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

191–200 of 207 posts

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

#191

Post by t90fan »

shoo wrote: post #133
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #83

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

this is pretty close to what regulated tobacco packaging has looked like in australia for the last decade. a giant message with a health warning ("SMOKING HARMS UNBORN BABIES") paired with an often gross / confronting photo of the corresponding health outcome.

similar to what we have had in the UK for a good while too, there is one with a sad limp looking cigarette and SMOKING CAUSES IMPOTENCE which I find very effective, more so than the ones of tumours even.

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

#192

Post by grep_name »

Svip wrote: post #23
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #18

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.

As someone who lives in the US and reads every nutrition label to determine how much sugar / carbohydrate I'm taking in, my intuition is that it would be much harder in practice to do so if it were per 100 ml/g or by oz or something. Sure it would be easier to compare products, but the math would be come much harder to determine what you actually consumed, wouldn't it?

I mean, it's annoying that they do things like '3.5 servings per container', but at least you only have to multiply by 3.5 (I would just prefer a total on each container). If it were 'there are 5g of carbs/sugar per 100g of material,' it would end up being an extra step to determine total grams, divide it by a potentially wonky number or round and divide, then multiply the 5g times the resulting number. Sure it's not that much harder, but it would really add up throughout the day if you were tracking your diet. And IME that's a much more common use case than comparing nutritional value of different products by comparing the macronutrient makeup in grams from the labels, which I've actually never done once

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

#193

Post by herbst »

tasuki wrote: post #172
herbst wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm from the EU and not even aware of nutrition labels and serving sizes. Everything mentions nutrition values per 100g. That's the thing that matters and it's very easy to check. Similar when checking prices, I compare the price per 100g, not the price per randomly sized package...

If it's actually per 100g I am heavily surprised how 20g sugar and 79g carbs with some artificial vitamins can be considered A. I guess it's not about being healthy then, just about being not soooo bad

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

#194

Post by jsbisviewtiful »

Why do corporations always throw tantrums when called out for bad business practices that hurt their customers? I highly recommend folks read The Dorito Effect, a book about processed food manufacturing. It changed my perspective and habits on junk food.

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

#195

Post by herbst »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #113
Kbelicius wrote: post #84

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?

[flagged]

Thanks for assuming my unit system

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

#196

Post by newaccount74 »

jacknews wrote: post #190
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…

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…

> a change in fashion, people having a deeper awareness

Where do you think this change is coming from? When I was a kid, there was a huge billboard right next to my school with a man wearing aviator glasses, an airplane in the background, smoking Memphis cigarettes. That was the coolest guy I've ever seen.

Compare that to 20 years later, there's a photo of a depressed guy on the package and a message "smoking causes infertility".

When I first started at uni, students still smoked in the auditorium. That was cool.

By the time I finished, people who smoked had to go outside and stand in smoking zones like animals. The opposite of cool.

There's a reason why the public perception changed. I don't think the public perception would have changed as drastically without government intervention.

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

#197

Post by RexFactorem »

licebmi__at__ wrote: post #60
prmoustache wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going even further from that, to many mexicans having those labels is now considered similarly to a badge of honors. The more labels you have, the more the average mexican expect the product to taste well. This song from Fito Olivares is quite old and is still a hit in most parties. You'll also encounter it in many tiktoks and instagram reels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-RV8ZbMcdQ

Mexican people also jokingly say stupid shit like you have to act gay 5 mins to avoid it the gayness to accumulate. I put the joke about black labels being a taste rank on the same “stupid things people say” bucket.

[dead]

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

#198

Post by jerojero »

orwin wrote: post #142
jerojero wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's very easy to judge, at first, from these labels. In Chile they are "high in saturated fats", "high in sugar", "high in sodium" and "high in calories". So even a child can see "okay 3 seals... probably not very healthy".

Only problem with these sort of policies is a phenomenon called "complexification" [1] where in order to get rid of the seals you introduce complexity into the product itself to escape it (for example by replacing certain chemicals with derivatives that are not quite but very similar).

It's difficult to escape the race, but for a while, these policies do work.

[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...

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

#199

Post by Woshiwuja »

anonyfox wrote: post #176
Woshiwuja wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking carbs are unhealthy is such an american take.

not an american here. but pure carbs with nothing else (no fiber, vitamins, proteins, fats, ...) is just pure calories without nutrition value... except you're starving.

cereal is not pure carbs, there are fibers, iron, and other useful stuff in them. Maybe american cereal is different and not made with wheat?

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

#200

Post by berkes »

Tade0 wrote: post #174
berkes wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> but certainly he's the (only?) one to blame for his "somewhat overweight" and all the health issues that might come from that. 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 again…

> after all being comfortable is great.

Diabetes isn't comfortable. I know all about it, I'm type I.

Hardly any health issues related to "moving too little" or "eating unhealty" are comfortable.

Post reply on HN