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

81–90 of 207 posts

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

#81

Post by ajot »

OfSanguineFire wrote: post #10

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…

Oh, it's that stupid demonizing thing with the black octagones? We have it for a year or two in Argentina, they don't make sense at all. Why would you ever normalize against calories? You would never get all your calories from only one food, so you wouldn't get the "excess" in fats, carbs or whatever. I believe that european nutriscore does better by normalizing against serving.

Here's a twitter thread explaining it better (in spanish): https://nitter.net/22xTJuan/status/1635239549902389248#m

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

#83

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

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

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

#84

Post by Kbelicius »

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.

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?

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

#87

Post by globular-toast »

rqtwteye wrote: post #33
gillytech wrote: post #9

Junk food manufacturers depend on the addictive nature of the sugar and fat they cram into their products. I don't see how this is any different than cigarette warning labels.

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.

Corn flakes and chocolate milk (I'm so confused by the mention of this) are junk food products made with sugar. It makes no sense to have them sugar free. As for cereal and bread, it should be trivially easy to find these without added sugar. I don't know where you live but I'm confident you can find these.

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

#88

Post by jasonkester »

The company replaced sugar with the sweetener allulose.

This is so infuriating.

Either put less sugar in, or let people eat less of it. Replacing sugar with some random chemical just ruins your thing.

Heinz Beans did this in England. They have a "Reduced Sugar" version right next to the normal ones on the shelf. "No Artificial Sweetener" written in the same big font on the label. Cool. Those beans sure are crazy sweet, so it'd be nice to see what a less sweet version will be like. But then you taste it and get that terrible Nutrisweet chemical aftertaste that lingers for an hour, and have to throw out your entire dinner and scramble to make something else.

Sure enough, deep down in the ingredients you'll find their "totally natural sweetener that's not sugar, but that we made by combining a bunch of chemicals in a lab."

This is one place I'll be happy to see legislation put in place to fix. I don't want your synthetic poison in my kids food.

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

#89

Post by herbst »

Kbelicius wrote: post #84
herbst wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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?

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

#90

Post by ivanhoe »

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 (actually a huge victory of the labeling system), not something to fight against?
Post reply on HN