Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by Tade0 » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 11:32 AM UTC

berkes wrote: post #200

Tade0 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

True, but that man isn't experiencing them now - at least not to the extent that would make him change anything.

Most of my friends with health issues associated with lifestyle got their first wakeup call right before their 30s. Plenty of time to develop habits which take over a decade to drop - or more if they started during childhood.

And here's the kicker: not all of them made the necessary changes. Also some others did, but are unhappy with this new lifestyle and would like to go back but external factors like the threat of divorce keep them from doing so.

What I'm getting at is that it's the people who consciously choose effort who are the weirdos. Healthy, longer living weirdos, but weirdos nonetheless.

People drive cars, eat trash and lay on the couch because they like to. You'll only get other outcomes in an environment where it's too hard to do any of those things.

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

#202

Post by refurb » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 12:10 PM UTC

newaccount74 wrote: post #196

jacknews wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

At least in the US, smoking rates were almost cut in half before any of that stuff even happened (48% to 30%).

https://news.gallup.com/poll/237908/smoking-rate-hits-new-lo...

Hell, when I was in high school, you could still smoke at 16.

I'd argue the health risks have become way more know, which drove most of the reduction.

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

#203

Post by gumby » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 12:18 PM UTC

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #108

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? Depends where you live. Visiting the US I don't remember ever seeing anyone smoking, but in Europe it's huge, especially in centra/southern/eastern Europe, including the Balkans where coffee and cigarettes are the staple of any nutritious breakfast. I see plenty of teenagers smoking, plus on outdoor terraces and outside of offices, clubs, bars, even the balconies in my buildi…

> Visiting the US I don't remember ever seeing anyone smoking

That’s probably because the places where people do smoke are less likely to be visited by tourists.

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

#204

Post by ivanhoe » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 6:54 PM UTC

foobiekr wrote: post #189

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.

They both are still safe in expected doses for majority of people (roughly 90%), and even for those 10% with sensitivity the main health concerns are temporarily gastrointestinal problems like flatulence & bloating - more of a nuance than actual health danger...

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

#205

Post by newaccount74 » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 9:22 PM UTC

herbst wrote: post #71

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 Like 1 child hand full of muesli, totally typical serving size for a breakfast. Totally legit to label the sugar with A or B then. I just get EU labels on Import products but so far I don't get it. They all have A or B and are full of sugars, sweeteners and aroma products.

I agree that Nutriscore is bullshit that was designed to make stuff seem healthier than it is, and it is quite controversial in the EU.

The only good thing about EU labels is that they always have precise values per 100g or 100ml, which allows accurate calorie tracking vs. US labels with ridiculous serving sizes (eg. serving size is half a cookie. Who the fuck eats half a cookie)

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

#206

Post by jacknews » Sat, Aug 26, 2023, 6:34 AM UTC

newaccount74 wrote: post #196

jacknews wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think those things mainly followed, getting a mandate from, the changing fashions; the health-conscious, status and performance oriented 80s, for example, rather than creating it, but I'm sure there's influence both ways.

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

#207

Post by foobiekr » Sat, Aug 26, 2023, 3:12 PM UTC

ivanhoe wrote: post #204

foobiekr wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They both are still safe in expected doses for majority of people (roughly 90%), and even for those 10% with sensitivity the main health concerns are temporarily gastrointestinal problems like flatulence & bloating - more of a nuance than actual health danger...

It’s actually not clear at all that erythritol is safe for anyone. That will likely be determined over the next few years but the persistence isn’t great for the use as an artificial primary sweetener vs the small amounts found in fruits:

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/erythri...

Also, I was thinking of sucralose, not sorbitol:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37246822/

Technically, you can argue that sucralose-6-acetate is a manufacturing byproduct that is supposed to be totally removed however the testing says it is no, at least for some brands - Likely direct carcinogen.