Live data from Hacker News

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

statnews.com

141–150 of 207 posts

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

#141
post #96
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unconvinced. Artificial sweeteners still have the problem that you prime yourself to expect sugar-flavors in everything.

i read somewhere that artificial sweeteners cause the body to make you eat more because sweet taste signals sugar incoming and then there is no sugar so the body craves more to make up for that. not sure if thats true. my main concern is that many artificial sweeteners are suspected to cause cancer

I lost more weight drinking water than drinking coke zero, snd obviously it wasnt because of coke zero calorie.

I do think there is an underlying truth to this.

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

#142

Mexico’s big black hexagons warning across excess fat/sugar/calories are kind of ridiculous. I don’t think they are serving to dissuade consumers, and even foreigners stop noticing the labels after just a couple of weeks in the country. The problem seems to be a wider one: Mexico is importing the convenience-store junk-food culture of its northern neighbor. People are often eating crap because there isn’t much else a…

The same policy was applied in Chile and it had an impact on the consumption of sugary drinks and most importantly sugary breakfast cereals which all ran on a "we are so healthy and the best way to start the day" platform; while actually being full of sugar and fats. So I would say if what you want is for people to eat less of a certain food, it works. It's not ridiculous.

Second hand anecdata, but one of my camp counselor friend went to Chile (in remote villages on the 'bad' sides of the Andes to bring them books and teach I guess) and told me that a part of the curriculum for children is nutrition and how to use the labels: basically, moderation (I don't have the details). What's funny is that it seems the children guide the parents in the supermarkets.

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

#143
post #80
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have effective weightloss drugs now like ozempic and semaglutide. What effect do people report from them? Reduction in appetite. Which tells us the obvious truth: you need to eat less or parity calories in then you do going out. A nutrition professor ate nothing but Twinkies and lost weight[1] while doing so. Probably wasn't fun, but it worked. Someone did the same with nothing but McDonald's[2]. Your entire list…

Saying "you need to eat less calories than you expend in order to lose weight" is like saying "to win in chess just mate your opponent's king". It's just saying the same thing in different words. The fact of the matter is that people that don't do those virtuous activities have a very difficult time maintaining a healthy weight and people that do do those virtuous activities have a much easier time.

A home cooked meal is not "better" for you in terms of calories then anything else. Carbohydrates are incredibly energy dense, in ways people just don't expect. Milk is incredibly energy dense - so is bread.

Now this is normally the point someone says "well obviously you have to cook things which don't..." - yeah. Exactly. Whether or not it's "home cooked" doesn't matter. What matters is you have a calorie budget per day and you need to not exceed it on average.

Virtuous activities don't accomplish much of anything directly. Walking just plain doesn't burn that many extra calories.[1] The benefit of that whole list is basically "it's hard to eat while you're walking or not at home or at the shops". The benefit of the improved cardio-fitness is going to make you feel better, but you won't burn a lot of extra calories.

That's what I mean about lies and judgement: "throw away the TV" - why? It's got nothing to do with anything. Sitting around reading a book is just as sedentary. Telling people they have to do a bunch of things which aren't associated with the core outcome is just setting them up to fail - or have unrealistic expectations because everyone has a different built-in sense of "correct" about food.

To actually help people you start from the core facts, and give them the tools to figure out what habits are going to work for them. Try counting calories for a week and get a sense for what healthy portion sizes and meal composition actually looks like (this is where nutrition labels help a lot). The conclusion of "do home cooked meals" is one which follows - maybe - from that exercise, but it's absolute fiction to think that it's impossible to gain weight if you only cook at home.

[1] https://greatist.com/fitness/calories-burned-walking#calorie...

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

#144

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.

Sometimes I buy sugar free corn flakes and although they should be cheaper theoretically, in reality they cost a multiple of the super sugary flakes. It would be great if we could get more products that aren’t sweetened when you buy them. Like corn flakes, cereal, bread, chocolate milk and lot of others.

Hehe, a while ago I embarked on a quest to find the lowest-added-sugar corn flakes.

6 or 7 supermarket chains further, sometimes a dozen products in same category, end result: not one (0) without added sugars. Anywhere. And all in a similar range, iirc.

So basically the same product everywhere. Just minor tweaks (or with/without chocolate, eg.) + packaging, brands & pricing differences.

Just goes to show how powerful food conglomerates destroy consumer choice.

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

#145
post #23

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…

The advantage of doing it per 100 ml/g, means it's easy to compare foods for their nutritional values. The US way is completely opaque.

Exactly. I don't understand why in the US it's also not standard to show nutritional values per OZ or something.

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

#146

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.

Perhaps, but America has am obesity problem due to lack of exercise and unhealthy food. The war on fat meant we just eat various forms of sugar to avoid fat.

And it makes us even fatter

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

#147
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?

[deleted]

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

#148

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.

Definitely, the info should be for the unit size/volume. Also alcohol should have the label as well. People should know how many calories are in their drinks.

The serving size can be relevant (whos going to drink an entire large bottle of V8 all at one time?) but there's no reason they can't do a side-by-side comparitive thing, similar to how cereal boxes compare the stats for the cereal by itself (dry) and with milk.

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

#149
post #138

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…

to be more clear, (from a quick search on the subject), vitamin D needs fat so that the body can absorb it. that doesn't mean skimmed milk with vitamin D is useless, but only as long as there is other fat coming from elsewhere at the same time (and i don't know how much time that means), so skimmed milk is simply less practical.

You actually have to consider what's the body going to do with the excess Vitamin D that can't be absorbed (because of the lack of fat). The answer is: probably going to stress more your kidneys.

For me, the bottom line is, why would I drink skim milk if it's just a more "watery" version of the perfectly healthy whole milk?

Btw, and this is just me, I'm not lactose intolerant (I eat A LOT of yogurt, milk, cream, cheese, etc), but skim milk makes me "sick" (lactose-intolerant symptoms). Maybe it's just my brain.

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

#150
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

The vast majority of smokers remain productive until they retire but they have lower lifespans. Also take into account that nicotine suppresses appetite and smokers are less likely to be overweight.

Post reply on HN