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

121–130 of 207 posts

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

#121

Post by lopis »

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…

I didn't look into what the labels actually mean, but if "excess fat" means more than 30% fat, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Your diet should avoid processed food that are mostly fat.

But in the end, I don't think these labels work by instantly educating individuals. It works by continuously reminding people that these foods are not healthy. Most will not stop eating them because of the labels, but many will probably give it at least a second though.

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

#122

Post by dna_polymerase »

louthy wrote: post #79
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…

> While it was not possible to complete a full Cost Benefit Analysis for this PIR (due to the limitations on the data available at this time and provided by industry), potential monetised benefits were also analysed including an illustrative example of health benefits. That example estimated that a 0.07 percentage point drop in smoking prevalence would be equivalent to $273 million in monetised health benefits I wond…

I don't know why this comment got downvoted, I find this to be an important discussion. The solution can't be to kill old people, or to reduce the population in any way, but to bring cost down on other fronts. The follow-up questions would read something like: How can we increase active life span on a population level? How do we tackle sicknesses of elderly people? How can we make health-care cheaper? ...

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

#123

Post by throwawaylinux »

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…

> If you want to beat obesity start by buying just the ingredients and then cooking meals at home. It's not that hard. Then start walking to places instead of taking the car. Taking public transportation is also good because it frequently forces you to walk a non-negligible amount. Also stop eating while watching TV. You can go one step further and throw out the TV altogether.

This all seems pretty strange and won't make you lose weight. What will is just eating fewer calories. That's it. You don't have to change anything at all if you don't want to. You can drive to the store, you can eat in front the TV, you can eat your hamburgers and drink coke. Just eat less of it, and you'll lose weight.

The idea that people have to be "educated" to know this is ludicrous, such a typical "government" / "expert" notion. Eat too much = get fat has been known and understood for centuries. People knew this when they were illiterate peasants. School children tease each other about this. The obesity problem is not caused by lack of education, it's caused by lack of self-control (exacerbated by the refinement of food composition, improved cost and convenience, and marketing).

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

#124

Post by santiagobasulto »

bruce343434 wrote: post #115
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?

You can find just a few sources below, out of the MANY studies done.

The gist is: fat is not bad; at all. Most of Vitamins contained in Milk are fat-soluble. That means that all the good properties of milk are transported by fat. Also, whole milk is less processed.

Here's a very "intuitive" reasoning, as an exercise: if Vitamin D is fat soluble... how is it possible that Skim milk has MORE Vitamin D (or A) than whole milk? (answer: because it's artificially added).

Sources:

- https://qz.com/405498/the-case-for-drinking-whole-milk

- https://archive.is/0yBjZ

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

#125

Post by jeppester »

louthy wrote: post #79
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…

> While it was not possible to complete a full Cost Benefit Analysis for this PIR (due to the limitations on the data available at this time and provided by industry), potential monetised benefits were also analysed including an illustrative example of health benefits. That example estimated that a 0.07 percentage point drop in smoking prevalence would be equivalent to $273 million in monetised health benefits I wond…

I believe smokers generally become a burden on social systems a few years earlier than nonsmokers, and so have fewer years where they are a benefit.

I can't see how that could potentially be a net positive for society.

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

#126

Post by santiagobasulto »

kubanczyk wrote: post #111
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.

Yes, I agree with you as well. But with the word of caution that they're not the silver bullet and people should still educate themselves regarding macronutrients.

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

#127

Post by RetroTechie »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #62
fredrikholm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

EU's per 100g standard makes it easy to compare products. One product 22g sugars / 100g, the other 27g sugars / 100g. Read that on the labels, then choose.

And %: say, peanuts 51g fats/100g -> ah, product is roughly 1/2 fat.

Personally I ignore "Serving size" as meaningless bs.

As for whole packaging: say 22g sugar / 100gr, and there's 350g in the package. 3.5x22 is too difficult to calculate in one's head? (roughly!)

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

#128

Post by santiagobasulto »

em-bee wrote: post #119
selimthegrim wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is whole milk the only healthy type?

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

Yes, exactly, among other things. See my updated comment.

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

#129

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

mfru wrote: post #118
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

sorry..... the shock factor is what is supposed to disuade potential smokers and smokers for giving up smoking

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

#130

Post by tetris11 »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #120
em-bee wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Also: given the sheer cost of cigarettes in Europe, it's becoming a slight status symbol, even more so if you share your cigarettes.
Post reply on HN