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

151–160 of 207 posts

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

#151

Post by XorNot »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #54
XorNot wrote: 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.

You're not convinced it decreases the incentive? And having one major problem is better than two.

Well I'd rather pressure them from both angles: reduce sugar and reduce artificial sweetener usage. Optimally everything could stand to be less sweet as the default.

I've been on a campaign of cutting sugar down as much as I can: even in nominally "sweet" things it's incredible how much sugar standard recipes will call for then you can 1/3rd to 1/4 as much and get a superior result.

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

#152

Post by Obscurity4340 »

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.

Yes, like the thing where cereal boxes compare without milk and WITH milk, except for "recommended serving" and whole unit/volume

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

#153

Post by aulin »

sofixa wrote: post #48
badcppdev wrote: post #21

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.

> Nutritional labelling is such a cesspit of lies That's why there need to be strict rules on that. In the EU, serving sizes make sense (1 cookie or 2 slices of bread) (probably because they have to), and there always has to be the normalised by 100ml / 100g too, so you can compare even if serving sizes are lying.

Europeans are also quite good at that exoteric branch of maths that is base 10 arithmetics and at that weird practice of weighting food with food scales instead of filling spoons and cups. So most people just ignore serving size and look at the 100g nutritional values.

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

#154

Post by bruce343434 »

santiagobasulto wrote: post #124
bruce343434 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Does artificial addition of vitamins imply unhealthiness?

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

#155

Post by em-bee »

jeppester wrote: post #125
louthy wrote: 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 found a german article that looks at both sides. the argument appears to be that everyone has health problems in old age that cost money. smokers die earlier so they benefit less from pensions, and the taxes from selling cigarettes make up for the cost of the smokers treatments.

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

#156

Post by orwin »

veave wrote: post #28
OfSanguineFire wrote: post #10

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…

If someone eats froot loops and can't see by themselves that they are too sugary do they even have the intelligence to make decisions based on those black hexagons?

It's easier for kids. 'No mama, we already have one sugar point today, a second is too much', 'beurk, sugar, fat and salt!'.

I'm joking (sightly), but it's easy accounting. Give yourself X sugar point, Y fat points, and Z salt point, per day/per week, and you can still eat unhealthy food while making some effort. Small steps etc.

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

#157

Post by thiht »

sofixa wrote: post #48
badcppdev wrote: post #21

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.

> Nutritional labelling is such a cesspit of lies That's why there need to be strict rules on that. In the EU, serving sizes make sense (1 cookie or 2 slices of bread) (probably because they have to), and there always has to be the normalised by 100ml / 100g too, so you can compare even if serving sizes are lying.

> In the EU, serving sizes make sense

Not always unfortunately. 2 examples I have in mind:

- biscuits are sometimes « individually » packaged by 4 or 6 (ie you buy a box containing 2 or 3 smaller packages inside) and the serving size is 2 biscuits. Real serving should be 1 package for it to make sense

- there’s a brand of fresh ravioli which I buy, the package makes 2 servings, but if you do that you have a ridiculously small serving. 1 package makes a normal plate

There’s no way to get a « serving » unit that makes sense. I always rely on the /100g instead

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

#158

Post by aulin »

ivanhoe wrote: post #90

From everything we know so far allulose is a safe replacement for sugar (it's also FDA approved), so I don't really see how it's such a big problem that it's not specially labeled? It's indigestible by humans so it has no known side-affects on our body, doesn't contribute in calories, doesn't affect insulin and it tastes almost as sweat as sugar. Seems like a win-win move to have it as a replacement for sugar (actual…

FDA is notoriously on the lax side when compared with other regulatory bodies worldwide. E.g. allulose and monk fruit are still forbidden in Europe.

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

#159

Post by local_issues »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #112
sneak wrote: post #36

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.

Yeah same. Labeling isn’t the same as the ridiculous cake cases they keep bringing.

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

#160

Post by santiagobasulto »

bruce343434 wrote: post #154
santiagobasulto wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Does artificial addition of vitamins imply unhealthiness?

Implies unnecessary tempering of the product...

but more importantly, Vitamin D/A added WITHOUT fat, is just wasted. The body absorbs those vitamins only in the presence of fat. So, most of the artificially added Vitamins will end up being disposed adding extra stress to your kidneys.

Post reply on HN