131–140 of 207 posts
Nestlé 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/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You don't need to be wealthy to smoke a lot, just bad with finances.
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
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
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.
I do that all the time... I never buy sugary drinks, but sometimes they come for free in a takeout menu. I can keep it for guests, but even then it piles up in my cupboard, so I drink it in 2 or 3 sittings. It's crazy that Coca-Cola is paying restaurants to only offer their poison (no still or sparkling water). These companies are literally making us sick.
Holy sh... that would be in the US, right? Is that even legal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 believ…
I have an answer to that: because it's more comfortable that way and people naturally seek comfort. Whenever I stop at a fueling station I see the same picture: a young, somewhat overweight man wearing tracksuit pants picking up junk food. He chose comfort. Can you honestly blame him for that? Of course as a species we thrive in discomfort, but the benefits come with a delay - there's usually no incentive to start.
Why, yes, off course. I don't judge him for that, but certainly he's the (only?) one to blame for his "somewhat overweight" and all the health issues that might come from that.
One might argue that marketeers, big-food, TV, influencers, politicians, and whatnot also may hold blame here, e.g. by "making this man believe he wants this", but that's a whole different debate.
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…
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.
It's going down because of many measures that have been implemented:
- restriction of billboard advertising
- restriction of tobacco ads in film and tv
- warnings on packaging
- photos on packaging
- banning smoking in public buildings
- banning smoking in restaurants
- banning smoking in public transportation
- banning smoking near entrances
- age restrictions on buying cigarettes
- banning of automatic vending machines
etc.
Each of those have a small effect, but in total the effect is large. It's hard to measure the effectiveness of individual measures, but in aggregate it's clear that these measures significantly reduce smoking. Especially if you compare countries where these measures have not been implemented yet with countries where they were implemented sooner.