buildi…

it was somewhat of a surprise for me, visiting europe after many years, how many people still smoke there compared to what i saw in asia and africa.

I think it's still has to do with social circle cliques and coolness factor from a young age and wanting to fit in.

I think a lot of people, non smokers mostly, don't see all the bonding, networking, flirting, and general socializing that happens when smokers get together for a fag, which probably explains why this unhealthy habit is still very popular today in many countries. I know many people who met their SOs at smoking breaks or found out about new yet unpublished job opportunities from the chit-chat that happens at smoking breaks.

Could be because it's seen as a socially acceptable addiction to have during daytime, granting you more breaks at work. If someone goes out every 45 minutes to play games on his phone he'll be seen as a lazy slacker, but if he were to go out for a smoke, it would be more likely to be allright, especially if his boss was also a smoker.

There's something about the smoking break gatherings, from a social aspect, like asking for a cigarette, asking for a light, cupping the flame against the wind for someone, which act like natural ice breakers, conversation starters and could help create instant bonds or chit-chat opportunities, that can't be replicated at other kind of gathering during the day such as water-cooler or standings in line.

Post reply on HN