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

181–190 of 207 posts

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

#181

Post by rqtwteye »

RetroTechie wrote: post #144
rqtwteye wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I assume a lot of food is produced like toothpaste. I used to know a guy whose dad had a factory that produced toothpaste and shampoo for almost all big brands. They did R&D for them and just put slightly different recipes into the branded boxes. That means that a lot of shampoos and toothpaste (and probably) are basically only slight variations of the same thing.

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

#182

Post by bitshiftfaced »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #83
shoo wrote: post #51

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

Morbid thought, but I wonder if, given enough time, this might cause people to start to associate positive feelings with these gory images through some kind of Skinnerian mechanism.

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

#183

Post by ThunderSizzle »

orwin wrote: post #136
ThunderSizzle wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But if they say nothing on the package, they're truthful, no? And it's more power to the FDA, a big government agency. Also, it's regulations. Those are bad for free markets, no? That's my understanding of the US culture (both liberals and conservative btw, I don't see meaningful difference between the two economically).

It's a very shallow understanding of US culture, but that's fair enough because CNN/Fox/MSM and other political outlets are a very shallow display of US culture.

Very few conservatives would be upset with the FDA being focused on "truth in packaging" as opposed to "FDA-approved" translating to "force employers/schools to force this on everyone" (aka experimental COVID shots).

Very few conservatives want to remove all regulation - many I know like the safety of the banking system as opposed the scam-heavy crypto market. However, we don't like over-zealous political enforcement of regulations (aka IRS doing targeted audits on conservative leaning institutions) or every transaction being reported to the government.

You are correct there isn't a meaningful economic difference between Democrats and Republicans right now. Both parties are letting inflation run rampant, have done little to fight taxes, deficits, or debts, and have no sense of financial responsibility to their taxpayers or voters, even though they both scream it when they are the minority party.

However, most Conservatives care about the federal debt/deficit, even if all the Republicans in the House don't. That's why Congress's approval rating is crap.

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

#184

Post by gausswho »

orwin wrote: post #131
tmnvix wrote: post #7

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/

Nice to have an update on Nestlé corporate culture. Looks like I'll keep boycotting them (which is quite hard when also boycotting Lactalis, but well, what can you do).

So bummed they even snagged Poland Spring.

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

#185

Post by refurb »

pdpi wrote: post #105
rmm wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Smoking was going downhill anyway

Until vapes came along, anyway. I really don't understand what happened there.

Vapes isn’t smoking. The UK promotes vaping as a way to stop smoking.

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

#186

Post by refurb »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #100
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.

> Isn’t tobacco use trending down anyways? How could you possibly tease out the drop in tobacco use from one change to packaging? Anything in the real world has many many factors affecting its consumption. What would it matter if it was trending down specifically? Or are you asking what models and statistical tools they use to make analyses like this when there are a complex set of factors at play?

Id love to see the confidence intervals on that 0.55% impact (p=0.5, -0.3, 1.3).

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

#187

Post by Woshiwuja »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #146
Woshiwuja wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think it's because everything you eat has sugar in it. Everything is so sweet

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

#188

Post by duckmysick »

unmole wrote: post #173
duckmysick wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

I was replying to a comment about smokers' productivity, which was mentioned for some reason.

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

#189

Post by foobiekr »

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…

Erythritol was safe from everything we knew until it wasn’t.

Sorbitol was safe … you see the problem?

I’m guessing a lot of the keto fad sugars will end up there.

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

#190

Post by jacknews »

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…

In my anecdotal experience, it's simply no longer cool to smoke, at all, in fact very much the opposite.

I smoked for about 10 years between the mid 80s and 90s. When I started, most of the 'cool', 'sophisticated' etc people seemed to smoke. When I stopped, it was mostly a health choice, but partly because it seemed no longer 'cool', everyone I knew had given up or was trying to.

I can't even fathom why anyone would start smoking now, it seems like an affliction of the poor and/or the old rather than anything sophisticated.

All of this is mostly a change in fashion, people having a deeper awareness of the health risks, becoming aware of tobacco industry manipulation, etc. No doubt government messaging aided and supported that change, but it is not the only or even the main cause imho.

Post reply on HN