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

161–170 of 207 posts

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

#161

Post by em-bee »

santiagobasulto wrote: post #149
em-bee wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, chee…

why would I drink skim milk if it's just a more "watery" version of the perfectly healthy whole milk

i suppose an argument can be made that it makes up for more fat elsewhere, but i agree. personally i avoid any milk product that has less fat than is natural for that product. and i am a big fan of raw milk. when we had the opportunity we used to buy milk directly from a farmer because it just tastes so much better.

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

#162

Post by aulin »

thiht wrote: post #157
sofixa wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ridiculou…

Curious about ravioli, is this Italy? from my experience they usually make two servings. How much does each serving weight?

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

#163

Post by santiagobasulto »

em-bee wrote: post #161
santiagobasulto wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, chee…

why would I drink skim milk if it's just a more "watery" version of the perfectly healthy whole milk i suppose an argument can be made that it makes up for more fat elsewhere, but i agree. personally i avoid any milk product that has less fat than is natural for that product. and i am a big fan of raw milk. when we had the opportunity we used to buy milk directly from a farmer because it just tastes so much better.

EXACTLY! We weren't even considering the taste in this whole discussion!

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

#164

Post by duckmysick »

unmole wrote: post #150
jeppester wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apparently, smokers take more sick leave days than non-smokers.

From the same report linked in this comment chain, page 53:

> As another example, the Analysis of Costs & Benefits also considers potential gains to productivity. There is sufficient evidence both in Australia and internationally to conclude that smokers take more sick leave than non-smokers. There are also academic reports that estimate the level of excess absenteeism attributable to smoking. Using these sources, and others, the Analysis of Costs & Benefits estimated productivity gains that would be realised where the tobacco plain packaging measure prevents initiation of smoking or increases the number of smokers who quit. The estimated value per working smoker avoided is $337.48 per year and the value of increased productivity per working quitter is estimated at $84.37 per year.

The report doesn't cite those studies, but here's one from Sweden:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598486/

> Smoking was found to increase the annual number of days of absence by 10.7 compared with never smoking. Controlling for risk factors at work, and thereby accounting for some of the selection of smokers into riskier jobs, reduced the effect to 9.7 days, corresponding to 38% of all annual absences due to sickness. Moreover, controlling for health status further reduced the effect of smoking to 7.7 days. The effect of smoking on sick leave was similar for men and women.

and another from Taiwan:

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/suppl_1/i33

> Using a conservative estimate of excess absenteeism from work, male smokers took off an average of 4.36 sick days and male non-smokers took off an average of 3.30 sick days. Female smokers took off an average of 4.96 sick days and non-smoking females took off an average of 3.75 sick days.

As a side note, the stark difference between those two countries in excess sick leave is the average annual days of sick leave: 25.2 in Sweden, 3.9 in Taiwan.

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

#165

Post by orwin »

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…

From an ex-obese, it's simple : do you know how much my ankle hurts? I had a cyclop eye that blocked ankle movement, the surgical operation wasn't fully reimbursed (only 70%) and I had basically no money. I couldn't do my usual job because my ankle was hurting, tried to become a youth camp director, took CS classes for a month because summer camp with computers was the future, liked it, studied for 3 years, sitting in front of a cumputer all day (away from the were the only sport I could do with my ankle, kayaking, was), became even more obese, but richer, and operated my ankle. As that time, I was so fat my thighs rubbed on each other with each movement, walking more than 15 minutes wasn't possible without scarring them (I also had a bad case of HPV at the time, which didn't help). I ate healthy food, but too much. A coworker told me about 'learning to accept the hunger' by fasting (under supervision). I did that. The second day was the worst, but after the 5 days fast I understood that being hungry is just a state, it doesn't mean that you need food. I'm constantly hungry after my meals nowadays, but my BMI is 25-26, and my waist to hip ration If I wasn't lucky enough to have a good pre-college education, I wouldn't have learned CS, and without money and contacts outside my family (I was ashamed of what I became), pretty sure I would have stayed obese. It was 90% luck, 10% effort.

[edit] for the 'obese should just walk crowd' : did you ever walk so much, blood soaked up your boxers and pants? My ankle was hurting so much man, but the worst was the dampness caused by the blood. Twice a week, for a month. Lost 200g. My inner thighs are reddish-brown because if the scar tissues. Only solution is eating less, but when you've learned all your life to eat till you aren't hungry, what can you do?

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

#166

Post by yreg »

newaccount74 wrote: post #139
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.

Tobacco use is going down, but it's not happening on its own. 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 restric…

It could be happening on it's own as well though. We have all of these restrictions here in Europe and yet double the people smoke than in US.

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

#167

Post by newaccount74 »

yreg wrote: post #166
newaccount74 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tobacco use is going down, but it's not happening on its own. 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 restric…

It could be happening on it's own as well though. We have all of these restrictions here in Europe and yet double the people smoke than in US.

I think it just takes time. I live in Austria, and some of these measures were only introduced 5 years ago, some are still not implemented.

People don't give up smoking overnight, the 20 year lead the US has over these measures is not something we can expect to catch up... Smoking is going down, slowly, and I think it's because of all these measures.

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

#168

Post by ben_w »

mrweasel wrote: post #26
skummetmaelk wrote: post #8

There must be some way to add a legal mechanism for preventing obvious and egregious loophole exploitation. Why can it not be done?

I've seen one suggestion, regarding closing loopholes in general but it has it's own issues. The idea is that you define the intention of a law and violate the intention of the law then you're punished as well. So in this case the intention is to make people eat healthy and Kellogg is violating that intention by replacing sugar with an ingredient that they know isn't covered, because they specifically lobbied for it…

> Why not just embrace the new labels and design better products.

Not to disagree, but this is probably the same kind of thinking that means websites have popovers saying "we respect your privacy click here so we can share your behaviour with an unfeeling AI designed to manipulate you into obsessively returning to this site at best, and at worst also with advertisers who will use their own unfeeling AI to manipulate you into buying stuff you don't need and can't afford for the highest price they can squeeze out of your overburdened wallet"…

instead of just not having analytics and advertising tracking.

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

#169

Post by [deleted] »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #44
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?

> just as reprehensible as any other form of compelled speech Do you feel the same way about the ingredient list?

[deleted]

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

#170

Post by RetroTechie »

jacknews wrote: post #6

"Companies like Coca-Cola and Kraft Heinz have begun designing their products so that their packages don’t have a true front or back, but rather two nearly identical labels — except for the fact that only one side has the required warning. As a result, supermarket clerks often place the products with the warning facing inward, effectively hiding it." lol. This isn't the kind of innovation we want market capitalism to…

A supermarket who'd care for their customers, would defeat such shenanigans by instructing their personnel to always put the warning-side visible on the shelves. Such that their customers can't overlook it if present.

Of course, most supermarkets are more interested in profit margins, and whatever helps to increase them.

Post reply on HN