171–180 of 207 posts
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
There actually do exist smokers who because of these pictures attempt to collect cigarette packs with all of these ugly pictures like children do for collectible stickers. :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The nutrition label is based on serving sizes which don't make sense in the real world making the whole label and wasted space nonsense. Like: The box says score A but when you check the 100g list you realize that you are eating a complete meal calorie wise as snack using a realistic serving size. With little to zero nutrition value. Why A?
Similar when checking prices, I compare the price per 100g, not the price per randomly sized package...
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. 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 exc…
Sure. Smokers also probably take more breaks at work when they do show up. But that isn't the same as becoming a burden on society as the OP claimed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Can you honestly blame him for that? 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.
Do you believe he values this over being comfortable?
> "making this man believe he wants this",
I don't think it takes much convincing - after all being comfortable is great.
It's deciding to be uncomfortable - so walking/cycling instead of driving, eating less overall etc. that goes against our basic instincts - I'm surprised that you're surprised that not that many people do it when out of the two lifestyles it's the one that requires more effort.
If we are going to reform food labels, how about requiring that they include a last update timestamp? When I’m considering buying a food item for the first time I read the entire label to make sure it meets my criteria. It would be nice when buying it again to be able to at a glance tell that it is still the same as when I last bought it.
- Products do not change formulas at random, if they did they'd have to re-submit samples for the label evaluation.
- These labels don't have your best interests in mind anyway: If you are a bodybuilder, you will have tor read nutrition info labels yourself and ignore the warning labels, because only you know what quantities for each nutritients you will take to meet your goals.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't want your synthetic poison in my kids food. Allulose is not a poison by any measure, but if you're so paranoid about what your children eat why feeding them with instant foods like FruitLoops in a first place? Breakfast cereals are highly processed food, even without any added sugar - parent as concerned about the food quality as you certainly can come up with a healthier breakfasts for their kids?
I’m not. As I said, I’m feeding them beans. Low sugar beans if possible. The point is that I want to be able to buy “food” without this garbage in it. It’s a pretty crap precedent to allow it in anything other than explicitly labelled “diet” food.
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…
I believe the much more contentious problem is the prohibition of using mascots on packaging when these warnings are applied. That is bound to hurt sales much more, especially for the lucrative childhood obesity market.
Great definition. Added to my quotes list.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(1) it's not speech. (2) it's not political. (3) it is essential information for consumers that manufacturers have routinely lied about in the past. (4) it is already a compromise between what manufacturers would like and what 'the people' (you know, those pesky voters and their representatives) actually need. And finally (5) corporations already have outsized power, to carry their water to the point that you believe…
> (1) it's not speech A ton of court decisions say it is in the US. Here is an article that cites a plethora of them [1]. Note: I have no idea who gfi.org is or whose agenda they are pushing or what side they are on. They just happened to have an article with a nice list of relevant cases. [1] https://gfi.org/resource/the-first-amendment-right-to-use-cl...
So if you want to argue that being required to label the ingredients and other required prose on the outside of your packaging is 'speech' then you are effectively siding with the corporations against humanity. You can probably find some justification for that in your own mind but it isn't going to convince me that you have it right, no matter how many silly arguments you can find to back it up. There is such a thing as common sense and courts risk their own legacy as well as ridicule if they lose that very important element. And in the United States the supposedly independent supreme courts vote o n just about any subject that is even mildly politically tinted can be guessed with an accuracy that borders on certainty, something that should never ever happen if the court were independent.
This sort of reasoning is what got you 'the United States vs $50,000' and other elegant bits of bullshit. And don't get me started on the political nature of the US supreme court, which seems to be visible to all but a handful.
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.